Theocracy: Good v Bad

[The Hammer]

Except it would be exclusive,non believers would not be represented.

True. But maybe they could be? I did mention that the laws still be secular.

 

[epronovost]

True. But maybe they could be? I did mention that the laws still be secular.

Then it's not a theocracy. By definition the law of a theocracy cannot be secular; secular and theocratic governments are opposites. It would like saying that this tyranny is highly democratic. That doesn't make sense.

 

[The Hammer]

Then it's not a theocracy. By definition the law of a theocracy cannot be secular; secular and theocratic governments are opposites. It would like saying that this tyranny is highly democratic. That doesn't make sense.

I just meant more in regards to clergy/philosophers running the show. Not necessarily religious law like Shariah or something being implemented.

It may not be a pure theocracy. I just wanted to open up a discussion.

 

[epronovost]

I just meant more in regards to clergy/philosophers running the show. Not necessarily religious law like Shariah or something being implemented.

It may not be a pure theocracy. I just wanted to open up a discussion.

If the lawmakers are all clergy, how could their law be called secular? That's contradictory.

 

[robocop (actually)]

"Theocracy, government by divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. In many theocracies, government leaders are members of the clergy, and the state's legal system is based on religious law. Theocratic rule was typical of early civilizations."

theocracy | Definition, Examples, & Facts

Is a theocracy really a bad thing? Or can it be/do good?

What if the Theocracy put in place respects all religions, run by a parliament of multiple religious clergy, such as Abrahamics, Hindu, Pagan, and Buddhists, for instance.

What if we remove the section of the definition where laws are based around a specific religion itself? A humanistic theocracy perhaps. Run by philosopher-kings.

Theocracy is theoretically the best form of government.

 

[The Hammer]

If the lawmakers are all clergy, how could their law be called secular? That's contradictory.

If it's not based of the religions they practice but a common humanity. How is it not secular?

 

[Kenny]

"Theocracy, government by divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. In many theocracies, government leaders are members of the clergy, and the state's legal system is based on religious law. Theocratic rule was typical of early civilizations."

theocracy | Definition, Examples, & Facts

Is a theocracy really a bad thing? Or can it be/do good?

What if the Theocracy put in place respects all religions, run by a parliament of multiple religious clergy, such as Abrahamics, Hindu, Pagan, and Buddhists, for instance.

What if we remove the section of the definition where laws are based around a specific religion itself? A humanistic theocracy perhaps. Run by philosopher-kings.

I don't think theocracies will work... until Jesus comes.

 

[The Hammer]

I don't think theocracies will work... until Jesus comes.

If

 

[epronovost]

If it's not based of the religions they practice but a common humanity. How is it not secular?

Because the law wasn't created independently from the clergy.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Nothing new then.

Yes….nothing new.

I believe there will be a theocracy, but not through any men’s efforts.

From what I’ve learned, Jehovah God has an “appointed time” He’s going to step in (Revelation 11:18),
and His “Kingdom / government” (in the hands of His Son -Isaiah 9:6-7) will “come,” and accomplish His Will “on Earth.” - Matthew 6:9-10; Ephesians 1:10.

IMO.

 

[Laika]

"Theocracy, government by divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. In many theocracies, government leaders are members of the clergy, and the state's legal system is based on religious law. Theocratic rule was typical of early civilizations."

theocracy | Definition, Examples, & Facts

Is a theocracy really a bad thing? Or can it be/do good?

What if the Theocracy put in place respects all religions, run by a parliament of multiple religious clergy, such as Abrahamics, Hindu, Pagan, and Buddhists, for instance.

What if we remove the section of the definition where laws are based around a specific religion itself? A humanistic theocracy perhaps. Run by philosopher-kings.

I'm heavily in the theocracy is bad category, but atheism hasn't been popular for more than a century or two. For most of human history, any kind of progress would have had to have been achieved under a theocratic government, whether it be the Roman Empire or Medieval Christendom, etc. So they probably got "something" right along the way for us to get to where we are today. Although I will stick my neck out and assume burning witches wasn't one of them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Theocracy, government by divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. In many theocracies, government leaders are members of the clergy, and the state's legal system is based on religious law. Theocratic rule was typical of early civilizations."

theocracy | Definition, Examples, & Facts

Is a theocracy really a bad thing? Or can it be/do good?

