An test prohibiting atheists in public office is no more discriminatory than the clauses restricting the Presidency to natural born citizens, restricting other offices only to citizens of the country, or clauses establishing ages well above that of legal majority to attain to high office.
Your other example are not a test for who can hold that office, they are prerequisite criteria that one must meet before they are eligible to hold that office or trust. The body of the US Constitution however, says that "There shall be not religious test for any office or public trust.".
The people have determined that they wish to be served in public office by citizens with enough age to have matured to some wisdom. A related qualification stating that such public servants must believe in God differs little in substance,
As a matter of law it differs greatly. The Constitution forbids a religious test for office in plain and simple laguage, period. You want to change that then you need a constitutional ammendment repealing that section of the constitution.
since in essence it is a qualification requiring people to have a rational view of the reality of creation and divine governance of the affairs of mankind,
Those things are not rational views. They are appeals to one specific subset of religious belief. Further more they are the very reasons that the constitution forbids such religious test for office. Religious veiws are not consistent from religion to religion or between denominations and sects of those religions and when one of them gains power the oppression of all others follows shortly afterwards.
and a future state of rewards and punishments for all men
Again, such a belief is not held by all religions or religious denominations and lays bare your true intention, which is to codify and propagate the the views of your religious denomination by force of law and to the exclusion of all others! Religious belief is a personal matter and should not be forced upon anyone by virtue of law.
Further more by repealing the prohibition against religious tests for office destroys the idea that all citizens are equal since you will have created to distinct classes, those that share your religious views and can hold office, those who don't share them who are effectively barred from having any say.
In this sense, it is like requiring a oath upon taking office or providing testimony in Court.An atheist is obviously incapable of taking such an oath since they cannot make such a promise to a deity they do not believe in.
There is no reference to any "god" in either oath. The line "so help me god" is not part of the oath of office is and has always been added voluntarily, it is not now, nor has it ever been a requirement. If you don't believe then by all means look it up in the constitution
The oath you take in court isn't "under god", it's "under penalty of perjury". No witness is forced to swear an oath to any "god" or on any holy book, it's simply a fallacy seen far more often on TV then a court room.
Furthermore, serving in public office is not a right, but a privilege. As a privilege, it is very rationally subjected to reasonable qualifcations
And it is constitutionally required that there be "No Religious Test for ANY Office or Public Trust." what part of that do you not understand? You can't just up and decide that there will be a religious test no matter how you rationalize it. You want a religious test the call for an ammendment, otherwise shut up about it.
Scripture tells us atheists are fools.
Scripture also tells you "Whoever would say 'thou fool' is in danger of hellfire."
Can a free people not deny public office to fools?
No, not if they wish to remain a free people.
