Theocracy vs. Collectivism

Responding to my proposition:

Which makes you more uncomfortable?
A) The gradual incorporation of religious ideology into the institutions of a nominally secular state?
OR
B) An increase in the top marginal tax rate of somewhere between 1% and 5%?

...several correspondents believe it is biased because I'm comparing "a fundamental shift in the role of religion in our society on a macroscopic scale" to "one small public-policy decision." This is indeed what I'm doing, but the reason that the question is not biased is it reflects that actual choice before voters in this election and for the foreseeable future. I concede that the way I framed the question was unnecessarily abstract, so let me try to do a better job.

The reality of the American system of government and economics is a compromise between social democracy and capitalism. None of us will ever live to see Franklin Roosevelt's welfare state dismantled (though it may be rendered obsolete by technology), nor, since Reagan brought the top tax rate out of the stratosphere, will the debate over rates of income taxes ever extend to much more than an argument about the extent to which, within a few percentage points, income taxes ought to be graduated. John Kerry may be proposing an increase in the top marginal rate. He certainly wouldn't do any worse than President Bush at expanding the size of government---and let's seriously give up on the notion that the Republicans, who control both the presidency and Congress, and have facilitated the largest expansion of the government since LBJ, are a party whose values are in line with those of libertarians. Something all elephant sympathizing libertarians should take into account is that the middle class tax burden has actually increased under the Bush administration, and although it's hard to pin Kery down on any position, my understanding is that he at least pays lip-service to cutting taxes for the middle class.

So let's take stock of the options the two parties offer us:
A) i. Public financing of religious organizations
ii. A Justice Dept. that spends tax dollars prosecuting pornographers
iii. A loosening of electoral restrictions enabling churches to participate in campaigns while retaining their tax-exempt status
iv. An FCC determined to root out "offensive" material from television
v. DOJ lawsuits to overturn medical marijuana laws
vi. Aggressive campaigns to prevent public initiatives on drug decriminalization from succeeding
vii. A proposed amendment to the nation's founding document that will essentially enshrine a passage in Leviticus into civil law
viii. At the state and local level, initiatives to enable the teaching of creationism in biology classes, as well as the removal of any discussion of evolution from public school curricula
ix. The consistent use of religious rhetoric as a means of garnering votes, racheting up national religiosity, and continuing to make the election of atheists impossible for all practical purposes
x. Blocking life-saving advancements in stem cell research and therapeutic cloning [added this one several hours after this item was original posted---and can't believe I forgot to mention it---F.]
xi. This could go on for some time, you know.

OR

B) i. An increase in the top marginal tax rate somewhere between 1% and 5% and a reinstatement of estate taxes, both of which could be at least partly offset by tax cuts for middle and low income earners, as well as reductions in corporate welfare
ii. Some sort of addition to the federal health care entitlement, unlikely to be significantly larger than Mr. Bush's medicare expansion.

I'll close with a related question, which I do not mean to pose rhetorically: if a president were to cut taxes on middle and low income earners, and raise taxes on upper income earners by the same percentage relative to the respective abilities of all three groups to pay taxes, so that say, 70% of the people had their taxes cut and 30% had their taxes raised, would the result be an overall increase in freedom from government interference.