Today in our Language Arts class, we were talking about the government, for some reason.
The topic of Theocracy came up.

Believe it or not, 90% of the people in my class would like to have a theocracy. NINETY PERCENT! In case you didn't know, a theocracy is a religion based government. The word of god is the law of man, and so on.

So fellow NGers. what would you think of a theocracy?

What, do you prefer a democracy? Alright let's take a vote:

Oh hey that's a surprise looks like Theocracy got 90% while Communist Kleptocracy got 5% and 5% voted for Pat Buchanan

Your class is obviously retarded

At 9/8/11 06:18 PM, CorpseGrinderClock wrote: What, do you prefer a democracy? Alright let's take a vote:

Oh hey that's a surprise looks like Theocracy got 90% while Communist Kleptocracy got 5% and 5% voted for Pat Buchanan

I prefer a democracy that has no bias against any religion, nor does it follow any religion.
I think The Ten Commandments and Seven Deadly Sins are bullshit, though. They shouldn't be law.

Given that there are 6 major religions alone, and innumerable other less popular ones, I'd say that a theocracy would be a ridiculous idea. Forcing the ideologies of one religion on an entire country, including atheists and followers of other religions is a ridiculous idea. It also opens the door to other kinds of religious oppression, such as the burning of protestants in England a few centuries back.

Theocracy would not work today anywhere because everyone questions everything, but if there was an entire society who all had complete faith in a single, good, merciful, loving God who spoke audibly and gave clear instructions quite often to every person in the society , it would work out very nice I'm sure.

At 9/8/11 06:20 PM, Teddyriffic wrote: Your class is obviously retarded

This. Theocracies don't work, that's why there are almost none of them left.

At 9/8/11 06:21 PM, Xarnor wrote: but if there was an entire society who all had complete faith in a single, good, merciful, loving God who spoke audibly and gave clear instructions quite often to every person in the society , it would work out very nice I'm sure.

But at that point it's more like a monarchy.

At 9/8/11 06:20 PM, Teddyriffic wrote: Your class is obviously retarded

yeah they are and I'm catholic... reason for separation of church and state.

At 9/8/11 06:23 PM, Chdonga wrote:

At 9/8/11 06:21 PM, Xarnor wrote: but if there was an entire society who all had complete faith in a single, good, merciful, loving God who spoke audibly and gave clear instructions quite often to every person in the society , it would work out very nice I'm sure.

But at that point it's more like a monarchy.

True, but in this hypothetical the monarch would be not simply a human, but a god, probably omnipotent and omnipresent, which would mean that this monarch would always give perfect instructions for the very best results for the people of this society. It requires 100% faith, devotion, belief, and trust in this God though, which is one of the more obvious reason why it wouldn't work. People aren't capable of 100% anything.

At 9/8/11 06:20 PM, CrazySquirrel124 wrote:

At 9/8/11 06:18 PM, CorpseGrinderClock wrote: What, do you prefer a democracy? Alright let's take a vote:

Oh hey that's a surprise looks like Theocracy got 90% while Communist Kleptocracy got 5% and 5% voted for Pat Buchanan

I prefer a democracy that has no bias against any religion, nor does it follow any religion.
I think The Ten Commandments and Seven Deadly Sins are bullshit, though. They shouldn't be law.

What, Thou Shalt Not Kill is bullshit? Greed is a good thing? Think about what you're saying before you blurt it out.

no because not everybody believes in the same religion I am jewish

At 9/8/11 06:20 PM, CrazySquirrel124 wrote: I prefer a democracy that has no bias against any religion, nor does it follow any religion.

Yes lots of people like democracies that vote for what they want.

i'm christian and i say that this is bad idea, especially america a nation built by the people, and today people aren't religious .

At 9/8/11 07:43 PM, MrPercie wrote: well i got no problem with theocracys by the sounds of things

most of the laws in religious books seem to follow a same pattern (dont kill, steal, rape, etc) so that cant be so bad.

aslong as they treat those who break the law/rules with punishment and forgiveness then I dont see how they can go wrong unless you can say otherwise.

