Ok I think the 7th seal just broke

When i saw the teaser for a statement by Alan Keyes on worldnetdaily

COMING TOMORROW
No religious test
Exclusive: Alan Keyes says Bush's use of Miers' faith skirts Constitution
--WND

Wow

well Alan Keyes has now come out with the teased article

Bush's statement leaves the definite impression that Harriet Miers' religion was one of the reasons he selected her. Now, as president he is sworn to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution. The Constitution (Article VI) states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Clearly, this means that no one can be barred from office because of their religious affiliation (a point I and other conservatives have argued strenuously in the face of liberal persecution of openly religious judicial nominees). Yet if religious affiliation is cited as a basis for preference in the nominating process, doesn't this preference constitute a barrier to those without the affiliation? If so, it would be improper for this or any other president to make religious affiliation a key element in his judgment about an individual's qualifications for office. If President Bush has done so in Miers' case, her nomination is tainted by this constitutional impropriety and should be withdrawn.

Not only does this challenge "President Bush's Philosophy" with "Strict Constructionalist-originalist judicial philosophy" If this is indeed the truth.

But Alan Keyes a religous right wing nut goes even farther and earns back some of the respect he lost in that horrifically bad 2004 senate race in Illinois.

For example, given the teachings of Buddha, an individual ought to show consideration for the life and worth of every individual. If she has done so, the president may properly consider her actions as an indication that she would show due respect for the rights and dignity of each person when adjudicating cases that arise under the Constitution. Her actions, not the religious beliefs that motivate them, are the proper constitutional basis for his deliberation.

And that is it in a nut shell, the actions of some one being observant to the teachings of the buddah in those regards imply some positive things to a constitutionalist viewpoint, but only if they are followed. If beliefs form a secular philosophy.