This may be tangential to the main thrust of this thread, but bear with me, as it might make any discussions of US Constitutional law moot. There is a large hole in the logic of the Constitution.

From the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. This is quite clear, and makes no distinction between religions. Incidentally, it is probable that the Founders and those not long after them didn’t even think about the possible problems with this, because they thought that the USA would always be essentially Christian although the particular majority sect might vary.

The problem is that the free exercise of one particular religion means the freedom to commit sedition, as for one particular religion the writings of its founder are held to be the basis of the workings of the State.

So; is it reasonable for the Constitution to permit the exercise of one particular religion, when the exercise of that religion means its adherents seeking to overthrow the Constitution as a whole and replace it with something wholly different?

I submit that another amendment might be in order. Something like: “The free exercise of religion set forth in the First Amendment shall not be taken to include religious beliefs and practises contrary to this Constitution as a whole”. I am not a lawyer and the language needs tidying up, of course; but this might be a protection against zealots of any stripe taking over the government of the USA. This does not just include Islamic zealots, of course; for a rather good treatment of another sort of zealotry see Heinlein’s “If This Goes On…”.