WTH? Again? Nobody says you claim "it requires only a religious test." You created that qualification after the fact because you were caught misrepresenting what the statute says.
More right wing alternate reality. Christ its so prevalent that conservatives don't even try -- he even linked the very statute that doesn't say what he claims. If wingnuts want to believe something, then it magically becomes true. That's the same process that got us in this mess to begin with. Feeble minded right wingers wanted everyone else to be afraid and believe Saddaam would nuke us, so they just believed it and passed it along as truth.
I also appreciate the rich sense of history or modern day conservative politicians have. There's a reason for the "no religious tests" clause in the constitution -- early colonialists hated and were afraid of the old test acts, which is sort of what right wingers want to re-institute. No wonder the con law professor is offended - anybody with a sense of history and the constitution would be uneasy with a religious means test.
(b) Conditions for granting asylum
(1) In general
(A) Eligibility
The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may grant asylum to an alien who has applied for asylum in accordance with the requirements and procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General under this section if the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General determines that such alien is a refugee within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title.
(B) Burden of proof
(i) In general
The burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that the applicant is a refugee, within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title. To establish that the applicant is a refugee within the meaning of such section, the applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.