Mitt Romney and Theodemocracy
The section on Iran is really quite loosey goosey as far as why this is an example of theodomacracy. As written, there is nothing theocratic about it. It's democratic, though obviously corrupt. I know next to nothing about Iran, so could someone who knows something explain how it's theodomracy. which leaders are specifically elected as religious leaders (vs. so-called democratic votes happening to put into place, religious people). Which positions hold religious power, as codified in their government, etc.--Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 17:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
The given definition is poorly chosen and descriptively inaccurate. Unfortunately, the meanings of "theocracy" are unstable. Two possible approaches are descriptive--list the major meanings in the literature (e.g. the original rule by gods; e.g. rule by priests); or prescriptive (I think the most useful definition is: a system of government in which ultimate formal political authority is held by charismatic or institutional religious leaders such as ministers, priests, rabbis, imams, prophets, or god-kings.) It is also important to clearly distinguish theocracy from "theonomy," which DOES have a reasonably agreed-on definition (i.e. formal law that is based on divine revelation, such as the Bible or the Qur'an).
This is all politically important because the radical Christian right claims with some degree of merit that they do NOT seek a theocracy (although a minority of them DO seek a theonomy-especially Christian reconstructionists). As far as I know, no radical Christian right organization contests the idea that religious organizations should be formally separate from government organizations. What a large majority of them support is what I propose to call "religious entanglement," meaning that the government, while separate from religious organizations, nevertheless adopts a selection of laws or practices that favor a particular sectarian viewpoint. David.burress (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
So called Indenpendent state of Croatia certainly wasn't a theocracy. They did have some religious inspired laws, but these were exclusivelly introduced by the secular power, without any Church involvement. Besides The Catholic Church did not have even one of it's clergy installed into the power structures of the puppet state of Croatia. So what you are attempting to do is call a secular, athough conservative and certainly PRO - CATHOLIC state a theocracy, yet on it's head or in it's government not a single priest have been present. Also there was a discord between the government of Croatia and the Catholic Church in Croatia in latter years of dictatorship especially between cardinal Stepinac and Ante Pavelic... So no, Croatia wasn't a theocracy that is totally incorrect. By that logic Mussolini's Italy should be called a theocracy as well, because Croatia of that period was built on the same principles as fascist Italy... In Slovakia, things were slightly different because the cardinal was the head of state, though i would be even there a little bit more cautious, as the real power was still Hitler's Germany... So i'm removing Croatia, thank you.— Unsigned, by: 126.96.36.199 / talk / contribs 20:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Was the merging ever discussed?
- Yes. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well that is easily overlooked. I am not the Ombud's man 22:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)