Anti-Cliche challenge:Theocratic Empire as the good guys

[Elidor]

I have seen a lot of TLs where the world is threatened by massive Theocratic Empires that generally restrict freedoms of their populace, retard technology, and go on a worldwide conquest frenzy with suicide-bombers as foot soldiers (all while being hypocritical about the tenets of their religion). But why not have the theocrats as the good guys for a while? What kind of scenarios will make that possible?

We can just as easily get a Theocracy that is compatible with science and general prosperity, and protects members of other religions and prays for them instead of physically persecuting them fighting an avowedly atheist *Stalinist empire.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

We can just as easily get a Theocracy that is compatible with science and general prosperity, and protects members of other religions and prays for them instead of physically persecuting them fighting an avowedly atheist *Stalinist empire.

There will be something vaguelly like this happening in my TL quite soon... but I agree with the main point. Let's make the Papal States or someone the good guys!

 

[catboy637]

The Papal States manage to unite Italy. Then things happen. I don't know.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

Have that happen in conjunction with something about this thread, and maybe we could be in business?

 

[mowque]

But the Papal states are always the good guys....

 

[Jimbrock]

But the Papal states are always the good guys....

Being consistently(sp) anti-change and actually not very religious isnt that 'good' but I guess no country is completely 'good'.

I can see some sort of 'Father knows best' state or an ancient and 'good' Big Brother state .

Jim

 

[B_Munro]

I have seen a lot of TLs where the world is threatened by massive Theocratic Empires that generally restrict freedoms of their populace, retard technology, and go on a worldwide conquest frenzy with suicide-bombers as foot soldiers (all while being hypocritical about the tenets of their religion). But why not have the theocrats as the good guys for a while? What kind of scenarios will make that possible?

We can just as easily get a Theocracy that is compatible with science and general prosperity, and protects members of other religions and prays for them instead of physically persecuting them fighting an avowedly atheist *Stalinist empire.

Personally, I'd be much more worried about theocracies which _are_ SINCERE about their beliefs: being genuinely convinced that people who don't share your beliefs will go to hell for all eternity leads to certain consequences.

Of course, that's Christians, Muslims, etc. A Hindu or Bhuddist theocracy, in which there's always another turn of the Wheel to set things right in, might be pretty tolerant.

If we are talking about a modern, technological world, there's always going to be trouble with science and religion: the universe as it actually is (15 billion years old, who knows how many billion light-years around [darn you, cosmic inflation!], with no signs of life aside from here and living things evolving over billions of years) doesn't look very compatible with traditional stories of the creation: for a theocratic state not to fall behind in biology, physics, etc., it's going to have to have pretty mentally flexible leadership.

You may point out that OTL the majority of religions have managed to adapt to the world as it is, but that strikes me as because these new discoveries occured in societies that were _already_ pretty secular and the state held a position of superior stregnth with respect to the church: Catholicism, etc. had to adopt or be left as an absurd irrelevance. (Or so was thought: the success of American fundamentalism in expanding it's politcal power while often following the most absurd forms of creationism wasn't expected).

Bruce

 

[B_Munro]

Of course, one can modernize pretty far in some fields while holding absurd beliefs in others: Lysenkoism didn't prevent the USSR from developing the atom bomb. I didn't find it unbelievable that in Tony Jones's "Puritan World" Puritan america was the world's greatest industrial power, given the general backwardness of the place. But it's hard for me to see a modern theocracy finding it anything but painful to adapt to a modernity in which things like the Big Bang, Evolution, etc. are parts of the package.

A certain amount of repressiveness (banned books, state established school curriculums, censorship) seems to me to be an inescapable part of a state which feels it's laws are based on the words of God (or Gods, or Buddha, or...). Of course, there is always relative levels of bad or good. High-tech anti-slavery Puritans vs. the Draka, circa 1930, would be amusing...

Bruce

 

[Talkie Toaster]

I think you guys are jumping to conclusions here. Nothing says that a state based on religion or even run by the *priesthood cannot be forward-thinking. Until comparatively recently, most states were grounded in religion, with the monarch of the nation deriving their legitimacy from their God. And they advanced in that period substantially. Al-Andalus and Elizabethan England come to mind, although of course these did not fulfill the "political liberty" requirement, as these ideas are anachronous. Priests and Monks live in a pseudo-theocratic environment, and yet they were proponents of the Big Bang theory and Genetics respectively.

It's also not inconcievable for a "Constitutional Theocracy" to appear in the right circumstances, with a Pope/Caliph/Whatever as the representative of God ruling, but answerable to the people of the nation in one way or another. The Ottoman Empire seems a good candidate for this.

 

[Polish Eagle]

You need to have England remain Catholic, and possibly somehow prevent enlightenment ideas like Freedom of Religion from taking hold in America and France. If America becomes a really high, like 80-90% majority Catholic state, it might not become a theocracy, depending on how much sovereignty is desired by the government, but the Papal states and nations that have a state religion (provided it's Catholic) will be viewed positively.

