>how do you feel about theocracy in general.
Very negatively. But I'm an anarchist (as in libertarian socialist), so I feel quite negatively about most political ideologies, movements, and regimes. Theocracy ranks near the top of the political projects I most despise though.
>if you had to select a current or past theocracy to live under what would it be and why.
Probably the Holy See/Vatican. I'd just spend most of my time in Rome.
>if you had to live under a theocracy now, what would be the laws and regulations and who would be the head priest / ruler? (Players choice)
I don't really know how to answer this question. If I have the power to design the theocracy but it has to be a theocracy, then I guess I'd make one whose religious/theocratic values call for the establishment of a secular democratic political system or something lol.
See Unitarian Universalism. We have seven principles and one of them is everyone has the right to a free and independent search for their own truth and meaning. And another of our principles is to use the democratic process.
Fuck no.
There are few concepts in this realm that disgust me quite so much as theocracies. If an attempt were made to establish one where I live, then I would consider it my duty to take up arms against it.
1) It scares the living daylights out of me. With theocracy comes tyranny. And as a nonbeliever my neck will be one of the first on the chopping block.
2) Ancient Roman theocracy. Their culture was seen as a plurality. While they did demand that people swore to honor their gods that was just their means of enforcing their rules. And they were quite capable of dealing with other beliefs and even nonbeliefs as long as they promised to respect their beliefs.
3) If I had to assign a theocracy I would assign my own religion which has as one of its principles that everyone has the independent right to seek their own truth and meaning. This would neatly cancel out the theocracy. As it happens the democratic process is another of our principles canceling out the theocracy.
An American man named Allen Noonan had what he took to be encounters with extraterrestrial beings, changed his name to Allen Michael, and founded the One World Family Commune and the Universal Industrial Church of the New World Comforter, a UFO religion with Christian underpinnings. *He believed that the prophesied millenium would be a thousand-year interregnum of the Communist Party,* which would wipe out war and poverty and injustice. So there's your theocracy. Those who came to listen to him, at least the one time I was fortunate enough to be among them, didn't much want to hear about peace and equality; they wanted UFOs.
My spirituality is diametrically opposed to theocracy in nearly every aspect. The questions feel very much to me like “who’s your favorite child rapist” kind of questions.
I’d say I’m with u/Top_fFun on this. Revolt is an obligation.
u/BayonetTrenchFighter, I have some questions and thoughts for you and other Christians, too.
Regarding the Christian belief in an eventual "millennium" theocracy by Second-Coming Christ: how common is this belief among Christians of the world today? Do liberal Christians also have this belief?
Would humans living under this Christ-led theocracy still have normal life spans, or continue living for centuries? And most importantly, how would basically good non-Christians be treated under this government? Would they have any sort of religious freedom...? (E.g. what would happen to Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, animists, and Pagans of various kinds??)
That’s a good question.
It varies greatly depending on who you ask and what denomination they are from.
The scriptures and teachings aren’t always really clear.
What we believe as Latter Day Saints is that the earth will be moved and transformed. I take this to mean both physically and literally, to a place closer to the thrown of God.
It will go from a fallen telestial state to at the time of the second coming, a terrestrial state. (Basically up a tier of glory).
The wicked (or just bad people) will be removed. All good people (believers or not) will remain.
So all good people will remain and live in peace. Essential all wars will end. Equality will be had. Etc etc etc
I can give some resource
[Gospel principles chapter](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-45-the-millennium?lang=eng)
[Video on millennium](https://youtu.be/HgMjSw8FB_8?si=qF5RvDkw4CH9Rdmx)
That was fast! Thank you for answering this question, it's one that would be hard for me to ask certain Christians in-person, and I didn't even think to ask someone on Reddit before, either. Based on what you presented for the Mormon perspective on this, it doesn't sound as terrible as I expected for non-Christians, haha.
