Agreed. If nothing else, people who intend to create a theocracy seem unlikely to list "freedom of religion" as the very first amendment in their bill of rights.I mostly agree. I think it is obvious the founding fathers used Christianity as a moral guide - since most of them were Christians and they were creating a set of rules for a mostly Christian nation and were basing those rules off of the rules of England which also was a mostly Christian nation. They definately did not create a theocracy, or ever intend to create one.
I had heard that Islam makes specific allowances for people to practice religions other than Islam, and that, however restricted, is more than can be said for most other religions. I'm not an expert on Islam though, so that interpretation could be wrong...and even if it wasn't, it's hardly the ideal version of freedom of religion. And in any case, may modern Islamic countries are hardly sterling examples of that religious freedom.Islam is really not much different from other religions in the regard to allowing them. Polytheists are on the "kill on sight" list, as are atheists. Jews and Christians are allowed provided they do not mind being second class citizens and pay a special "you are not a Muslim so suck it up" tax. Not saying other religions are better, simply saying Islam is not better.
Eastern religions seem to fare better for some reason, but I'd overall agree that the three major Western religions aren't really ideal examples of freedom of religion.