From WikiWorld

Jump to: navigation, search

AnewGoChurch is the organization of all the faiths of all the citizens of AnewGo. It is the AnewGo inter faith council representing the consensus of religions in the moral issues of AnewGo. Its mandate is to represent every SovereignIndividuals relationship with providence, the divine, God, the All, or their world of ethics and humanism.

The AnewGoChurch is responsible for any moral regulation and other actions in AnewGo which are beyond the scope of AnewGoCongress. Such regulation and activities must not violate the SocialContract or in any way attempt to control the private activities of consenting SovereignIndividuals.

PROBLEM: Anyone that can use a computer is a SovereignIndividual. You can believe that as a parent, I'd have some serious issues about an adult doing "private activities" with my nine year old child. Or even 13. Or 17.

 'The right of parents to enslave their children to some extent may have to be considered.  This is an issue for the AnewGoChurch to resolve as it is counter to the mandate of congress.'

PROBLEM: The only way your council will represent everyone is if everyone is on the council. This means Democracy. That is going to cause problems if your AnewGoCitizens are not NewHumans. If TransHumans are still Tyranny Of The Largest Minority |s at their core.

 'Everyone can be on the council.  Most will choose to be represented by someone else on most issues.'

I would rather not buy into this political problem of organising what I see as a purely personal matter of spirituality. All people come to these matters in many different ways, and may actually be irrelevant to the matters at hand. Let us see what we can agree on rather than seeking areas of contention.

Also the idea that any organised representation to the divine is possible is the main contention i have with organised religions.

If we attempt our very best to make sound laws and allow a decentralised and diverse system to develop we will have achieved something good.

Another Problem- What will AnewGoChurch be on in religions? Is it going to be the current ones, or a whole new massed AnewGo type idea?

 'Like the Hindu temple with shrines for all the various gods people follow the old will be represented, but the new will also be represented.'

PROBLEM: I see a total contradiction between naming a church after a state, and the concept of religious freedom. ( Though I do see some value in just the action of proposing it, just so we can see the articulation of PROBLEM:S )

 'The AnewGoChurch has no doctrine of it's own, it only represents religious interests of the citizens to the state.'

If there will be one church for AnewGo, then no problem. Don't you have churches or temples near you that are named after the location, or town it is in?

Problem: AnewGoChurch seems to be taking the brunt of these problems. Should we create a AnewGoProblems page, or shift some over to AnewGoCongress?

 'moral issues, and church and state issues, should be handled here.'

If the Congress is representational of the people, then it will be representational of all the people's beliefs and morals. Therefore, I propose that AnewGoChurch also be the AnewGoCongress. Problems solved, yes?

 'AnewGo congress mandate is to deal with problems objectively in accord with our SocialContract, independent of subjective beliefs. This is a true separation of church and state.  Yet we cannot be without moral leadership, the AnewGoChurch, as a collaboration of faiths, will serve that end.'

All you need is a specification that noone be barred from AnewGoCongress because their beliefs and views are not in line with the majority consensus, and we have one happy, loud, contentious melting pot of all AnewGoCitizens, yah?

 'That provide no separation or balance of power benefits.'

Think about it.

 'I think the separation of church and state should be defined and enforced explicitly.'

Of course, the Congress itself needs to be comprised of all members of AnewGo, but since most people will not participate, this isn't a big deal.

 'most people will be represented, we will solicit the views of the citizens and act on behalf of the citizens according to law.'

Remember, you cannot separate people from their beliefs. It is the groups beliefs that form the basis of their laws. And at the base of those laws are their religious beliefs and expected behavior. Back when we didn't live in such large, communal clusters, we didn't need such formalized things as laws. We knew them and the expected place for all in the community and how they should act. If someone were to do something totally beyond expectations, the elders of the community would get together, and feel out what the majority of the community would have done about it. This is still our system, we've just formalized it to in response to dealing with the scale of our current communities.

 'We are sick of the buildings full of laws, we don't want to encourage law we want to minimize law.  Just cause a lot of people believe something doesn't mean there has to be a Law.'

Virtuosity allows all members to again directly participate in the community's decisions. Therefore, all should be the Congress. Equal representation for all. Participate, and you are equally represented. ConsensusByDefault.

 'We must restrict the power of congress unless we want the same erosion of human rights in AnewGo as we are seeing throughout the world.'

