Talk:Theocracy/Archive1

Question
Question - From "In God We Trust" on the money to every single elected official saying "God Bless America" every chance he or she gets to the fact that an atheist will never hold high public office in the US and that every president since Carter has considered himself "Born Again," is there room for the USA on this list? PFoster 10:59, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
 * (from a Brit) Tee Hee! Keep your feet dry  11:27, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm inclined to disagree, simply because our holy leaders can't decide on which denomination of Christianity we should be forced to convert to. Also, would Spain during the Inquistion count as a theocracy?  ThunderkatzHo! 11:43, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Lol, the christian GOD is not the only deity of the government religion. In my article I explain how the invisible higher power of the "state" itself is a deified abstraction based on magical thinking and blind faith rather than reasoned evidence. Who are statists talking to when they pray to and worship the flag? And what do those pentagrams on the idol represent(symbolically)?LogicMaster777 (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it would depend on how you define "theocracy." I'm willing to argue that any state that places a big invisible man as the source of morality and sovereignty (ie the whole "King by the grace of God..." idea) is a theocracy. I think one could argue that all European states/kingdoms before 1789 were theocratic to varying degrees. As for the US, while "the people" are the source of sovereignty according to the Constitution, thus effing up my own argument, the incredible role of religion in what is nominally a secular state blurs the line in a troublesome way.PFoster 11:53, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I think it would be a bad idea to mess up definitions like that simply to make a political point. Any real-world government is by necessity a combination of different forms, so the "ideal types" don't really exist, but that doesn't mean they should be used interchangably. The definition of theocracy is a formal government by religious institutions, and the US does not have that, nor did the absolutist monarchies. If anything, it reflects an attempt by the monarch to assert power over the religious institutions, which is more or less the exact opposite of theocracy. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 12:37, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
 * " I'm willing to argue that any state that places a big invisible man as the source of morality and sovereignty... ...is a theocracy"
 * You mean like this imaginary giant(the state):
 * File:Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes.jpg
 * ?LogicMaster777 (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes See Henry VIII Keep me in caviar  12:41, 22 August 2007 (CDT)


 * Eggsactly, along with most other Protestant kings - and the French and the Russians too, for that matter. Now, if we want to find a real theocratic monarchy, we need to back to the early middle ages, 7th-10th century, when a king were commonly regarded as a "rex et sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchizedek" - "king and priest in the manner of Melchizedek". In other words, it was considered that the king through his coronation ritual acquired a sacred character that made him similar to Christ, or sort of a representation of Christ on Earth. Now that's theocracy for you! -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 13:04, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

For the most part, my rational side agrees, but the Hank the Eighth thing raises the question - how is having the head of the Church of England sitting on the throne not theocratic by the accepted definition? PFoster 12:58, 22 August 2007 (CDT)


 * Ah, but he's not a priest. It's true that in both cases, there's a mixture of church and state going on, but the Henry Situation approaches it from sort of the opposite side of the coin from theocracy - instead of the Church taking control of the state, the king takes control of the church. It's more properly a form of wp:Caesaropapism rather than theocracy. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 13:08, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Point taken. In the future I shall stick to things I at least have a clue about. Still and all, my point was that there's a lot of godbothering in American politics that puts the lie to the idea that it is a formally secular state. PFoster 13:11, 22 August 2007 (CDT)


 * That sounds boring. Bold edits, and all that. Don't worry, as new Resident Godbotherer, I'll be sure to get my botherin' on if I see something I don't like. [[Image:Nods.gif]]
 * And yes, formal definitions are one thing. The informal influences on a government - something else entirely. But at least in the US, they are possible to spot sooner or later. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 13:50, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