Bottom Line: Prevent Freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State from taking hold in intellectual circles.

 

[Michael Busch]

Bottom Line: Prevent Freedom of Religion ... from taking hold in intellectual circles.

I'm not entirely sure that this is a requirement for a theocratic government. A few religious/ethical leaders explicitly say that they do not have a monopoly on salvation (or enlightenment or rules for appropriate conduct). For example, I was recently reading some of the work of Thich Nhat Hanh, a Zen Buddhist:

The Buddha is described as a door, a teacher who shows us the way in this life. ... But it is said that there are 84000 doors of teaching. If you are lucky enough to find a door, it would not be very Buddhist to say that yours is the only door.

Such tolerance is a rare commodity (even in Buddhist nations), and maybe a government based on Zen would be easily conquered by a less tolerant force, but religious tolerance isn't explicitly forbidden by a theocracy.

 

[sahaidak]

I have seen a lot of TLs where the world is threatened by massive Theocratic Empires that generally restrict freedoms of their populace, retard technology, and go on a worldwide conquest frenzy with suicide-bombers as foot soldiers (all while being hypocritical about the tenets of their religion). But why not have the theocrats as the good guys for a while? What kind of scenarios will make that possible?

We can just as easily get a Theocracy that is compatible with science and general prosperity, and protects members of other religions and prays for them instead of physically persecuting them fighting an avowedly atheist *Stalinist empire.

Apparently, some of your conditions were partly fulfilled in the Jesuit reductions of Paraguay: they maintained relative prosperity among Indians, developed science (astronomical observations, Guarani philology), ruled benevolently, allowing wide autonomy for native settlements, and used their Indian-manned army primarily against Portuguese slavers and raiders (not atheists, but assuredly "bad boys"). Weren't they good guys (especially comparing with other colonial administrations)? However, even they were Christian bigots and authoritarians.
I doubt that it could be possible to obtain tolerant, science-compatible welfare state with theocratic government, at least remaining in the Abrahamic religious space. I know too little about Dharmic religions, so I can't tell, is it possible to have, for example, Buddhist state, ruled by "good-guys-theocrats" (e.g., modern Thailand is the Buddhist theocracy to some extent, but it isn't very tolerant to its Muslim subjects). Japan is formally Shintoist Empire with godlike emperor, but only formally; when Japanese Imperial theocracy was hard reality, it wasn't as tolerant and freedom-loving as it is nowadays.

 

[Rakhasa]

It's also not inconcievable for a "Constitutional Theocracy" to appear in the right circumstances, with a Pope/Caliph/Whatever as the representative of God ruling, but answerable to the people of the nation in one way or another. The Ottoman Empire seems a good candidate for this.

The catholic church is actually very close to that. Monks vote for their Priors and sometimes Abbots, and for the last two thousand years the council of Cardinals has voted for the Pope. Early chistian congregations chose their bishops. If the church kept that and adapted it to tme moder diocesis and archdiocesis system, we have a teocratic constitution quite similar to modern representative democracies. The dyocesis chose their bishop, the bishops of an archdiocesis chose their archbispop (than becomes a cardinal), and those chose a pope.

 

[ninebucks]

History doesn't support the notion that Buddhism is immune from inhumane theocratic oppression: Tibet, Burma, Ungern von Sternberg's Mongolia... Buddhists have a record that is at least as bad as Christianity or Islam.

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

The New Model Army accepts and implements the First Agreement of the People, and following this the English Republic propagates the idea that it is through the ballot box that God expresses his will and 'Divine Right' takes on a new meaning.

This English Republic would be divinely inspired I suppose, since the Levellers were more radical Independents (i.e. Puritans), but the franchise was to be extended to nearly all free men (no beggars, Catholics or Jacobites), there was to be re-districting, equality before the law, 12 man juries, an end to tithing and the independence of each congregation to choose its own minister.

The King-less English Republic inspires similar movements across Europe, and though most lose the fully functional and quite stable English Republic remains a potent symbol of egalitarian values.

 

[Elidor]

Personally, I'd be much more worried about theocracies which _are_ SINCERE about their beliefs: being genuinely convinced that people who don't share your beliefs will go to hell for all eternity leads to certain consequences.

Like I said, they could believe somebody is going to Hell-- and instead of persecution or anger, the mood can be like a kind of pity for what lies ahead for them-- and of course, chance till the deathbed to repent out of heart, which is in ATL, theology the only way to go to heaven. God is the only one that can judge those going to Hell, and doing God's judgment for him can be considered unholy in itself.

You may point out that OTL the majority of religions have managed to adapt to the world as it is, but that strikes me as because these new discoveries occured in societies that were _already_ pretty secular

The Catholic Church and religious orders led to a lot of scientific discoveries. Even in secular societies, the centers for scientific and philosophical thought were universities, who primary purpose was religious. The Church simply gets a lot of bad press because of the whole "they persecuted heliocentrists" thing. Just make an ATL with a more liberal pope at the time when astronomy and physics takes off, and we will be alright.

