Theocracy Discussion Thread

[El-Amin Caliphate]

It is proposed in my form of theocracy and it is what should happen in an Islamic government.

It's your special, precious, one true communism theocracy that has never been done and is completely perfect and will somehow not be oppressive despite all the others being so, right?
Smh

I never said it was 1 true theocracy. There are many kinds of theocracy. Besides, I think Democratic Theocracies have been tried before, albeit different from my view.

Were you putting words in my mouth, making assumptions or what? Because idk how you came to that conclusion.

[Reikoku]

Would you want to be governed by a theocracy who worshiped a god that was not yours?

As long as I have my rights to practice Al-Islam, sure.

By your own admission, Islam is political, and you don't want to live in a neutral secular state. So, I really doubt you would want to live in a theocracy of another religion, especially a polytheistic one.

[Genivaria]

It's your special, precious, one true communism theocracy that has never been done and is completely perfect and will somehow not be oppressive despite all the others being so, right?
Smh

I never said it was 1 true theocracy. There are many kinds of theocracy. Besides, I think Democratic Theocracies have been tried before, albeit different from my view.

Were you putting words in my mouth, making assumptions or what? Because idk how you came to that conclusion.

It's an expression Amin.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I never said it was 1 true theocracy. There are many kinds of theocracy. Besides, I think Democratic Theocracies have been tried before, albeit different from my view.

Were you putting words in my mouth, making assumptions or what? Because idk how you came to that conclusion.

It's an expression Amin.

I know it is. I still don't know how that relates to what I said, considering that I didn't say anything close to that.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

As long as I have my rights to practice Al-Islam, sure.

By your own admission, Islam is political, and you don't want to live in a neutral secular state. So, I really doubt you would want to live in a theocracy of another religion, especially a polytheistic one.

As long as I have my rights to practice Al-Islam, sure.

[Vetalia]

I'm a Catholic integralist, so I would support a state that bases its policies on and promotes the Catholic faith while respecting religious liberty within reasonable bounds (i.e. religious freedom as defined by the Second Vatican Council). In that kind of society, religious freedom would be permitted for all faiths, permitting them to construct houses of worship and follow their faith according to their conscience and understanding of the truth, provided that they do not work to proselytize people away from the true faith. I would also want any attempts to coerce individuals to conversion to be strongly and severely prosecuted, as that is contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ and his Apostles.

In an ideal world I would like to see a return of the great Catholic monarchies like those of St. Louis IX or St. Henry, but one can dream...

[Sahansahiye Iran]

In an ideal world I would like to see a return of the great Catholic monarchies like those of St. Louis IX or St. Henry, but one can dream...

Ah, yes. Good ol' Louis IX. With his mutilation as punishment for blasphemy and persecution of the Jews. What a perfect ruler and a perfect example of a theocrat.

You realize that the entirety of your first paragraph conflicts with this last bit, right? The dude literally had people's lips and tongue cut out for blasphemy and burned thousands of copies of the Talmud.

[Saranidia]

In an ideal world I would like to see a return of the great Catholic monarchies like those of St. Louis IX or St. Henry, but one can dream...

Ah, yes. Good ol' Louis IX. With his mutilation as punishment for blasphemy and persecution of the Jews. What a perfect ruler and a perfect example of a theocrat.

You realize that the entirety of your first paragraph conflicts with this last bit, right? The dude literally had people's lips and tongue cut out for blasphemy and burned thousands of copies of the Talmud.

Yes which is against Christian mercy.

[Hurdergaryp]

Ah, yes. Good ol' Louis IX. With his mutilation as punishment for blasphemy and persecution of the Jews. What a perfect ruler and a perfect example of a theocrat.

You realize that the entirety of your first paragraph conflicts with this last bit, right? The dude literally had people's lips and tongue cut out for blasphemy and burned thousands of copies of the Talmud.

Yes which is against Christian mercy.

History teaches us that said mercy is a suggestion at best and most certainly not a hard rule.

[Saranidia]

Yes which is against Christian mercy.

History teaches us that said mercy is a suggestion at best and most certainly not a hard rule.

That may be true but is not Christian so in that case is an exposure of inconsistency.

[Hurdergaryp]

History teaches us that said mercy is a suggestion at best and most certainly not a hard rule.

That may be true but is not Christian so in that case is an exposure of inconsistency.

The major religions on this world wouldn't have come as far as they did if they would let themselves be hindered by things such as consistency and loving thy fellow man.

[Neutraligon]

That may be true but is not Christian so in that case is an exposure of inconsistency.

The major religions on this world wouldn't have come as far as they did if they would let themselves be hindered by things such as consistency and loving thy fellow man.

Christianity wouldn't be what it is today, with the doctrines it had today without that "inconsistency"

[Kubumba Tribe]

That may be true but is not Christian so in that case is an exposure of inconsistency.

The major religions on this world wouldn't have come as far as they did if they would let themselves be hindered by things such as consistency and loving thy fellow man.

Neither one of those are hindrances.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

Ah, yes. Good ol' Louis IX. With his mutilation as punishment for blasphemy and persecution of the Jews. What a perfect ruler and a perfect example of a theocrat.

You realize that the entirety of your first paragraph conflicts with this last bit, right? The dude literally had people's lips and tongue cut out for blasphemy and burned thousands of copies of the Talmud.