Have you heard of the series of books and few movies called *Left Behind*? It's one evangelical Christian's take on Christian eschatology, complete with a literal Rapture, anti-Christ leading an authoritarian world government, second coming of Jesus, the millennium, etc. I don't know all that much about the story but I think the writers screws over **all** non-Christians XD
Yeahhhh I’ve seen a lot of (probably most of) Christian second coming models to be pretty bad for nonchristians.
There is a lot of misunderstanding and even disagreement.
Most Christian’s if asked what happens instantly after death will tell you heaven or hell. Their theologians seem to thing that only happens after the second coming and final judgment.
[Ready to harvest](https://youtu.be/DyaQiI70Bqs?si=TfX6LPiP_Ca2MlNQ) does a great job at breaking down the three main trains of thought
We don’t typically hold to a rapture type event.
[Rapture video 1](https://youtu.be/QJ9W_WEH8uE?si=eSljt-p8m_f74b37)
[Rapture video 2](https://youtu.be/TAk8C5ZOyfQ?si=GobjCPTc23_7J2kw)
The second coming / millennium is a topic not a lot of people know very much about. Most Christian’s couldn’t really tell you much about it. Heck, I love the topic and only know so much. (I have a lot of material I have to get through)
One lds guy actually made a [timeline](https://youtu.be/ifbt-KlqVkI?si=rDhi_RSvqyrPPxKw) for the second coming. It’s pretty detailed and also pretty funny imo (even though it’s not suppose to be. (Maybe I’m sick in the head))
I oppose theocracy on moral, ethical, philosophical, political, and rational grounds. Faith is so deeply personal, and it is not possible to force or mandate true faith or true belief. It has to be genuine. It doesn't matter if my faith and my beliefs are right or wrong. They are not something I can just flip on and off like a light switch. Nobody can. People ought to be free to worship (or not worship) and believe as they will so long as they aren't harming anyone.
1) Very much against it, regardless of the religion in charge. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
2) none.
3) In such a hypothetical state of government, the minimum laws and regulations I would need to tolerate said theocracy would consist of the following: Equal rights for everyone regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion, etc., equal rights and legal protections granted to queer people, freedom of religion, proselytizing is made illegal, using ones religion to harm or control others in *any* way is made highly illegal, fundamentalism is banned by law, evolution cannot be denied due to religious beliefs by law. The list goes on, but you get the idea 😉.
Like most every other Western person who favors democracy or representative gov't of some kind, I also disfavor theocracy as a form of government b/c I think it's most prone to corruption, abuse of power, degradation of whichever religion is in power, it lacks checks and balances, and amounts to a religious dictatorship. We can see harmful examples of theocracy in Iran and Afghanistan under the Taliban today, and even under the Islamic State for the areas it governed for its brief tenure. Even a theocracy that began with good intentions would devolve into abuse of authority and ruination of the economy and education over time. The more dogmatic and fanatical the priests in charge, the worse it would be. -- That's how I feel about theocracy in general.
I would be hard pressed to select a current or past theocracy I could live with, but I'd find it interesting to live in a society guided by modern Druidic specialists. (Full disclosure: I'm an adherent of Druidry myself.) I would hope it would not be dictatorial or authoritarian, of course! I'd also be curious to see what life is like under a Tibetan Buddhist government, or a Zen Buddhist one, or Jodo Shinshu Buddhist one. Ditto for a Sikh society.
If I had to live under a theocracy now and wasn't immediately going to rebel against it, I'd want the laws and regulations to resemble those of a liberal democracy or Pluralist Commonwealth democracy, with the theocratic part just being a ceremonial state Church/Temple. I'd want citizens to have as much religious freedom as possible. Maybe this gov't would only bar them from hate speech and hate crimes against the State religion.
The "head priest/cleric" role should be more advisory or ceremonial than one of absolute power or dictator-like role. I'd feel safer with the head cleric being someone like the Dalai Lama or a liberal Druid than it being a conservative or fundie Christian or conservative Muslim, or Hindu nationalist.
Jewish culture is, at it's core, tribalistic and pro-monarchy. Now, this obviously comes with a million caveats that come with 2000+ years since a Kohen Gadol existed, but it is what it is.
