No it isn't. I have no ideology. I'm a pragmatist, and I'm just calling it like I see it. We've got to face the reality of the situation, and the reality is that morality is a human invention. The nature of that morality is different in all six-billion of us, but in order to survive and prosper, we are compelled to dictate some semblence of common morality on everybody, whether they're willing or not to accept it.
This is the similarity between Atheist, Communist, Neo-Pagans and all non-Judeo-Christian ideologies. One body forcing another into whatever it deems fit.
Sorry. Zoroastrian-Judeo-Christian-Islamic thought is just as guilty. You just excuse your resort to force by claiming that you're only following the orders of a dictatorial ethereal phantasm named Zoroaster, Yahweh or Allah. Its the same dictatorship without the accountability. At least us atheists are honest about where our power is coming from.
The only law that can be enforce is a prefect law from a moral authority. Man can never meet those requirements
Agreed. Until such time, however, as we find that perfect moral authority, we'll have to make do with our own, flawed, human institutions.
The American system of Law and Morality was based on the perfect Law of the Creator, the one who has true Moral Authority.
Most American moralities may be (I don't completely buy that argument, but I'll accept it for the sake of argument). The legal system, however, isn't. Our legal system is based on Anglo-Saxon law, which, in turn, is composed of an amalgam of Germanic tribal traditions and Roman law, neither of which have monotheistic roots.
I cannot believe I am reading a Freeper who believes that a group of men can rule over another group.
I don't like it either, but that's the reality of the world. My solution is to minimize that hegemony as much as possible. Eliminating it, however, yields only to anarchy.
For the betterment of society of course.
Give me a better reason for opposing murder.
Though I am sure that when that same majority takes your right (your group of man given i.e. GOVERNMENT right) to bear arms you will protest.
Absolutely. Except I don't think gun-ownership is a moral question (its a public policy issue). But even if it were, I'd have no problem disagreeing with the majority. As I've said before, the tyranny of the majority is far from a perfect system, but its the least-bad option around
Your ideology says man in all his corruption can group together and force others to submit to whatever standard they deem fit. How very similar to Communism and Nazism
Again, you fail to understand. I'm not passing judgement on whether this behavior is right or wrong, merely saying its necessary to maintain the current society as we know it. You can play reductio ad aburdum all you want, but you already know I personally oppose more than a modicum of popular control.
It would also be morally correct for the Majority of Muslims to kill all non-Muslims and Morally correct for the USA to fight that cause. Or would the Muslims be more correct as they would have much higher numbers in their majority?