Theocracy

After getting into a shouting match with my Father, I decided to discuss this. I don't think Theocracy can ever work due to whole fact that human nature makes it impossible to have one without corruption and or bigotry. Also Mainstream Religion as a whole could never do a pure one because that in itself has many issues we shall not touch on. So basically fact my Dad believed America turning into any kind of Theocracy good, just made me so frustrated. Thus why we have this thread.

Remember:

Keep it friendly.

No insulting beliefs.

Use reliable sources.

There are two types of theocracy. Those lead by true believers, and those lead by fake believers.

When led by true believers, the leaders believe in things without good reason. They are incapable of completely applying reason and they will do things that are a complete waste of resources for religion, from devoting tax dollars to building churches to dampening the economy by banning work on Sundays. Or maybe devoting tax dollars to building mosques and banning pork. Point is, a non-theocratic leader would make better choices. Fake believers may also do this to an extent.

When led by fake believers, the leaders will use religion as a way to manipulate believers. They can use religion as an excuse to persuade the people into accepting atrocities. Genocides and wars have been supported due to war. They will claim that their actions are commands from God. Point is, a non-theocratic leader would be more accountable for his/her actions. True believers may also do this to an extent.

I disagree with your point on 'true believers', Scimancer. I am what you would call a 'true believer' and just because I am religious does not mean I am foolish. Or blind, or unreasonable. And many are not that way.To say that we would waste our resources is rather offensive and dull-witted, because most religions that I have read of or encountered are all based on doing good in order to be let into heaven or to have a peaceful afterlife.

Since this is the case, the resources would probably be used more wisely. And also, when you have a 'true believer' who is truly devoted to God (or gods) most have a relationship with him. Which would also include spiritual guidance directly from him. Which would only make governing easier.

Non-believers would (and I believe have) used religion to pull the wool over peoples eyes. Just like the man who claimed God was going to judge us all on May 26, and lied. He got billions from doing this, twice. And didn't return anything.

Theocracy could work, legitimately, if those in the higher power were truly 'tuned in' to God and his spiritual guidance. But as Rulke pointed out, most people are not selfless enough to do this. And also, with there being so many sects and braches of religion, with different rules and standards, this would also be difficult ot make mesh with the people.

I would of course say that Believers would be the better choice out of the two, because they would actually be trying to accomplish God's will, while non-Believers would simply be doing whatever they could for personal gain.

I believe that the point Sciamancer makes, or at least what I take from it, is that those who are "true believers" will be faced in a number of situations with a choice between logic and the option faithful to their religious beliefs. In those situations, what he calls "true believers" will always choose their religious conviction over logic.

True believers tend to go by the Bible, but even still the Bible is just principles. It's a guide, yes, but it doesn't have a 'In This Situation - Choose This' guide. If you are religious, religion and logic tend to go hand in hand. Besides the fact that my parents are religious, and are raising me that way (or have raised me), I have my belief in God because it makes sense to me. I don't say "Oh, I don't know if he's real". To me, He is. A Higher Being is logical, because it would give reason to a lot that goes on in the world.

So I don't, personally, think logic and religion would have a stark difference, even in politics. But I'm not even an adult yet, and I don't really watch politics, so I seriously don't know how 'real life' works yet.

Lyn, you assume that a Theocracy is lead by your particular religion. It can be lead by any religion. You also have no way of knowing that a Theocratic leader is actually "in-tune" with God. How would you know? Chances are you'll believe s/he's "in-tune" with God when s/he does what you think is right. Which really isn't any different from someone thinking that someone is a good leader because s/he does what you think is right, but it is assigning your own beliefs to a supposedly super-powerful entity.

As for your "Reason and Faith go hand in hand," they really don't. There is no logical justification for Christianity. Does that mean it's wrong? Eh, not necessarily. Although there may be logical justification to those who think they had some sort of supernatural experience, it doesn't apply to most people, and there are people believing in other contradictory religions having similar experiences.

