The religion itself is not a threat, it is the individuals who happen to believe in that faith that have a skewed view that are the threat. It is a great offense to generalize an entire group of people based on the actions of some.

For what it's worth, I don't care if the next president is a snake-handling, tarot-reading, polygamist, bible-thumping surfer for Jesus who turns Camp David into an ashram... as long as the duties of the office and responsibility to the public are upheld for the general good of all. Isn't that what we're supposed to be looking for anyway? (Granted that's a big over-simplification... but sheesh!)

Do you think we're likely to nominate presidential candidates who advocate murder and/or genocide? I doubt it will take a constitutional amendment to prevent it. Of course, murder and genocide are secular crimes regardless of the motive for committing them, so it wouldn't take a specifically religious test to exclude someone who advocated them.
Why do you think the existence of these weapons and techniques for committing mass murder requires a "religious test" to be imposed on office seekers? What do you mean by "a religious test", and what form would such a test take?
Constitutional amendments aside, it's pretty clear that Obama doesn't hold such beliefs, so the issue has no bearing on his candidacy.

Is there anything else about the Constitution that you think is out of date?

Forget about the term "religious test", I was only echoing that term, as it was used in other posts here. It is not so much a test, as a matter of common sense. If someone has close ties to racists, bombers, and haters, and they do not denounce them and what they believe, we have to lean towards the fact that they themselves must share some, if not all, of what these associates believe. Is that really such a stretch? I don't think so.

He is doing his best, to dance down the middle of the road on these issues, saying just enough in hopes that the people who question these associations, will back off, and just enough to try not to piss off the people who agree with the hatred, racism, and bombings as acceptable forms of dissention. He wants to appease the white voters, without angering the black voters. The saddest thing though, is he is so damn good at it. He is charming, he is well spoken, and he gives new meaning to the term silver tongued devil in my book.

As for other changes, I didn't bring my copy of the constitution to work today, and it's been a while since I read the whole thing, so I'll have to get back to you on your last question.

This could also describe the other candidates... it could describe anyone who has ever run for a political office where the constituency is diverse.

I still think you're Hillary... :p

Darn, how the heck did you figure it out?:eek:

OK, let's review. This thread is titled "Obama's Lack of Understanding of Jesus Christ's Important Role". I pointed out that his understanding of Christian doctrine is irrelevant in terms of his qualification to be president because the Constitution prohibits any "religious test" for public service.

You responded that so much has changed since the Constitution was written that we really can't go by that anymore, and in response to my further questions, you said that yes, a religious test should be a requirement for public office. So no, I won't forget about the term. It's central to the topic of this thread, and if you want to advocate for such a change in the Constitution, you need to put forward a coherent and convincing case to support it.

So far, you've provided nothing but innuendo to imply that Obama is sympathetic to the goals and methods of "racists, bombers and haters". If you want to be taken seriously here, you have to do better than that.

But the issues of religion does apply to how they will go on signing laws or appointing Supreme Court or Federal Judges that will represent those people who have certain beliefs and values

he can not be pro life and pro abortion, he can not be pro voucher system for schools and against them, so it may not be religion, but it is view points on issues, many of these issues are based on religion values normally.

And of course while there is no religious test, that does not stop a president from being elected or not elected by voters because of their beleifs in religion.

I can easily vote of not vote for someone because of their values that will effect their actions, and those can be based on religious view points.
But they are also based on their social and economic view points, their view points on taxes, econnomy and other things.

Sure, voters can decide not to vote for somebody because they don't like the way they do their hair. The Constitutional prohibition just means that no one can be prevented from running for office, or if elected, cannot be prevented from serving based on their religious beliefs.

Do you think the Constitution should be amended to allow religious tests for public service?

So, you believe it would be just fine if we end up with a president who based upon his religious beliefs, feels he is doing God's will, by killing everyone who does not believe
What he believes?

Do you really believe that because of the constitution, a radical extremist Muslim should be allowed to be the President of The United States Of America?

I believe that it cannot ever be allowed, if that means changing the Constitution, give me a bottle of white out, and I'll get to work on it.

I'm not saying that Obama is a radical extremist Muslim, but he does seem to have some ties and associations that may fit that description.

The reason we won't have such a person as president is that he could not get nominated or elected, not because the Constitution prohibits any religious test for public office.
Do you really believe that "a radical extremist Muslim" could win both the nomination and the general election? In order to do that they would have to convince a majority of the electorate to vote for them. If they were able to do that, then yes, they should be "allowed to be the President of The United States Of America".
Well, that's exactly the point, isn't it? It does NOT mean changing the Constitution. The voters are quite capable of deciding who they want to elect, and arbitrary exclusions based on religious affiliations and beliefs are fundamentally at odds with the spirit of US democracy.
Of course you aren't, because you know full well that it isn't true. Still, you are perfectly willing to imply and insinuate it in hopes that the idea will gain currency and credibility by repetition.

I like the way you pick apart answers with the quotes, and respond to each one, very "attention to detail" oriented.

I didn't see any response to my last quote though?

