What Could Someone Be Called If He Doesn’t Believe In The Existence Of ‘We, The People’?

[KerimF]

In all formal religions, ‘God’ or the like rules.
In modern politics, ‘The People’ rules itself.

The world calls someone an atheist if he doesn’t believe in the existence of a ‘Ruling God’ (or just ‘God’ since the world, in general, doesn’t know yet a non-ruling God).

Did anyone here see and/or talk to ‘We, The People’?
I never had the chance to meet and/or talk to ‘The People’ though I hear of it almost continuously whenever I listen to a speech of one of the great modern politicians around the world while he is addressing his local multitudes, if not the entire world.

To me in the least, ‘The People’ could refer, at best, to zillion of families that each of them is divided within itself, but, at the same time, a certain law is imposed on all of them by a certain group playing their legitimate ruler (privileged by rules created and supervised actually by their powerful high class).

In case you got my point, you would expect that, to me in the least, the statement, ‘The People rules itself’, is just the title of a series of tales written for adults, theist and atheist. Fortunately, most people around the world don't mind believing everything in this series as real because it doesn't include any supernatural being ruling them

Now, back to the thread’s title, what could someone be called if he doesn’t believe in the existence of ‘We, The People’ as a real entity? Is he called a political atheist

Thank you.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In case you got my point, ...

You have a point?

 

[Estro Felino]

I do believe that the People is a real entity.
And I am really thankful for you for starting this thread because it is a topic I am particularly interested in.
Many people, including me believe that the People's will is God's will. It is expressed in the dogma Vox Populi, Vox Dei.
So We the People is much deeper than people think. Through democracy, the majority of the People expresses their own will, their free will.
And that is a sacred moment. God is not a determined person; God is justice, democracy, rightfulness.

So I guess atheism might be the correct term. if we think of the equation "voice of the People= God's voice".

 

[fantome profane]

Now, back to the thread’s title, what could someone be called if he doesn’t believe in the existence of ‘We, The People’ as a real entity? Is he called a political atheist

A fascist.

 

[KerimF]

A fascist.

Oh I see, if I am not wrong, a religious atheist is, to you in the least, someone who has to also be AGAINST God because he doesn't believe that God exists in reality.

So please don't forget to tell 'The people' when you will meet IT (your God) that you are Its humble obedient servant while I, Kerim, has to be seen by IT (The People) much like Jesus was seen by the ancient honorable Jewish Elders and Roman leaders.

Thank you for giving me such a great honor.

 

[Windwalker]

In all formal religions, ‘God’ or the like rules.

Buddhism is a formal religion and they do not speak of any God ruling them, or even as a focus of importance to them.

In modern politics, ‘The People’ rules itself.

A democracy, is considered a form of self rule of the people, by the people, and for the people. Not all forms of government in the modern world is a democracy.

The world calls someone an atheist if he doesn’t believe in the existence of a ‘Ruling God’ (or just ‘God’ since the world, in general, doesn’t know yet a non-ruling God).

Not true. There are plenty of religious theists, who do not believing in "ruling God" as a form of government. Those are known as theocracies, and there are very few who believe in God that are part of one of those, or want to be part of one of those.

As a believer in God, I'd never want to live in a theocracy. That would look a lot like the Taliban, religious fanatics pushing their version of God upon others with force. All good and fine if you believe in God like them, but pretty awful if you don't agree with their beliefs and values which they hide behind the name of God. Would you like the Taliban forcing their religious views upon you legally? I don't think so.

Did anyone here see and/or talk to ‘We, The People’?

Oh yes, absolutely. You have too. Have you ever stood in a line with your neighbors on election day to cast your vote? There is "we the people" in action. Everytime you talk with your fellow citizen of this country, you are talking with "we the people".

I never had the chance to meet and/or talk to ‘The People’ though I hear of it almost continuously whenever I listen to a speech of one of the great modern politicians around the world while he is addressing his local multitudes, if not the entire world.

So you've never participated in democracy? You've never cast your vote on election day? Do you live in a fascist state or something?