Now, there may be logical justification for Deism, but a Theocratic leader in Deism would be sort of... well, stupid. I would better trust a leader that says "Let us do this because of fact A, logical reason B, and good justification C" rather than a leader who says "Let us do that because a voice in my head told me to."

I think it is really hard to judge which would be better. Non-believing Theocratic leaders are more predictable. They will usually have understandable reasons for doing things, even if they are in complete self-interest. Unless of course they are insane, in which case the point is moot. True believers, on the other hand, can be very different. They can be identical to a non-believing theocratic leader, or they could be worse, or they could be better. Keep in mind that believing does not mean one's belief is right. I suspect that the leaders of the crusades probably actually believed what they were doing was what God wanted. Either way, however, a Theocratic leader is unnecessary because a non-theocratic leader could work just as well, if not better.

Religion will never serve as a justification for something good that could not be done through other means.

A. Why should the government give food to the homeless? Because God told us too.
B. Why should the government give food to the homeless? Because it HELPS PEOPLE.
Justification A makes believers comply while Justification B makes everyone with empathy comply.

On the other hand, religion can often serve as justification for something BAD that could NOT be done through other means.

A. Why should we make atheism punishable by death? Because God hates atheists.
B. Why should we make atheism punishable by death? Because I don't like them. What do you mean that's not good justification? What? Hey, put down those pitchforks! Oh, crap. Ahhh!

Justification A convinces the masses to comply to a bad decision, assuming that a good majority are of the leader's religion, while Justification B fails, thus failing to commit a bad decision.

Of course, the differences in justifications don't always make such a stark difference. There are times when a leader can get away with a bad decision for a non-religious reason, and times when no reason can convince the public to make a good decision.

If we are talking about America, the 'religion of choice' would be a form of Christianty. Which could be Catholicism, Baptist, or any one of these things. America was founded on that religion, so that would make sense. I don't assume that, I believe that would be the case giving the fact that America wouldn't run Theocracy based on Islamic faiths, or something of that nature, people don't widely accept those faiths as 'American'.

I know that I am not in tune with God, and most people don't think they are. There are a few who say they are simply for attention, or to be powerful over someone else, but those who really are generally don't say much about it. My mother, I would believe, is in tune with God. She's not a 'worldly' woman, and when she prays her prayers are answered. She even prayed for how many kids she wanted, in what order, and what genders they would be- Came out exactly as she asked.

For you, reason and faith may not go hand in hand, but for me they do. I think any religion has logical standpoints, and is thus logical. (From my view) God did create the world, how did he do it? Probably with whatever theories Science has given us today. He didn't just randomly go "Let's make a world!" Bam, it's there. There was a process. The Bible never says how he made it, only that he did. He could've used any number of logically-standing ways.

Now, there may be logical justification for Deism, but a Theocratic leader in Deism would be sort of... well, stupid. I would better trust a leader that says "Let us do this because of fact A, logical reason B, and good justification C" rather than a leader who says "Let us do that because a voice in my head told me to."

Again, God is not a voice in our heads. It's not just like hearing some random person speaking to you, ideas will generally form in your own voice. That's where being in-tune comes in, because most who believe in God know that there are always three voices speaking to you through your own. Yours, Gods, and Satans. It's difficult to weed out who's saying what, but if you actually pay attention to the thoughts you're having, it's easier to distinguish them.

I disagree with your points on justification. Peopel who actually believe in God, and know what they believe, Chrisitan or not, would not ever say to kill atheists. God hates no one, and that is a fact. As for the feeding the homeless point, religious people would give logic for that. Believe in God does not make you stupid, nor does it make you use Him as an excuse for everything. You cannot get by on 'God said this, so I did that' in this world. I know that, and I'm not even completely mentally developed yet.

I could assume you are not religious by the light you are shining on those who are in your statements, which is completely fine, but your bias makes your statements relatively inaccurate. People who believe in God act just as those who don't, besides possibly sticking to more morals. And that is not to say those who don't believe, do not have morals. In fact, the only way you could really tell the difference is by how people act. Some people are more worldly than other, and some are more godly, in sense of their faith and acting as the Bible directs them.

