Can someone tell me why theocracy is bad

[KindredSoul]

Kindered, "* Church claims to have infallible teaching authority* it’s a claim, not a fact. And mine isn’t a random guess in the dark. As I said, I was a very strong Catholic and have been a student of religon and philosophy for over 55 years now.

But if you believe a given claim, if you truly believe it (as opposed to merely believing it’s a strong possibility) that means you believe it is a fact…even if you can see why others may disagree, as long as you yourself believe something, the whole meaning of believing it (again, as opposed to believing it could be true) is that you personally consider it to be a fact. It is no different with religion. I believe in Catholicism’s claims (for reasons many of which I assume you are familiar) which therefore means I believe those claims are facts. I have heard arguments to the contrary…but no argument has convinced me otherwise.

“But if, in any way, your “particular interpretation” stated that God wished for everyone to realize that truth in all its “particulars” then you would either A. Wish for others to convert or B. Not be living up to even your own particular interpretation by dismissing part of what it called for.” No, I believe in agency and example. I give whit if anyone converts, because to this they can’t. It is a discovery, not a commitment. When you find you have a foot, it is not a matte of convincing others you have one. As to B, I don’t see how God would want anyone to realize any truth in alll its particulars because they can’t, as particulars.

You are demonstrating that your beliefs don’t call for others to agree with you. I am asking that you realize that Catholicism and certain other religions differ with you on that point; Catholicism very much teaches that God wills (albeit without violating freewill) that all people should come to know Him through the True Religion, which Catholicism claims to be (and we have already addressed the “claim vs. fact” issue). So while in your particular beliefs, it is okay to not care if anyone converts, a Catholic, while not forcing the issue, would at least wish for all people to come to Catholicism, and due to that would hope to even lead some (whether few or many) to the Church…without forcing them to convert, of course.

“EasterJoy has given arguments, and reasonable ones” Yes, of course, completey valid within the Church. Does valid necessarily = universally true?

In the context of debates and evidence within a Catholic framework, valid, as opposed to “Infallibly defined,” does not mean universally true so much as universally acceptable. However, if something is invalid within a Catholic framework, then if Catholicism is true (which Catholics believe it to be) then the invalid argument is universally wrong–even if the point it seeks to make may be true for other, more valid, reasons.

…Continued from above…

“you quoted mostly deists, atheists, and other people prone to believe Catholicism is false.” The alleged Catholic position being overwhelmingly well, or not well, stated on here, and the issue, again, not being a Catholic, but a general issue about religion, I did quote others who had an issue with a religion of any sort having sway over civic matters.

But I did not notice any Catholic who believed such a thing. My point is not that only a Catholic’s opinion matters, but in the absence of quotes from any devout and authoritative Catholic in agreement with you, please understand that the point of view may be suspect–not because only a Catholic can make a good point, but because a point of view that is valid within the Catholic Faith would almost certainly have been demonstrably acceptable at some point within Catholic history…again, EasterJoy has demonstrated such examples. I didn’t see, however, where you yourself did so.

CONTINUED…

 

[KindredSoul]

…CONTINUED from above…

“* if part of your argument against a theocracy is that those religions whose members might want a theocracy are somehow or in some way (however minor) false, you are failing in your attempt to appeal to people of those religions to see your point.*” No, it isn’t against any particular religion having false elements. It is about any particular religion having sway over all the others, and the non-believers as well. Did you go back as I requested and read Senator Gosdwater’s practical statement on this issue?

I didn’t find the statement entirely practical. He seemed very much to be of the opinion that it is always wrong to let religion fuel any political policy, and sometimes that simply cannot be avoided if a person in power is devoutly religious. In other words, his opinion stretches beyond the realm of Theocracy vs. Democracy and into the realm of saying people of faith shouldn’t even let their faith influence their political decisions, and it seems he would especially think that was true for a religious politician (for instance, he detests one person telling another what is required to be “moral”, which ignores that in many religions such a thing is obligatory). Since religion cannot possibly be turned off by a religious person, even when that person is acting politically, I must disagree with such implications. Also, I disagree with the implication that religious people have no right to vote for Congressman (or assemble non-violently to stand against a Congressman) based upon religious issues. Religious issues are important to religious voters, and they have as much right as anyone else to vote based upon what they find important, yes, even including a religious issue. Even if a Theocracy is not called for or desirable, a religious person must always let his religion form his decisions, political or otherwise. Maybe I’m misreading Goldwater’s intentions, though. In any event, this is off topic and a totally different discussion from Theocracy, but I just wanted to respond to his quote, since you brought it up specifically.

“If you had taken into account the second part of that very same post (my response to EasterJoy), you would have known this already.” Yes, that was clear from what you said. Again, I was responding to the idea tha you are doing your revisitaion strictly through a Catholic perspective when it has been clear that this is a much larger issue.

