The obvious? It would seem that - in a functioning democracy based on the principles of religious freedom and liberalism (so, not America) - that a choice to take on a proselytizing role in a specific church would preclude you from serving in public office. You chose a position that stands in direct opposition to the established principles of the organization (and people) you want to be elected to represent. BEING religious is not a disqualifying factor. Your belief system is yours, and should not eliminate you from running for office. Choosing a role that specifically promotes one religion over others, shows you do not hold the core foundational values of this country as your highest guidepost, and therefore you should not be able to take on a role representing that set of values. The internal conflict should be obvious; Are you here for America or for God? At some point you will have to choose one over the other, and when in elected office representing a plurality of beliefs, you must ALWAYS put the American ideal over your religious beliefs. And if you choose the American ideal over your religious belief when push comes to shove, then you are failing in your role as a promoter of your religious views. So you are failing your promise to your congregation. A clear conflict of interest should be a precluding factor for running for office. The Emoluments Clause is just one of the better known principles that further reinforces the idea that an elected official needs to serve the office first, and other interests second. "Well then, I'm a Communist/Nazi and want to destroy America. Can I run for office?" I hear you ask... Sure! And no, I don't know why this is different. So sue me.
None of that follows. If "being religious is not a disqualifying factor" then proselytization cannot be a disqualifying factor. "I want to exterminate redheads" is already problematic; "I want to exterminate redheads in the name of Yog-Sothoth" is no more problematic. Arguing that at some point you will have to choose God over country doesn't make much sense in a country that added "Under God" to their pledge of allegiance over 50 years ago. There's a conflict you presume to exist that is in no way implied or demonstrated. It's interesting to me that you're totally cool with "yeah, my parents have voted Republican forever, that's just who they are, they believe in the old Republicanism and the new Republicanism has them doubting" while simultaneously being "ohhhhhhhh shit Democrat said the G-word get out the smelling salts." Emoluments are compensation - that's about where your money is coming from, not about influence. NINETY FIVE PERCENT of Republicans running for national office in 2012 signed Grover Norquist's tax pledge. Grover Norquist has stated publicly that his goal is the destruction of the federal government. Democrats elect shady fucks from time to time. A man whose career has been orating and spiritual advice should not, in my opinion, be disqualified.
And that's why I said I think it is problematic, and worthy of discussion. There is a very real problem with the religious; they have vowed their fealty to another ungovernable, vague, and intangible being, whose desires and wants are unknown, and are only guessed at by adherents who choose to interpret those desires through their own lenses. In short, there are no rules in religion. But there are ample demonstrations of people using a widely disputed interpretation of religion, to legislate. Incorrect. The goofy adage that religion is like a penis (fine in private, but not in public) stands as a sobering reminder of what religion does to those who promote it. Having belief is fine. Spreading or advocating for that belief system is problematic. Especially for someone in public office. I would NOT feel comfortable going into his office and taking a meeting on a topic I am concerned about, because I know he and I are not playing by the same set of rules. He has an extra set of secret rules and guidelines he keeps hidden under his desk, that I don't know or understand. So he is not a public servant for me; he's serving god, and me in his spare time as long as what I want follows along with his beliefs. That's fucked up, and seriously worrying. A man whose career has been orating and spiritual advice should not, in my opinion, be disqualified.
If "being religious is not a disqualifying factor" then proselytization cannot be a disqualifying factor.
I mean, dude. The slogan of the United States Marine Corps is "God, corps, country." Does that... disqualify Marines? Without dragging penises into it (really?), the first amendment guarantees that if you wanna stand there and insist I worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the only thing I can do is walk away. I endorse that, 100%. If the Bible Belt wants to elect god-fearin' men to office, that's who they should vote for, and that perspective should absolutely 100% inform what their representatives seek in office. I think what you're getting hung up on is the idea that men of the cloth must, at all times, 100%, put the interests of their religion ahead of all other considerations, and the idea that those religions are 100% of the time focused on goals and achievements that are detrimental to the country. And I don't know where you're getting that from. Religion has been used as a justification for some truly heinous behavior. But it doesn't have to be. There are plenty of people in this country who derive a great deal of comfort in membership of something larger than themselves that serves as a framework to guide them to a more moral and spiritual existence. I'm not one of them? But I'll take Raphael Warnock over Raphael Cruz any day of the week.
... which is exactly why I say the RELIGIOUS are absolutely worthy of public office; those perspectives need to be represented to ensure a representative democracy. It's when someone makes the PROMOTION of their religion over all others - aka, priests and their ilk - that the problem emerges, because they now have taken two conflicting vows: to represent everyone regardless of their faith, and to convert everyone to their faith. I mean, dude literally signed on the dotted line that says, "thou shall have no god before me", and then ran for fucking public office for communities of Hindus, and Muslims, and Atheists, and ... everyone else. How does an elected official properly represent communities they literally believe are inferior to them, due to their belief system? Having religious beliefs is fine, and expected for the majority of the population. A tiny minority of the religious, however, believe their role is to convert the "heathens" and help them see the light, and those people pledge a vow to bring those heathens "into the fold" and then... run for public elected office? That's a problem - an absolute conflict of interest - plain and simple. He's lying to someone: god or his electorate.
You're presuming, with no evidence to back it up, that: 1) All religious officials must choose between their religion and their country in all things 2) All public service is a zero-sum game between competing tribes 3) No one who makes a pledge to one entity can serve another entity Why? Why are you doing that? For starters, run your position through the First Amendment and tell me where you land. Then take a brief tour through Article 6. Finally, show me the budding theocracy. Just, for shits'n'giggles. - Galatians 3.28 - Romans 2.11 - Proverbs 22.2 - John 13.16 - Romans 10.12 - Mark 12.31 - Colossians 3.11 - James 2.1-13 I want you to note that I, an atheist, son of a devout atheist, is sitting here throwing scripture at you. And I'm doing it because you know better. "You can't run for office because you work for God" is USSR shit. Cut it out.How does an elected official properly represent communities they literally believe are inferior to them, due to their belief system?