So on and so forth

We have two principles:

(1)  Without government, humanity reverts to a state nature as described by Hobbes, a war of all against all.  There is a corollary to this, of course, more or less recognized by Hobbes, that there will be "winners" and "losers" in the war or all against all, and the "winners" will assert dominance, to one degree or another, over those "losers" within their sway.  This is government of a sort, but not a particularly desirable sort for the "losers."  No one, that is to say, would freely choose to become one of the "losers," and it is for that reason that governments have been instituted among people.

(2) No comprehensive doctrine is complete and whole, once and for all.  For the purposes of definition, let me simply contrast comprehensive doctrine from theoretical doctrine.  On the former hand, the comprehensive is doctrine that purports to be "absolutely true" outside of temporal considerations -- that is to say, it came into being once upon a time, but has been incontrovertibly true for all time and all people.  On the latter hand, the theoretical is doctrine that purports to be "contingently true" within temporal considerations -- that is to say, it too came into being once upon a time, but its "truth" is contingent on the here and now.  Religious doctrine tends to fall in the former camp, scientific doctrine in the latter camp.

Although it might be said that theoretical doctrine aims, in a teleological sense, to reduce its contingency on the here and now, to become more and more comprehensive -- that being the point of science as a human activity -- any doctrinal statement, any of the so-called scientific laws, is held true only contingently until a "better" explanation comes along (e.g. Copernicus and Galileo) or within certain certain defined realms (e.g. Newtonian, Einstein's, Bohr's physics).

It might be noted that I have focused in the previous post on what might be called the "factual" as opposed to the moral and ethical "truth" of religious doctrine -- that only the most illiterate would tend to focus on the factual truth of religious doctrine, or would distinguish between those moral and ethical statements that are central and those factual statements that are peripheral to the religious doctrine.  The moral, the ethical, and the factual are in practice often blurred.  For example, for most Christians, it must be accepted as a "fact" that the Christ is the son of God, born of Mary, et cetera.  The moral precept, found in Matthew 12:30, that "whoever is not with me is against me" differentiates in much the same way that the earlier statement, found in Exodus 20:3, "thou shalt have no false gods before me" differentiates between those who are inside and those outside the circle.  It comes with the force of a command, "thou shalt ..." and it both necessitates and justifies a differential treatment of those who do have, as it were, "false gods."  If we are to be a Christian nation, with a true Christian government, it must be accepted as a "fact" that Christ is the son of God, born of Mary, et cetera, and those who do not accept it are, well, not "true citizens" of the Christian nation and subject to a differential treatment. I could have as easily said, "if we are to be a Muslim nation, with a  true Muslim government, it must be accepted as a "fact" that Mohammed is the prophet, et cetera, and those who do not accept it are, well, not "true citizens" of the Muslim nation and subject to a differential treatment.  I could have as easily said "if we are to be a Marxist nation ..."  so on and so forth.

(3) Having said that, here's what I might set out as the third principle --  that any government founded on a comprehensive doctrine, ultimately, differentiates on the basis of that doctrine and, so to speak,  subjects those who are not "true citizens" to a differential treatment.   There are plenty of historical examples to support the idea that the differential treatment is not benign, never turns out to be "better" or even "equal"  treatment.  I could, but won't, dwell on those instances where imposition of "true" doctrine has led to the greatest cruelty imaginable.  Let me just suggest something, and then ask a question.  In our current nation, such as it is, many see the alignment of the Republican party with Christian evangelical religion as a "good thing," and it would be an even better thing if the Republican party, and, presumptively, if the principles of Christian evangelicalism prevailed in the next election.  The support given to the likes of Ted Cruz is, perhaps, an example of the same.  The right feels aggrieved and insurgent -- as it were, revolutionary in much the same way that the early Christians were revolutionary within the corruption of Rome.  Suppose they do, and though I consider it unlikely, suppose for the moment that they held sway, exercised the power of the government to enforce their precepts of what a true Christian nation "should" be.  Which of the constitutional precepts, which of the Bill of Rights would be the first to go?