You don’t want to take issue with Cruz concerning the constitution.
Article VI, paragraph 3
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”.
Cruz and you are right a far as U.S. officer eligibility. The intent was to keep government from establishing a national church like the Church of England. But the intent was never to exclude christian practice in government which is the extreme swing to the Left we have today. I think Cruz would agree with that also, at least I hope he would.
But states did have such laws and churches were places of political debate and where pastors talked to their flock about godly matters concerning political candidates. All healthy and constitutional.
The conventional wisdom about “separation of church and state” is patently unconstitutional. The monuments in D.C. and around the country testify against such heresy and in favor of the need for Christian influence in government.
However, I have to add something here.
Who is this eligibility test aimed at? As with the bulk of the Constitution, it is aimed squarely at the feds. It is the FEDS who are prohibited from such religious requirements (again with the intent of avoiding a national church like the Church of England).
It is certainly NOT a prohibition for states and individuals to speak out about religious preferences which is exactly what they did for about 150 years in America and Christianity prevailed in our free country.
Carson was set up by a stupid and totally irrelevant MSM question that had nothing to do with the situation at hand - no Muslim is vying for President. He should have dismissed it as irrelevant and moved on to the next question.
But if that question ever has to be tackled, the best way IMO is to deal with the adherence to Sharia Law which is against the Constitution. Any Muslim who wanted a U.S. office would need to be examined as far as his required loyalty to the Constitution and his suspension of Sharia Law.
IMO, for that reason, unless there’s such a thing as Muslims who don’t believe in Sharia Law, a Muslim should not be elected to office. Although banning Muslims per se from U.S office should not be a U.S. law, the oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and can and should be used if necessary to prohibit a Muslim from U.S. office.