# Nations With Official (or Unofficial) Theocratic Tendencies **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 27, 2009, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921 "2009-08-27T16:17:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![An\_Gadai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@An\_Gadai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Gadai)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2009, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/61 "2009-08-30T17:48:29Z")
> [@Rayne\_Man](#): > > Can’t you get an abortion in Northern Ireland? That’s part of the UK. No, Northern Ireland is probably more conservative in this regard than the Republic. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2009, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/62 "2009-08-30T17:51:53Z")
> [@Rayne\_Man](#): > > Can’t you get an abortion in Northern Ireland? That’s part of the UK. Both the unionist and nationalist sides oppose abortion in NI, which seems weird until you think about Ian Paisley’s religious views. ETA: [Apparently](http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/jul/08/health.northernireland) you _can_ get an abortion in NI if the mother’s life is threatened, but there’s no specific statute protecting the doctor from prosecution, just a single precedent in case law. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2009, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/63 "2009-08-30T18:35:01Z")
> [@The\_Great\_Philosopher](#): > > However, I’d argue that definition brings both the US and the UK very close to technically having some ‘theocratic tendencies’ - the UK because the Church of England has seats in the House of Lords and can issue measures that cannot be amended and can be approved as the law of the land; and the US because, while in theory it’s about as un-theocratic as a country can get, in practice the President probably needs to profess Christianity to be elected and a President like George Bush would refer to being “guided by God” in making decisions. (Tony Blair also said he felt he was guided by God in making his decision to invade Iraq). It seems to me that there is a difference between “religious people serve in government and religiosity is politically popular” and “religion is legally mandated.” ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2009, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/64 "2009-08-30T21:06:04Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Apparently you _can_ get an abortion in NI if the mother’s life is threatened, but there’s no specific statute protecting the doctor from prosecution, just a single precedent in case law. That link is out of date; see [here](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7954077.stm). There are no such guidelines in the south. **An Gadaí** the flight may be cheap but the abortion itself isn’t, since Irish residents aren’t on the NHS. Overnight stays may also be required (British clinics tend to encourage this since they know most women aren’t going to go for follow-ups in Ireland). The cost can easily run over €1000 particularly if it’s a later abortion…and Irish abortions are more likely to be later, for obvious reasons. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Gadai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@An\_Gadai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Gadai)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2009, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/65 "2009-08-30T22:12:53Z")
Okay, it is kinda pricey but it is still not inaccessible to most people here who desire it. Knowing the way this country works, if it were ever made legal, it would still be cheaper to go to England for one. ---
**Author:** ![rowrrbazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rowrrbazzle/32/414_2.png) [@rowrrbazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rowrrbazzle)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2009, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/66 "2009-08-31T00:40:28Z")
> [@The\_Great\_Philosopher](#): > > However, I’d argue that definition brings both the US and the UK very close to technically having some ‘theocratic tendencies’ - the UK because the Church of England has seats in the House of Lords and can issue measures that cannot be amended and can be approved as the law of the land; and the US because, while in theory it’s about as un-theocratic as a country can get, in practice the President probably needs to profess Christianity to be elected and a President like George Bush would refer to being “guided by God” in making decisions. (Tony Blair also said he felt he was guided by God in making his decision to invade Iraq). What, no mention of Obama’s recent statement to rabbis: “We are God’s partners in matters of life and death”? Or his written prayer at the Wailing Wall which ended: “And make me an instrument of your will”? ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2009, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/67 "2009-08-31T07:50:28Z")
> [@An\_Gadai](#): > > Knowing the way this country works, if it were ever made legal, it would still be cheaper to go to England for one. Ain’t that the truth. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Philosopher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3ec8ea/32.png) [@The\_Great\_Philosopher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Philosopher)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2009, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/68 "2009-08-31T10:48:51Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > It seems to me that there is a difference between “religious people serve in government and religiosity is politically popular” and “religion is legally mandated.” But “religion being legally mandated” isn’t the definition of a theocracy, whereas having “officials who are regarded as divinely guided” can be. The US doesn’t really have leaders who are officially regarded as divinely guided - clearly the US is nowhere near a theocracy - but some Presidents refer to being guided by God and are seen by a substantial portion of the population as being guided by God. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2009, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/69 "2009-08-31T16:41:35Z")