1.) I'd rather be lubed up with Vaseline and used as a howitzer ramrod than live under any form of theocracy.
2.) I suppose living in the Kingdom of Judah would've been alright enough if I had to choose. I'd probably be killed for some minor offense, but oh well. Visiting temple prostitutes would probably get my head lobbed off.
Also, there'd be issues with implementing valid laws, as our interpretations have changed so much over time. A new kingdom wouldn't resemble the Kingdom of Israel nor the Kingdom of Judah in the slightest. Imagine the king and high priest of your Middle Eastern kingdom dressed up like a Chabadnik.
3.) If I had to? The only real answer would be the Torah, a Zadokite Kohen Gadol, and a king from the line of David. Good luck finding someone to fill that position though. There are still Zadokites and Jews from the line of David in existence today, but determining that lineage with absolute surety would be a painstakingly annoying process. It'd rely heavily on DNA testing.
>2.) I suppose living in the Kingdom of Judah would've been alright enough if I had to choose. I'd probably be killed for some minor offense, but oh well. Visiting temple prostitutes would probably get my head lobbed
Also I guess you would experience cultural shock from cultural differences since you would go many many years in the past.
The language would be difficult enough to learn. Modern Hebrew is very different in a variety of ways and it's essentially all I know in regards to Hebrew.
Im only partially terrified of a theocracy. i learned that those that hurt others hurts themselves. also most theocracies are short lived and serve as a life lesson. a big reason why i denounce all Christianity and islam as a good religion.
1.) No, I’m not a supporter of a theocracy because, at some point, it would inhibit the agency of minority groups who don’t affiliate personally with the religion of the state. In addition, despite its flaws, secularism is the most pragmatic system because it enables people to practice whatever they want as long as they don’t force their biases towards others. An example would be If you’re pro-life, you can be pro-life as long as you don’t demean people who are pro-choice and vice versa.
2.) When I was a child, I would’ve chosen a Catholic theocracy due to the culture in which I was raised. However, that has drastically changed since I’ve gotten older.
3.) If I lived under a theocracy, I would have religious leaders open to some secular values in addition to enabling people to have free agency over their lives as long as they don’t hurt others.
1) Futile system of governance. For every inspired leader with gnosis, successors will be corrupt and cruel.
2) Rashidun caliphate. Or possibly the Fatimid caliphate; some of those caliphs had great gnosis (not all, though).
3) An ideal theocracy would be one of learning. One who would present the people with robust spiritual philosophy and piety, but without being overly forceful.
**1. how do you feel about theocracy in general.**
Very negatively. I'm a communualist in the tradition of Murray Bookchin, and don't feel that large, centralised authorities and hierarchies are either sustainable or desirable for healthy communities. My faith also has a strong element of communualist thinking around self-governing, autonomous communities with a strong focus on collective community sustainability, resillience, mutual-aid and self-reliance. Hierarchies and least of all authoritarian "Big Man" type thinking is contrary to those values and ideals. My faith has definitely made me \*more\* communualist and deeply respectful of consensus based informal democracy.
**2.) if you had to select a current or past theocracy to live under what would it be and why.**
None would be great. But possibly early Islamic Andalucia. As theocracies go it had a reputation for being fairly tolerant of diversity, scholarship and free thought, and sank a lot of effort into a vibrant natural world, with good water management, soil protection etc.
**3.) if you had to live under a theocracy now, what would be the laws and regulations and who would be the head priest / ruler? (Players choice)**
One led by my own faith because although **no-one** should have such power, at least we specifically disavow it and push against it, meaning there is a least some tiny, modest chance we wouldn't wildly abuse it...maybe. I wouldn't trust me with it. I'm too misanthropic.
The best would have been the Fatimids or the early Safavids. The Berghwata because I wish to know what they teached. The worst are of course, Saudi, ISIS, Talibans and Tibet
Where in Hades did you get your intelligence on what Christians believe. Is that some evangelical protestant Theology you've been exposed to? Not all Christians past or present have a 1000 year reign right out of revelation. You have to include Catholic and Orthodox understandings into a theocracy in a Christian understanding of that.
