Its certainly disputed in the way that you present it. Our nation has never embraced a theocracy.
PatrickHenry and others have repeated refuted (with evidence) your claims of the constitution being based on scripture yet you continue make unfounded assertions. You stated that the founders showed their intent of Christian state by putting it on our money and the pledge - yet it was pointed out that both of those phrases were added in the 20th century.
Others have pointed out how scripture has been wrongly interpreted as literal by the church in the past, yet you respond with "I don't know anything about that so I can't comment." You have been presented a lot of good information in these threads that you just choose to ignore.
WHile technically correct, your statement is, at the least, misleading, since more than a few of the states had established religions. In fact Ct did not disestablish until well into the 19th century.
Actually, see 541, Patrick Henry is "quite contented" by the Christian foundation of this country. Your right, our country is not too keen on theocracies. Iran is a theocracy - a government imposing by force a religion, the Taliban - I would no longer have a head.
Having the moral background of our country based on Christian philosophy is not a theocracy, nor an imposition on anyone's freedom to practice or not to practice a religion. Last time I checked, we were the country that welcomes religious freedom and have the most diverse religous culture in the world.
Finally, being honest and saying I don't know is not being ignorant. It's called being honest. I don't believe I ignored anything posed, but if I did, by all means present it to me.