Philosophical Question about Theocracy

[moksha]

Should the Church be a master of humanity rather than its servant?

[Corsair]

Should the Church be a master of humanity rather than its servant?

The idea of church and state separation is not a principle in the U.S. constitution, but I am increasingly glad for it.

Are there any instances of effective and benevolent theocracies? Technically, the Queen of England is the head of the Anglican church, but in actual practice this is an irrelevant point. Are there any instances of a theocracy that we would willingly want to live under?

[moksha]

The only selling point I can think of to make people be willing to abide a theocracy would be if it seemed a better choice than ruled by a ruthless despot. If the theocracy was promising to end constant wars or had the slogan Make Humanity Great Again, then people would probably support it.

In real life practice, theocracies such as the Holy Roman Empire still had wars and people lived a pretty miserable existence. Same way with Iran under the Ayatollahs. One theocracy that existed over a hundred and fifty years ago near where I live even started a rebellion by massacring an entire wagon train of pioneers. So promises of peace and respecting humanity might be hollow.

[Palerider]

This is the only theocracy I'm willing to live under.

Rev. 7:17

"For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes."

Seems to be more service oriented and truly concerned with the welfare of it's citizens. Not a pyramid scheme masquerading as a place to earn salvation.

[Not Buying It]

I don’t know about theocracy, but I know the Church has it completely backwards in regards to members. The Church thinks members should exist to serve the Church, but I maintain the Church should exist to serve the members.

I suppose the same is true in terms of how the Church sees itself in terms of theocracy - the world exists to support the Church and not the other way around. The Church is the most narcissistic organization imaginable - it thinks it is more important than anything, and anything else exists merely to serve it.

[oliver_denom]

Should the Church be a master of humanity rather than its servant?

The idea of church and state separation is not a principle in the U.S. constitution, but I am increasingly glad for it.

The phrase "separation of church and state" isn't in the constitution, but the idea absolutely is in the constitution. The establishment and free exercise clause of the first amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This is a direct reference to practice of nations establishing a state religion. That's the very definition of church and state separation. If the state can neither establish a religion, nor prohibit what religion people choose to follow, then the two are separate.

There's a lot of ridiculous hairsplitting and rhetoric around an otherwise clear mandate because certain theocratic minded groups want to do the reverse and have their religion establish a congress. What the consistently fail to grasp is the fact that once they hold elected office, they ARE the government and must uphold the constitution. So no matter their personal beliefs or what they promised to their voting base, they do not have the power to establish a religion, nor inhibit the free practice of others. To actually implement into law the idea that the constitution and its rights only apply to Christians, an actual platform for some of these groups, would require the repeal of the first amendment and article VI which forbids a religious test for office. If your agenda requires a constitutional amendment to be implemented, then it is de facto unconstitutional until after that happens.

As far as the first question, history delivers an unequivocal answer. Any regime with unchecked power, especially those which define themselves as infallible, inevitably end in tyranny and mass human suffering. The only time that this kind of government would be even remotely justified, would be if the world itself were so unstable and horrid that even a tyrant would prove preferable to chaos. That's certainly what Hobbes believed, but the west took a different direction. In John Locke's less read first treatise on government, he completely dismantled the logic of the divine right of kings. In his second treatise, he argued that the only legitimate form of government is that which arises from the consent, either tacit or explicit, of the governed and that they held the natural right to depose it should that government violate certain inalienable rights. The French philosopher Montesquieu argued that the only way to prevent a government from straying into tyranny was to separate its powers into co-equal branches of government. Western democracy have practiced these principles with more or less success, and human suffering has been dramatically reduced along side an increase in both scientific and religious flourishing. Is this the best system of government? Yes, at least compared to all the others we've tried.

When you get to the heart of any theocracy whether it be the one established by Brigham Young, or the Roman Emperors, they all reduce themselves to monarchy by a different name. What you have a person, or group of people, who claim to have the power to either interpret the will of god or impose it by choice through predestination. They are fallible but rule as if they are infallible. They make decisions based on their own whims and are accountable to no one except one another. The Romans had a handful of emperors that did a good job, and a few others who did a passable job, but this is no consolation for the people who lived under the bad ones, and had to endure lives of constant war, corruption, and oppression. A system where at any moment the sovereign can take all that you have: your life, talents, possessions, reputation, or family, and give it to another or take it for themselves, is not one you want to be living under. Because even if the divine tyrant decides not to do these things, you still live under the constant fear and stress knowing that they could, and that you would have absolutely no rights or recourse to refuse. A person under this sort of system could never truly live free.

[Hagoth]

Rev. 7:17

"For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes."

You quoted my favorite scripture, Palerider. I am constantly amazed to find something so beautiful among the blood and horror of the Book of Revelation.

[ap1054]

Quote by Elder C.S. Lewis:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

[Perfigliano]

Are there any instances of effective and benevolent theocracies? Technically, the Queen of England is the head of the Anglican church, but in actual practice this is an irrelevant point. Are there any instances of a theocracy that we would willingly want to live under?

How about if God himself (or herself. Or both. Whatever.) came down from heaven and reigned personally?

[Corsair]

Are there any instances of effective and benevolent theocracies? Technically, the Queen of England is the head of the Anglican church, but in actual practice this is an irrelevant point. Are there any instances of a theocracy that we would willingly want to live under?

How about if God himself (or herself. Or both. Whatever.) came down from heaven and reigned personally?

Yes, that might be acceptable. Having a god wanting to personally reign on the earth seems like something that we could not really oppose based on Him/Her being almighty, after all. My real concern is that some denomination would absolutely claim that they are totally talking to God and we should totally obey them as a result. 19th century Utah, for example.