To put a test on dogma that evaluates whether it calls for the conversion of unbelievers by pain of death or economic hardship in absence of voluntary acceptance slants the US toward Christianity is your first unsubstantiated assertion.
How would it do that?
Let's say your right, and I may be too slow to see why you're right.
The constitution already had a Christian, if not definitely Deist, on it in the first place. How would slanting a country founded by Christians and other Deists back toward Deism somehow worse than allowing the country to accept as normative infanticide, sodomy, and families in which the parentage is by the committee of the “present” or “available”, and not by what has been fundamentally established for the human race by nature itself?
I think the second question is probably more debatable than the first, since the first assertion has little if no basis in the first place.
I, however, will indulge your attempts. I'm all ears.
I don't want any tests about religion. I don't want any decisions made on my behalf because of religion. I couldn't tell you if it's Deist, Theist, or Mama-meist; those words are too “ist” for me, but I can tell you that what you propose feels “wrong” to me. I have my own religious beliefs, and others have theirs. I'm pretty tolerant of theirs and all of the folks that I know personally who have religious beliefs seem to be pretty tolerant of mine. For me to now put a test on all of the folks that I know personally who have religious beliefs to determine if their beliefs fit into the parameters of what I think a religious belief ought to be just isn't right for me. I don't want any part of that judgment. It's not how I live my life.
I understand and agree that there are extremists in all religions and based on the law of the land they should be punished appropriately. I'm not really talking about those folks because their actions are clearly criminal. And I don't think you're talking about those folks either, because I think you're talking about an entire religion that particular extremist groups claim to represent. An entire religion.
As a taxpayer I shouldn't have to judge the religious beliefs of another fellow taxpayer when determining who has to pay their fair share of taxes. From my perspective as a tax-paying-law-abiding citizen, I don't want to give any religion a break. In my eyes religions should be treated like businesses and taxed accordingly. It is generated income after all.
That's how I feel.