@Olivier5,
I believe that would be my definition of protecting minorities too. We agree. That’s not what I’m talking about though.
You understand that opinions on laws can have majority opinions and minority opinions. For example, the majority of people (probably) agree with the inclusion of birth control in someone’s health insurance. A minority of people disagree based on religious grounds. The laws in the USA allowed companies ran by religious folk to not provide birth control. The minority viewpoint was protected.
The USA has, within its government make up, its constitution, rules of the senate and the house, and jurisprudence of the legal system and the Supreme Court, carved out several ways that the minority opinion/belief is protected from laws that would impact the practice of those beliefs or even just the implementation of laws that the minority disagrees with. Things like the equal protection clause, the filibuster rules, and small state over-representation in the senate and the electoral college are examples of these protections. All of these have been used to advance or slow what what you and I may call progress.
I’m not suggesting that this is preferred or right, what I stated my opinion was is simply that in the matter of governance it appears to me that the USA’s system protects minority viewpoints to a greater degree than other countries governance systems. I don’t know if this is true or not, I said it’s just my impression and I’ve been hoping someone would help explain how other countries have better governments.