Well maybe you need to read the Old and New Testaments in a bit more detail. Like when some villagers found a man gathering sticks in the woods during the Sabbath. God commanded them to kills him so they did. Or when Moses came down the Mountain and found the people had taken to worshipping a golden calf - plenty murder and rape involved. (it just a good thing god kept a backup copy of 10 commandments hand)

How the fuck could stories like that by interpreted and applied to modern law?

To attempt a theocracy means you would have to carry out a morality pick and mix of the good parts of the bible and ignore the many bad parts. In the end this would be completely redundant, hypocritical and stupid. The reasons for a secular constitution in the USA are incredibly good and hold fast today.

At 9/8/11 07:17 PM, Addict wrote: Why have a government that is based off non-existent mumbo jumbo

all of them are anyways lol

the only difference is how strongly it's enforced

i prefer VERY STRONGLY and with a focus on DISCIPLINE

There's already a country today that runs by Theocracy, Iraq. I say this as a heavily devoted member of the Christian church. A Theocracy would not work. This would require people getting severely punished for adultery, lust, lying, cursing, getting tattoos, and many other laws of The Bible. In fact look in The Bible itself, a lot of cities and governments of the time ran on a Theocratic system that involved stoning people just for pre-marital sex. There some things you just can't make law, you can teach against it but you can't force anyone to act how they should. Doing so would cause revolt and civil unrest. Should our laws be based upon biblical principles, yes, but not every single sin has to be made a crime.

At 9/8/11 08:09 PM, DingoTheDog wrote: Well maybe you need to read the Old and New Testaments in a bit more detail. Like when some villagers found a man gathering sticks in the woods during the Sabbath. God commanded them to kills him so they did. Or when Moses came down the Mountain and found the people had taken to worshipping a golden calf - plenty murder and rape involved. (it just a good thing god kept a backup copy of 10 commandments hand)

You didn't actually say anything from the New Testament at all, you realize that right?

And you realize one of the reasons the Pharisees wanted Jesus dead is because He abrogated the laws of the Torah?

At 9/8/11 08:09 PM, DingoTheDog wrote: How the fuck could stories like that by interpreted and applied to modern law?

They can't. It's utterly impossible. The laws of the Tanakh are not applicable anywhere anymore, even Israel doesn't enforce them. No Jewish community in the world does, and certainly no Christian community for reasons both good and bad.

Judaism was the religion of its day and age, it fit the needs of humanity in its day and age. But humanity changed and its needs changed. Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Islam...each fit a specific state of humanity, and foretold of revelations to come after them.

So much in the same way that you can't enforce a 9 O'Clock bedtime and having to hold hands with an adult when you cross the street on people who are in their thirties, the notion of trying to enforce the rules suited for humanity five thousand years ago really doesn't work today.

At 9/8/11 08:09 PM, DingoTheDog wrote: To attempt a theocracy means you would have to carry out a morality pick and mix of the good parts of the bible and ignore the many bad parts.

Unless your theology isn't based on the Bible.

At 9/8/11 08:09 PM, DingoTheDog wrote: The reasons for a secular constitution in the USA are incredibly good and hold fast today.

Pardon me, but no they don't. Our country has never successfully managed an honestly religious governance or a truly secular governance. You have an effigy of the Prophet Muhammad on the Supreme Court building, you have "In God We Trust" on our money, you have "One Nation, Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. A non-Christian president is practically unelectable. The rights of Christians are preserved far better than, say, the rights of Muslims and Sikhs.

Our constitution is not perfect, and never has been, despite dogmatic insistence to the contrary. It's wishy-washy, oft misinterpreted by both sides of a given issue, abused and ignored and weaseled depending on whatever the party invoking it desires.

And a government doesn't have to be entirely secular to be a stable and functional government that isn't, well, revolutionary Iran. The United Kingdom, for instance, has the Lords Spiritual within the House of Lords. A governance having state religion does not automatically doom it to being a despotic oppressive dystopia of inquisitions and witch hunts, you know.

At 9/8/11 07:16 PM, OwnageGiy223 wrote:

At 9/8/11 06:20 PM, CrazySquirrel124 wrote:

At 9/8/11 06:18 PM, CorpseGrinderClock wrote: What, do you prefer a democracy? Alright let's take a vote:

Oh hey that's a surprise looks like Theocracy got 90% while Communist Kleptocracy got 5% and 5% voted for Pat Buchanan

I prefer a democracy that has no bias against any religion, nor does it follow any religion.
I think The Ten Commandments and Seven Deadly Sins are bullshit, though. They shouldn't be law.

