Talk:Theocracy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

How about some examples, present or past, of Theocracies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.12.96.5 (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2004 (UTC)

Jrosenzweig, why have you dropccccccped my additions? - 23.03. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.225.0.97 (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2004 (UTC)

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

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)

The USA forbids things, for example gay marriage, under the statement that "it's against God" or the Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.125.205 (talk) 08:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition Required

Before any more debate about what is and isn't a theocracy continues the question of "What is a theocracy" needs to be settled. A concise definition, with citation, needs to be included so that people- using POV definitions can be quickly pointed to the accepted one. I would personally think the article's current definition, "a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler" is good, but this needs to be backed up by a RS. NZUlysses (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Some starting points. Which should be used for this article?

1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities. 2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission. 3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.

-dictionary.com

1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority. 2. A state so governed.

-The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

1622, "sacerdotal government under divine inspiration" (as that of Israel before the rise of kings), from Gk. theokratia "the rule of God" (Josephus), from theos "god" (of unknown origin, perhaps a non-I.E. word) + kratos "a rule, regime, strength" (see -cracy). Meaning "priestly or religious body wielding political and civil power" is recorded from 1825.

-Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided 2 : a state governed by a theocracy

-Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2008.

A form of civil government in which God himself is recognized as the head. The laws of the commonwealth are the commandments of God, and they are promulgated and expounded by the accredited representatives of the invisible Deity, real or supposed—generally a priesthood. Thus in a theocracy civic duties and functions form a part of religion, implying the absorption of the State by the Church or at least the supremacy of the latter over the State.

-Catholic encylopedia

NZUlysses (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

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.

I'll remove it for you. Because in no NPOV way can the US be claimed as even partly theocratic. There isn't even any state church or laws against blasphemy.--T. Anthony 04:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well it's back in there. I did a quick scan of the talk page here and see several pissing matches. I am having a hard time understanding how the US could remotely be considered a Theocracy since, in no way that I can think of right now, Religion or a belief in anything is not tied to any law. Moreover, the paragraph on the USA does appear very bloated like many editors have been adding their own ideas. Mentioning that God is on the US currency may be relevant, since I have no idea what other countries may do this if any. Also, laws being passed in individual states about intelligent design may be relevant. But because it is a law that it must be taught does not mean that it is a law that one has to believe it.

I object to it more on the fact that it is horribly written than the various points it attempts to make. The things that it does state do not seem tied to law, the excerisizing of political power, or the civilian populations liberties.

I also got a laugh out of the word count on the USA section verses the Vatican section.

Not looking for a fight, just trying to understand the facts that the paragraph claims and how they tie to what I understand is Theocracy. Lenn0r 09:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

-Please delete this garbage.

I added a section "Current states sometimes described as theocratic", which is where the US belongs. It is hyperbole, but the US is described as such often enough to be notable (imagine someone referring to this article after having heard such a statement). Providing a section where the ways in which the US approaches a theocracy can be documented (with citations!) will provide an outlet for non-NPOV editors. Vagary 09:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

don't make wiki an edit for non-NPOV editors, there's blogs and campaign ads for that. the "ways in which" you think the US approaches a theocracy belong under state religion if anywhere, not under theocracy. The Jackal God 01:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The United States isn't a theocracy by any streach of the imagination; go watch the history channel people! Travis Cleveland (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Statistics show that more than half of all Americans would not vote for an atheist president. That means that it is not possible for a non-religious politician to ever rise to the position of president. A theocracy is a country where the highest authority is considered to be god. In the USA, every president is required to believe in God. Sounds pretty similar to me. Jetekus (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That's because your obviously not very intelligent. Every President is NOT required to believe in God, and if the electorate makes the CHOICE to not vote for atheists they're just acting on their opinion NOT on any set of rules laid down by the Constitution. In the future, a non-Christian President WILL be elected, trust me. Besides, is the UK a Theocracy? ALL Heads of State in the UK have been Christians and ALL Prime Ministers have been Christians (or at least converted). The same is true for Germany. Get an educated and learn nuanced thought.68.164.0.45 (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The difference between the situation you describe in the US and a true theocracy is that in the US, power is derived from "the people" whereas in a theocratic state, power is derived from "God". If the people happen to elect laws based on their own understanding of God, that is their prerogative, and the state does not become theocratic until those people pass laws stating that the will of God carries legal force. AFAIK that hasn't happened in the US. Islamic republics would be better examples of theocracies. NZUlysses (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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.

