Theocracy And You, A Handy Primer
Jul. 3rd, 2007 03:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
silveradeptSo there was a big Blog Against Theocracy swarm that happened earlier, and it was nice enough, they decided to give it another go. This time around, we’re supposed to note that “separation of church and state is patriotic”, and in the course of things, I might actually get to that point. However, I thought it would be a nice idea to explore the root of the word Theocracy and see if there weren’t some useful things that could be gleaned there, especially in relation to how major denominations see their deity. Where it’s ended up going is into a discussion of church-state separation, but I hope that there’s at least some informative material here. Failing that, hopefully the thoughts here will trigger some thinking of your own.
So, theocracy derives itself from Greek, as the word θεοκρατία (theokratia), which is the combination of θεος (theos, roughtly meaning “god”) and κρατειν (kratein, “to rule”). Which means, at the most fundamental and literal reading, θεοκρατία is “rule by a god”. While members of denominations often claim that their pantheon is active in the world and favoring those who follow that pantheon religiously, there are very few countries or civilizations whose leaders claim direct descent from a god as their reason for ruling. There are even fewer, if any at all, that claim the god/gods themselves are incarnated as the rulers of the country and rule with an active hand. So, in one sense, until $DEITY reveals themselves to the populace at large and then takes the reins of temporal power, we don’t have to worry about a strictly-defined theocracy. If it should happen, however, then we will have to rethink this point, along with much of our cosmology, upon the confirmation that there is, indeed, $DEITY.
What theocracy tends to stand in for, then, is an eccleisiocracy, where the members of a religious group or class take control of temporal power and rule from that point. I would group people who claim to have a direct conduit to $DEITY and are thus ruling through inspiration and prophecy into this group, because more often than not, they start attracting followers and wanting to put them into political positions. People expressing the want to have a “Christian nation” or who punish others for “offenses to Islam” want or have an eccleisiocracy, preferably with their particular stripe of religion holding the reins. As students of history are no doubt jumping up and down and waving their arms know, historically, when this happens, Bad Things follow. Several books unapologetically state that when David became leader of the tribes, or Mohammed gathered his Sunna, or this prince gathered his followers, there was bloodshed, mayhem, and death while the unbelievers were systematically slaughtered. Crusades, purges, cleansing, whatever you want to call it, it generally resulted in a lot of people being killed, enslaved, or severely oppressed while the current group was in power.
The logical conclusion out of this would be to prohibit persons who hold the scary religious beliefs, or perhaps any religious beliefs at all, from holding public office. That kind of policy, however, tends toward creating shortages of available and competent administrators, officials, and public servants. The Empire, upon noticing this, is generally not above letting some of the heathens into public life, under tightly-controlled situations and with the understanding that if things go pear-shaped, they’re the first going to the chopping block. (Which, as scholars of Jewish history will tell you, sucks pretty bad.) The presence of foreigners naturally angers the people that want purity in their blood, their country, and their government. And so the struggle begins anew.
So far, we’ve found one solution that pisses off just about everybody involved, but actually, when done right, manages to maintain the balance of good government without anybody having to worry about being purged, so long as one faction or another doesn’t find a method to tip the scales. That policy takes roots in Ancient Rome, if not before that - people who have beliefs are allowed into office, people can practice their beliefs so long as they don’t contravene the laws of the land, and the Government officially takes the position that finding and promoting the One True Religion is Somebody Else’s Problem. So long as religious folk obey the country’s laws, including paying taxes, then the government doesn’t really care that they’re religious folk. Additionally, the government promises that it will not advocate for one religion in any official manner, will not require elected persons to be a particular religion, and will crack heads fairly when the laws of the country are broken, rather than showing preference to members of any one religion, either through unusually hostile prosecution/rulings/penalties or unusually friendly prosecution/rulings/penalties. Such a concept probably had several names throughout history, but we now know it as the idea of separation of church and state.
You can see where this pisses off a lot of people - to them, the government is snubbing them by not recognizing them as the True and Only Religion, and promoting dangerous and immoral thoughts by permitting all the other groups to exist peacefully. to others, the government is allowing the Big Baddies to slander them and discriminate against them in ways that may not contravene laws, but are still problematic for members of a humble religion that wishes to be left alone. Still others believe that a government that takes no official religion is dedicated to the destruction of all religions, and will utilize its power, the laws, and monopoly of force to require all religions persons to shed their beliefs under penalty of law and indoctrinate their children in schools that will teach them that religion is worthless. Regardless of the reason, this creates a (usually) disparate mob of people all pushing for the government to favor them and not others. Being pushed at from all sides, the government should be able to maintain its balance by steadfastly maintaining that the matter is Not Their Problem.
