I thought this might be more interesting than arguing over the precise meaning of “how much” and “theocracy”: Modern US politics and mainstream religion.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
WRT Europe, you’d be surprised. The current largest party in the 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.
I still say it’s hard to reconcile the idea of a theocratic-Christian society even entertaining the possibility of having a Jewish president.
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.