>>>>Without a belief in God, and Heaven and Hell, there is no reason whatsoever to be “conservative” or anything else virtuous. <<<<<<<
I could not care less about your personal religious beliefs or your religious morals.
My concern is about enshrining Protestant Christian sectarian beliefs in U.S. law, or even leaving that impression. That’s bordering on theocracy and it’s what the Taliban do.
Most importantly the Religionist impulse presents conservatism and the GOP as offshoots of Protestant Christianity. Every time I have this discussion those are exactly the arguments I hear, the same as yours.
We have done just fine as a nation with the Declaration, the Constitution, and other words from our Founders. Yes, they may have been divinely inspired, that’s quite another discussion.
But note well that those works are entirely about secular governance mixed with a profound revulsion of aristocracy and theocracy.
Someday I'll go through my "history" analysis of the First, Second and Third Amendments to the Constitution.
Trns out that "Protestant Christian sectarian beliefs" have special protection in U.S.Law.
It's kind of subtle and you need a good grounding in American and European history, but it's there.
It starts with Louis XIV, King of France ~ the "SUN KING".
In Louis' day France was still governed by the Edict of Nantes ~ this document was promulgated many years earlier for the purpose of ending the Religious Wars and to create official government tolerance for the existence of Protestant temples. You also didn't need to go to church anymore even if you were a Catholic. Jews found that tolerance wasn't all that great, but there weren't many of them since they'd been expelled several times before.
All in all France could hold itself out as a tolerant, advanced nation.
Louis XIV, though, had what we might call "simple beliefs" when it came to religion, kings, law and your personal need to attend mass on Sunday.
Kind of tranlates as "One faith, one law, one king" or so he was quoted ~ and his has become the definition of his regime for Protestant history.
One thing led to another and Louis decided to RESCIND the Edict of Nantes. Louis initiated the Dragonettes Orders ~ these were designed to force Huguenots (Protestants) back to the welcoming arms of the Caholic church. Here one of his favorite practices was to quarter troops in the home of a wealthy Huguenot. They'd eat up his stores of food, sleep in his bedrooms, use his furniture, wear his clothes, have sex with his women, kill his animals, and whatever other piece of mayhem they could think of.
Now the Huguenot was not without resources. If he agreed to attend Catholic church the troops would be withdrawn and his property left alone. If he didn't, this process would continue and finally the government would seize his property.
Approximately 1.6 million Huguenots fled France over the next few years.
Among those Huguenots were many of the grandparents and parents of the Founders of the United States of America ~ they remembered the nature of a tyrant.
The Third Amendment about "quartering troops" was written by the descendants of Huguenot settlers as a challenge to a specific practice used by a tyrant, Louis XIV, to crush Protestantism.
Now, the second amendment ~ it's about the right to defend yourself from the depredations wrought by the Dragonettes Orders. You can use the weapons you own, including firearms, to drive off even the king's soldiers.
In Huguenot understanding, the "regulation of the militia" has to do with the privilege of the Huguenots to shoot even royal militia if they stepped out of the bounds of protection afforded by the Edict of Nantes.
Please note at the conclusion of the Religious Wars the Catholic forces (the other side) sought to include a clause in the Edict of Nantes that forced the Hugenots to give up their guns. The Huguenots decided it was better to keep the guns. This practice of arms was obviously not limited to small firearms kept at home to repel thieves or hunt rabbits. The Huguenots meant large weaponry which would include artillery, cannonon on board ships, fortified castles, or whatever else was appropriate for the usages of war.
So much for the idea the Founders were concerned only about personal muskets ~ !
Yup, two Amendments are dedicated literally to what can be considered nothing other than "Protestant sectarian beliefs".
Now, the First Amendment ~ it's a grab bag. Got a lot of extra stuff in there about "the press" and gathering, and petitioning ~ and "free speech". It also has something about Congress not "prohibiting the free exercise thereof (an establishment of religion)" ~ which once again refers us to the situation faced by the Huguenots, what Louis XIV did, and the sentiments of yet another document that came about as a consequence of the development of Protestantism in the 1600s in Europe, the Peace of Westphalia!
The First Amendment is clearly seen as a "not withstnding" clause ~ that is, that the right of a nationstate to establish a religion (as provided in the Peace of Westphalia), Congress is not allowed to do that ~ PERIOD!
You can look all these things up if you wish, but your thought that it would be novel to "enshrine Protestant beliefs" in our law is off course.
These "Protestant beliefs" benefit all!
Actually most of the issues considered Evangelical issues are also the positions of Catholics, Mormons, and Orthodox Jews. In fact many of them are also the positions of Muslims. About the only Americans who don't accept these ideas are atheists, agnostics, the majority of the shrinking Mainline Protestants, and secularists. In all less than 25% of the population.