What if a "litmus test" is illegal?

The constitution states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" -- could asking a judicial nominee whether he or she believes in god be construed as such a test?

People vote on things that they shouldn't all the time. There's no proscription against asking a question... or against showing pictures of ugly candidates...

Some people will think that if the nominee was just asked if he or she believed in god and not how they practiced would put it on the borderline but since the question will bring up and by doing so, define the nominee's religious belief system as a necessary qualifier in the community's mindset - it is a test. Why else would such a question be asked?
Let's look at it this way. You're part of a very close-knit community with a large population of Christian churchgoers of various denominations and perhaps a few Synagogues - as most communities are in America. This question is asked of a nominee -
An Atheist will say no. (A smart-assed Atheist would reply "sure, I believe in dog...") A Buddhist or Spiritualist/Deist can possibly say no. A Polytheist will probably say "It's so hard to choose; I prefer(name of god/goddess), but this other one could be of help when considering (stranger assault, business fraud, domestic, murder, etc, cases)..." And then, there's those who will say "None of your business what my personal faith is".

The large number of Christian Church goers are not going to see a nominee that answers as above to be a Good Christian, in lockstep with their "moral core", no matter how radical the denomination is. I've met a large number of Episcopalians and Presbyterians who will vote for a Catholic, a Jew, or Pentecostal type before they vote for an Atheist or Wiccan because of the Monotheistic "No God before Me" religious factor and the cultural familiarity of the candidate, no matter what qualifications there are between the two candidates. They want someone who they know will respect their beliefs and probably view them as good people when they come up before the bench. It's almost as if by insuring that the candidate is a strong Monotheistic believer, they view this as insuring the possibility of their Salvation in both this world and the next, that both God and Man will judge them on their faith as well as their actions.

Most people will ignore a nominee's political affiliation and personal issues (nominee could be: single or married twice, had kids or didn't have kids, was a coach or community volunteer - or spent their time advancing in their field, owned a business that prospered or the business went bankrupt, etc...) before they'd ignore the religious factor.

This becomes another reason to or not to vote for or approve the nominee outside their qualifications for the job - moreso than asking if they are "tough on crime", believe in rehabilitation, or how a strictly they feel they should enforce the Law by the state and federal Constitutions.

Asking publicly if someone believes in God is a loaded question on so many levels and would only be asked if it was deemed important to the community that there be some standard religious thought in their community leaders. And that, my friend, is a religious litmus test.
(Unlike the many policy litmus tests, such as abortion/civil rights, handling crime and criminals, environmental or infrastructure support...)

Haele