> [@The\_Great\_Philosopher](#): > > But “religion being legally mandated” isn’t the definition of a theocracy, whereas having “officials who are regarded as divinely guided” can be. The US doesn’t really have leaders who are officially regarded as divinely guided - clearly the US is nowhere near a theocracy - but some Presidents refer to being guided by God and are seen by a substantial portion of the population as being guided by God. I think we just disagree about the meaning of the word. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2009, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/70 "2009-08-31T17:24:04Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > According to the most recent figures I can find (2005), it’s a bit _less_ than that (371,000,000). I think you’ll find your original post missed off three significant figures 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2009, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/71 "2009-08-31T17:28:41Z")
wiki sez"\*Theocracy is a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the state’s supreme civil ruler,[1] or in a broader sense, a form of government in which a state is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.[2] In Common Greek, “theocracy” means a rule [kra′tos] by God [the.os′]. For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e., a church), replacing or dominating civil government.[3] Theocratic governments enact theonomic laws. Theocracy should be distinguished from other secular forms of government that have a state religion, or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held “By the Grace of God”. A theocracy may be monist in form, where the administrative hierarchy of the government is identical with the administrative hierarchy of the religion, or it may have two ‘arms,’ but with the state administrative hierarchy subordinate to the religious hierarchy."\* There’s only two “Current states with theocratic aspects” Iran and the Vatican. There aren;t many historical examples either- Egypt under the Pharaoh and “The largest and best known theocracies in history were the Umayyad and early Abassid Caliphate, and the Papal States” are some of the best examples. ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2009, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/72 "2009-08-31T22:40:42Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Odd that. When the Atheists want to show a list of great atheists, they often include many US Presidents. Quite a few US President- while not perhaps “atheists” were not regular churchgoers or perhaps “deists”. Absolutely. Early Presidents. How many recent ones would you class with the deists? > [@HorseloverFat](#): > > Err, unlike which countries? Every country has a dominant religion. How many Islamic presidents has Argentina had? How many Jewish presidents has Russia had? How many Buddhist presidents has Iran had? How many atheist presidents has Australia had? Australia doesn’t have a President… does it? In any case their current Prime Minister is Anglican I think. But I have used NZ as an example before; our current PM perhaps has a religion… but has said he doesn’t believe in life after death, and our previous PM was agnostic or an atheist. The point being that – outside of a few small fringe parties – religion or lack of religion is not a deciding factor in getting elected here. Is the same true of US politics? If a US presidential candidate said: “if you’re asking me if I’m religious it depends how you define religion\*”, and stated that he did not believe in life after death, would it have a positive, negative, or no effect on his election chances? (\*quote from current NZ PM John Key). > [@](#): > > While its “cool” to bash the US on all things on the web, I think its an unfair characterization. The US, unlike a lot of European and Asian countries, was founded as a secular country, which is almost unheard of. Yes, there’s a fair bit of religiosity, but calling it a de facto theocracy is ridiculous. I wasn’t bashing the US. I was asking, given the exact wording of the OP’s question, whether the OP was wishing to explicitly exclude the US from consideration. > [@DrDeth](#): > > And- can we quit this hijack, or continue it in GD? > > The USA is in no way a Christin Theocracy… (There are some aspects of _Dominionism )_ What hijack? The OP asked about (my emphasis): Nations With Official ( **or Unofficial** ) Theocratic **Tendencies**. Tendencies. Not actual theocracy. If you think there are aspects of Dominionism in the US aren’t you arguing in support of the US having theocratic **tendencies**? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2009, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/73 "2009-08-31T23:02:09Z")
> [@Apollyon](#): > > If a US presidential candidate said: “if you’re asking me if I’m religious it depends how you define religion\*”, and stated that he did not believe in life after death, would it have a positive, negative, or no effect on his election chances? > > (\*quote from current NZ PM John Key). Highly negative. I don’t think we’re going to see a US president who isn’t a Christian for at least another 50 years. An atheist/agnostic president? At least another century. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2009, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/74 "2009-08-31T23:53:05Z")