IF there were a radical extremist Muslim candidate, do you think they would come right out and announce it? OR, would they do their best to conceal it, until someone is willing and able to dig into their specific associations, friendships, and even church Pastors, to try to discover the possibility of a hidden agenda.

It is obvious that most of our main stream media would not be willing to do such investigations, hell, they won't even report the facts when they are discovered, unless
They fit into the leftist agenda.

When the national media is no longer objective, when they have their own private agenda to protect, and will do so no matter what other facts are available, how can anyone be expected to trust what they present?

As far as credibility goes, this candidate has none, so my repetition of anything really makes no difference either way.

I must say, if I were a debate coach, I'd want you on my team!

It was implicit in what came before: And you think a Constitutional amendment that says, "Radical extremist Muslims may not run for public office" would prevent this?
When someone begins a statement this way, I interpret it to mean, "I don't have a convincing basis for what I'm about to say, but I'm hoping you'll accept it anyway."
Sorry, but I don't accept it. If you want to debate the quality of journalism in the US, start another thread. This one is about the relationship between religious beliefs and qualification for public office.
It's your credibility that's in question here, not Obama's, and your repetition of discredited rumor and innuendo doesn't help it at all.
Thank you, I guess.

[QUOTE=ordinaryguy]
It's your credibility that's in question here, not Obama's, and your repetition of discredited rumor and innuendo doesn't help it at all.

I am not concerned about my credibility on this topic.

This is nothing more than opinions and personal beliefs, period. You have yours, I have mine, and everyone else has theirs. Because it is your opinion, does that make it credible? No. Because it is my opinion, does that make it credible? No. They are just opinions.

The candidate Obama is the one with the credibility issues, not you or I.


Quote:
Originally Posted by progunr
It is obvious that
[QUOTE=ordinaryguy]
When someone begins a statement this way, I interpret it to mean, "I don't have a convincing basis for what I'm about to say, but I'm hoping you'll accept it anyway."

I am also not concerned with how you interpret things, that again, is up to you. Also, if you want to quote me, please include the entire sentence so that the context is not lost in your editing. It was very clever of you to separate those four words from the remainder of the sentence.

Anyone who pays any attention to the coverage of the political news by mainstream media in this country is well aware of its bias, so the need for a convincing basis has already been established here regardless of your acceptance or not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by progunr
I must say, if I were a debate coach, I'd want you on my team!

[QUOTE=ordinaryguy}
Thank you, I guess.

You're Welcome, I guess.

And you're supporting Hillary Clinton? Wow! I've got news for you the last time the media even questioned Hillary on church attendance she snarled up a lip and said it was "not relevant." Did it ever occur to you that Obama may not ultimately be judge and jury? Isn't that G-d's job? There's bound to be something in your Christian testament about not judging others.

Stop the fight. Poor old progunr is taking a beating here.

Can you honestly not see the point being made? You want the constitution amended to prevent "radical extreme muslims" from being elected to president but then in the next sentence admit that a "radical extreme muslim" would never announce as such. What the??

How many more people over there acutally think like you? Gee, for the worlds sake I hope it is a minority but I'm getting more scared by the day that it isn't so.

First. This is not a fight, it is a spirited exchange of thoughts, ideas, and opinions.

Second, don't worry about progunr, he is tougher than the Energizer Bunny, and can easily take anything you libs care to throw this way.

And third, the idea here was that because the constitution allows "no religious test", that no matter what your religious beliefs are, you should be able to be president of the United States.

I'm simply saying that the world has changed enough in the past 200+ years that we do need to be wary of certain religious beliefs and that there is a real danger from anyone who leans towards the belief that killing innocent people is a duty assigned by God, so you can get all your virgins when you get to heaven.

This is my opinion, and I stand by it.

Which you keep repeating, even though it has no bearing on Obama or his candidacy except by innuendo.

It's easy enough to expose and vote against people who advocate stupid things.

The "real danger" lies in allowing or disallowing public service based on religious beliefs. If you want a current example of such a political system, take a look at Iran. If the mullahs won't certify your orthodoxy, you can't run for office.

Repetition seems to be rampant here so I guess I'm in good company when it comes to that.

Actually, I had never mentioned getting all your virgins when you get to heaven, so your accusation of repetition is just a little off base.

You cannot convince me that we should not disallow anyone who shares these "repeated" beliefs from being, or even running, for President Of The United States. You admit that the chance they could ever be elected is zero, so why not just come right out and be honest and up front and just amend the constitution to say:

Anyone known to follow the radical teachings of the Muslim Religion, or to have very close personal ties to such an individual or group, may not seek any form of public office in the United States of America.

I'm sure that my views appear just as radical to those who side with this religion, as their views appear to me, so in that regard, we are even.

Bingo!

I personally believe that one does not have to have any spiritual affiliation to be the President of the United States. Too many people put way too much emphasis on this subject. Just because the idea of Jesus does not consume someone , does not mean they are a bad or incapable person. You Christians have to get over yourselves and realize we are all HUMAN and must all take resposibilty for our OWN actions WITHOUT the benefit of being able to blame them on some Deity.