Which brings us to our current situation in the present. In some countries, the religious were able to sufficiently push on government, through military or popular force, to instill them as the official heads of government and grant them the power to rule as they see fit. Many of the great caliphates in the Middle East seemed to have survived the transition into nation-states with power structures that keep Islam as the ruling guide for the country. In other countries, however, where overt force has failed, in one way or another, to produce a system that places religious leaders at the forefront, the focus has shifted to infiltrating the offending government with sufficient like-minded individuals to gain control of it in pieces, use those pieces to recruit and gain more control, until at the appropriate time, the saboteurs, spies, and political demolitions experts stage an internal coup and take over the government. They can opt to keep or demolish the front that they are still operating as an organization that gives no preferences to the religious. Once seated in power, they will work to implement their vision of what government and law should be. History students know that should that come to pass, a significant majority of people in the country are screwed, because they’re “immoral” in some way and deserve an exit from their existence, to be “corrected” of their errors, or to be subjugated to “the chosen people”.
The only way to win this scenario, as is quipped by a computer in an eminently forgettable movie from the past, is not to play. “Not playing”, however, involves actively resisting encroachments from any position. It doesn’t mean not taking suggestions, when those suggestions can also find an appropriate nonreligious reason to be debated and possibly enacted into law. Want to get rid of condoms because $DEITY said they are an abomination and a sin for people to use them? Sorry, go away. Want to get rid of them because you suspect the materials used in them might be toxic? Well, if you can provide proof of the toxicity from a nonreligious, credible entity that all condoms are inherently toxic, then you might have a case. The government will take the matter under consideration. Similarly, the government may enlist the aid of religious organizations that can provide effective ways of implementing government programs, like feeding the hungry. However, it would not be proper for the government to give the appearance of endorsing any of the religious content of the organization, and should act to ensure that materials given on the government’s program are free of religious coercion or literature. Should the religious organization wish to do more, it can do so, keeping sure to mark prominently where the government’s blessing stops.
As always, I welcome commentary. If my facts are wrong, I would like to know. If you differ with my opinion, please, let’s have a civil discussion about it. If you agree, my ego will welcome the praise, no doubt, should you say so.
So, theocracy derives itself from Greek, as the word θεοκρατία (theokratia), which is the combination of θεος (theos, roughtly meaning “god”) and κρατειν (kratein, “to rule”). Which means, at the most fundamental and literal reading, θεοκρατία is “rule by a god”. While members of denominations often claim that their pantheon is active in the world and favoring those who follow that pantheon religiously, there are very few countries or civilizations whose leaders claim direct descent from a god as their reason for ruling. There are even fewer, if any at all, that claim the god/gods themselves are incarnated as the rulers of the country and rule with an active hand. So, in one sense, until $DEITY reveals themselves to the populace at large and then takes the reins of temporal power, we don’t have to worry about a strictly-defined theocracy. If it should happen, however, then we will have to rethink this point, along with much of our cosmology, upon the confirmation that there is, indeed, $DEITY.
What theocracy tends to stand in for, then, is an eccleisiocracy, where the members of a religious group or class take control of temporal power and rule from that point. I would group people who claim to have a direct conduit to $DEITY and are thus ruling through inspiration and prophecy into this group, because more often than not, they start attracting followers and wanting to put them into political positions. People expressing the want to have a “Christian nation” or who punish others for “offenses to Islam” want or have an eccleisiocracy, preferably with their particular stripe of religion holding the reins. As students of history are no doubt jumping up and down and waving their arms know, historically, when this happens, Bad Things follow. Several books unapologetically state that when David became leader of the tribes, or Mohammed gathered his Sunna, or this prince gathered his followers, there was bloodshed, mayhem, and death while the unbelievers were systematically slaughtered. Crusades, purges, cleansing, whatever you want to call it, it generally resulted in a lot of people being killed, enslaved, or severely oppressed while the current group was in power.
The logical conclusion out of this would be to prohibit persons who hold the scary religious beliefs, or perhaps any religious beliefs at all, from holding public office. That kind of policy, however, tends toward creating shortages of available and competent administrators, officials, and public servants. The Empire, upon noticing this, is generally not above letting some of the heathens into public life, under tightly-controlled situations and with the understanding that if things go pear-shaped, they’re the first going to the chopping block. (Which, as scholars of Jewish history will tell you, sucks pretty bad.) The presence of foreigners naturally angers the people that want purity in their blood, their country, and their government. And so the struggle begins anew.
So far, we’ve found one solution that pisses off just about everybody involved, but actually, when done right, manages to maintain the balance of good government without anybody having to worry about being purged, so long as one faction or another doesn’t find a method to tip the scales. That policy takes roots in Ancient Rome, if not before that - people who have beliefs are allowed into office, people can practice their beliefs so long as they don’t contravene the laws of the land, and the Government officially takes the position that finding and promoting the One True Religion is Somebody Else’s Problem. So long as religious folk obey the country’s laws, including paying taxes, then the government doesn’t really care that they’re religious folk. Additionally, the government promises that it will not advocate for one religion in any official manner, will not require elected persons to be a particular religion, and will crack heads fairly when the laws of the country are broken, rather than showing preference to members of any one religion, either through unusually hostile prosecution/rulings/penalties or unusually friendly prosecution/rulings/penalties. Such a concept probably had several names throughout history, but we now know it as the idea of separation of church and state.
