The Constitution of the United States of America, Article 6, paragraph 3: "The senators and representatives beforementioned, and the members of the state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
I have already stated that I do think that Romney will be the Republican nominee for President because of his views on "manmade global warming", which I am convinced is a hoax that has an anti-freedom agenda behind it. His being deceived on this point is a valid reason for not supporting his bid for the presidency.
You are free to publicly oppose Romney because of his religion. You are free to try to amend the Constitution so that a religious test becomes required, so that any person born into a Mormon family, unless they repudiate that religion, are forever banned from holding any office or public trust under the United States. If that is your desire, go for it. I would not recommend it, because many people might view the endeavor as divisive and hate-filled.
I may agree with some of your post; but the strawman at the end of it is weak.
How many times do we have to explain this?
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: People continue to confuse "qualifications" (language within the Constitution) with "qualities." (language that’s NOT in the Constitution). 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...So, 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.
Summary: The ironic thing is -- that if the Constitution was twisted the way you and others twist it -- that it was something forced upon the voting patterns of this nation...
...then voting would become something akin to hiring sexual minorities or minorities...
...if you as a voter had a choice 'tween hiring a minority religion candidate or a majority one, you'd HAVE to vote for the minority religion candidate!
Or if you as a voter had a choice 'tween hiring an atheistic candidate or a theistic one, you'd HAVE to vote for the atheistic candidate!
Otherwise, according to you, the voter would be "guilty" of exercising their free liberty...and per you, that's supposedly a "constitutional violation!"