Would anyone here really want to live under a theocracy?

[Ebionite]

You answered your own question.

The question was whether people in general would recognise a theocracy.

 

[Viker]

My answer to this is an emphatic 'No.'
My idea for this thread came from a recent conversation I had with a gentleman who said he wants the United States to become a Christian theocracy. Personally I like our current model of a secular government that allows people to worship, or not worship, how they see fit.
Thoughts?

I absolutely agree, emphatically as well. And almost belligerently.

 

[PureX]

Do you have an example of a religion that has been "very good at doing this?"

Most of the ethical imperatives that you currently hold us a 'humanism' were developed and held up originally by various religions. And this is especially true back in the days when philosophy was part of religion. (As was science, by the way.)

 

[Dao Hao Now]

The question was whether people in general would recognise a theocracy.

Yes, that was the OP question.


Your question was:

How would you recognise a theocracy (or the lack of one) if you were living in one but it was called a democracy? You could vote for different leaders but the leaders were bound to follow religious traditions that were part of the constitution.

The answer to your question was contained within itself.
If it was a democracy where elected leaders where “bound to follow religious traditions that were part of the constitution”, it should still be recognized as a theocracy.

Current examples:
Iran
Pakistan
Vatican City

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Most of the ethical imperatives that you currently hold us a 'humanism' were developed and held up originally by various religions.

Which religion repudiated faith as a path to truth and taught man that the only path to knowledge is empiricism (I don't consider any atheistic worldview a religion)?
Which religion taught that man and his conscience are the measure of right and wrong?
Which religion taught that only man can improve the human condition?
Which religion is advocating for utilitarian ethics and maximizing social and economic opportunity for the greatest number in their pursuit of happiness as they understand it?
Which religion advocates for freedom of and from religion?

Those are core humanist principles, and as you can see, they are all a repudiation of Abrahamic religion. I can't say much about the polytheistic religions, which seem more compatible with atheistic humanism.

 

[Ebionite]

If it was a democracy where elected leaders where “bound to follow religious traditions that were part of the constitution”, it should still be recognized as a theocracy.

Current examples:
Iran
Pakistan
Vatican City

The religious traditions of the Vatican City were also part of traditions of the Roman Empire, which influenced the law of European Nations like Germany as well as the common law of the countries of the Commonwealth.

One of the traditions of the Roman religion was the doctrine of original sin, which relates to mankind being treated as persons by the state, with the consequent loss of status. In Roman law this loss of status was called capitis deminutio (separation from the agnatic family).

 

[Quintessence]

Sure. A theocracy run by Unitarian Universalists sounds pretty darned swell, actually. Free and responsible search for truth and meaning, emphasis on social and environmental justice, democratic principles, non-creedal and non-dogmatic orientation... sure, why not?

 

[Ebionite]

why not?

Because of the inconsistency between social justice and the justice of a deity.

 

[danieldemol]

Sure. A theocracy run by Unitarian Universalists sounds pretty darned swell, actually. Free and responsible search for truth and meaning, emphasis on social and environmental justice, democratic principles, non-creedal and non-dogmatic orientation... sure, why not?

Given that asserting any form of God is true beyond asserting their may be real non-magical things worshipped as God/(s) and particularly forcing their worship on those who dont wish to worship them is pretty much the meaning of theocracy it would be contrary to the principles of free and responsible search for meaning, non creedal and non-dogmatic orientation etc in my view.

In other words calling for a UU theocracy is inherently self contradictory, we don't need theocracy to have any of those good points of UU you mentioned (regular democracy should be sufficient for that) in my opinion.

 

[Eddi]

why not

Because it would exclude people who are not of that persuasion from public office

Including me

 

[Quintessence]

Because of the inconsistency between social justice and the justice of a deity.

Which one? A good chunk of UUs are polytheists or atheists.

Because it would exclude people who are not of that persuasion from public office

Why would it? It wouldn't be in the spirit of a UU-run government to exclude anyone from holding office.

In other words calling for a UU theocracy is inherently self contradictory, we don't need theocracy to have any of those good points of UU you mentioned (regular democracy should be sufficient for that) in my opinion.

We don't need anything for anything, ever, for any reason. Not sure what your point is.

Mine is that theocracy can only be judged when a specific religion is named for consideration. It would look very different depending on the religion in question. A UU theocracy - as ironic as that would be, granted - wouldn't be all that different from present American politics except perhaps for actually achieving more social justice and environmental reform to catch up with Europe.

 

[Eddi]

Why would it? It wouldn't be in the spirit of a UU-run government to exclude anyone from holding office.

Then it wouldn't be a Theocracy, would it????