If something contradicts Catholicism, and I am rationally convinced that Catholicism is true (and I am), then saying that something incompatible with Catholicism holds no weight is not refusing to see the larger issue…it is, instead, common sense (within a Catholic framework). For instance, if an argument absolutely required you to believe grass is in no way green (as in it doesn’t even appear to be green) you would be able to safely dismiss the argument. Likewise, if an argument requires me to believe Catholicism is false, even in a small point or matter, then if I am rationally convinced that Catholicism is as true as grass is green, I can dismiss that argument.

“* Quoting a rather long list of people whose religious beliefs were decidedly in-compatible with Catholicism, as well as saying such things as “the god you ignorantly worship” clearly is not an argument compatible with Catholicism.*” That is very naive. You would appear to be claiming that only Catholics can think. Is that true? and again, the allegedly Catholic perspective on here was already well mis/represented.

I believe that my previous explanations, in above paragraphs, explain quite well that I am not claiming that only Catholics can think. For what I am claiming, see above. And the Catholic perspective, as far as saying theocracy isn’t all that desirable, wasn’t really all that well represented at all until one of EasterJoy’s latest posts. People gave personal opinions and personal interpretations of what Bible verses mean, but no one actually gave a citation (at least not one I noticed amid the grand debate this thread has become) saying “This is what the Church, Pope, etc. has firmly said on the matter.”

I don’t, as I said, give a whit about convincing you or any other Catholic about my standpoint. I’m here answering a question by my lights. As for your enthusiasm, I think it is wonderful. You should apply yourself with all the intensity you can muster to your beliefs. It may be your only way through them. You will decide for yourself, any of my statements notwithstanding.

Thank you for your compliment towards my enthusiasm. Again, as far as you not caring about convincing anyone else of your standpoint, that is completely your right of free will. But, as I said before, Catholics are called to desire that others should come to the Faith, not in a nosy way or a judgmental way, but as a loving obligation to try to bring others to the fullness of the truth as our Faith teaches us God ultimately desires. And to be Catholic simply is to believe that the fullness of the truth lies in Catholicism.

For my part I am sorry if I may have seemed hostile at any point in our exchange; even so I stand by my beliefs and the points I have made, which I consider rational and good even if my manners are not always so. If my manners have been bad, it is my failure, not the failure (or even the slightest flaw) of Catholicism or the amazing God who founded it. May He forgive me if I have reflected poorly on His Church and the Truths She teaches.

Blessings in Christ.

 

[Detales]

You know what, Kindered? No matter how you slice it, a belief is a belief is a belief. You are talking about your own belief. When you come to accept that it is exactly that, a belief, you will than be able to look at it with some degree of rationality not restricted to the self validating system of the belief. Ususally that movement takes a shock, similat to an alarm clock or cold water in a sleeper’s face. Believing something is a fact doesn’t make a mirage into water, or water into Wine. That last takes something entierly different.

Certaily Catholicism has its uses, but so do other belief systems. As I noted, goodness, the actual manifestation of God’s love, has nothing whatsoever to do with religion save by mental association on the part of believers. Goodness is of God and not of faith. If you are good, and wish to have a faith, any will serve. Maybe, from my understanding of it, the LDS would serve better than most due to its social organization. But that and its goodness are not dependent on the religion, they are dependent on the pre existing goodness accesible to anyone of the Goodness of God. It does not take a Catholic to be good, but it takes a Catholic or whatever, to explain it in a particulsar way suitable to that one’s circumstances. That is why there are conversions. It is not due to goodness, it is due to mentality. Start considering what includes what, and you will see this if you refrain from the usual mixing of apples and oranges.

Bon Chance, K, I don’t have time for this excercise any more. It is my fondest wish for you that you do meet the Christ and have an end to your dreaming.

 

[KindredSoul]

You know what, Kindered? No matter how you slice it, a belief is a belief is a belief. You are talking about your own belief. Whaen you come to accetp that it is exactly that, a belief, you will than be able to look at it with some degree of rationality not restricted to the self validating system of the belief. Ususally that movement takes a shock, similat to an alarm clock or cold water in a sleeper’s face. Believing something is a fact doesn’t make a mirage into water, or water into Wine. That last takes something entierly different.

Belief: “confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof”

Truth: a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like:

A thought that something is “probably” true but that other beliefs may be equally true is not true belief…that would be a theory. To really believe something, as demonstrated by the definitions, is to have confidence that it is a fact. If someone disproves that belief, only then will someone who truly believed it significantly doubt it. Nobody, in 2000 years, has successfully proven that Catholicism simply isn’t true; if they had, no one could be remotely rational and still believe in Catholicism (I hope you will not venture to insult every single Catholic by accusing us of such).

Your example about a mirage and believing water is wine would only be valid if Catholics arbitrarily decided to believe in Catholicism for no apparent reason. On the contrary, most Catholics whose reasoning I know (certainly I myself) have come to believe based upon reasoning and logically thought-out evidence. Just as I have every reason to believe my senses when they tell me the sun exists until someone proves that I have been deceived, I also have every reason to believe my senses (my experiences and the evidence I have read) when they tell me that Catholicism is true. If other people’s senses tell them otherwise, that doesn’t cause me to question the factual basis of what I have found any more than if someone else’s senses told them the sun doesn’t exist, when clearly I am convinced differently.