Theocracy would not work in this world, especially in this Modern day and age. And not because of beliefs, or faith, or decisions, but because of man's greed and pride and inability to act purely.

I shall direct you Lyn to a few links. Because if your fact of America founding was so true, why is it still being debated to this day?

http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/nation.html

I also direct you to Treaty of Tripoli

Mr. Butler, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences at Yale University, is the author of Awash in a Sea of Faith: Christianizing the American People(Harvard University Press, 1990). This interview was conducted by HNN editor Rick Shenkman for The Learning Channel series, "Myth America," which aired several years ago.

http://hnn.us/articles/9144.html

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm

http://www.helium.com/items/526741-was- ... ian-nation

My point is though she sources all support what I state, it's very unclear and not fully likely that America was founded as a Christian Nation, the one people claim is Deist Nation as many of Founders felt Christianity establishment was corrupt but believed in some form of God.

It's funny, I just googled these before coming back to post again. I will read them again, but for now I am posting this.

Regardless of what people say now, I have a few quotes form the Declaration of Independence. And for reference, I did not (or do not believe I did) say that America was founded on Christianity. That was the more popular belief, but I just stated religion in general.

Declaration of Independence wrote:'...the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them.'

'...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.'

'...appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions.'

And from the Articles of Confederation...

Articles of Confederation wrote:'on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord...'

It can be argued that they simply say the year of our Lord because it is translated into the latin term 'Anno Domini', which is abreviated as 'A.D', but it can also be said that they didn't have to state it that way if they were not acknowledging a Lord in general. Also, they capitalized the word 'Lord' which shows more respect, and acknowledgement, of their being a God.

Also, before I move onto the Tripoli Treaty, note that the articles quoted above were the first documents created, the latest signed and officiated ten years before the Treaty was written or signed.

This Tripoli Treaty, signed in 1797, was a treaty between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, ratified by the US Congress and signed by President John Adams.

Treaty of Tripoli wrote:As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen..

This quote states directly, 'not founded on the Christian religion', does not state that America was not founded on religious principles in general. It also states that America has no hostile feelings towards the laws, religion (probably of those other than Christian faith), or the tranquility/peace of prisoners who have given away their will to live. This was a treaty, a binding agreement between the two countries agreeing to peace and friendship among their nations. It is, in essence, a compromise of sorts.

If you simply google "Was the USA founded on Religion?" you get results naming Christianity specifically. I have not seen one article addressing if the US was founded on religion in general, and that was the point I was making. The official documents of the US do not say Christianity specifically, they only acknowledge that the principles they use are those that God has given to man. It does not say 'the Christian God' or what have you. It says God. And God is a religious being.

It is a fact that George Washington was a Deist, which means he believed God did create the world, but then abandoned it. If one looks at the events that took place in that time, this belief (which seemed to be popular amongst some politicians) was brought on by the suffering and grief that was experienced in those times, most commonly by the Kings and Queens of England, and their neglect to the people.

It is the case now, that a common argument against God is that 'If he is such a kind God, why does he allow such-and-such to happen?' and the answer to that one, I think, is summed up by two of Elie Wiesel's quotes, in regards to the Holocaust and his relationship with God.

Elie Wiesel wrote: 'We believed in God, had faith in man, and lived with the illusion that in each one of us is a sacred spark from the fire of the shekinah, that each one carried in his eyes and in his soul the sign of God. This was the source—if not the cause—of all our misfortune.'

'I have not lost faith in God. I have moments of anger and protest. Sometimes I've been closer to him for that reason.'

I go back to my final point. Note the term here. It's pretty clear and it's generally accepted on this is what the Founders most likely followed. Although debated likes of Jefferson and a few others were not so clear.

