Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Colofornian

None of this has anything to do with whether someone is a good or bad citizen of the US and does not diminish his right as a citizen to hold elective office in this country.


6 posted on 08/02/2012 3:44:24 PM PDT by 1raider1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: 1raider1

“None of this has anything to do with whether someone is a good or bad citizen of the US and does not diminish his right as a citizen to hold elective office in this country.”

Exactly! Mitt has the right to hold office - regardless of the fact he thinks he will become a god of his own planet. Regardless of his belief that as a god, he will breed with multiple goddess wives to populate his own planet. Regardless of his perversion of the nature of God and his idolatry as a mormon.

Whether I would vote for someone who believes such cultic idiocy is another story.


10 posted on 08/02/2012 3:52:18 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ("I'm comfortable with a Romney win." - Pres. Jimmy Carter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: 1raider1
None of this has anything to do with whether someone is a good or bad citizen of the US and does not diminish his right as a citizen to hold elective office in this country.

Well, the birthers may have a rather strong point in saying, "Hey, I'd settle for any ACTUAL CITIZEN running for POTUS this go-round." :)

But citizenship (beyond the Obama question) isn't normally a "rallying" when it comes to POTUS...if that was the case, Perot and Ron Paul and Donald Trump would have been all fine as POTUSES.

One key aspect of considering a POTUS candidate is discernment...A candidate vulnerable -- gullible -- to deception in what he deems to be THE MOST IMPORTANT area of his life...can readily find bleedover effects ... for example in foreign policy.

Discernment IS key when we're talking about THE leader of the free world.

...his right as a citizen to hold elective office in this country.

Well, who's contending vs. Romney's "right" to be on the GoP ballot? (I'm not)

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 don't, FSO, really want to join Lds "apostles" in their confusion by emphasizing words similar to "qualifications" (language within the Constitution) with words like "qualities." (language that’s NOT in the Constitution)...do you?

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...

16 posted on 08/02/2012 4:06:05 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: 1raider1
None of this has anything to do with whether someone is a good or bad citizen of the US and does not diminish his right as a citizen to hold elective office in this country.

You are absolutly RIGHT!!



But it DOES say something about the man's DISCERNMENT: the ability to differenciate between fact and falsehood.

So, when you ABO folks get your Obama replacement; do NOT be complaining that you now have either a DECEIVED Mormon or a DECEIVING one on your conscience.

83 posted on 08/03/2012 5:12:38 AM PDT by Elsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: 1raider1

Who said it did?


105 posted on 08/03/2012 6:03:21 AM PDT by roylene (Salvation the great Gift of Grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: 1raider1; Colofornian
None of this has anything to do with whether someone is a good or bad citizen of the US and does not diminish his right as a citizen to hold elective office in this country.

True statement, but outside the scope of this discussion.

This is the religion forum and we're discussing Mormonism.
129 posted on 08/03/2012 6:45:11 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: 1raider1; Jim from C-Town; IslandLad; faithhopecharity; CaptainK; sportutegrl; Mrs. Don-o; ...
None of this has anything to do with whether someone is a good or bad citizen of the US and does not diminish his right as a citizen to hold elective office in this country.

You are correct. See my posts 14, 138, 145, and 164.

165 posted on 08/03/2012 12:20:45 PM PDT by Charles Henrickson (Lutheran pastor, LCMS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson