Talk:Theocracy

Please post new comments at the bottom of the page!

How about some examples, present or past, of Theocracies?

Jrosenzweig, why have you dropped my additions? - 23.03.

I merged this page and Hierocracy and made the latter redirect here. Joshua Boniface 19:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The merger was a mistake. Hierocracy is something completely different -- a term invented by Weber to refer to the hierarchical order of clerics within a religion, so it is not a form of government in the normal sense at all. I have not found how to edit the first paragraph of an article: if someone else knows how to do this please delete the line on hierocracy. Sen Mcglinn 01:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

USA

The definition of theocracy is a government ruled by or subject to religious authority. That description doesnt fit America even if its president is a Christian. If you call America a theocracy then every country in the world (with possible exeption of one or two communist countries) would be a theocracy.

Im removing the USA from the list since it is not based on facts but rather a political opinion.

Iraq

To whomever wrote the grammatically and factually incorrect paragraph below: The Iraqi Constitution states that no law can contradict Islamic law. How is this not a theocracy?

I removed "Also, the Iraqis have recently elected a government based heavily on religion." - being ruled by religious parties do not qualify them for theocracy, especially when there is no role for clergy in government, and laws are largely based on secular tradition, and those that aren't are interpreted by a secular judiciary.

Iraq might become a theocracy, but they clearly aren't.

[[ This is my first time on wikipedia and I have not found how to make my own comments page, so I am putting the comment here. I just changed the piece on hierocracy, because I've never heard it used as a synonym for theocracy, and it has its own perfectly clear meaning in the work of Weber which has been widely adopted. I suspect that whoever wrote that bit had no idea what he was talking about.

I find the whole entry for theocracy completely unsatisfactory, starting with the definition. Again, it reads as if the writers had no idea about the subject and have it confused with several other topics. I think it would be hopeless to try to repair the page by successive edits. It needs to start with a proper definition of theocracy that distinguishes theocracy from caesaropapism and clearly says that a pious society is NOT by definition a theocracy, and also that church establishment is not compatible with theocracy, but is compatible with caesaropapism. Theocracy is a form of government, not a social quality, it can be defined as " "a government in which the persons and institutions of the religious order either control or replace the organs of the civil government." (Sen McGlinn, Church and State, page 243).

Then it is clear that Iran is a theocracy, Saudi Arabia is not, and so on through all the other questions discussed here. The problem is a vague and too broad definition at the outset. One should rather start with a clear and hard definition, and later note that in popular usage the term has become an almost meaningless pejoritive applied to religion in public places.

Can somebody enlighten me about how one goes about fixing the page? One obvious step would be to ask for input via the editors of the Journal of Church and State (Baylor University, they have a research school on this topic). Email me at Sen.sonja [at] Casema.NL - Sen McGlinn ]]

Queen of England

My understanding is that the Queen is head of the Church in England, but not of the Anglican Communion. I would be surprised to learn, for example, that Episcopalians in the USA recognize the Queen as head of an organization to which their church belongs. For that matter, I would be surprised to find that the Queen is head of the Anglican church in Canada, where she is head of state. If I am right in this, then the comments about the Queen, as applied to countries other than Britain where she is head of state, don't really make sense. And they wouldn't make sense in all of Britain either, since, although she is head of state in Wales and Scotland, she is not head of the Anglican churches there. So those remarks should apply only to England. Michael Hardy 16:55, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Makarios

Is Archbishop Makarios III considered a theocrat? During all of the time when he was head of state in Cyprus, he was also head of the Cypriot Orthodox Church, which, being autocephalous, was not subordinate to any higher church official. By the definition given in the article, he would have been a theocrat. But he did not become head of state by virtue of his office in the church, but was separately elected head of state. Moreover, during the time when he was out of office as head of state, he continued in office as head of the church. So being head of the church by itself did not make him head of state. In that respect, he appears not to have been a theocrat. So I think the definition should be emended so that it says more than just that the ruler of the church is the same person who is the ruler of the state. Michael Hardy 17:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

--

Earlier this week, I removed the link to the Republican Party because I don't accept the notion that the Republicans are, per se, theocratic. Someone reverted it. But there are definitely atheist and agnostic Republicans, and others who simply aren't very religious. I don't see how the Republicans fit the definition of theocracy as defined in the article. Perhaps this is a controversial issue that needs to be addressed in the article itself?

