One's right to life, liberty, property, speech, press, freedom of worship and assembly may not be submitted to vote

It is not "freedom of worship", it is "freedom of religion".

"Freedom of worship" is what you have in Iran. Freedom of religion is what is recognized as a Universal Human Right.

Article 18.
        Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Thank you for defending free speech.
Ideological censorship (see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2944086/posts) scares me. The world is heading towards a totalitarian dictatorship, where any politically incorrect idea is persecuted as "hate speech".

Also, "hate speech" can easily be misused for direct political gain. In Brazil, people have already been punished for criticizing the MST (Landless Workers Movement), which is a violent group of vandals with a far-left ideology.
Criticizing the MST was considered an act of "prejudice" and "violation of human rights". Of course, this is convenient for the Brazilian government, which is dominated by the PT (Workers' Party), which is partly center-left and partly far-left.
If you read Portuguese, you can see for yourself in http://www.mst.org.br/Outdoor-garante-direito-de-resposta-ao-MST-em-Pernambuco (this if from the MST's own mouth!).

I say, restricting free speech and religious freedom is itself a gross violation of human rights.

Actually, science covers morality.

Give one example where science (alone! No philosophy allowed) decides what is moral.

It could be wrong, but it's not hypocrisy to assert that you have a superior belief system because your beliefs are testable.

Knowledge goes beyond science.
Philosophy, including morality, is not science (cannot be tested).
So the instant a fellow makes a moral statement - including "religion is evil" - he went beyond science.

See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3186197&cid=41659991 and http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3186197&cid=41660253.

I think you agreed with me, but we used different words.

If the government prohibits me from using a megaphone in a residential street at 3 AM, or distributing child porn, or mounting pornographic outdoors, or disrupting a speech, or unreasonably blocking traffic in an important avenue, I can still reasonably express my ideas.

You can call it "regulation of speech" or "restriction of nuisance" or whatever, the idea is the same.

Well, this is a good point. So, can that apply to the Internet as a 'place'?

I think that people should have the legal right to create their own blogs are discuss any idea about philosophy, politics or religion.

Notice I said _idea_. Child pornography is not an idea. Incitement to murder is not an idea.

So, if someone wants to say "there was no Holocaust", he should have that right (and I have the right, and even the duty, to call him a lunatic).
But if someone says "Mr David Goldstein is a filthy Jew! He lives in Park Avenue 53, and he is alone on Saturdays. The man who kills him will be an Aryan hero!", then it should be censored.

Anti-theists accuse religious people of feeling superior to others because they believe in the right religion.
Then they add: "actually, WE are superior*, because we have the correct materialist belief".
Hypocrisy.

* In Dawkins' own words atheists are "brighter" than theists.
** If you want to reply to point out that "not all atheists are greedy", think again. "Materialist" here is about philosophy, not attachment to money.

If you want the right to criticize religion, then, to be consistent, you should be fighting against the "hate speech" bills that intend to "criminalize homophobia" around the world.

If you defend free speech, do it consistently.

Do you have any evidence of this great racism in America, or you were just throwing accusations around?

That said, the government has been actively (IMHO) violating the first amendment for a while now, the most stark example being the emergence of "Free Speech Zones" when George W. Bush would travel.

Not judging the specific "Free Speech Zones" you speak about, but in general I think the government can regulate, within limits, the manner, place and time of speech.

Otherwise I could go to your street at 3 AM and express my political views with a megaphone.
Or I could put an outdoor in front of a public playground, featuring a woman having sex with a goat.

And they are lenient - if you go to a Catholic university, you will find lots of undisturbed Marxist professors. Hell, even in Catholic parishes you can find Marxist priests.

Only for a very narrow definition of "undisturbed."

The definition of "undisturbed" here is "attacks the Faith and no authority complains".

And there is more than one way to force someone out of an organization than take official action.

Be specific.

In fact, even the USCCB issues very progressive statements on immigration, the environment, the death penalty, government welfare and most other issues.

War, capital punishment, poverty: occasional letters.
Homosexuality, abortion, contraception: months-long, well-funded, nationwide lobbying campaigns.

1) Because the government is trying to force the Church to pay for abortifacent devices.
2) Because the right to life and family values are part of the deposit of Faith, while those other issues are prudential judgments.

Nobody was ever denied communion for a war vote.

Again, learn what is a prudential judgment.
And it is extremely rare for a pro-abortion politician to be denied communion.

They're not "asking" anything; they're sending in bishops to tell them what to do.

The bishops have done nothing so far. And considering the extreme leniency that the Church extends to even worse heretics (such as the Latin American Liberation Theologians who defend Marxist oppression and political murder), I think the Church will be gentle.

And the Church is absolutely right to do this. Claiming to be a Catholic while attacking the Faith is simply dishonest.

I assure you: if the spokesperson of Greenpeace started defending mass deforestation, he would lose this post.

The laity don't get the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (a/k/a the Inquisition)

Hyperbole, flamebait. The Inquisition practiced violence. The Congregatipon for the Doctrine of Faith only affirms what is Catholic teaching and what is not. In extreme cases, they may move a heretic bishop from his see - this is immensely different from what the Inquisition did.
And they are lenient - if you go to a Catholic university, you will find lots of undisturbed Marxist professors. Hell, even in Catholic parishes you can find Marxist priests.
In fact, even the USCCB issues very progressive statements on immigration, the environment, the death penalty, government welfare and most other issues. John Paul II opposed the Iraq War. The clergy is only "conservative" on the right to life and family values.
Saying that the Church clergy are conservatives is an outright fabrication.

coming after them like the Leadership Conference of Women Religious have. The nuns are clearly held to a higher standard when it comes to focusing less on social justice and more on social conservatism.

The Church is not asking the LCWR to "focus less on social justice"; the Church is only asking them to be more Catholic - respect the importance of the Eucharist, stop absorbing New Age beliefs, stop moving "beyond Jesus" (their words)- and that they _also_ start defending integral Church teaching. Oh, and they should also stop publishing books that defend sexual chaos.
They don't have to diminish they anti-poverty actions one bit.

The punchline will be when the nun is excommunicated for not breaking into an abortion clinic instead, being more anti-war than she is pro-life.

Like the billion+ Catholics who do not break into abortion clinics? How many of those are excommunicated? Zero.
Please don't attack straw men.

My biggest issue with unity is that the open an application button is not in a corner (annoying to hit) , and worse, when I over-shoot it and go to the corner, I close my current application.

Then I suggest you hit Super or, better yet, Super+A