Certaily Catholicism has its uses, but so do ther belief systems. As I noted, goodness, the actual manifestation of Go’s love, has nothing whatsoever to do with religion save by mental ssociation on the part of believers. Goodness is of God and not of faith. If you are good, and wish to have afaith, any will serve. Maybe, form my understanding of it the LDS would serve better than most due to its social organization. But that and its goodness are not dependent on the religion, they are dependent on the pre existing goodness accesible to anyone of the Goodness of God. It does not take a Catholic to be good, but it takes a Catholic or whatever, to explain it in a particulsar way suitable to that one’s circumstances. That is why there are conversions. it is not due to goodness, it is due to mentality. Start considering what includes what, andyouwill see this if you refrain from the usual mixing of apples and oranges.

The possibility for there to be good aspects and good people (using a broad sense of the word good) in other religions in no logical way proves that all religions are equally true or false, and it does nothing to prove that there is not one religion out of them all that is 100% true and more true than any of the others. For example, two equally good people may argue about whether or not Abraham Lincoln was a real person; however, only one of them is right. Likewise, Catholicism (which by definition is no less than 100% of what the Catholic Church infallibly teaches as Doctrine and Morality) is either true or it isn’t. There are no in betweens. One or the other is a fact. And if Catholics are the equivalent of the analogous person who believed Abraham Lincoln was real (and of course Catholics would say “yes” to that “if”) then that means that God wants everyone to know the truth, as that Divine wish in itself is a part of Catholic beliefs.

Bon Chance, K, I don’t have time for this excercise any more. It is my fondest wish for you that you do meet the Christ and have an end to your dreaming.

I already have. That is exactly why I am Catholic.

Blessings in Christ.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

Thanks, JS, for answering my post in detail.

You’re welcome.

“* Now it is time for the government to help it’s people through morally strenuous times, not for the immorality of the populus to override the government.*” That statement, again, is one of the scariest things I’ve seen posted on these fora.

Why shouldn’t the government try to help its people be moral? That can lead to the collapse of a government. Please see my blurb on Hu Jintao.

How many times have you heard now that A) the Vatican doesn’t want to (thank God) be a political force,

I know the Vatican does not want to be a political force. But does that really mean that the Bishops and Priests, and religious and lay faithful should be silent in politics? Absolutely not. Humans are fallible. Now say, for example people in Spain and Italy acted in some ways better under the regimes of Franco and Mussolini. Does that mean that we should return to that style of government? Not necessarily; but it means that they were doing something right that we are not. I think that that might be respecting authority the ultimate source of which is GOD.

and B) that you can’t legislate morality.

I know that I, personally can’t dictate morality but the Church and the Pope (when he speaks ex-cathedra) can. They are usually rather clear about what they mean.

Neighborhoods, schools, organizations, any of these that have turned around politically, economically, or morally have done so from within, which always has been and always will be the only efficacious and lasting way to peaceful change. Imposed change always bears the seed of aggression, and as the even slight abitlity of a government to deal with morality might be instituted, it will, as it is already doing now, fail.

I guess this goes back to environment vs. heredity… But the environment in which someone lives can help his actions. For example, divorce was almost never heard of, but once it became socially acceptable more and more people started doing it. So, if we shape the environment, we can help some people.

I am reminded of the Catholic pastor of a parish in Norwalk, Conneticut. He used legal means as well as public protests to stop the patrons of a nude bar across the street from parking in his parishes parking lot. At the time, I lived in Arizona. It was on the news there. As it happened, I took a job in Stamford CT. I drove by the church in question on a delivery one day and saw that the bar across the street was packed with cars , including many with out of state plates and rental cars. The next round of legalities came up and was published in the papers. It seems that the pastor’s efforts had increased the bar’s business by tenfold. I thought it was great for the pastor, as it seemed to me that by all rights he could claim a tithe from the club for promoting them by means of national advertising.

Perhaps we should fight more subtlely, but if we don’t fight at all then what. "Evil happens when good men do nothing.

In every neigborhood I’ve ever lived in, things changed for the better or worse by the effoerts of teh citizens. The police were useful to some degree as a detering presence, but for the most part were easily circumvented, as crime happened in relation to public participation, of not, in neigborhood activities. I also had a lot to do with how children were bgought up and treated,a nd if they had activities in and after school.

Back to using the environment. If we teach kids properly about morality and such, things would be better. And, usually, politicians can also help change for better or for worse. For example, there was a busy intersection in my hometown where cars could be blocked for up to a block. Since they tried fixing it, cars now get stuck up to three blocks…

In my reading, you are wishing to abdicate your influence by means of your paticipation in civic matters by foisting the responsibility on the government, whose job it isn"t, and which doesn’t want it.

Oh, governments want it all right (North Korea is also a theocracy by the way, and boy does it want that power); and by the by, I’m not suggesting a completely totalitarian form of government - a little later on, I’ll explain my theory. I am aware of the potential dangers of theocracy but if it is done correctly I think it could be a dream.