On the Republican issue, should there be a reference in the definition to both the ambiguity and the derisiveness of the term? By that I mean "theocracy" is most always used falsely, and most always used insultingly. I live in Utah. Constantly I hear liberals on the news referring to Utah as a theocracy, and they always say that as an insult. Plus, with this war against terrorism, the media loves to dichotomize it into a war of democracy against theocracy, which simply isn't the case, and is barely relevant.

Constitution Party

The Constitution party in the United States is not a theocracy according to the definition. Their candidate for president in the 2004 election is not a religious leader at all, but rather a lawyer. Furthermore, the conservative Christian view that many in the Constitution party share is not a dominant religion in the US nor does it have any leaders at a national level. While there are conservative Christians who are recognized on a national level, they have no legitimate claim to represent Christians who are members of independent churches or even larger denominations. And even these so-called leaders are not running for office in the Constitution Party.

The inclusion of the Constitution Party in a list of theocratic parties smacks of a pejorative use of the term theocracy in a country in which a secular majority resents the political participation of a conservative Christian minority. There is no intellectual honesty in its inclusion.

Grand so. The United States should be removed from the list until someone comes up with an actual theocratic party.Evertype 11:49, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

Other theocracies?

As a thought experiment, consider the following:
1) In country A, the head of state (King or Queen) is also the head of the official state religion.
2) In the same country, the head of state is just a figurehead.
3) Still, the political leader, e.g. the prime minister, is also a religious leader, e.g. a mullah, rabbi or priest.

Points 1) and 2) are true of the UK, but the UK is of course not a theocracy - the prime minister is not a priest, mulla or rabbi. Would a country where all 3 points are true be a theocracy?

Does it matter if the political leader is not a religious leader as a function of his political office, but trough education or a position held previous to taking political office?

Incidentally, all three points hold for Norway. Spazzm 08:01, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

Not to mention that more than half, i.e. 10 out of 19 of the Norwegian Council of State has to be a member of the state church. Though, the only 'drawback' to not being a member of the Church in this case is that you don't get to influence matters concerning the Church. Still sounds a bit dubious to me.. Joffeloff 09:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States Theocratic Parties

It's really quite hypocritical that whoever is trying to have control over this page keeps erasing the entries for the USA Constitution and Republican Parties, as if pointing out theocracy in other nations is fine, but not pointing out our own theocratic parties isn't correct for the wikipedia.

I also see a Christian fundamentalist has posted here in the comments section to complain that "the majority is ruling over the conservative evangelicals" to "prevent them from full participation in government" what a load of horse hockey. No. These fundagelicals want to "participate in government" by unconstitutionally turning this into a "christian nation," and THAT is theocracy. The christian evangelical fundamentalists who own both the Constitution party and the Republican party are not happy with their freedom and participation to pray as they wish, not have abortions, etc. they MUST force that on the rest of the citizenry. This is not "participation" this is theocracy. Government by religion. And both the Republican Party and especially the Constitution Party have adopted religious laws and the enforcement of religious laws into their platforms.

This is not to say all Republicans are theocratic, the Republican party has been hijacked by fundagelicals. So, someday their platform including some religious laws could change back to a secular party prior to Bush. However, the Constitution party is FOUNDED on religious law and the enforcement of religious law so there should be no erasing of their entry here.

The comments above are full of logical errors, from attacking a straw man quotation that don't appear to refer to any actual comments here, to ad hominem attacks, to unsubstantiated charges that Christians want to force non-Christians to pray, to attacking positions by calling them "horse hockey",to using non-words such as "fundagelical". Let's please raise the level of intellectual discourse on this site.

"to using non-words such as "fundagelical"" I wasn't aware that portmanteaus were inherently non-intellectual parts of English!

Constitution Party Should Be Listed

They promote religious laws in government and would enforce religious laws if elected.

