I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how moral systems work, one that is perpetuated by the church.
In Christianity, there is a specific "source" of morality, one that's (supposedly) infallible and unquestionable. This leads to problems when the infallible-unquestionable source of morality endorses things like slavery [1]: if it's unquestionable and infallible, how can your moral system be adapted to address this shortcoming? (This is usually handwaved away by theists by saying something like "oh that's the old covenant", or "that was a different god", which uses strange internal doctrinal shenanigans to somehow justify this supreme perfect being's obvious moral shortcommings, and looks to everyone outside the religion like someone just playing the cup game.)
Outside of religion, there is no single "source" of morality. There's a codified system of laws that our societies adhere to, certainly, but there's plenty of examples of how the laws do not codify morality (e.g. I am not required to be even a minimally-decent Samaritan to anyone I encounter on the street). Morality instead is something that an individual has to build for themselves, as a framework for decisionmaking in the wider world: how do you choose between your available actions? what are your guiding principals?
Some decide that, for various reasons, they cannot support industrial animal agriculture, and turn vegan. Some decide they fundamentally disagree with the structure of our police forces. Some turn pacifist--but all come to these conclusions through their reasoning. They absolutely can (and do) borrow reasoning from other sources, but it's impossible for it to be 'imposed' on them because there is no 'higher power' that has the absolute moral right.
This is something that's frustrated me when trying to engage with religious people on other moral issues; a few months ago I was talking to my mom about the concept of wealth redistribution, as to me it seemed incredibly immoral that people like Jeff Bezos can have an insane amount of wealth while we still have children in our schools who can't afford lunch or library books or are even homeless. My mother (Christian) couldn't get around the idea that she had no right to impose her perceived morality on another: that it would be wrong to support laws requiring the redistribution of wealth. She had similar issues with LGBT rights: she could see the harm caused to LGBT people, and did not want to participate in that harm, but struggled to support them because she felt like codifying moral support for something, which she didn't have the power to do.
This removal of one's own ability to develop and test morals is part of what disturbs me greatly about the church. It makes it very difficult to demonstrate when people make mistakes, how they have harmed other people, and how they might go about avoiding that in the future.
[1]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21&versi...
I mean... you probably can't get around that idea either. Or do you believe that any and all of your rights can and should be taken away if a majority of the people agree you shouldn't have those rights anymore (even if the majority are religious nutjobs who decide you should not have a right to consume alcohol because it's immoral)?
This is generally why I 'advocate' for atheism speficially, and street epistemology [1] generally: I want people to be able to effectively reason through their morals and beliefs, because I believe that will lead to a generally better society--or at the very least will make it easier for people to identify when they're arguing from different base assumptions.
My issue w.r.t. moral agency in religious folks is it's difficult to start having conversations around things like LGBT rights because their default stance is (paraphrased) "It doesn't matter what I think is 'right' or not, because I'm not the one who gets to say what is 'right' or not--that's God's job."
So before we can even get to the concept of "when (if ever) can you impose these moral beliefs on another" they're refusing to engage with the concept of a morality where that question matters.
To answer your specific question, no, I don't believe "any and all of [my] rights can and should be taken away if a majority of the people agree you shouldn't have those rights" because it doesn't align with my own moral perceptions: I don't think the majority is obviously correct. (For example, I am illegal in 71 countries and can be legally executed in 12. Perhaps not a strict majority, and I"m using laws as an indicator of moral policy, but certainly a lot of people--regardless, I do not agree with these things.)
That said, my perceptions __can be flawed__. I would hope that the tools I use to build them, and my willingness to discuss/argue/test them with others will prevent them from being egregiously wrong, but it is still possible that they would remain wrong. This makes it possible for me to correct my moral system where it is found lacking.
If you tried to establish a slave free society in a small nation sorrounded by slave owner empires how much time do you think that would last?
But those laws were given by a god who is all-knowing and all-powerful, so either
(1) said god was totally chill with slavery, which means its moral code is suspect
or
(2) that god was not all-powerful, and had to cede some morality to the dictates of the surrounding societies
or
(3) that god doesn't exist at all, and people just made up laws that fit their time.
