[Politics4US]

You still don’t know what his beliefs are, and how much he prays. You are a bigot. And what you are calling for is unconstitutional.

[MHGinTN]

"And what you are calling for is unconstitutional." Oh really? And what is Colofornian calling for?

You Momrons are not going to intimidate folks into ignoring Milt Rominy's weird religious beliefs and status as a high priest in same with this idiotic mischaracterization whine. I have yet to see anyone 'calling for' a religion test for candidates written into law. As an individual, if I want to reject Milt Rominy (it rhymes with hominy, the huskless corn product) because I consider him unfit due to holding such high position in a strange religious sect yet repudiating that position and oaths of same, well, you aren't going to stop me, unless that's WHAT YOU'RE CALLING FOR.

[Elsie]

And what you are calling for is unconstitutional.

Oh?

Just WHAT part of the CONSTITUTION is being defied?

[Colofornian]

You are a bigot.

(Yeah, right. Dennis Kucinich was a Democratic 2008 POTUS candidate with significant New Age leanings...So anybody questioning his New Age theology was engaging in "bigotry," eh? Why don't you just become an apologist for all the New Age democrats and other cultic GOP candidates, eh?)

You still don’t know what his beliefs are...

(Oh sure, the Mormon church just allows "just anybody" to become a bishop, Mormon Missionary, Missionary Zone Leader, assistant to Mission President, and Stake President)

And what you are calling for is unconstitutional.

Your constitional ignorance slip is showing.

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 seem to confuse "qualifications" (language within the Constitution) with "qualities." (language that’s NOT in the Constitution). 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...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.

[svcw]

I know exactly what Romney believes because he is a temple mormon and I know what it takes to get there.

And what you are calling for is unconstitutional.

And what you said here is moronic.