Just like the Democratic Party has a number different factions, so does the Republican Party. NOT ALL Republicans are Christian nuts. Some, like my brother, ARE ATHEISTS! Just because SOME Republican are fundie evangelicals does not mean the entire Republican party should be considered theocratic. The Democratic Party has some communists in it, so does that mean the Democratic Party is a Communist Party. Don't think so.68.164.0.45 (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

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!

A theocracy would be a government where the leadership and the spiritual leaders are the same people. I think the argument that the GOP or Constitution Party want to establish a theocracy is extremely weak. Religion has played an integral role in American law and governance since day one.[1] If we use your overly broad definition of a theocracy, then America's been one since day one.

" in the 1822 case of Updegraph v. the Commonwealth [of Pennsylvania]: “The constitution of the United States has made no alteration, nor in the great body of the laws which was an incorporation of the common law doctrine of Christianity, as suited to the condition of the colony, and without which no free government can long exist…. If Christianity was abolished, all false oaths, all tests by oath in the common form by the book, would cease to be indictable as perjury.”

Just because some nut judge in 1822 Pennsylvania said this DOES NOT mean that is the law of the land. According to the Constitution, oaths to God and "affirmations" (without regard to God, by definition) are EQUALLY VALID. If Christianity were to be abolished, ALL oaths would still be valid because they, as defined by the Supreme Court, are in the same category as Affirmations. BTW, most of the religious legal jargon can also be seen in the histories of most European nations, so I guess if this make the US a theocracy, than most nations of Europe are theocracies too. BTW, Thomas Jefferson and many other Founders WERE DEISTS AND NOT CHRISTIANS!68.164.0.45 (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

In a Theocracy, the courts would look to this passage or that passage of scripture for guidance, but the mainstream Christian right has no desire to ban toleration of minority religions under the free exercise clause. Secondly, even the most irreligious founders were influenced by Christian morality. The only thing the Establishment Clause was intended to do was to prevent Congress from require adherence to a particular theology.

The U.S. from my vantage point is more likely headed towards the establishment of a formal Soviet-style atheistic state before it would ever become a theocracy. Secularists seem to forget they have been forcing their decadent morality upon Christians for over 40 years. It is nothing but shear bigotry to accuse Christians of wanting to establish a theocracy as far as I am concerned. For secularists, anything less than an atheistic, hedonistic state is a theocracy.

--64.93.1.67 19:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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~~

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)

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)

I see nothing other than shear bigotry in what is posted above. Perhaps the poster would prefer a Soviet-style atheistic state instead where public displays of religious belief are illegal. --64.93.1.67 19:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Republicans again

(moved from above) I struck the reference to Alaska Governor Sarah Palin bringing theocracy to the United States. Wiki is not a forum to voice your political opinions and nonsense like this should be left off 12.201.52.247 (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Greg Brannan

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)

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)

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)

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NZUlysses (talk • contribs) 13:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

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 ]]

Islamic republic

Is an Islamic Republic a theocracy? What about Pakistan, whose Constitution states that "All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such injunctions." (quoting Constitution of Pakistan ) NZUlysses (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

How about Iran with the highest level cleric is the supreme leader who they call the Ayatollah 05:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OxAO (talk • contribs)

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.

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)

Just some FFT: Brunei might also be classified as a theocracy as the sultan is both the head of government and in charge of upholding Islam in the country.Bored college student 02:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If you've got a reference, please write it up. Vagary 04:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

U.S. List

• • Christian Identity
  • Christian Reconstructionism
  • United States Constitution Party

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) does anyone want to explain the egyptian theocracy? i'm doing a progect at school and this isn't helping!!!

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)

Upon reading the intro to the section on historical examples, I wanted to say:

The examples of caliphates of the Abbasids and Umayyads are not true examples of an Islamic theology. In both cases, the caliph, being the temporal rurler, although namely a succesor of the prophet, ruled over religious clerics such as ulamaa, imams, moftis and [shariaa] judges. The caliph himself wasn't a cleric; just like the Holay Roman Emperor.

Perhaps a closer example would be the Fatimid State, in which for the only time in history (barring Ali's disputed caliphate) kings who considered themselves descendants of the prophet, and as such holding the right to rulership according to their interpretation of shiite ideology, were both temporal rulers, i.e. caliphs, and the highest religous spiritual leaders, i.e. imams.