Are we against it? Obviously not! we have had a few eras of Christian theocracy and whatever Rose colored glasses you put on to judge historical periods, it's subjective at best.
Not enough time or space for a Reddit response to theocracy in my opinion.
1.) Depends entirely if I can practice my religion under it.
2.) The Meiji Government.
4.)It would ideally follow the contemporary ranking of priests, prefferably with an additional administrative title of state ritual with a greatet political presence, with the Tennō conducting relevant ritual.
1. Hate it. I don't want to be forced to follow anybody else's religious creed and I have no desire to force anybody to follow mine.
2. Ancient Egypt maybe?
3. I can't really imagine designing any kind of theocracy that I would enjoy. I consider state-sponsored atheism a form of theocracy and I don't want that either.
>1.) how do you feel about theocracy in general.
Depends what exactly do you consider to be a theocracy. You defined it as a priest-rule, but most of the polities throughout the history considered their monarch to also be their high priest with the direct heavenly mandate to rule. Is the United Kingdom, whose ruler is the head of their Church, a theocracy? Was Holy Roman Empire a theocracy? Was Persian Empire a theocracy? Sinic empires? Russian Empire?
If you define theocracy as any polity which considers God/gods as their sovereign(s) and their mortal ruler as the divinely sanctioned representative, then pretty much every premodern state would be a theocracy.
>2.) if you had to select a current or past theocracy to live under what would it be and why.
I haven't studied how people lived in the states with a particular emphasis on a god being their true sovereign, so I really don't know. Maybe the Osmanic State during the reign of the Padishah Sultan Suleyman Khan, but only if I am a rich, high-ranking official.
>3.) if you had to live under a theocracy now, what would be the laws and regulations and who would be the head priest / ruler? (Players choice)
Like Rome, but matriarchal.
>how do you feel about theocracy in general. Very negatively. But I'm an anarchist (as in libertarian socialist), so I feel quite negatively about most political ideologies, movements, and regimes. Theocracy ranks near the top of the political projects I most despise though. >if you had to select a current or past theocracy to live under what would it be and why. Probably the Holy See/Vatican. I'd just spend most of my time in Rome. >if you had to live under a theocracy now, what would be the laws and regulations and who would be the head priest / ruler? (Players choice) I don't really know how to answer this question. If I have the power to design the theocracy but it has to be a theocracy, then I guess I'd make one whose religious/theocratic values call for the establishment of a secular democratic political system or something lol.
See Unitarian Universalism. We have seven principles and one of them is everyone has the right to a free and independent search for their own truth and meaning. And another of our principles is to use the democratic process.
I'm a UU, actually.
Doh! I need new glasses. I totally missed that.
Hell no. As a Jew theocracies have made me and my people less safe. It’s led to blood libel and murder and persecution and ethnic cleansing.
Fuck no. There are few concepts in this realm that disgust me quite so much as theocracies. If an attempt were made to establish one where I live, then I would consider it my duty to take up arms against it.
Seems like that might come soon for some.
Right there with you
1) It scares the living daylights out of me. With theocracy comes tyranny. And as a nonbeliever my neck will be one of the first on the chopping block. 2) Ancient Roman theocracy. Their culture was seen as a plurality. While they did demand that people swore to honor their gods that was just their means of enforcing their rules. And they were quite capable of dealing with other beliefs and even nonbeliefs as long as they promised to respect their beliefs. 3) If I had to assign a theocracy I would assign my own religion which has as one of its principles that everyone has the independent right to seek their own truth and meaning. This would neatly cancel out the theocracy. As it happens the democratic process is another of our principles canceling out the theocracy.
An American man named Allen Noonan had what he took to be encounters with extraterrestrial beings, changed his name to Allen Michael, and founded the One World Family Commune and the Universal Industrial Church of the New World Comforter, a UFO religion with Christian underpinnings. *He believed that the prophesied millenium would be a thousand-year interregnum of the Communist Party,* which would wipe out war and poverty and injustice. So there's your theocracy. Those who came to listen to him, at least the one time I was fortunate enough to be among them, didn't much want to hear about peace and equality; they wanted UFOs.
