Deist Theocracy

This might be a little hard to pull off, but how might we get it so there's a deist theocracy, de facto or de jure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

I've read Paine's "The Age of Reason" and Paine appeared to believe that Judaism and Christianity were actually blasphemous--they (allegedly) insulted the Creator by claiming He was a violent, tribal god.

Ergo, I could imagine some militant Deists trying to suppress "revealed religions"--Paine was obviously too humanitarian to do this, but someone like Robespierre might.
 
There were some movements in this direction during the French Revolution, and you could argue that Kulturprotestantismus had a bit of it, too. The problem with it is, of course, that 18th-century Deism doesn't really support this very well. You don't have an independent structure of doctrinal management, no concept of creed and nothing to lose from heterodoxy. The whiole thing is likely to die soon enough unless some extraneous force has an interest.
 
Could you expalin the following to the less mentally endowed of us!:p:confused:

Kulturprotestantismus
Deism
heterodoxy

(When I say us, I mean me ;) )
 
Could you expalin the following to the less mentally endowed of us!:p:confused:

Kulturprotestantismus

That's a very German thing, but basically, it means that you're a Protestant (specifically, Reformed or Lutheran German established church) not by virtue of what you believe - you can believe anything you like, really - but by virtue of the cultural environment you function in. It's a bourgeois-intellectual ideology bound up with the national cult of Luther, and they were very active in the Kulturkampf on the side of the Prussian state. The movement used to be based on a loose Deist consensus and opposition to every ideology that threatened good bourgeois patriotism. Today, they're not so sure about the God thing any more. I think the closest Anglo equivalent is Christmas Anglicans.


There is a God. OK, that's it. You can't possibly know any more than that and it's ridiculous hubris to assume that he cares about YOU.

OK, oversimplification, but that's what it boils down to: religion without being actively religious. Deists assume that God exists and created the Universe, and therefore that religion is a good thing in principle, but that religions exist for the sake of Man and must never go against the overriding principles of humanist ethics because God actually doesn't care about these things, He care about very little (if you're really lucky, ethical behaviour makes the list, Deists can't always agree here).

heterodoxy

If you believe one thing and your neighbour believes another thing and you don't feel the urge to kill each other, that's heterodoxy.
 
As a card carrying Deist* I immideatly jumped on this, sadly Deism ironically by its own philosophy is pretty hard to have a TL were it is promoted on a massive scale, simply because of the 'Sleeping God' thing, as such beyond being bouyed by a certain political movement it will remain niche and even with support at the end of the day its so open a belief the butterflies might be pretty limited.

Technically you could label the USA a Deist State, afterall God is part of the constiution but Religion isn't.

Maybe Chartism gains a greater foothold in Britain, I can see Deism as an obvious moral banner for the various NonConformist and Christian Radicals/Socialists to unite under (ie Godly morality but in a heterodox set-up)

*I dont have a card really, but I might make one. Incidently I amazed how much more aggressive or agitated religious people I've met get when I talk about Deism than Atheism, maybe its because its not as well known or maybe's its because GOD DOESNT KNOW YOU'RE THERE! :p Sorry I dont mean to offend but if you want to rile a member of an Abrahamic faith Deism works a treat. Sorry. Ill stop. :eek:
 

JohnJacques

Banned
It was small, admittedly. But thats where you start it.

It certainly has to happen in some sort of revolution. I think America could be an interesting setting for one.
 
The problem is staying power. Any idea can get a brief spurt of violent oppression, but you need social interest and inherent persecutorial logic to make it stick.

Maybe if the USA decides not to disestablish the church, but instead agrees on a Deist, inclusive Church of America? You start out with good intentions - an organisational structure for all Abrahamic traditions - but quickly develops into a tool to keep the unenlightened masses out of government and high society.
 
Maybe if the USA decides not to disestablish the church, but instead agrees on a Deist, inclusive Church of America? You start out with good intentions - an organisational structure for all Abrahamic traditions - but quickly develops into a tool to keep the unenlightened masses out of government and high society.

That sounds scary. Later on there will be challenges but there'll also be Social Darwinism that would be adopted.
 
Maybe if the USA decides not to disestablish the church, but instead agrees on a Deist, inclusive Church of America? You start out with good intentions - an organisational structure for all Abrahamic traditions - but quickly develops into a tool to keep the unenlightened masses out of government and high society.

I like.

Maybe they would include Masonic rituals as a way of giving ceremony to a Deist position? (This would really conjure up Masonic conspiracy theories...)

How would you then address the issues of Church and State?
 
A deist theocracy would quickly become a run of the mill dictatorship, because there's no hierarchy to really rule it, meaning that some individual would take power.
 
I like.

Maybe they would include Masonic rituals as a way of giving ceremony to a Deist position? (This would really conjure up Masonic conspiracy theories...)

How would you then address the issues of Church and State?

I was thinking of beginning it in a relatively benign atmosphere where nobody thinks it matters much. The Founding Fathers for some reason (and that's the thing I can't quite see) decide that a proper state needs an established Church and, because they are enlightened people, decide it needs to be a big-tent affair that can cover everyone. thus, the Church of America is Enlightenment Deist, mild-mannered and definitely Masonic-flavoured. Initially, it's something almost all members of the upper classes can agree on (the dissenters are a handful of Catholics and hardcore atheists). The Catholic church eventually ends up established in which state was it, Maryland?

The Church of America offers college opportunites for young men of talents, it provides funds for churchbuilding in frontier areas and develops the ceremonial of civic religion, with a trademark Palladian architecture and the symbol of the tetragrammaton and the eye as its distinguishing features. It encourages a relatively heterodox, quietist, private form of religion. Nobody is compelled to attend services or tithe. But of course, if you hold office, you must be a member since their ceremonies are used to administer oaths, open legislative sessions and on occasions of state.

The crunch comes with the rise of charismatic religious movements and the arrival of upwardly mobile careerists in Washington. The upper classes begin to use church membership as a defense to exclude the uncouth and uneducated. CofA preachers are all college graduates with a solid grounding in Latin, Greek, Hebrew and classical history. Their flock is taught that this is how it should be - the educated leading the uneducated. When counties and states begin sending uneducated boors to the legislatures and Congress, well, at some point you have to draw the line. Someione who believes something as offensive as that Catholics go to Hell surely can not be properly considered a member of the Chiurch of America? Plus, his departure opens a Congress seat for a much more suitable candidate, Harvard graduate, did I mention?

In the first half of the 19th century, an America emerges where legislators, governors, judges, sheriffs and military and naval officers must be CofA. Colleges offer recognised degrees only if they are CofA. You can attend if you aren't, but you can't teach or graduate - you get a Certificate of Attendance. A noisy minority is unhappy with this, but these will be taught proper Enlightenment values, like it or not.
 
Top