For the HISTORY Gurus - Has there ever been...

[antsi]

A religion with political and military power over people is bound to be authoritarian and tyrannical.  Freedom might allow people to question their religion.
Which sounds to me a lot like any government based on religion is much more susceptible to becoming tyrannical than a secular one. Not that secular govts don't eventually become tyrannical given enough time it just takes longer than it would for a government focused on and for religion?

While I don't think religious based governments are uniquely benevolent, I don't think they're uniquely tyrannical either. Few governments happily tolerate being questioned, whether on secular or religious grounds. Soviet-style Communism is/was about as tyrannical as any government system can get, while simultaneously as secular as any government system can get. Stalin, Mao, etc., were not well known for tolerating dissident opinions.

[ilbob]

I am unaware of any governments at all that have ever been especially benevolent.

<from MW online dictionary>
1 a: marked by or disposed to doing good
b: organized for the purpose of doing good
2: marked by or suggestive of goodwill

I cannot think of any government ever that met any of the three definitions presented.

I would personally argue that it is not the business of government to be benevolent in any case.

[The Rabbi]

The question presupposes standards of benevolence that are/were inappropriate to historical times.
The answer is that every theocracy is benevolent on its own terms.

[Tecumseh]

The question presupposes standards of benevolence that are/were inappropriate to historical times.
The answer is that every theocracy is benevolent on its own terms.

  Best answer yet.

[CAnnoneer]

Tibet.

[Werewolf]

The question presupposes standards of benevolence that are/were inappropriate to historical times.
The answer is that every theocracy is benevolent on its own terms.

Best answer yet.

Ahhhh...

Moral relativism - makes it so easy to justify anything.

[The Rabbi]

The question presupposes standards of benevolence that are/were inappropriate to historical times.
The answer is that every theocracy is benevolent on its own terms.

Best answer yet.

Ahhhh...

Moral relativism - makes it so easy to justify anything.

Ahh, the arrogance of modern thinking.  Makes it so easy to condemn what one doesn't understand while learning nothing.
sheesh.
We can start by saying that every society ought to be judged by the standards prevalent at the time, not by our own.  By our own standards virtually every age and time was deficient in some way.
Any theocracy presumably is set up to make society conform to the laws of an infallible god.  There the highest value is conformity to  god's law, which outweighs any preferences by the individual.  If an individual develops wrong attitudes or ideas, he needs to be corrected and in extreme cases removed from society to prevent wider damage.  That looks like coercion to us because, ta-da, we practice a moral relativism where we cannot say that one morality is superior to another.  In fact it is the ultimate benevolence, as the ultimate goal of human life and endeavor is serving god.

[SlamFire]

"Theocracy:  a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities. "

You can go through History and find plenty of examples of Faith Based organizations. Some much larger than others. I am thinking of the Shakers. I cannot remember some of the Communistic Communes of the 1830/1840s.  All attempts to create a better life by living according to religious principles. And most, failures.

The Shakers were a very good example of a benevolent Theocracy.

However few states ever are ruled by a Religious class. Instead the norm is power sharing between the Religious and Secular leaders. 

This was very true of the Middle Ages Roman Catholic Church.

There are negatives to all forms of leadership, secular, religious. They are all lead by Men who are inconsistent in wants and desires. But I will say, when you toss out the religious persecutions and the intolerance that happens in large institutions, the Roman Catholic Church was a great unifying agent in the Middle Ages.  At the local level the Church provided for the weak, the sick, brought hope, and learning. 

When you ignore the vast positives and focus on the tabloid stuff, you ignore a lot.

[roo_ster]

The question presupposes standards of benevolence that are/were inappropriate to historical times.
The answer is that every theocracy is benevolent on its own terms.

Best answer yet.

Ahhhh...

Moral relativism - makes it so easy to justify anything.

Not moral relativism, as TR explained.

===========================

My memory was stirred and I recall that the Byzantine/East Roman Emperor was both emperor and high priest of the Orthodox  church.

The sovereign of England is also the head of the Church of England.

I think they are a stretch, though.

[Werewolf]

In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to access an ethical proposition's truth;

We can start by saying that every society ought to be judged by the standards prevalent at the time, not by our own

That statement could easlily be used as an example of moral relativism on any Philosophy 101 mid-term and get an A grade.

[BrokenPaw]

Werewolf:

Not so.  Understanding changes things.  For instance, and as a hypothetical example:  Whaling can be justified on the basis that whales are animals, with animal intelligence and no self-awareness.  But suppose at some time in the future, a method of communicating with whales is discovered, and it becomes clear that they are as intelligent as humans, and are fully self-aware.  At that point, whaling becomes much more difficult to justify, since it is now known to be the killing of individual, self-aware, intelligent creatures.

Does that make earlier cultures that killed whales for food suddenly more evil?  No, it makes them ignorant of this hypothetical future knowledge.  Judged in the light of what was known at the time, they were doing nothing intrinsically wrong.  Judged in the light of this hypothetical hindsight, they were committing murder.

As understanding changes, so must morality.

Would you punish a small child who killed a man, in the same way that you would punish an adult who did the same thing?  No, you would not, because the child's understanding and, as a result, his moral framework, did not give him the capacity to understand what he was doing at the same level that the adult could. 

Just as children grow and develop deeper understanding of their world, and in so doing acquire a moral code (whether or not it is one you agree with), likewise cultures and societies do the same thing.

A society (or a person) cannot be judged to be evil for doing something that it did not realize was wrong.  Ignorant, yes.  Evil, no.

-BP

[Werewolf]

Does that make earlier cultures that killed whales for food suddenly more evil?  No, it makes them ignorant of this hypothetical future knowledge.  Judged in the light of what was known at the time, they were doing nothing intrinsically wrong.  Judged in the light of this hypothetical hindsight, they were committing murder.

As understanding changes, so must morality.

Nice job but that's still moral relativism using the philosophical definition. Which is the whole point - using your example whaling wasn't evil and neither are/were theocracies whether they were/are benevolent or not. They were/are doing what they believed to be right based on their cultural norms and what they had knowledge of at the time.

AND guess what? I agree. You see I am a moral relativist. The actions of cultures must be judged in the light of their cultural norms and the factors extant at the time that resulted in those cultural norms.

BUT guess what? Rabbi isn't a moral relativist or an absolutist either for that matter. He's what ever it is convenient for him to be when ever he wants to put on his ass hat which is why I called him out with my:

Ahhhh...

Moral relativism - makes it so easy to justify anything.

statement because I judged (correctly it seems) that he'd soon be showing his true colors.

I'm being nice - if I really said what I thought of rabbi I'd be banned. I just wish the mods would turn on the ignore feature then I wouldn't have to...

[The Rabbi]

I'd like to know what my "true colors" are.
You asked a question about theocracy and benevolence.  I pointed out that benevolence means different things.
Do you have some definition of benevolence you are working off of, or are you merely displaying whatever it is you choose to display that has so made an impression on me?
And, no I am not a moral relativist, even according to your ferkacht definition.  I am pointing out that if you want to discuss "benevolent" you need some kind of standard of what you are talking about.  And under some definition every theocracy is benevolent.
You haven't disproved my assertion.  You haven't even argued with it.  You have simply displayed your animosity and ignorance.

[Werewolf]

You haven't disproved my assertion.  You haven't even argued with it.  You have simply displayed your animosity and ignorance.

You really crack me up rabbi...
 
I proved my point. I'm through playing now.

[The Rabbi]

Good.
Maybe the mods can close this worthless thread.

[Ben]

How many times must we say, "attack the argument, not the member"? Closed.