Your god, who you trust to know all the facts of the universe, was okay with slavery. He didn't say "This is a terrible thing that we have to deal with for a few years, but will go away eventually." He didn't say "Treat your slaves as well as you would your neighbors, though they may work for you."
No, he explicitly allowed abuse to be inflicted on a slave, so long as they don't die:
Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod
must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result,
but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a
day or two, since the slave is their property.
So if you beat your slave so hard they die, you too can be beat--but if you beat them just short of death, and they're walking about in a day or two, you're off the hook. How is that fair? How is it in any way just and moral of this god to allow his followers to be so cruel to these people who have no recourse?
So even supposing that your argument--being surrounded by other slavery-endorsing nations made holding slaves morally permissible in the Old Testament--your god still allows horrific things to be inflicted amongst these people treated as property, so long as they don't die. So, best case scenario, he doesn't even do the minimum of saying "sure, have slaves, but treat them well."
Morality does not scale relative to time period. Slavery was always horrific--it wasn't that it slowly began to become morally-bad as time went on, it was always, always bad, people just chose to put profit over human rights for centuries. Eventually we came to realize the pain and suffering we were inflicting on people (and those people gained enough combined force to actually threaten those abusing them), and we changed our ways and laws. This doesn't mean that morality suddenly changed and slavery used to be okay, but now was bad, and people updated the laws to reflect that; no, people realized the things they were doing were indeed horrific, and changed their ways.
In the Bible, this is not the case--and I would hold that an all-powerful, all-knowing god, who can see all of time, would know that slavery would be immoral--regardless of WHEN it occurred. I think it's insane that some Christians just shrug and say "Well that was then, this is now." The lack of self-agency in such an argument disgusts me, and simply lengthens the tail on such flawed morals. That is, where they aren't actively participating in such things.
From "A People's History" by Howard Zinn:
In the year 1610, a Catholic priest in the Americas named Father Sandoval
wrote back to a church functionary in Europe to ask if the capture, transport,
and enslavement of African blacks was legal by church doctrine. A letter dated
March 12, 1610, from Brother Luis Brandaon to Father Sandoval gives the answer:
"Your Reverence writes me that you would like to know whether the Negroes
who are sent to your parts have been legally captured. To this I reply that
I think your Reverence should have no scruples on this point, because this is
a matter which has been questioned by the Board of Conscience in Lisbon,
and all its members are learned and conscientious men. Nor did the bishops
who were in Sao Thome, Cape Verde, and here in Loando--all learned and virtuous
men--find fault with it. We have been here ourselves for forty years and
there have been among us very learned Fathers . . . never did they
consider the trade as illicit. Therefore we and the Fathers of Brazil buy these
slaves for our service without any scruple . . . ."
[1]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021&ver...
And when there are interest groups pumping money into research to ensure the thing does not harm others in a provable way?
It's like cigarettes in the 40s. Tobacco usage was both moral and socially acceptable because big tobacco pumped money into the research to ensure the perception was that it did not cause harm.
That was eventually disproven, but it took decades, and we no doubt have modern day "big tobaccos" pumping money into research to ensure their product/ideology/etc. is "proven" not to cause harm. You may think something is moral now but will change your mind later. For example, you may think it's perfectly fine for a person to attend church today, but what if research comes out later that religion provably harms children, would you then be on board with banning religion? And if so, doesn't that disturb you that a slightly different society might come to an equally "proven" conclusion that atheism provably causes harm to society?
It's more than that. Not just big corps but sometimes prominent scientists, or political movements have agendas and biases that influence research (studies related to racism, sexism, and diversity/equity come to mind). There are also research "cabals" that won't let you publish research contrary to the groupthink. And on top of all that there is a "reproducibility crisis" that especially impacts social science/medicine.
> and when in doubt, lean towards individual freedom over society's view of something.
I think this is the right stance. Too many people (in my opinion) cherry pick papers on topics that do not have a "preponderance of evidence" (or have even been reproduced a single time) in order to fight for policy changes or otherwise bolster their stance.