Theocracy vs Secular State

[Riverwolf]

I like your argument, it's quite true that most theocracy states are opressive and sometimes became totalitarian.

But do you think, it's possible that a theocracy country is not oppressive and quite democratic?

Sure, it's possible. I understand that ancient (polytheist) Persia had a very egalitarian and religiously free situation going for it.

Heck, the only possible time I could see any kind of theocracy even remotely working would be a polytheist one. Then people could worship whatever Gods they wanted, or none at all. But if Rome taught us anything, even that could easily degenerate into totalitarianism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Secularism in India means equal treatment of all religions by the state. Unlike the Western concept of secularism which envisions a separation of religion and state, the concept of secularism in India envisions acceptance of religious laws as binding on the state, and equal participation of state in different religions." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_India

Some what like 'do not interfere unless absolutely necessary'.

 

[sun rise]

I am not going to express a strong preference since my vote is "it depends". And almost all societies are not wholely secular or wholely based on religious law.

Best is if every law was tested against one and only one religious principle which is stated as the second greatest commandment in the New Testament. The first is between people and God. The second should be the basis of all societies. If women are not treated as equal as men that violates the rule of love. If laws discriminate between religions then it violates the law of love. And I explicitly exclude claims that discrimination and cruelty are really expressions of love or that God has mandated unequal treatment for the next billion years because the religious law is fixed for all time.

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?


37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.


38 This is the first and great commandment.


39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.


40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

 

[Laika]

Secular systems have a distinction between public law and private morality of the individual. Theocratic ones have a public legal system enforcing a public moral system onto an individual. It very much depends what exactly the theocratic system says is moral as you are losing the liberty to decide for yourself. so "it depends".

 

[Augustus]

Considering all the terrible parts of history; the holocaust, ebola, titanic, etc, God just sat through, regardless of which God (your's, mine, Bill Cosby's)

You have to be very careful when taking the eucharist for Bill Cosby's God...

"Thanks for offering Bill, but I brought my own chalice today. You just keep a hold of that one."

 

[Nietzsche]

Would an officially recognised state religion count as theocratic? Monaco recognises religious freedom, but it is constitutionally Roman Catholic.

No, they do not count. A Theocracy is ran entirely by an Ecclesiastical/Clerical government, where power comes from religious mandate. For instance, the United Kingdom is not a Theocracy, despite the fact the Monarch is also the official head of the state religion. Why? Because the monarch's religious power is an addition to, not the source of, their secular authority. A Theocracy is ran solely through religious means. About the only modern example where the line seriously starts to blue is Iran. They are technically both a Democratic Republic and a Theocracy, however the religious & secular powers are split between two individuals, which means it isn't a "true theocracy".

Basically, a theocracy is where governing power is dictated by religious or spiritual reasons, rather than secular and temporal ones.

 

[Nietzsche]

You have to be very careful when taking the eucharist for Bill Cosby's God...

"Thanks for offering Bill, but I brought my own chalice today. You just keep a hold of that one."

Somewhere far off in the distance, a choir boy wonders why his *** is so damn sore..

 

[Glaurung]

Basically, a theocracy is where governing power is dictated by religious or spiritual reasons, rather than secular and temporal ones.

Gotcha. It's that some people argue that a state church is theocratic, hence they lump in countries such as the UK as "theocracies" I just wanted to see where you were on that.

 

[David M]

Secularism is the unequivocally best choice for both religious and non-religious people. Those religious people who think otherwise have simply not thought it through very far.

I think its more that they have not even considered the possibility that it won't be their specific brand of religion that is in charge.

 

[Jumi]

Secularism with freedom of religion. I'm big on freedom.

 

[Koldo]

I am not going to express a strong preference since my vote is "it depends". And almost all societies are not wholely secular or wholely based on religious law.

