Also, religions are authoritarian and lack a history of going out of their way to honor other's values. How could they, when democracy would mean voting against their gods? You can't put unreasonable people in charge without a way of removing them, and theocracies are not known for imbuing their leaders with anything less than false mandates of authority.
Yes, but if the majority of the population is unreasonable, they're going to vote for unreasonable people to lead them. That's the whole problem with democracy. It works great if you have a country where most people are educated and reasonable. But in a country where most people are uneducated and following insane religious leaders, it doesn't work so well.
By your country's own laws, this is not a legitimate basis of rule, and you should know better than to suggest secession to appease any loudly unreasonable population, because if for nothing else you would set the precedent of confirming that hysteria gets them what they want.
Huh? I never suggested "appeasing" anyone; my goal with secession is to separate the reasonable people (who tend to be more concentrated in some regions) from the unreasonable people who want a theocracy (who again tend to be concentrated in certain regions, different from the regions the reasonable people dominate). If this helps get the nutjobs what they want, that's fine, because they'll be limited to getting what they want only in their own regions. The rest of us can stay in regions dominated by reasonable people, and not be affected by their lunacy. Everyone can be happy (or at least happier; the religious wackos won't be totally happy until everyone is forced to follow their particular religion). What's wrong with that?
Actually, unless you hate the constitution, this is wrong. This is why we are NOT a direct democracy,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy It's amazing how many people on Slashdot have no clue what the definition of "democracy" is. Clue: I never said this was a "direct democracy".
Since there's a separation of church and state
There's no "separation of church and state" enshrined in law, except for a single clause in the First Amendment which is rather vague and open to interpretation. Thomas Jefferson was a big fan of the concept, and indeed wrote about it many times, but his writings are not law (though they probably should be...).
So they created a constitution, and made us a constitutional republic, meaning that certain tenants in the constitution can't be changed on a whim, and it requires a grueling amendment process to change those basics.
I never said it would be easy. But a bunch of religious nuts did manage to get alcohol banned with a Constitutional Amendment not that long ago, so it's not without precedent.
saying "Darwin made it all up" shows such a complete lack of understanding of how science works
This is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Heck, physical reality is completely irrelevant. If the majority of the population wants to make it law that kids are taught that 2+2 = 5 and the earth is flat, they can do so (though again, it might not be that easy, and may take multiple voting cycles). My whole point is that this is the problem with democracy (again, go look it up if you're having trouble with the definition): it works great if the population is mostly intelligent and educated, but when they're mostly uneducated fools, it doesn't work well at all.
So you really think the First Amendment is set in stone, and can never be altered, ever? Have you ever heard of a Constitutional Amendment (which, ironically, the First Amendment is one of)? What exactly do you think they do? Since you don't understand basic US civics, I'll inform you: an Amendment changes the Constitution!!! And if that Amendment addresses anything in the 1A, then that means it can overturn the First Amendment! Amazing huh?
Not that it's likely to happen any time soon, but anything is possible. A bunch of religious nuts managed to get a Constitutional Amendment passed a while back which banned alcohol nationwide.
Calling someone a fool when you have your facts wrong makes you look foolish yourself. If you think I'm wrong then prove me so with your arguments instead of with unnecessary personal attacks.
Go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy which proves you wrong. "Democracy" != "Pure democracy" (aka "direct democracy"). A republic is a form of a democracy.
But because we are a republic and not a democracy
Wrong. See above.
I can provide you countless examples of cases where a majority of the populous wanted something but was prevented from getting it by a minority.
Like when? This form of government does provide checks and balances and mechanisms so that minorities can have some power, and can block actions of the majority for a limited time. However, if the majority pushes for something long enough, they will get it, because they have the voting power. What our system of government does is make it so the majority can't push their immediate whims on everyone; it takes time to elect new politicians, enact new laws, etc. So if the majority suddenly decides they want to ban dyed hair and imprison everyone who does that, it'll take them some time to elect some leaders who pander to this desire, and get new laws in place, esp. with the opposition filing lawsuits. If the majority gets tired of this quickly and moves on to some other dumb idea, then it'll be forgotten, and dyed hair will never be illegal. But if the majority makes this their central issue and pushes for it year after year and doesn't give up or get tired of it, eventually they'll get their way somehow. (Note also that I'm speaking theoretically, and mostly ignoring the effects of money, lobbying, "campaign contributions", etc. on the political process.)