And perhaps the public doesn’t want your brand of morality either.

Sure, a lot of people don’t…

Heck, if you were in charge, I might be one of the first to be hanged, and if Jesus returned you’d have Him on the cross again.

Thankfully for you, my brand of morality doesn’t involve killing others.

His Divintiy by no means assures your correct perception, or that of the Church.

Not mine, but that of the Church, yes…

I’ve little doubt that if you met the Master in person, you would immediately reject Him as a blasphemer, etc. as usual, as I am convinced that His teaching is not as advertised by the Church.

Why?

Should government leaders encourage civil behaviour? Most certailnly. But that can and ought be done by the example of their private lives, or in interviews about such, and definitly not by legistlation, and bsolutely not according to the morals of the One True Church. Which is which one, by the way, by public opinion?

Why not by legislation? When abortion was illegal, less women performed the procedure.
…

 

[JSSebastianoP]

Next part coming shortly… I need time to type…

Pax.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

…Continued…

“* I’m afraid democracy just doesn’t work and frankly - it’s because some people just don’t know what’s good for them.*” Which implies that you do??? God help us!!!

I don’t but that’s why we have the magisterium. I wonder why no one ever had the idea of using the Code of Canon Law as a law system…

" It is a Christian’s duty to evangelise those people" It may be so, as it is the duty of Muslims to do the same and of Prtestants of every ilk to do the same. So as a public, which shal we adopt? Yours, becuse in your opinion it is right? Remember, you practice a faith or a belief. it is not called a knowledge for a reason. And clearly, by saying “those people” you already have set up and adversarial dichotomy as distinct from a “we” that have an internal problem. YOu have again separated yourself from the activity of solution.

My theory on the correct way to run a theocracy would be as below (I’m going to explain it at the end). That should address this issue.

"Again so what? What does this have to do at all with our conversation?"/I] What conversation are you **having? The point of this is that you are postulating that your belief system ought to have sway over the behaviour of those who don’t buy it. It has everything to do with this conversation, because you are defining who is moral and who is not by your own personal lights by means of a filter you accepted by default. Or did you at some point do a cross cultural study of faiths and arrive at Catholicism from the outside? I somehow doubt it.

I’m having the discussion about why theocracy is good/bad. And of course I think all people should be Catholics. Does that mean they will? No. But there’s no reason to allow a person to kill another person simply because he has no religion. Matter of factly I’ve faultered a lot in my faith and still do and it took a lot of seaching to get back on the path.
Detales;5426730:

Separation may indeed be an economic doctrin. But it must be a legislative one as well.

Well that’s the whole point of this thread isn’t it?

Please consider again the quote from Senator Goldwater above.

Okay. here it is (with my comments):

Here is Senator Barry Goldwater on the topic: "On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being.

I agree up to here.

But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom.

Well… Not necessarily. Now is the time when we most need to use religious clout.

They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent.

Who wouldn’t? People elect candidates who most share their beliefs.

If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.

Like above, who wouldn’t?

I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, and D.

That’s his problem that he doesn’t want to listen.

Just who do they think they are?

Preachers. It is their job to preach; he does know that, right?

And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?

Their GOD.

And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate.

Then he shouldn’t be a Senator. Getting heckled by voters comes with the job.

I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism." ~Barry Goldwater

Again, that’s his buisness, and many will try to fight him.

"How so?

is religion a monumental chapter in human history? Look in the mirror.

I don’t syntactically understand what you mean here. Could you please explain?

Of course God hates no one. But if you are past the fifth grade, you know that people hate each other in His mame in droves! Put a government behind that and you have the inquisition and the crusades all over again, or jihad, or ethnic cleansing, or whatever.

Those people are not doing a godly thing. Like I said, theocracy has to be very careful. By the way, there are other fora here on why the Inquisition wasn’t as bad as many make it out to be.

…

 

[JSSebastianoP]

…

Who we pray for reflects our own fears and concerns, as well as whowe don’t pray for.

Very deep. True.

Anyone advocating a Theocracy ought first have a profoundly deep understanding of their own psyche. Do you?

Not profoundly deep. But I understand enough to know that I oppose a lot of modern culture but still want to live with the people in it. And why should that be necessary for a theocracy. I’ts helpful anywhere for sure but…

“Man worships GOD, who is above.” and everywhere else. But isn’t it a generalization to say that Man as a species worships God? again. less than a third of the world is christianist, and not all those are solid, by any means. So where does that leave eveyone else?

Yes, there are those that worship the ego; but that is sinful. It’s called pride. That leaves everyone else as non-Christian. Only GOD is the final judge.

“The Church contains the fullness of Truth and is larger that man for it was founded by the divine” So you say, and there are as many ort more who would say that from the perspective of another Church. Perhaps you would like to live under their idea of moraltiy? As for errors, the Church is just gettin around to even admitting that it made any, sixty years ago or ceturies ago, and is still blind to ones it made 1700 or more years ago.