In case you got my point, you would expect that, to me in the least, the statement, ‘The People rules itself’, is just the title of a series of tales written for adults, theist and atheist. Fortunately, most people around the world don't mind believing everything in this series as real because it doesn't include any supernatural being ruling them

A democracy is not a theocracy. The Taliban, is an example of a form of theocracy, imposing through force their ideas of God upon the citizens of a country. A democracy allows the people themselves to choose elected officials to represent their ideas of how they should be governed, in principle at least. Yes, there are abuses of power that occur, and it doesn't always live up to that standard or ideal, but in essence it is modeled on self-rule, as opposed to a dictatorship or a theocracy, as a deified form of that.

Now, back to the thread’s title, what could someone be called if he doesn’t believe in the existence of ‘We, The People’ as a real entity? Is he called a political atheist

Thank you.

No. They would be considered a fascist.

 

[Valjean]

Oh I see, if I am not wrong, a religious atheist is, to you in the least, someone who has to also be AGAINST God because he doesn't believe that God exists in reality.

A religious atheist is against something he doesn't believe in? How does that work?

So please don't forget to tell 'The people' when you will meet IT (your God) that you are Its humble obedient servant while I, Kerim, has to be seen by IT (The People) much like Jesus was seen by the ancient honorable Jewish Elders and Roman leaders.

This is just an appeal to Christian mythology.

 

[Kooky]

Now, back to the thread’s title, what could someone be called if he doesn’t believe in the existence of ‘We, The People’ as a real entity? Is he called a political atheist

Thank you.

Political philosopher, political scientist, historian...

You may want to look at this:

Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism - Wikipedia

According to Anderson, nations are socially constructed.[4] For Anderson, the idea of the "nation" is relatively new and is a product of various socio-material forces. He defined a nation as "an imagined political community – and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign".[5] As Anderson puts it, a nation "is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion".[5] While members of the community probably will never know each of the other members face to face, they may have similar interests or identify as part of the same nation. Members hold in their minds a mental image of their affinity [...]

 

[McBell]

What Could Someone Be Called If He Doesn’t Believe In The Existence Of ‘We, The People’?

Hermit?
Loner?
Anti-socialist?
Eremite?
Recluse?
Ascetic?
Introvert?
Solitudinarian?
Cat Lady?

 

[PureX]

I just call them "selfish @$$-#####". Because they do not seem to be able to grasp the idea that humanity is a collective/cooperative species. That humans need to conjoin and cooperate for their mutual benefit to survive and to thrive as existential beings. And to that end they seek to establish methods of collective decision-making and control, called "government". And that the purpose of these governments is to decide, impose, and protect actions on behalf of our collective well-being because, as individual beings, we will not do so of our own accord. As individual beings, we will only act on behalf of our own individual well-being, and thereby against the well being of each other.

In modern times, we call these selfish @$$-####s "republicans". But they exist in every culture and society, and cause those cultures and societies endless strife and suffering as they insist on getting everything their own way at the expense of anyone and everyone else.

 

[Aupmanyav]

A religious atheist is against something he doesn't believe in? How does that work?

It works merrily.
I am very religious and a strong atheist. I follow non-duality (Advaita philsophy of Hinduism). You know this very well. A large number of Hindus believe that the perceived world is an illusion 'Maya' (that includes people other than Advaitists too). Buddhism does not focus on God and consider all perceived things to be impermanent (Anicca) and without substance (Anatta), though it does not consider them unreal.

 

[MikeF]

In all formal religions, ‘God’ or the like rules.
In modern politics, ‘The People’ rules itself.

The world calls someone an atheist if he doesn’t believe in the existence of a ‘Ruling God’ (or just ‘God’ since the world, in general, doesn’t know yet a non-ruling God).

Did anyone here see and/or talk to ‘We, The People’?
I never had the chance to meet and/or talk to ‘The People’ though I hear of it almost continuously whenever I listen to a speech of one of the great modern politicians around the world while he is addressing his local multitudes, if not the entire world.

To me in the least, ‘The People’ could refer, at best, to zillion of families that each of them is divided within itself, but, at the same time, a certain law is imposed on all of them by a certain group playing their legitimate ruler (privileged by rules created and supervised actually by their powerful high class).

In case you got my point, you would expect that, to me in the least, the statement, ‘The People rules itself’, is just the title of a series of tales written for adults, theist and atheist. Fortunately, most people around the world don't mind believing everything in this series as real because it doesn't include any supernatural being ruling them

Now, back to the thread’s title, what could someone be called if he doesn’t believe in the existence of ‘We, The People’ as a real entity? Is he called a political atheist

Thank you.

