The problem with having some people doing the judging is that then you are going to have conflicting judgings by different judges. Then, how do you tell who is right and who is wrong.  

The answer from my undergraduate philosphy lecturer is that there are some self evident truths that all successful philosphical traditions must share in order to prosper for any length of time. So long as we accept the basic tenants of good living like doing no harm (at least) and doing good (better still) then we can usually work out any differences in a positive way, or at least find a fair way to make a decision even when it doesn't suit everybody. Stephen Covey, a committed Mormon but also the author of one of the most secular self help books of all time "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People" extensively studied the great philosphical traditions, both religious and secular, and drew much the same conclusion. The basics for social co-operation are there in all of those belief systems, even if there are times when they are not practiced by the adherants.

 

In contrast people who try to find difference for whatever screwed up reason and make an issue of it will only every destroy happiness. Christianity proved that with the incessent fighting between Protestants and Catholics which lasted for centuries after the Reformation, only finally ending (hopefully) with the end of the troubles in Ireland. How did God's law help to create peace on those conflicts? Athiests like Dawkins are as bad. He is another one who cannot live and let live, and finds the need to attack peoples beliefs, even when they are quite happy to mind their own business. The Soviets had a lot like him and look at how many people died because of it.

The true secret to spiritual and social harmony is to live by the universal truths and to refute any person or group that does not.