Would you rather live in a secular dictatorship or theocratic democracy?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Secular dictatorship, easily.

In a secular dictatorship all you have to do is keep your mouth quiet and don't mess with the government and you're fine. In a theocratic democracy you have the government constantly interfering with your life and making things much less fun, and the fact that the majority of the population voted for that doesn't make things anymore acceptable to me.

[True Democrat]

Secular dictatorship

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Secular dictatorship

Funny, because that's exactly what we replaced in Iraq with a theocratic sort-of-democracy.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Secular dictatorship

[Citizen James]

Constitutional republic in which about a third of the population are very active theocrats (mostly concentrated in a part of the country far from me).

[The Dowager Mod]

Give me the dictatorship.

[afleitch]

Secular dictatorship- I have less chance of being hauled away.

[Dr. Cynic]

Secular Dictatorship... I'd never be hanged for heresy.

[Nym90]

Democracy, as the theocrats would likely be voted out of office.

[Rob]

Secular dictatorship.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were both secular dictatorships. A genuine theocratic democracy is just about impossible anyway.

[adam]

Theocracy and Democracy are nearly polar opposites. Thus I do not understand how you came up with "theocratic democracy". Seeing as how option goes against logic, I voted for option 1.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Theocratic Dem.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Democracy, as the theocrats would likely be voted out of office.

Not true, as they enjoy popular support in many Middle Eastern countries (see the situation in Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood would probably win a fair election), hell just look at Iraq. And I could definitely see the Confederacy electing such a government if it won independence.

Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were both secular dictatorships. A genuine theocratic democracy is just about impossible anyway.

Not really, as the Nazi ideology was based on some pagan belief systems and the Soviet Union was state atheist (as a true "secular" state would be religiously neutral, not favoring or opposing any religion). As for the second sentence, that's not true, as there's plenty of places around the world where the majority would gladly support theocracy.

Theocracy and Democracy are nearly polar opposites. Thus I do not understand how you came up with "theocratic democracy". Seeing as how option goes against logic, I voted for option 1.

It's pretty simple, a country with free elections where the theocrats always win because the majority supports theocracy, aka just about every Muslim country.

[opebo]

Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were both secular dictatorships. A genuine theocratic democracy is just about impossible anyway.

Well, the Soviet Union was a secular oligarchy, and not all that bad.  Nazi Germany wasn't as secular as you right-wingers would have us believe - the churches and most religious Germans supported Hitler very strongly, and his appeals to mindless patriotism and racism were accompanied by appeals to mindless traditional and family values, as well as direct referrences to 'god'.

[adam]

It's pretty simple, a country with free elections where the theocrats always win because the majority supports theocracy, aka just about every Muslim country.

That's not theocracy, that's Democracy. Theocracy is a forceful kind of oppressive government. Electing religious people to run your government, while theocratic in the eyes of the "bland, cookie-cutter teen generation", is still Democracy.

[Nym90]

Democracy, as the theocrats would likely be voted out of office.

Not true, as they enjoy popular support in many Middle Eastern countries (see the situation in Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood would probably win a fair election), hell just look at Iraq. And I could definitely see the Confederacy electing such a government if it won independence.

Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were both secular dictatorships. A genuine theocratic democracy is just about impossible anyway.

Not really, as the Nazi ideology was based on some pagan belief systems and the Soviet Union was state atheist (as a true "secular" state would be religiously neutral, not favoring or opposing any religion). As for the second sentence, that's not true, as there's plenty of places around the world where the majority would gladly support theocracy.

Theocracy and Democracy are nearly polar opposites. Thus I do not understand how you came up with "theocratic democracy". Seeing as how option goes against logic, I voted for option 1.

It's pretty simple, a country with free elections where the theocrats always win because the majority supports theocracy, aka just about every Muslim country.

Well, I was looking at it from the standpoint of the United States when I made my comment. I agree that other countries would be different, but at least they could be voted out. I think that dictatorship tends to make leaders corrupt and evil, even if they don't start out that way. For that reason, I would always take the democracy, as I trust the masses more than any one all powerful individual, no matter how benevolent at the beginning.

[jokerman]

The Democracy, of course, which is preferable in any reasonable circumstance.

[Jake]

Depends on what kind of theocrats. I obviously wouldn't accept a non-Christian and probably not a non-Catholic group in power.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Not really, as the Nazi ideology was based on some pagan belief systems

No it wasn't. It was (ultimately) based around various racist theories that grew in popularity during the 19th century, none of which were at all based in either religious or pseudo-religious beliefs. All the pseudo-pagan babble surronding it was (initially at least) just a sort of perverted romanticism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please buy yourself a dictionary before you make a fool out of yourself again. Secular does not mean religiously neutral, it implies the absense (even rejection) of religion or spiritual matters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Democracy is not the same thing as mob rule and there is more to democracy than elections. Look up what theocracy actually means... it is ultimately incompatible with a democractic system of government.

[John Dibble]

Well, seeing as I haven't been given much in the way of details about either place, I can't make a decision. All I really know is that one is a dictatorship run under secular principles and another is a democracy run under religious principles. Secular dictatorships can be just as bad as theocratic ones, though probably in different ways. Highly religious democracies can be just as good(or at least close to) as secular ones provided certain rights are recognized. Also nothing regarding the particular economies of these nations has been stated.

Assuming that the theocratic democracy has a moderately free market system and respects free speech and freedom of religion, I think I'd choose that and simply use those rights to work for change.