Best is if every law was tested against one and only one religious principle which is stated as the second greatest commandment in the New Testament. The first is between people and God. The second should be the basis of all societies. If women are not treated as equal as men that violates the rule of love. If laws discriminate between religions then it violates the law of love. And I explicitly exclude claims that discrimination and cruelty are really expressions of love or that God has mandated unequal treatment for the next billion years because the religious law is fixed for all time.

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?


37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.


38 This is the first and great commandment.


39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.


40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

And yet, that requires a particular interpretation of the text.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

No, they do not count. A Theocracy is ran entirely by an Ecclesiastical/Clerical government, where power comes from religious mandate. For instance, the United Kingdom is not a Theocracy, despite the fact the Monarch is also the official head of the state religion. Why? Because the monarch's religious power is an addition to, not the source of, their secular authority. A Theocracy is ran solely through religious means. About the only modern example where the line seriously starts to blue is Iran. They are technically both a Democratic Republic and a Theocracy, however the religious & secular powers are split between two individuals, which means it isn't a "true theocracy".

Basically, a theocracy is where governing power is dictated by religious or spiritual reasons, rather than secular and temporal ones.

What about the fact that bishops from the Church of England are automatically given positions in the unelected House of Lords - and that these men (and now one woman) are licensed to make the laws of this land without being held accountable?

 

[Glaurung]

What about the fact that bishops from the Church of England are automatically given positions in the unelected House of Lords - and that these men (and now one woman) are licensed to make the laws of this land without being held accountable?

If you have no qualms about paying lip service to Anglicanism, I'd say you've found your ticket into politics.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Secularism is the better option, though I suppose it would be somewhat dependent on the type of theocracy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's too broad to say specifically. Either one can be really bad or really good. It depends on the people running the state.

 

[Nietzsche]

What about the fact that bishops from the Church of England are automatically given positions in the unelected House of Lords - and that these men (and now one woman) are licensed to make the laws of this land without being held accountable?

Eh, the House of Lords is a holdover of aristocratic government, and the Clergy were(and arguably still are) members of the aristocracy. However, they are by no means the most numerous. And given how secular authority trumps religious authority in the UK, I'd say it's harmless.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Would an officially recognised state religion count as theocratic? Monaco recognises religious freedom, but it is constitutionally Roman Catholic.

Nah, that's not the same. It's like how the UK has Anglicanism as their state religion and the Queen is the head of their church, but you wouldn't say they're a theocracy.

 

[Glaurung]

Nah, that's not the same. It's like how the UK has Anglicanism as their state religion and the Queen is the head of their church, but you wouldn't say they're a theocracy.

I certainly wouldn't. I've always understood theocracy to be a state wherein no distinction between religious and temporal authority is made. For example, the pope is always simultaneously the sovereign king of Vatican City. It's just that the word theocracy is thrown around very loosely at times. Especially by those whose idea of secularism is the utter abolishment of religion in public life; which is something I could never support.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I certainly wouldn't. I've always understood theocracy to be a state wherein no distinction between religious and temporal authority is made. For example, the pope is always simultaneously the sovereign king of Vatican City. It's just that the word theocracy is thrown around very loosely at times. Especially by those whose idea of secularism is the utter abolishment of religion in public life; which is something I could never support.

I don't support that, either. Freedom of religion/belief, sure, but not banishing religion from public life.

 

[sun rise]

I am not going to express a strong preference since my vote is "it depends". And almost all societies are not wholely secular or wholely based on religious law.

Best is if every law was tested against one and only one religious principle which is stated as the second greatest commandment in the New Testament. The first is between people and God. The second should be the basis of all societies. If women are not treated as equal as men that violates the rule of love. If laws discriminate between religions then it violates the law of love. And I explicitly exclude claims that discrimination and cruelty are really expressions of love or that God has mandated unequal treatment for the next billion years because the religious law is fixed for all time.

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?


37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.


38 This is the first and great commandment.


39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.


40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

And yet, that requires a particular interpretation of the text.

True and I gave my interpretation as my personal answer to the question.