What, Thou Shalt Not Kill is bullshit? Greed is a good thing? Think about what you're saying before you blurt it out.

No, I'm saying we don't need some asshole in the sky telling us the obvious. I don't kill whether I'm told to or not. Also, when I was talking about the Seven Deadly Sins, I was mainly talking about pride. Can't be proud of yourself? Fuck that. Everybody breaks that rule everyday.

At 9/8/11 07:43 PM, MrPercie wrote: well i got no problem with theocracys by the sounds of things

most of the laws in religious books seem to follow a same pattern (dont kill, steal, rape, etc) so that cant be so bad.

aslong as they treat those who break the law/rules with punishment and forgiveness then I dont see how they can go wrong unless you can say otherwise.

Read up more. If it's a Muslim Theocracy, no eating during the days in Ramadan.
Jewish, everybody wears a yarmulke and has to eat kosher food and matzah.
Christian, everybody goes to church.

Everybody.

At 9/8/11 08:55 PM, Slingshot wrote: There's already a country today that runs by Theocracy, Iraq. I say this as a heavily devoted member of the Christian church. A Theocracy would not work. This would require people getting severely punished for adultery, lust, lying, cursing, getting tattoos, and many other laws of The Bible. In fact look in The Bible itself, a lot of cities and governments of the time ran on a Theocratic system that involved stoning people just for pre-marital sex. There some things you just can't make law, you can teach against it but you can't force anyone to act how they should. Doing so would cause revolt and civil unrest. Should our laws be based upon biblical principles, yes, but not every single sin has to be made a crime.

I would be a dick and point out your inability to read a map but then again Iran - Iraq, what the hell is the difference?

Personally I find Theocracies to be excellent things. We saw it work well with the Ottoman Empire, Tibet, Iran and the Papal States, whereas obscure things like the USA have all fallen by the roadside and died without anyone noticing or caring (Except those pesky heathens who profited from it, obviously.)

Theocracies have always proven wildly successfull, and it is because of this success that I believe we should forcibly implement them everywhere where they do not exist today.

At 9/8/11 09:48 PM, IncendiaryProduction wrote: So you are in favor of murder, theft, and adultery?

Those weren't first enshrined in the Ten Commandments. As a matter of practicality, all make sense independent of Christian moral considerations.

At 9/8/11 09:58 PM, IncendiaryProduction wrote: I never said they were first. If my half-assed public education is correct, it was the code of Hammurabi.

Yes, there and elsewhere I believe. Probably lost societies who had no written language also operated under similar legal constraints.

That is such a fucking stupid idea, I don't even feel like going into detail about how bad of an idea it is. *shudders*

At 9/8/11 09:22 PM, CrazySquirrel124 wrote: No, I'm saying we don't need some asshole in the sky telling us the obvious.

That all morality isn't completely relative, that human life has value and should be preserved and human beings shouldn't be killed for their material possessions, that there is more to existence than just this one life and simply taking all you can get from everyone before decaying into total oblivion isn't preferable to a life of sacrifice, service, and even suffering for the sake of others?

Yeah uh obvious no one argues with this and none of these things is a point of contention to this day or has been for thousands upon thousands of years.

At 9/8/11 09:25 PM, CrazySquirrel124 wrote: Read up more. If it's a Muslim Theocracy, no eating during the days in Ramadan.

Except in the loads of countries with Islam as a state religion where people can, in fact, do this.

Jewish, everybody wears a yarmulke and has to eat kosher food and matzah.

Lol yes because this has ever happened. You do realize that yamulkes, kosher, and matzoh (which is just one jewish food...what, were you going to say "turbans, halal, and kebab" for Muslims?) are not things which the Bible tells Jews to enforce on all people all the time, but in fact the only bits of that the Bible actually mention are only binding within the Jewish community?

Christian, everybody goes to church.
Everybody.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills but do you even know what you're talking about at all?

Even in the Vatican not everyone goes to Church.

At 9/8/11 09:45 PM, HRH-HenryIV wrote: I would be a dick and point out your inability to read a map but then again Iran - Iraq, what the hell is the difference?

