With all the talk about faith based initiatives and religious right pundits pushing the idea that things would be ‘better’ if only we had more religion in our lives I got to wondering if this has ever been the case?
I’ve been trying to think of times in the present or the past where a theocracy (or a puppet leadership with clerics or what have you pulling the strings) was ever better than a regular government (be it a king, emperor, president, prime minister, etc.).
By ‘better’ I mean a place most people would like to live in. I say ‘most’ because I suppose in any theocracy you’ll have people who prosper and like the status quo. However, they seem to maintain that status at the expense of others.
For example:
The jews in Spain around the time of the Inquisition probably weren’t too thrilled with events back then.
Women in modern day muslim countries don’t seem to have a very good lot in life handed to them (at least by American standards).
How about puritan towns in early America? Anyone up for a good witch burning?
Aztec society and sacrifices?
I know that there are plenty of non-religious based governments that have been miserable but at least some have been ok. I don’t think that is true for theocracies.
I know this is subjective. For instance, I suspect you could find many women in Muslim countries who think everything is peachy and as it should be. I guess for the sake of argument American standards of freedom and justice should be applied. While America is hardly the arbiter of how things should be we have some of the strongest notions of personal liberties and the idea that everyone has a shot at something better so I’m going with that.
Just to point out that, technically, none of those countries are thocracies. Spain and the Aztec Empire were both empires with hereditary monarchies. Puritan Massachusetts was a restricted democracy, and the various muslim societies in the world run the gamut from democracies/republics to monarchies, to dictatorships. The only actual theocracy currently existing that I can think of is the Vatican City, and while it has a small population, I don’t think the standard of living is all that different than in Italy.
Funny you should mention the Jews in Spain. I have read some good things about the Moorish Empire in Spain, which was IIRC a Moslem theocracy. One of those good things was that the Jews there were pretty well off, as compared to the rest of Europe at the time. I also remember something of an intellectual and artistic renaissance there around the year 1000 AD, although perhaps someone more knowledgeable about the subject will come along and shoot that idea down.
Sheesh- what timing. I’m moving this weekend and just an hour ago I boxed up all my books and sealed them with packing tape. Time to go off the top of my head . . .
The Moorish empire in Spain (Al-Andalus if you’d rather) -was- surprisingly tolerant of Jews and Christians in their society. Not necessarily tolerant in the 21st-century-I’m-okay-you’re-okay sense, but tolerance in the sense of “we’ll encourage you to convert through peaceful means, like discouraging open worship of your religion, higher taxes, and so on, rather than the hacking and chopping and hurting and pain and HEY LADY.” As a result, coexistence was peaceful and if you wanted to retain your (non-Muslim) religion, you could. It was just a little bit of a hassle.
But Spanish Jewry did experience a golden age after the Muslim conquest in 711 and before the fall of the Caliphate circa 1030. Their societal status declined somewhat after that, but was still reasonably acceptable in the next few centuries. Look at Maimonides (Moises ben Maimon) and his philosophical works as an example.
(Correct me if I’m wrong, please-- but technically any caliphate is a theocracy in that a caliph is a successor of Mohammed with temporal and spiritual but not prophetic powers. There were three major ones - Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids - and the caliphate was abolished by the secularization of Ataturk in 1924, so you’re not going to find one today.)
Bottom line, you’d be hard-pressed to find a theocracy that’s ever existed that everyone adored, regardless of applying American standards of freedom and justice. I’d say that the Vatican and the caliphate of Cordoba were the closest you’d get, but even those fall critically short of modern-day standards of tolerance and acceptance.
People convicted of witchcraft in America, in Salem, at least, were hanged, not burned.
Also, it should be pointed out that while they were definitely the victim of religious-fueled histeria, they were not actually a religious minority. In fact, since they refused to save their lives by falsely confessing, they may have been the most devout Puritans of all.
And it was all ergot’(sp?) fault anyway.
[/nitpick]
Weren’t most classical civilizations technically a theocracy in that they had state gods and patron deities and whatnot? I wouldn’t have minded living in Athens, or the Roman republic.
Most pre-modern Muslim states were, relatively speaking, more tolerant of Jews than their Christian contemporaries, for reasons of theology. The Ottoman state at its height is another good example. Indeed, pre-Crusades and the disintegration of Pax Islamica, and even to some extent afterwords, Muslim states were frequently more tolerant of Christians than Christian states were of Muslims. Though one shouldn’t make the assumption that they had anything like equal status and you can certainly find brutal exceptions.
