Are there any Sound Arguments for Theocracy?

[Quintessence]

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.

I think one-true-wayism more broadly seems to be the issue rather than (ir)religion in of itself. While one-true-wayism is historically (and contemporarily) more common in monotheistic traditions, I've seen it in other places. The zealot atheists who speak of eradicating or outlawing what they call "religion" for example, are unsettling one-true-wayists. So are the Pagans whose focus on tribalism, ethnicity, or ancestry descends into subtle or outright racism. They're fringe, but they're a vocal fringe - reminders that one-true-wayism can be found in just about any group.

Most of the time, these fringe groups don't get much political power. If they didn't get much power - whether in a theocracy or otherwise - it seems things would be largely okay. If, on the other hand, we have situations like we're getting in the United States where a relatively fringe branch of Christianity starts amassing too much political power, we end up with challenges to basic human rights on the grounds of their religious ideology. And that's a scary place to be. That this is a real threat in the United States may be why so many of us are soured to the very word "theocracy." The only sort of theocracy we might see in the United States would be the ultra-conservative one that would strip rights away from many a citizen.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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.

What is the most relevant to a monotheist may be least relevant to an atheist. The most obvious examples of theocracy are religions that are 3,500, 2,000 and 1,400 years old. Those religions are of course Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Each one had a profound civilising influence. Each reached a pinnacle of culture that has been and gone. The Islamic Golden age and the nation of Israel under King Solomon come to mind. However, the remedy one age required can not be applied to another. The theocracies of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism contributed more than most here are prepared to acknowledge. That's a matter of historic analysis. My point, that you considered irrelevant is that for many theists Gods revelation and concern for humanity has not, and never will cease. To assume that because a theocracy of old can not work now, means that a new theocracy could never work in the future,is to assume too much.

 

[Shad]

What is the most relevant to a monotheist may be least relevant to an atheist. The most obvious examples of theocracy are religions that are 3,500, 2,000 and 1,400 years old. Those religions are of course Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Each one had a profound civilising influence. Each reached a pinnacle of culture that has been and gone. The Islamic Golden age and the nation of Israel under King Solomon come to mind. However, the remedy one age required can not be applied to another. The theocracies of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism contributed more than most here are prepared to acknowledge. That's a matter of historic analysis. My point, that you considered irrelevant is that for many theists Gods revelation and concern for humanity has not, and never will cease. To assume that because a theocracy of old can not work now, means that a new theocracy could never work in the future,is to assume too much.

Contributions does not make something sound. This is a value assessment. You are bringing up points I never made nor are relevant to the OP