No, Northern Ireland is probably more conservative in this regard than the Republic.
Both the unionist and nationalist sides oppose abortion in NI, which seems weird until you think about Ian Paisley’s religious views.
ETA: 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.
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.”
That link is out of date; see here. 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.
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.
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”?
Ain’t that the truth.
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.
I think you’ll find your original post missed off three significant figures 
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.
Absolutely. Early Presidents. How many recent ones would you class with the deists?
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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:
- In practice, a prospective President needs to profess some form of Christianity to be elected;
- That repeated Presidents (including Bush and Obama) have implied they feel they are guided by God to some extent in making decisions, and;
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.