My concern is what he says about leading the United States of America.
The Founders came to these shores to escape a religous test in their government; would you seek to have it reimposed?
My concern is what he says about leading the United States of America.
The Founders came to these shores to escape a religous test in their government; would you seek to have it reimposed?
What are you smoking? Whatever it is, it's dangerous.
Made a great President.
What if Romney was a fundamentalist Muslim? Or a Scientologist? Or a Branch Davidian? You judge people by the crazy things they believe to be true all the time, and for good reason.
Listen, most of them, either directly, or by second or third generation, had come from Europe where...
(a) ...there existed a bottleneck as to authority--namely royalty...the party system was a "one-party" system--the royal family!
(b) ...some of them had been persecuted or oppressed religiously.
So, in framing the Constitution...
(a)...the framers wanted to do cartwheels to make sure that their choices for public office was not determined by anything resembling a monarchy solo ticket;
(b)...Whereas new expressions of the Christian faith in Europe made some folks targets of persecution and oppression by governments, they wanted to ensure that the same disqualification system wasn't transported across the seas. They were taking direct aim at governmental usurpation of a citizen's right to run for public office. (They were NOT aiming at voter determination!)
To somehow conclude that they were taking only direct aim at every voter to send them a message that they MUST vote (every time) for every religious minority under the sun sets liberty on its ear!
The Founders came to these shores to escape a religous test in their government; would you seek to have it reimposed?
OK, you & Hugh Hewitt & the absurd makers of that Constitution/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.
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 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
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.