Of course they do. They read that they have the right to bear arms, over and over and over again. :-)
In McCain's defense, however, I think you misread that article. He said he would prefer a Christian for President, not that being a Christian should be a qualification. You conveniently read the part you disagreed with, and ignored the fact that he ALSO said:
"But that doesn't mean that I'm sure that someone who is Muslim would not make a good president."
"I would vote for a Muslim if he or she was the candidate best able to lead the country and defend our political values."
The article takes the "an important part of our qualifications to lead" part of what he said out of context. He never suggested this should be a condition for becoming President. He only said that he would prefer a Christian President. He is a Christian. Of course he feels this way! What are you? I'll bet whatever you are, Democrat, Republican, Christian, Muslim, Atheist... you'd prefer someone like yourself in the office. Who wouldn't?
2007-09-30 14:11:30
·
answer #1
·
answered by Mr. Taco 7
·
5⤊
2⤋
On the other hand it's the democrats who don't read the constitution if you forgot the goals of Alexander Hamilton George Washington and Samuel Adams were all to limit federal involvement in United States citizens lives which is what republicans believe. While i do not support Iraq i am a supporter of conservative involvement in government i am not endorsing what maccain or guliani say as a matter of fact i am condemning them Neo conservatisim is what you are talking about not the conservatism that Abe Lincoln Ronald Regan and theodore roosevelt were famous for if you want a real republican look for Ron Paul Rep. of Texas
2007-09-30 14:18:34
·
answer #2
·
answered by Superfan 3
·
4⤊
0⤋
Most of us do, yes. Unfortunately, there's a bunch up in DC right now that have forgotten how to use it, but we hope to remedy that soon.
On the other hand, your interpretation of the Constitution is a bit confused. "No religious test shall ever be required" simply means that there can be no restriction placed on running for those seats. It certainly doesn't mean that individual voters can't prefer someone who addresses issues from a perspective similar to theirs. Otherwise, we wouldn't allow you to vote for any atheists, and that would be wrong, wouldn't it?
2007-09-30 14:45:37
·
answer #3
·
answered by skip742 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
I keep a pocket version with me. John McCain said he would "prefer", what does that have to do with the constitution? This is just an opinion.
2007-09-30 14:14:23
·
answer #4
·
answered by Oracle 2
·
3⤊
0⤋
Are you seriously that stupid? Liberty and "liberal" are not the same thing. Perhaps you should ACTUALLY READ the Constitution! Patrick Henry said "Give me liberty or give me death" and he was not talking about being a liberal. Perhaps you should read a dictionary.
2016-05-17 21:16:19
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
You have DRASTICALLY misquoted Mr. McCain . . .
you took a snippet of what he said out of context with his entire viewpoint.
Asked about Republican rivals Mitt Romney's Mormon faith, McCain said, "I think that Governor Romney's religion should not, absolutely not, be a disqualifying factor when people consider his candidacy for president of the United States."
2007-09-30 14:21:13
·
answer #6
·
answered by KRR 4
·
2⤊
2⤋
Public opinion isn't limited by the Constitution.
Most people think if you aren't a Christian, then you are a devil worshipper. Most people would say:
"If you don't think like I do, it is because you are evil."
2007-09-30 14:16:48
·
answer #7
·
answered by freedom_vs_slavery 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
keep an eye on the banks or youll lose your constitution
2007-09-30 15:15:20
·
answer #8
·
answered by shawn p 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
When the Dem's can read the 2nd Amendment for what it says, then and ONLY THEN can they point the finger at the Republicans.
2007-09-30 14:19:51
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
What Constitution ?
2007-09-30 14:11:23
·
answer #10
·
answered by Mezmarelda 6
·
1⤊
1⤋