Why is theocracy a bad idea?

[Washington Resistance Army]

oh really? ok

Still atheists are on the low ring of the approval rating with Muslims, and Arab-Americans rating higher than them at 36%.

Hell there are still families who disown their children for coming out as atheist or heaven forbid your parents find out your future spouse is an atheist. The US has a long way to go .

We're getting there dammit, it's better now than it was ten years ago

[The Land of Truth]

Why is theocracy a bad idea?

Would you prefer the short or long version?

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?"

It depends entirely on the religion.

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.

Again, it depends on the religion.

-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?

Non sequitur.

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 just being a majority doesn't automatically give you the right to speak for everyone else?

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.

Legislators should be elected based on what they do for the country, not whether or not they follow the same religion as you. So, yes, it is wrong (because it's selfish and unpatriotic).

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.

Excuse me? How on earth do you make that connection?

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

The same reason it's wrong now: Not everyone would follow the religion.

[The Land of Truth]

Still atheists are on the low ring of the approval rating with Muslims, and Arab-Americans rating higher than them at 36%.

Hell there are still families who disown their children for coming out as atheist or heaven forbid your parents find out your future spouse is an atheist. The US has a long way to go .

We're getting there dammit, it's better now than it was ten years ago

I haven't missed the fundamentalists, have I? *crosses fingers*

[Washington Resistance Army]

We're getting there dammit, it's better now than it was ten years ago

I haven't missed the fundamentalists, have I? *crosses fingers*

They aren't here right now, but just wait Flood might show up soon.

[The Land of Truth]

I haven't missed the fundamentalists, have I? *crosses fingers*

They aren't here right now, but just wait Flood might show up soon.

Hope it waits till tomorrow, I'd rather not be on here all night (again).

[Liberaxia]

This argument is trotted out so much, but I do quite agree with Distruzio here, but there is an even better example.

The UK, it has a literal head of religion as its government and religious figures undemocratically put into its representatives, effectively making it equivalent to Iran in governmental structure.
Now is the UK more or less secular than the United States? Or better yet, Sweden, which has a similar situation, is that a religious hellhole?

And pray tell, what is the difference between say Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom? Why one is a developed nation with widespread access to education. It doesn't matter how religious a government is, so long as education and development are cultivated, laws and tolerance are inevitably respected when you have a developed society.

There is a world of difference between, say, the Vatican and North Korea if you are a religious dissenter - despite both being in vast opposition in regards to religion in government.

You're right. Those are clear examples of what I was trying to get across. You took my verbosity and made it much more palatable. Bravo sirrah.

What's up with the "rah" on the end of "sir"?

[Distruzio]

You're right. Those are clear examples of what I was trying to get across. You took my verbosity and made it much more palatable. Bravo sirrah.

What's up with the "rah" on the end of "sir"?

For you, it was light ribbing based upon your ignorance. For Mostrov it was a respectful deferral based upon his/her superior phrasing.

[Liberaxia]

What's up with the "rah" on the end of "sir"?

For you, it was light ribbing based upon your ignorance. For Mostrov it was a respectful deferral based upon his/her superior phrasing.

I'm just trying to figure out where it comes from.

[Liberaxia]

I remain unconvinced.

How about a description of the Iranian government then? Perhaps then you'll be able to point out the theocratic markers?

The electorate elects the Parliament, President, and Assembly of Experts. Each of these directly elected institutions appoint the Guardian Council, Cabinet, and Supreme Leader (who, curiously enough, wields more authority than the president and is appointed from the Assembly of Experts who are directly elected by the electorate). These three institutions and individuals then coordinate and appoint the Head of the Judiciary, the Armed Forces leadership, and the Expediency Council.

At no point is the structure of government theocratic in nature.

Guess who the electorate are? Everyone. It's a universal franchise.

Iran has Sharia law, is ruled by a cleric, and has a state religuion. Your standards for what qualifies as a theocracy are frankly bizarre.

[Kapilana]

Iran is a republic. Not a theocracy. Military authority lies with the ulema (religious authorities), yes, but the structure of the Iranian government is far from theocratic. The United States is more a theocracy than Iran is.

Sorry, but you're completely mistaken about that.

Iran isn't a Republic as in a platonic republic but an "Islamic Republic", a completely unrelated government type that claims inspiration from the "Republic" but only in the sense that, like the French Revolution, it's something that comes with a revolution. The architecture of the Islamic Republic is based on a theocracy designed by Ayatollah Khomeini. It's called Wilayat-e Faqih. He wrote a book on it, and designed Iran's government around it.

In this form of theocracy, there are several branches of government with complex relationships between them. It's a technocracy in some respects, but one in which a council of ulema have priority over the "democratically elected" people's assembly, and in which the fantasmagoric "expertise in Islamic law" has ascendancy over every other type of expertise. At the top of the tree, ruling over all the other, branches is a man who is literally standing in for god. He's called the Rahbar or Supreme Leader, and according to the state philosophy, he is the Wali of the Mahdi (i.e. the representative of the Mahdi, or the occulted infallible godman the 12th Imam in Shi'ism). In other words, God's representative on earth. He has an office above that of President in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and he can't be removed.

In addition, the IRI imposes its own form of supreme religious law over everyone in Iran.

For these two reasons, especially the religious law which is not cultural but constitutional, Iran is a theocracy.

Saudi Arabia is a unique variation of theocratic governance in that the ruling family maintains legitimacy through the Al ash-Sheikh's - the most well known and respected religious authority in the Kingdom. Therefore, the al Sauds cannot literally make the claim of religious supremacy as they are not the ulema and ONLY maintain legitimacy through the favor of the ulema (headed by the Al ash-Sheikh's). Granted, the relationship is reciprocal but it is not theocratic in structure.