Think it through. ---StarPilot

It goes both ways, SP. If you are talking in an AnewGoPhysicalSense, think up of any trivial problem. Would you rather see the Priest at your Church, or would you go talk to the Government? If it is local and small, not involving things in a Congresses scope, We should separate between the 2 pages. --KenSchry

But a AnewGoPriest in your local AnewGoChurch is going to be a AnewGoCongressMember. So that AnewGoPriest is going to be lawfully bound to report any of your AnewGoTaxableBehavior (that should be JimSpeak for BadBehavior). And your local AnewGoChurch is going to be your local AnewGoPhysicalMeetingPlace.

Everything in a Democracy concerns everyone. Just most people will not care as it doesn't affect them, yes? Therefore there is no such thing as a separation between matters. People don't separate their spirituality from their being just because they are standing in the shower, or the library, or the congressional floor, or the bus. You don't stop running 'Personal Beliefs' like it was an application on the CPU in your head. You may not be cognitive of it, but it is there, participating in that community of thoughts in your brain. To try to artificially separate them, is folly. Look at the uproar over the 'In God We Trust' and 'Under God' debates (removing them from money/pledge of allegiance). Why? Because the consensus is that they belong. The consensus put it there, and the consensus is keeping it there. Even the proponents and defenders of separation (The Supreme Court) state that it does not violate the separation requirement. Why? Because people do not turn off their spirituality. Consensus of the HumanCollective known as the USoA.


You are right, I can only say one thing. This 'is' JimSpeak==== ;-) ====

There are good reasons to separate moral legislation since moral legislation enslaves the individual to someone elses idea of the good life by nature. A simple majority can never be allowed to legislate morality, there must be a overriding consensus. The idea that we can't tell the difference is ridiculous, usually it is obvious, if it is not obvious we should err on the side of less law. As always, we can resolve disputes in AnewGoCourt.

Pardon? Have you paid attention to our history? This is what most founders have said. Including ours. And look where we are today.

 'So how are we going to fix it?'

Legislated morality. That is what the law is. The rules of expected behaviour, the rewards for meeting that behavior, and the penalties for breaking it. Why is it against the law to kill? That's generally a religious law brought over into the secular law.

'Killing is a violation of our live and let live SocialContract.  It may be morally wrong also, but congress is only mandated to uphold the SocialContract.  The last thing we want is a congress that demands some expected behavior.  That is slavery not freedom and a direct violation of our SocialContract.'

Remember, religion is our older culture that has survived to us from our ancestors. It is the code of laws and beliefs that worked for them. It's an evolved set of concepts, ideas, and most importantly behavior. We have been shaped by these things, and as a consequence, any set of laws we make up, will still reflect what we were taught. It is part of who we are.

To state there must be separation is simply stupid. I thought you guys wanted to avoid stupidity. What you should state is that the Church of AnewGo is to be unbiased, and supports all spiritual views. Whether its atheistic, or SimUniverse.

 'Indeed, AnewGoChurch must do it's best to represent the Atheist and the Catholic.  The common, shared human morality, is what the AnewGo church should represent ultimately.  The ideal of separation of church and state is certainly not stupid.  Thank God we have it to the degree that we do.  It is a good idea that could free us from being enslaved to other peoples idea of TheGoodLife if we can make it work.'

And you shouldn't trouble with trying to keep spirituality out of your government. If all spirituality is valid, so long as it does not actively suppress another spiritual viewpoint, then there isn't a reason to even try. If the majority of the AnewGoCitizens are Wiccan, so what? Their Congress would pass laws based on their beliefs. As the majority, they will expect the rest of you non-pagan scum ;-) to behave in a fashion that is fitting to their consensus. After all, that is the consensus of the majority. If you do not like it, you leave AnewGo (which just strengthens their GreatestMinority). If you have a sudden flood of Orthodox Jedi, so that the balance swings to favor them, then they'll pass new laws to reflect that. Such is life in a Democracy.

 'There is a silliness sometimes to the misinterpretation of church and state separation.  Its intent is to increase freedom, not limit it.  A law against prayer in school for example is a case of government legislating morality, the antithesis of the kind of separation of church and state we are striving for here.  The AnewGoCongress would not be allowed to pass such a law and the AnewGoChurch is unlikely to pass such a mandate.  People are spiritual being and should be allowed to be.  They just should not be allowed to impose their spiritual ideas on me.  They can express them to me, but not mandate them.'

