# 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:** 9\ **Page:** 5
**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, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/81 "2009-09-01T04:06:08Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > 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. I thought this might be more interesting than arguing over the precise meaning of “how much” and “theocracy”: [Modern US politics and mainstream religion.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=530257) ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/82 "2009-09-01T10:29:16Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > However, those grants of land and stocks and the like that make up its [the Church of England’s] endowments (but have presumably been shifted into more modern investments these days) did originally come from the Crown, for the most part, didn’t they? No. Actually it is often rather difficult to know where exactly they did originally come from as they can date back to before the widespread use of written records. But most historians assume that most English churches were founded - and endowed - by local landowners, who might sometimes have been the king, but usually wasn’t. There is the complication that some parishes were linked to monasteries and so their endowments passed into the possession of the Crown during the Henrician dissolution and were then given away (i.e. sold). But most of the rights involved have since been abolished anyway. [QUOTE=griffin1977] Additionally I think the “Peculiar Courts” are part of the Church of England that still have power over all members of the community in secular matters. [/QUOTE] Couple of confusions here. Firstly, ‘peculiar courts’ were mostly those ecclesiastical courts which were enclaves within other dioceses. As such, they had the same jurisdiction as the other ecclesiastical courts. Also, most of these peculiars were suppressed with the redrawing of the diocesan boundaries in the nineteenth century. It is also true that a few bishops, such as those of Durham and Ely, controlled secular courts within their palatinates or liberties. But those were all also suppressed in the nineteenth century. Moreover, any authority the other ecclesiastical courts had over secular matters (or perhaps more properly, over matters we would now consider secular) was also abolished in the nineteenth century. The remaining powers of the ecclesiastical courts almost all relate to the internal affairs of the Church of England. Or, as with its authority over the planning regulations regarding its churches, cannot be said to infringe on the rights of anyone else. There is one anomalous exception - the requirement for certain landowners, whether or not they are members of the Church of England, to pay for repairs to the chancel of their local church. But such cases are now heard in the county court, not by any ecclesiastical court. In any case, it seems to me that some of you are missing a crucial distinction implied by the word ‘theocratic’. The relationship between the UK state and the Church of England is more Erastian and, as such, is actually the opposite of a theocracy. ---
**Author:** ![Crowbar\_of\_Irony\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f08c70/32.png) [@Crowbar\_of\_Irony\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crowbar_of_Irony_3)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/83 "2009-09-01T11:09:47Z")
> [@Rayne\_Man](#): > > In spite of what you might read in the _Daily Mail_ or _Express_ I wouldn’t take too seriously the statement that there is Sharia Law in the UK. True there are “Sharia Courts” but they are entirely voluntary and are only used as a sort of arbitration panel. Only UK law is binding in the UK. Malaysia has Sharia Court, and there is big stir over a female Malaysian model who was caught drinking beer. She was convicted to be cane, but there were some drama. The Sharia Court wanted to go ahead, the PM doesn’t want to and urge the model to appeal, and the model taunted the Sharia Court that if they are going to cane her, they should do it ASAP. [More on the incident](http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2009/08/25/2003451959) ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@Mighty\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Girl)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/84 "2009-09-01T14:36:05Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > I would think there’s a big difference between “the church running the state” and “the state running the church.” So, no, the example above of the Church of England _is not_ the very definition of a theocracy. > > Another thing to remember about the Christian politicians in the United States is that they come from quite a few different denominations, denominations with sometimes profound theological differences. > > Israel’s close to being a theocracy? How so? Chile, unarguably one of the most pro-RCC Countries in Latin America (last one to legalize divorce) has a declared atheist for a president. She never hid it and got elected despite that. The RCC has a lot of power here (Dominican Rep.), but in the private sphere people do as they please. Abortion is illegal here, and they are trying to put that into the constitution; but if I ever need an abortion I know where to get a safe one, church be damned! ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/85 "2009-09-01T15:57:51Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > 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. Are people forgetting that just nine years ago we came pretty close to having a Jewish vice-president? ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/86 "2009-09-01T16:08:23Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > Are people forgetting that just nine years ago we came pretty close to having a Jewish vice-president? As I mentioned the modern, politicized, Christian movement in America is actually very pro-Jewish. Though in a weird apocalyptic way: the Evangelical Christian movement likes the Jews, though only because they are going to bring about Armageddon, followed by Jesus’ return (after they all convert to Christianity, obviously). While this is I guess a step up from being blamed for murdering the son of god, I’m not sure I’d be happy with it. Conveniently of course this belief dovetails nicely with unquestioning support for a capitalist pro-US government in the heart of the Arab world. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/87 "2009-09-01T18:13:55Z")
> [@Jerseyman](#): > > I can’t imagine any American getting elected to high office without appeal to _Gawd_ and I can’t imagine any European being trusted as sane enough to elect with it (outside of maybe Ireland, Poland and Russia) WRT Europe, you’d be surprised. The current largest party in [the Dutch parliament](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_parliament) is the CDA (Christen Democrats). They supplied the current Prime Minister and are in the coalition with PvdA (Labour Party) and CU (Christian Union). Similar arrangements are common across Europe. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/88 "2009-09-01T20:09:34Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > As I mentioned the modern, politicized, Christian movement in America is actually very pro-Jewish. Though in a weird apocalyptic way: the Evangelical Christian movement likes the Jews, though only because they are going to bring about Armageddon, followed by Jesus’ return (after they all convert to Christianity, obviously). While this is I guess a step up from being blamed for murdering the son of god, I’m not sure I’d be happy with it. > > Conveniently of course this belief dovetails nicely with unquestioning support for a capitalist pro-US government in the heart of the Arab world. I still say it’s hard to reconcile the idea of a theocratic-Christian society even entertaining the possibility of having a Jewish president. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/89 "2009-09-02T00:42:22Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > WRT Europe, you’d be surprised. The current largest party in [the Dutch parliament](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_parliament) is the CDA (Christen Democrats). They supplied the current Prime Minister and are in the coalition with PvdA (Labour Party) and CU (Christian Union). Similar arrangements are common across Europe. Christian democracy is a major political force throughout western and central Europe. But it’s in no sense theocratic, and it’s not necessary to be a Christian to be a Christian Democrat. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921.md?page=4)