Hi Lifey, good try but no cigar. well, not a whole one anyway.
I have a major problem in one area, and niggles in others.
Respects all beliefs; tolerates opposing beliefs
I think some beliefs deserve a big, fat raspberry, and no respect whatsoever. Only then will they (the beliefs, not the believers) die, as they deserve to.
The other niggles are concerned with definitions and such like.
Democracy. Hmmm. Tyranny of the majority? I'd tend towards a definition which centred upon the acceptance by the governed of the powers exercised over them. Maybe that is the intended definition of democracy, but democracy itself, as an objective, strikes me as something of a shorthand phrase. Hitler was elected.
Eliminating discrimination. Hmmm. I understand and support the sentiment, but to express it thus can lead to unintentioned consequences. For a start, don't you think 'elimination' is something of an impossible target? Not least because I think it's impossible to define?
Equality. Of what? Different equalities are mutually exclusive. Equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? this is fraught with civilisation destroying problems.
I also have trouble with the phrase 'human rights'. For example, I think everyone should have access to proper drinking water, but millions don't. I'd rather concentrate on providing it, than deciding that it is a 'right'. Worse still, everyone claims that everything they want is a 'right'. IMO, it suffers terminally from 'rights inflation'. Every day we here of new 'rights'. 'Rights' are not a good yardstick for measuring the progress of humanity.
Going back to Ingersoll, I can see both sides of the argument. I have more of a problem with defining 'happiness' than describing it as the 'only good.'
'Here' and 'now', I'm reasonably happy with, because it contrasts IMO with 'the next life', rather than 'who cares a stuff about tomorrow'.
I agree with Diane about being true to yourself, but I think the point that Ingersoll was making was that you are unlikely to be happy if you centred your efforts on yourself to the exclusion of others.
But overall, whenever you try to reduce philosophies to a few lines, you are going to run into problems of definitions and 'what ifs' and 'ah, but's'. For what it's worth, my definition is that though there is no supreme being, life is positive nevertheless.
Maybe that's too vague (and it contains a wholly unsubstantiated claim), but it works for me.