“(You mean like my freedom to religiously express my convictions...or do you draw careful lines around “freedom of religion” — and seek to appoint yourself as some “policeman” of that?)”
No...I did nothing of the sort. You are the one that made the case for excluding someone from office based on their religious belief against the established principles of our beloved Constitution. I disagreed with your aggressive and vitriolic attack. In other words, you wanted to “arrest” the progress of “the offender” while I was simply pointing out they had a right to their belief.
Seriously, if you see yourself as a victim, you have a serious problem and should consider seeking help.
So NOW you are trying to redefine Article VI of the Constitution...and tell voters (look @ the % breakdown of voters in post #1)...that they can't consider...
...the jihadist views of a POTUS candidate???
...or the atheistic or Satanic views of a POTUS candidate?
Are you trying to impose a new Constitution on voters?
Do you realize that Article VI applies to candidates -- and the government -- not to voters?
Elsewise, voters could NEVER consider their faith-based perspectives on even a candidate's character!
Wow!
Here...this "primer" below on Article VI of the Constitution is for you and others who flunk reading 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 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...
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.
(Even 94-95% of Mormons -- most voting upon the fellow personal "qualities" of a candidate like Romney -- can tell you that!)
Btw, jess, why aren't you lecturing Lds voters if anywhere from 88% to 95% of Mormons will only vote for a Mormon?
(For some reason, the "Article 6 Religious Test" lecture tour never seems to hit Utah, Nevada and other Western states)