The business lobby, the union lobby, the environmental lobby, and the gay lobby, all of these examples are of non-exclusionary groupings. You can be whatever ethnicity and yet be a businessman/woman, belong to a union, care about the environment, or have whatever sexual inclinations. Further, a person can belong to many of these groups at the same time without conflict.
Being Christian, Jewish or Hindu is ethnic and you cannot be one and the other. Further, society can and tends to pressure minority ethnicities in order to capitulate to the majority ethnicity. This is human nature and cannot be alleviated except by the power of law.
It is also quite obvious that the majority Christian population would elect a majority of Christian representatives, who would in turn appoint a majority of Christian officials from among the majority Christian population. It is thus futile to allow religious lobbying. As for Christians, they are already well represented in government and enjoy what many say is the tyranny of the majority. As for other religions, if we allow religious lobbying, then we are extending an opportunity for legitimacy and influence to the minority religion—something no one in the leadership would agree with. Thus we have no direct religious lobbying in the American system.
As for other minority rights, criminal rights are well protected now, in the sense that you are not allowed to kill a black person for sports anymore. However, if you happen to do that, then we’ll send to jail for a couple of years (only if you get caught, of course). On the other hand, a black person would be fried for killing a white person. This is the actual practice in real life. You (assuming you are white) and I do not see it because we are white and enjoy the privileges of the white majority: so to us is it good. You need to look at the US, and the West, from the point of view of a minority (from all kinds, racial, religious, ethnic, you name it) in order to know how unjust it is.
