So school is in session, not so much for you since you are far smarter than the rest of us, but for those most interested in how all this Constitution and law stuff really works.
I will use my friend Reaganaut as an example if she does not mind.
Reaganaut is an American Citizen as well as a citizen of her local state and town. As an INDIVIDUAL she is free to practice any religion she chooses and no other individual, organization or government can infringe on that right in any fashion. She is also, as an INDIVIDUAL, free to support a person (or be against same) based on ANY criteria she chooses, be it religion, hair color, shoe size, favorite movie or any one of thousands such reasons.
HOWEVER, let us say the Reaganaut the individual serves on a board, commission or what have you that determines eligibility to be on a ballot for public office. The ONLY criteria she and her fellow members can use are those SPECIFICALLY listed in the Constitution and other laws of the land. Normally these focus on age and residency. Therefore she nor anyone else can remove or block a person from said ballot based on religion, hair color, shoe size, favorite movie or any one of thousands such reasons.
Now to the reverse. In accusing one of being “un American” for choosing to practice their God given Constitutional right to choose for public office FOR THEMSELVES an individual based on any criteria they desire you essentially are doing unto them what you accuse them of, namely acting un-American. Yes they can even say that they feel the person IS UNQUALIFIED for office based on religion, shoe size what have you. What they CANNOT do is in anyway prevent their fellow citizens from being given such a choice to make for themselves by denying said candidate from being on the ballot. Doing such denies their freedom of religion and moral conscience ether by direct action or implied wrong doing for the purposes of “shaming” them into some perceived line to toe.
A further point. No individual on this board, and more specifically in the so called “Inman” group that works towards exposing the very real issues and perils of Mormonism has EVER seriously advocated preventing any LDS member from practicing their faith, period. None would jail them, tie them up, destroy their places of worship or do anything to impede their religious freedom, an argument falsely used against them with sad regularity when they are are accused of same or worse.
Indeed in attempting to silence such individuals either directly, by coercion or by social embarrassment, individuals whose religion requires them to defend their faith, point our heresies and false teachings and save souls via any one of a number of methods their rights to practice their religion is being infringed. As long as they simply point out facts and engage in debate about the religion they take issue with and in no way impede the practitioners of said religion from going about their business beyond such debate they are behaving well with in the confines of our Constitution.
For those who are interested in knowing how things really work I hope this has proven informative.
For the rest, c’est la vie
“I have looked over the thread and find that you indeed are defining how individuals can vote or determine FOR THEMSELVES”
But you decline to cite examples because you and your friends are full of it.
Cite examples in context. You won’t find them. My position has been that you and your friends have been trying to define “Approved Religions” of which you exclude at least Muslims and Mormons - probably others, but I don’t know - the existence of even ONE has no Constitutional basis. #404 and many other places in the thread show this error in thinking.
You’re the ones that are trying to determine which candidates are even allowed to run for office/hold office. I called you out and you guys have been apoplectic, as bullies often are, when faced with a metaphorical sock in the face.
So go back to your nasty little huddle, study the Constitution, and be consistent from here on out, will you, please?
It’s all in the 1st Amendment. It was so important to our founding fathers that they put it there first. The reason is obvious - people like you guys who hate one religion or another and don’t want adherents to participate in our democracy like every other American has the right to do by running for office.
A couple of you have all ready stepped away from this gaggle nonsense. The rest of you should too by affirming the 1st Amendment. I absolutely and resolutely support the right of Mormon (or any other religion) candidates to run for office. I don’t care what crazy religious beliefs they may have - I support their right to run for office, and/or vote any way they wish, for whatever reason.
When you, the gaggle, vote as individuals - pull the lever for whomever you want for whatever reason you wish.
Brava!!!!!
Thanks E, for your voice of reason.