We can discuss the errors of the Church administration on another thread - and I think my hypothesis for a careful theocracy will answer these questions. I know it sounds like I’m using that as an excuse but I need a lot of time to write and I hope that you understand… (I’m still working on answering everything)

…

 

[JSSebastianoP]

And if you don’t think that the Churches as a group are against liberty, please re-examine the history of missionaryism, in our Church or any other. Despite kindnesses and humanitarianism, entire cultures have been destroyed by such ministrations.

But in those cultures destroyed, did not the goodness of Christianity take root? And what does missonary activity have to do with liberty.

And thank you for your quotes. As you may have gathered from the above, I agree that liberty is a duty, as I am very active in the civic arena on the city and county levels. And yes, democracy is very flawed. Jefferson rightly predicted ours would last about 200 years. For my part, I’d rather let it fall and rebuild something simmilar on what we have learned from it, but not under your imagined god whom you ignorantly worship, or any other such.

How do you know I worship my GOD ignorantly. I was, I guess you could say a cradle Catholic, but my parents fell to New Age heresy and myself to grave sins before I was more able to understand my faith. I do not worship ignorantly.

A very influential world leader said some 60-odd years ago that “It is great luck for leaders that men don’t think!” If there is any reason that governments, including our democracy, fail, it is becuse we the people fail to think for ourselves and act in concert for the civic good. The government, any government, can’t think for us, and neither can a god, even of your active imagination. Oh, that was Hitler who said that. So, I’m asking you: what are you thinking?

I know it was Hitler, and a smart although obviously unwise man he was. It is true that men don’t think. How do you think the sexual revolution came about? People think that what’s sweetest must be good for them. I had this argument with someone else before. The sweetest dessert isn’t necessarily best for us. In terms of food, we have scientists who can teach us what is healthy and what is not. In terms of faith, we have the Church. And yes GOD can tell us what to think; He chooses not to (free will). It is when men think that the best and worst things happen. What we as humans have to do is weed out the bad philosophies, like epicurianism. But what people seem to lack today is a disrespect of authority; that is what caused the reformation and some of the new age movement.I know it did in my house. People have free will. But people also need to learn right from wrong. It is a fault of many people nowadays to view all paths as equally valid. It is not thus. Now, people need not be indoctrinated like in North Korea but many fail to see that it is happening in the United States (example: evolution is being taught as fact with no mention of controversy or, children’s books having “two father penguins” raising a young kid). It is when people think that good things happen, yes. But for people to think, they should develop a repect for authority and that which is higher on the ladder. As I said before, it is pride to feel otherwise.

And now, onto my theory for the foundation of a Theocratic State. I call it a Representative Theocracy. In otherwords, the legislative house is made out of candidates who are put in the position to represent a certain religion. In otherwords, say there is a state with 50% Catholics, 20% Orthodox, 10% Lutheran, 10% Orthodox Jew and 10% atheist/agnostic. This states parliament would have 5/9 representatives for Catholic, 2/9 representatives for Orthodox, 1/9 representatives for Lutheran, and 1/9 representatives for Orthodox Judaism. The atheists don’t get a vote as they belong to no religion (don’t know quite how this would work yet). Of course the theory needs fine-tuning, but I think it could work excellently. And these officials could be elected or appointed depending on different procedures for each religion. The main question here is what constitutes a religion and each person has to have a governmental registration for religion (including none, which could disqualify running for office). This way, one can still have a sort of democracy but various theologies would, could, and should play a bigger role. Again it needs a lot of fine tuning, but I’m somewhat attached to the idea of a Representative Theocracy. In addition, debates over policies like homosexuality and abortion can now be taken into a theological realm with apologists instead of lobbyists. What do you think?

By the way, if that didn’t answer any of the questions I said it would for you, would you kindly let me know? Thank you.

Whew… All done typing. :coffeeread:

Pax.

 

[KindredSoul]

And now, onto my theory for the foundation of a Theocratic State. I call it a Representative Theocracy. In otherwords, the legislative house is made out of candidates who are put in the position to represent a certain religion. In otherwords, say there is a state with 50% Catholics, 20% Orthodox, 10% Lutheran, 10% Orthodox Jew and 10% atheist/agnostic. This states parliament would have 5/9 representatives for Catholic, 2/9 representatives for Orthodox, 1/9 representatives for Lutheran, and 1/9 representatives for Orthodox Judaism. The atheists don’t get a vote as they belong to no religion (don’t know quite how this would work yet). Of course the theory needs fine-tuning, but I think it could work excellently. And these officials could be elected or appointed depending on different procedures for each religion. The main question here is what constitutes a religion and each person has to have a governmental registration for religion (including none, which could disqualify running for office). This way, one can still have a sort of democracy but various theologies would, could, and should play a bigger role. Again it needs a lot of fine tuning, but I’m somewhat attached to the idea of a Representative Theocracy. In addition, debates over policies like homosexuality and abortion can now be taken into a theological realm with apologists instead of lobbyists. What do you think?

