Do you identify as a theocrat (any religion) or Christian Reconstructionist?

[KaiserDave]

I'll admit I find the idea of a Christian theocracy to be appealing, but only if it was an all liberal, all the time one.

What do you think liberalism is?

[KaiserDave]

I'll admit I find the idea of a Christian theocracy to be appealing, but only if it was an all liberal, all the time one.

What do you think liberalism is?

Socially progressive policies and social democratic economics.

Liberalism is most importantly free democratic elections, the consent of the governed, political and religious pluralism, and free expression. None of which are protected under a theocracy. You are not a liberal.

[KaiserDave]

I'll admit I find the idea of a Christian theocracy to be appealing, but only if it was an all liberal, all the time one.

What do you think liberalism is?

Socially progressive policies and social democratic economics.

Liberalism is most importantly free democratic elections, the consent of the governed, political and religious pluralism, and free expression. None of which are protected under a theocracy. You are not a liberal.

You seriously think those things would be lacking in a state ran by progressive Christians?

What do you think a theocracy is? It is anti liberal by definition

[KaiserDave]

The only thing innate about a theocracy is that it's very strongly influenced by religion and  religious thought.
That's literally the only absolute requirement.
Even a state that is explicitly Christian in terms of its self-proclaimed ideology and places theology as a very real factor in state decisions, but respects the ability of others to follow other religions in a very material way (perhaps belief in that is a major player in the state religion and distinguishing it from other political tendencies of its day), is a theocracy.
If that theology is politically liberal, then you have a liberal theocracy. If that theology is politically conservative, you have a conservative theocracy. And so on.
To argue a theocracy is inherently illiberal is to implicitly argue a secularist state is inherently liberal. And that would also be a laughable claim.

That is not the only innate thing about a theocracy at all. A theocracy is defined as "government by divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided." It is inherently anti democratic. Theocracies are not merely guided or influenced by religion, many many many governments on earth are influenced by religion, and they are far from theocracy. Germany has a Christian Democratic government, Israel's governments have often been guided by religion or had ultra-religious parties in government, many US Presidents have been guided or influenced by religion, and none of these states are theocracies. Theocracies are governments led by religious officials acting on behalf of God. It is impossible for a government that claims to be acting on behalf of God to truly subordinate itself to the masses.

But what if it was a theocracy of a liberal religion?

If it submitted itself to democratic elections in which a secular party could possibly take power, then it would not be theocratic. Could I possibly support a progressive Christian political party? Possibly. But I could never support any organization that would take temporal and government power for the purpose of acting with the direct authority of God.

[KaiserDave]

The only thing innate about a theocracy is that it's very strongly influenced by religion and  religious thought.
That's literally the only absolute requirement.
Even a state that is explicitly Christian in terms of its self-proclaimed ideology and places theology as a very real factor in state decisions, but respects the ability of others to follow other religions in a very material way (perhaps belief in that is a major player in the state religion and distinguishing it from other political tendencies of its day), is a theocracy.
If that theology is politically liberal, then you have a liberal theocracy. If that theology is politically conservative, you have a conservative theocracy. And so on.
To argue a theocracy is inherently illiberal is to implicitly argue a secularist state is inherently liberal. And that would also be a laughable claim.

That is not the only innate thing about a theocracy at all. A theocracy is defined as "government by divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided." It is inherently anti democratic. Theocracies are not merely guided or influenced by religion, many many many governments on earth are influenced by religion, and they are far from theocracy. Germany has a Christian Democratic government, Israel's governments have often been guided by religion or had ultra-religious parties in government, many US Presidents have been guided or influenced by religion, and none of these states are theocracies. Theocracies are governments led by religious officials acting on behalf of God. It is impossible for a government that claims to be acting on behalf of God to truly subordinate itself to the masses.

But what if it was a theocracy of a liberal religion?

If it submitted itself to democratic elections in which a secular party could possibly take power, then it would not be theocratic. Could I possibly support a progressive Christian political party? Possibly. But I could never support any organization that would take temporal and government power for the purpose of acting with the direct authority of God.

I don't think you paid enough attention to my words. I said "very, very strongly influenced by religion and religious thought". Note all the qualifiers that raise the threshold.

