Hamilton’s and apparently the signer’s opinion is that the people govern themselves yet grant both their states some governance and the nation limited governance but reserve the right to change either and both of them. But only 70% of delegates to the convention signed the 1787 Constitution, and among the dissenting minority some wanted governance under the states and others wanted governance under their god. They had all been British subjects and some knew no better than British common law: Blackstone. Unfortunately, the signers' tacit intention: governance of by and for a people (Abraham Lincoln's opinion) lost the subsequent debates. Today, many people argue that "consent" means either tacitly or intentionally submitting to governance by the President.
A people might be well served by parents keeping religion private and allowing children to discover religion, depending on whether the child becomes interested in diverse opinions about the unknown or not. (I don't recommend it accept as an art form.) Further to my work, parents and other adults might learn to guide their civic lives according to physics-based ethics (for example, it is unethical to keep trying to fit a square peg in a round hole). Adults should keep religious morality a private affair. A people’s governance requires every religious institution to help cultivate and observe both civic collaboration and civil order (law and its institutions); opinion is insufficient as a basis for either civic safety and security or law.