Check your sources!
If you go a little further down on that very same religioustolerance.org page you've quoted re: the Texas Constitution, you'll find that all such restrictions were struck down by the Supreme Court in
Torcaso v Watkins in 1961:
A U.S. Supreme Court case -- Torcaso v Watkins -- in 1961:
In the early 1960s, the Governor of Maryland appointed Roy Torcaso to be a Notary Public. According to Atheism.About.com:
"When the time came for him to actually assume his duties, he was denied his commission and had his appointment rescinded because he refused to declare his belief in God."
"Article 37 of Maryland's Declaration of Rights stated: 'o religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God'." 3
Torcaso filed suit in state court because he felt the test unfairly penalized him for his lack of belief in God. He argued that the religious test had violated his rights under U.S. Constitution -- both:
The 1st Amendment (which guarantees freedom of religion) and
The 14th Amendment (which makes certain provisions of the Federal Constitution binding on the individual states).
He lost. 4 He appealed to the State Court of Appeals 5 and lost again. Finally, he won before the U.S. Supreme Court. He had the support of the American Ethical Union and the American Jewish Committee, who filed amici curiae ("friends of the court" briefs).
The court ruled unanimously in Torcaso's favor. Justice Black, writing for the justices stated:
"This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States."
This ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court presumably makes all of the religious tests for office in the various states listed above to be unconstitutional.
During the hearing before the Supreme Court, the state tried to make the case that the religious test did not impinge on Torcaso's religious freedom. They stated:
"The petitioner is not compelled to believe or disbelieve, under threat of punishment or other compulsion. True, unless he makes the declaration of belief he cannot hold public office in Maryland, but he is not compelled to hold office."
However, Mr. Justice Black ruled:
"There is, and can be, no dispute about the purpose or effect of the Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement before us - it sets up a religious test which was designed to and, if valid, does bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God from holding a public 'office of profit or trust' in Maryland. The power and authority of the State of Maryland thus is put on the side of one particular sort of believers - those who are willing to say they believe in 'the existence of God.' It is true that there is much historical precedent for such laws. Indeed, it was largely to escape religious test oaths and declarations that a great many of the early colonists left Europe and came here hoping to worship in their own way. It soon developed, however, that many of those who had fled to escape religious test oaths turned out to be perfectly willing, when they had the power to do so, to force dissenters from their faith to take test oaths in conformity with that faith. This brought on a host of laws in the new Colonies imposing burdens and disabilities of various kinds upon varied beliefs depending largely upon what group happened to be politically strong enough to legislate in favor of its own beliefs. The effect of all this was the formal or practical 'establishment' of particular religious faiths in most of the Colonies, with consequent burdens imposed on the free exercise of the faiths of nonfavored believers....."
When our Constitution was adopted, the desire to put the people 'securely beyond the reach' of religious test oaths brought about the inclusion in Article VI of that document of a provision that 'no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States'....."
In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 -304, we said:
"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. . . . Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts, - freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be."
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.'....."
"We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs." 4
The full ruling is well worth reading, It describes the religiously oppressive culture in some of the early colonies, and the vital importance of the separation of church and state in a religiously diverse country. The U.S. may well be soon reverting back to a culture of religious oppression similar to that found in the early colonies.
A footnote about a footnote:
Footnote 11 in Justice Black's ruling states:
"Among the religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others." 4
This footnote is often quoted by religious conservatives to prove that the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes Secular Humanism as a religion. Some then interpret this to mean that any teaching of Humanism in the school violates the principle of separation of church and state. Since the vast majority of Humanists believe in the theory of evolution of the species, many religious conservatives conclude that the teaching of evolution also violates this principle.
They appear to be unaware that footnotes in a court ruling have no force in law. They are merely additional comments added by the author of the ruling.