   Please embelish on this. Have you any examples?~~Nrich~~

Qualification as Theocracy

I am not sure Afghanistan belongs on the list. Saudi Arabia is a closer example of an Islamic state where all law follows Sharia and religious scholars play a recognized and central role.If the refernece intended to indicate Afghanistan under Taliban rule rather than today,that entity was known as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 21:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia is a Monarchy: the religious officials are controlled by the ruling family. A theocracy is the opposite of this. Sen Mcglinn 12:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian Parties

Two of them, Humanist Democratic Centre, Christian-Democratic and Flemish are not theocratic parties. I thik it's really funny they are mentioned here, but really, they equate to the German CDU. In fact, they are wussies (like most Roman Catholics). I have removed them. Phlebas 16:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Past Examples

Should there not be examples of theocracies in the past? Maybe the various Islamic caliphates, the Papal States (before Italian unification) or Florence under Savonarola. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples from other areas of the world that i am not aware of. SRP 12:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have added some on that. I'm not sure all the examples I gave are valid, but I tried to avoid getting too "out there" with my examples. Also I've tried to limit the parties to ones that are more genuinely close to theocratic. Problem is most existing theocratic parties are already listed under Constitutional theocracy--T. Anthony 16:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. List

These three can be justified using published cites in reputable sources. The Republican Party does not endorse the idea of a theocracy. It is arguable that some members and leaders and elected officials slide toward theocratic ideas, but not the entire Republican Party.--Cberlet 19:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic dynasties are theocracies?

I don't remember ever reading that the Islamic clergy or Fuqahaa' have had any permanent control, or more or equal power, than the caliph himself (i.e. the caliphate was more of a dictatorship). They may have influenced some decisions here or there, but the main power structure of the dynasties never required their existence or their role. I think, for the most part, they were marginalized. Can someone provide a source for what is said on the page?

Following what I've said above, I have removed references to Abbasid, Umayyad, and Fatimid Caliphates. My source is "How caliphate turned into kingship" section of Ibn Khaldun's The Muqaddimah. ----

I put back the early umayyad and Abbasid caliphates, because the justification for the rule of the Caliph was at that time largely religious. Somewhere fairly early each of these caliphates becomes a dynasty, its main purpose becomes power not piety, and so far as it continues to have religious influence at all it is a caesaropapist not theocratic regime. Sen Mcglinn 01:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Theocratic parties and movements

According to the definition in the article which includes "civil rulers identical with leaders of dominant religion" and "government claims to rule on behalf of God or a higher power", I don't think any of the parties and movements qualify. They all look more like organisations claiming to uphold religious values and principles. That doesn't make them "theocratic". The most well known government that could possibly be quaified as theocratic today is the Vatican, and it isn't even mentioned here! --Yodakii 18:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating personal POV. I tweaked the title and restored the list. Return to editing when you can actually cite a published source.--Cberlet 20:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of the groups on the list define themselves as "theocratic". They are listed without explanation. That is POV. If you're going to make lists, its you who has to cite sources. How about a short explaination for each entry explaining how it can be considered theocratic? It would help make a better article. --Yodakii 02:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The term theocracy is generally applied by analysts. It is overly simplistic to claim that if a group does not use the term itself then it is not fair to use the term. That erases much of social science.--Cberlet 03:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying its not fair. I'm saying there is no explanation to show for any analysis if there is any. --Yodakii 03:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be this party in the US I saw by accident called the "Christian Nationalist Party." They insisted if they didn't get elected God would make the streets run red with blood. It was something of a "hard sale" approach to getting votes and I think they never got more than a thousand nationwide. If I ever bump into a mention of them in a news article again I'll add them.--T. Anthony 15:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not my list, but it looks consistent with much of the research I have read. I will start to toss in cites as I find them.--Cberlet 21:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The US Republican party is just as theocratic as any of the other groups in the list, because it seems it is all a matter of opinion. I think the list should removed until valid citations can be found. --Yodakii 15:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added the, very minor, Christian Falangist party but are they maybe more like Fascist?--T. Anthony 17:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The GOP isn't theocratic, learn the definition. -- Jbamb 01:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the parties listed do not appear to be theocratic. When I tried to remove one that I know is a monarchist not theocratic party, the change was blocked. It looks rather as if various people are using this page to defame parties they do not like by calling them theocratic. I suggest the entire "theocratic parties" section should be scrapped, to start again listing only parties for which there is actual documentary evidence that they have a theocratic programme. Wikipedia's credibility requires some protection from the polemic use of articles. Sen McGlinn 83.85.7.169 00:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pruning the list