Web definitions

Deism (\ˈdi:iz(ə)m\ or \ˈdē-ˌi-zəm\) is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deists

deism - the form of theological rationalism that believes in God on the basis of reason without reference to revelation
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

deist - a person who believes that God created the universe and then abandoned it

deist - of or relating to deism
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

deism - The belief in the existence of a god, by or through reason; The belief in a god or gods who set the universe in motion, then ceased to interact with it; The religious philosophy and movement that became prominent in England, France, and the United States in the 17th and 18th centuries that ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deism

Deist - Alternative spelling of deist
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Deist

deist - One who admits the possibility of the existence of a God or gods, but claims to know nothing of either, and denies revelation. An agnostic of olden times.
www.theosociety.org/pasadena/key/key-glos.htm

deism - Belief in the existence of a Supreme Being as the source of finite existence, with rejection of revelation and the supernatural doctrines of Christianity; 'natural religion'. #
www.stsams.org/dictionary.html

deism - An 18th-century Enlightenment religion emphasizing reason, not miracles; partly a reaction against Calvinism and religious superstition.
www.let.rug.nl/usa/LIT/chap10.htm

deism - The form of theism or belief in god(s) which posits a creator god that does not take an active role or moral interest in human affairs.
www.routledge.com/textbooks/9780415485395/glossary.asp

deism - The belief that there is a God, but that God is not involved in the world. Deism denies any revelatory work of God in the world, whether it be by miracles or by scripture.
www.carm.org/secular-movements/atheism/ ... definition…

deism - The belief that there is a God who created the universe, but that after creating it he left it to regulate itself and doesn't step in to provide miracles or the like.
www.elliotcross.com/glossary.html

deism - n a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe
home.att.net/~tangents/data/rlgdef.htm

deism - Accepts the reality of a Creator God -- based on nature and logic, ignoring Biblical revelation.
www.crossroad.to/glossary/religious.htm

deism - the belief that a god created the world and then left it to run on its own. Popular during the Enlightenment period. The analogy often used to explain it is that of a clock maker who constructs the watch and then leaves it, allowing it to operate on its own.
www.strongatheism.net/intro/lexicon/

I understand the defition of Deism. And, I also realize that it was a popular belief. But there was reason behind that belief. If there had not been widespread opression, it would not have come to be. Man has a habit of thinking he is forsaken when hardships arise, and I believe that is what constituted this becoming a widespread belief.

Well this is general consensus on what the Founders were. Anyway, we're deviating from debate main point. So now made my point, I shall go back to sidelines.

You did say "that religion," which I assume meant "Christianity" which you mentioned in the previous sentence. Anyway...

For you, reason and faith may not go hand in hand, but for me they do. I think any religion has logical standpoints, and is thus logical. (From my view) God did create the world, how did he do it? Probably with whatever theories Science has given us today. He didn't just randomly go "Let's make a world!" Bam, it's there. There was a process. The Bible never says how he made it, only that he did. He could've used any number of logically-standing ways.

Having logical points doesn't make something logical. A complete path of justification must be logical.
Example:
1. We've found many, many things have a cause. (true)
2. Therefore, the universe probably has a cause. (Logically sound, though not definite)
3. The cause of the universe must be God. (illogical)
We can see this has a logical point, yet is still not logical.

Again, God is not a voice in our heads. It's not just like hearing some random person speaking to you, ideas will generally form in your own voice. That's where being in-tune comes in, because most who believe in God know that there are always three voices speaking to you through your own. Yours, Gods, and Satans. It's difficult to weed out who's saying what, but if you actually pay attention to the thoughts you're having, it's easier to distinguish them.

So it's essentially the different parts of your mind each vying for different ideas? Lots of people have this. I'd go so far to say as most people will have conversations with themselves, weighing the pros and cons of something. That doesn't mean that it's God.

I disagree with your points on justification. Peopel who actually believe in God, and know what they believe, Chrisitan or not, would not ever say to kill atheists. God hates no one, and that is a fact.

If it's a fact that God hates no one, prove it. If you can't, then it isn't a fact. It's a part of your own personal religious belief that isn't universal. Many people would disagree, and you can't really give evidence for either position. Unless, of course, you accept biblical passages, in which case it's safe to say that God hates a great deal of people judging from the violence he commands.

As for the feeding the homeless point, religious people would give logic for that. Believe in God does not make you stupid, nor does it make you use Him as an excuse for everything. You cannot get by on 'God said this, so I did that' in this world. I know that, and I'm not even completely mentally developed yet.