> [@Apollyon](#): > > A > What hijack? The OP asked about (my emphasis): Nations With Official ( **or Unofficial** ) Theocratic **Tendencies**. > > Tendencies. Not actual theocracy. If you think there are aspects of Dominionism in the US aren’t you arguing in support of the US having theocratic **tendencies**? There is nothing at all like Theocratic tendencies in the USA. Not even a tiny bit. But every single fucking time there’s a thread like this- no matter what- someone wants to hijack it in US politics,especially U bashing. If it was “What other nations were Fascist besides Germany & Italy?” some numbskull would chime in with “teh USA!”.:rolleyes::rolleyes: So, no more hijack. If you want a DEBATE on how Theocratic the USA i, GD is just a page away, start a new thread. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Philosopher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3ec8ea/32.png) [@The\_Great\_Philosopher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Philosopher)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/75 "2009-09-01T00:20:08Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > There is nothing at all like Theocratic tendencies in the USA. Not even a tiny bit. But every single fucking time there’s a thread like this- no matter what- someone wants to hijack it in US politics,especially U bashing. If it was “What other nations were Fascist besides Germany & Italy?” some numbskull would chime in with “teh USA!”.:rolleyes::rolleyes: Maybe some people are saying that just to bash the US, but I don’t think it’s an entirely unreasonable point. Clearly the US is nowhere near a theocracy, but given the facts that: 1. In practice, a prospective President needs to profess some form of Christianity to be elected; 2. That repeated Presidents (including Bush and Obama) have implied they feel they are guided by God to some extent in making decisions, and; 3. That a significant portion of the population feels like their President is guided by God. And given that one of the definitions of a theocracy above is a state with “officials who are regarded as divinely guided”, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest the US has some minor “unofficial theocratic tendencies”. That might be unfair - I can’t remember a time when a President said he was guided by God in making a specific decision for instance - but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest and discuss. ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/76 "2009-09-01T00:22:03Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > There is nothing at all like Theocratic tendencies in the USA. Not even a tiny bit. OK, but that just seems terribly at odds with ceremonial deism and the (I think widely accepted understanding) that to be leader of the US one must (at least in recent times) be a practicing Christian. > [@](#): > > But every single fucking time there’s a thread like this- no matter what- someone wants to hijack it in US politics,especially U bashing. If it was “What other nations were Fascist besides Germany & Italy?” some numbskull would chime in with “teh USA!”.:rolleyes::rolleyes: As the poster who opened this particular can of worms; that wasn’t my intent. Not that it matters but should you wish to review my (somewhat spotty) posting history you’ll detect no such trend. If anything I rather like the US, and have certainly enjoyed my times there. > [@](#): > > So, no more hijack. If you want a DEBATE on how Theocratic the USA i, GD is just a page away, start a new thread. Not the OP, not a Mod… you’re not the boss of me! 🙂 But in the interests of peace and harmony… we are perhaps into arguing about definitions of “Theocratic” and “tendency”… and that is not GQ territory. ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/77 "2009-09-01T00:44:36Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Odd that. When the Atheists want to show a list of great atheists, they often include many US Presidents. Quite a few US President- while not perhaps “atheists” were not regular churchgoers or perhaps “deists”. > > Here’s a cite: > [Religious affiliations of presidents of the United States - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_affiliations_of_United_States_Presidents) Looking through US Presidents, **Taft** as a Unitarian seems the most recent non-mainstream Christian, having stated that he didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ (but that he wasn’t an atheist). Interesting reading, thank you **DrDeth**. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/78 "2009-09-01T02:06:11Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Highly negative. I don’t think we’re going to see a US president who isn’t a Christian for at least another 50 years. And that person had better be “the right kind of Christian,” too. Otherwise, he’ll never see the inside of the White House other than as a guest. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/79 "2009-09-01T03:01:20Z")
> [@ruadh](#): > > It’s also worth noting that the first truly publicly-run “non-denominational” school opened recently and who was it named after? A Catholic saint :smack: These people really don’t get it … Well, due to accidents of history there are non-denominational schools with a saint’s name in their title in our country. For instance, in a largish West Coast city most of the schools contain the name of Saint Francis of Assisi. As far as I can tell, not even the more strident atheists object to this. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/80 "2009-09-01T03:24:09Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Well, due to accidents of history there are non-denominational schools with a saint’s name in their title in our country. For instance, in a largish West Coast city most of the schools contain the name of Saint Francis of Assisi. I highly doubt that many of the schools in San Francisco actually have _San Francisco_ in their names- and even if they did, that’s just a wee bit different from actually naming the school after a saint. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921.md?page=5)