I would like to say that this doesn’t even sound like a theocracy (don’t fret–I’m complimenting you ) but rather like a true Representative Democracy (America is becoming more and more a pseudo-Representative Democracy * See Below), one where the system takes into account that Religion simply does play an important role in the lives of those being represented. I believe that many Americans (and citizens of other secular democracies) have been conditioned into believing that, if religion plays a factor in government, it’s not truly democratic. I couldn’t disagree more. If my voice really matters, then even if I have a POV based upon religion, that should be represented just as firmly as the POV of an atheist or agnostic. My one caveat is that atheism, being a prevalent enough world view and having a faith-based statement (it takes faith to say “There is no god”, regardless of how atheists may deny that), would qualify for representation after all.

Of course, such a system would be unconstitutional under the current form of the American Constitution; believe it or not, not because of the first amendment (expanded to include all prevalent religions and not only Judeo-Christian ones, your idea wouldn’t seem to respect an establishment of religion so much as it would ensure the fair representation of all religious people’s voices, regardless of whatever religion might guide them, which as I have suggested would include atheism; such fairness is actually the American ideal). Instead, it’s because congress simply doesn’t work that way in the constitution; it would require an amendment of huge proportions to alter the way congress works to that degree, and I highly doubt one would ever be able to get a significant enough amendment out of the modern congress, if one ever could. If you wanted a legal and passable chance to try out your idea, you’d have to propose it in another nation besides America, one where such changes were far more plausible. I’m not sure that nation exists, though.

• When I say America is becoming a pseudo-representative democracy, it is because of such things as Abortion becoming legal (when it became legal, it would never have won by popular or representational vote); such things as those in power trying to overturn Proposition 8 despite that it won by the vote of California’s people. There are even those in power (frighteningly) who would like to make it a hate crime to pronounce certain moral teachings in the public arena, despite that many religions require their followers to spread the teachings as best they can, hence it is a necessary part of religious freedom for them to be able to do so. Certain powers that be, who in some cases have enough power to get things done quite independent of popular/representational vote (hence abortion), are no longer interested in representing the people; they want instead to enforce some brand of religiously touted “Secularism” under the guise of “tolerance” and (their particular interpretation of) “constitutionality.” The irony (read: hypocrisy) of this is that those same powers that be are afraid for religion to have any real power because they fear religion would do the same exact thing they are currently doing, just in a way that isn’t pleasing to their world view. It seems they think it’s okay when a Secular force (religiously devoted to Secularism, mind you) does it. If a religious force does it, however, it’s called tyranny. Hypocrisy indeed.

 

[EasterJoy]

In addition to the many encyclicals that touch on the role and duty of the laity in forming a temporal society based on true moral justice, the OP might also find the following document useful. It is posted at the Vatican’s website. I post just an isolated exerpt, to give a sense of the kind of measured reasoning and careful explanations it contains. There is much, much more in it, and I highly recommend reading it:

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
DOCTRINAL NOTE
on some questions regarding
The Participation of Catholics in Political Life
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

“On the level of concrete political action, there can generally be a plurality of political parties in which Catholics may exercise – especially through legislative assemblies – their right and duty to contribute to the public life of their country.[16] This arises because of the contingent nature of certain choices regarding the ordering of society, the variety of strategies available for accomplishing or guaranteeing the same fundamental value, the possibility of different interpretations of the basic principles of political theory, and the technical complexity of many political problems. It should not be confused, however, with an ambiguous pluralism in the choice of moral principles or essential values. The legitimate plurality of temporal options is at the origin of the commitment of Catholics to politics and relates directly to Christian moral and social teaching. It is in the light of this teaching that lay Catholics must assess their participation in political life so as to be sure that it is marked by a coherent responsibility for temporal reality.
The Church recognizes that while democracy is the best expression of the direct participation of citizens in political choices, it succeeds only to the extent that it is based on a correct understanding of the human person.[17] Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on this principle, for otherwise the witness of the Christian faith in the world, as well as the unity and interior coherence of the faithful, would be non-existent. The democratic structures on which the modern state is based would be quite fragile were its foundation not the centrality of the human person. It is respect for the person that makes democratic participation possible. As the Second Vatican Council teaches, the protection of «the rights of the person is, indeed, a necessary condition for citizens, individually and collectively, to play an active part in public life and administration».[18]”

 

[EasterJoy]

…And now, onto my theory for the foundation of a Theocratic State. I call it a Representative Theocracy. In otherwords, the legislative house is made out of candidates who are put in the position to represent a certain religion. In otherwords, say there is a state with 50% Catholics, 20% Orthodox, 10% Lutheran, 10% Orthodox Jew and 10% atheist/agnostic. This states parliament would have 5/9 representatives for Catholic, 2/9 representatives for Orthodox, 1/9 representatives for Lutheran, and 1/9 representatives for Orthodox Judaism. The atheists don’t get a vote as they belong to no religion (don’t know quite how this would work yet). Of course the theory needs fine-tuning, but I think it could work excellently. And these officials could be elected or appointed depending on different procedures for each religion. The main question here is what constitutes a religion and each person has to have a governmental registration for religion (including none, which could disqualify running for office). This way, one can still have a sort of democracy but various theologies would, could, and should play a bigger role. Again it needs a lot of fine tuning, but I’m somewhat attached to the idea of a Representative Theocracy…

I would much rather have laws made by a wise atheist who is firmly rooted in sound moral principles, as dictated by natural law, than a theist who does not understand how to respect the rights of others.