 

[Quintessence]

Then it wouldn't be a Theocracy, would it????

I dunno - depends on how you want to run your litmus test. How much influence does a specific religion need to have over a nation's governing principles before you decide to call it a theocracy? If the vision of an ideal leader is one who upholds the Seven Principles and most candidates who get elected conform to those (but no one is inherently excluded), does that make it a theocracy?

This is all setting aside the challenge of how to meaningfully differentiate between religion and other cultural phenomena, which makes the entire thought experiment even more messy. But no, we're supposed to NOT think critically about any of this and reflexively go "theocracy BAD!" then just end the conversation there.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

The religious traditions of the Vatican City were also part of traditions of the Roman Empire, which influenced the law of European Nations like Germany as well as the common law of the countries of the Commonwealth.

One of the traditions of the Roman religion was the doctrine of original sin, which relates to mankind being treated as persons by the state, with the consequent loss of status. In Roman law this loss of status was called capitis deminutio (separation from the agnatic family).

OK???
I’m not grasping the connection with what you’re saying here and the OP of whether one might desire to live within a theocracy or your puzzlement of whether or not a theocracy could simultaneously be a democracy and how that might be determined.

 

[Eddi]

I dunno - depends on how you want to run your litmus test. How much influence does a specific religion need to have over a nation's governing principles before you decide to call it a theocracy? If the vision of an ideal leader is one who upholds the Seven Principles and most candidates who get elected conform to those (but no one is inherently excluded), does that make it a theocracy?

This is all setting aside the challenge of how to meaningfully differentiate between religion and other cultural phenomena, which makes the entire thought experiment even more messy. But no, we're supposed to NOT think critically about any of this and reflexively go "theocracy BAD!" then just end the conversation there.

Any theocratic regime deserves to be resisted by freedom-loving people, no matter how smug, holier than thou, and up their own ****s

 

[osgart]

Make no mistake about theocracy in that it's a human conception of a supposedly ideal God, and that will only lead to totalitarianism, denial of free thought, free expression, and free speech.

That reminds me of a time I asked questions to someone at a Baptist Church about the validity of faith and the church elders moved quickly to silence me as if they were guarding the minds of the flock. Theocracy is anti self expression, and quite literally a subversion of democracy. Their God is obviously afraid of anyone thinking with their own sense of reason, and theocratic church leaders officiate conformity and denial of any individuality.

I'd be down for a civil war if theocracy ever happened in America. Fact is that the US was never a Christian nation. That is a propagandist revisionist history that many Christians try to force the public into. There's a book by Thom Hartmann about it, that presents the facts about American history of democracy in detail.

I feel bad for those who are under theocratic power and influence; as if there is a God who cannot create free thinking people fully capable of reasoning for themselves about justice, and morality. Apparently sinners have no reliable faculties apart from the Bible. So right off the bat fundamentalists are the furthest thing from being open minded, and one way conversations is all they can manage.

 

[Eddi]

I dunno - depends on how you want to run your litmus test. How much influence does a specific religion need to have over a nation's governing principles before you decide to call it a theocracy? If the vision of an ideal leader is one who upholds the Seven Principles and most candidates who get elected conform to those (but no one is inherently excluded), does that make it a theocracy?

This is all setting aside the challenge of how to meaningfully differentiate between religion and other cultural phenomena, which makes the entire thought experiment even more messy. But no, we're supposed to NOT think critically about any of this and reflexively go "theocracy BAD!" then just end the conversation there.

As an ex-Unitarian I fear such a regime would very much have it in for me

I would also be very committed to its demise

If the state was a run by a UU junta then I would become an enemy of the state

And we all know power corrupts

 

[libre]

the representation of RF concerning religious beliefs is almost a polar opposite of the representation in my neck of the woods.

People who are antagonistic towards other religions typically wouldn't want to join such a broad tent community.
In googling for religious-forums I found some Catholic-only forum wherein people were complaining about the 'left atheist' leadership of this site.

 

[Ebionite]

Which one?

The one that's a theocracy.

 

[Ebionite]

OK???
I’m not grasping the connection with what you’re saying here and the OP of whether one might desire to live within a theocracy or your puzzlement of whether or not a theocracy could simultaneously be a democracy and how that might be determined.

It's about identifying the essential elements of a theocracy. Taken to its most ridiculous case, it's about people who vote for the variation of the theocracy they prefer as they think that what they're doing is democratic. Arguably the essential element is that your status within the political system is determined by religious dogma that is part of the system and can't be changed from within that system. The element of status is reflected by the Roman practice of capitis deminutuio as applied to the persons of the state.