Theocracies and fundamentalism

[Jayhawker Soule]

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?

I do not equate religion with scripture, nor do I believe that scripture is holy writ, and I therefore have no issue with perceiving flaws in either the script or it's interpretation.

But the term 'flaw' is an interesting one. I plan to drive to southern Florida in a few months. Were I to use an 18th century map I would encounter serious issues. Is the map flawed, and, if so, what do you mean by that term?

 

[Wandering Monk]

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.

Government money should not support religious institutions.

 

[ronki23]

See: Taliban/Afghanistan for why it's bad.

Then the blame lies on Islam. If you're following the religion completely and it's promoting bad things then why follow it?

On a somewhat unrelated note, the RSS/BJP in India isn't fundamentalist, if you want fundamentalist Hinduism then the Hindu Mahasabha is to blame: they shot Mahatma Gandhi

 

[Estro Felino]

Government money should not support religious institutions.

In my opinion the secular State benefits from supporting and giving privileges to religions, churches, religious communities.
Because the mere notion of community is the emblem of the social state and aims at constructing the so called social fabric.
Unfortunately in a world made up of savagely unruly neo-liberism (or Capitalism as they call it in the US) religion becomes useful as countering factor.

 

[Wandering Monk]

In my opinion the secular State benefits from supporting and giving privileges to religions, churches, religious communities.
Because the mere notion of community is the emblem of the social state and aims at constructing the so called social fabric.
Unfortunately in a world made up of savagely unruly neo-liberism (or Capitalism as they call it in the US) religion becomes useful as countering factor.

Would you support have government support ALL religions in a country then?

 

[Estro Felino]

Would you support have government support ALL religions in a country then?

Not all of them. Those which are recognized by the State as religions.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Not all of them. Those which are recognized by the State as religions.

Then would you consider that the only legitimate religions are ones supported by the state?

 

[Estro Felino]

Then would you consider that the only legitimate religions are ones supported by the state?

If it deals with religions which work for the common good and the welfare of the community, it seems obvious to me that the Government either gives them fiscal privileges and\or state aid.

 

[Wandering Monk]

If it deals with religions which work for the common good and the welfare of the community, it seems obvious to me that the Government either gives them fiscal privileges and\or state aid.

So, who makes the subjective decision that a religion 'work for the common good and the welfare of the community' but the government?

 

[firedragon]

Why do people say that a theocracy / a country with an official religion is a bad thing ? They say literal interpretation of a religion would be bad too. Are these 2 things related ?

This why question will have only anecdotal responses. With no research or anything of the matter. Yet I must say there are many books written by scholarly authors.

Nevertheless my personal understanding is that most people who say things about a theocracy is bad etc etc are just repeating what others say. You should note that if you say anything otherwise you might end up being mocked. It's a group think. An also ran thing.

there are also genuine people who say this because of some regimes being truly fanatical calling itself a theocracy or what-not. So there are genuine thoughts as well. I mean with knowledge. Not just a habitual repetition. I know people from the U.S and one from Germany who used to say the same thing for decades but are now working and living in Sharjah.

Some people say that literal interpretation is bad. Some people say literal interpretation is fantastic. Most of the external commentators in this case are also repeating what they have heard others say.

This is purely my personal opinion.

 

[Five Solas]

Why do people say that a theocracy / a country with an official religion is a bad thing ? They say literal interpretation of a religion would be bad too. Are these 2 things related ?

I believe democracy is a good thing. HOWEVER, I also believe that what we see today in Western counties can hardly be called democracy. No wonder discontent is growing almost everywhere.

As far as Christianity is concerned, it is not the task of the church to be the ruler of countries.
Christians can be politicians but not if it morphs into a kind of Christian theocracy.
Christians normally accept the chosen leaders of a country and follow the laws for as long as the laws do not force people to act contrary to Christian beliefs.
The task of the church is not to govern.