I removed many names on the list. Some I removed might've been valid, but there's such a strong controversy over the issue I decided to take out many of them. If anyone has objections to ones still on the list tell me. If valid sourcing indicates some should be returned feel free to do so. I considered just getting rid of the list and having it just say See Islamic party and Constitutional theocracy--T. Anthony 08:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the title of the section reads:

Parties and movements with theocratic aspects

Prune accordingly.--Cberlet 12:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Republican Party should be included

It is quite annoying to see that whenever somebody adds the Republican Party to this list it immediately gets removed. Although the Republicans may not be as theocratic as other parties, such as the U.S. Constitution Party, there are real theocratic and dominionist elements within the GOP. Just look at how President Bush courted the religious right in 2004 with a quasi-theocratic agenda - prayer and creationism in public schools, outlawing abortion, restricting stem cell research funding, reducing (or even eliminating) the separation of church and state, and he's even nominated a few judges which believe in biblical law. You can also listen to some of his major speeches and pick out several "code words" he uses to please the religious right, such as "wonder working power." One problem is that many Republicans viciously try to hide the theocratic elements (like consistently removing the link from this page) of their party from the public, so that their candidates can still seem appealing to "moderates" or "swing voters" while at the same time they try to appease the religious right. If you seriously don't believe that theocracy and dominionism play any role in the Republican Coalition, visit theocracywatch.org, which contains FACTUAL information on how much of a role the theocrats play in the GOP today.

Here are several reasons why the Republican Party is worthy of a link from this page:

1.) Christopher Shays, a moderate Republican from Connecticut (who frequently spars with his party) actually stated in March of 2005 that the "Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy" (Source: New York Times, March 23, 2005)

2.) The Constitution Restoration Act, sponsored by REPUBLICANS Richard Shelby and Robert Aderholt would prevent the Supreme Coutt from reviewing cases involving God as the sovereign source of law. Many see this as an attempt by the Republican Party to lay the groundwork of advancing dominionism in the United States.

3.) Last year several Republicans introduced a bill (HR 2123) in the U.S. House of Representatives which would allow for religious discrimination for hiring in Head Start programs; this bill narrowly passed with almost all Republicans voting in favor and almost all Democrats voting against (Source: theocracywatch.org)

4.) The Ohio Restoration Project, a group which advocates for dominionist principles is actively working to get Republican Kenneth Blackwell elected governor in Ohio, and is also working to get many other Republicans elected to higher office in Ohio (Source: theocracywatch.org)

5.) Does anybody not agree that the whole Terry Schiavo fiasco last year had absolutely nothing to do with theocratic or biblical principles?

6.) Justice Sundays are now becoming frequent events where prominent religious right members, rally in support of President Bush's judges. One simple question - why would the religious right actually be holding ceremonies to rally behind these judges if they absolutely HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEOCRACY OR DOMINIONISM. You should also note that several prominent Republican Party members, such as Bill Frist and Rick Santorum have spoken at these events. If the Republican Party is not theocratic, then why are many of their members attending religious right events?

7.) Why did Bush appoint Rod Paige to be his secretary of education when he has advocated for theocratic principles - he firmly believes that christianity should play a role in public education and has even been quoted saying, "all things equal, I would prefer to have a child in a school that has a strong appreciation for the values of the Christian community, where a child is taught to have a strong faith." (Source: theocracywatch.org)

8.) Why were Bush and Cheney meeting with many of the top religious right leaders, such as James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family before selecting supreme court justice Harriet Myers? Why did they need to contact them at all if they had no itention of trying to nominate a judge which supported some theocratic principles? It has been noted that Bush regularly is in contact with many prominent theocratic leaders, such as James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Jerry Falwell, and Sun Myung Moon.

9.) From an Associated Press article in June of 2005 - "Falwell credited evangelicals for putting President Bush in office in 2004" and Falwell stated "The church won the 2004 elections and don't let anyone tell you any differently."

