Is Religion a Presidential Qualification?

There has been a lot of talk about religion in the Presidential primaries. Mormonism, Islam, and Christianity have all had there turn in the spotlight. The American people were unsure about Mitt Romney and it seemed as if his political platform was overshadowed by his Mormon beliefs. An article on TIME.com stated that “although Mormons are known for family centeredness, hard work and clean living, many Americans remain suspicious of them… A poll conducted in June by the Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg found that 35% of registered voters said they would not consider voting for a Mormon for President. Only Islam would be a more damaging faith for a candidate…”

That is the problem Barack Obama is facing. There are emails and articles all over the internet about possible Muslim background. An article on World Tribune.com says that the Clinton campaign was determined to prove that the madrassa he attended was “espousing Wahhabism.” Of course, they still have proven nothing. American’s are also concerned about the statements Obama has made about his childhood: “In ‘The Audacity of Hope,’ Mr. Obama says, ‘I was not raised in a religious household.’ He describes his mother as secular, but says she had copies of the Bible, the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita in their home.” Wouldn’t it be an advantage, when running a country full of people with different beliefs, to have some understanding of those different religions?

In a country that claims to believe in religious tolerance and bases its government on freedom of church and state, why are the religious beliefs of a candidate so important?
The Constitution clearly states: [N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
We may not require a religious test, but our voting habits clearly support it.
Why are we so determined to have a Christian President? Do we really think that Christian’s make better decisions?