Precisely. Hence, theism for that leader would not help and would not hinder. Most of our presidents have been religious, and they didn't let their religion affect their performance as leader. That is not theocracy.

I could assume you are not religious by the light you are shining on those who are in your statements, which is completely fine, but your bias makes your statements relatively inaccurate.

If that is so, then the same is true for you. Since you seem to be a strong Christian, you too have a strong bias.

People who believe in God act just as those who don't, besides possibly sticking to more morals. And that is not to say those who don't believe, do not have morals. In fact, the only way you could really tell the difference is by how people act. Some people are more worldly than other, and some are more godly, in sense of their faith and acting as the Bible directs them.

Prison statistics suggest that greater morality for the religious would be blatantly false. Yes, it's a wiki, but all the numbers are cited. Personal experience tells me that those who decide things for themselves will generally do the right thing more than if they were told to do it by an authority. Theists are told to by an authority, atheists know the right thing by themselves. An odd psychological quirk, people don't like submitting to authority. Hence why children will sometimes do stupid things that they wouldn't usually do to spite their parents.

Theocracy would not work in this world, especially in this Modern day and age. And not because of beliefs, or faith, or decisions, but because of man's greed and pride and inability to act purely.

With that justification, no leader would work because of greed and pride and inability to act purely.

Basing your rules of behaviour and governance based on the whims of any deity is rather arbitrary. Best to rationalize a decision rather than to simply appeal to a thousand year old manuscript and assume it covers all cases of the world today. Even assuming the manuscript is "perfect", you still need someone to interpret it's writings and apply them to the decision that must be made. which adds human error and a personal spin to it. If I'm going to have someone make a decision, I'd rather they make a justified case rather than read a book and assume that's what God meant when he said this or that.

As for theocracies effectiveness as a form of government, it depends how you define success.

Control: It's near perfect. You appeal to the highest possible authority and that authority dictates the actions of the masses. You're heads of state are infallible because they speak for God.

Economically; No worse off than any other dictatorship. It's down to the decisions made by individuals who handle the money.

Morally: Belief in hell apparently reduces corruption. However it can also be argued that more secular societies have lower crime rates. Also, you're not really making any moral decisions in a theocracy. You're just applying the morals of whichever God you subscribe to. So you in essence have no morals of your own.

Militarily: Faith in God is no substitute for training and equipment.

Liberty: Citizens generally have little liberty in theocratic societies. They are to strictly adhere to a religion and it's tenants. Deviation from that is considered bad for the rest of society.

Science: Science works with God. However it works better without him. If you restrict the questioning of certain topics then you restrict potential progress.

Trade/Diplomacy: It's a double edged sword. It can work very well for or against foreign relations depending on the religion being enacted and it's tolerance of other faiths and ideas.

There...seems to be some confusion about the subject of theocracy in this thread. A true theocracy is a government ruled by a super-natural personality. A government which poses an intermediary human agent as a legal, civil, or military governor is not a theocracy. The debate between the phrases of, "true believer," and, "false believer," is completely irrelevant. For a theocracy to function there must be a true deity, a Creator, that chooses to rule or govern over a body of citizens. Anything else is autocracy or demarchy.

Tea wrote:There...seems to be some confusion about the subject of theocracy in this thread. A true theocracy is a government ruled by a super-natural personality. A government which poses an intermediary human agent as a legal, civil, or military governor is not a theocracy. The debate between the phrases of, "true believer," and, "false believer," is completely irrelevant. For a theocracy to function there must be a true deity, a Creator, that chooses to rule or govern over a body of citizens. Anything else is autocracy or demarchy.

No. Theocracy is rule by the clergy or inspired individual assumed to have connection with a Creator. It is not rule by the Creator itself.

This next part is for Lyn:

As for the bit about the Declaration of Independence, do you notice how vague the terms are? "Nature's God", "Creator", "Supreme Judge". This does not support that America was founded on religion, it just makes reference to religion, and if anything is trying to distance itself from religion as much as possible for the time period. It makes no specific reference to any one religion or claims that they are founding the nation for or because of God. They are explaining that they are creating America because England's rule is unacceptable.