I would agree that early Caliphate ( say pre-950 ) was in effect a theocracy. So too the Fatimid anti-Caliphate in a sense. The late Umayyads in Cordoba were more problematic to classify. The al-Mourabitun ( Almoravids ), the al-Muwahiddun ( Almohades ), the Qaramita, the Zaydi Imamate in Yemen, the Nizari ( Assassin ) sect of Is’maili Shi’ism and their “state”, the early Safavids, the Mahdist state of the Sudan, the Sanusiyya in Libya, the early Saudi state, etc., etc., all claimed independent religious justification for rule and had theocratic overtones. Though it was only in some of these cases ( and then usually early on ) did actual religious figures rule. Point in fact it can be rather difficult to separate politics from religion in the Muslim history much of the time.
Now there were Muslim states that claimed no independent divine right and instead considered themselves as purely ( or largely ) secular powers. Generally these are either fairly modern or swore allegiance to the Caliph and ruled in his name ( mostly a fiction of course ).
Today, the Vatican City aside, Iran may come closest, as the “clergy” certainly has final ( though far from all-encompassing ) power.
By “worth living in,” you have to consider the available alternatives. Geneva under Calvin was a safe, albeit dour haven in the middle of the death-trap of 14th century Europe.
That comparison is only my opinion, but Jim Jones was able to convince people that in Jonestown life would be more worth living than in San Francisco (and even that death in his theocracy beat life outside), and Jerry Falwell continuies to convince parents that Lynchburg has a better (safe albeit dour) college than their local state U.
Pardon the atheistic cheap shot, but perception-over-reality is to religion what the aroma-fan is to a Cinnabun stall.
(Sorry - Lynchburg is incorrect. I think that was a Freudian slip on my part. Somehow religious fundamentalism and Libertyville can’t ride-share on the same one of my few neuron firings)
I’m thinking more along the lines of buddhist theocracies, like Tibet maybe. Tibetans surely live a pretty austere lifestyle, but that doesn’t seem to be unreasonable considering the scarcity of natural resources in the area. I will withhold judgement on whether Tibet was ever “worth living in.”
Are there any other theocracies that lasted into the modern era like Tibet? I can’t think of any.
For those that are pushing the faith based initiatives? Probably.
IOW, you want to know whether there are any “good” theocracies, where “good” means conforming to American ideals. Seeing as how SOCAS is an important American ideal, I’d say the answer is “no” by definition, just as it would be if you were to ask whether there are any “good” capitalistic countries, where “good” means conforming to Communistic ideals. If you think that there’s something wrong with the argument that this country would be a better place with God in charge becauseother countries with God in charge haven’t been to your liking, that’s not much of a counter. The fundamentalists aren’t trying to create a society according your priorities; they’re trying to create one according to their priorities.
And of course, the comparison should not be between two different countries, but between what a country was with theocracy versus what it would have been without it. If you had a choice between Puritan society and Native American life, which would you choose (not that Native Americans tended to be all that secular either, come to think of it)?
How exactly are we defining a theocratic state, here? I mean, if mediaeval Spain was a theocratic state, then so is modern Britain - after all, our Head of State is also Head of the Church of England, the official state religion. Somehow, though, I doubt that Britain is foremost in the OP’s mind.
(Come to think of it, wasn’t the Spanish Inquisition mostly about persecuting rebellious Christians, not Jews? Not that the Jews weren’t persecuted in mediaeval Europe…)
I’d define a theocracy as a state where the secular and religious authorities are the same, and law and social policy are decided on religious principles. This isn’t the case in modern Britain, and wasn’t the case in mediaeval Europe (though the Roman Catholic hierarchy had immense temporal influence).
There’s no reason in principle why religious leaders can’t make good decisions - and I, personally, think a genuinely Christian state would be a good place to live - but, in practice, binding together religious and national prejudices by making God and the State the same thing is a bad idea. (And politicians need to be discouraged from the belief - which they all seem to have whether they live in a theocracy or not - that they were personally appointed by God.)
After writing the OP I realized I wasn’t very clear. Unfortunately I haven’t been able to return to it till now.
Please note I was defining ‘theocracy’ very loosely (yes…I know it is a well defined term…I just find it easier than listing and explaining five different concepts everytime I want the idea mentioned). Not only was I considering theocray in the literal sense but any government who is strongly biased by religion (i.e. their laws are firmly entrenched in their religion, clerics (or their equivalent) have substantial power behind the scenes or, as in Iran, clerics literally have substantial power as a major piece of a secular government). I know even the US has laws that have been influenced by religion but I’m thinking more along the lines of an ‘us and everyone else’ mentality espoused in their laws.
As to who would like a theocratic society I stipulated that there will be some who would like such a thing. Some people would like to see all blacks tossed out of the US and setup a ‘whites only’ state. However, I think most rational people would not view that as desirable. Same goes for a theocratic state. Some people will be thrilled by the status quo regardless of how it works for the majority.
