I appreciate your reply. I would ask that you reread that same document and then make a determination as to whether or not Islam, as per the Qur'an and the Hadiths, as well as what history now knows of Muhammad would be considered by Jefferson to be "the wretched purpose of changing this master for that."
His Letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush (Washington, April 21, 1803) is most revealing in regard to his personal religious beliefs, as well as to the fact that he considered himself a Christian in the "true" sense; not that he believed in the mysticism surrounding the life of Christ, but that he thought Jesus brought to mankind the most important moral teachings of anyone in the history of mankind.
If one were to compare his thoughts on Jesus to his limited thoughts on Muhammad, it is easy to see that he considered them polar opposites. I don't think he was particularly crazy about paying jiyzah to the Barbary pirates either.
Then there is Samuel Johnston who said "Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, [unless] first the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves."
Scary thought, in my opinion.
Patrick Henry, of course, was opposed to Jefferson and afraid the Virginia legisture could be filled with atheists or Mohameddans who were unfriendly to liberty or to the morals of a free country.
John Quincy Adams was probably the most outspoken in regard to Islam:
"…he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God…the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force."
He also made this comment: "The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute."
Joseph Story said "“ At the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration [i.e., the First Amendment], the general, if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship.” He could not have made a similar statement in regard to Islam.
So yes, the founders lived in dangerous times and chose to protect religious freedom, but I maintain that their knowledge of Islam was limited and that few really thought America would be beseiged by it, although some did state such fears.
Islam is not a religion in the same way Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. are religions. It is an ideological state with its own system of justice. It is incompatible with our Bill of Rights and with our Constitution.
beseiged=besieged
I believe that your quotes indicate that some of the founders were very aware of Islam, they had some very strong feelings about its merit, and they *still* chose to protect religious freedom. Are you really that frightened of Muslims that you would throw away our freedoms like that?
So you would have us institute a religious test to hold office? How exactly would that work?
Would the local city council be forced to swear that they do not believe Muhammad was the prophet of God? Would our state representatives have to take a lie-detector test to make sure they don't pray to Allah? Would we raid the houses of our congressman to find Korans? Would we have secret police following judges home to make sure they don't stop at the mosque?
If you think there is any way to administer a religious test for public office that doesn't involve at least these types of measures, I would be interested to hear of them.