10.) It is stated in the Republican Party platform of Texas that it "affirms the United States of America is a Christian Nation"

11.) Bush appointed Paul Hoffman to head the U.S. Interior Department. "Hoffman would explicitly allow the sale of religious merchandise, and or evolutionary processes. He does everything possible to strip away a scientific basis for park management." Another article states, " Last year, he overruled geologists at the Grand Canyon National Park and instructed the park's visitor centers to stock a creationist book that explained how God made the canyon 6,000 years ago, ordering up a flood to wipe out "the wickedness of man."" (Source: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20051017&s=hacks101705) Why is Bush appointing a member of his administration to head the national parks when he wants to remove evolution from the parks and promote creationism? You surely don't call this another attempt by Bush and the Republicans to start to lay the groundwork for dominionism?

12.) Many are also claiming that Bush's faith based initiatives are an inutial step in laying the groundwork for theocracy and dominionism. There is a good article on this - go to http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=16391. The article is titled "Slouching toward theocracy President Bush's faith-based initiative is doing better than you think"

13.) Under Bush and the Republicans, religious-based prisons are now being opened. Jeb Bushsaid "I can't think of a better place to reflect on the awesome love of our Lord Jesus than to be here at Lawtey Correctional." Read an article on this -http://www.theocracywatch.org/jeb_bush_rel_prison_dec25_03.htm

14.) The Christian Coalition interest group which is working to promote theocratic and dominionist principles in the United States gave the majority (41 out of 51) of Republican senators 100% ratings in 2004 for supporting all their sponsored bills. (The three lowest scorers in the GOP were Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins who received 60% marks. Even the so-called "moderates" in the Republican Party vote in favor of the Christian Coalition agenda more than half the time. This evidently shows that the majority of Republicans lean towards theocratic principles (quite contrary to what somebody posted above that only SOME support theocratic principles)

Of course it's always be removed, it should always be removed. The whining of some liberal Republicans doesn't make the party theocratic. It's had the executive and legislative branch for most of the last six years, but there's no state church and in fact atheist rights are increasing in the courts. I'd get into specifics, but all your specifics are "I don't like them and I can find a website that agrees!"--T. Anthony 01:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read the examples. All they show is that theocracy is widely used as a vague pejorative term for "religious" in America at present. The whole theocracywatch site comes down to a demonstration that you can claim anything, if you start with a vague untenable definition of your terms. Wikipedia is not an American resource, it is a global resource. It's use for local polemics is very regretable. In a theocracy, the religious leaders and/or organisations either displace or control the organs of civil government *as religious leaders.* If a believer becomes president, we do not have theocracy. But if a believer becomes president because he leads the official church, or if the leader of the official church has a veto on the president's decisions (as in Iran), that is a theocracy. One more time, for those who don't get it: the involvement of religious people in politics is not theocracy.

In my book Church and State I've explained the terms in more detail:

Caeseropapism: in Christian theology, the doctrine that the state is supreme over the church in religious matters, thus, that Caesar (the ruler) is in effect the Pope. In sociology, a caeseropapist society is one in which the highest political organ is able to enforce its will on an effectively operating religious hierarchy. Caeseropapism can only arise where the political ruler possesses an autonomous legitimation (charisma). The use of the religious hierarchy as an arm of government distinguishes caeseropapism from the mere endorsement of one religion by the rulers. To function in practice, caeseropapism requires an effective religious hierarchy with a high degree of compliance from the population. Regimes which have and control their own court religion which does not extend to the population are not caeseropapist. Caeseropapism is distinct from theocracy in that religion is made to serve the needs and logic of the state, whereas in theocracy politics is subordinated to a religious logic, and the political order to religious authorities. Ancient Egypt was therefore a caeseropapist, and not a theocratic, state, for while the Pharaoh as God-king might present himself as a divine ruler, the logic of the pharaohs’ rule was governed by political needs. Caeseropapist societies are therefore highly stable, whereas theocratic societies are always short-lived. Sen Mcglinn 13:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List

OK, I see that you are frustrated over the list discussion, T. Anthony, but deleting the whole list is not acceptable. One at a time with discussion, please.--Cberlet 03:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously none of the items in the list can actually be considered "theocratic", which is why a vague term like "aspects" is being used here. "Theocratic aspects" is so vague its meaningless. The list should be renamed to say "Parties and movements with unpopular aspects" (that could include every movement claiming to be based on some kind of ideology - including liberalism and marxism.)

