"Jericho." <cjunk@(reverse it)dnopgib.net.au> wrote in message
news:GMMBf.226869$V7.42960@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"John D." <theendis@hand> wrote in message
news:V2MBf.9636$NE.5200@dukeread12...

"Jericho." <cjunk@(reverse it)dnopgib.net.au> wrote in message
news:rNLBf.226855$V7.201516@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"John D." <theendis@hand> wrote in message
news:anLBf.9633$NE.429@dukeread12...

"Jericho." <cjunk@(reverse it)dnopgib.net.au> wrote in message
news:1sKBf.226810$V7.110018@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"words of truth" <wordsoftruth201@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137085344.620400.229800@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

http://idintheuk.blogspot.com/2006/01/ideal-atheist-state.html


The Ideal Atheist State

I know it is off topic ...but I am interested.

How does an atheist like Dawkins or Dennet or Myers suggest a

legal

system should be contructed from first principles?

In other words upon what basis precisely does a leader have the
authority to command obedience to any rules... and how is the

leader

supposed to get a satisfactory set of rules in a state.

For starters I think the ideal athiest state would void of a

'leader'

In asmuch as there is no athiest 'leader' now

surely it would be a 'government' which is actually by the people

and

for

the people

How would you deal with mainstream religious folks who want to
organize,
build libraries, have sporting events, money raising bake sales and
generally molding their environment to suit them, including the

writing

of

local laws?

These things aint so bad.
'Build libraries' would be fine by me, no doubt by others.

Let's suppose that the libraries content was strictly geared to the
religionist who built it and the content was decidedly anti-state.
Would
the
state be agreeable to that?

this is fun.... ok lets see
surely if the state had simple 'humanisitc/naturalistic' views only, then
any books or doctorines that 'the content was decidedly anti-state' would

be

no doubt unanimously rejected by the opposing societies..
Surely it woud be hard for even the religous society to even come to a

stage

to producs such books. For they would have to be fundamentally religous

with

pure superstitous beliefs of some sort, that present arguments of how a
naturalistic humanistic government has anti human values. I aint no
social
scientist, this is just a laymans as is no doubt evident.

My description was too vague. Let me expand a bit. These theoretical
religionists I'm speaking about started out in the society of For the
People
and By the People (FPBP) as a small minority; say .005% based on a
population of 200 million. Over time, this small group has steadily grown
to
where they are now 10% of a current base population of 300 million and
have,
over this time, accumulated substantial wealth through bake sales,
offerings, and the like. The ethnicity of the organization is proportional
to the general population with the dominant ethnicity in the group
comprising 70% of the membership. The organization has also, over time,
become adept at "working" the Councils of Societies (CS) and have, through
politicking and their legal staff, gained favor among many in the CS. This
favor has allowed them to get much of their school curriculum instituted
into the FPBP public schools. This religious organization believes,
deeply,
that the status quo of FPBP is under the influence of an indoctrinated
superstitious group of people who believe in a god that this group has
determined to be non-existent and that because of this, the established
group must be driven out. They also believe that failure in their mission
will lead to doom for the FPBP.

I assume, based on its name, the FPBP is a "popular vote" society where a
10% voting block could be crucial for (re) election to office.

So, with this clearer hypothetical how would the FPBP deal with this
popular
subset of its members?

Surely there

would have to be some inclusion into the 'State' laws of seperate

societies

and their laws. Some may burn people at the stake, some will not.

People

should be able to leave societies that dont like them and go to one of
the
other ones.
moeny raising bake sales is cool.

Would the state think it was cool if the money raised at the bakes
sales
is
specifically for the construction of more anti-state libraries and
construction of private schools to educate and promote the religion in
question?

I think that even religous comunities

would be fine under an athiest 'government' . A governement that is

only

concerned with natural human rights. Governs alot less than most do

now.All

other 'laws' should be made by 'councils' of the societies, be it
muslim,christian,athiest,hindu,budhist, etc. Obviously there would be
more
depth to these 'laws' than just what i typed here.

I see, your example though refers to homogeneous councils of the
"societies". How would you balance the homogenecity of these councils
to
best represent the population at large.

Well, i dont think there would be a best representation of the population

at

large if it is made up of differing 'societies', unless it is based soley

on

human natural needs. Like ummmm Muslims,christians eat food, give birth

and

die pluss other humanly common things that are obviously natural for all
mankind. Holy *****, i dont really do to well in conveying my opinions in
words now do I.

It has been shown that all groups compete for everything, among themselves
and with other groups. How would the FPBP maintain order when the
inevitable
violence happens? What power would the CS have and how would they maintain
it?

I think surely government should only be concerned with these things.
Theology should come under the realm of personal opinion and should not
be
any business of the state.Like Inteligent design is not for the science
classes.I dont think the laws have any business with these things. Any
religous group that seeks to run the state, no doubt wants to control all
the people, because of the belief in a supreme law maker..

In the FPBP would these aspects of life be decided by popular vote? If not
who would make the determination on how the population is governed?