States petition for secession

Instead of assuming the worst about my motivations and how all this would necessarily play out according to your most jaundiced imagination, why not consider the various problems and look for solutions to them? I'm arguing this in good faith, looking for GOOD solutions for ALL concerned, not trying to cheat anybody out of anything. Your insinuations are disgusting.

Since you refuse to consider any of this in good faith, the conversation is over.

Well, shouldn't you consider that that "original Protestant Christianity" is deserving of being "undermined and lost"?

Especially since your own particular Christianity is of later origin?

And since the "founding inspiration of the country" is not your own particular flavor of Christianity, but rather something more derived from the Enlightenment?

Assuming that the Revolutionary Period common Christianity would have been identical to your own particular Christianity is rather obsurd, whouldn't you have to agree?

Especially considering the many new aspects to your theology that post-dates the Revolution?

Archibald Alexander Hodge? Cannot find at the moment anything about public education.

Though your appeal to "Protestants" continues to imply some kind of uniformity that simply does not exist in any specific manner.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Oscar? Which means "What the frak, over?". Which means that that makes no actual sense whatsoever.
From the Declaration of Independence, we are talking about the Rights of Man and not about the Divine Rights of Kings.

That's what makes Jefferson's document so revolutionary. From the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America: which in the "secular humanist" Radical Religious Right (RRR) rhetorics of the 1980's was "secular humanism" at its worst.
So then just what precisely are you referring to?

Yes, the sentiment against Catholics was strong in colonial times. And it was strong throughout the 19th century. And it was still strong up until 1960 when we elected a Catholic President. So what?
Does the First Amendment only apply to your own particularly approved of brand of Christians? Or does it apply to all Americans?

It seems that Jefferson intended to include Hinduism and Islam.

It's quote clear that at least some of the Founders wanted a secular state, and the evidence suggests that they largely won. The Treaty of Tripoli is pretty clear, for, instance. If they had intended to give Protestant Christianity a special place, why is there no evidence of it in the actual Constitution ?

Free exercise of religion does NOT require official government support for your religion (and only your religion), no matter how often people like you try to pretend otherwise. So of course it can be a private matter in that sense. Why should it not ?

Religion in the Public Schools, The New Princeton Review 3, 1, 1887.It is absolutely impossible to separate religious ideas from the great mass of human knowledge...where these are not positively implied they are virtually denied.Education involves the training of the whole man and of all the faculties, of conscience and of the affections, as well as of the intellect...A purely non-theistic treatment of [English]...would not merely falsify the truth of the subject, but would necessarily make it an instrument of conveying positively antitheistic and antichristian ideas. All history is a product of divine Providence, and is instinct with the divine ends and order... It is self-evident that a non-theistic or a non-christian treatment of...history would be utterly superficial and misrepresenting. It cannot be questioned that morals rest on a religious basis, and that a non-theistic ethics is equivalent to a positively antitheistic one. The same is no less true of science in all its departments...If God is not therein recognized he is denied, and a non-theistic science has always been and will always be a positively atheistic and materialistic one.Wm. T. Harris well says...‘whosoever teaches another view of the world... teaches a doctrine subversive of faith... and also subversive of man's life in all that makes it worth living.’These infinite evils...cannot be corrected by the supplementary agencies of the Christian home, the Sabbath-school, or the church...Poison and its antidote together never constitute nutritious food. And it is simply madness to attempt the universal distribution of poison on the ground that other parties are endeavoring to furnish a partial distribution of an imperfect antidote.Evangelical Theology, Banner of Truth, 1976, [1890], pgs.242-245.
The atheistic doctrine is gaining currency, even among professed Christians and even among some bewildered Christian ministers, that an education provided by the common government for the children of diverse religious parties should be entirely emptied of all religious character...It is capable of exact demonstration that if every party in the State has the right of excluding from the public schools whatever he does not believe to be true, then he that believes most must give way to him that believes leastIt is self-evident that on this scheme, if it is consistently and persistently carried out in all parts of the country, the United States system of national popular education will be the most efficient and wide instrument for the propagation of atheism which the world has ever seen (242,243).The claim of impartiality between positions as directly contradictory as that of Jews, Mohammedans, and Christians, and especially as that of theists and of atheists, is evidently absurd. And no less is the claim absurd and impossible that a system of education can be indifferent on these fundamental subjects. There is no possible branch of human knowledge which is not purely formal, like abstract logic or mathematics, which can be known or taught in a spirit of entire indifference between theism and atheism. Every department... must be in reality one or the other: if it be not positively and confessedly theistic, it must be really and in full effect atheistic. The physical as well as the moral universe must be conceived either in a theistic or an atheistic light...Teleology [that everything has a purpose and is ordered to definite ends] must be acknowledged everywhere or be denied everywhere. Philosophy, ethics, jurisprudence, political and social science, can be conceived of and treated only from a theistic or from an atheistic point of view. The proposal to treat them from a neutral point of view is ignorant and absurd (243).The prevalent superstition that men can be educated for good citizenship, or for any other use under heaven, without religion, is as unscientific and unphilosophical as it is irreligious (244).It is no answer to say that the deficiency of the national system of education in this regard will be adequately supplied by the activities of the Christian churches. No court would admit in excuse for the diffusion of poison the plea that the poisoner knew of another agent actively employed in diffusing an antidote...atheism taught in the school cannot be counteracted by theism taught in the Church. Theism and atheism cannot coalesce to make anything. All truth in all spheres is organically one and vitally inseparable. It is impossible for different agencies independently to discuss and inculcate the religious and the purely naturalistic sides of truth (244,245).I am as sure as I am of the fact of Christ's reign that a comprehensive and centralized system of national education separated from religion, as is now commonly proposed, will prove the most appalling enginery for the propagation of anti-Christian and atheistic unbelief, and of anti-social, nihilistic ethics, individual, social and political, which this sin-rent world has every seen (245).

My beliefs are the same as theirs.

No, I consider that to have been a betrayal of the Biblical faith that founded the nation.

Far as I know there are no "new aspects to my theology." I'm sure you have something in mind but I can't imagine what, nothing I'd consider essential no doubt and in fact probably sects I'd regard as apostate or cults.

Not if you include everybody who claims the title (and I've been half expecting JAR to show up with his complaints about this, perhaps he will yet), but it does if you define it by objective standards of doctrine that date back to the Reformation. You can generally define it as "Bible believers," the faith that is based on the Bible as the one true authority.

Poor persecuted you.........