Your sloppy and willful thinking in a selective minority-driven list of cites ignores the sweep and breadth of the American narrative. Yet you disregard the truth of what I wrote above.
You need to start reading reputable material. Begin with Waldman's Founding Faith.
"Whether in legal briefs or op-ed articles, we are as passionate about religion as the founders were. Unfortunately, our passions make for a lot of sloppy and willful historical thinking and writing. In Founding Faith, Steven Waldman, a veteran journalist and co-founder of Beliefnet.com, a religious Web site, surveys the convictions and legacy of the founders clearly and fairly, with a light touch but a careful eye." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/books/review/Brookhiser-t.html
The article you cite was published in 2008, which is too late to have any relevance, having been tainted by the revisionist doctrines you subscribe to.
Much has been made of Jefferson's copy of the Alcoran of Mohammed, but one need only seek out the copy and read the first few pages to understand the permeation of Christian beliefs in society at the time it was written. It is obvious to even the casual observer that our once great nation is in demise due to the abandonment of Christian doctrines and, if actions speak louder than words, our nation is no longer a Christian nation. However, this does not change history. Our nation was founded by Christian men on Christian principles, with the most sacred of teachings being that our rights are derived from the Creator (capital C). As this belief slowly erodes, we are left with a society in which human rights are granted by the state. One only has to look around at how quickly rights that come from another human with a fancy hat can be disposed of. You and other atheist revisionist like yourself, love to quote Jefferson, albeit, out of context. Jefferson was but one of many founders, and due to his liberal religious leanings, was at times very much anti-Christian. And why not, after having been subject to the religious oppression of England, two camps emerged: One that chose to redefine their beliefs and practice Christianity according to the Bible and not the oppressive church doctrines and the other, that leaned towards abandoning Christianity entirely. This is very much akin to many in the atheist movement today. They are not true atheist in the sense the merely don't believe in God, but are souls that have developed an intense hatred for Him. The source of this hatred can be many things, including a horrendous tragedy they cannot make sense of, an inability to reconcile evil in the world, or perhaps a same sex attraction that ostracizes them from their family. These are the militant atheists that seek to destroy all belief systems that would dare to mention God, for their anger with God is intense. They attack Christians at every turn, and make it their personal mission of hate to distort, discredit and demonize religion. They do not believe in freedom of religion, nor freedom from religion, but seek a world in which the mere mention of God's name would be outlawed.
For your reference:
The Koran: or, Alcoran of Mohammed
Fundies have a habit of purposely lying to further their religious beliefs.
Our nation was founded by Christian men on Christian principles, with the most sacred of teachings being that our rights are derived from the Creator (capital C).
What creator would that be? It certainly is not the Christian creator gods as the Founding Fathers made no mention of Christianity or the Christian gods in the constitution.
It has already been argued and long ago acknowledged that the concept of men's religious beliefs were part and parcel of the founding of the country. However, the wording of the Constitution is clearly meant to encompass numerous beliefs, extant at the time, to cover the general consensus of beliefs. Hence, deistic terms like "Creator" and "Nature's God", "divine Providence" and the quite evident lack of reference to Jesus and Yahweh (despite robust debate to include them). The closest reference is to a "Supreme Judge", but of course that could be Amun Ra, couldn't it?