1) Nagel quotes Rawls on page 228: “We may observe, that men’s having an equal liberty of conscience is consistent with the idea that all men ought to obey God and accept the truth. The problem of liberty is that of choosing a principle by which the claims men make on one another in the name of their religion are to be regulated. Granting that God's will should be followed and the truth recognized does not as yet define a principle of adjudication.” Isn’t this passage opening the door for saying: It doesn’t matter what you believe (in political terms), the only thing that matters is what the authority is saying, as your own beliefs only function within your property (if anything)?
2) What would be the author’s argument towards the rising nationalist/protectionist governments, which clearly base their whole agenda upon what seem to be considered beliefs, and use them as the “moralizing” factor of their respective campaigns? Naïve part of the question: why aren’t those campaigns automatically discarded?