-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Theocracies and fundamentalism
- Thread starter ronki23
- Start date
How would people regulate the religious leadership and it's interpretation of relevant scripture?
How might issues such as reproductive rights and same-sex marriage fair under such a system?
It might be grand if you were a willing fundamentalist in the country's target religion, but any moderate, or worse, someone from another worldview could find themselves harassed, imprisoned, or possibly even killed in some instances.
Being as one can't switch countries like one can change socks, this would be hugely problematic for people that aren't wanting to live under a theocracy.
Being as one can't switch countries like one can change socks, this would be hugely problematic for people that aren't wanting to live under a theocracy.
Just look at Iran today with its 'morality police' and the current demonstrations against the death of a woman arrested for wearing her veil improperly. Or the plight of women now in Afghanistan. Or at the rate the USA is going towards religious morality opposed to separation of Church and State.
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
I don't see the two as related. Except they both tend to have negative consequences.
ronki23
Well-Known Member
If you shouldn't interpret a religion literally then doesn't that mean the religion is flawed to begin with?
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
No more than a poem is flawed for employing metaphor.
If your enamoured with literal interpretations perhaps you could interpret my questions literally and answer them rather than ignoring them.
Probably because it is assumed that a theocracy would be grounded in religious traditions that are believed to be inherently oppressive and problematic. This assumption is erroneous, but understandable considering the religious traditions most likely to impose theocracy are authoritarian in orientation.
"Bad" is too much a value judgement for my liking, but we can easily replace this with acknowledging mythological literalism as inherently inflexible. This lack of flexibility tends to lead to authoritarian structures, where certain individuals are endowed with setting down the law of proper interpretation.
I'm pretty sure you can see the relation based on what I wrote above on your own. But to broaden it out a bit, whenever you've got a cultural structure (religious or otherwise) that concerns itself with purity of tradition, and inflexible dogmatism (as is typical of mythological literalism) you get strongarm authoritarian styles of governance and that's what comes to mind for many when the word "theocracy" is uttered.
Erebus
Well-Known Member
It's worth noting that having an official religion isn't quite the same thing as having a theocracy. Christianity is the official religion of the UK but UK politics tend to be significantly less religious in nature than US politics for example.
As to why theocracy is generally considered a bad thing, there are quite a few reasons but I'll try to keep this brief:
1. The most obvious problem is that people of different religions are likely to be discriminated against. This is typically the main criticism aimed at theocracy.
2. Religious laws are often inflexible by design. While it's possible for religious institutions to modernise, they tend to do it slowly (if they do it at all).
3. A theocracy is deemed to be divinely inspired in some manner which makes criticism of government difficult or even dangerous. Do you want to be the one to question God's will?
4. God's will is usually determined by a small number of people with a tremendous amount of power.
While it's theoretically possible for a theocracy to exist that sidesteps those issues, I think it's unlikely to happen.
Literal interpretation of religious scripture is generally a bad idea for some of the following reasons:
1. It isn't always intended to be taken literally in the first place. Metaphors, poetic language and embellishment aren't exactly modern inventions.
2. When it is intended to be taken literally, it isn't always accurate. There are some things we understand today that were poorly understood in previous millennia.
3. It's often contradictory. Even if you attempt to live your life exactly as a given scripture instructs, odds are you'll have to disregard some of it anyway.
Theocracies will typically approach scripture literally only when it suits those in power to do so. There does however seem to be a correlation between people who endorse theocracy and people who endorse literalism in my experience.
I don't think so. Its the interpretation that stagnates and is frozen in a time long past.
ronki23
Well-Known Member
Well same-sex marriages and contraception are banned in some religions so they won't be allowed in countries of those religions. You can't call yourself a follower of that religion if you're doing things you're not allowed to. That's just cherry picking.
That's wherein my question lies: if it's bad to follow a religion literally then doesn't that mean the religion is flawed to begin with?
See: Taliban/Afghanistan for why it's bad.
How would you go about making laws? Who would be in charge of making and enforcing those laws?
Yes, I see they are very much related. As no Messengers have come to rule this world.
Men (men and women, mankind) want to rule and men distort the Messages to give them autocratic control over other men.
Regards Tony
CharmingOwl
Member
The way I see it simply, if the people do not practice the religion is it impossible to force them and this would cause oppression and religious tension. It may even set a precedent for another religion to take over and make itself the official state religion.
If you are living in a country where everyone is assumed to be the same religion, a state religion is redundant at best. I could imagine politicians using it to get votes but even that is populism.
If you are living in a country where everyone is assumed to be the same religion, a state religion is redundant at best. I could imagine politicians using it to get votes but even that is populism.
For me, it is probably more about how I see the rights and freedoms for all, including females, and hence where any particular regime in place might not abide by what I would prefer to see as 'minimal rights', such that I would disapprove of any such regime. The obvious ones to cite, and unfortunately being Islamic in nature, are Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and various other countries where Islam tends to dominate as to being the societal religious belief. Also, theocracies are less likely to be as tolerant of other religious beliefs or towards those without any such beliefs.
The fact that we have so many different versions of Islam expressed should point to the 'value' of interpretation - who gets to choose?
It's a bad thing.
The State needs to be secular.
The State needs to be secular.