I think YOU need to go learn some Civics. The majority does get what it wants, if it works at it long enough; the safeguards in the way the government is set up are designed to prevent the short-term whims of the populace from having too much effect on policy. The government and majority can take away any rights and privileges it wants. The constitution is not set in stone; have you ever heard of "amendments"? Not too long ago, they passed an Amendment that took away peoples' right to consume alcohol! Of course, passing an Amendment isn't easy, but as that shows, it can be done if enough people push for it long enough. If enough people decide the First Amendment needs to be overturned and we need to ban anti-religious speech or whatever, it can be done, they just have to pass an Amendment. Obviously, that wouldn't be easy, but it is possible, however unlikely it may seem. (Practically though, you might need a super-majority.)
So yes, we DO need to keep religion completely out of education standards. And we DO NOT need to take a vote on this. And even if we did take a vote on this, and even if every single person in the country voted for it, it STILL would be unconstitutional and the government would have no right to implement it.
Obviously, you know absolutely nothing about the way the US government is set up. If every single person in the country voted for it, they could vote for representatives who promised to pass an Amendment to make this law. And then, suddenly, it IS constitutional and the government would be bound to implement it.
Leviticus says you can't eat shellfish, but Christians these days don't pay any attention to that, nor those other passages you cite. When I speak of what traits followers of a religion (or sect) follow, this means what they do and say and practice currently, not some obscure passage in their holy book which they generally ignore. Every religion and sect has different parts of their scriptures that they put more emphasis on, and other parts they de-emphasize or even ignore or come up with excuses as to why it doesn't apply. And the less fundamentalist, the less emphasis they generally put on the scriptures and how accurate they are. To many Christians (though probably not that many in the USA...), they don't even bother much with the Old Testament, and just treat it as a history book, as they concentrate on the teachings of Jesus and not the old Jewish laws.
Similarly with the Muslims, I'm not looking at anything written in their holy book, I only judge them by their own actions and teachings today. Most people here know that Muslims used to be much more progressive 1000 years or so ago, back when they were master astronomers and mathematicians, but those days are long gone, and the religious practices they have today tend to be very intolerant and backwards except in certain areas.
The problem I've found with this is that every time I propose this path (which I fully agree with), I get a bunch of responses saying "united we stand! divided we fall!" and similar simplistic thought.
I think we need to go farther, and break up the country into about 10 different smaller countries. There'll still be infighting about various issues, but a lot of the stuff we're fighting about now will die down pretty quickly as different regions make their choices (e.g., progressive areas will legalize gay marriage and marijuana, backwards areas will ban teaching of evolution and sales of contraceptives, etc.), and then we'll find out before too long which areas have better economies resulting from their choices.
Mod up! I agree completely with this. Big countries with too many viewpoints end up with too much infighting, or they end up having am authoritarian government that quashes all the minority viewpoints (and some of the majority ones too).
It's exactly like what the religious nuts say about the freedom of gays to marry: ask any one of them, and they'll quip: "they're free to marry someone of the opposite sex".
They'll be happy to give you the freedom to join their religion, and that's it.
I went to high school in east Tennessee, in a fairly affluent area. I don't remember a lot of religiosity back then either among my classmates, nor any overtly religious topics being discussed. One big exception was when our English teacher was telling us about some "revival" she went to and how moved she was when some kids she knew were "saved". She went on and on about this. No one really said anything, and not much later (it was at the end of the school year) she gave out some survey, and a bunch of people complained about her talking about religious stuff. Even though the survey was "anonymous", we handwrote our opinions on them, and she specifically remarked that she knew who was complaining by their handwriting. Anyway, she didn't come back the next year, the administration let her go because of this.
