Colofornian is exactly right - this limitation is imposed on the GOVERNMENT, not private citizens. Remember that the original colonies were set up as religious enclaves. The Constitution prevented the state from imposing a religious requirement that its elected officials must be of the recognized state religion. In other words, an elected official in Maryland didn't have to be Catholic, or an official in Rhode Island, Baptist, etc.
So what are the courts going to do if I vote based on religious grounds? Declare me unconstitutional? Nullify my vote? How are they going to know that was my basis for voting? The Founding Fathers wouldn't put something as foolish into the Constitution as your are suggesting. They knew that you can't put unenforceable provisions into a ruling document - it just opens the whole document to be held in contempt.
[I think some non-Romneybot FREEPERs are looking for any and all "justification" as to why they HAVE to vote for Romney..."Uh...'cause the 'Constitution told me to!"]
(I'll properly cite -- and ping -- both of you when I quote you)
So...cutting & pasting the following for safekeeping, re-utilization (with proper citations):
Remember that the original colonies were set up as religious enclaves. The Constitution prevented the state from imposing a religious requirement that its elected officials must be of the recognized state religion. In other words, an elected official in Maryland didn't have to be Catholic, or an official in Rhode Island, Baptist, etc. So what are the courts going to do if I vote based on religious grounds? Declare me unconstitutional? Nullify my vote? How are they going to know that was my basis for voting? The Founding Fathers wouldn't put something as foolish into the Constitution as your are suggesting. They knew that you can't put unenforceable provisions into a ruling document - it just opens the whole document to be held in contempt. [Commerce Comet, April 9, 2012]
...whether a person believes in the God of Israel or in the tooth fairy or in no god at all, the federal government cannot deny that person a place on the ballot. However, I venture to guess that if you knew a candidate was on the ballot who seriously believed in the tooth fairy, you might give the other, more, um, traditional candidates a closer look. And you would have a constitutional right to do so. Election law under our Constitution liberates both the candidate and the voter to express their views freely under the First Amendment, whether those views are religious or otherwise. Your advocacy of Article VI as a limitation on what the *voter* may consider is a perfect inversion of that principle, and an argument against those costly liberties, paid for in blood, and enshrined for us in the First Amendment of our Constitution. Your argument has no basis in fact or law, and is not to be taken seriously. We will vote with eyes wide open, but thank you for your concern. [Springfield Reformer, April 9, 2012]
You both are able constitutional historians, writers -- in how you framed your responses, and conservative FREEPERs in my book. I am highly impressed by both of these post entries!