When did democracy transform from live+let live to evangelism vehicle for a (ANY) majority?

Question

Loo at, for example, the money ... the money isn't neutral, it has one-sided religious propaganda only (only since the 1950s, mind you)

This is but one example, symbolic of the bigger overall paradigm of theists trying to culturally shape this place for everyone, or at least just for themselves w/o regard to anyone else

If atheists were the majority, would you want us putting "theism is lunacy" on the money?

If Hindus were the majority, would you want them putting "In Vishnu We Trust" on the money?

If Scientologists were the majority, would you want them putting something similar on the money?

In a DEMOCRACY, what makes Christians special so that you can invent special class of rights for yourselves?

Answer 1

Protecting a minority group from the tyranny of the majority has always been the major problem for democracy.

Public choice theory says that people will figure out sooner or later how to vote themselves money or power. The increasing size of the state/government and the greater interconnectedness means that it's just that much easier to rob Peter to pay the National Association of Pauls. (Or force Peter to join the National Association of Pauls and pay dues.)

Answer 2

Indeed. Much of this, though, is just from a past where even more people were religious.

Our government is a constitutional republic, meaning we elect officials to represent our views (failure) and have a system of rules to protect the rights of others. However, some people think we're just a plain old democracy that gets to decide everything ever, including taking rights away from others.