This article should give the reader a clear idea of what theocracy is. Filling it up with only partially related ideas, doesn't make up for lack of content and poor quality, it only makes things more confusing. The parties and movements list doesn't contribute anything positive to the article and should be removed. Instead I suggest rewriting that section and the "Current states with theocratic aspects" to remove the "aspects" part and concentrate on clarifying which existing organisations are actually considered theocratic according to the definition and some representative examples showing why others that may be mistakingly considered theocratic (or having "theocratic aspects") are not. --Yodakii 04:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was largely irritation, but the fact is there has been problems with this list from the get go. In the modern West particularly "theocratic" is something like a slur, much like Fascist is an epithet. Added to that the list was not providing much information not covered by the articles on Islamic party or the list in Constitutional theocracy. Yodakii also points out the problems better than I.--T. Anthony 05:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just wanted to see a discussion. It makes sense now. I reverted myself. :-) --Cberlet 14:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republicans again

(moved from above) I struck the reference to the Republicans being allegedly Theocratic. Saying that some elements of party policy may be influenced by religion is not the same as a theocracy. No one in any major position of power with in the party is calling for anything resembling government by religious leaders. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and hope I did not violate any protocols in editing this page. (unsigned)

Your opinion is your opinion. It is not shared by everyone. A number of published sources make claims about theocracy and the Republicans. Please do not delete material based on your opinion. If you go to the pages listed, you will see numerous cites. You may not agree with them, but this wording you deleted is a compromise, and it is based on reputable published material. Please discuss such matters before simply deleting material. And, yes, spend some time learning the "protocols" here and help us write a useful encyclopedia that reflects more than one viewpoint.--Cberlet 04:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can make an argument any political party in a majority religious nation is theocratic using similar arguments to the one used on Republicans. Democratic Party candidates actively promote themselves at churches and there is an Evangelical left. In Ireland many parties have been strongly associated with applying Catholic social teaching to politics. Similar things could be said for many of the Christian Democracy parties. There's really no evidence that any mainstream Republican figure intends for Biblical laws to replace the Constitution and I'm skeptical you'd ever find any. Also I thought we got rid of the list to end debates like this.--T. Anthony 06:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the US a theocracy because it has set policies in place that suggest a "slippery slope" is no more scholarly than calling a slowing economy a recession. Remove the US from theocracy. Eddie Tejeda 00:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just be because something has a published source doesn't mean it is true. One can find published sources saying nearly everything. Whenever any quack or conspiracy theorist has has the right to have their opinion included just because there is a published source about it, it detracts from the ability to create "a useful encyclopedia." Furthermore, the article is implying that the Repubuplican Party has connections to fascism. If this is to be allowed then the Democratic Party could just as easily be accused of communism. Both accusations are baseless and should not be part of "a useful encyclopedia." Such accusations are purely a manner of opinion, and any legitimate published encyclopedia like the Encyclopedia Britanica would ever make such as baseless and biased accusation or even imply such an accusation. I dispute the NPOV of this article. (unsigned)

Democratic theocracy?

Has anyone else ever heard of this concept? Should I write an article about it or add a section to this one? Admittedly, this idea isn't talked about much nowadays. (i.e. voting on whether or not God actually said something or not) --Nerd42 05:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a few occasions I have heard the U.S.A. being referred to as an "Elected Theocracy", which I'm not sure if I should add. Hope that's relevant!!! --Gophergun 18:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the term "Theocracy" has been diluted by many correspondents here above to include politically enforced religious faith (eg" "Islamic Republic"), or a political agenda to promote a set of religious values (eg: "USA Republican Party activism"). I feel the term "Theocracy" should remain as a form of "statehood" (not as a form of "government of the day" (even though it may be difficult to change in the short / medium term) where the church (of any faith) and the state are intimately one and the same, with the same head of state (as a title, not the person) and the same head of thechurch (as a title, not the person) as being mutually "ex-officio" one to the other. Therefore, under my understanding of a Theocracy, there are only 3 current Theocracies in the world, one of which happens to be currently under occupation by another foreign power where the Head of the State and the Head of the Church are in an exile situation. They are: Vatican City - the Pope, whomever he may be at the time is personally irrelevant, is both the Head of State of Vatican City and "ex-officio" is the Head of the Roman Catholic Church; England - the Monarch of England, whichever King or Queen happens to be at the time is personally irrelevant, is both the Head of State of England and "ex-officio" is the Head of the Church of England; and Tibet - The Dalai Lama, whomever he may be at the time is personally irrelevant, is both the Head of State of Tibet and "ex-officio" is the Head (in fact, the Divinity Himself passing on in the progression of the human Dalai Lamas over historical time) of Tibetan Buddhist Religion. I do not see in any other country that total union of Church and State via the same Position of the Head oF Both Church and State which would transcend a persona or government of the day and the "canon", "talmudic", or "sharia" or other religious law of the day to intimately unite Religion and State in the way these 3 counries do in their totally united essences. I feel all these other attenmpts to paint a country as being "theocratic" are attempts to politicise religion on the one hand, or religionise politics in the government and "flavour of the day" reigious fads in a society. That is not Theocracy what is about.

