For example, the idea that we should dispose of the Constitution by discarding the founders understanding of the true role of the state vis-à-vis religion and morality consigns conservatives to a losing argument in many cases and is destructive of constitutional norms.
However, the facts on the ground concerning, for example, the role of religion in colonial and early constitutional America that informed the framers' understanding of constitutional principles, might not apply today, rather the facts on the ground today might lead to very serious harm to conservative causes and, by extension, to society in general.
The Judeo-Christian assumptions about morality were assumed by the framers to be proper for the state to accept and enforce free from judicial intermingling about the desirability of those assumptions. In part, the authors advocating a return to that legal framework.
There are increasing geographical Muslim oblasts in parts of America such as Michigan in which Islam is gaining political control. Do we want a constitutional architecture in which that Muslim political majority can inflict sharia on society? Do we want to yield control of the schools to that philosophy?
At the time of the founding of the Constitution the argument was over Protestant vs. Catholic doctrine which certainly might ignite serious dispute, but did not threaten the essential common understanding of the proper nature of society and man's place in the world. Islam is different.
The essential nature of Islam is different from the Judeo-Christian faith that leads to irreconcilable differences about the role of the state and the virtue of a citizen's freedom of choice. We will have to find a doctrine that somehow protects that virtue while protecting that same citizen's right to his religious conviction.
