The "no religious test" clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, section 3, and states that:
“ ...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. ”
OK, you & Hugh Hewitt & the absurd makers of that Article VI documentary just don't "get it." You & these others believe that Article VI halts the crux of objections to Romney's other-worldly commitments.
I tell you what, for reinforcement--since you were constantly "chirp chirping away," I'll say the same thing below in several different ways until it rubs in on you.
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!
Bottom line: You confuse "qualifications" with "qualities." I focus on what voters base their votes on in the "real world": Qualities
Article VI says absolutely nothing...nada...zero...about how voters must weigh--or not weigh--the "qualities" of a candidate...So, 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.
So you & Hugh Hewitt and the Article VI doc folks raise nothing but a Straw man!!! Tell me, II, where oh where there's been any movement whatsoever to block anybody from any ballot?
All citizens who are not felons have the right to aspire to any office regardless of any faith, religious adherence or other-worldly commitment. But that doesn't mean you then can come along in some jack-booted way & tell somebody, "Hey, you, yeah, you, Mr. or Mrs. Individual Voter...if you dare consider the Hare Krishna aspect of this candidate...the Moonie ties of this candidate...the Satanic ties of this candidate...the Wiccan beliefs & practices of this candidate...then we will shame you, we will tell all you are an 'embarrassment' to the rest of us...that you disgust us...and we'll accuse you of attacking the beliefs of these people. What's more, we'll accuse you of being in direct opposition to the U.S. Constitution! Vote for the Hare Krishna dude or else!!!"
Wow! The MSM must have missed the "big news" that the Article VI folks somehow scooped them on...that there's been a "virtual" movement to bump Romney off of ballots everywhere...that there's been a movement to disqualify those voters who have voted for him...etc.
I object to this occasional preaching against voters based upon some unknown authority proclaiming, "Thou shalt not consider a candidate's other-dimensionly commitments!"
Some FReeper posted a December thread saying that 54% of voters wouldn't vote for an atheist. So now you accuse the majority of voters for opposing the U.S. Constitution?
You seem to accuse outright that when casting a vote...someone's Hare Krishna status or expectation of 72 virgins awaiting them post-death doesn't provide for us a glimpse of their broader perspectives.
So, Mr. Chirp-chirp...qualities of candidates as surmised by voters are left up to voters! & it's what gets them elected. Qualifications are what get candidates on the ballot. (If they weren't qualified those folks wouldn't even get to the consideration stage, now would they?)
The "no religious test" clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, section 3, and states that: “ ...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. ”
ONE on this thread is silly, for NOWHERE is there a LAW that says any voter has to use ANY criteria in making up THEIR mind for whom to vote!
(If the would be candidate gets past us, THEN then would be no further test.)
So your assertion you boldly make is wrong.
(Unless, of course, you can SHOW where someone has wanted the GOVERNMENT to do it.)