We've got all of history showing us this is true. And this is the system you want, isn't it?

 'If we were satisfied with how things are we would not be trying to reinvent it.'

What's the threshold for overwhelming majority? There's only 5 of us here, and you cannot get overwhelming majority NOW. Imagine 50 people==== 50,000! 50,000,000! I think you need to go with simple majority if you want a system that works. Majority is consensus, after all. Although it might be a closely contested on. (49.9 against 50.1 for) ====

 'Consensus is hard to achieve-- good, there won't be many mandates. Defining sufficient NearConcensus is one of our challenges for both congress and church.  Demanding perfect consensus leads to inaction in large groups. Often it is better to act and be wrong, than not act.  I believe we can derive some objective criteria for action on NearConcensus.'


Actually upon reflection, to uphold religious freedom i see no problem at all if someone who feels passionately that a church as AnewGoChurch exits. May all members congregate here AnewGoChurchCongregation. I will not be one. Obviously all faiths will be become part of the multi-cultural mix of AnewGo. I am quite gratified that a Church has been already established in AnewGo.

There is a strong inter-faith movement and the best AnewGo can do is support this.

 'WE should do more than support it.  WE should enable it by assigning it specific powers and responsibilities in AnewGo.  It is the AnewGoChurch.'

Jim, you aren't speaking about the separation of church and state. You are talking about the guaranteed freedom to practice a minority religious belief without (legal) repercussions.

 'No.  I am talking about a dream that is possible to achieve.  As separation of civil and moral legislation.  Freedom of religion is guaranteed as civil power has not constitutional power to implement and moral legislation.  This includes restriction of religious freedom but is not limited to that.'

Any community legislates and enforces it's morality. That was my point. It just gets into silly, hypocritical areas when you say that the state cannot pass matters based on some form of religion or spiritual beliefs.

 'That is precisely what WE must change.  Morality is subjective.  The minority is enslaved to the majority view.  It is not freedom when you are forced to act counter to your beliefs.  Yes, humanity is not ready to the complete absence of moral control.  But we can maximally decentralize moral control and make it independent of civil legislation which can be continually improved by applying object criteria.  There is no objective criteria for moral legislation.'

It is legal for any Massachusetts person to kill a person from Rhode Island, in the state of Mass, if that Rhode Islander is still in state bounds at sundown. Why? Because at one time, the communities in Mass hated the people of Rhode Island. They had to allow trade with them, but they didn't have to put up with them beyond that. So they passed laws to reflect that. We think of those laws as stupid, assinine, and hypocritical, at a minimal, but the communities that supported that law did not at the time.

 'Too bad. Just because a majority was in favor of it does not make it right.'

Laws are the stated behavioural expectations of the community. They will reflect the beliefs of the largest minority. To try and prevent religious belief from slinking over into legislature is doomed to failure. To make it illegal for one religion to forcefully impose itself on others not of that religion, isn't. This is what I think you should be aiming for. Not the silliness we see exercised about whether a matter is based on a particular religious belief or not, or as seen as a religious belief in contemporary times. But rather, acknowledge that communities will pass laws on how they expect all within that community should behave, and prevent any religion from trying to force out other beliefs.

 'Wrong, law is to protect my rights as a SovereignIndividual.'

You cannot have humans in your government, and still have the separation of church and state. But you can have it so that they cannot force others to practice a religion they do not want.

 'I may not have real freedom in any existing society, but we can design a society that truly celebrates and enables it's individuals rather than its lowest common denominator.'

I cannot make you a believe in Wiccanism. But if the Wiccans are the majority, they can pass a law making it so that the Solstices and Equinoxes are holy days (holidays) for everyone.

 'Any law of AnewGoChurch will be a compromise of moral viewpoints sufficient to gain consensus.  Perhaps it should be called the AnewGoMoralCouncil or something else so that it is not confused with traditional ideas of church and religion.  Any local area can override the dictates of any larger community when it come to moral legislation.'

Consider an intergalactic law entity. We certainly could not impose our morality on aliens. If we want to be free ourselves we cannot impose our morality on others. To do so is begging war and conflict and war and limits the diversity in human activity that our survival may depend on. There is nothing forcing government to impose morality on the masses. We can set the terms of our collaboration.