Is this an actual question implying that they are similar at all because if so wow lemme just correct you on that one, if not and you're just being sarcastic towards that other guy...carry on.

At 9/8/11 09:56 PM, Bolo wrote: As a matter of practicality, all make sense independent of Christian moral considerations.

Yeah sure is easy to say things like that in hindsight.

But consider the fact that a lot of things that seem like "common sense" morality, ethics, etc. obviously were not so obvious back in the day. Workers rights, racial equality, universal suffrage, women having the right to refuse to consent to sex even with their husband, laws regulating botulism in canned meat...

We're not really as far from "might is right" as people think. It's still extremely prevalent in the world today. Honestly, look at countries' foreign policy, look at crime, look at terrorists and political extremists and the loads and loads of other people who don't seem to grasp that.

Yeah sure you may get those particular points and see them as no-brainers but at the same time I doubt the simplistic view of that extends to all circumstances, nor do I see it as particularly likely that you agree with every other "no brainer" that would seem like common sense to loads of other people.

Just a little perspective on that.

At 9/8/11 06:15 PM, CrazySquirrel124 wrote: So fellow NGers. what would you think of a theocracy?

It's stupid. God doesn't exist, or at least, doesn't talk to humans. So there's no way to know what his laws are.

At 9/9/11 04:03 AM, tally1989 wrote: It's stupid. God doesn't exist, or at least, doesn't talk to humans. So there's no way to know what his laws are.

Are you claiming to have thoroughly and impartially investigated and repudiated all claims to the contrary?

At 9/8/11 08:41 PM, MrPercie wrote: not all fucking stories you fundalmentalist dumbass

I covered this point in the paragraph that came after it, alow me to repeat it:

To attempt a theocracy means you would have to carry out a morality pick and mix of the good parts of the bible and ignore the many bad parts. In the end this would be completely redundant, hypocritical and stupid.

To elaborate Id have to ask you then: Who would decide what parts to omit and what parts to accept, what would be the basis for this picking and choosing and how could the end result be true to the bible and result in an honest and fair constitution?

better than living in anarchy I say

Unless you are posting from Somalia you aren't presently living in Anarchy, whatsmore if you are presently in the USA you have a choice over what religion you follow, a freedom that a theocracy would most certainly endavour to quash - after all they would be acting on behalf of god himself - God being a morally questionable entity who "sacrificed" his only son in order to allow him to forgive us for our sins in his eyes.

At 9/9/11 07:45 AM, DingoTheDog wrote: you have a choice over what religion you follow, a freedom that a theocracy would most certainly endavour to quash - after all they would be acting on behalf of god himself - God being a morally questionable entity who "sacrificed" his only son in order to allow him to forgive us for our sins in his eyes.

"Morally questionable?" Seems to me that the Being Who created all things, set the laws by which all things are governed and the property of every single thing from the inconceivably huge to the infinitesimally small with total omniscience would not be "morally questionable", because that would presume that morals apply to Him, that it would be possible to scrutinize such a Being, and/or the fact that this would be the Being Who would define what constitutes "moral" in the first place, would it not?

Hey if you're going to debate "whether God exists" or "whether God is like what they believe" that's a horse of a different color, but assuming the omnipotent omniscient creator-of-all-things God that most people refer to, the points above apply fully.

As for the assumption regarding theocracy, all you've got to back that up are several assumptions and association fallacies based on the misdeeds of some (not all) past theocracies, whereas some theocracies with claim to divine authority did not. "Let there be no compulsion in religion" says the Qur'an, and while the Bible says a lot about the spiritual punishments for not believing, you'll not find Jesus having once ordered inquisitions.

And as for persecuting those whose ways of thinking differ, that's never been limited to religion. The Nazis did it, the Bolsheviks did it, the Khmer Rouge did it...hell, even my own country did it under McCarthy. To say that these things are inherent to religion because of faults in religion fails to note human voices as an existing common factor, and I have yet to see any case to be made that secular governments are somehow immune, even if their justifications are less metaphysical.

Lmao if I was a country I'd be a theocratic country just to troll the shit out of all the atheists who say OMG RELGON MAKE WAR!!!!!!!!!