Last change:
July 23th, 2022
The Ideal Constitution

Fine Stats




1. Preamble
2. Foundations
2.1 History
2.2 Universal laws
2.3 Predictable behaviour
2.4 Ethics
2.5 Human rights
2.6 Common values
2.7 Existing constitutions
2.8 Freedom of Expression
2.9 Freedom of Religion
2.10 Freedom of Education
2.11 Freedom of Gathering
2.12 Trias Politica
2.13 Government
2.14 Democracy
2.15 Justice

Old News


Philosofical side

Leprechauns and God exist
About Punishment
Tiny, jolly epilogue



"Apology" because I cannot declare an ideal constitution on my own, only a democratic referendum should be allowed to. But that won't happen.
I am so bold to establish a declaration here, and give ways to enhance a constitution by constantly resharpening the requirements by its people.


Nowadays - 2020 - Humanity faces a lot of threats:


Global warming
Energy sources
Growing intolerance
Religious fanatism
False sharing of prosperity
Christian dogmas
Sexual preference
Health care
Coma patients
Terminal illness
Death penalty
Freedom of Religion
IS state
Shiite Muslims
A constitution does not safeguard us against all threats, but the existing constitutions should saveguard the ethical standards we all agreed upon a long time ago, but these existing constitutions are from another era, did not evolve to the current need for ethics, and therefore do not saveguard us against the current threats.

A constitution should found the ethics we generally want to defend. 150 years ago a constitution was imbued with Christian dogmas, nowadays we face a multicultural society with many religions, many cultural backgrounds and modern views on issues of sexual preference, abortion, life preserving (Health care, Coma patients, Terminal illness), and life ending issues (Euthanasia, Death penalty) (all issues on which most religions have their own - intolerant - view).
A society should be based on common values. For an Islamic state these could be values founded in the Quran and in the Sharia.
In secular based states these common values are e.g. Freedom of Religion. But what if one of these religions does not tolerate other religions, and commands all unbelievers to be beheaded, and the profet of that intolerant religion is the perfect role model for these beheadings?
Nowadays we face an increasing intolerance by Muslim extremists all over the world, and its vast supporters all over the world.
Most tolerant people at first were unwilling to believe that there are so many supporters (70% of all Muslims) for the IS state, but more and more people get aware of the polarization between the Islamic world and the non-Islamic world.
50.000 Muslims depart to the IS state to fight with their Muslim brothers to create the ideal Islamic state according to the Sharia. All unbelievers (that is, who are not believers in the Caliphate, thus also Shiite Muslims) will be beheaded.
This means, that your direct neighbour departs to the IS state to fight against your other neighbor who is sent by the NATO to fight the IS state ...
Both neighbours might return and the fight might continue in our nation. This is an undesired situation which can be tracked back to the constitution that claims Freedom of Religion. A judge and jury are bound by the law and have to release the alleged terrorist by lack of evidence.
My conclusion is that our constitution is not equiped anymore to face these threats. Freedom of Religion cannot prevail above our safety and common values. You still may believe in a God and hope for an aftermath, but you are not allowed to proclaim unbelievers to die. God may punish in the aftermath, but active hatred against unbelievers must lead to prohibition of (parts of) Holy texts if these texts openly encourage hatred to unbelievers. If fanatic believers do not agree they shall have to emigrate or be locked up till death.