At our founding it was a local issue. Massachusetts didn't disestablish until 1820. It wasn't a matter of it being "shoved down our throats" in the way secular humanism is now. People could move to places more attuned to their personal beliefs.
"People could move to places more attuned to their personal beliefs."
Didn't ignore it. I mostly don't get caught up in arguments on FR. This time I did, somewhat.
As to your later post, quoting my comment--
I'm pretty comfortable with my understanding of our legal and religious heretige. I believe it was intended that our civil laws aimed from the outset to avoid a particular religious interpretation being lorded over us.
ps. I also have early ancestors at Falmouth, ME. I'll spare the genealogy, but to say they were from the early Ulster-Irish that first landed Boston 1718, then Londonderry & Nutfield, then Falmouth, ME, then Granville, Nova Scotia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londonderry,_New_Hampshire
Those settlers were Presbyterians. I read that town council meetings decided early on allowing multiple religious denominations at Falmouth. I think in Canada they became Baptists, because they named children after prominent preachers of that time and place.
Mine went to Canada (about 1756) at the invite of the Crown, as what were then called "Planters." Later moving to New Brunswick, they next went to Minnesota in 1856, and Califonia in 1928. (Another line, from NH went to California for the Gold Rush).