Theocracy

[Cearbhall]

Why do non-theists (atheists, agnostics, pagans, humanists, etc) fear/hate the idea of a theocracy?

Because the thought of "God says so" being a valid legal argument is terrifying.

 

[keith99]

I just want to point out that there are some groups I would not fear direct problems from.

If there was a Society of Friends theocracy I would not fear them using force to coerce me.

But I would fear the results of the first real criminal to come by.

 

[Nithavela]

Personally I'd like the tooth fairy theocracy better then what we have now.

Especially the fae aspect, still have four wisdom teeth lying around and it gets lonely from time to time at night.

 

[Metal Minister]

Ok, with little exception, the premise of the op has been completely missed and/or ignored. I believe paradoxum was the only one to really hit the points. I'd ask everyone to address the op in whole, not pieced up to suit a particular view. I'll respond when I have a bit more time!

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

1) In the human aspect of a theocracy (God has no direct involvement) state what do you hate/fear about it, and please expound on which denomination you feel would be the mostly likely to incite this response.
2) In the Divine aspect of a theocracy (God is directly involved) state what do you hate/fear about it, and expound on it.

Human theocracy = authoritarian rule by people using a god's name as a tool to gain power.

Divine theocracy = communalism / utopian anarchism where love and compassion trump greed and laziness. If no one was greedy then each person would take what they need and nothing more. If no one was lazy, then each person would work to the best of their abilities and contribute to society according to their means. If everyone was compassionate, they would recognize that not everyone can work equally due to physical/mental limitations and would work to help those who could not work to satisfy their needs.

The second option is clearly impossible given our current world framework, so lets just stick to democracy for now with separation of church and state.

 

[Nithavela]

I think that the reason why people "ignore" and "do not fully respond" to your op may be because it is very hard to see what you are actually looking for.

Me? I'm not scared of a "human" theocracy. The leaders would still skim the best for themselves and release nonsensical laws.

I may be scared of a divine theocracy, though, depending on the God or Pantheon. I'd be most scared of the christian god, with all that turning people to salt and burning their cities and flooding the planet and taking people of wellfare for minor dietary transgressions...

 

[Cearbhall]

I think that the reason why people "ignore" and "do not fully respond" to your op may be because it is very hard to see what you are actually looking for.

This. There are certain parts to which I can't think of a constructive response.

I recently had a discussion with an atheist on another site, where his response was something to the effect of
"Christians just want to teach creationism to have a theocracy!"
After I got past the initial absurdity of the statement, it started me thinking.

This, for example. This conclusion isn't absurd at all. I assume the atheist was speaking of public schools, in which case he or she was right. Teaching religion as fact in public schools is theocratic.

 

[Rajni]

Two words: Dark Ages

-

 

[essentialsaltes]

Ok, with little exception, the premise of the op has been completely missed and/or ignored.

"Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.
...
Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its several sects. Torrents of blood have been split in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious disscord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion.
...
Because finally, "the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience" is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature"

James Madison

 

[Cearbhall]

Ok, with little exception, the premise of the op has been completely missed and/or ignored. I believe paradoxum was the only one to really hit the points. I'd ask everyone to address the op in whole, not pieced up to suit a particular view. I'll respond when I have a bit more time!

I cannot fathom why you think a non-theist's disapproval of theocracy requires a lengthy explanation.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ok, with little exception, the premise of the op has been completely missed and/or ignored. I believe paradoxum was the only one to really hit the points. I'd ask everyone to address the op in whole, not pieced up to suit a particular view. I'll respond when I have a bit more time!

I'm not sure what you're hoping for, but its starting to look like you wanted a particular kind of response that you'd thought up a reply to. If that's the case why not just say what you think?

Reading through the responses I can't see much wrong with them, mostly they're valid concerns. It's hard to answer your second part because it really doesn't make much sense. Maybe an example would help.

 

[CounselorForChrist]

This is easy. They don't like theocracy because it means they maybe aren't in full control of their life. THere is something "Above them". We want control of our own lives, despite the fact that even if God wasn't real (for sake of conversation) it wouldn't change the fact you don't have total control of your life anyways.

Medical conditions pop up. A car could kill you early in life in an accident. You could get someone pregnant on accident...etc. Control is just something we tell ourselves we have so we don't have to deal with the fact we don't have much control.

Even if it weren't God it wouldn't matter who had alot of control in our lives. Such as if we were in the Matrix. If people told us, most wouldn't want to believe it. Denial is a big issue. Which overall confuses me because first alot of non-theists say life is pointless. We just "Exist" then die. Well wouldn't it be better to believe in God then and at least know life has an actual purpose? Knowing God is there to help you lead you down the path He has laid out for you (the best He can of course). Knowing you can go somewhere that is wonderful where you live forever?

Yes I realize the reply is going to be about theres no proof of any of that and some will bring up why does God let kids die so why should I worship Him....etc (normal responses that lead no where despite being corrected that God doesn't let kids die).

 

[Eudaimonist]

This is easy. They don't like theocracy because it means they maybe aren't in full control of their life.

