Our nation's creed, The Pledge of Allegiance, sums up our way of life and it's based on a three-legged stool of God, liberty, and justice. All three must be there. If God is not there, ethics and rights are defined by whoever has the most power. And in order to have liberty, we must have justice. The first role of government is to prevent evil (Romans 13:1-5, 1 Peter 2:13-17) so that the rest of society can live in peace. Evil is only meaningful within a biblical context.
"Evil" means different things to the different "schools" of Buddhism. What standard do you use to determine which one of the schools and which "teacher" has the right definition? For instance, some schools think it's "evil" if any sentient being is harmed. That's why that particular school makes sure all the earth worms are individually picked out of the soil before any construction can take place.
Absolutely.
The first role of government is to prevent evil
As I said "The Founders were devising a means to protect men from government, which itself is a means of protecting men from men, in order to clear a path, free of secular obstacles like physical attack and legal entanglements,..."
Evil is only meaningful within a biblical context.
That is just plain ridiculous.
"Evil" means different things to the different "schools" of Buddhism.
Not that I have ever heard. All schools of Buddhism derive from the teachings of the Buddha. Different approaches to teaching are not the same thing as different doctrinal interpretations. The Buddha taught the "three baskets" himself and explained the reason for different approaches as meeting the needs of people of differing capacities. Superficially these differing approaches appear contradictory in some ways but ultimately they are not.
For instance, some schools think it's "evil" if any sentient being is harmed.
I don't know of any school of Buddhism that does not consider killing sentient beings to be negative and karma producing.