Now, I realize that this might seem like a dumb question; but, I get to make the rules for this game. I have actually read that question, suggesting such a requirement, several times recently in various newspapers? I can only shake my head and wonder where it comes from. Just consider the history of Religious Tolerance… Are you through yet?
Just think of how many people have been killed, over the years, in the Name of Religion. Just taking a few situations of such recent “Tolerance”: the Jews and the Muslims in Palestine; Hindus and Muslims in Kashmir; Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland; the Sunnis and Shiites throughout the Middle East; and even Hate Crimes, in the US, against what people do not understand. Namely, the killer at the Temple in Wisconsin probably didn’t know that Sikhs are not Muslims.
Also, after 223 years of the Presidency, so far, we have had only Deists, Christians, one Catholic and just finally have a Mormon nominated; but, no Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. So, until the Christian stranglehold on the Presidency is loosened, Religion surely cannot be a Requirement for the Presidency–or any Public Office.
But, this is not just a recent idea. It has been going on since Time Immemorial. Remember that our Founding Fathers, for the most part, did not openly profess any particular religion. Many (Washington, Franklin, Lincoln, etc.) were deists, believing in a Natural God; but not having to do with any particular Religion, Scripture or Holy Text. So, if as I believe, a Religious Requirement should not be a Requirement–for any Public Office–we should also consider “No Religion”, as a valid listing, as well.