Well, if God is directly in charge of it, I suppose. But that would mean God would have to come down from the heavens and make himself visible, taking an active role in human government.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are there any Sound Arguments for Theocracy?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Well, if God is directly in charge of it, I suppose. But that would mean God would have to come down from the heavens and make himself visible, taking an active role in human government.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Yes It works.
it keeps a population in submissive servitude.
To the extent that they believe it is good for them, and do not question their superiors.
It is the ultimate top down structure.
Some Denominations are run as top down authorities like the JW's
Others like the Church of England are almost fully democratic in their decision making, and run bottom up through synods.
I find myself fascinated by the assumptions various folks hold as to what a theocracy would look like. Considering how many gods there are, creating a nation whose governance is in the name of a god or gods is as diverse and varied as the gods themselves. It could be anything ranging from governance in the name of love (aka, Eros) to governance in the name of travel and trade (aka, Hermes). In a polytheistic theocracy you'd have multiple governing ideals pertaining to the various gods.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
It seems the nature of man has always brought out the worst aspects of any theocracy so far.
Rome was near enough a polytheistic theocracy as was Greece In reality Rome was ruled absolutely by the Emperors and Greece by city state kings.
It was in everyone's interest for the various supporters of the multitude of Gods to get along with each other. Christianity changed all that.
Avatar Krishna was a wonderful ruler according to legend. But that's not a matter of theocracy which involves enforcing religious doctrine as the law of the land but having the Avatar or perfect Prophet in charge of government and ruling according to divine principles not rigid laws.
WalterTrull
Godfella
"a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities." - Dictionary.com
It's that interpretation bit that's the craw-sticker.
"...For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you..."
It's that interpretation bit that's the craw-sticker.
"...For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you..."
sealchan
Well-Known Member
Since I believe that God's revelation takes many forms and those forms are mutually incompatible in many ways...the only good form of government is a democracy where individual's freedoms are maximized and their obligation to cooperate with respect to the common pool of natural and artificial resources is open and fair. This is the formula for an adaptive culture. Its only drawback is that it takes a lot of work to determine a consensus...but that is a far better effort than dealing with the pain and suffering of not having a voice or dignity at all.
I wish more conservatives would remember this when they talk about religion...they seem to remember this when they talk about guns...just sayin'.
I think the tragic results throughout history when theocracy has been implement demonstrate it is a horrible system. I suppose if you had the provably true view of God and everybody agreed with you, perhaps it could work. But this is impossible.
No, I don't think there are any sound arguments in favour of it.
You can't legislate morality. Or at least, you shouldn't.
The state exists to be the arbiter of any interests conducive to the common good of society (i.e. ensuring that citizens, in the pursuit of their own interests, do not exceed bounds by harming the interests of others), not as an enforcer of personal moral decisions.
For that, we have our individual conscience and this is where religion truly has its place. One can only be obliged to obey or believe in God or gods out of free-will, not state compulsion.
Last edited:
For me what matters isn't the flavor of deity but how rule of law is imposed. And whether a traditionalist mindset would develop and make growth and change difficult due to brushing up against divine command theories. What if Eros was only a love defined certain ways? (It already has been, to the exclusion of types of love.) What if there was an arbitrary dictate by the religious ruling body based on their interpretation of how Hermes would address travel?
Nothing in government should be above question. And that's very hard to do if you add gods to the mix.
I'm not sure those questions would even come up in a Pagan culture. The questions presume some degree of dogmatism and authoritarianism in their angle, which wasn't really a thing (and is certainly not much of a thing in contemporary Paganism). Nobody is presumed to be the sole authority to define the nature of the gods. It's not like with Christianity where they discourage regular people from working with the gods by claiming only certain special people have revealed knowledge and so forth. Basically, pluralism is kind of built in to a hypothetical polytheistic theocracy. It wouldn't be authoritarian or dogmatic.
I don't feel adding gods to the mix makes any difference, to be honest. This is probably because to me, everything is gods, whether they're named and recognized as such or not. From my point of view, my own country is basically a theocracy already... it just doesn't call its principle values and ideals gods. The Spirit of Money in particular seems to be the ruling god of the United States, as even the government lately is paying more service to corporations than to the actual people of the nation.
Yeah, things look much different when you don't assume or have an Abrahamic worldview...
That might not be much a part of contemporary paganism today (though we havent really seen a contemporary pagan society as the majoroty leadership yet) but 'the gods demand' has been a historical part of many polytheistic societies in the past. From Kemetic to Asartu to Hellenism to even Celtic polytheism (Though the extent of things like ritual human sacrifice is no doubt played up by Roman sources.)I'm not sure those questions would even come up in a Pagan culture. The questions presume some degree of dogmatism and authoritarianism in their angle, which wasn't really a thing (and is certainly not much of a thing in contemporary Paganism). Nobody is presumed to be the sole authority to define the nature of the gods. It's not like with Christianity where they discourage regular people from working with the gods by claiming only certain special people have revealed knowledge and so forth. Basically, pluralism is kind of built in to a hypothetical polytheistic theocracy. It wouldn't be authoritarian or dogmatic.
