Interfaith Theocracy

Would it be a bad idea for a multi faith theocracy to exist in modern times as a form of goverment or what?

Yes.

• Contradictory idea
• Excludes the non-religious
• Religion is a horrible basis for law, on its own

yep

I don't think any government should be directly tied to one or more churches, since in the past this has often led to church corruption. I do believe that churches have the right to affect politics indirectly, but I'd say the same for secular organizations.

theocracy tends to inspire zealotry, so I doubt you could even have one.

How would a multifaith theocracy work, exactly?

Even if they could work out the inherent contradictions (wonder how Hindus and Christians would work out the poly vs. mono thing?), it would be terrible. Most of the holy books of the world religions tell people to hurt/kill/shun other religions. How is that going to work? Even if they, like most modern ecumenical religions, ignore or reinterpret that part of their faiths, any state they create would be an oppressive train wreck. Not only does it explicitly exclude (or perhaps persecute) the nonreligious, it will also have hudnreds of idiotic and restrictive rules from centuries ago that people would be forced to follow, like vegetarianism, not being allowed to cut your beard, not being allowed to do anything on Saturday or Sunday, etc., etc.

Oh good. Maybe we can bring back the Warrior-Priest ruling class.

I'm fine with half of that proposal.

Where did you get this idea?

I was just curisos sp @ that guy I was talking about different religions not churches.

Also what were so bad about theocracies and how did they work exactly?

edited 9th Aug '11 7:50:50 PM by warrior93

Well the first thing that is bad about theocracies is that they're based on an immutable, irrefutable, and unchangeable text, subject only to the "interpretations" of a few select priests - i.e., the country is ruled by the whims of the priest and a centuries-old book.

Secondly, they are often based on hunting down and persecuting those who don't believe as they do.

Theocracies often are dedicated to squashing science and technology - the things that helped us eliminate disease and explore the Moon.

Children in theocracies are not exposed to any other worldview, and so they don't really have a legitimate choice of what religion or secular philosophy seems the most logical to them.

Because religions are fond of saying that even thinking/saying certain things is sinful, theocracies are heavy on censorship and thought-policing.

edited 9th Aug '11 8:03:15 PM by OnTheOtherHandle

Handle@Don't worry a lot of Christians have given up on theocracy because if one looks at history it failed.So,most Christians in America just try to say their voice in politics.However,I agree there should be no theocracy because mainly because man is sinful and will screw it up.

Inclusive secularism is the closest you'll get to an interfaith state. As a theocracy it's impossible.

The very idea is kind of impractical. Mostly on the basis of how the hell do you promote someone in an interfaith theocracy? Especially when many of them don't have the same advancement system?

It's the thorny little details and how they're worked that makes a system workable. This one idea runs into a lot of snags on the application level.

@OTOH: How is vegetarianism an idiotic rule?

@OP: The very concept is incoherent. In a theocracy, the sovereign is a priest. A priest can't belong to multiple religions.

edited 9th Aug '11 9:00:14 PM by Rottweiler

Some people don't know how to plan the diets and would end up getting sick. Also some people really dig meat.

I can't see this working at all. Too much conflict.

Yes, it very bad idea. it will end like Lebanon. people can only marry people with same religion. divorce is difficult. welfare distributed only by church, and each church gain proportion of welfare according to number of worshipper, not people who actually needed aid. Governing also will be disaster, some ministry will be turf of certain religious group (surgeon general always Hindu, foreign minister always catholic, etc ) which will prevent competent government. It will also encourage civil war and demographic competition (each church try to have most children).

I think people in this thread are using "theocracy" to mean "any state that doesn't practice laïcité."

Protip: France was not a theocracy even when the Prime Minister was a cardinal.

edited 9th Aug '11 9:46:27 PM by Rottweiler

To be fair, it's a pretty kickass dual-class.

Really though, theocracy is little more than a good way to corrupt your church. Fuck that noise.

@Pykrete: Hear, hear! I think the Popes have been better spiritual leaders since central Italy ceased to be a theocracy.

Yeah fuck that. We already have enough corruption related problems. We don't need a theocracy adding more.

AWAY FROM MY BUDDHISM, THEOCRACY.

Lebanon 1920-1980 was close to an Interfaith Theocracy. The Constitution defined that the President must be a Maronite Christian, the Prime Minister must be a Sunni, the Chief Justice a Shiite etc. It worked for a while until Syria invaded.

Theocracy itself is terrible.

Actually, that wasn't in the Constitution. It's just that all the parties mutually agreed in a deal that they would only, for example, field Catholic candidates for President, etc.