That is still not a theocracy, to be a theocracy the government must be claiming to act with the authority of God, not merely be "very, very strongly influenced by religion and religious thought." And how could any group that claims to act on the authority of God submit itself to democratic government?

[KaiserDave]

The only thing innate about a theocracy is that it's very strongly influenced by religion and  religious thought.
That's literally the only absolute requirement.
Even a state that is explicitly Christian in terms of its self-proclaimed ideology and places theology as a very real factor in state decisions, but respects the ability of others to follow other religions in a very material way (perhaps belief in that is a major player in the state religion and distinguishing it from other political tendencies of its day), is a theocracy.
If that theology is politically liberal, then you have a liberal theocracy. If that theology is politically conservative, you have a conservative theocracy. And so on.
To argue a theocracy is inherently illiberal is to implicitly argue a secularist state is inherently liberal. And that would also be a laughable claim.

That is not the only innate thing about a theocracy at all. A theocracy is defined as "government by divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided." It is inherently anti democratic. Theocracies are not merely guided or influenced by religion, many many many governments on earth are influenced by religion, and they are far from theocracy. Germany has a Christian Democratic government, Israel's governments have often been guided by religion or had ultra-religious parties in government, many US Presidents have been guided or influenced by religion, and none of these states are theocracies. Theocracies are governments led by religious officials acting on behalf of God. It is impossible for a government that claims to be acting on behalf of God to truly subordinate itself to the masses.

But what if it was a theocracy of a liberal religion?

If it submitted itself to democratic elections in which a secular party could possibly take power, then it would not be theocratic. Could I possibly support a progressive Christian political party? Possibly. But I could never support any organization that would take temporal and government power for the purpose of acting with the direct authority of God.

What if there's democratic elections but the Constitution is explicitly based on progressive Christian principles and declares it a progressive Christian state?

I would oppose that kind of government recognition of religion, but if the government does not claim to act on behalf of God, and upholds liberal institutions, then it is hardly a theocracy.

[KaiserDave]

That is still not a theocracy, to be a theocracy the government must be claiming to act with the authority of God, not merely be "very, very strongly influenced by religion and religious thought." And how could any group that claims to act on the authority of God submit itself to democratic government?

"how could any group that claims to act on the authority of God submit itself to democratic government?" They can as long as their religious philosophy permits them to*, and probably will especially if it is a political need and/or their philosophy encourages it, to whatever degree. Simple.
Religious thought and beliefs insofar as to how it ought to shape day-to-day government is an extremely diverse thing throughout the ages, moreso than many give it credit for.
*=provided they actually adhere to that philosophy, many cases exist of that not being the case; this goes both directions.

Then I would deny it is truly a true theocracy to begin with. Maybe there is some niche where what you're saying could exist and still be theocratic, but I don't see it being something that could actually exist. Any government that is led by religious officials declaring themselves to be acting on behalf of God is anti-liberal in my book, on its face. One can be influenced by religion, one can be very heavily influenced by religion, but when you proclaim that you a man are acting on behalf of God, that crosses a line. That is theocratic.

[KaiserDave]

That is still not a theocracy, to be a theocracy the government must be claiming to act with the authority of God, not merely be "very, very strongly influenced by religion and religious thought." And how could any group that claims to act on the authority of God submit itself to democratic government?

"how could any group that claims to act on the authority of God submit itself to democratic government?" They can as long as their religious philosophy permits them to*, and probably will especially if it is a political need and/or their philosophy encourages it, to whatever degree. Simple.
Religious thought and beliefs insofar as to how it ought to shape day-to-day government is an extremely diverse thing throughout the ages, moreso than many give it credit for.
*=provided they actually adhere to that philosophy, many cases exist of that not being the case; this goes both directions.

Then I would deny it is truly a true theocracy to begin with. Maybe there is some niche where what you're saying could exist and still be theocratic, but I don't see it being something that could actually exist. Any government that is led by religious officials declaring themselves to be acting on behalf of God is anti-liberal in my book, on its face. One can be influenced by religion, one can be very heavily influenced by religion, but when you proclaim that you a man are acting on behalf of God, that crosses a line. That is theocratic.

I grant that your definition is coherent. I personally just find it too specifically shaped by consensus liberal sentiments as they are in the United States for me to subscribe to it.
Have a nice day man.

To you as well! I see your point, I'll try and think about it more. America-centrism should be avoided in discussions like these.