Besides, it is not right to take away the vote or the opportunity to run for political office from people of good will and sound moral reasoning who have not been given the gift of faith in God. The truth is, the Church does not teach that Heaven is impossible for someone who pursues virtue and yet, because of invincible ignorance, does not accept the existence of God. If Heaven is not closed to them, how much less should they be barred from participating fully in temporal government!

It is difficult enough to find people wise enough and courageous enough to make excellent statesmen. All those of merit should be allowed to stand for election. Formal religious affiliation alone, unfortunately, is not a particularly good predictor of this kind of merit. Some identify with a particular religions, but interpret its moral law badly. Some understand moral law very well, but do not know how to lead or how to craft laws that are practically applicable. The field of candidates is narrow enough as it is!

For example, there are a lot of Catholics who would rather be represented by the Mormon Gordon Smith than by the Catholic Nancy Pelosi. Would you like it if you could only vote for those candidates who are officially members of the Roman Catholic Church? I highly doubt it. You’d choose an atheist who was against abortion and euthanasia over a Catholic who would permit these, every day of the week, wouldn’t you?

Also, consider that by your reckoning, the State of Oregon would have to fill its legislative chambers with a majority of people who say they believe in God but who do not identify with any particular religion and who never go to church. If your definition of “theist” doesn’t include them, you’re going to have a bit of trouble on your hands.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

Besides, it is not right to take away the vote or the opportunity to run for political office from people of good will and sound moral reasoning who have not been given the gift of faith in God. The truth is, the Church does not teach that Heaven is impossible for someone who pursues virtue and yet, because of invincible ignorance, does not accept the existence of God. If Heaven is not closed to them, how much less should they be barred from participating fully in temporal government!

I did express uneasiness at how to handle atheists in the political system you know. My idea is most certainly far from perfect.

It is difficult enough to find people wise enough and courageous enough to make excellent statesmen. All those of merit should be allowed to stand for election. Formal religious affiliation alone, unfortunately, is not a particularly good predictor of this kind of merit. Some identify with a particular religions, but interpret its moral law badly. Some understand moral law very well, but do not know how to lead or how to craft laws that are practically applicable. The field of candidates is narrow enough as it is!

For example, there are a lot of Catholics who would rather be represented by the Mormon Gordon Smith than by the Catholic Nancy Pelosi. Would you like it if you could only vote for those candidates who are officially members of the Roman Catholic Church? I highly doubt it. You’d choose an atheist who was against abortion and euthanasia over a Catholic who would permit these, every day of the week, wouldn’t you?

I know that. My point, though, is that in this new form of government, the various religious leaders would be less afraid to speak up and so many people who are of one religion would actually understand what that means. In our modern culture, many people go to Church on only Easter and Christmas. If we made it so that once again it was something unheard of not to go to Church on Sunday, or Synogogue on Saturday, or Mosque on Sunday, then people would understand theologically what is more important. In addition, it would be easier in a Theocratic State to bring arguments over anything into the apologetic realm. If politicians or groups had to debate apologetically rather than for lobbyists, more than not (I would hope), we would come to the right answer.

Also, consider that by your reckoning, the State of Oregon would have to fill its legislative chambers with a majority of people who say they believe in God but who do not identify with any particular religion and who never go to church. If your definition of “theist” doesn’t include them, you’re going to have a bit of trouble on your hands.

Yes. The major kink in my theory to be worked out is the atheist/agnostic question. I am not proclaiming to have any answers as of yet, though…

And this is only one potential way for running a Theocratic State; authoritarianism can be but is not intrinsically evil.

Pax.

 

[Angel7]

O.K its like this

Speration between church and state

State does no intervene with Church affairs (doesn’t appoint bishops, or cardinals etc… doesn’t affect papal elections.)

Church does not intervene in state affairs (it only supports or condems certain actions, and cannot force belief on people.

In a Secular Gov.

you can seperate the Theology from State.
But not the Morality.
The Morality forms the bases of Moral and Civil law.
Its also not the state’s fault, but mostly ours.
Evil wins when Good people are sit down, take a nap, and let it fall apart.
Evil loses when Good people actualy do something.

A theocracy ( even a christian one) would only force a belief on un-believers.
As it is said “Truth, will out”
Truth will reach the people one way or another.
Christ is the way, Jesus is the Truth.
Don’t force truth on people, because it is already there.
Let truth find its way naturally.