And unlike what Sen Mcglinn wrote above, in the other cases the justification for the rule of the caliph wasn't religious. Moaweyah, the first Umayyad, came into power by the famous 'tahkim' affair, a political trick with no religious claims whatsoever. And although The Abbasids claimed descent from the prophet's uncle, that was a secondary justification and wasn't meant to even stand up to Ali's descendants claims as direct grandchildren of Muhammad.

--A. Gharbeia (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

Please note that the title of the section reads:

Parties and movements with theocratic aspects

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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:[2]:

• "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: [3]

• "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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Article is completely inaccurate

This article contains the popular definition of the word theocracy, but nowhere does it describe the Biblical theocracy. On Biblical theocracy, please read The Meaning of Theocracy by R.J. Rushdoony.

Sorry, but Wiki is not an advertising agency for Christian Reconstructionism.--Cberlet 03:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

England and Norway are NOT theocracies

Most European countries had established churches well into the 20th century, and in a few cases still have them. Yhis is the very first time I've ever heard anyone say, even as a joke, that England (or the U.K.) is a theocracy. The role of the monarch as 'supreme governor' of the Church of England is just so much flummery and pomp.

In many ways, the role of the monarchy makes a mockery of all concerned. The Queen is head of the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland as well as of the (Episcopalian) Church of England, so by a legal fiction she changes demonination on crossing from England to Scotland (and back). What a farce! Norvo 04:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Morever, in most Protestant countries in Europe, including England and the Scandavian countries, the main point of establishing a church was to keep the latter firmly under political control - which is hardly 'theocratic'. It would be a great mistake to regard Calvin's Geneva or England in the days of the "Barebones Parliament" as typical.

If nobody objects within the next ten days or so, I propose to remove the references to the UK and to Norway. They are erroneous. Norvo 03:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the section on England. Norvo 16:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I object, it's not that they are theocracies, it's that they have many likenesses. They serve as a reference to countries where these features are taken too far. I think they should stay. They're listed under 'states with theocratic aspects', not 'theocratic states'. Noone has claimed, in this article, that they are theocracies. --Joffeloff 17:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose the version just added. It's based on the deleted text, but just refers to a "theocratic aspect" rather than England actually being a theocracy; it's strange enough to put England in the same category as Iran and Saudi Arabia! I'm not actually sure that the Church of England was continuously headed by the monarch since Henry VIII's reign, especially considering the English Civil War, so the text may be inaccurate. I left out the sentence about bishops in Parliament, because I don't know whether they have those positions by statute or whether they're just elected officials who happen to also be priests, which I wouldn't consider "theocratic." Maybe it would make sense to have separate sections for "theocracies" and "countries with theocratic aspects," to distinguish between actual religion-based states and de facto republics? --Kris Schnee 10:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

While the version just added is a improvement of what was there before I think the best solution would probably be to have a section on countries with 'a church established by law'. After all, in most Protestant countries the reigning monarch or prince used to glory in the title of summus episcopus, which literally means 'supreme bishop', which sounds the ultimate in theocracy but is best translated as 'supreme governor of the church'. (There may also be a case for having a section on countries without any official established church but where there is a Church Tax collected by the state apparatus, as in Germany). At present there appears to be a contradiction in the article. Please note that the Introduction states, more or less accurately:

'Theocracy should be distinguished from other, secular forms of government which also have a state religion, and from some monarchies, in which the head of state legitimates the authority of the crown as being held By the Grace of God and tends to assume a sacral aura. Where there is a state or established religion, there is a long-term contract between the religious and political hierarchies ...'

