What is reasonable is for the religious to make completely acceptable exemptions while performing certain tasks, like biking, for their own safety, and that of the the public, not to mention tax dollars saved in the treatment of accidents from those disobeying common sense laws like helmets.
I think you may be confusing Western society with the US. It's not a tenet, fundamental or otherwise, of many Western societies.
But otherwise, I would tend to agree with you. Some people don't. But I don't have a serious objection to the decision even though I wouldn't have made it myself.
It's a fairly common element of Western societies, though the particular expression varies; ranging from broad tolerance despite a formally established religion through a firm secularism in the public square; the US, though it professes a reasonably strong though not extreme form that amounts to neutrality actually has fairly weak separation between privileged religious communities and government power in practice.
Jesse Ventura, Barney Frank, Pete Stark, and Jared Huffman, among others, would seem to refute this. I mean, I assume Governor's offices and the House of Representatives qualify as “meaningful public office”.
No, that's just over the last 20 (no plus) years; each of the identified people has been elected to Congress or a Governor's office in 1998 or later.
It's true that the preceding 200+ years of US history had a substantially lower (but nonzero, even in comparable offices) average frequency of publicly non-religious office holders, but that's about how the US was not how it is.