The Constitution prohibit religious tests for holding public office. Mitt can belong to any freakish religion he chooses.
Who's denying miltie his right to run?
I can apply any test I choose in picking a candidate. Are you gonna rat me out to the po po?
Who is telling Mitt what religion he can can't belong to??? (I haven't heard of any movement saying Mitt can't practice Mormonism)
Voters can vote using any freakish criteria they want to!
Ya know, islandlad...I once read an Lds news release that said: The framers of our constitution included a provision that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” (Article VI). That constitutional principle forbids a religious test as a legal requirement...
This release was part of a discussion by Lds "apostle" Dallin Oaks.
I'm afraid you -- like Mr. Oaks...misconstrues candidacy eligibility issues.
All the constitution says is that an eligible candidate cannot be kept from running on religious test grounds.
Ya know, even Mr. Oaks recognized how ludicrous some of his rhetoric was sounding and needed to offset it a bit with a qualifier: "...but it of course leaves citizens free to cast their votes on the basis of any preference they choose."
So...here's a Constitutional "primer" for you so that you don't keep exporting confusion to others:
Point 1- RELIGION: Religion IS NOT a qualification or disqualification for public office; but it's certainly one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, present position statements & rampant inconsistency of past position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc. Article VI, section 3 of the Constitution is aimed at the candidate (must be of a certain age and must have resided in our country for a certain number of years) and the government so that religion does not become a disqualification to keep somebody otherwise eligible for running for public office. Article VI, section 3, is not aimed at the voter. Otherwise, voters would have to 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates.
POINT 2 - ELIGIBILITY: Newsflash!! Every person on the ballot, & even most write-in candidates, have proper "qualifications" to not be excluded from office consideration (based upon religious grounds). Of course, millions of us have the "qualifications" to be considered a potential POTUS & shouldn't be excluded outright from a ballot because of the religion we hold! Nobody has a "Religious Ineligibility" tattoo on their forehead!
POINT 3- BOTTOM LINE: You don't, FSO, really want to join Lds "apostles" in their confusion by emphasizing words similar to "qualifications" (language within the Constitution) with words like "qualities." (language that’s NOT in the Constitution)...do you?
I focus on what voters base their votes on in the "real world": Qualities
Otherwise, Article VI says absolutely...
...nothing...
....nada...
...zero...
...about how voters must weigh--or not weigh--the "qualities" of a candidate...
Nowhere does Article VI say that voters MUST 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates!
"Qualifications" have to do with what gets a man on a ballot. "Qualities" has to do with who gets elected.
(Even 94-95% of Mormons -- most voting upon the fellow personal "qualities" of a candidate like Romney -- can tell you that!)
Btw, islandlad, why aren't you lecturing Lds voters if anywhere from 88% to 95% of Mormons will only vote for a Mormon?
(For some reason, the "Article 6 Religious Test" lecture tour never seems to hit Utah, Nevada, Southwest Wyoming or Southern Idaho)
And I can use ANY 'test' I want to determine which individual will get MY support.
Heretics need not apply.
Correct, a GOVERNMENT test.
Individuals can use ANY criteria they chose when electing someone to office.