Let's NOT muddy the waters because of minor oddities in the situation in Norway. Norvo 14:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I fail to see what exactly is so controversial. Britain is, on the one hand, technically an autocracy where all power rests in the Monarch and has been delegated to Parliament et al, and, on the other hand, a country which has a state church whose leader, in this case governor, is the head of state. Indeed, in practice the Prime Minister still has an element of control over appointments within the Church of England and, by the Act of Settlement, no one who is not a Protestant Christian, and married to one, may ascend the throne. The important part to make this a theocracy, in technicaliy, is he combination of the Church of England being a state religion with the head of state being the controller of the religion. This is why Greece, a country where Greek Orthodoxy is the state religion and plays arguably a more central role than Anglicanism in England is not a theocracy because the religion is administered by an Archbishop. Monarchically, as theocractically, this is a remnant of an earlier political period. Many of the state mechanisms supporting the Church of England, such as the requirement for members of Parliament to be of this faith, have been abolished, but the technicality of state religion has not. Like many Protestant theocracies, this is a government of a secular hereditary monarch over an ecclesial community, perhaps it should be linked to Caesaropapism in the article. I think England and Norway should be included, they would demonstrate how broad theocracy can be. A religion doesn't have to be illiberal to have theocratic trappings, and Britain proves this quite well. A final note: Yes, it's kind of ridiculous that the Monarch is the head of two different churches with two distinct forms of governance, but King Charles I of England liteally lost his head trying to impose episcopalian government on Scotland, so I think they've learned their lesson.Arrogant Papist 10:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 10:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The disagreement centres on who controls what (and why). In a theorcracy the priestly caste or equivalent controls the state (presumably because they think any civil authortity is morally suspect). In England and other Protestant countries the state for centuries controlled religion as far as possible in order to maintain conformity (in the interests of unity and internal cohesion - with at time a whiff of control freakery, too). The two situations strike me as very different indeed. Norvo 23:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The entire reason that the English church was nationalized was to ensure that the church was under the control of the English state. It was not to put the state under the control of the church. Quite the reverse - the intention was to eliminate the political influence of the Vatican by putting the English church under the headship of the English monarch instead of the Pope (who had claimed secular as well as spiritual jurisdiction). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Reformation . -86.133.247.156 20:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that Britain should be included, there are theocratic aspects to the British Crown and Parliament. Whilst the monarch no longer wields executive power, the British crown cannot pass to a Catholic. In parliament the 26 Lords Spiritual sit in the House of Lords, and have the right participate in debates and vote on legislation, by virtue of being senior bishops of the Church of England. The fact that they typically do not exercise that right, does not remove the fact that this right exists.83.37.181.14 (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Denmark

Perhaps Denmark should be included in the list of Current states with theocratic aspects. The Danish constitution states:

• § 4 The Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the Established Church of Denmark, and as such shall be supported by the State.
• § 6 The King shall be a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

Bagande 21:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

US currency is stamped w/ "In God We Trust" - chalk it up. The Jackal God 00:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, hopefully it is more important what is written in the constitution than what is written on the currency. It is not my claim that Denmark is a theocracy, I am merely suggesting that if England and Norway has theocratic traits, so has Denmark. Besides the abovementioned ones, those would be:

• Denmark has a Minister for Ecclesiastical Affairs
• The salaries for the priests of the Church of Denmark are partly paid by the state
• The Church of Denmark has the right to collect tax
• The Church of Denmark was until recently the only authority which could register newborn babies

Bagande 16:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I was using your point as a starting point to show how ridiculous some of these "theocratic" aspects are. We may as well say presidential systems have "dictatorial" aspects because so much power is concentrated in the presidency. If anything, where churches are contiguous with the boundaries of the State, the Church is usually dictated to by the State, not the other way around. The Jackal God 18:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Serious one here: Jesuit Reductions? The Jackal God 11:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Established churches are not theocracies

They just aren't. For England specifically, Caesaropapism is more or less the opposite of theocracy. I'm with Norvo on this - it is entirely weird to list England and Norway here. A source that calls t hem "theocracies" or specifically uses that term to refer to them in some way ought to be provided, or they ought to be removed. Otherwise this is fairly clearly OR. I also wonder why the numerous ecclesiastical states of the Holy Roman Empire are not so much as mentioned here. john k 17:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Israel

I've removed Israel as an example since the content was mostly wrong. Israel does not impose Jewish law for marriage. Rather, it delegates control of marriage and related matters to the various religious communities. Marriage for Muslims is governed by Muslim law and institutions, marriage for Christians by Christian law and institutions. The Jewish institutions that are promoted by the state are overwhelmingly ethnic and cultural in nature, not religious. I have added a short section to the main part of the article dealing with states that are not really theocratic but have this kind of delegation of matters such as marriage to religious communities, citing the examples of Israel and India.Bill 08:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

