In the same way that civil rights laws established not just the legal but also the moral norm that one simply does not discriminate on the basis of race — changing the practice of one generation and the consciousness of the next — so the constitutional injunction against religious tests is meant to make citizens understand that such tests are profoundly un-American. ~Charles Krauthammer
No, the injunction was meant and is still meant to prevent federal offices from being dependent on whether or not you confess a particular creed or religion. When it was written, there were many state religious tests (because there were still a few state established churches), and there were likely members of the Constitutional Convention who had no problem in principle with religious tests in their own states. What they would not accept is the religious test that someone from another church in another state might try to impose on them through the federal government. Krauthammer does at least admit that the prohibition of religious tests is a prohibition against what the government does, not a statement about what citizens may or may not do in selecting their representatives. It’s a funny word, representative. Taken at face value, you might even think that it is supposed to mean that citizens select those whom they believe best represents them. All this complaining about prohibitions against religious tests is a concerted effort to make people feel guilty for wanting what they regard as their best representation.
But there is some hope for common ground: both Krauthammer and Huckabee seem to be of the mistaken view that laws establish moral norms. This is particularly bizarre in the American context, since such laws would likely have never been enacted by elected representatives unless there was already some considerable moral consensus behind them that enacting the law, and enforcing existing moral norms, was the appropriate and right thing to do.