|
Theocracy is a problem because very few theocracies have ever done right by the people who are not adherents of the state religion or who otherwise run afoul of points of doctrine (like for example being gay, being a woman who believes she holds as much value as any man). Constitutional democracy has a system in place that, at its best, protects minorities from persecution. Theocratic rule has no safeguards for protecting minorities, and no checks and balances on power. The rulers of a theocracy claim their authority from God, not the people, so therefore they are not really accountable to the people. Which is apparently not a problem because a theocratic ruler would OBVIOUSLY be just. Also, if we are to have a theocracy, what specific religion would it be, and why? Because the doctrine and principles of that religion would determine how that government functions. A Jewish theocracy would be different from an Evangelical theocracy would be different from a Catholic theocracy would be different from a Sunni Muslim theocracy etc. What gives any one religion more legitimacy over any other to the point that they have the right to govern? My contention is that theocracy totally falls apart as a functional and fair system if it is not run by just and wise people, whereas constitutional democracy does not require just and wise rule to function because power is more widely dispersed and has checks and balances. As an aspiring psychologist, I see one system based on a total misunderstanding of humanity, and another that to some extent accounts for it. That's my problem with these naive pie in the sky utopian ideas; they do not take into account modern advances in social sciences, at all. I mean, well, of course not, they're based on articles of faith, positioned in opposition to empirical knowledge. But still, these systems are functionally built for an alien species only loosely resembling people in their behaviors and modes of thought.
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 15:05 |
|