Anyone who would base the decision on his religion is doing so against the letter and the spirit of our Constitution (which explicitly forbids a religious test for office).
Sorry but I can't agree with you there. It's true that the Constitution forbids the government from establishing a religious test. But individuals are entirely free to vote on any basis they want, certainly including the religion of the candidate.
People make the same mistake when it comes to the presumption of innocence. That applies to the judicial system. It surely doesn't apply to individuals.
For example, if Joseph Smith, the guy recently convicted of Carlie Brucia, and whose abduction of her was caught on tape, came and applied for a daycare job with you, would you be violating the spirit of the Constitution by failing to apply the presumption of innocence? Of course not. Same thing as to religious tests.
That's silly. The Constitution puts limits on THE GOVERNMENT, not on the the consciences of the Citizens. You can base your decision to vote for someone on his hair, his family, or his brand of toothpaste if you want...that's what FREEDOM is all about. Of course any of those things would be silly. Religion though, is at the core (or should be) of who one is as a person--so heck yeah, I'll take a man's religion into account for my vote! I wouldn't want the government to, as they still do in the UK, make a 'religious test' (for example the monarch of England cannot be a Roman Catholic), and that is what that clause is about...it puts NO burden whatsoever, either in letter or spirit on individual citizens.