I added the USA under "future", with a disclaimer. human  20:50, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Future?
Contentless assertion unworthy of a rational wiki. I could assert that any X is going to happen, if Y has their way. Francine 00:54, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
 * That's why it says IF. And it's kind of a joke. Y'know? Jokes? 68.40.194.2 00:57, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
 * And "one of them" is running for VP, in case you haven't noticed. PeTA does not have a national slate of candidates.  PS, I'd rather eat bean sprouts than live in a theocracy.  ħ uman  01:26, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
 * What, Palin joined the clergy? Actually, as you can see above, we've already had more or less this same discussion once before. -- 04:26, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
 * No, but Palin is a hardcore YEC. That's what I meant by "one of them". Surely, AK, you aren't into defending YECs? She's a fucking nut job, that the "debate" never touched upon.  ħ uman  04:37, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
 * No, but I'm into not letting well-established definitions slide to serve polemics. A government does not become a theocracy because it is being run by religious politicians. A theocracy is a government in which the clergy hold the ultimate power. -- 04:53, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Right, in the government religion it is the wizard priests of the government religious scriptures who dress up like harry potter who have the final say on interpreting the sacred scriptures of government. The constitutional scripture-based clergy. That's what makes the government a theocracy. The fact that politicians believe in God is beside the point, the deity of the government religion is the invisible higher power of "the state" or "the states". The invisible "person" statists pray to when they worship the flag.LogicMaster777 (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Israel?
Interesting case--not a theocracy like Iran, but identifies as a "Jewish state," and governments often have to make deals with religious parties to form workable coalitions--one could say, as per our definition that Judaism--or at least, Jewishness--dominates daily life and provides at least some rationale for policy decisions--the settlers colonists in the disputed occupied territories, at least some of them, see themselves as being on a mission from God...P-Foster (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Without going into the subtleties, I think Israel is a theocracy, but in a weird way. More a constitutional way than a "run by the religion" way?  02:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Israel is perfect and can do no wrong. To say otherwise would be anti-semitic. 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry :( 03:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Cutting deals with religious groups, or having religious identity as part of your national identity, does not make a state a theocracy. A state is considered a theocracy when it is run by clergymen. Israel's government is not run by a bunch of Rabbis; it is ran by politicians. It is not a theocratic state. --MarxWasRight (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Theocracy, n.: Government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. The Big Guy's viceroys need not be clerics. 03:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of this definition of theocracy; I had always been under the impression that it meant clergy ran the government. However, even using Webster's definition of theocracy, Israel would still not be considered a theocracy.--MarxWasRight (talk) 08:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The recently added "citations"
Let me see... 1 and 2 are dictionary definitions, which is OK, but weird. 3 is a link to a blog-like site with only two posts, both of which date to March 2009. WTF? 4 and 5 are links to Yahoo!Answers. WTF? 6 is a link to a blog post by Phil Plait on separation of church and state in the US, which is somehow on-topic, but it's unclear how it supports the statement it's supposed to be a reference for. Given some of the previous contributions of the same user, I have the nagging suspicion that we are being punked...--ZooGuard (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Only 1 and 2 were added by Several Ingredients, and while they're fine, they're not really necessary (we're not wikipedia). As for being punked... eh? -- Nx  / talk 10:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC with the answer below) Sorry, I forgot to add the diff link - all my numbers refer to the footnotes added in that revision. Unless s/he is reinserting something that was removed before, this is more than two dictionary definitions.
 * For the "punked" bit - I mean that I suspect them of being a troll/parodist, similar to the ones in Conservapedia. Of course, Several Ingredients can be just an inept/inexperienced editor. --ZooGuard (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I was reading the diff wrong. Anyway, let's not immediately assume malice and turn hostile towards a new editor. -- Nx  / talk 11:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

So, what kind of content would you like citations in the wiki to contain? A wiki without citations just becomes a bunch on ramblings without a leg to stand on. I added the Yahoo answers citations because this shows what people think, though not exactly a servey it can give a rough indication of the opposition to theocracy from rational people. As for us not being Wikipedia, I completely understand that, but for us to have a Snarky/Scientific Point of View that doesn't have enough citations [Especially the definitions, which sometimes can be vague; as we all know a vague definition leads to an unconvincing case] to support the definition can be rather unattractive to people who aren't familiar with RationalWiki. Is RationalWiki self-serving, where the readers are the editors as well?Several ingredients (talk) 10:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the definition of theocracy is vague and needs a citation, but like I said I wouldn't have removed it myself. Some people however will respond with irrational hostility towards anything that resembles wikipedia. -- Nx  / talk 11:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought people on RationalWiki would welcome the kind of "citations approximately equals credibility" that Wikipedia appears to have. My mistake; I'll try to be more careful in furture when adding citations, and focus on content instead.Several ingredients (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, we do try to back up our claims with citations, it's just the obvious stuff that doesn't really need citations, i.e. we don't want to be anal retentive about it. The definition is not debated (AFAIK), so it doesn't need a citation. The "A lot of people consider this a very bad idea" thing .. well yeah, that's debatable, although the article itself does briefly list the reasons WE consider it a bad idea, the "a lot of" weasel words are not ideal. -- Nx  / talk 11:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be better if it said "There are many reasons why this is not a good idea." (As long as we then go into those reasons) 15:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

We have the arguments against a theocracy already there, so I'll just change that... Several ingredients (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Funspace topic
Or dungeons and dragons novel - the system of government among the gods, godesses and related entities. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)