Perry Stands His Ground, Mitt Makes An Excellent Point

[ERayR]

Yes romney stated he did not want Perry to distance himself from his religion; however romney spent the majority of the commentary stating that voting based on religion is against the Constitution. He also told Perry that Perry should have said what Jefferson said was wrong. As I see it you can not tell someone their religious is wrong and that leaders counsel is against the constition and that the council should not be followed, and in the same breathe say "not trying to distance you from your religion". Having people distance themself from their religion, if ones religion suggests a religious test for voting, is exactly what romney wants; romney does.not want to apply a religious test when voting even if a religion states a follower should

Question: Is it a deliberate slight, on your part. to not capitalize Romney and to capitalize Perry? Is it because Romney is a Mormon?

[frankenstein]

Or more precisely, contrary to principles which are present in the Constitution. We've already pointed out the importance of this difference.

if anything, romney stated both - please the video posted in by in post #2

...Reverend said in the introduction in choosing our nominee we should inspect his religion and someone who is a good moral person is not someone we should select instead we should choose someone who subscribes to our religious beliefs that that idea that we should choose people based upon their religion for public office is what i find to be most troubling because the founder of this country went to great lenght to make sure and even put it in the constitution that we would not choose people who represent us in government based upon their religion

That "we" is the people individually and collectively voting, but as has been explained what is in the Constitution applies to governments, so romney misrepresents the Constitution by suggesting "we" were barred by the Constitution from applying a religious test.

Such behavior is not illegal or directly in contradiction to the constitution, but tests against candidates due to their religion are contrary to principles espoused in the constitution.

was the constitution meant to apply to individuals or governments? Are individual permitted to do things the government can not? can the government do things individuals can not?

Did he now? You seem to be fast and loose on who said what. (And the pastor's name is Jeffress, not Jefferson.)

yes I meant jeffress. Please view the video in post 2 of this thread, at 1:15 roughly is when romney begins to tell perry that perry should have told jeffress he was/is wrong. I am fast and loose with nothing.

Oh, now Romney said that someone's religion was wrong "in the same breath" did he? You are wrong that Perry's religion asks for a religious test. There are many other Baptist leaders who also reject Jeffress' religious test.

by claiming the Constitution, romney is suggesting that a person faith is not in step with the Constitution. Nevertheless, romney does not want people to apply a religious test even if their religion say the person should.

Question: Is it a deliberate slight, on your part. to not capitalize Romney and to capitalize Perry? Is it because Romney is a Mormon?

the lack of capitalization is not deliberate I really could not care for capitalization protocols, but thank you pointing this out, as I would not want to inadvertently appear to support one over the other.

I dislike perry more than romney I will not be voting for either, infact I will most likely exercise my right not to vote. And the 1st Amendment protects protects my freedom of speech, so all you can just spare me the "if you don't vote you can't complain", I know that someone counts the votes and they count who did not vote, my vote not to vote is thus counted.

[Zakuska]

That "we" is the people individually and collectively voting, but as has been explained what is in the Constitution applies to governments, so romney misrepresents the Constitution by suggesting "we" were barred by the Constitution from applying a religious test.

But there is the point I think you are missing... when "we" vote "we" are acting as the government (aka "We the people") by appointing a representative for us to act in our behalf and therefore the constitution applies just as much to us as it does to the authorized representatives in the several offices and branches of the government. (Ie senate and congress)

You seem to think that the Government and the citizenship are two seperate entities.

was the constitution meant to apply to individuals or governments? Are individual permitted to do things the government can not? can the government do things individuals can not?

There again "We the People" are the government in this country.

[frankenstein]

Zakuska is it your position then that Article 6 of the US Constitution prohibits an individual voter from considering a candidates religion or lack thereof?

[Zakuska]

Zakuska is it your position then that Article 6 of the US Constitution prohibits an individual voter from considering a candidates religion or lack thereof?

Individual voter is the key word Farnkenstein.

Individuals can vote using any criteria they want. But when Individuals start pushing policies and publicly banding together prompoting bigoted ideals such as voting for some one as a group just beacuse they belong to a certian religion, skin color, sex or creed. (such as Jeffress did) It is the governments responsibility to step in and moderate and put an end to such behavior.

Are segragated bathrooms unconstitutional? Did the Government over step its bounds when it began enforcing the disbanding of segregation in the public square?

[frankenstein]

Individual voter is the key word Farnkenstein.

Individuals can vote using any criteria they want. But when Individuals start pushing policies and publicly banding together prompoting bigoted ideals such as voting for some one as a group just beacuse they belong to a certian religion, skin color, sex or creed. (such as Jeffress did) It is the governments responsibility to step in and moderate and put an end to such behavior.

Are segragated bathrooms unconstitutional?

What is the Constitutional basis of authority that the Federal Government has a responsibility to command, coerce or prevent groups of christian voters from voting only for a christian?

And before you bring up the tax code, the tax states that politicing by a tax exempt org means that org can loose its tax exempt status, that org may continue to politic.

segregation is a different issue, governments are prohibited from doing it but private entities are given more leeway than states - see Bob Jones University case against the IRS and the racially based policy Bo

Jones University had.

The boy scouts is permitted to discriminate, the LDS church is permitted to discriminate; that these two groups.can discriminate illustrates that the constitution applies to governments and less to private entities or individuals.