It's true that sometimes RAID is handy at home, but exactly how much of the data is irreplacable if lost? Knowing people, most of the data on home machines is audio/video/pr0n/game installation files/ISO images/etc. all of which could be eventually replaced by downloading/installing them again. In those circumstances RAID is silly, as you could probably fit the really irreplacable stuff on a USB flash disk, which is much cheaper and more reliable than a hard disk (due to there being no moving parts), and do a backup of the basic system to a DVD. So that if it goes wrong, then you just restore what you need, and do some downloading to get the rest. If it's really important to you it should be backed up to a DVD or something, like my MP3 collection is. I'd hate to have to re-rip all those CD's again! From a cost/benefit point of view, it just makes no sense to use RAID in these circumstances, unless you just want to muck around with it (which is fair enough).
However if you are dealing with large amounts of data which really is irreplacable, then RAID makes sense (although obviously not RAID 0, or AID 0 really, as MTBF is halved. The number of people that do this for a small performance increase, ask for help when a drive fails, and then cry when they find out the data is lost scares me).
If you are using RAID 1 then you should have 3 disks not 2 (1 spare for easy replacement if one fails, as you are more likely to have another disk fail in a RAID array if one already has, and if that is your only backup strategy you are SOL) and you should source them at different times, preferably from different resellers, in case they are all from one faulty batch and fail at, or around, the same time. This is all common practice in larger corporate installations, but is normally overkill for home use.