Okay, let me go a bit more in-depth.
I can't actually comment on this one because I'm unsure of what exactly you mean. If you mean that this is a good policy for Christians to follow personally, I would agree. If you mean that the law should officially reflect this, I would have to ask you to elaborate further on what that would entail.
This is a very bad idea. The founders wrote the establishment and free exercise clauses for a reason. History shows us that theocratic governments (at least those governed by humans who claim to speak for God) have a very poor track record when it comes to human rights. Under such a government, people who belong to other religions, or even other denominations of Christianity, would have their rights infringed upon. Maybe you don't care about that, but you should also consider what will happen if the group that gains power isn't the one you follow. I don't know what denomination you are, but think about what would happen if another church (one that you don't agree with) gained control of the government. Your rights would be curtailed - you would have to worship the way they told you to, you would have to defer to them on everything - this is why theocracy is bad. Until Jesus Christ Himself returns and establishes His kingdom on earth, I do not trust any government that claims to rule in the name of God. Because the people at the top will be corrupt.
Assuming that you mean what I think you mean, this also sounds like a bad idea. Why would you want to send civilians into war zones? That is a surefire way to get people killed.
'Hate speech' is a touchy issue. In the US, there are actually no laws against hate speech - only hate crimes. In order for someone to get in legal trouble for inciting hatred through speech, there must be a direct and immediate incitement to violence (for example, if someone said 'I hate black people, we would be better off if they were all dead', that's not illegal. But if they said 'go out and kill as many black people as you can, right now', that would).
So really, this is not so much a bad suggestion as an unnecessary one.
This is also a bad idea, for similar reasons as the second one. Just to start off with, not every student in public schools is Christian, and it's not the government's job to proselytize. If they ever tried to do this, they'd also have to allow rabbis, imams, even satanists in to preach to the kids as well, as the government is required to be neutral in terms of religion. If you want to abolish that and create a theocracy, well, see above.
This seems rather unclear. You have not explained what role these leaders would have. Are they advisors or policy makers? Also, many denominations are not going to agree on many pivotal points. Furthermore, how do you determine if someone is a prophet? Personally I am unconvinced that anyone today has the gift of prophecy, but assuming that they do, what will be the metric for determining that? Will there be studies done to determine which prophets make the most accurate prophecies? If so, why limit it only to Christians, if other people are (theoretically) able to make accurate predictions?
Again, I mistrust humans who are given political power because they claim to speak for God. They will inevitably abuse this power for their own ends. And what if your chosen prophets disagree? One might say that God wants us to to go war, and another might say that He doesn't. How do you determine who is correct?
Exclusively? Not only would this trample the rights of other citizens, but it would also greatly reduce the amount of people working for such agencies, so far fewer children would be helped.
Murder is already illegal. As for abortion, it would be ideal if it didn't happen, but passing a blanket ban would just lead to more illegal abortions, which are far more dangerous for the mother as well. The proven best way to reduce abortion is via comprehensive sex education and access to birth control.
They already are? But again, if you're implying that non-Christian religious organizations should not receive tax exemptions, that would again be an abuse of power.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. By any interpretation I can think of, it's already allowed.
Seems like a decent idea, but I have reservations. Why shouldn't this apply to all non-profit organizations, for example?
I am unsure about this. I definitely support charity, but encouraging people to rely on strangers instead of working for a living has its problems.
I am unaware of any such situations in the US.
As a national policy? I'm not sure the former would be practical - it might not be possible to feed everyone if no farming was done for an entire year. Our population, economy, and agriculture is significantly different from that of ancient Israel.
The United States of America is nor a corporation. Furthermore, you would have to completely throw out the Constitution to apply most of these as laws.