>>>>>supports my interpretation of Scriptural principles as they apply to current topics...... when I base my choice in part on the respective philosophies of the candidates I am casting my vote in violation of Article VI of the Constitution?
That a particular political position happens to mesh with your religious beliefs is irrelevant, because it could very well simultaneously mesh with those of the atheist, the Hindu, the Jew, or the Buddhist. Morals and ethics are not usually the province of some specific religion, but usually are common to the polity.
Beyond that, why would a candidate be discussing the doctrinal and sectarian issues that are pertinent to a specific faith? What’s the point?
Dissing the intent of Article VI as you have done above is no different than dissing Amendments I to X, IMO.
The intent of Article VI is that the government cannot apply a "No Jews May Apply" or a "No Catholics May Apply" or any other such qualification to prohibit an individual from holding an office. To suggest that the intent of Article VI is to prohibit voters from considering the beliefs of a candidate when deciding how to cast their vote is ludicrous beyond belief. A better example of a violation of the intent, if not the letter, of Article VI would be the staunch litmus test that democrats have regarding federal judges that would prohibit consideration of any devout Catholic (or for that matter evangelical protestant) judge who holds religious convictions regarding the sanctity of life.