"50% of the population can't vote based on a test that you can easily improve at simply by practising."
I fail to see a problem with that.
"Some people claim atheism is a religion."
The dictionary says otherwise. We can make up a new word for those who don't follow a religion and keep doing that if you like.
"Also, not all religions are the same, e.g. Buddhists are not nearly as deluded as Christians, who are not nearly as deluded as Muslims, in general terms."
Irrelevant. The Constitution is the highest law in the land, it outranks all public officials at all levels of goverment and mandates a separation of church and state. You check your religion at the door, by law. For the same reason congress lacks the authority to tax churches. Whether a person agrees with the law or not should not be prerequisite to vote, demanding government have absolute obedience to the limits imposed on it by the Constitution should be prerequisite to voting.
If you think representatives should be able to vote in accord with their religion you can both support an amendment to that effect and a firing squad for those who do so before that amendment is made.
Government officials deliberately violating the Constitution and assuming authority not granted to them for any cause is treason.
"If you believe any citizen should be able to own a nuclear ICBM or place land mines in the front yard, you're out."
It's the law. Period. See the above.
Random civilians with widely distributed military power are less likely to be able to affect widespread tyranny than random people in a chain of command that answers to those who might try to seize power from the people. The bigger the weapon the more expensive and the more people it takes to afford them. Nobody should have biological weapons, chemical weapons, or nuclear weapons. But so long as the government has been granted our permission to have nuclear subs we've retained our right as the people to have such weapons to point back at them.
"If you think rights are not a balance between opposing forces, and that include both freedom from interference and freedom to prosper and be happy, you are out."
What I said is not inconsistent with that.
A person in a toll violation case being denied a "beyond reasonable doubt" burden, the right to a court appointed attorney, the right to trial by jury, and being automatically assumed as the driver because the state wrote that it could do so in the statute is a good example. This violates a number of provisions in the Constitution and a body empowered by the Constitution (states and therefore their governments are a constitutional construct) lacks the authority to do so. These provisions exist to bar the government from infringing on the rights of the people, when ANY individual objects to this it is not their personal right vs the state it is the right on 100% of the individuals in the nation vs the small subset who support and benefit from cheaper toll enforcement.
The court is also ultimately empowered by the Constitution and therefore lacks the authority to issue a ruling which violates its provisions.
Again, Constitutional enforcement should be absolute. Believing as much is prerequisite to successful participation in our constitutional democracy. That issues pre-empts anything you disagree with in the specifics. But there is always changing it, either via the mechanisms in the document or popular amendment since the people are not limited by the terms of the Constitution and ca overrule it as jurors or change it by popular vote.