Theocracy is always bad.

The legitimacy of a government is based on the consent of the governed. Theocracy doesn't attempt to get this consent or even acknowledge that it's required.

What if the Theocracy put in place respects all religions, run by a parliament of multiple religious clergy, such as Abrahamics, Hindu, Pagan, and Buddhists, for instance.

How could a theocracy respect all religions?

What if we remove the section of the definition where laws are based around a specific religion itself? A humanistic theocracy perhaps. Run by philosopher-kings.

How would that be a theocracy?

Not that it matters; absolute monarchy is always bad as well.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Dictatorship isn't a bad thing in itself, and in some circumstances is necessary.

No, it's never necessary and it is a bad thing in and of itself.

Take Rome's authorizing a dictator to run at 6 month intervals during times of War or other emergency.

That's not how the term "dictator" is used today, generally.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

True. But maybe they could be? I did mention that the laws still be secular.

A theocracy with secular laws is a contradiction in terms like a square circle.

 

[PureX]

I'm heavily in the theocracy is bad category, but atheism hasn't been popular for more than a century or two. For most of human history, any kind of progress would have had to have been achieved under a theocratic government, whether it be the Roman Empire or Medieval Christendom, etc. So they probably got "something" right along the way for us to get to where we are today. Although I will stick my neck out and assume burning witches wasn't one of them.

The problem with atheism is that it leans so heavily on logic, and on functionality as it's 'truth' that it makes little headway in terms of ethical and moral wisdom. We keep building better guns, but we never really examine why we're doing it. Atheism does not involve itself in such examinations.

 

[Laika]

The problem with atheism is that it leans so heavily on logic, and on functionality as it's 'truth' that it makes little headway in terms of ethical and moral wisdom. We keep building better guns, but we never really examine why we're doing it. Atheism does not involve itself in such examinations.

You don't have to agree with them or believe they are somehow "better" than religion, but atheists (and agnostics) have been hard at work discussing morality for quite a long time. Here's a short list of books and people I can name off hand:

An Enquiry Concerning the principles of Morals, David Hume, 1751.
Philosophy in the Bedroom, Marquis De Sade, 1795.
Beyond Good and Evil, Fredrich Nietzsche, 1886.
Terrorism and Communism, Karl Kautsky, 1919 & Leon Trotsky, 1920.
Marriage and Morals, Bertrand Russell, 1929.
The Sexual Revolution, Wilhelm Reich, 1936.
The Art of Loving, Erich Fromm, 1956.
The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand, 1964.
The Moral Landscape, Sam Harris, 2010.

 

[PureX]

You don't have to agree with them or believe they are somehow "better" than religion, but atheists (and agnostics) have been hard at work discussing morality for quite a long time. Here's a short list of books and people I can name off hand:

An Enquiry Concerning the principles of Morals, David Hume, 1751.
Philosophy in the Bedroom, Marquis De Sade, 1795.
Beyond Good and Evil, Fredrich Nietzsche, 1886.
Terrorism and Communism, Karl Kautsky, 1919 & Leon Trotsky, 1920.
Marriage and Morals, Bertrand Russell, 1929.
The Sexual Revolution, Wilhelm Reich, 1936.
The Art of Loving, Erich Fromm, 1956.
The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand, 1964.
The Moral Landscape, Sam Harris, 2010.

A handful. While the average contemporary atheist is coming to a near worship of science as the only valid pathway to truth. When science has no interest in the truth. But only in physical functionality. It's worrisome. Humanity does not need more functionality right now. It needs more ethical wisdom.

 

[Kooky]

The problem with atheism is that it leans so heavily on logic, and on functionality as it's 'truth' that it makes little headway in terms of ethical and moral wisdom. We keep building better guns, but we never really examine why we're doing it. Atheism does not involve itself in such examinations.

Neither does religion, usually.

 

[PureX]

Neither does religion, usually.

Religions tend to be very much about ethics. You may not like their ethics, but they certainly do engage with people on that level. Science has basically nothing to say about ethics, at all.

 

[Kooky]

Religions tend to be very much about ethics. You may not like their ethics, but they certainly do engage with people on that level.

Not really.