As to what is ‘better’ I am thinking along the lines of less restrictive and greater personal freedom. In my view greater personal freedom is, on the whole, a better thing than less personal freedom (with suitable restrictions thrown in…robbing people because you’re free to do so is never ok). That freedom, however, should not be bought at the expense of others. I don’t think taxing jews higher so christians can pay less is a justifiable thing to do. I’m wondering if a theocratic state (loosely defined as above) is ever less restrictive or if anyone can make a reasonable case on why such restrictions are a better thing than allowing greater personal liberties (i.e. a case for a nearly zero crime rate due to some modestly more restrictive laws based on religious ideals).
In the end I suppose all of the above is a cover for the question in my mind that lies at the root of it all (I probably should have just asked that in the first place but I still find the history lesson so far interesting):
If the religious right got its way in the US can anyone make a case for things (anything) actually getting better for all citizens?
I feel a need to offer a clarification and quick-n-dirty timeline regarding Spain.
Prior to 476: Controlled by the Roman Empire.
476-711: Visigothic kings.
711-1031: Golden Age of Muslim dominance in Spain
1031-1492: Collapse of the Caliphate and rise of small ‘taifa’ kingdomgs
1085-1492: Reconquista. Spanish and European Christians begin to take Spain with the conquest of Toledo in 1085 and continue until they conquer Granada in 1492.
The Inquisition did not take place until 1478. At that point, there was virtually no Muslim authority in Spain.
It’s not entirely accurate to depict the Inquisition as part of medieval Spain, as by most rules of thumb, the Middle Ages encompass AD 500-1500. Given the Inquisition continued until 1834, it’s more of an early modern phenomenon. It also wasn’t specifically to target Jews to the exclusion of everyone else, but it included them within its rubric as well as Protestants and unbelievers of various stripes.
(As far as I know, the only theocratic state that works well is the fundamentalist goverment option in the game of Civilization II. )
Wow…this is the first discussion I’ve had to go around the house searching for my school notes of the past 2 years. (Note to self and others-never throw out those school papers until at least 2 years have passed, and inspect their value better) Finally found my PR history textbook, and here is what it says about the Moorish state in the chapter about Spain: (Summary)
Timeline:
Moorish ocupation started in 711. In 732, further expansion into Europe was halted in the Battle of Poitiers. The emirate of Córdoba was founded in 756, and it still depended on Damasco in religious aspects. The caliphate was not founded until 929. It broke and formed different kingdoms in 1002.
Treating other religions:
The muslims themselves were composed of different ethnic groups, and thus permitted those visigods that help them during the initial invasion keep their properties. Tolerated different religions and their rituals, only with a minimum of pressure to convert them. Those that converted WERE better treated than those that remained Christians or Jews.
Importance of Córdoba:
One of the most intelectual and artistic cities in Europe.
About the Inquisition:
Started during the 1480’s, took drastic measures against those suspected of being heathens, specially converted Jews. These where the ones who (at least in public) renounced their Jewish faith and embraced Catholicism.
There, that is what my history textbook can give me. So it was a better theocracy(Córdoba), and a better place to live than the other places surrounding it(filthy visigods)
And most of the Inquisition’s actions against Jews were against Jews who pretended to convert to Christianity. Remember, in 1492, Spain expelled all Jews and Muslims who wouldn’t convert, so some people pretended to convert, but continued to secretly stay Jewish or Muslim…these were the people that the Inquisition was really after, at least in the beginning.
As for the OP, a theocratic state will always lead, to some extent, to a restriction of freedom to believe. If the govenment turns to a specific set of beliefs for its legitimacy, then it needs to encourage people to share those beliefs, and if a country’s laws come from it’s religion, then somebody who doesn’t share that religion wouldn’t see the need for the laws.
Weren’t most classical civilizations technically a theocracy in that they had state gods and patron deities and whatnot? Well, if you consider them theocracies, I wouldn’t have liked living in Athens. (The Athens called their goverment a democracy.) A city in which the form of goverment was maintained by slaves? No, thanks.
The Christian Spain wasn’t a theocracy either. Before the Reconquista, Christian Spain was divided in different kingdoms. One of the most important ones was Castilla, who eventually conquered other neighboring kingdoms (they not only fought with Muslims, but with each other). Near the end of the Reconquista, Isabel de Castilla, married Fernando de Arargón(other kingdom), thus unifying both of their kingdoms. Later Fernando also inherited the kingdom of Navarra, the last Christian independent kingdom in Spain (Portugal was another Christian kingdom).
Now Christian Spain was unified, and all’s good, right? Wrong! It only looked that way. The different kingdoms had their own dialects and social discontent and revolts were ocurring. The only thing they had in common was their “ethnicity”(cough, cough… after almost 8 centuries of Moorish presence, doubtful they had all the same ethnicity) and their Christianity. The monarchs, Fernando and Isabel, thought that the base of an unify Spain laid in the purity of their Christianity. Thus the Inquisition.
)