> If the BoR didn't have the same nearly religious status one of those attacks would have succeeded by now. I don't think this follows at all from the article.

> If the BoR didn't have the same nearly religious status one of those attacks would have succeeded by now. I don't think this follows at all from the article. After all, one of the main points is that there WASN'T a cult until the 1940s...yet those rights were able to stand for 160 years without a religious status supporting them. Your argument that the Bill of Rights had a religious status for all 200+ years of its history seems a direct contradiction of one of the book's central claims and I don't see that you've presented any arguments in support of your counter-claim. If the Bill of Rights didn't have religious status for those 200+ years then your subsequent claim that the religious status is a necessary part of keeping it intact would seem to wither.