The difference being: when traditionally-minded, Christian men have been in charge, they have on several occasions gone to great lengths to establish government that is constrained and leaves other men free to live by their conscience, secure in their private lives.
When the oh-so-tolerant secularists have been in charge, they have never once created anything other than a finger-wagging regime that micro-manages the lives of others.
So, no-- my dichotomy checks out. Your
ideals may be fine, but reality doesn't support them. What I hold up as the goal has demonstrably been done. As
@LordsFire indicated: it was sort of the whole point of what America's Founding Fathers were trying for. Meanwhile, your stated goal remains purely hypothetical. A secular regime that leaves people alone and doesn't meddle? No such animal has ever been known to exist.
So, basically, I'm saying we should have a good horse instead of an ill-tempered jackass, and you prefer a unicorn instead. Cool idea, but I don't see it working out.