There is a lot I want to refute here, but I think there is one root problem that branches out to all other elements of this debate.
Because some Christians today interpret the Bible literally, and because for centuries most did, people with a certain unfriendly attitude toward religion use the fact that recent findings have (convincingly) called into question the historical validity of the Bible in order to discredit entirely all belief systems related to the Bible. That is absolutely wrong, and unfortunate.
Although, there are certainly groups of Christians that are biblical literalists and some others who are awaiting the end of the world, this is not even close to the majority of Christians. So while archaeological findings that indicate historical inaccuracies in the Bible may be a huge problem for the fundamentalist minority, it does not in any way pose a major problem for other Christians. I can tell you from experience that we Catholics don't consider this issue to be of a dangerous concern. For our theology, whether or not the texts are historically accurate is not central. And that's the point--the Bible is not a history textbook, so nothing in this thread takes away from it's theological valor.
People are basing their evaluations of the Bible on criteria that are not central to the Bible's purpose. To say all belief is unfounded just based on what Finkelstein and others say, is probably not the wisest of decisions.
That was the major issue I had in mind.
Further, the scholars who have argued against the historical inaccuracy of the Exodus story are not all Israeli. They also don't always say that Exodus never happened in any way, shape, or form. What seems to be a prevalent idea is that Hyksos, Semites from Egypt, moved to Canaan, and Canaanites were already there. The issue is that the Hyksos were not a huge group that came all at once under a central leader, that the historical events differ in degree from the biblical portrayal. That being said, there is likely some historical validity to the Exodus story. Think. Why would an ancient people record in their writings that they were slaves? That makes them look weak. Making your own nation look weak is not what happens in ancient "history," which is not the same discipline of history that we are familiar with.
I'm not saying that minimalists have no persuasiveness at all. I'm saying that what they say is not always correct, that there are non-minimalists scholars, and that even within the minimalist field there is disagreement.
Another point. Theology, as a discipline, is clearly not irrelevant. Nor are theologians all biased bigots. That is an absurd generalization.
Another point. It is not clear that America was founded on religion. Some colonies were chartered by religious sects emigrating from england, sure. Other colonies, like Virginia, were made for business and trade. Other colonies were simply proprietary, like Maryland. In addition, how do you account for the fact that some Founding Fathers, like Jefferson, were deists? To say America was founded on religion is highly questionable. Regardless of that, many in the US do not base politics on religion today.