LOL==== Are you serious Jim? I'm curious. I have no trouble agreeing to disagree with you, about the purpose of Law. I think this is a viewpoint framework difference. You are talking from an individual's point of view, yes? I believe that is where you are coming from on this. I was speaking from the Sovereign point of view, which is the Society/Collective. From an individual point of view, I see the Law as being a tool to be used to protect my privileges. Note that, privileges. NOONE has any rights in our society. Our society grants us our privileges. And it can take them away, including the privilege of living. Our US framework merely likes to say that a certain set of privileges should be expected by the lawful majority of its members (a citizen's rights). ====

 'We are attempting to defining a better society.  Is it not desirable that we respect each others rights?'

Society, mind you, cares not a whit about us. Just itself. It is an organization. A limited CollectiveIntelligence, interested only in its own survival, and expansion. Individual people inside that society may manipulate it for their own purposes (usually self gratification and the enlargement of their property and money), but the organization is just out to continue existing.

 'We are defining it to be what we choose it to be.  I choose to collaborate in the interest of protecting  my rights and in return I agree to allow you your rights.'

Why do most society's reserve the ability to decide who gets to kill whom? To preserve its own members, thereby preserving itself.

If you do not see that you cannot separate the moral code from the people, Jim, you are truly idealizing something that can never be so long as there are humans involved. However, for the concern that a minority group will make it illegal to buy alcohol whatsoever, AnewGo has proposed under AnewGoResident, all AnewGoLaws are all challengable in the AnewGoCourt by AnewGoResidents. This means, in theory at least, that all AnewGoLaws will only be AnewGoLaws so long as their is a consensus among the AnewGoCitizenry that the AnewGoLaw should remain legal. (All vote in AnewGoCourt, yes? Direct voice of the people on what should remain in effect.)

 'I do not separate moral code from the people, I just separate it from our social contract.  Collaoration is sucessfully when there are agreed upon objecve criteria upon wich to base a desision. This is the case for contract law in general and it implies we can succed on collaorating with respect to our SocialContract.  Morality on the otherhand, lack objective criteria and our prospects for sucessful collaboration their are not good.  I will not accept the tyranny of the majority.  There is no reason we cannot create a society that enforces our social contract objectively and independent from resricted local regulation of morality by near consensus.'

You said: "Just because a majority was in favor of it does not make it right." Er? That's the point of AnewGo. Not to make what is the ideal, but to allow the AnewGoCitizenry to make sure that if the Majority thinks it should be legal to drive 100 on the AnewGo highways, then it is legal. The whole thing revolves around the [[Tyranny of the Largest Minority |]], not what is ideal, proper, "Better Then Human". This means if there is a big run by NAMBLA into AnewGo, so that they become the Majority, they'll just make it legal for a 40 year old man to have sex with an 8 year old boy. Remember, consensus by majority. Or in other worlds, the Majority is always right, and the Minority is always wrong. A very basic and old concept for the CollectiveIntelligence... MightMakesRight (the Might of those in agreement grants them the authority).

 'Truth is not a democracy.  The majority is not always right.  In moral issues there is no objective criteria and government powers must be limited in those areas.  I will consent to near consensus on moral issues so long as it does not violate my rights in my private affairs.  All moral regulation can do is restrict my public behavior.  e.g. i must ware clothes in town and not take unfair advantage of children or weaklings.'

You cannot have a ConsensusByDefault rule of Law. That will never work as soon as the group gets big enough, as there will always be someone that doesn't think it is right. Majority Rule means that no individual is ever right, except when that individual is of the same opinion as the Majority. Therefore, Law's place is the defense of the Majority, and the crushing/overruling/forcing of the Minority. Every time.

 'VivaLeRevolition====  I have not yet begun to fight.  I will fight the typranny of the majority to my death. (without War, War is passe')'

Why is it illegal to steal something? Because the Majority of the people do not want to have their things taken without their permission. MightMakesRight.

 'We have a right, within limits to property afforded by the US Contritution.  If a majority voted to take away the right to property it would be overturned in the supreme court as unconstitutional.  There is a balance of power and it is there for good reason.  Let's strengthen it, not deny it.'

If the Majority thinks that you shouldn't be able to buy alcohol on Sunday, then it will be illegal for you to buy alcohol on Sunday. You can challenge the Law and take it to court, but since the Majority want it that way, it will do you no good. Until the Majority change their mind, and decide, yes, they too would like to buy alcohol on Sunday.