If something is forced on someone, even if it is truth, it provokes hostility.
We must bring people to G-d, by prayer, and Love. Not Force, and Authority.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

O.K its like this

Speration between church and state

State does no intervene with Church affairs (doesn’t appoint bishops, or cardinals etc… doesn’t affect papal elections.)

Church does not intervene in state affairs (it only supports or condems certain actions, and cannot force belief on people.

In a Secular Gov.

**you can seperate the Theology from State.
But not the Morality.**The Morality forms the bases of Moral and Civil law.
Its also not the state’s fault, but mostly ours.
Evil wins when Good people are sit down, take a nap, and let it fall apart.
Evil loses when Good people actualy do something.

Although as I’m sure you know I disagree with you on some points, I have to applaud this statement - especially the bolded part.

Pax,
Sebastiano

 

[thunderballs75]

I’m more leaning towards Christian democracy. It’s basically social democracy, except with Catholic morality (in terms of abortion, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, etc).

We don’t need to necessarily make a theocracy. Forcing on un-believers was condemned by Pius XII, because it doesn’t necessarily bring about true conversion of the heart, and may even cause scandal. Also, I don’t know that clerics are the best at running governments.

HOWEVER we do need to get rid of this taboo about considering God when we make political decisions. This “oooh don’t go there” kind of thing. This thing where you mention the word “God” and everybody has a fit. Secularism in society is what we need to get rid of mainly, and possibly establish Catholic morality as the basis of our policies. Understand what I’m saying?

 

[Angel7]

I’m more leaning towards Christian democracy. It’s basically social democracy, except with Catholic morality (in terms of abortion, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, etc).

We don’t need to necessarily make a theocracy. Forcing on un-believers was condemned by Pius XII, because it doesn’t necessarily bring about true conversion of the heart, and may even cause scandal. Also, I don’t know that clerics are the best at running governments.

HOWEVER we do need to get rid of this taboo about considering God when we make political decisions. This “oooh don’t go there” kind of thing. This thing where you mention the word “God” and everybody has a fit. Secularism in society is what we need to get rid of mainly, and possibly establish Catholic morality as the basis of our policies. Understand what I’m saying?

Thats what I was thinking!
We can seperate the Theology from goverment. Don’t force it on people
But the Morality is what we bring into the state

 

[mdgspencer]

It would be difficult for me to say a theocracy (as some people here define it) is wrong, in view of the fact that Israel in the Old Testament had such an arrangement. For example, according to the law of Moses, if a man died without a child the closest relative was to marry his widow, and in fact this very thing is what the story of the Book of Ruth turns on. There are very many other things in the law of Moses, which the Pentateuch shows as being revealed by God, which became part of the law of Israel. The only way I would see of getting out of the logic of this situation would be to say that the Bible is not the word of God. However, this is something that a Catholic cannot properly say, though of course a liberal Protestant would be quick to show that he doesn’t accept that the Bible is the word of God.
It is true that sometimes a theocracy is bad. The American colonies before the Revolution were theocracies and Catholicism was illegal, priests not allowed to say mass. There were some abhorrent laws there against Catholicism. We all can provide such bad examples. In Saudi Arabia Christianity is illegal, and people are being put into prison just for having a Bible.
But there are many cases where something is bad sometimes, good another. What about Israel? Was the law estabished by God bad?

 

[EasterJoy]

It would be difficult for me to say a theocracy (as some people here define it) is wrong, in view of the fact that Israel in the Old Testament had such an arrangement…

God gave the people of Israel a king because they stubbornly insisted on it. It didn’t work out particularly well for them. They had some really lousy kings, in fact.

They wanted to make Jesus a king, too, and He didn’t go for it. That isn’t the kind of kingdom He was interested in establishing. Neither did the Apostles look to establish that kind of a Church. There is no reason to believe that God has the least interest in the establishment of Christian theocracies. The Old Testament gives one example after another as to why it is a bad idea, the New Testament doesn’t teach it, and the Church doesn’t teach it.

If God does not want it, why would we?

“Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar…”

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

God gave the people of Israel a king because they stubbornly insisted on it. It didn’t work out particularly well for them. They had some really lousy kings, in fact.

They wanted to make Jesus a king, too, and He didn’t go for it. That isn’t the kind of kingdom He was interested in establishing. Neither did the Apostles look to establish that kind of a Church. There is no reason to believe that God has the least interest in the establishment of Christian theocracies. The Old Testament gives one example after another as to why it is a bad idea, the New Testament doesn’t teach it, and the Church doesn’t teach it.

If God does not want it, why would we?

“Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar…”

Jesus didn’t attempt to abolish slavery or prostitution either. Does this mean that we should just leave these things go? I don’t think we should. I don’t think we could call ourselves Christians if we did. Like I stated before, we’re not looking for some petty, temporal power. We just want to make sure that men like Obama don’t get in office and are allowed to legislate in favor of MURDER and state-sanctioned sodomy because the majority are either stupid or spiritually apathetic We just want to make sure that whether or not the state is going to spit in God’s face for 4 years isn’t left up to majority vote. Why would any Christian oppose that?