Now, fast-forward to today, 20 years later. I go on Facebook, and a bunch of my former classmates have started up a group for our graduating class, to talk about their reunion. From the various comments, and what they post on their walls, etc., it's evident that many of my former classmates have become extremely religious, just like this teacher. (I didn't bother attending the reunion.)
Maybe I have some kind of perception bias, but it seems to me that Americans in general have become much, much more religious than they were back in the 80s and early 90s when I grew up, and the flavor of that religion is fundamentalist/evangelical christianity.
If it were a democracy, no law would be passed unless voted on by the populace.
Wrong. Democracy is an umbrella term that just means people elect their own laws or leaders. You're using a fundamentalist definition of democracy, which is more properly called "direct democracy". What we have is frequently called "representative democracy".
Teaching of religion in public schools is unconstitutional, unless you include all religions, no religions, and antireligions.
The 1A doesn't say anything about public schools, it just says no law can be passed establishing a particular religion. It can be interpreted different ways with regard to schools. And that interpretation can change if the courts change.
And none of these belong in a science class, that's just stupid.
Since when is the general public known for great intelligence and wisdom? We used to have our kids taught in public school that in the event of a nuclear attack, they should hide under their desks as this would protect them from the radiation. There's nothing that requires schools to teach anything that's actually true, they teach idiotic stuff all the time; it's not like we have some brilliant geniuses controlling the public school curriculum nationwide and making sure teachers teach it effectively and aren't incompetent.
And what if they don't give any time to the Muslim take? Who's going to do anything about it? That requires enforcement. If the people elected to enforce the laws don't bother to do so in this instance, and the majority of people are OK with that and re-elect them, there's not much that can be done. Or, interested minority groups could sue in court, but that takes a lot of money, and still is to a certain extent up to the whim of the judge (who is also either elected in some regions, or in others appointed by elected officials).
As you said, it's possible to change the law and the constitution. And, laws can be interpreted differently. While it may seem unlikely, it's quite possible for the SCOTUS to be stacked with justices (over time) who decide to overturn the previous rulings on the matter.
And yes, the secularists are fighting against the theists. However, all this infighting isn't exactly productive. In other countries where they don't have all this infighting, they can concentrate on much more productive endeavors.
So what are you proposing? Allowing criminals to go back into society and commit more crimes?
Obviously, the length of a prison term should be proportional to the severity of the crime; I'm not proposing that someone be imprisoned for life for an assault, but some seem to be proposing either no punishment at all, or a slap on the wrist.
"Legitimate science" is irrelevant when you're talking about public schools operated by a democratic government, unless you're proposing to make scientists into an elite cabal that control education and don't answer to the people in any way. If the people want "intellectual hooliganism", they're going to vote for it, and eventually (depending on the various laws in place that impede them and how difficult it is to change those laws), if they persist, they're going to get it.
I think it's more general than that. A bunch of cranks elect crank leaders that turns the country into a despotism of some kind. Just look at Germany in the 1930s. The people voted for bad leaders over a long enough time that the whole place went downhill. There wasn't some kind of coup there, the leaders were elected; once they got into power, then they turned it into a dictatorship, but it was popular will that started it all. This is just like how Chavez has gotten into power in Venezuela.
Wrong. It's both, stop being a pedantic fool. Democracy means we elect our leaders, and that's most certainly what we do.
And laws can be changed when enough people want them changed, and vote for that change. If a majority wants religious teaching, and pushes for it long enough, they'll get it one way or another.
A Constitutional Republic is a form of a democracy. "Democracy" means the people get to vote for their laws and/or leaders, and that's exactly what we do here in the US.
Yes, violating civil rights is bad, but if the majority wants it, and they want it long enough and consistently enough to vote for leaders who enact laws to do this, that's what we'll get. It's exactly what we got in WWII with the Japanese Internment camps. It's what we have now (and have always had) with gay rights, gay marriage, etc. It's what we had when we had slavery. The people wanted (or were OK with) these things, so they happened; the constitution certainly didn't protect them. When popular opinion changed enough, they got changed: in many states, gays are getting their rights protected better, are able to marry, etc., because a majority of people in those states wanted it (or didn't complain too much when others pushed the issue). In other states, such efforts are being met with far more opposition. If we tried to push gay rights at the national level, it wouldn't go very far, because there's too many people nationwide (in places like Kentucky) who are adamantly opposed to it, but because regions still have a certain amount of power, in those regions, gays are getting more rights than in the other regions.