We need citations of sources that classify various countries as or as not theocracies. Until then I've moved Israel into Current states sometimes described as theocratic, because it certainly is. (I also moved your paragraph on chuch&state entanglement to the Lead.) Vagary 18:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Vagary, There are remnants of theocracy in Israel (for example, public transit closes on the Sabbath), but it is essentially a secular democracy with a secular majority. The right of return is certainly not theocratic, because it applies to people who Jewish religion does not consider Jews. Anybody with a Jewish grandparent can benefit from the right of return, though Jewish religion only qualifies a person with a Jewish mother as Jewish. (UTC)

Addition to the list

What about the Holy Roman Empire? Wasn't it a theocracy as well? Quote:

The concept of the Reich not only included the government of a specific territory, but had strong Christian religious connotations (hence the holy prefix). The Emperors thought of themselves as continuing the function of the Roman Emperors in defending, governing and supporting the Church. This viewpoint led to much strife between the Empire and the papacy.

It's also why proselytism, considered as a form of Medieval "civilization process", was a big issue when expanding the empire and many Holy Roman emperors, especially the Staufer dynasty, thought they had to eventually unify and govern all of Europe (i. e. the "known world" back then) within their empire so they could submit an upright Christian human race into God's hands on Judgment Day. --Tlatosmd 23:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, add it! Vagary 23:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I just thought I'd better ask first as the Holy Roman Empire was one of the most civilized states of Europe back then and it seems like "theocracy" carries a bit of a primitive tribal society connotation (see all those racist remarks about "camel riders", "desert sons" etc. for muslims and islamic countries, for example). --Tlatosmd 23:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

At some point the editing standards for this page because really conservative. It's better if people are WP:BOLD in declaring states theocracies and then we can debate over wording and citations. Vagary 02:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

better conservate and accurate then inflated and imprecise. HRE no where near a theocracy. Read up on Henry IV or whoever and his struggles w/ Gregory VII. but since some of your number want a bigger article, i noticed Nigeria isn't on the list, where the northern provinces impose Sharia and the corresponding religious police. The Jackal God 01:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Was it that hard for you to remove it? I don't necessarily want a bigger article, just a more boldly edited one. This article is too stagnant given its importance. I believe that there is some religious influence on every non-Communist state, and this article should grow until it forks an article about that and all that remains here is a rigorous general discussion and clear-cut examples. Vagary 21:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

ok, a couple things wrong with the statement above: 1. stagnant? why is that relevant at all? maybe you should join the cadres of ppl who wikify every new event under the sun like news junkies. 2. theocracy isn't above religious influence on government, it's about religious leaders holding the reins of government. the article should contain explanation and leave the discussion to the discussion page, an oft overlooked point here @ wikipedia. The Jackal God 07:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:WP1 has identified this as WP:VITAL, and yet it is only B-class. So more editors should be encouraged to work on it. Looking over the talk page and edit history, the standard Wikipedia protocol of adding imperfect material and then polishing it has been discouraged. In particular, the status of the US is an area of frequent discussion, which is why it's necessary to address it in the article. Vagary 10:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

there's a difference between stagnant and incomplete. Some articles are no worse for wear because they're stagnant. Polish it up all you want, that's what i was doing. Adding inaccuracies or propaganda (surely you realize the opportunity this topic affords) won't get this article above a B. The Jackal God 02:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Great point. I think discussion of the "theocracy" label as propaganda is on-topic for this article, hopefully we can rewrite the US section (and the lead?) to make that clear. I also see the addition of questionable examples as a challenge to refine the definition: if an editor can read this article and not understand why a state is an invalid example, then it signifies that the article is lacking.

Just for discussion sake: do you think the article is completish? I was thinking it should be expanded to the point where the country lists could be forked to their own articles... Vagary 06:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

i think the historical section needs expansion. as regards the propaganda, i see no reason to repeat such nonsense here and do the propagandists' work for them. The Jackal God 15:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd suppose the removal of HRE was based on mistaking theocracy for ecclesiocracy (see article). A theocracy is more abstract, referring to socio-political paradigms, and as for that, the Holy Roman Empire was as theocratic as you can get. --Tlatosmd 03:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The second paragraph in Theocracy#Ecclesiocracy and hierocracy strongly implies that ecclesiocracy and theocracy are synonymous. This article needs some good definitional citations. Vagary 23:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda

