Again, I deeply disappointed in you. Here, you have served our country and are such an advocate for others to do the same. And yet you flunk Constitutional history by misapplying it?
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…
(a) …candidate (must be of a certain age and must have resided in our country for a certain number of years)…
and (b) …the government so that religion does not become a disqualification to keep somebody otherwise eligible for running for public office.
Q Who is Article VI, section 3, not aimed at?
A The voter. Otherwise, voters would have to 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates. (And then posters like you might demand “proof” that voters didn’t militate vs. your constitutional interpretation and mandate/impose that voters always vote for a “minority-religion” candidate when up against a “majority-religion” candidate!]
POINT 2 – ELIGIBILITY: Newsflash!! Every person on the ballot (well, we’re still not sure about Obama), & 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: People 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.
Too bad you are sooo disappointed. I didn’t flunk Constitutional History, professor, nor did I misapply it. I’m disappointed that you couldn’t answer my questions. But don’t feel bad...others have shied away from the hard ball.
What do you feel a Mormon, any Mormon, would do if elected president?