Linker's proposed "religious test"

In the Washington Post, Damon Linker (author of "Theocons"), proposes a "religious test" for all political candidates:

Instead of attempting the impossible task of abolishing faith from the political conversation, we need a new kind of religious test for our leaders. Unlike the tests proscribed by the Constitution, this one would not threaten to formally bar members of specific traditions from public office. But religious convictions do not always harmonize with the practice of democratic government, and allowing voters to explore the dissonance is legitimate. . . .

This "test's" questions would include the following:

How might the doctrines and practices of your religion conflict with the fulfillment of your official duties?

Now, it seems obvious to me that every candidate may and should be asked questions that go to his or her willingness and ability to fulfill their "official duties."  But, I am not sure why a desire to "transform[] the world in the image of their beliefs" is either (i) particular to religious believers or (ii) particularly remarkable.  I assume that everyone in public service wants to "transform[] the world in the image of [his or her] beliefs," at least to some extent.  Certainly, we may and should think and ask about the means by which a candidate proposes to facilitate this transformation, and also about the content of the beliefs at issue, but -- again -- I would not think this question needs to be seen as part of a "religious test." 

Another question:

How would you respond if your church issued an edict that clashed with the duties of your office?

Here, Linker identifies, as an example of such an "edict", the teaching of many Catholic bishops that Catholic leaders should work to outlaw abortion, "even though the Supreme Court has declared it a constitutionally protected right, and even if the candidate's constituents are overwhelmingly pro-choice."  But, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's "declar[ation]" and the views of a candidate's constituents, it does not "clash[] with the duties of . . . office" for a political leader to (i) think that the Court, and her constituents, are mistaken about abortion and so to (ii) work, within the given constraints, to move law and policy in a different direction.

And then there's this:

Do you believe the law should be used to impose and enforce religious views of sexual morality?

Sure, every citizen should want to know about every candidate whether or not that candidate believes the law should be used to coerce citizens to engage in religious practices or comply with religious obligations.  And, putting aside the question whether sexual morality is "religious" or not, it seems to me that every candidate should appreciate the limits that privacy, prudence, and human dignity place on governments' efforts to regulate sexual activity.  But, as the ongoing debates about same-sex marriage, abortion, embryo-destructive research, etc., (should) make clear, it is rarely obvious that the "morality" being enforced or promoted through law and policy (and some morality almost always is being enforced or promoted through law and policy) is distinctly (and so objectionably) "religious."