A Theocracy, under any name, Iran being the most prominent current, is exactly what the founders wanted to avoid.
Of course some were more hostile to the idea than others, Adams for example. But let there be no mistake, Jefferson and many of the founders were Free Masons first and foremost, the square of such was fundamental to their beliefs, and even much of our government structure was based upon those tenets.
Central to that system is the belief in God. To be more specific, in Free Masonry that would be the God of Abraham, nothing more, nothing less, but let us be realistic, especially in dealing with Jeffersons views, he would not have wanted influence from the other path of the God of Abraham, which was from the Mohammed, and he had not only the historical relevance of dealing with that group (the studied and written history of Masonry going back to the Crusades, Knights Templars etc.), but also a pragmatic personal perspective that came from dealing with the Barbaries.
Again, one can take any individual founder figure, and read their writings. The Federalist Papers read like a soap opera, with each individual have a strong belief, many times diametrically opposed to others.
Ben Franklin was much more pragmatic, and was NOT held in high regard by many of the Christian churches in the area because of his belief that the Church held no sway over government, he was not inclined to submit to the idea that a priest or pastor or whatever hold power in our government, but indeed those people come to the table of the government with all of their wisdom, BUT while at the table of government, they were representative of ALL of their people, not just those of their congregation. In other words, the were public servants while in court, and happily, priest or pastor on their own time.
One of Franklin’s famous quotes which was printed in his Almanac was “Lighthouses have more value than Church’s”. This did nothing to endear him to the hearts of the clergy.
Then we have Adams who was full swing against any sort of religious influence, but even though he thought he was quite clever, one cannot merely make rules for a better life out of thin air, without asking why those rules are in place. They are there because of the Ten Commandments, or perhaps as he argued, it was human nature to be lawful. Most people digress that notion.
In Madison’s writings of the 1820’s (which were considered to be summaries of his early thoughts), he expounded: “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.” and “Every new and successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance.”
But in all, the founders were in agreement that ALL would have a seat at the table, the deist and the pious, and all would have an equal voice.
The main idea in all though, was that after both a bloody revolution with the King of England and the Church of England (both ruled by the same), our nation would not be allowed to follow the same path.
Of course. And then did fairly well. I'm not sure how it could have been done better without throwing out all "religion" entirely.
Which if they had done so, would have brought the nation's founding principles to the being under assault by present-times Godlessness of the left wing even faster than it has.
You had set up a theoretical, then made a comparison which would have had the U.S. ending up as equivalent with Iran.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but to make the comparison level, then those of Iran too would have to have everything boiled down to one single passage of what among themselves is authoritative religious text.
Hey, why stop there?
What if it were to also be boiled down here in the USA, to one single passage of text from among what Bible-rejecting atheists would accept as authoritative?
They could not consult now with the Constitution, not without ignoring, fully setting aside the most basic and fundamental premises which provided foundation for that document to arise in the first place, leaving that text (and thus themselves also, whenever leaning upon that) bereft of standing as authoritative, and so would need to turn elsewhere.
Toss the premises aside which gave standing for the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution becomes just another instruction manual that was produced by government ---making it out to be that our rights are not inalienable for having been bestowed upon man by "Nature's God", as the founder's of this nation wrote of that entity--- but instead that our rights are derived and "bestowed" upon us by the largess of government itself.
That was not the framer's intent.