And to say America was founded on religion is... strange; I don't understand why you would say that. Could you please explain why you think that? America separated from Britain because of "taxation without representation", freedom, and because they were sick of Britain cracking down on them smuggling goods to other countries for the most part. Colonists wanted to stop serving the mother country and become their own. There's nothing religious really involved there.

I mean, of course religion had influence (and still does) on American culture, but it is not the reason the country was created.

Theocracy: (n) ( Greek theos, god + kratos, power )
[a] government by priests claiming to rule by Divine Authority.


I do not argue that the above definition is anything other than correct. It is colloquially understood that theocracies usually incorporate human individuals as part of the structure. However, for the sake of discussion, I will elucidate the implications of the definition of theocracy. The definition is that a group of people claim to have authority given to them by a deity. There are only two possibilities for this. The first is the truth while the second is a lie.

If the priests', or governors', claim is a lie then the theocracy is not real. Without the Divine Providence and Authority of a super-natural deity a supposed theocracy is nothing but an hierocracy.

The other possibility is the truth. A single, or group of, priest(s) in this assumption have been given authority by a super-natural personality to rule over a group of people. However, the ruling body of the government does not have power according to the definition of theocracy. Their power and authority is given to them, provided to them, by a Divine source outside of themselves. This authority could, in theory, be removed for some reason or other. In this way the true power behind a theocracy, if it is true, is the deity who chooses to empower the leaders rather than the claims of the leaders themselves.

This is why the question of belief is irrelevant.


Also, before any more...silliness is tossed around about the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, I suggest that those who wish to discuss such things take a stroll to a library, make a list of the names that signed the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and then make a check mark next to each name that attended a church of some kind. The research should be...enlightening.

@Tea: Truth, a lie, or wrong. Someone can believe that they are divinely inspired. This belief can be false, but that does not make it a lie. The key word is "claim." The rulers claim to have Divine Authority. Whether or not they have it is irrelevant. Besides, going by your definition, Theocracy has never occurred, which is absurd. Not to mention that it isn't even "inspired," it's "has Divine Authority." I can claim I have Divine Authority without having some sort of patron deity. Perhaps I AM a god? Or perhaps I have divine authority because I am a priest, and priests are divine?

Sciamancer wrote:@Tea: Truth, a lie, or wrong. Someone can believe that they are divinely inspired. This belief can be false, but that does not make it a lie. The key word is "claim." The rulers claim to have Divine Authority. Whether or not they have it is irrelevant. Besides, going by your definition, Theocracy has never occurred, which is absurd. Not to mention that it isn't even "inspired," it's "has Divine Authority." I can claim I have Divine Authority without having some sort of patron deity. Perhaps I AM a god? Or perhaps I have divine authority because I am a priest, and priests are divine?

Exactly. Tea, quite frankly, you're wrong, and there really isn't any more to be said than that about it. You've misunderstood the definition of theocracy.

Also, what exactly are you trying to say with the bit about the Founding Fathers? This is a debate forum; it's a place to present arguments and explain your point of view. Speaking like you know more than everyone else and telling people to go to the library, unless you've done any explanation as to why they should, is annoying and not a contribution to the thread. Please simply explain what you are trying to say there.

Either way:

If you're trying to say that majority of them went to church or the majority of them didn't, it has no bearing on why the colonies declared independence. At all. Even if each one of the Founding Fathers was extremely religious, a religious man does not do everything for a religious reason. Not that I could possibly understand what you mean by that seeing as you didn't explain yourself.

Please don't speak to people in such a demeaning way, referring to their ideas as "silliness", when you've not presented one legitimate argument as to why this is true.

All I've gotta do is point out a logical fallacy by Tea.

"Going to church doesn't make you Christian as much as sitting a garage doesn't make you a car."

One rewrote the bible removing Revelation and much of Old Testament.

They may have believed in something, but they also knew placing a country under authority of God is what people wanted to escape, remember Catholism in Europe was still strong at this point.