You can see where this pisses off a lot of people - to them, the government is snubbing them by not recognizing them as the True and Only Religion, and promoting dangerous and immoral thoughts by permitting all the other groups to exist peacefully. to others, the government is allowing the Big Baddies to slander them and discriminate against them in ways that may not contravene laws, but are still problematic for members of a humble religion that wishes to be left alone. Still others believe that a government that takes no official religion is dedicated to the destruction of all religions, and will utilize its power, the laws, and monopoly of force to require all religions persons to shed their beliefs under penalty of law and indoctrinate their children in schools that will teach them that religion is worthless. Regardless of the reason, this creates a (usually) disparate mob of people all pushing for the government to favor them and not others. Being pushed at from all sides, the government should be able to maintain its balance by steadfastly maintaining that the matter is Not Their Problem.
Which brings us to our current situation in the present. In some countries, the religious were able to sufficiently push on government, through military or popular force, to instill them as the official heads of government and grant them the power to rule as they see fit. Many of the great caliphates in the Middle East seemed to have survived the transition into nation-states with power structures that keep Islam as the ruling guide for the country. In other countries, however, where overt force has failed, in one way or another, to produce a system that places religious leaders at the forefront, the focus has shifted to infiltrating the offending government with sufficient like-minded individuals to gain control of it in pieces, use those pieces to recruit and gain more control, until at the appropriate time, the saboteurs, spies, and political demolitions experts stage an internal coup and take over the government. They can opt to keep or demolish the front that they are still operating as an organization that gives no preferences to the religious. Once seated in power, they will work to implement their vision of what government and law should be. History students know that should that come to pass, a significant majority of people in the country are screwed, because they’re “immoral” in some way and deserve an exit from their existence, to be “corrected” of their errors, or to be subjugated to “the chosen people”.
The only way to win this scenario, as is quipped by a computer in an eminently forgettable movie from the past, is not to play. “Not playing”, however, involves actively resisting encroachments from any position. It doesn’t mean not taking suggestions, when those suggestions can also find an appropriate nonreligious reason to be debated and possibly enacted into law. Want to get rid of condoms because $DEITY said they are an abomination and a sin for people to use them? Sorry, go away. Want to get rid of them because you suspect the materials used in them might be toxic? Well, if you can provide proof of the toxicity from a nonreligious, credible entity that all condoms are inherently toxic, then you might have a case. The government will take the matter under consideration. Similarly, the government may enlist the aid of religious organizations that can provide effective ways of implementing government programs, like feeding the hungry. However, it would not be proper for the government to give the appearance of endorsing any of the religious content of the organization, and should act to ensure that materials given on the government’s program are free of religious coercion or literature. Should the religious organization wish to do more, it can do so, keeping sure to mark prominently where the government’s blessing stops.
As always, I welcome commentary. If my facts are wrong, I would like to know. If you differ with my opinion, please, let’s have a civil discussion about it. If you agree, my ego will welcome the praise, no doubt, should you say so.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-07-08 05:23 pm (UTC)I (almost) always have to throw in my phone call joke when reading a piece like this. The President (or Pope, if you prefer) is sitting in his office when the phone rings. It's God calling. "George (or Pope), I've got some news. I've decided to make the United States a Christian nation."
"That's wonderful, God! Now we can get that abortion ban passed, we can..."
"Hold on a minute there, George. Before you go to making plans, you should know that I'm calling from Salt Lake City."
no subject
Date: 2007-07-09 01:52 am (UTC)The phone call joke is a good one. I wonder why, though, whenever anyone's making a "it's not your denomination, d00d", joke, God ends up being Mormon.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-09 02:10 am (UTC)I think if people knew the exact flavor of Christianity that whoever is running this mess wanted the country to be, we'd see more "Now, wait a minute!"
Someone can worship Kali for all I care, as long as they aren't practicing human sacrifice or, as you say, contravening the laws of the land. I pretty much distill my beliefs down to "Love your neighbor" and "Do good. If you can't do good, do no evil." Build up positive karma for yourself, regardless of whether or not it comes back to help you (it probably will). Avoid negative karma.
Prime case: when we left a few hours ago to go for shopping/lunch, as I was opening the door for Russet to get in, I noticed that the paint on my right rear passenger door was damaged. Looking at it more closely, it's been deliberately gouged, perhaps keyed, except normally keying is a longitudinal scratch. I didn't get at all angry, though I'm definitely not happy. Mean people suck, assholes abound, and the best thing that you can do is not be an asshole.
Geez, I've mellowed as I've aged! :-)
no subject
Date: 2007-07-09 03:54 am (UTC)The generality of Christendom seems to be its best asset and its worst problem, depending on how people take that following Christ part. Even Christ gave some pretty easily rememberable teachings - Love your neighbor being one of the important ones. I like your second philosophical statement as well. Of course, things distilled into simple statements such as those, often produce complex results when applied to complex situations. It's still possible to use them, it's just that wisdom helps in these cases. Would that I were wiser than I am.