There are several different issues here you seem to be confusing. Let me answer them one by one.
1. I believe that we as a society have the right and the responsibility to keep people with fundamental bias off of juries. People who are members of the KKK shouldn't be judging African-Americans or put in a position to let killers go free.
For this end, I believe that it is right that our legal system asks people if they are in the KKK before allowing them to serve on a jury (I served on a jury where I was asked if I was the member of a racist organization).
You seem to disagree with me on this.
2. You believe that it is morally correct to lie about your affiliations or beliefs in order to subvert the legal process in cases where you disagree with the law. Your thinking is that if the law is immoral, then you should do everything in your power to prevent it from being enforced.
I disagree with you on this
. I believe that the rule of law, and the need to have a fair legal system (in spite of bad laws) is sacred. I would not lie to get on a jury in any case.
3. You believe that once you are on a jury, jury nullification is a valid tactic for laws or penalties with which you disagree. You state that a juror has the right to ignore the instructions and the law to reach a conclusion that is just.
I agree with you on this point.
You are confusing point #2 and point #3. I wouldn't lie to get on a jury. I would practice jury nullification... disregarding the instructions to reach a result that in my opinion is more just.
They are not the same.