One described in this manner would not be a political atheist, which to my mind, a political atheist implies apolitical. If you reject the concept that the body politic, or "we the people", can ever exercise self rule, you are not rejecting the concept of politics as a whole. There are all types of political structures that meet your criteria. You seem to be saying that the idea of "We, the People" is an illusion, however, you seem to acknowledge that someone, or some group is still calling the shots. Politics is still involved.

 

[epronovost]

Now, back to the thread’s title, what could someone be called if he doesn’t believe in the existence of ‘We, The People’ as a real entity?

There are actually several options if you don't believe in the concept of social contract (also known as constitution) and/or democratic rule.

You could go the absolute monarchy way where the State and the sovereign are one and the same.

You could go the theocracy way where god(s) through their chosen religious leader (prophet, high priest, pope, etc) are the only legitimate authority.

You could go the despotic way where the most powerful warlords rule through brute strength and intimidation.

You could go the anarcho-capitalist way where power belongs to those who own stuff and there are no society to speak off.

Unlike what some others have suggested like @fantome profane, you could not be a fascist since fascist believe in the concept of "nation" and even make it central and more important than individuals and families. Of course, you will notice that all of the above have a certain "taste of fascism" due to the fact that all those political regimes are different expression of "might makes right". The only difference is what exactly constitute "might" is it money, land or military strength.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Oh I see, if I am not wrong, a religious atheist is, to you in the least, someone who has to also be AGAINST God because he doesn't believe that God exists in reality.

So please don't forget to tell 'The people' when you will meet IT (your God) that you are Its humble obedient servant while I, Kerim, has to be seen by IT (The People) much like Jesus was seen by the ancient honorable Jewish Elders and Roman leaders.

Thank you for giving me such a great honor.

Kerim, a fascist has NO interest in “the people”

perhaps you misunderstood?

 

[KerimF]

Buddhism is a formal religion and they do not speak of any God ruling them, or even as a focus of importance to them.

It seems that Buddhism is a formal religion guided by a certain group of people who are privileged, for an unknown reason to me, to approve what is good and what is bad for their followers; besides some rituals to be observed. And if it happens a Buddhist is no more interested in following exactly the absolute good/bad list of his honorable Elders (of Buddhism) and in observing their rituals, he would be also treated as other Buddhists who obey their honorable Elders. Buddhism is a great religion indeed, unless I couldn't understand you well.

A democracy, is considered a form of self rule of the people, by the people, and for the people. Not all forms of government in the modern world is a democracy.So you've never participated in democracy? You've never cast your vote on election day? Do you live in a fascist state or something?

You gave the definition of the notion 'Democracy', thank you.
But could it be applied really on the ground?
Perhaps you mean that President G. Bush was elected really by the American people while 50% of them didn't vote for him (Isn't it the free election in a democratic country much like two teams playing a basket ball game?). And after this president (chosen by half The People) played the ignorant for more than a year (scaring to death millions of Americans, mainly the young ones) about the Super Power Iraq and thousands of American troops had to die there to just serve some of their big corporations (surely not The People), he was re-elected for a second term (also via a FREE election!).

Have you ever stood in a line with your neighbors on election day to cast your vote?

It seems you have no idea yet that the so-called free elections (in any country) have to follow certain processes made by the powerful rich high class and have to be supervised, in every step, by a few people who are privileged to do their job by a law which was also made by the powerful rich high class. I am sorry because I can't see 'The People' in any formal election (claimed being free or not) other than standing in a line and cast a vote.

As a believer in God, I'd never want to live in a theocracy. That would look a lot like the Taliban, religious fanatics pushing their version of God upon others with force. All good and fine if you believe in God like them, but pretty awful if you don't agree with their beliefs and values which they hide behind the name of God. Would you like the Taliban forcing their religious views upon you legally? I don't think so.

At least I personally witnessed how, in the name of 'Freedom' and 'Democracy', many countries were also invaded and destroyed.
It is good you mentioned Taliban, but you forgot to mention what the Jews (who were exported from all around the world to Palestine) do to survive.

Everytime you talk with your fellow citizen of this country, you are talking with "we the people".