I don't feel adding gods to the mix makes any difference, to be honest. This is probably because to me, everything is gods, whether they're named and recognized as such or not. From my point of view, my own country is basically a theocracy already... it just doesn't call its principle values and ideals gods. The Spirit of Money in particular seems to be the ruling god of the United States, as even the government lately is paying more service to corporations than to the actual people of the nation.
Yeah, things look much different when you don't assume or have an Abrahamic worldview...
All of which had a venerated priesthood seperate from the lay man, with special privilege over law making.
It's not like dogmatism is an especially unique trait of Abrahamic faiths...
As for money being a god... well, I agree that money is of far too much importance to seats of power world wide, and perhaps especially in the US as it trends to corporate oligarchy, but I don't personally agree with it being a deity in my understanding of the word. And calling anything a god or a theocracy to me devalues the words into non-meaning. But that's my Abrahamic background speaking I guess.
Shad
Veteran Member
You presented worldviews that are axioms. Axioms are treated as fact for the sake of an argument or worldview. To an atheist which believes God is completely made up (ie does not exist) the question is illogical as the atheist belief becomes an axiom.There is no God thus there can never be a sound view for any theocracy as a theocracy is dependent upon God existing, ever. The axiom that God exists and interacts bypasses issues with soundness. Taking the position God has already interacted with humanity now and/or in the past negates criticism and evaluation of this claim even being correct. For example one could propose God will interact but has not at this time. Ergo one could put forward all the religions are wrong now but one in the future could be based on said interaction.
Never suggested otherwise nor intended to imply this.
I was pointing out these are axioms and how one, the later, renders the question illogical.
This merely speaks to the impact of a religion but says nothing that these religions are true nor is the various forms of theocracy are sound.
Irrelevant to the question at hand.
In this case, 'sound' is most definitely in the eye of the beholder, but...
The only argument I can see for theocracy is that their particular version of the 'Truth' is;
1) 100% correct
2) God wants a theocracy
Even then, that's not the same as saying theocracy is 'right', but some sort of mega/all powerful being wanting it, and punishing those who don't conform is at least a sound argument...if you suppose such a being is at least very likely, and you also suppose you're version of what it wants is accurate.
Too many suppositions for me.
The only one that occurs to me would be to bring home to folk why theocracy is a revolting idea.
Otherwise, no.
Last edited:
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
No. The only reasonable positions on the existence of God are agnostic-atheism and agnostic-deism. ALL revealed religion, theism, is the propagation and maintenance of hearsay.
Apologes
Active Member
Unless God himself were to come down and tell us how we should address every issue in politics, theocracy will be a receipt for a disaster.
Give us democracy and keep religion and state separate. History shows us that bad things happen when politicians do theology and when theologians do politics.
Give us democracy and keep religion and state separate. History shows us that bad things happen when politicians do theology and when theologians do politics.
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
In theory, a theocracy offers a higher moral authority. A higher moral authority is beneficial to society.
In practice, a theocracy offers both higher and lower moral standards and therefore has both benefits and detriments to society.
The argument for a theocracy comes from the higher moral authority it claims to offer.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
The irony here is that even if we had an uncorrupt religion within the state, the religion would quickly become a "football" on the political stage even in a democracy.
My view is that, in fact, religions should actively avoid becoming involved in politics. This is to religion and politics mutual benefit as it simplifies both. Of course, there is an overlap but I believe that overlap should be kept at the individual level for the most part.
Religious organizations can take action/make statements with political consequences but they should not endorse candidates. They should not seek out political opportunities to influence...they should just state their case.
Politics is about the work of convincing others to take action for the sake or good of the governing body (the polis). The power play of politics should be about drawing people to your view and being open to being drawn. Making deals and compromising when appropriate. Representing the interests of the people rather than merely special interests.
When you represent a diverse culture of religion, you can have religion for yourself but as a politician you should not project your religion into a political agenda. This should be a disqualification for politicians in my opinion.
The Bible contains plenty of reasons why believers in God should not desire to see an earthly kingdom come to pass by the will of people. The Jewish Testament is all about God's reluctance to see a people have the king they begged for. Jesus made sure that Rome and God were given their separate due.
My view is that, in fact, religions should actively avoid becoming involved in politics. This is to religion and politics mutual benefit as it simplifies both. Of course, there is an overlap but I believe that overlap should be kept at the individual level for the most part.
Religious organizations can take action/make statements with political consequences but they should not endorse candidates. They should not seek out political opportunities to influence...they should just state their case.
Politics is about the work of convincing others to take action for the sake or good of the governing body (the polis). The power play of politics should be about drawing people to your view and being open to being drawn. Making deals and compromising when appropriate. Representing the interests of the people rather than merely special interests.
When you represent a diverse culture of religion, you can have religion for yourself but as a politician you should not project your religion into a political agenda. This should be a disqualification for politicians in my opinion.
The Bible contains plenty of reasons why believers in God should not desire to see an earthly kingdom come to pass by the will of people. The Jewish Testament is all about God's reluctance to see a people have the king they begged for. Jesus made sure that Rome and God were given their separate due.
I get the sense that to the extent that a theocracy can be reasonable (worth of acceptance, therefore) it is also unobstrusive and has no need to actually pursue explicit recognition.
As in so much else, proselitist monotheism is both more likely to seek such a situation and more likely to corrupt it. Pretty much all of the alternatives to it are shielded against those dangers for some reason or another.