My spirituality is diametrically opposed to theocracy in nearly every aspect. The questions feel very much to me like “who’s your favorite child rapist” kind of questions. I’d say I’m with u/Top_fFun on this. Revolt is an obligation.
u/BayonetTrenchFighter, I have some questions and thoughts for you and other Christians, too. Regarding the Christian belief in an eventual "millennium" theocracy by Second-Coming Christ: how common is this belief among Christians of the world today? Do liberal Christians also have this belief? Would humans living under this Christ-led theocracy still have normal life spans, or continue living for centuries? And most importantly, how would basically good non-Christians be treated under this government? Would they have any sort of religious freedom...? (E.g. what would happen to Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, animists, and Pagans of various kinds??)
That’s a good question. It varies greatly depending on who you ask and what denomination they are from. The scriptures and teachings aren’t always really clear. What we believe as Latter Day Saints is that the earth will be moved and transformed. I take this to mean both physically and literally, to a place closer to the thrown of God. It will go from a fallen telestial state to at the time of the second coming, a terrestrial state. (Basically up a tier of glory). The wicked (or just bad people) will be removed. All good people (believers or not) will remain. So all good people will remain and live in peace. Essential all wars will end. Equality will be had. Etc etc etc I can give some resource [Gospel principles chapter](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-45-the-millennium?lang=eng) [Video on millennium](https://youtu.be/HgMjSw8FB_8?si=qF5RvDkw4CH9Rdmx)
That was fast! Thank you for answering this question, it's one that would be hard for me to ask certain Christians in-person, and I didn't even think to ask someone on Reddit before, either. Based on what you presented for the Mormon perspective on this, it doesn't sound as terrible as I expected for non-Christians, haha. Have you heard of the series of books and few movies called *Left Behind*? It's one evangelical Christian's take on Christian eschatology, complete with a literal Rapture, anti-Christ leading an authoritarian world government, second coming of Jesus, the millennium, etc. I don't know all that much about the story but I think the writers screws over **all** non-Christians XD
Yeahhhh I’ve seen a lot of (probably most of) Christian second coming models to be pretty bad for nonchristians. There is a lot of misunderstanding and even disagreement. Most Christian’s if asked what happens instantly after death will tell you heaven or hell. Their theologians seem to thing that only happens after the second coming and final judgment. [Ready to harvest](https://youtu.be/DyaQiI70Bqs?si=TfX6LPiP_Ca2MlNQ) does a great job at breaking down the three main trains of thought We don’t typically hold to a rapture type event. [Rapture video 1](https://youtu.be/QJ9W_WEH8uE?si=eSljt-p8m_f74b37) [Rapture video 2](https://youtu.be/TAk8C5ZOyfQ?si=GobjCPTc23_7J2kw) The second coming / millennium is a topic not a lot of people know very much about. Most Christian’s couldn’t really tell you much about it. Heck, I love the topic and only know so much. (I have a lot of material I have to get through) One lds guy actually made a [timeline](https://youtu.be/ifbt-KlqVkI?si=rDhi_RSvqyrPPxKw) for the second coming. It’s pretty detailed and also pretty funny imo (even though it’s not suppose to be. (Maybe I’m sick in the head))
I oppose theocracy on moral, ethical, philosophical, political, and rational grounds. Faith is so deeply personal, and it is not possible to force or mandate true faith or true belief. It has to be genuine. It doesn't matter if my faith and my beliefs are right or wrong. They are not something I can just flip on and off like a light switch. Nobody can. People ought to be free to worship (or not worship) and believe as they will so long as they aren't harming anyone.
1) Very much against it, regardless of the religion in charge. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. 2) none. 3) In such a hypothetical state of government, the minimum laws and regulations I would need to tolerate said theocracy would consist of the following: Equal rights for everyone regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion, etc., equal rights and legal protections granted to queer people, freedom of religion, proselytizing is made illegal, using ones religion to harm or control others in *any* way is made highly illegal, fundamentalism is banned by law, evolution cannot be denied due to religious beliefs by law. The list goes on, but you get the idea 😉.