The thing you seem to be missing is that in any democratic society, including the US, everything is up for a vote. However, the more long-lived and better democracies have mechanisms ("safe-guards" as you put it) in place so that popular whim is not too quickly reflected in government policy. We have things in the US constitution that are hard to change, but not impossible: if enough people demand something long enough, they'll get it eventually. A bunch of nuts managed to get a constitutional amendment passed which banned alcohol, after all. Yes, the 1A does have some important protections, but if enough people scream long enough (and vote for enough representatives who agree with them), eventually they can get a new amendment which changes the law.
There's nothing stopping the courts from changing their interpretation. Courts are composed of people, who are elected or appointed by other elected officials. If the people demand a change long enough, they'll get it. If they want it badly enough, they'll get a constitutional amendment passed. The constitution has indeed "magically" changed over time; not that long ago, some loonies managed to get an amendment in there which banned alcohol, with devastating consequences to society for over a decade. If enough of the population demands it, there's nothing stopping them from passing an amendment modifying or overturning the 1A. That's how a democracy works.
Yes, tyranny of the majority IS a bad thing, however what if the majority wants tyranny. A lot of democratic governments (including the USA's) have mechanisms to prevent short-term popular whim from affecting policy too much, however if the majority wants tyranny, and they want it long enough, they're going to vote for it and eventually they're going to get it as their representatives take over key positions one by one over multiple election cycles.
Respecting individual rights is important, yes, but if the majority doesn't agree with that precept, eventually it's all going to fall apart.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
Also, religions are authoritarian and lack a history of going out of their way to honor other's values. How could they, when democracy would mean voting against their gods? You can't put unreasonable people in charge without a way of removing them, and theocracies are not known for imbuing their leaders with anything less than false mandates of authority.
Yes, but if the majority of the population is unreasonable, they're going to vote for unreasonable people to lead them. That's the whole problem with democracy. It works great if you have a country where most people are educated and reasonable. But in a country where most people are uneducated and following insane religious leaders, it doesn't work so well.
By your country's own laws, this is not a legitimate basis of rule, and you should know better than to suggest secession to appease any loudly unreasonable population, because if for nothing else you would set the precedent of confirming that hysteria gets them what they want.
Huh? I never suggested "appeasing" anyone; my goal with secession is to separate the reasonable people (who tend to be more concentrated in some regions) from the unreasonable people who want a theocracy (who again tend to be concentrated in certain regions, different from the regions the reasonable people dominate). If this helps get the nutjobs what they want, that's fine, because they'll be limited to getting what they want only in their own regions. The rest of us can stay in regions dominated by reasonable people, and not be affected by their lunacy. Everyone can be happy (or at least happier; the religious wackos won't be totally happy until everyone is forced to follow their particular religion). What's wrong with that?
Actually, unless you hate the constitution, this is wrong. This is why we are NOT a direct democracy,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
It's amazing how many people on Slashdot have no clue what the definition of "democracy" is. Clue: I never said this was a "direct democracy".
Since there's a separation of church and state
There's no "separation of church and state" enshrined in law, except for a single clause in the First Amendment which is rather vague and open to interpretation. Thomas Jefferson was a big fan of the concept, and indeed wrote about it many times, but his writings are not law (though they probably should be...).
So they created a constitution, and made us a constitutional republic, meaning that certain tenants in the constitution can't be changed on a whim, and it requires a grueling amendment process to change those basics.
