but I'm enjoying the argument.
It is not implausible for people to recognize the rights of others. Even Jesus taught that. There is an interesting confluence between most religious teachings (including christianity) and our government. My right to do obnoxious things stops when it infringes upon your right not to have me do something to you. Murder. Theft. Assault, etc. Neither Chrisitanity, religion in general nor our government have cornered the market on these concerns.
While you find it implausible, that's why the Constituion is there, to protect the rights of others against the will of the majority. If the Constituion only recognized the power of the legislature as supreme, it would be superfluous. What the Constitution and the Bill of Rights do, (and what the states insisted that it do before they ratified it--hence the addition of the Bill of Rights as an afterthough) was to restrict the power of the legislature to rule by majority vote.
Now, where Christianity and the Constituition diverge is upon my right NOT to believe in your God. Christianity, at least as it is practiced today, is a judgmental religion. It's basic tenets say that if I do not believe in God, or more particularly Christ, then I'm in deep do-do. On the other hand, my Constituion (and I'm quite proud of it) says on this matter essentially two things. 1) I don't have to believe in any particular religionand 2) the Government can't make me believe in anything in particular either. Keep in mind that the Constitution does not restrict your right to try to make me believe in something. It only keeps you from using the power of government to coerce. Therefore, you are free to practice as you believe and so am I. We just have to leave the government out of it.
More on the "religous" nature of science later.