Let us first see how the members of the same family see each other.
I personally didn't have the chance to know even one family which is not divided withing itself, for one reason or another. But, perhaps on your side, the members of million families are united and all of them shout 'We, The United People'. If this is the case, you are fortunate to be born among 'The United People'.

No. They would be considered a fascist.

Sorry, where do fascists live?! I heard of them in some movies and series only.

 

[KerimF]

A religious atheist is against something he doesn't believe in? How does that work?

It doesn't work
But because I don't believe in the existence of 'We, the United People", some friends here deduced that I am against 'The People' which doesn't exist as a real entity to me. At best, it refers to a number of people on which One Law is imposed, made and approved by some powerful rich persons.

This is just an appeal to Christian mythology.

It doesn't matter if Jesus is real or not because the story of Jesus is real on our hands

 

[KerimF]

Hermit?
Loner?
Anti-socialist?
Eremite?
Recluse?
Ascetic?
Introvert?
Solitudinarian?
Cat Lady?

Alas, my English vocabulary is rather narrow. I didn't understand any of your kind words Thank you, anyway.

 

[KerimF]

I just call them "selfish @$$-#####". Because they do not seem to be able to grasp the idea that humanity is a collective/cooperative species. That humans need to conjoin and cooperate for their mutual benefit to survive and to thrive as existential beings.

You talk about ideals. Sorry, but did you look first into your own family and see how these ideals are applied by its various members?

And to that end they seek to establish methods of collective decision-making and control, called "government". And that the purpose of these governments is to decide, impose, and protect actions on behalf of our collective well-being because, as individual beings, we will not do so of our own accord. As individual beings, we will only act on behalf of our own individual well-being, and thereby against the well being of each other.

So you are sure that those who run a ruling system can survive without being real rich and powerful. Do you really obey a rule made by poor powerless people; no matter how good they are educated? Do you really believe that the law is made for the ordinary people and not to protect the interests of the high class (which approves it) in the first place?
Sorry, when I was rather young, I also had dreams of ideals as yours. But after 7 decades, one can see better the real world. For example, those who run a ruling system (actually via their direct servants, as their politicians hired via elections, claimed free or not) cannot survive by being honest and sincere. They have to know how to control millions of people (civilians and forces), besides huge amount of money. Did you ever hear even a rich trader sharing others what he knows about trading?!

In modern times, we call these selfish @$$-####s "republicans". But they exist in every culture and society, and cause those cultures and societies endless strife and suffering as they insist on getting everything their own way at the expense of anyone and everyone else.

You are right, great nations cannot exist without convincing the people first that obeying the rules, made by their honorable trusted high class (please don't tell me an ordinary person can have the last word in approving any rule) lets someone be free. In fact, the best achievement a master can do is convincing his obedient slaves they are free. On the other hand, free independent people can never form a powerful nation and they can be attacked anytime by the well-paid free slaves of the great nations. This is how the world is created, we like it or not.

 

[KerimF]

One described in this manner would not be a political atheist, which to my mind, a political atheist implies apolitical. If you reject the concept that the body politic, or "we the people", can ever exercise self rule, you are not rejecting the concept of politics as a whole. There are all types of political structures that meet your criteria. You seem to be saying that the idea of "We, the People" is an illusion, however, you seem to acknowledge that someone, or some group is still calling the shots. Politics is still involved.

Politics means the art of controlling people without serious complains.
Does any real religious believer question any rule said of God? He just obeys it without complain.
So it was necessary to create a modern notion equivalent somehow to the notion of God. It was 'The People" which has worked very well till our days. How could a person of 'The People' complain about a rule which is supposed being approved by 'The People'?!
Now, in a democratic country, anytime the system does something wrong or bad to the nation, the only side that takes the blame is 'The People'... a very clever notion indeed.

 

[KerimF]

Kerim, a fascist has NO interest in “the people”

perhaps you misunderstood?

I repeat what I wrote on my previous post (addressed to MikeF)

Politics means the art of controlling people without serious complains.

Does any real religious believer question any rule said of God? He just obeys it without complain.

So it was necessary, for the modern politics, to create a modern notion equivalent somehow to the notion of God. It was 'The People" which has worked very well till our days.
Yes, how could a person of 'The People' complain about a rule which is supposed being approved by 'The People'?!

Now, in a democratic country, anytime the system does something wrong or bad for the nation, the only side that takes the blame is 'The People'... a very clever notion indeed.