Bronze-level article

Difference between revisions of "Theocracy"

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (added citations)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{bronze}}
 
{{bronze}}
A '''theocracy''' is a form of [[government]] in which the clergy of the main [[religion]] dominates governmental policy and everyday life. A lot of people consider this a very ''bad'' idea.
+
A '''theocracy''' is a form of [[government]] in which the clergy of the main [[religion]] dominates governmental policy and everyday life.<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/theocracy</ref><ref>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theocracy</ref> A lot of people consider this a very ''bad'' idea.<ref>http://reallybadideas.net/theocracy-is-a-bad-idea</ref><ref>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060606101224AA8kHaw</ref><ref>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080921101543AALbGXU</ref><ref>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/07/we-are-not-a-christian-nation/</ref>
  
 
==Arguments against a theocracy==
 
==Arguments against a theocracy==

Revision as of 10:14, 12 November 2010

A theocracy is a form of government in which the clergy of the main religion dominates governmental policy and everyday life.[1][2] A lot of people consider this a very bad idea.[3][4][5][6]

Arguments against a theocracy

I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others. And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to rulers and to the subjects. Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations. And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be. A metaphysic held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign. It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated. In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political programme can never in reality be more than probably right. We never know all the facts about the present and we can only guess the future. To attach to a party programme -- whose highest claim is to reasonable prudence -- the sort of assent which we should reserve for demonstrable theorems, is a kind of intoxication.
—C.S. Lewis[7]
  • Essentially, a theocracy is a form of totalitarianism and authoritarianism so most arguments against those also hold, in the case of a theocracy, the ultimate authority are the gods, amplifying these problems.
  • Freedom of religion and philosophy is stifled - as any theocracy by definition is hardly welcoming to other religions or, dare we say it, atheism.
  • Freedom of speech is also stifled, as it's unhealthy for a theocracy for the people to know that alternative religions exist.
  • By extension of the above, freedom of mere thought is stifled and oppressed.
  • People are ruled by a combination of afterlife based rewards and punishments - therefore can be exploited while they're living.
  • By receiving authority from gods, the ruling priest class are essentially unaccountable.
  • Progress and change is hampered by adherence to holy books.
  • Historically, heretics and apostates are met with great wrath from the ruling religion. Compared to what such an Inquisition could do, being put on a police file for attending an anti-government rally, or being fingerprinted and retina scanned just to enter a country is quite pleasant.

Arguments for a theocracy

  • The people are kept nicely in line by fear of God(s) or hell - no need for prisons and rehabilitation when you can execute anyone and let the almighty sort them out.
  • The priest class can usually get away with whatever the hell they like. It's just like claiming it on expenses!
  • No need for time-consuming elections - the gods will appoint the right leaders or show up personally at the right time for extra convenience.
  • Law can be changed with just "divine will" rather than a lengthy process of debate and discussion.

Good arguments for a theocracy

Two tumbleweeds rolling across the screen, from left to right.

(Well, to be fair, the above arguments are good, but only if you're a fundamentalist priest.)

Theodemocracy

"Theodemocracy" is an idea put forward by Joseph Smith for his planned Mormon paradise. In a theodemocracy, people have many of the traditional rights of a liberal democracy, except for freedom of religion. Moreover, all governmental decisions are made by (elected) priests.

In a broader sense, one could consider present-day Iran a theodemocracy, as many of the important governmental positions are elected, and many of the others are selected from people who are elected. For example, the President is directly elected, in theory at least, no guarantee he won't steal the election, and the Supreme Leader is selected by the Assembly of Experts, who are themselves popularly elected.

In practice, of course, Iran is what a theocracy looks like and it's not pretty. "Theodemocracy" is lipstick on a very ugly pig; you can try to make it look better by trying to hide the ugly parts, but in the end, you're still stuck with one ugly porker.

Examples

Current

  • Iran
  • The Vatican State
  • Mount Athos
  • Afghanistan (Well, until recently.)
  • Dubai, despite attempts to convince the Western world that lots of money really means they're advanced and not mediaeval thugs
  • Saudi Arabia

Historical

  • Imperial Rome: some Roman Emperors were considered gods.[8].
  • Similarly Ancient Egyptian Pharaohs were treated as gods.
  • Many early medieval European kings (c. 6th - 10th centuries)
  • Afghanistan under the Taliban (1996-2001)
  • Florence under Giacomo Savonarola (1494-1498)
  • State of Deseret (1849-1850, never recognized)
  • Calvinist Geneva (16th century)
  • Early (and most of modern) Utah
  • Tibet, until China moved in.

Future

See also

Footnotes