Mr. Drain,
First: I don’t have a problem with God being the dominant power in a democratic government either, but I also would like to point out that regardless of what views you hold, as a Christian with certain views, you are in all probability part of a minority. And so, if you truly believe in the sort of freedom that this nation has long promised, you must allow for the probability that your views concerning the integration of faith, morality and politics will be rejected. When the culture has completely rejected, politically, the primacy of God in the life of the nation, will you still stand up and defend the nation and its freedoms?
Second: I would argue that it is intellectually and spiritually dishonest to argue that the sort of freedom that America has promised is the sort of freedom that you consider a scriptural icon. I am a pacifist; whenever this fact is mentioned, it always seems like someone has to say, “Well, freedom isn’t free, you know,” or “Be thankful that there are those willing to fight and die so that you can have the freedom not to.” But the freedom that the Bible talks about was not bought by the sacrifice of American soldiers, nor is it currently being thereby secured. It was bought, once and for all, by the blood of Christ on the cross. So freedom may not be free, but the “scriptural icon” of which you speak is not the province of governmental authority.
Third: the hope that people should be able to govern themselves by “an individual understanding of religious truths” is illusory. An individual understanding of religious truths should make people less concerned with and less devoted to their governing authorities or the righteousness thereof, and instead redirect our attentions to the prospect of a kingdom that transcends national boundaries that will never be brought down by any nation’s fall.

On the other hand, history has taught us not to let religious people gain power over us, who are not willing to be our servants. Power does corrupt.

jdrain