White American Theocracy

[Easterling]

*cough* Papal States *cough*

The Papal States are a rather poor exemple of a theocracy. Besides having the Pope as a chier of state, there was not much to differentiate them from the other Italian states of the period. I see it as more of a "personal union" of church and state, and not a fusion like in a true theocracy. And besides, the Pope would have liked to be the soverign of all Christendom, but his own followers laughed in his face because they saw the ideea as absurd, so all he got was that tiny strip of land.

The problem with building a Christian thocracy is that Christian doctrine quite explicitly requires some degree of separation between church and state (give to caesar what belongs to caesar) and even if you choose to ignore this, the New Testament simply doesn't have anything in the way of religious laws that you can base a society on. There is no Christian equivalent of Sharia. So you are left only with the option of using Old Testament law. The problem with Old Testament law is that anybody with half a brain can see that it's meant specifically for Jews. So you are left to pick and choose which laws you think still apply to you. and this is where the fun begins, because this is what all modern Christians are doing (picking and choosing) but every church, or even every individual, has his/her own choice.
Having a system where churches function like parties (as mentioned in a previous post) would be interesting, but such a system would be free of allmost all negative and dystopic connotations associated with theocracies, and would in practice be more democratic and enlightened than all majority Christian nations up to the 18-th century.

 

[VirginiaHistoryTeacher]

I don't know if this has been thrown out there or not yet but...why does a theocracy HAVE to be authoritarian/dictatorial? Are we just conditioned to look at Iran in 1979 as the benchmark of theocratic government? Wouldn't it be possible to have theocracy with liberty?

 

[CaliBoy1990]

I don't know if this has been thrown out there or not yet but...why does a theocracy HAVE to be authoritarian/dictatorial? Are we just conditioned to look at Iran in 1979 as the benchmark of theocratic government? Wouldn't it be possible to have theocracy with liberty?

I'm afraid not, at least not as we Westerners have come to know it.

 

[Tovarich]

I'm just going to throw this idea in (because I don't have the knowledge to properly debate it, but others here do!)

Howabout if the Restoration in England doesn't happen?
Is there any way this could butterfly in a more determined expansion of the Plymouth Colony, with it gaining the backing of Parliament?

 

[Francisco Cojuanco]

Never going to work, at least past the Revolution. Too much religious diversity even among those who would welcome it. And after 1900, only in the fantasies of people who make Santorum look liberal and those who seriously think Santorum is Khomeini come back. The thing about American religion is that there just isn't a coherent religious majority to back up a theocracy.

 

[lukedalton]

I don't know if this has been thrown out there or not yet but...why does a theocracy HAVE to be authoritarian/dictatorial? Are we just conditioned to look at Iran in 1979 as the benchmark of theocratic government? Wouldn't it be possible to have theocracy with liberty?

The Papal state here in Italy were pretty reactionary and corrupt.

 

[revolutionincyberspace]

I don't know if this has been thrown out there or not yet but...why does a theocracy HAVE to be authoritarian/dictatorial? Are we just conditioned to look at Iran in 1979 as the benchmark of theocratic government? Wouldn't it be possible to have theocracy with liberty?

I'm afraid not, at least not as we Westerners have come to know it.

Abrahamics have a history of shitting up things with religious governments. To be fair, even Buddhists have some bad history of that - as shown by Tibet historically (well, not so much a buddhist theocracy, but a state where the monks were pretty much running shit).

I wonder if a hypothetical Thai buddhist theocracy would be so shitty?

W e could justifyy invasions of central-america as "crusades". Of course immagration would be a problem, no Irish, no Eastren Europeons, No ItaTlians, n o Jews, America woulsd be not very diverse.

Irish, Eastern Europeans, Italians etc would still come as they are "white" and christian.

Yeah I have never been able to understand why people assume that an American theocracy would also be racist. From what I have read theocracies are often very racially inclusive of anyone who will adopt their religion.

Hey, I never said I assume that any American theocracy would be racist. I mean, the name of the thread is "White American Theocracy". Why? Because I want to see a dystopic white-supremacist American theocracy. Making an inclusive American theocracy would be still difficult, but easier, certainly. I'd like to see some secessionist black republics in the southeast and an all-out race war, something like that.

yeah. that's the easiest way. racial balkanization of the USA with the white american rump-state becoming christianized.

 

[Wolfpaw]

Irish, Eastern Europeans, Italians etc would still come as they are "white" and christian.

Eh, Italians and Eastern Europeans didn't really become "white" until after WWII.

 

[serbrcq]

What about a PoD that leaves Pennsylvania as a majority Quaker area? This would give them a strong attachment to William Penn as a founding father and would give them a nice sense of community that could be spun into nationalism further down the line.

A state structured around town meeting houses would be interesting, and it might fit with the kind of gentle, liberal theocracy being discussed here.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

I don't know if this has been thrown out there or not yet but...why does a theocracy HAVE to be authoritarian/dictatorial? Are we just conditioned to look at Iran in 1979 as the benchmark of theocratic government? Wouldn't it be possible to have theocracy with liberty?

NOW that's an interesting idea, that I have not seen or considered before.

Might be worthy of it's own thread as a AHC.

 

[Wendell]

The trouble would be getting would-be theocrats to actually agree. Beyond some basic social conservative issues American fundamentalist Christianity is actually very diverse. In a position where they were actually fully in power they'd be at each others throats in no time.