Sincerely, Vytaitas B. Radzivanas, Perth, Western Australia

Somalia

Can Islamic Courts Union-controlled Somalia possibly be considered an emerging theocracy? According to this CNN article:[1]:

"The ICU, which wrested control of Mogadishu from a U.S.-backed coalition of secular warlords earlier this month, has called for the establishment of Islamic law in Somalia."

And according to this BBC article: [2]

"A Somali teenager has stabbed to death his father's killer in a public execution ordered by an Islamic court."

Now, does that sound like the sort of thing the average court in a non-theocracatic county would order? Of course not. So, does anyone agree that ICU-controlled Somalia should be mentioned on this page? I realize that the territory the ICU controls isn't actually a country, but the area is still being administered like a theocracy (as well as the above example, movie theaters have been shut down and alcohol has been confiscated, all based on teachings in the Qur'an). Other opinions? Picaroon9288 01:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, to fit with the exact definition of theocracy, many (maybe all, I don't know) of the judges on the courts themselves are Imams. Picaroon9288 01:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could mention that the areas controlled by the ICU are ruled by a version of sharia, but make sure you mention that Somalia is fractured, with parts being stateless capitalist, and others representative democracies (Puntland, Somaliland) Joffeloff 13:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of term

Let's stop the edit war. What's wrong with the new edit? It explains both the root and reality of the term as it is currentl used. Shall we start with the lead and then see if there are other issues? No more reverts please, or I will request that the page be locked until the discussion takes place.--Cberlet 13:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already stopped reverting; My opinion is that the literal meaning of the term is mentioned at first, and then an entire section is spent explaining how this is used and what the proper terms would be if used correctly. I don't think it's necessary to say this in the beginning, especially seeing as it's factually incorrect the way it is written currently. Joffeloff 13:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the lead is factually incorrect. I think it explains the situation perfectly well. What is incorrect in your view?--Cberlet 17:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation of the word is a mixture of grammar and de facto use - it should explain what the greek words literally mean, and not claim that 'rule by god' inherently means rule by priests, which is wrong. The actual use of the term is explained below, and it is also explained that the proper term for rule by priests or religious leaders is hierocracy and ecclesiocracy respectively. 'Theocracy' means 'rule by god', not 'rule by god but also by priests and religious leaders'. Joffeloff 17:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but I have always found that section to be a bit fatuous and obscure. The word theocracy has a generally accepted meaning these days. It's like arguing that any definitional migration of a word since the council of Chalcedon is flawed; or that the term "gay" means happy-go-lucky, and that any use connected to same-sex desire is wrong. The word "apocalyptic" originally just meant "unveiling" or "revealing that which is hidden." Now it has a different meaning more closely related to expected confrontation tied to millennialism or millenarianism.--Cberlet 20:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what the author wants to convey, he should say that the term is generally used for instead of claiming that theocracy literally means 'rule by god but also by priests and religious leaders'.

I see your point, and have attempted a compromise rewrite of the lead.--Cberlet 13:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better. :) Joffeloff 14:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Theocracies

Since Israel is primarily included in this list for reasons pertaining to its marital laws, countries such as India also fit in. In India the marital code is different for each religion, one for Muslims, Hindus etc. Either Israel should be taken out or India and all similar countries should be added. [UNSIGNED]

Marital laws certainly are not a sufficient criterion for inclusion; however in Israel the very right to citizenship, regardless of legal aspects of birth, is granted on the basis of rabinnical law, which is a curious theocratic version of (only) one fundamental aspect of statehood. Fastifex 12:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]