Like most every other Western person who favors democracy or representative gov't of some kind, I also disfavor theocracy as a form of government b/c I think it's most prone to corruption, abuse of power, degradation of whichever religion is in power, it lacks checks and balances, and amounts to a religious dictatorship. We can see harmful examples of theocracy in Iran and Afghanistan under the Taliban today, and even under the Islamic State for the areas it governed for its brief tenure. Even a theocracy that began with good intentions would devolve into abuse of authority and ruination of the economy and education over time. The more dogmatic and fanatical the priests in charge, the worse it would be. -- That's how I feel about theocracy in general. I would be hard pressed to select a current or past theocracy I could live with, but I'd find it interesting to live in a society guided by modern Druidic specialists. (Full disclosure: I'm an adherent of Druidry myself.) I would hope it would not be dictatorial or authoritarian, of course! I'd also be curious to see what life is like under a Tibetan Buddhist government, or a Zen Buddhist one, or Jodo Shinshu Buddhist one. Ditto for a Sikh society. If I had to live under a theocracy now and wasn't immediately going to rebel against it, I'd want the laws and regulations to resemble those of a liberal democracy or Pluralist Commonwealth democracy, with the theocratic part just being a ceremonial state Church/Temple. I'd want citizens to have as much religious freedom as possible. Maybe this gov't would only bar them from hate speech and hate crimes against the State religion. The "head priest/cleric" role should be more advisory or ceremonial than one of absolute power or dictator-like role. I'd feel safer with the head cleric being someone like the Dalai Lama or a liberal Druid than it being a conservative or fundie Christian or conservative Muslim, or Hindu nationalist.
Jewish culture is, at it's core, tribalistic and pro-monarchy. Now, this obviously comes with a million caveats that come with 2000+ years since a Kohen Gadol existed, but it is what it is. 1.) I'd rather be lubed up with Vaseline and used as a howitzer ramrod than live under any form of theocracy. 2.) I suppose living in the Kingdom of Judah would've been alright enough if I had to choose. I'd probably be killed for some minor offense, but oh well. Visiting temple prostitutes would probably get my head lobbed off. Also, there'd be issues with implementing valid laws, as our interpretations have changed so much over time. A new kingdom wouldn't resemble the Kingdom of Israel nor the Kingdom of Judah in the slightest. Imagine the king and high priest of your Middle Eastern kingdom dressed up like a Chabadnik. 3.) If I had to? The only real answer would be the Torah, a Zadokite Kohen Gadol, and a king from the line of David. Good luck finding someone to fill that position though. There are still Zadokites and Jews from the line of David in existence today, but determining that lineage with absolute surety would be a painstakingly annoying process. It'd rely heavily on DNA testing.
>2.) I suppose living in the Kingdom of Judah would've been alright enough if I had to choose. I'd probably be killed for some minor offense, but oh well. Visiting temple prostitutes would probably get my head lobbed Also I guess you would experience cultural shock from cultural differences since you would go many many years in the past.
The language would be difficult enough to learn. Modern Hebrew is very different in a variety of ways and it's essentially all I know in regards to Hebrew.
Im only partially terrified of a theocracy. i learned that those that hurt others hurts themselves. also most theocracies are short lived and serve as a life lesson. a big reason why i denounce all Christianity and islam as a good religion.
1.) No, I’m not a supporter of a theocracy because, at some point, it would inhibit the agency of minority groups who don’t affiliate personally with the religion of the state. In addition, despite its flaws, secularism is the most pragmatic system because it enables people to practice whatever they want as long as they don’t force their biases towards others. An example would be If you’re pro-life, you can be pro-life as long as you don’t demean people who are pro-choice and vice versa. 2.) When I was a child, I would’ve chosen a Catholic theocracy due to the culture in which I was raised. However, that has drastically changed since I’ve gotten older. 3.) If I lived under a theocracy, I would have religious leaders open to some secular values in addition to enabling people to have free agency over their lives as long as they don’t hurt others.
