Why should I heed your advice rather than heeding the words of the Constitution of the United States?
Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
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.
Point 1- RELIGION: Religion IS NOT a qualification or disqualification for public office; but it's certainly one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, present position statements & rampant inconsistency of past position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc. Article VI, section 3 of the Constitution is aimed at the candidate (must be of a certain age and must have resided in our country for a certain number of years) and the government so that religion does not become a disqualification to keep somebody otherwise eligible for running for public office. Article VI, section 3, is not aimed at the voter. Otherwise, voters would have to 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates.
POINT 2 - ELIGIBILITY: Newsflash!! Every person on the ballot, & even most write-in candidates, have proper "qualifications" to not be excluded from office consideration (based upon religious grounds). Of course, millions of us have the "qualifications" to be considered a potential POTUS & shouldn't be excluded outright from a ballot because of the religion we hold! Nobody has a "Religious Ineligibility" tattoo on their forehead!
POINT 3- BOTTOM LINE: Too many confuse "qualifications" (language within the Constitution) with "qualities." (language that’s NOT in the Constitution). I focus on what voters base their votes on in the "real world": Qualities
Otherwise, Article VI says absolutely nothing...nada...zero...about how voters must weigh--or not weigh--the "qualities" of a candidate...So, nowhere does Article VI say that voters MUST 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates!
"Qualifications" have to do with what gets a man on a ballot. "Qualities" has to do with who gets elected.
Sigh...
no religious Test shall ever be DENIEDas a Qualification to person VOTING> for anyone applying for any Office or public Trust in the United States.
Sigh...
...unless they are a radical MUSLIM!
Colofornian is exactly right - this limitation is imposed on the GOVERNMENT, not private citizens. Remember that the original colonies were set up as religious enclaves. The Constitution prevented the state from imposing a religious requirement that its elected officials must be of the recognized state religion. In other words, an elected official in Maryland didn't have to be Catholic, or an official in Rhode Island, Baptist, etc.
So what are the courts going to do if I vote based on religious grounds? Declare me unconstitutional? Nullify my vote? How are they going to know that was my basis for voting? The Founding Fathers wouldn't put something as foolish into the Constitution as your are suggesting. They knew that you can't put unenforceable provisions into a ruling document - it just opens the whole document to be held in contempt.