This is flawed perspective and your three examples are a very mixed bag of unequal occurrences. All three of those situations are unlike the other. Jim Crow la

This is flawed perspective and your three examples are a very mixed bag of unequal occurrences. All three of those situations are unlike the other. Jim Crow laws were very much not due to a "majority" -- if you remember, the country went into civil war over the issue of slavery, and the North has always been the more populous part of the country. Laws against Homosexuality were part of the fabric of pretty much most of the world (still so in 72 countries, as well as 70% of the commonwealth states), so not sure you can attribute that to any one particular moral majority, it was more of a global majority, so there goes that comparison out the window. And finally, the War on Drugs had nothing to do with morality, but basically one man's smart campaign to manipulate the public so that he could target minorities and anti-war protestors (later -- the CIA learned you could make a nice dime, so they continued it in the name of "national security" -- wonder where we heard that before) And finally, your argument is very flawed because systems of morality are what have lead to the greatest human progress for thousands of years, and you are invalidating all of that on some unfortunate decade-long (strong emphasis on decade long, not millennium long) effects of fundamentalists and charlatans who, as history has already judged, were on the wrong side of things? You must have a very bleak outlook on humanity.