Re:First Comment on topic! ... oh wait... lol (Score 1)

No, the majority does not rule. The whole point of the American constitution is that the majority does not have the right to infringe upon the rights of the minority.

I agree with you in part. However, the constitution primarily protects the people from the tyranny of the powerful few. Democracy is truly mob-rule in it's pure form. We just don't have a pure democracy, we have a representative democracy. I guess the primary benefit of that is that it moderates change over time.

Yes it can and yes, it does. Have you not noticed the frequent overturning of religiously-inspired laws? Or do you think those are the "evil activist judges" who are out to destroy religion?

What our government "can" do and what it was "designed" to do are to different things, now aren't they? I have noticed, and sometimes it is absolutely appropriate that they have done. Sometimes they have gone too far, and sometimes not far enough.

Ultimately, I think the U.S. Supreme Court is full of flawed human beings, just like congress, the whitehouse... They can and do make mistakes, but their role is still very important.

Abortion? Not without a constitutional amendment. Murder? That was illegal in most societies long before Judaism emerged. Divorce and adultery? Debatable on divorce. Adultery is illegal in many areas because it's seen as a violation of a legally binding contract with a spouse. Drugs? We'll see how much longer that lasts. Alcohol? They needed a constitutional amendment last time, and they'd need one again. Fornication? No, they couldn't make that illegal. Not without scrapping the entire constitution. Euthanasia? See murder, but this is subject to change. Stem cell research? Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Religious nutjobs are winning this one, and it's costing lives every day.

Most of these laws can't be passed, or rather wouldn't be upheld in court. The laws they pass are indeed partially inspired by religious views, but I have hope that they'll recover soon.

I'm not saying these things *should* be made illegal. I'm just saying that with the right circumstances, the majority could prevail on any of these things. One person's injustice is another's justice.

Just because the supreme court of today might strike something down, doesn't mean it will tomorrow. Hell, abortion has been illegal for a majority of our country's history. Slavery and racial discrimination legal for another large part.

Our secular government, can and will be on the wrong side of moral issues. But I guess that is all subjective, now isn't it?

Our current president and things like guantanamo bay, suspension of habeas corpus during this war and past wars are good examples of how our protections are not iron clad. It doesn't take a complete dismantling of our government to lose or get returned a fundamental right. It only takes the action, or lack there of, of the majority.

...until some religious majority gets enough political power to silence and jail those who would question their religious beliefs. But thanks for trumpeting the rights we have courtesy of a secular society which created a secular government which you now wish to dismantle and turn into an oppressive Christian Hate Machine.

If you think the founding father's weren't "religious nutjobs", then you haven't read anything they wrote.

They didn't seek to snuff our religion in government, and form a "secular society". Grow up. They simply wanted to form a government that was limited in power, and not explicitly religious in nature. They did this by forbidding the establishment of a national religion, but our national congress. That encouraged freedom of religion by inclusion. The slight difference that you seem to advocate is you wish to have all people be equal by making all people equally oppressed. That is just my first impression, I obviously don't know you.

The tyranny of atheists and religious alike can be just as great, make no mistake. The problem with the world is that no two people can agree on what an ideal world would be. We can't find a cure if we don't know what "cured" means. Who's ideal should we shoot for, yours? Secular humanism has nothing to offer but feel-good platitudes. At least religion can offer a line in the sand; a foundation that doesn't waiver at the whim of the populace. Sometimes that line will seem oppressive to some, and justice to others. Who is right?

I've met atheists who have preached college campus to college campus that the "solution" to the world's ills is mass extinction of the human race. That would certainly be in the best interest of the world's ecosystems, wouldn't it? Scientifically speaking, this seems like the most logical choice. Is that the cold, hard, fact based reality that you want?