Why is theocracy a bad idea?

[Jumalariik]

Why is theocracy a bad idea?

This title is slightly misleading, what I mean is, "Assuming one religion is proven to be correct, why would a theocracy in support of that religion be wrong?"

I would say that it would not be wrong for a society to unite itself under a religion that is proven to be correct and make its teachings law.

Why?

-To not base a society on known truth is a morally indefensible act.
-Since this religion is a known truth, it would be morally indefensible not to found a society on its basis.

-If it were proven right, the majority of people would convert to it, thus, it would shape society regardless, why not write it into law?

How about this?
-What if the majority of a nation believed in a particular religion, the people they elected into power also believed in that religion, why would it be wrong for them to legislate on that basis?

My essential point is this, if the majority of a population adheres to a particular religion, it would not be wrong for that population to elect legislators to legislate on the basis of those opinions. This is a logical proposition, also, because since the moral basis for laws are subject to change from society to society, it would be alright for the morals of a society to be on the basis of a religion.

Assuming one religion is proven to be correct, why would a theocracy in support of that religion be wrong?

[DesAnges]

If religion is proven truth then there is no need for it, really. Religion is faith and you cannot have faith in cold hard facts, they are simply just there. So what you would have is somewhat more akin to a dictatorship.

[Risottia]

Why is theocracy a bad idea?

This title is slightly misleading, what I mean is, "Assuming one religion is proven to be correct, why would a theocracy in support of that religion be wrong?"

The problem is with the assumption being wrong in itself. A religion cannot be proven to be correct: that's why it's a matter of faith.

How about this?
-What if the majority of a nation believed in a particular religion, the people they elected into power also believed in that religion, why would it be wrong for them to legislate on that basis?

Because it would lead to the deprivation of rights of the non-believers. Basically, it would be a tyranny of the majority.

[Czechanada]

The teachings and laws of a religion may not have the objectively best results in terms of society, economics, and politics.

Moreover, such teachings of a religion are based in interpretation and do not use the tool of criticism, which will most certainly lead to inferior governance as well.

[Boston and Surrounding Provinces]

Because secularism bro.

[Jumalariik]

Because secularism bro.

Can secularism contradict proven fact?

[Boston and Surrounding Provinces]

Because secularism bro.

Can secularism contradict proven fact?

You don't science as the only true thing right now, right?

[Jumalariik]

The teachings and laws of a religion may not have the objectively best results in terms of society, economics, and politics.

Moreover, such teachings of a religion are based in interpretation and do not use the tool of criticism, which will most certainly lead to inferior governance as well.

How do you "objectively" decide the results of a society?
Unless you believe that there is objective morality, your point is not supportable and shows illogic. You likely do not believe in objective morality, thus your point is indefensible like the Alamo. I am the Mexican government and I proclaim your point to be defeated.

[Jumalariik]

Can secularism contradict proven fact?

You don't science as the only true thing right now, right?

You obviously didn't read the whole OP. Try again.

[Allet Klar Chefs]

Because unless apostasy is alright according to that religion, it's a very conservative form of power.

[Jumalariik]

Because unless apostasy is alright according to that religion, it's a very conservative form of power.

Irrelevant, the religion is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true.

[Allet Klar Chefs]

Because unless apostasy is alright according to that religion, it's a very conservative form of power.

Irrelevant, the religion is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true.

True in what sense?

[Hurdegaryp]

Because secularism bro.

Can secularism contradict proven fact?

It goes without saying that any theocracy is seriously flawed at best and usually horrible by default. Systems based upon mythological compilations can never be considered to be absolute truth.

[Of the Quendi]

"Assuming one religion is proven to be correct, why would a theocracy in support of that religion be wrong?"

The assumption is fallible, no religion can be proven correct.

/thread?

[Camelza]

Until a religion is scientifically proven to be correct in its beliefs, I'm going to stick with strict western secularism.

[Ifreann]

So let us suppose that somehow the Christian God makes his existence known to humanity in a very flashy, incontrovertible way. Let's say He even names a preferred Christian sect we should all be following if we want to get into His good books. Why should I have to follow that religion? Yeah, if I don't I'll go to Hell, but that's my problem. Why should my government be enforcing these rules on me? Why should I lose my right to live my life some other way? If I want to wake up every day and act like there isn't a god, despite proverbial or even literal mountains of evidence that I'm wrong, how is that anyone's business but mine?

[DesAnges]

Irrelevant, the religion is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true.

True in what sense?

I imagine he means if the deity (or deities) in question manifest themselves before us all.

[Liberaxia]

Because secularism bro.

Can secularism contradict proven fact?

Secularism is a policy prescription. There is no contradiction.

[Gaiserin]

It depends entirely on the given religion that which the said theocracy is based on.

So, it may or may not be a bad idea.

[Liberaxia]

Because unless apostasy is alright according to that religion, it's a very conservative form of power.

Irrelevant, the religion is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true.

That still doesn't negate secularism.

[Sebtopiaris]

Wow. Just wow.

[Vamtrl]

If the Bible or the Koran is proven true then we are eternally fucked.

[DesAnges]

Wow. Just wow.

Good argument, well reasoned, even has a joke in it.

[Allet Klar Chefs]

True in what sense?

I imagine he means if the deity (or deities) in question manifest themselves before us all.

That's fine, but plenty of faiths have some internal inconsistencies within their holy book, not to mention how different various sects have become.

Let's say Christian God turns up. OK we have be Christians now I guess in Jumal's system, but which kind? Are we going Fuck The Pope school, or some kind of Quaker thing, or Coptic, or RCC, what's the deal here?

[DesAnges]

I imagine he means if the deity (or deities) in question manifest themselves before us all.

That's fine, but plenty of faiths have some internal inconsistencies within their holy book, not to mention how different various sects have become.

Let's say Christian God turns up. OK we have be Christians now I guess in Jumal's system, but which kind? Are we going Fuck The Pope school, or some kind of Quaker thing, or Coptic, or RCC, what's the deal here?

Fuck if I know, I'm not OP. Besides, I already reasoned my opposition in the first reply.