As for the WI itself, we can have a TL where there is no protestant reformation, Europe suffers countless devastating wars, and the Papacy forms the basis something like a "Catholic EU" after the world war two analogue in TTL.

 

[MerryPrankster]

As for the WI itself, we can have a TL where there is no protestant reformation, Europe suffers countless devastating wars, and the Papacy forms the basis something like a "Catholic EU" after the world war two analogue in TTL.

That's a good point.

The "Catholic EU" could then face off against some kind of Communist or "Slavic Nazi" Russian empire that imposes some kind of Russian equivalent of the Draka all the way to India and Persia.

 

[Jord839]

That's a good point.

The "Catholic EU" could then face off against some kind of Communist or "Slavic Nazi" Russian empire that imposes some kind of Russian equivalent of the Draka all the way to India and Persia.

That's a very interesting idea. An avowedly atheist empire in the east oppresses all religions or at least supresses them. Another option is in this new world, the colonies in the Americas become more deistic than christian and gradually shift towards atheistic. By the time a war of independence comes I like the idea of a revolution with the slogan, "No God! No King! Only us!"

Atheistic, violent, and expansionistic(possibly racist as they might see evolution as the proof that they are the master race) republic vs. a confederation of theistic but tolerant and somewhat democratic monarchies. Now there's an anti-cliche.

 

[B_Munro]

I'm not entirely sure that this is a requirement for a theocratic government. A few religious/ethical leaders explicitly say that they do not have a monopoly on salvation (or enlightenment or rules for appropriate conduct). For example, I was recently reading some of the work of Thich Nhat Hanh, a Zen Buddhist:



Such tolerance is a rare commodity (even in Buddhist nations), and maybe a government based on Zen would be easily conquered by a less tolerant force, but religious tolerance isn't explicitly forbidden by a theocracy.

I can believe in a Bhuddist or Hindu theocracy that was genuinely tolerant, but for Christian or Muslims theocracy we need a victory by the more mystical and non-literalist, even pantheist groups: sufis among muslims, say (I'm not sure what the Christian equivalent would be).

Bruce

 

[B_Munro]

Like I said, they could believe somebody is going to Hell-- and instead of persecution or anger, the mood can be like a kind of pity for what lies ahead for them-- and of course, chance till the deathbed to repent out of heart, which is in ATL, theology the only way to go to heaven. God is the only one that can judge those going to Hell, and doing God's judgment for him can be considered unholy in itself. .

Your last sentence in some ways captures some of the old Christian view of the Jews - they were dammed, but God would sort them out, and in any event they were needed to play a role in the eventual Apocalypse. Didn't mean that they didn't loathe them any less.

If your truth is the only one, it must be _recognizeably_ the truth. The medieval and early modern viewpoint was that if people reject Christianity, it means that they are being _deliberately_ obtuse, and quite likely are in league with Satan. Heresy is not a difference of opinion, but a revolt against God.

These people are carriers of a lethal spiritual disease which if spread to your friends or children will doom them to eternity in hell. No goddammed way is there not going to be intolerance and at very least some degree of social segregation. Even in the more tolerant eras of Islam, converting from Islam to even "faiths of the book" such as Christianity and Judaism usually meant a death sentence.

The Catholic Church and religious orders led to a lot of scientific discoveries. Even in secular societies, the centers for scientific and philosophical thought were universities, who primary purpose was religious. The Church simply gets a lot of bad press because of the whole "they persecuted heliocentrists" thing. Just make an ATL with a more liberal pope at the time when astronomy and physics takes off, and we will be alright. .

Just a few bad apples in the barrel, right?
(Although Galileo didn't help his case by naming the guy taking the geocentrist position "simplicio")

The church had no trouble with science per se, since God had presumably constructed a lawful universe which could be to some extent be understood. It's when science starts coming up with stuff that blatantly contradicts dogma that the fewments hit the windmill. There was indeed a long tradition of rationalism in the church, e.g. Thomas Aquinas and his reconcilation of philosophy and religion, but ultimately dogma is the bones of an organized religion, and removing some of them is horribly painful. In a theocracy there is nobody to say nay to shutting those pesky scientists THE HELL UP.

As for the WI itself, we can have a TL where there is no protestant reformation, Europe suffers countless devastating wars, and the Papacy forms the basis something like a "Catholic EU" after the world war two analogue in TTL.

While the secular rulers do what, exactly? Secular vs. Clerical power - THAT particular argument was pretty much settled back in the Middle Ages.

Let's step back a minute. How are we defining theocracy? My general understanding was that it's not a true theocracy if the ultimate authority isn't a religious figure or figures: the Caliphate in its early days qualifies, but the Ottoman empire doesn't.

Bruce