To those who won't vote for Obama b/c they say he's a Muslim

[Waiting For Everyman]

The "no religious test" clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, section 3, and states that:

“ ...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

__________________________

So I guess they don't think much of the Constitution then, huh? Even if Obama were a Muslim, which of course he isn't, they can't say they revere the Constitution, and use religion as an excuse for voting against him. The Founders would've frowned on that, as we can see, since they took the trouble to write this exact point into our Constitution as a guiding principle for us, right from the beginning, that long ago.

It also isn't very American of them then either, to be FOR Palin b/c she holds the same religious beliefs that they do.

They can't have it both ways... holding these attitudes while claiming to respect the Constitution. I don't expect that even if they were told about this, they would give up their attitudes about either Obama or Palin. But if they don't, it does let everyone else know that they have no cover or credibility as being "patriotic" or "American", etc. That fraud won't fly.

They can't say they respect the Constitution, and directly oppose what it has to say. This also shows how unamerican a McC/P administration would be, right off the bat.

We need to know what's American and what isn't - and using religion as a criteria to vote by, is not. And this is why we are having problems - b/c these Religious Right "social values" voters who do not respect our principles, or follow them, have been electing our leaders by other unamerican standards.

Btw, they also cannot hide behind the "Christian" cover either, b/c they do not believe in one of the the Ten Commandments against lying (actually it says "bearing false witness against another") - since it is their well-known strategy to accomplish their political ends by doing exactly that, intentionally. That means these "social values voters" are neither patriotic nor Christian, but just plain old bigoted fascists, who really are only interested in dominating others and stealing from them through self-enriching policies they enact for themselves. That is not an opinion, it is clearly a fact.

[Cali_Democrat]

1. These are reich wingers we're talking about

The Constitution is shit to them.

[Waiting For Everyman]

2. You're right.

They can be as scummy as they choose, as long as they are denied the flag and the Bible to hide behind and deceive people with, when they hate and destroy both.

I just think it's time to start unmasking their frauds.

[regnaD kciN]

3. No offense, but that's a really silly argument...

It's one thing to say that the state cannot bar someone from running for office on religious grounds, but that doesn't mean voters are forbidden to make their own decisions based on those grounds.

I suspect even those who think Obama is a Muslim, and will never vote for him based on that misapprehension, still would hold that the law demands that a Muslim should be allowed to run for public office, even if they don't think the electorate should choose him.

[Waiting For Everyman]

4. I said nothing about "forbidden", it goes to the point that they pride themselves

on being the only upholders of the Constitution, to the exclusion of everyone else. Then they need to "walk the walk" instead of "talking the talk".

These are the "letter of the law" people, supposedly. That is why they are so insane about imposing their abortion beliefs on the whole country, after all. Then let them live up to their own stated standards, or knock off the fraud.

I don't mean that anyone else, or even they, are "forbidden" from voting against Obama for any reason they might choose. But if it's for his religion and not issues that have to do with the office, then it doesn't demonstrate any great respect for the Constitution, does it?

That is what they claim for themselves.

But going beyond that... they do have a religious "litmus test" by which they attempt to pack the courts and the Executive Branch - and have pretty much done it, frankly. I think that IS borderline, if not illegal. The current controversy over the firing of attorneys in the Justice Dept. may prove that point.

They openly advocate a theocracy. That is clearly unconstitutional. These voting practices, yes, are not strictly illegal but are cut from the same cloth of reasoning.

[jrockford]

5. Half correct...

It's true that only applies to the allowance of those who run, traditionally anyway - but I highly doubt that those who wouldn't vote for Obama because they think he is a Muslim would support or demand that a Muslim be allowed to run for public office.

If you are going to be that stupid as to say that you wouldn't vote for a Muslim on the basis that he or she is a Muslim, then it is far more likely a bet that you aren't as concerned about their federal rights or guarantees.

What bugs me is how unwarranted it is. You never hear this about orthodox Jews who run, who openly admit their Zionist loyalties to a foreign country - Israel. Lieberman is a perfect example of this. But those questions rarely come up.