democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

The Sea-Cat airline story recently where Christmas trees have been put up around the airport for the last 20 plus years, then a Jewish Rabbi threatened to file a suit if they did not erect an 8 ft. menorah. - "forced" the airline to make a decision, they chose to remove the trees.

We see many stories like this lately, I live in the Indiana town that had the infamously 10 commandments on the courthouse lawn since the 1940's - the ACLU filed a suit, to avoid litigation the courthouse elected to remove the limestone monument that was actually out of sight from the average passerby - then a private businessman who owned land across from the courthouse erected it right where everyone could see it, complete with flags and night lights - the entire State of Indiana laughed their ass off on this one.

I got thinking about all of these stories where lawsuits are filed to remove this or remove that, most of which have been in place for generations.
America is a loose Democracy, where officials are democratically elected to represent them - through this procedure all laws and policies are made/enforced. - ALl of the recent lawsuits skirt this procedure, single individuals like the Father in California who filed a lawsuit to remove "One nation under God" from the pledge can affect the lives of millions who do NOT agree with him.
In a true democracy, tyranny is brought on to the minority, in my "anti-democracy" tyranny is instead felt by the majority as public policy can be formed by a single individual.

You can see where I am going - thoughts?

Well, for starters, the guy in California is a poor example of your point, as "One nation, under God" is still contained in the Pledge Of Allegiance...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Ahh - but it did get by the 9th circus, until, as usual they were overturned.

Which, as should've been obvious, means it didn't shape public policy...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Would you stop splitting hairs?

The point on that example is that it made law in a State District court, yes it was overturned as it was madness, he did not even have custody of the child - however he made it all the way to that states highest court.

I think a 'true' democracy strives to make as much freedom as possible for every single individual.
The 'freedom for as many people as possible' will lead to a tyranny of the majority on minorities.
But i think something went wrong when they considered the 'freedom to limit someone elses freedom' to be a citizen's right.

I'm not the one saying that one person can change public policy, and then offering up a failed attempt as proof.

You can call it "splitting hairs" if you'd like, or you could present some actual cases where it has actually happened...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Thank you for having the fortitude to see where I am going despite the less than perfect example

Your last sentence "freedom to limit someone else's freedom to be a citizen's right." - is spot on.

That is where I am going.
In yesteryear America, through a more accurate democracy, brought on tyranny to the minority. Efforts were made over many years to weaken the democracy to stop the majority from harming the individuals who were different.
My point, is have we now went far enough where the individual now has enough power to cause harm to the majority?

One person having enough power to enforce his will on the majority, that sounds like a dictatorship to me. This all sounds ridiculous. When people let the judicial branch dictate what is right and wrong instead of common sense it can only lead to trouble.

__________________
"The great issues of the day are decided not by fine speeches and majority votes but by blood and iron." -Otto von Bismarck

"Professional soldiers are predictable, but the world is full of amateurs." -Murphy's Law

it has already led to trouble.
more than that - it has led to absurdity.

This is how it should be done. On private property you can engage in all the religion you desire. However, to have a governmental property engaging in an endorsement of a religion is the antithesis of the intent of the Constitution's framers. This doesn't mean that individuals cannot go into a school & pray----of course they can, and they do, if they so desire. It does mean, however, that a teacher or administrator (who is de facto an agent of the government) cannot lead said prayer or force others to participate in this exercise. If the teacher wants to have a prayer circle at her house on Wed. night & invite her students, she is free to do so.

I don't understand why this is an issue. Religious symbols do not belong in the sphere of governmental institutions. I was raised a Baptist, and until the church's national convention in 1982, Baptists were fierce protectors of the separation of church & state. This changed in '82 when they (and others) started attempting to affect public policy & force conversion onto all of the non-Protestants. It's a dangerous slippery slope. The Constitution is clearly a godless document & ours is a secular government. Read my quote below for the best articulation of this notion. . .

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson