• Melllvar@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    It seems like he was urging people to vote based on candidates’ religious beliefs. This is not a “religious test” in the Constitutional sense.

    • spaceghoti@lemmy.oneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      What do you think the Constitution means when it says “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

      • Melllvar@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        That you don’t have to profess any particular religious beliefs in order to qualify as a candidate for office.

        • spaceghoti@lemmy.oneOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is precisely what Johnson is advocating. If you’re not a Christian, if you’re not his kind of Christian, he thinks you shouldn’t be eligible for office. He’s explicitly telling people not to vote for people who don’t share their religious identity.

          That’s a religious test.

          • Actaeon@artemis.camp
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I think you misunderstand what the constitution does and doesn’t do. It defines the structure, powers and limits of the Government.

            The clause means that the Government cannot instate a religious test on candidates for office. It does not dictate how individuals are allowed to decide which of those candidates they vote for.

          • Melllvar@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            He’s telling voters what he’d like them to do. He’s allowed to do that, and voters are allowed to take religious beliefs into account when casting their ballots.

            How would you even enforce a rule that prohibited voters from doing that? Particularly on a secret ballot?

            • spaceghoti@lemmy.oneOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              When preaching from the pulpit, people assume the authority of their god. He’s not suggesting, he’s telling them how they have to behave in order to be good Christians.

              Don’t make excuses for villains like this.

              • Melllvar@startrek.website
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m not making excuses, I don’t even support this guy. And if I were in his district, I would take his religious beliefs into account and vote against him. As would be my right.

                I’m simply pointing out what is and is not covered by the US Constitution. The Constitution pertains to the government, not the people. It limits what the government can do, to include making religious tests a qualification for office, but does not say a damned thing about what the voters are allowed to consider.

              • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                If he’s preaching politics from the pulpit…

                There’s a good chance a 501c corp needs to loose it’s 501c status