Please, do not pose arguments like this as assertions. Use questions when you don't know about something. I find it irritating when "discussions" involve having to constantly correct someone's mistakes.

First, the Saudi family does claim religious office in the Islamic religion. The claim to be Caretaker of the Holy Sites of Mecca and Medina is a historically important claim. In some cases, in history, the Caretaker was actually in competition with the "Caliph". At others, he was in a position to make a claim to be "Caliph". This is a real religious office in Islam.

Second, the fact that Saudi Arabia is a territory in which a form of religious law is imposed and enforced on everyone except the Saudi family according to its own constitution, means that it's a theocratic state.

Isis/Isil is the only nation on your list that most accurately meets the requirements to be a theocracy.

No, actually it was the weakest candidate for being a theocracy on my list.
First, it's not a nation but a ragtag band of terrorists, as you will see soon when they are destroyed.
Second, both Iran and Saudi Arabia are acknowledged internationally as nations.
Third, both Iran and Saudi Arabia are acknowledged internationally as theocracies, because they make the Islamic religious law the supreme law of the land.

Essentially, what I'm saying is that the basis of of a particular national legal system on cultural and religious tradition does not, necessarily, a theocracy make.

Yes, that's what you're saying and that's where you are wrong. You have a unique definition of theocracy, which you have decided not to share, that basically doesn't make sense or matter, but which defines a terrorist group as a "theocracy" but calls Iran a "Republic". Most likely you weren't clear on the definition of "Republic" or the roots of that idea, so wherever you see that word you think of a France/USA type structure.

Theo - God.
Cracy - Rule/government.

For instance, here in the United States, the franchise and democracy have become nigh religious institutions as they permeate and pervert the traditionally republican structure of government via popular mandate. The citizens of the United States embrace both the franchise and democracy with near religious zealotry. Indeed, one can even make the observation that fealty to constitutional intent by so many of the public is practically religious in nature. The reality is that "theocracy" is more a political structure rather that a political framework. If we define it according to political framework we dilute the actual meaning of theocracy so much so that any and all governments fit the definition.

In plain English, you are saying that because the American public have, in your view, a "near religious zealotry" towards certain ideas, we can say that America is "practically religious" about its government structure, and that this is an example of why we need to be restrictive about the definition of theocracy.

You wouldn't be saying that if you had a more complete knowledge of the political structure of either Iran or Saudi Arabia. I think I may have presented facts in this post about those countries you didn't know. You are mistaken about the political systems of those countries.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

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.

But thats kinda impossible, and which religion anyways?

[Indira]

Aside from the obvious corruption of both religion and state, the deprivation of rights to none-believers and the simple inflexibility of religion you mean? Not to mention the fact that religion by definition can't actually be proven to be right.

[The Land of Truth]

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

But thats kinda impossible, and which religion anyways?

Furthermore it appears to make the assumption that if some religion were proven true (because that could totally happen), the vast majority of people on Earth would convert to it (which is the same mistake the OP makes). This just isn't true.

[Mkuki]

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?

Theocracies don't tend to be liberal paradises where citizens are free to do their bidding. Usually they end up being autocratic, oppressive holes where a small elite control all aspects of governance and society.

[Baiynistan]

Even if you could prove that any religion has got some theological questions right, this doesn't mean that people everywhere would choose to worship the gods of that religion or observe its laws.

If you could prove to me, with irrefutable evidence, that the god of the Old Testament exists, I would still prefer not to worship him or express any kind of gratitude towards him because I do not think he is a being who deserves admiration or affection. And I wouldn't want my life to be limited by the dogma of his worshippers' faith.

[Bojikami]

Because you should not let religion run anything.

[The Orson Empire]

Theocracy is a bad idea because it discriminates against anyone who does not believe in the state religion. Also, it is very bad idea in general to mix religion with politics, as Human history has shown that it never works.

[Great Kleomentia]

Because you should not let religion run anything.

Not even religious ceremonies?

[Silent Majority]

Iran is a republic. Not a theocracy.

Why can't it be both?

[The Orson Empire]

Iran is a republic. Not a theocracy.

Why can't it be both?

The two are mutually exclusive. You cannot be a republic and an oppressive theocracy.

[Yuzan]

Like any other bad ideology theocracy is dogma. It enforces an singular idea instead of hard facts. It's laws can't be changed for rational reasons, if it does change they just say its the wrong interpretation of that traditional law like it's "not Christan like" or not "Islamic" enough. It supports tradition rather than change. It will ignore other ideas infavor of their own.

[Lleu llaw Gyffes]

Aside from the obvious corruption of both religion and state, the deprivation of rights to none-believers and the simple inflexibility of religion you mean? Not to mention the fact that religion by definition can't actually be proven to be right.

This thread is SUPPOSE religion X were proven true, would Theocracy still be bad?

Truth and Goodness are rarely the same thing.

If God X is true and evil and his priests are evil and rule, then Theocracy continues to be a bad thing just like in RL, where God ain't true but evil Priests are true.

But if God X is true and good and priests are good, then Theocracy wouldn't be that bad.

[Hurdegaryp]

Why can't it be both?

The two are mutually exclusive. You cannot be a republic and an oppressive theocracy.

Nonsense. Iran is doing an excellent job combining both principles.

[Boston and Surrounding Provinces]

The two are mutually exclusive. You cannot be a republic and an oppressive theocracy.

Nonsense. Iran is doing an excellent job combining both principles.

Let the dead stay in peace.

[Hurdegaryp]

Nonsense. Iran is doing an excellent job combining both principles.

Let the dead stay in peace.

This thread wasn't dead, it was resting. Less than two weeks inaction does not a gravedigging make.