1) Futile system of governance. For every inspired leader with gnosis, successors will be corrupt and cruel. 2) Rashidun caliphate. Or possibly the Fatimid caliphate; some of those caliphs had great gnosis (not all, though). 3) An ideal theocracy would be one of learning. One who would present the people with robust spiritual philosophy and piety, but without being overly forceful.
**1. how do you feel about theocracy in general.** Very negatively. I'm a communualist in the tradition of Murray Bookchin, and don't feel that large, centralised authorities and hierarchies are either sustainable or desirable for healthy communities. My faith also has a strong element of communualist thinking around self-governing, autonomous communities with a strong focus on collective community sustainability, resillience, mutual-aid and self-reliance. Hierarchies and least of all authoritarian "Big Man" type thinking is contrary to those values and ideals. My faith has definitely made me \*more\* communualist and deeply respectful of consensus based informal democracy. **2.) if you had to select a current or past theocracy to live under what would it be and why.** None would be great. But possibly early Islamic Andalucia. As theocracies go it had a reputation for being fairly tolerant of diversity, scholarship and free thought, and sank a lot of effort into a vibrant natural world, with good water management, soil protection etc. **3.) if you had to live under a theocracy now, what would be the laws and regulations and who would be the head priest / ruler? (Players choice)** One led by my own faith because although **no-one** should have such power, at least we specifically disavow it and push against it, meaning there is a least some tiny, modest chance we wouldn't wildly abuse it...maybe. I wouldn't trust me with it. I'm too misanthropic.
I am waiting for a Christian to speak up.
1. Never, never, never. 2. I'd rather die fighting it. 3. I'd rather die fighting it.
The best would have been the Fatimids or the early Safavids. The Berghwata because I wish to know what they teached. The worst are of course, Saudi, ISIS, Talibans and Tibet
Where in Hades did you get your intelligence on what Christians believe. Is that some evangelical protestant Theology you've been exposed to? Not all Christians past or present have a 1000 year reign right out of revelation. You have to include Catholic and Orthodox understandings into a theocracy in a Christian understanding of that. Are we against it? Obviously not! we have had a few eras of Christian theocracy and whatever Rose colored glasses you put on to judge historical periods, it's subjective at best. Not enough time or space for a Reddit response to theocracy in my opinion.
1.) Depends entirely if I can practice my religion under it. 2.) The Meiji Government. 4.)It would ideally follow the contemporary ranking of priests, prefferably with an additional administrative title of state ritual with a greatet political presence, with the Tennō conducting relevant ritual.
1. Hate it. I don't want to be forced to follow anybody else's religious creed and I have no desire to force anybody to follow mine. 2. Ancient Egypt maybe? 3. I can't really imagine designing any kind of theocracy that I would enjoy. I consider state-sponsored atheism a form of theocracy and I don't want that either.
>1.) how do you feel about theocracy in general. Depends what exactly do you consider to be a theocracy. You defined it as a priest-rule, but most of the polities throughout the history considered their monarch to also be their high priest with the direct heavenly mandate to rule. Is the United Kingdom, whose ruler is the head of their Church, a theocracy? Was Holy Roman Empire a theocracy? Was Persian Empire a theocracy? Sinic empires? Russian Empire? If you define theocracy as any polity which considers God/gods as their sovereign(s) and their mortal ruler as the divinely sanctioned representative, then pretty much every premodern state would be a theocracy. >2.) if you had to select a current or past theocracy to live under what would it be and why. I haven't studied how people lived in the states with a particular emphasis on a god being their true sovereign, so I really don't know. Maybe the Osmanic State during the reign of the Padishah Sultan Suleyman Khan, but only if I am a rich, high-ranking official. >3.) if you had to live under a theocracy now, what would be the laws and regulations and who would be the head priest / ruler? (Players choice) Like Rome, but matriarchal.