The Real Truth About Thought Police and Article VI

Click Here To Read A Printable Version of “The Real Truth About Thought Police and Article VI: Clearing Up the Misinformation Spread by Romney and His Supporters” pdf

The Real Truth About Thought Police And Article I V

Clearing Up The Misinformation Spread

By Romney and His Supporters 

According to Mitt Romney, his supporters, and the main stream media, a person is in violation of Article VI and out of step with the Founding Fathers if he chooses to vote or not vote for a candidate because of the candidate’s religion.  When it comes to Mormonism, if your convictions won’t allow you to support a Mormon, then you are not only a bigot, but your un-American.  Mitt Romney and others have made a repeated reference to Article VI to substantiate this sentiment.  But what is Article VI all about?  Should there be thought police stationed at the polls and at the ballot boxes questioning the voters about their motives before they cast their vote?  What was the intention of the Founding Fathers?

Article VI of the Constitution states; “No religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

This seems plain enough according to some.  A voter cannot take a candidate’s religion into consideration when he or she decides who or who not to support and vote for.  To do so would be to violate the United States Constitution.  It would be to abandon the great principles set forth by the Founding Fathers that have served so well for these past 200 plus years.  To bring a candidate’s religion into consideration is to jeopardize the very fabric that has sustained us as a free people.  At least this is what many now would have us believe.  But is this interpretation of Article IV correct?

It is true that the Federal Government itself is not to require a religious test for a candidate to hold office. I enthusiastically agree with the Constitution. I do not want the Federal Government through court justices or the U. S. Attorney General or anyone else in the Federal Government to administer such a test. It would be a nightmare.  

However, to say that voters cannot consider a person’s faith and then quote Article VI is to be guilty of bait and switch.  It is completely wrong and intentionally misleading.

It is amazing that Mitt Romney quoted Article IV in his now famous speech at Texas A&M and not one journalist that I have heard called him on it. Even some Evangelical leaders praised the speech and have yet recognize that Romney grossly and I feel purposefully misused Article VI to silence his critics who cannot support him because of his Mormonism.   However Article VI is not even relevant to the discussion about weather an individual voter should or should not support or vote for Mitt Romney because of his Mormon beliefs.

Again, for the record, I agree with Article VI. But Article VI does not preclude my individual rights and personal freedom of religion. Article VI, does not prescribe or dictate to individuals. Gov. Romney and others use Article VI and then say that a person should not be chosen or rejected because of his religion, as if that were what Article VI mandated upon a free people.

Gov. Romney nor anyone else has any right to confuse people to believe that the Constitution mandates to the free citizens of the United States what criteria they should or should not use in choosing a candidate for President. At our website Pastors4Huckabee.com and In this email, I am making the case to a free people by appealing to their own conscience that they should not vote for a Mormon for President. But I do not seek to make it a law nor do I not seek to confuse people as if there was already such a law in the Constitution.

If a person chooses not to vote for Mitt Romney because he did not like the fact that he came from Boston, it would be his right to do so. If someone votes for Hillary just because she is a woman, that would be their right as well. I think these last two examples would be poor reasons for why to choose a candidate, but a voter has that right to decide based upon what he thinks is important and there is no law against it.

Would it be unconstitutional according to Article VI if a voter did not vote for David Duke simply because the candidate belonged to the false racist cult, the Ku Klux Klan?  Would it be wrong according to Article VI to reject David Koresh if he had run for political office because he was a member of the Branch Dravidian cult?  What about Jim Jones, would it be wrong to reject him based upon his religion?  To suggest that somehow Article VI prohibits voters from taking a candidate’s religious beliefs into consideration when evaluating that candidate, is to use Article VI to prohibit the right of basic discernment and would preclude the use of even common sense much less a voters own religious conviction.    

It is wrong to use Article VI to try to confuse the issue as if there was a law against choosing a candidate based upon an individual voter’s evaluation of the candidate’s religion. It is to mislead people to think that somehow they are not to believe that religion is a legitimist issue for a person to consider when selecting a candidate for President. The tactic is completely a bait and switch move to use Article VI in that way and to try to do so is to insult my intelligence.

The only thing Article VI does is limit the power of the Federal Government and declares that there is no formal religious test to hold national office as would be conducted by the Federal Government. At the time of this amendment, however every state in the union had a religious test to hold office in their respective states. This is another issue and would take a history lesson, but I will point out that the 13 states required that a person be a Christian to hold office. Readers can check that out for themselves. But the Federal Government would have had difficulty with the various Christian denominations in the 13 states if it had one religious test.

However John Jay, the first Supreme Court Justice of the U.S. said that Christians should ONLY elect Christians as their leaders. These sentiments were also shared by other founders.

If Article VI meant that I as an individual could not evaluate a person’s religion when I consider a candidate for President, then Article VI would be limiting my freedom of religion and would be used by thought police who would try to determine my motives for choosing a candidate. This would be a total attack on my personal liberty to limit my freedom of religion. It would limit my exercise of conscience and conviction when it comes to how I vote. Also, to say that I should not share my religious convictions to others would be to limit my freedom of speech. Article VI does none of that and it would be next to impossible to enforce if it did.  

The press should call Mitt Romney and his supporters on his wrong use of Article VI. But the media and even some in conservative talk radio have helped perpetuate the misunderstanding concerning Article VI.  However, to suggest that Article VI imposes limits on the freedom of free citizens to evaluate a candidate’s religion in choosing who to vote for is a bait and switch tactic and is highly misleading.  Some people who use the argument may be honestly confused themselves however. Hopefully this article will clear up that matter.

Article VI does not limit anyone’s right to select or reject a candidate after evaluating the candidate’s religious beliefs.  It does not prevent a citizen from voting according to his own religious convictions either. Let those like Mitt Romney and his supporter who are trying to confuse others by wrongly using Article VI fail in their attempt.  American, you have the freedom and Constitutional right to consider a person’s religious beliefs when choosing a candidate for public office.   

                                                 A bond-servant in Christ,
                                                Sherwood Haisty, Jr.  



  1. Nobody is saying that an individual CAN NOT vote based on religious bigotry. They are just saying that you SHOULD not. But you’re free to be a bigot if you want.

  2. of lesbian 1980s lesbian pac 1980s

  3. health east plan provider keystone plan east of keystone health

Leave a Comment

Web Hosting