I never said it would be easy. But a bunch of religious nuts did manage to get alcohol banned with a Constitutional Amendment not that long ago, so it's not without precedent.
saying "Darwin made it all up" shows such a complete lack of understanding of how science works
This is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Heck, physical reality is completely irrelevant. If the majority of the population wants to make it law that kids are taught that 2+2 = 5 and the earth is flat, they can do so (though again, it might not be that easy, and may take multiple voting cycles). My whole point is that this is the problem with democracy (again, go look it up if you're having trouble with the definition): it works great if the population is mostly intelligent and educated, but when they're mostly uneducated fools, it doesn't work well at all.
So you really think the First Amendment is set in stone, and can never be altered, ever? Have you ever heard of a Constitutional Amendment (which, ironically, the First Amendment is one of)? What exactly do you think they do? Since you don't understand basic US civics, I'll inform you: an Amendment changes the Constitution!!! And if that Amendment addresses anything in the 1A, then that means it can overturn the First Amendment! Amazing huh?
Not that it's likely to happen any time soon, but anything is possible. A bunch of religious nuts managed to get a Constitutional Amendment passed a while back which banned alcohol nationwide.
Wikipedia even has a nice article all about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
Why do pedants come into every conversation about government and repeat this idiotic meme over and over, thinking repetition will make it true?
Calling someone a fool when you have your facts wrong makes you look foolish yourself. If you think I'm wrong then prove me so with your arguments instead of with unnecessary personal attacks.
Go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy which proves you wrong. "Democracy" != "Pure democracy" (aka "direct democracy"). A republic is a form of a democracy.
But because we are a republic and not a democracy
Wrong. See above.
I can provide you countless examples of cases where a majority of the populous wanted something but was prevented from getting it by a minority.
Like when? This form of government does provide checks and balances and mechanisms so that minorities can have some power, and can block actions of the majority for a limited time. However, if the majority pushes for something long enough, they will get it, because they have the voting power. What our system of government does is make it so the majority can't push their immediate whims on everyone; it takes time to elect new politicians, enact new laws, etc. So if the majority suddenly decides they want to ban dyed hair and imprison everyone who does that, it'll take them some time to elect some leaders who pander to this desire, and get new laws in place, esp. with the opposition filing lawsuits. If the majority gets tired of this quickly and moves on to some other dumb idea, then it'll be forgotten, and dyed hair will never be illegal. But if the majority makes this their central issue and pushes for it year after year and doesn't give up or get tired of it, eventually they'll get their way somehow. (Note also that I'm speaking theoretically, and mostly ignoring the effects of money, lobbying, "campaign contributions", etc. on the political process.)
I think YOU need to go learn some Civics. The majority does get what it wants, if it works at it long enough; the safeguards in the way the government is set up are designed to prevent the short-term whims of the populace from having too much effect on policy. The government and majority can take away any rights and privileges it wants. The constitution is not set in stone; have you ever heard of "amendments"? Not too long ago, they passed an Amendment that took away peoples' right to consume alcohol! Of course, passing an Amendment isn't easy, but as that shows, it can be done if enough people push for it long enough. If enough people decide the First Amendment needs to be overturned and we need to ban anti-religious speech or whatever, it can be done, they just have to pass an Amendment. Obviously, that wouldn't be easy, but it is possible, however unlikely it may seem. (Practically though, you might need a super-majority.)
So yes, we DO need to keep religion completely out of education standards. And we DO NOT need to take a vote on this. And even if we did take a vote on this, and even if every single person in the country voted for it, it STILL would be unconstitutional and the government would have no right to implement it.
Obviously, you know absolutely nothing about the way the US government is set up. If every single person in the country voted for it, they could vote for representatives who promised to pass an Amendment to make this law. And then, suddenly, it IS constitutional and the government would be bound to implement it.
Leviticus says you can't eat shellfish, but Christians these days don't pay any attention to that, nor those other passages you cite. When I speak of what traits followers of a religion (or sect) follow, this means what they do and say and practice currently, not some obscure passage in their holy book which they generally ignore. Every religion and sect has different parts of their scriptures that they put more emphasis on, and other parts they de-emphasize or even ignore or come up with excuses as to why it doesn't apply. And the less fundamentalist, the less emphasis they generally put on the scriptures and how accurate they are. To many Christians (though probably not that many in the USA...), they don't even bother much with the Old Testament, and just treat it as a history book, as they concentrate on the teachings of Jesus and not the old Jewish laws.
