"John, John, John!!! You put words in other's mouths...and you KNOW that the majority are religious, and therefore will always have a 'vote'. The point is that they shold not be able to impose laws or practices designed to favor religious institutions at the expense of non-religious folks!"

This is exactly the same logic fallacy you employed earlier. You can fight "religion" on the grounds of its rationality as long as you can lump "the religious" together. But the religious are not monolithic. "The religious" do not vote toether. Jim Wallis does not vote as Mark Hatfield does not vote as Joe Lieberman does not vote as William F. Buckley.

And OF COURSE they can act for the passage of laws that reflect their religious convictions. And they can "inflict" those laws on others if they can form a coalition of like-minded people. It has ALWAYS been this way -- and always will be this way. That's why we have laws against murder, thievery, rape, etc. People's religious convictions drove them to vote for such laws. When enough other people are similarly driven by EITHER thier religious convictions, or some other, maybe pragmatic concern, laws get passed.

The more idiosyncratic the religious "law" the less likely to form a such a voting coalition. It's always been thus. For instance, nobody seems offended when Martin Luther King is driven by his religious convictions to seek equality for man.

I often give the example: IF there were only 27 Christians in the country, they should have the right & freedom to have a church and worship and live their personal lives in accordance with those beliefs....and the same should apply to NON Christians living as a minority in a society. They should NOT be required to be subjected to open prayers in public meetings, have their taxes taken to support religious causes...etc., etc....

This is the logic fallacy of false dichotomy. There is no society cleanly divided. The reality is that all mixed, pluralistic societies must hash things out in the middle ground.

"There are just some issues that should not BE subject to 'majority vote'..., as you would see immediately if you WERE in the minority. "

So, you come down on the side of abolishing the Electoral College, or what?