Well, have many "benevolent" regimes
of any kind have there been in the history of mankind?
Damn few, I'd wager. Treating folk better than the dogshiite on the sole of your shoe is a relatively recent concept.
Of those theocracies that were benevolent, I would put forth that their benevolence was less a function of religion, than it was their civilization (which, yes, has a religious component).
For instance, let us assume the Mormon regime in Utah before it became a state was benevolent. I would argue that is because it was derived from America, not because of Mormonism. The shared assumptions of Western and American civilization were the driving factors behind its benevolence.
An aside:
"Benevolent" is not really applicable to
any government. You can always drum up an instance of malevolent behavior. I think it more accurate to state, "less malevolent," than "benevolent."
=====
Yes, I am a misanthrope. Or you could say I believe that man is inherently corrupt. Or that I believe in the doctrine of original sin. All point in the same direction.
But, I am a happy misanthrope, unlike some we know and wuv. --cough--
mikeirwin--cough--
=====
My hypothesis is that theocracies in general less than efficient economically, liberty is a dirty word, authoritarian, draconian etc.
You have just described 99.9% of all regimes throughout history. Really, why should a theocracy be any better?
