Some more reading...

...at Enchiridion Militis. It is a follow-up to a previous post, and is titled In Defense of a Christian Nation. It begins:

I know, it sounds like the title of a book, the writing of which I will leave to another of suitable leisure, ambition and learning. (Paul Cella sounds about right.)

And so I left Charles Krauthammer's piece wondering which tyranny I ought to prefer, that of the judges or of the people, and, should I choose the latter - assuming the yoke of my fellows' opinions to be less onerous than that of the philosopher-kings - wondering further when their 'ethos' might change, and to what degree, and why I should have to submit to any tyranny at all.

This is a question both Christian and atheist, conservative and liberal, reactionary and progressive, are entitled to ask. I am not concerned here with the practical matters of politics, such as how many senators each state ought to have, whether gerrymandering is constitutional, or how many votes should be required to shut down a filibuster. I am concerned with the moral matter of our constitution's legal and cultural foundation, with the (and here I use a word that may send some fleeing, as before a cross) tradition that gave it birth, for it is in this arena that the difficulties between the above-named parties become most evident, and in their resolution most crucial to the kind of nation we were, are, and shall (or have) become.

You can finish it over there. Be nice and do that.