I'm not comfortable with your notions of what is 'natural." Isn't it natural to take advantage of plus-sum opportunities? Wouldn't a species that takes advantage of such opportunities have a "natural" selective advantage over bands of hunter-gatherer nomads? Aren't you conflating "primitive" with "natural," where the natural thing for homo sapiens is to become not primitive.

What you call compromises are just that. But compromise is a technology, a solution to the problem of warre of all against all. Without divine right, how could a king live long enough to build a road or mount an army to defend the population he rules? What better answer is there to "Why am I an underling?" than "God in his divine wisdom wants it that way." The truth may be that the fault is in ourselves, but the more comforting answer is that it is in our stars.

Describing respect for these traditions as "preposterous" smacks of presentism. I believe it makes more sense to say that some of the traditions Burke defends were obsolete or obsolescing as he was defending them, but in his day, I think men of good will could disagree about that. We are living through a modern reign of terror now in the form of cancel culture. The French renamed the months just as our progressives rename just about everything they can think of. There's less physical violence, but the effort reveals the same venomous disdain for whatever came before. We have not outgrown symbolism.

Nothing humans do is unnatural in a Darwinian sense. Rather, we use the word metaphorically to mean contrary to best practices from a natural selection perspective. It is "unnatural" to be childless by choice, because if we all chose to be so, our species would not be selected for. The battle over "reproductive rights" is a Darwinian event. We are talking about the species reproductive strategy. One strategy says that we must carry all pregnancies to term lest we open the door to choosing not to have babies at all. But people do not, cannot, argue R-strategy vs. K-strategy.. They can, however, argue about what's in scripture. Religion, too, is a technology. And like all technologies, religion may obsolesce. I would just be a bit more circumspect about declaring its evil absolute, when it is more likely that its utility is merely contingent.