Yes which is against Christian mercy.

And you completely missed the point. Grats. I'm referring specifically to the irony of that poster considering Louis IX to be an example of tolerance.

[Hurdergaryp]

The major religions on this world wouldn't have come as far as they did if they would let themselves be hindered by things such as consistency and loving thy fellow man.

Christianity wouldn't be what it is today, with the doctrines it had today without that "inconsistency"

It lost dominance in the Middle East, but gained Europe. This proved to be fortuitous in the long run, and vexing in the even longer run because of this pesky Enlightenment business.

[Internationalist Bastard]

The major religions on this world wouldn't have come as far as they did if they would let themselves be hindered by things such as consistency and loving thy fellow man.

Christianity wouldn't be what it is today, with the doctrines it had today without that "inconsistency"

Isn’t religion by its definition driven by inconsistency
Morals simply can’t stay the exact same as time passes, and so religion either fails to acknowledge certain things or begins to teach things previously or taught

[Saranidia]

Christianity wouldn't be what it is today, with the doctrines it had today without that "inconsistency"

Isn’t religion by its definition driven by inconsistency
Morals simply can’t stay the exact same as time passes, and so religion either fails to acknowledge certain things or begins to teach things previously or taught

Excellent point mi'lady

[Saranidia]

fun fact: the US Supreme Court has a statue of Muhammad on the North Wall frieze
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/nort ... hwalls.pdf

[Burhania]

Mine is just an Islamic Republic. I don't know why you made yours a Caliphate lol. Seems unrealistic akhi.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Mine is just an Islamic Republic. I don't know why you made yours a Caliphate lol. Seems unrealistic akhi.

Assalamu 'Alaikum wa RaHmatullahi wa Barakatuhu.
This is an Out of Character (aka OOC) thread, meaning that we discuss our real life views here.

[Luminesa]

In an ideal world I would like to see a return of the great Catholic monarchies like those of St. Louis IX or St. Henry, but one can dream...

Ah, yes. Good ol' Louis IX. With his mutilation as punishment for blasphemy and persecution of the Jews. What a perfect ruler and a perfect example of a theocrat.

You realize that the entirety of your first paragraph conflicts with this last bit, right? The dude literally had people's lips and tongue cut out for blasphemy and burned thousands of copies of the Talmud.

While this bit is very regrettable (and was later overturned by the pope after Louis died), he also got rid of trials by ordeal (no more drowning people to see if they were witches!) and added the presumption of innocence to trials in France, which made France’s legal system unusual during the Middle Ages. So he was definitely a severe monarch against non-Catholicism (mostly against Cathars), but he did manage to at least reform the legal system for people. He also cared for the poor and didn’t like the idea of putting rebels to death.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

Ah, yes. Good ol' Louis IX. With his mutilation as punishment for blasphemy and persecution of the Jews. What a perfect ruler and a perfect example of a theocrat.

You realize that the entirety of your first paragraph conflicts with this last bit, right? The dude literally had people's lips and tongue cut out for blasphemy and burned thousands of copies of the Talmud.

While this bit is very regrettable (and was later overturned by the pope after Louis died), he also got rid of trials by ordeal (no more drowning people to see if they were witches!) and added the presumption of innocence to trials in France, which made France’s legal system unusual during the Middle Ages. So he was definitely a severe monarch against non-Catholicism (mostly against Cathars), but he did manage to at least reform the legal system for people. He also cared for the poor and didn’t like the idea of putting rebels to death.

That'd be all nice and good if we were talking about how good of a ruler he was generally. But we weren't. The person I had replied to had specifically preached about religious tolerance and then gave him as an example of a perfect theocrat in his eyes.

[Hurdergaryp]

Ah, yes. Good ol' Louis IX. With his mutilation as punishment for blasphemy and persecution of the Jews. What a perfect ruler and a perfect example of a theocrat.

You realize that the entirety of your first paragraph conflicts with this last bit, right? The dude literally had people's lips and tongue cut out for blasphemy and burned thousands of copies of the Talmud.

While this bit is very regrettable (and was later overturned by the pope after Louis died), he also got rid of trials by ordeal (no more drowning people to see if they were witches!) and added the presumption of innocence to trials in France, which made France’s legal system unusual during the Middle Ages. So he was definitely a severe monarch against non-Catholicism (mostly against Cathars), but he did manage to at least reform the legal system for people. He also cared for the poor and didn’t like the idea of putting rebels to death.

Given all the violence, carnage and harsh suppression that inevitably comes with any kind of theocracy, the only logical conclusion is that the only good theocracy is a dead theocracy. Nothing of value was achieved by maniacs who claim that the incoherent laws supposedly dictated by some kind of mythical superbeing should always trump secular humanitarian laws based upon the real world.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

How about simply a non-hypocritical law, which would only apply to those who go directly against what they say that someone should do in similar circumstances? This solves the problem with various sub-sects and non-devout followers, in addition to being easier to implement.

[Kubumba Tribe]

How about simply a non-hypocritical law, which would only apply to those who go directly against what they say that someone should do in similar circumstances? This solves the problem with various sub-sects and non-devout followers, in addition to being easier to implement.

Non-devout followers are still subject to their law. And not every theocratic law is hypocritical.