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.
Being "aware" of Islam and being knowledgeable about it are two different things. As is having an educated, reasonable fear of Islam, and being "frightened of Muslims." What does frightens me is the lack of knowledge about Islam in this country and the ensuing sheep-like acceptance by non-Muslims of Islam as inherently peaceful. It is not. I suggested I would be interested in seeing how/if Jefferson might change specific language used in the Constitution if he had the information on Islam and the life of Muhammad available to him that is available to us today. This is not to say I believe in the Constitution as a living, breathing document. I do not. It is purely hypothetical on my part and I look to his many letters, etc. for an indication of how he would react.
Are we to encourage a cult that has been at war within and without for 1400 years? There is little to distinguish Islamic ideology from other more recent bizarre cults other than the number of followers. It is a supremacist ideology that lends itself easily to violence because Muhammad was a violent man.
A religious test? No. Education about the truth of Muhammad, and of Islam as a supremacist political, cultural, (and military where possible) cultish ideology which masquerades since the time of Muhammad as religion? Yes.
Why is our Supreme Court building adorned by a sculpture of Muhammad? His legal system - shar'ia? Does this mean Americans should revere and welcome those who follow the laws of Muhammad? If Muslims amass in one area of the country, elect their own representatives and begin to use shar'ia, does that, in effect, create a state within a state? They are trying to do this in Canada and in Britain now, as well as many other countries, and have seen some amount of success.
There was a case 2 weeks ago in Grand Rapids, Michigan where a Muslim woman complained that she was not allowed to ride the bus because she was wearing the hiqab. The Rapids bus system changed their security rule of not allowing masks to allow her to ride the bus because she is Muslim. This is happening all over this country. Special rules for Muslims.
Perhaps we need to demand Qur'anic reform, although having painted themselves into a corner by insisting the book is the word of allah, rather than that of Muhammad, it is difficult to see that happening anytime soon.
Something needs to be done. I don't have the answer, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop asking the questions. The future of our country is at risk.
Is it so much a religious test as a test for fealty to a political system antithetical to a republic of free men (and women)? Islam is not merely a religion, but is a violent political system embedded in religious clothing.