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?
Well, gosh, why do think we're opposed to a One-World-Goverment that would grant equal policy-setting rights to every ignorant dirtfarmer, goatherder, and beggar in the third world. /sarcasm-mode
Do you really this spelled out to you? Read jennyp's post again about "limits" and then read this:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Here's another important idea in black and white:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I hope that wasn't too simple for you.
No. My moral views stay more-or-less constant. Whenever the holders of power decide to take our rights, they can. That doesn't mean their actions are moral, and that certainly doesn't mean we couldn't or shouldn't resist.
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.
In many Muslims' eyes, militant Jihad is seen as highly moral. It is, in fact, a God-ordained commandment. In my eyes as a secular American, it is completely immoral.
Our views are clearly incompatible, and I have no problem imposing my morality on them, using all the coercive force in the world.