This is essentially correct. That said, perhaps Huey Long survives, and his plans work out so that FDR loses in 1936 and he himself wins in 1940, eventually being succeded by Gerald L. K. Smith?

 

[SergeantHeretic]

NOW that's an interesting idea, that I have not seen or considered before.

Might be worthy of it's own thread as a AHC.

There is only one problem with this idea.

Theorcracies, by definition are founded on mandating the laws, rules and edicts of one particular religion over the entire secular population.

They are predicated on the notion of granting privelidge and prefference to one particular religion and, by extention, that religion's followers.

This means that, by definition anyone who does NOT follow the religion in question is not entitled to the privelidges in question, and this means there must be tests and qualifications to SURE the claimants to the religion are not just shamming to get the goodies.

In common parlance those are usually called "Inquisitions."

Then too, rebelious unbelievers and "Sinners" who refuse to follow the religious rules mandated by the theocratic state must be dealt with as well and they must be dealt with by the rules and methods approved of in the Holy book and ONLY those rules and methods. The book in question here dates fro mthe dark ages and so by definition the methods would as well.

This by definition would lead to the kinds of practices most sane adult humans would call Crimes against humanity.

 

[SergeantHeretic]

This is essentially correct. That said, perhaps Huey Long survives, and his plans work out so that FDR loses in 1936 and he himself wins in 1940, eventually being succeded by Gerald L. K. Smith?

I am not sure, but as I recall, were'nt both those men members of the knights of the Ku Klux Klan?

 

[Wendell]

I am not sure, but as I recall, were'nt both those men members of the knights of the Ku Klux Klan?

I'm not familiar with that. I don't think it's the case though. I thought that Gerald L. K. Smith had established his own, rival organization broadly along those lines though that was not hostile to Roman Catholics.

 

[SergeantHeretic]

I'm not familiar with that. I don't think it's the case though. I thought that Gerald L. K. Smith had established his own, rival organization broadly along those lines though that was not hostile to Roman Catholics.

Yes, well I am happy to be proven wrong as long as I am PROVEN wrong.

Regardless, neither of those two men are the sorts I would want as President of a cookie baking club let alone a country.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

There is only one problem with this idea.

Theorcracies, by definition are founded on mandating the laws, rules and edicts of one particular religion over the entire secular population.

They are predicated on the notion of granting privelidge and prefference to one particular religion and, by extention, that religion's followers.

This means that, by definition anyone who does NOT follow the religion in question is not entitled to the privelidges in question, and this means there must be tests and qualifications to SURE the claimants to the religion are not just shamming to get the goodies.

In common parlance those are usually called "Inquisitions."
....

That is the obvious pitfall of such a system.

But you make a little bit of a leap in your second sentence. (Probably just because of history).

Here's another definition.

Theocracy is a form of government in which the official policy is to be governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided, or simply pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religious group or religion

Now I could see a system set up here where POLICY might be decided based on divine guidance or doctrine, but it could still be applied uniformly to the population as a whole.

And just because parts of the population might not share the faith does not mean the they would not agree with or at least tolerate the policy.


Example. Ned is not a member of the Faith. But Ned is rabidly anti-porn for personal reasons. When the Theocracy takes over Ned is supportive of their anti-porn policy.

 

[SergeantHeretic]

That is the obvious pitfall of such a system.

But you make a little bit of a leap in your second sentence. (Probably just because of history).

Here's another definition.




Now I could see a system set up here where POLICY might be decided based on divine guidance or doctrine, but it could still be applied uniformly to the population as a whole.

And just because parts of the population might not share the faith does not mean the they would not agree with or at least tolerate the policy.


Example. Ned is not a member of the Faith. But Ned is rabidly anti-porn for personal reasons. When the Theocracy takes over Ned is supportive of their anti-porn policy.

In whitch case the theocracy is going to come for ned's hiney based on some ITHER bit of doctrinal or ecclesiastical folderol.

 

[Wendell]

Yes, well I am happy to be proven wrong as long as I am PROVEN wrong.

Fair enough.

Regardless, neither of those two men are the sorts I would want as President of a cookie baking club let alone a country.

I could not concur more.

 

[Arachnid]

What about a successful Revolution but a failed Constitutional Convention and a balkanised America from the start. While 1790 America as a whole was very religiously diverse with Baptists, Presbyterian's and Episcopalian's strong in the South and Methodists, Quakers and other "independents" strong in the North plus Catholics in Maryland individually a lot of the states were religiously homogeneous. So for example have an independent Massachusetts revert to being a Puritan Theocracy or the an theocratic Episcopalian Virginia. Add to that the potential for alt Mormons to do a Great Trek east to set up a Mormon theocracy later on and you could easily have a balkanised North America with at least a few theocracies or near theocracies.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

In whitch case the theocracy is going to come for ned's hiney based on some ITHER bit of doctrinal or ecclesiastical folderol.

Maybe, maybe not.

I've vaguely recalled an old Pat Buchanan article where he talked about the need of the Religious Right for secular conservative allies.

This is in the post 1900 sub forum.

An alliance of Christian groups and secular conservatives could institute social conservative policy, without losing all freedoms.

Wonder if I could find that article. Pat after all did run for President several tiems as a darling of the Religious Right...