And that's why I said I think it is problematic, and worthy of discussion. There is a very real problem with the religious; they have vowed their fealty to another ungovernable, vague, and intangible being, whose desires and wants are unknown, and are only guessed at by adherents who choose to interpret those desires through their own lenses. In short, there are no rules in religion. But there are ample demonstrations of people using a widely disputed interpretation of religion, to legislate. Incorrect. The goofy adage that religion is like a penis (fine in private, but not in public) stands as a sobering reminder of what religion does to those who promote it. Having belief is fine. Spreading or advocating for that belief system is problematic. Especially for someone in public office. I would NOT feel comfortable going into his office and taking a meeting on a topic I am concerned about, because I know he and I are not playing by the same set of rules. He has an extra set of secret rules and guidelines he keeps hidden under his desk, that I don't know or understand. So he is not a public servant for me; he's serving god, and me in his spare time as long as what I want follows along with his beliefs. That's fucked up, and seriously worrying. A man whose career has been orating and spiritual advice should not, in my opinion, be disqualified.
If "being religious is not a disqualifying factor" then proselytization cannot be a disqualifying factor.