But the West is currently in a very deep crisis and because of rampant secularism, democracy is failing.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Do people just deliberately forget that the New Testament and Jesus himself said to obey the government and live peaceably with all men?

 

[Estro Felino]

So, who makes the subjective decision that a religion 'work for the common good and the welfare of the community' but the government?

The State does.

 

[Wandering Monk]

The State does.

So, as Gibbon said in his work on the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, religion is useful to magistrates.' In other words, religion is a tool of the state.

 

[Estro Felino]

So, as Gibbon said in his work on the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, religion is useful to magistrates.' In other words, religion is a tool of the state.

Unfortunately, yes.
If greedy financial elites didn't exist, there would be more social justice and there would be no need of religions partnering the welfare state.

 

[Sand Dancer]

But the West is currently in a very deep crisis and because of rampant secularism, democracy is failing.

Why do you think this? I think secularism and religion both can contribute to loss of democracy. I agree with your other points though.

 

[Five Solas]

Why do you think this? I think secularism and religion both can contribute to loss of democracy. I agree with your other points though.

If you look at what democracy is or should be, by definition, you will find that its not true to what it should be.

There is suspicion from right to left.
People want to know who rules. It's not the people anymore, that's for sure.
One theory holds that the views of average people are decisive. Really?
Others claim that interest groups have the power.
Others think big business groups control everything - buy their way into the government decisions - the economic elite.

By the people for the people is just a dream.

Huge demonstrations are very common these days (and totally under-reported) and they are getting bigger and more serious. The farmers in Holland and the truckers in Canada is an examples.

I see a worldwide revolution coming - a kind of 'French revolution'. Fine but what will come after that?

Most Christians hold very positive beliefs which can benefit politics but a theocracy is not on the cards.

I think the people want their power back

 

[ronki23]

@Estro Felino

Why do Marxism and Communism require Atheism? If its to do with the Catholic Church being too powerful then why did Communism become so popular in China, Vietnam, Cambodia and North Korea (countries with a tiny Catholic population)?

 

[Estro Felino]

@Estro Felino

Why do Marxism and Communism require Atheism? If its to do with the Catholic Church being too powerful then why did Communism become so popular in China, Vietnam, Cambodia and North Korea (countries with a tiny Catholic population)?

Maybe because in such Marxist political system the State is so powerful and omnipresent that religion and the Church need to be outpowered. I don't know.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Why do people say that a theocracy / a country with an official religion is a bad thing ? They say literal interpretation of a religion would be bad too. Are these 2 things related ?

The official religion is 'less bad', just depending on how it's implemented. I don't like the message it sends, but my dislike is hardly a compelling reason to judge it 'bad' in an objective sense.

So...theocracy. Theoretically it might be possible to have a pluralistic religion that is inclusive and responsive, run a government under its auspices, and get a good outcome. In practice, I suspect such a religion would not have sought the reins if power in the first place, and this doesn't really equate with what I've seen occur over time. Key issues then;

1) To rule, you need to be a member of the religion. This excludes portions of the population explicitly from being involved in running the country, and reduces their standing compared to other citizens.

2) The religion itself will have certain dogma and tenets which remove democratic decision making, and instead introduce doctrinal discussion and interpretation. This implicitly removes the majority of citizens from having a strong and direct impact on decision making.

3) The religion may have dogmatic beliefs around the fitness of certain society members to lead or participate in even minor ways. Women would be a common example. Non-clergy would be another.

4) As time progresses, the linkage and interpretation of aging dogma to modern needs will necessarily become more interpretive. This could lead to schisms, and these could be very impactful on the governing of the country. Democratic governments are deliberately setup with the expectation of regime change, and an effective one is great at managing this. Theocracies are deliberately setup to vest control to the church, and any issues impacting the church are directly putting this at risk.

5) Depending on the religion, you can be eschewing material things on the one hand whilst being heavily involved and invested in a myriad of material decisions on the other. These things can certainly be at odds.

Meh...that's just a quick jotting down off the top of my head. My train has arrived at my stop!!