Similarly with the Muslims, I'm not looking at anything written in their holy book, I only judge them by their own actions and teachings today. Most people here know that Muslims used to be much more progressive 1000 years or so ago, back when they were master astronomers and mathematicians, but those days are long gone, and the religious practices they have today tend to be very intolerant and backwards except in certain areas.
The problem I've found with this is that every time I propose this path (which I fully agree with), I get a bunch of responses saying "united we stand! divided we fall!" and similar simplistic thought.
I think we need to go farther, and break up the country into about 10 different smaller countries. There'll still be infighting about various issues, but a lot of the stuff we're fighting about now will die down pretty quickly as different regions make their choices (e.g., progressive areas will legalize gay marriage and marijuana, backwards areas will ban teaching of evolution and sales of contraceptives, etc.), and then we'll find out before too long which areas have better economies resulting from their choices.
Mod up! I agree completely with this. Big countries with too many viewpoints end up with too much infighting, or they end up having am authoritarian government that quashes all the minority viewpoints (and some of the majority ones too).
It's exactly like what the religious nuts say about the freedom of gays to marry: ask any one of them, and they'll quip: "they're free to marry someone of the opposite sex".
They'll be happy to give you the freedom to join their religion, and that's it.
I went to high school in east Tennessee, in a fairly affluent area. I don't remember a lot of religiosity back then either among my classmates, nor any overtly religious topics being discussed. One big exception was when our English teacher was telling us about some "revival" she went to and how moved she was when some kids she knew were "saved". She went on and on about this. No one really said anything, and not much later (it was at the end of the school year) she gave out some survey, and a bunch of people complained about her talking about religious stuff. Even though the survey was "anonymous", we handwrote our opinions on them, and she specifically remarked that she knew who was complaining by their handwriting. Anyway, she didn't come back the next year, the administration let her go because of this.
Now, fast-forward to today, 20 years later. I go on Facebook, and a bunch of my former classmates have started up a group for our graduating class, to talk about their reunion. From the various comments, and what they post on their walls, etc., it's evident that many of my former classmates have become extremely religious, just like this teacher. (I didn't bother attending the reunion.)
Maybe I have some kind of perception bias, but it seems to me that Americans in general have become much, much more religious than they were back in the 80s and early 90s when I grew up, and the flavor of that religion is fundamentalist/evangelical christianity.
If it were a democracy, no law would be passed unless voted on by the populace.
Wrong. Democracy is an umbrella term that just means people elect their own laws or leaders. You're using a fundamentalist definition of democracy, which is more properly called "direct democracy". What we have is frequently called "representative democracy".
Teaching of religion in public schools is unconstitutional, unless you include all religions, no religions, and antireligions.
The 1A doesn't say anything about public schools, it just says no law can be passed establishing a particular religion. It can be interpreted different ways with regard to schools. And that interpretation can change if the courts change.
And none of these belong in a science class, that's just stupid.
Since when is the general public known for great intelligence and wisdom? We used to have our kids taught in public school that in the event of a nuclear attack, they should hide under their desks as this would protect them from the radiation. There's nothing that requires schools to teach anything that's actually true, they teach idiotic stuff all the time; it's not like we have some brilliant geniuses controlling the public school curriculum nationwide and making sure teachers teach it effectively and aren't incompetent.
And what if they don't give any time to the Muslim take? Who's going to do anything about it? That requires enforcement. If the people elected to enforce the laws don't bother to do so in this instance, and the majority of people are OK with that and re-elect them, there's not much that can be done. Or, interested minority groups could sue in court, but that takes a lot of money, and still is to a certain extent up to the whim of the judge (who is also either elected in some regions, or in others appointed by elected officials).
As you said, it's possible to change the law and the constitution. And, laws can be interpreted differently. While it may seem unlikely, it's quite possible for the SCOTUS to be stacked with justices (over time) who decide to overturn the previous rulings on the matter.
