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

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Screwed up the last poll.

afaik "Dominionist" is not a term anyone uses to describe themselves in this context, but an identifier used most often by opponents.  The term used by adherents is "Christian Reconstructionist."    

Fair enough.

[Vice President Christian Man]

I'm an evangelical Christian, but theocracy/Christian reconstruction doesn't work. People cannot be forced to believe/worship a certain way. While I think America was founded on Christian principles, I think a Christian Democracy with religious freedom is the most effective model. I emphasize the last part, since millions, possibly billions of people of various religions have been tortured and/or martyred because their government determined that their religion was superior and that others should convert or be persecuted. I understand the reason behind it, but it won't work peacefully. While I think America is a Christian country at its core, I don't think it should be the only legalized religion.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I support theocracy in principle, but it would require a certain paradigm and context to be able to work correctly, and America being a religiously pluralistic society lacks the correct context. I don't support it here, but if a proper Orthodox Christian theocracy were to be established I would consider leaving America and moving there.

     And to be clear, I do agree with Christian Man that we cannot force people to believe a certain way and should not persecute those who believe differently. This is why the correct context matters; a proper Christian government can only emerge in a society where that form of belief is already predominant, because the law is as much an expression of the beliefs of society as it is a means of controlling members of society.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[If my soul was made of stone]

There's an allure to the thought of a society structured around my religious ideals, but that would require such radical restructuring of every structural principle of contemporary human society that I see no purpose in trying to realize it on a large scale. Perhaps there's a slight chance that I might one day assemble a group of like-minded people willing to live in the woods and devote ourselves to religious service, although I'd sorely miss the dialogue with those of other faiths that I currently enjoy, and I'm skeptical that I'd ever meet coreligionists who'd be worthy of sharing my life with so intimately.

[America Needs R'hllor]

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.

There is no theocracy that is even a bit liberal. Just say you want to enforce your ideas on others.

[PSOL]

A lot of you have very wrong and idealistic ideas on how ideas actually spread and what makes people change their minds.

Anyway no, not really, as I don’t want society to be visibly apparent that a certain set of paradigms are breathed onto people. I would like my ideas to be dominant, but not in a noticeable way past what is necessary.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

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.

I think you might be missing the entire point of liberalism here.

[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?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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?

[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

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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

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

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

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.

[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.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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?

[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.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

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.
*=provided they actually adhere to that philosophy, many cases exist of that not being the case; this goes both directions.

[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.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

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.

[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.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There's an allure to the thought of a society structured around my religious ideals, but that would require such radical restructuring of every structural principle of contemporary human society that I see no purpose in trying to realize it on a large scale.

This, and of course my religious ideals are much more mainstream than yours.

I believe that we're already living in a theocracy anyway in the sense that God is ultimately supreme over all creation, and I see no reason for the fallible human institutions of the given time to further reinforce that.