A constitutional question

[resident_evil]

We have grown men and women in politics, as pundits, and reporting on politics who get upset when someone says they are unwilling to vote for someone because of their brand of faith or lack thereof. They make this appeal to the constitution and the 'No Religious Test Clause' Article VI, paragraph 3, that states that:

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

How does that clause apply to what criteria I choose to cast my vote? Is it intellectual dishonesty or plain stupidity that makes people bring up this clause when someone like Carson says I don't think an Islamist should be president?

I believe Jake Tapper was extraordinarily rude and abusive. I used to think he was one of the more honest reporters but since joining CNN he has become brain washed and I find myself unable to implicitly trust him like I might have at one time.


http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/0...-muslims.cnn/video/playlists/top-news-videos/

 

[as seen on tv]

by "qualification of office", I think the intent of the founding fathers was to prevent congress writing a law asserting that senators or presidents needed to be Christian in general, or some sort of schism like Baptist or Methodist. Or, conversely, a law saying that certain religions CANNOT even file to run as a candidate

Iran has that sort of law, I believe. They Ayatollah must personally approve anyone running for office. It's not enough simply to be muslim. You probably have to be "Shi'ite" (no Sunni's allowed) and attend "the right mosque".

helps if your father knew the ayatollah's father too, I betcha

 

[bdtex]

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

How does that clause apply to what criteria I choose to cast my vote?

That clause applies to who gets on the ballot,not the criteria you choose to vote for someone on the ballot.