If you're going to cater to any one particular propaganda, let's be coherent and cater to them all. From now on, all parties of the right are Christian theocracies on the prowl, and all parties on the left are subversive Satanists under other guises. If you are so disingenuous as to take one side's propaganda seriously, be the fool that you are and swallow it all. The Jackal God 17:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If there are proper citations that the US or the Democratic Party has been described as satanists, then by all means it should be in there. (And Wikiality doesn't count ;) "Theocracy" is a rhetorical device as much as it is political science jargon, and this article should cover that. Vagary 02:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

it is sufficient to remark that accusations of theocracy are used as propaganda. You don't need to be a tool and repeat the specific propaganda. The Jackal God 17:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't call other editors names. I might be showing my WP:BIAS, but the US seems to be a particularly common target of the label, so it's a good example. Editing history has also shown that editors often mistakenly add the US to the list of examples, so mentioning it by name in the article should cut down on reverts. Vagary 00:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

i was using 'you' in the colloquial impersonal voice; wasn't calling you a tool, but one would be a tool if he was deluded in thinking it added anything to a encyclopedic entry to add what he already recognizes as propaganda. as for your other point, regardless of how many times a mistake is repeated, it doesn't make it any more true, and rather than spread false knowledge, this page should serve as a beacon of light dispelling misconceptions, not harboring them. as for cutting down on reverts, imagine if your attitude was taken by editors of oft vandalized pages. The Jackal God 00:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"taxoxarcy"  ?

Iran is also considered a "semi-taxoxarcy ", like China or Russia.[citation needed]

What the heck does that mean? I googled the word "taxoxarcy" and the only hit is in this article! I think this may simply be a joke... and should be deleted. MOXFYRE (contrib) 16:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No Bhutan

Why isn't Bhutan on the article? And aren't there other Islamic theocracies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saimdusan (talk • contribs) 06:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Iranian Theocracy

I think it's pretty clear that Iran is a theocracy, not a country with 'theocratic aspects'. Sure they have a bastardized democracy at the province level but the Ayatolla's hold the real power, ask any Iranian. It's also interesting that Israel is listed even though their society is far more secular than any Middle-Eastern country, I guess Turkey might come close but they certainly aren't on the list. This probably comes down to the 'right of return' and our author has a bone to pick. I digress, as a definition why not 'a form of government in which the society is ruled by religious leaders'. If this is our definition then there are only a few nations that qualify and Iran is certainly one of them.

Ecclesiastical state

An ecclesiastical state is not really the same thing at all as a theocracy. I have never heard of, say, the Archbishopric of Mainz referred to as a theocracy. An ecclesiastical state is a particular type of entity - a state ruled, not, as our article says, by "God," but by Catholic (and perhaps, in a few instances, Orthodox) ecclesiastical authorities. This should not be a redirect to here, and ought to have its own article. john k (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of Quebec?

You could argue that Quebec had strong religious leanings up to the 1960's, but it's hard to argue that a province could be theocratic without the federal government being so as well. You would have to go back to the days of New France to make any kind of case, I think. It should probably be dropped entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.245.170 (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

no —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dg5748 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

no???? have any reasons??? otherwise I think we should drop it. It's clearly not an example of theocracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glaucon480 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

this

this does not tell me what it is saying about the sub. whats up G § —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dg5748 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

madfrn

nhiiiijhkknkhhiiljjij

Ireland and Quebec?

Read the definition of theocratic, it does not include that the populace and the policies of the government are religious or religiously motivated. It is a form of government where priests or clergy become members of state because they are priests or clergy, and being a priest is a prequisite to getting into elected office. If the policies of the governments of Ireland and Quebec were very religious that has more to do with the populace being very religious and investing an undue amount of power in their religious officials, enough to critizice their political officials. By the same faulty reasoning every country in the world could be labeled a theocracy at some point when its population was religious and it didn't gaurrantee freedom of religion yet. I mean what sense does that even make, Quebec was theocratic at some point but Charlemagne's France wasn't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

deleted United Kingdom (England)

I deleted the section. England (not the UK) is not a theocracy - rather it once had elements of caesaropapism. In theocracy, the religious institutions rule the state; in caesaropapism, Caesar is the 'pope' - the state heads the religious order. When England's kings had executive power over the nation and over a national (Anglican) church, that was a form of caesaropapism not of theocracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sen Mcglinn (talk • contribs) 14:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)