There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the constitution.No... no, it really wouldn't.
Here's Article VI of the Constitution (the part you either haven't actually read, Governor, or dearly hope we don't actually read):
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several 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.Look, Governor, bubbula, -- can I call you Mitt? Mitt: I'm not a branch of the government, per se. I'm a voter. I'm a free citizen. I can ask you to explain anything I want to ask. I can ask you what your favorite color is, or whether you like extra-crispy or original recipe. And you can answer, or not.
Or I can ask a really fundamental, meaty question — like asking you about your worldview. Which necessarily requires a religious answer. To suggest that such questions are off-limits is, wellsir, it's really dumb.
See, Mitt: there's no Constitutional provision preventing private citizens from asking questions about religion. In fact, that very right is guaranteed, and in so m any words. You might recall the expression "freedom of speech." It's guaranteed in the first amendment.
Now, of course you can do what you've been doing — dodge, misdirect, mislead. And when you do that, you pretty much end up telling me what I need to know anyway.
And you can do this, too — what you're trying to do in this speech. You can try to tell me I'm violating the Constitution when I ask you these questions. you can try to make me feel bad for wanting to understand why a cultist thinks the way he thinks, and if I want a cult-thinker at the head of the Executive branch.
And, in a way, that tells me what I need to know, too.
It tells me that you're either really... em... uninformed about the Constitution.
Or it tells me that you hope I am.
Either way, it does shorten my list.
Oh and by the way: we all remember that Evangelical Roman Catholic Presbyterian Hugh Hewitt (here known as "Squish") has added "cult-apologist" to his resume. He's really excited about it, too -- more so than other things.
I was listening yesterday as he chatted with professional God-hater Christopher Hitchens. Here's what struck me: Hitchens droned on and on in his contempt for Christ ("alleged birth") and Christianity. Hugh's pulse never altered, he asked a few questions, really challenged nothing.
Oh, but then Hitch started talking about Romney, who he regards as a dangerously deluded nutcase.
My, then Hugh got worked up! He was animated, he was upset; he cut Hitchens off, interrupted him, challenged him again and again, and let him know how absurd he thought Hitchens was being.
So, from this I learned about Hugh's issue taxonomy:
Slander Christ and Christians: no big dealUPDATE: a transcript of the speech is online. And yes, indeed, he said it just like this:
Slander this year's designated cultist: BIG deal
There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith.Translation: "The Constitution says you can't ask any more embarrassing questions about my cult."