No, that isn't it by a long shot. Everyone recognizes that they don't have complete control over the events that transpire around them, because those events have plenty of influences external to oneself. All that people do have control over is how they act in the face of events.

I oppose theocracy because I want people to be free to act according to their judgment, so that they may live self-determining lives. This isn't about having "full control" over the universe. It means living rationally, authentically, and with integrity.

Which overall confuses me because first alot of non-theists say life is pointless. We just "Exist" then die. Well wouldn't it be better to believe in God then and at least know life has an actual purpose?

I'm not sure what sort of atheist you mean, but atheists tend to value hard truths over comforting lies, so they don't choose their beliefs based on what would be "better to believe". It would be best of all to believe that I am God, the creator of the universe, because then I would be in total control over everything. However, that would be silly.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Mystman]

(normal responses that lead no where despite being corrected that God doesn't let kids die).

You're standing beside a 1 meter deep pond, enjoying the sun. A toddler falls into the pond, and starts drowning. You could safe the toddler with the most trivial of efforts, but you decide to just stand around. The toddler drowns. Did you let the toddler drown?

--

ontopic: a literalist theocracy would be the worst. Non-literalist can at least use their own judgement to determine what God might want. Literalists have to blindly follow whatever the Bible/Qur'an says (if they can extract a coherent narrative from those books..). Your resident supreme leader deciding that we should literally implement Levitican law would be very bad.

 

[JGG]

This is easy. They don't like theocracy because it means they maybe aren't in full control of their life. THere is something "Above them". We want control of our own lives, despite the fact that even if God wasn't real (for sake of conversation) it wouldn't change the fact you don't have total control of your life anyways.

Medical conditions pop up. A car could kill you early in life in an accident. You could get someone pregnant on accident...etc. Control is just something we tell ourselves we have so we don't have to deal with the fact we don't have much control.

Even if it weren't God it wouldn't matter who had alot of control in our lives. Such as if we were in the Matrix. If people told us, most wouldn't want to believe it. Denial is a big issue. Which overall confuses me because first alot of non-theists say life is pointless. We just "Exist" then die. Well wouldn't it be better to believe in God then and at least know life has an actual purpose? Knowing God is there to help you lead you down the path He has laid out for you (the best He can of course). Knowing you can go somewhere that is wonderful where you live forever?

Yes I realize the reply is going to be about theres no proof of any of that and some will bring up why does God let kids die so why should I worship Him....etc (normal responses that lead no where despite being corrected that God doesn't let kids die).

This demonstrates nicely why I fear Christian theocracy.

 

[Cearbhall]

This is easy. They don't like theocracy because it means they maybe aren't in full control of their life. THere is something "Above them".

No. How could we fear something that we don't believe is possible? For us, a theocracy is a jurisdiction in which the leaders claim that their words are facts of the universe that can't be disputed.

This demonstrates nicely why I fear Christian theocracy.

Amen to that.

 

[KCfromNC]

I recently had a discussion with an atheist on another site, where his response was something to the effect of
"Christians just want to teach creationism to have a theocracy!"

Yep, I thought Wedge strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia was pretty well known these days.

After I got past the initial absurdity of the statement, it started me thinking. Why do non-theists (atheists, agnostics, pagans, humanists, etc) fear/hate the idea of a theocracy?

Now before you answer, I need to specify the framework of the question. To start with there two parts.
1) In the human aspect of a theocracy (God has no direct involvement) state what do you hate/fear about it, and please expound on which denomination you feel would be the mostly likely to incite this response.
2) In the Divine aspect of a theocracy (God is directly involved) state what do you hate/fear about it, and expound on it.

1) I dislike them because of their horrible record on human rights abuses in the past. Denomination doesn't seem to matter. The problem seems to be that since there's no reasonable way to resolve differences in personal revelation, it devolves into using the power of the state to punish people who don't agree with the mythology of those in charge.
2) The biggest problem with approach #2 is that it is a fairy tale.

 

[Paradoxum]

Ok, with little exception, the premise of the op has been completely missed and/or ignored. I believe paradoxum was the only one to really hit the points. I'd ask everyone to address the op in whole, not pieced up to suit a particular view. I'll respond when I have a bit more time!

It's cos I'm just so amazing... right?

I'm not sure what you're hoping for, but its starting to look like you wanted a particular kind of response that you'd thought up a reply to. If that's the case why not just say what you think?

Reading through the responses I can't see much wrong with them, mostly they're valid concerns. It's hard to answer your second part because it really doesn't make much sense. Maybe an example would help.

I was the only one who got it... I should be made Queen of the Ethics forum.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Ok, with little exception, the premise of the op has been completely missed and/or ignored.

Which is what?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Strathos]

IMO the only true "theocracy" would be a government run directly by God Himself, i.e. when Jesus returns. This is the only kind of theocratic government I would support.

Humans who attempt to rule based on the authority of God are inevitably corrupted by power and exalt themselves and their personal beliefs about what God wants them to do over anyone else. As flawed humans the best we can do is democracy.