 'A local town can regulate alcohol sale, thus far, only by constitutional ammendment have the courts allowed federal control.  I realize that the interpretation of the constutution has evolved, but you must agree that it has effectively limited congress in many ways.  We can write clear and unamibuuous contracts for AnewGo that support our rights as hjuman being and prtect up from the tyranny of the mmajority.'

All authority in the scheme comes from the people. Having the majority grants them the authority of all participants to make and enforce their will. If you don't like it, stop participating.

 'We don't take votes on how to build a bridge.  It would surely fall if we did.  We should be just as prudent with building our society as we are in building our bridges.'

It has to be this way. Otherwise you magnify, not lessen the problem.

 'Having objective criteria improves the success of group collaborations.  Not having objective criteria makes them less successfull.'

The majority (via their PoliceForce) are the ones that are going to defend the law. So they are the ones that effectively decide what laws are valid in the first place. And since the majority also pass the laws, and review them to see if they have become out of date, all power revolves around the majority.

 'I will not be subject to the tyranny of the majority.  I'll find people that respect human rights and we will create our own country that upholds our SocialContract.'

Their is no such thing as reasonable or objective criteria for social behavior and expectations in the first place. You have to have a framework of beliefs to be able to evaluate whether some belief or practice is reasonable. Therefore, there is no difference between logical or moral beliefs. Each is just an opinion, and all opinions can be valid or invalid in the eyes of the Majority.

 'True.  That is why I demand the right to live TheGoodLife in my own way and agree to allow you the same right.  That is the only bases on which I will collaborate.  I will not be subject to the tryanny of the majority.'

By drafting a Constitution (and Bill of Rights :-), you can try to frame what you think should be the guiding principals for AnewGo, but it is up to the society to enforce them. And pass new laws. And repel old ones that the Majority no longer agree with. Do you think the founding fathers of the United States actually believed that all humans were equal? No. But our Majority has decided such.

 'The bill of rights was added to assure our rights as individuals.  They could be repealed by 2/3 majority.  Thankfully they remain in effect so I remain an American.  Take them away and I will spit on the flag and go elsewhere.  I will not agree to be subject to the tyranny of the majority ever.  I can't imagine why others value their rights so little.'

Humanity will never be absent moral control. We each have our own "code of honor". Our common code forms our consensus of expected behavior. We will take various ways of punishing those that break that consensus of expected behavior, from mild displays of disapprovement, to some form of retaliation, and even to trying to educate the person on what they are doing wrong/unacceptable and how to correct that.

 'never is a long time.  I pray someday human beings can truely live and let live even when they don't agree.  In the mean time, yes, there is a need for some moral quidelines and control.  These should be limited and kept separate from civil action.'

There is an issue of local versus federal, and which has precedent. In a true consensus driven society, logically, the federal level takes precedence, in that it represents the majority consensus versus the minority consensus of the local community. Furthermore, on the practical level, this insures a uniformity of acceptable behavior framework within the total society. Otherwise, the society has no mutually agreed enforcement and instrumentation of correction/retaliation, and all the members can just go spin off into little groups doing what they want, even though it violates the consensus the society has decided.


I am a group of one that wants to spin off and do my own thing and I want everyone else to be able to do the same. Sorry star, I will not be subject to the tyranny of the majority. I will defy it to my death. If you want to be subject to it, do it some place else and count me out.

Decentralization is an extremely important aspect of self-government. I, like many americans are very concerned about the growth of federal government power. Decentralization is what makes our system flexible and allows it to evolve over changing conditions. Putting all the power in a uniform centralized government is the stupidest thing we could do from the point of view of having a system that can evolve to meet future needs in a changing environment. The american system works because it is representative. Effectve government depends on compromise. This is particularely true of moral legislation. We need a representative body that decides within itself what local moral compromises it will make and that body and those decisions must be independent of civil action where objectve critera can be applied.

You seem to think that someday I will GetIt and allow myself to be committed to someone elses morality. I don't believe I have the power to do that. I cannot change my beliefs. I wont ever consent to such hypocracy.

My objective analysis leads me to believe that you can create more value if I allow you to live your life by your own values rather than try to forse you to live by my values. Enslaving eachother to some one elsees idea of TheGoodLife is counter productive for us both. So let us agree to not do that. We are not free to serve God if we are abliged to serve the majority. Please let God's people go. We cannot serve two masters.


Personal tools