And yes, the secularists are fighting against the theists. However, all this infighting isn't exactly productive. In other countries where they don't have all this infighting, they can concentrate on much more productive endeavors.
No, crappy Slashdot for not allowing you to edit your post.
So what are you proposing? Allowing criminals to go back into society and commit more crimes?
Obviously, the length of a prison term should be proportional to the severity of the crime; I'm not proposing that someone be imprisoned for life for an assault, but some seem to be proposing either no punishment at all, or a slap on the wrist.
"Legitimate science" is irrelevant when you're talking about public schools operated by a democratic government, unless you're proposing to make scientists into an elite cabal that control education and don't answer to the people in any way. If the people want "intellectual hooliganism", they're going to vote for it, and eventually (depending on the various laws in place that impede them and how difficult it is to change those laws), if they persist, they're going to get it.
I think it's more general than that. A bunch of cranks elect crank leaders that turns the country into a despotism of some kind. Just look at Germany in the 1930s. The people voted for bad leaders over a long enough time that the whole place went downhill. There wasn't some kind of coup there, the leaders were elected; once they got into power, then they turned it into a dictatorship, but it was popular will that started it all. This is just like how Chavez has gotten into power in Venezuela.
Wrong. It's both, stop being a pedantic fool. Democracy means we elect our leaders, and that's most certainly what we do.
And laws can be changed when enough people want them changed, and vote for that change. If a majority wants religious teaching, and pushes for it long enough, they'll get it one way or another.
A Constitutional Republic is a form of a democracy. "Democracy" means the people get to vote for their laws and/or leaders, and that's exactly what we do here in the US.
Yes, violating civil rights is bad, but if the majority wants it, and they want it long enough and consistently enough to vote for leaders who enact laws to do this, that's what we'll get. It's exactly what we got in WWII with the Japanese Internment camps. It's what we have now (and have always had) with gay rights, gay marriage, etc. It's what we had when we had slavery. The people wanted (or were OK with) these things, so they happened; the constitution certainly didn't protect them. When popular opinion changed enough, they got changed: in many states, gays are getting their rights protected better, are able to marry, etc., because a majority of people in those states wanted it (or didn't complain too much when others pushed the issue). In other states, such efforts are being met with far more opposition. If we tried to push gay rights at the national level, it wouldn't go very far, because there's too many people nationwide (in places like Kentucky) who are adamantly opposed to it, but because regions still have a certain amount of power, in those regions, gays are getting more rights than in the other regions.
Difficult, but not impossible. It's been done before, to do something as utterly stupid as banning alcohol.
The thing you seem to be missing is that in any democratic society, including the US, everything is up for a vote. However, the more long-lived and better democracies have mechanisms ("safe-guards" as you put it) in place so that popular whim is not too quickly reflected in government policy. We have things in the US constitution that are hard to change, but not impossible: if enough people demand something long enough, they'll get it eventually. A bunch of nuts managed to get a constitutional amendment passed which banned alcohol, after all. Yes, the 1A does have some important protections, but if enough people scream long enough (and vote for enough representatives who agree with them), eventually they can get a new amendment which changes the law.
There's nothing stopping the courts from changing their interpretation. Courts are composed of people, who are elected or appointed by other elected officials. If the people demand a change long enough, they'll get it. If they want it badly enough, they'll get a constitutional amendment passed. The constitution has indeed "magically" changed over time; not that long ago, some loonies managed to get an amendment in there which banned alcohol, with devastating consequences to society for over a decade. If enough of the population demands it, there's nothing stopping them from passing an amendment modifying or overturning the 1A. That's how a democracy works.
Yes, tyranny of the majority IS a bad thing, however what if the majority wants tyranny. A lot of democratic governments (including the USA's) have mechanisms to prevent short-term popular whim from affecting policy too much, however if the majority wants tyranny, and they want it long enough, they're going to vote for it and eventually they're going to get it as their representatives take over key positions one by one over multiple election cycles.
Respecting individual rights is important, yes, but if the majority doesn't agree with that precept, eventually it's all going to fall apart.