Post by: Werewolf on February 08, 2008, 11:09:35 AM
I'm bettin' no - there's never been one. But if there has I would be interested in knowing the when, where, what religion was in charge? What made it benevolent?
Post by: K Frame on February 08, 2008, 11:18:13 AM
The Vatican.
The Mayans certainly don't qualify. Nothing benevolent about them.
I seem to remember that Montenegro was ruled theocratically for a couple hundred years....
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 08, 2008, 11:18:42 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 08, 2008, 11:22:49 AM
The Vatican.
By which you refer to the city itself, and its government since the Lateran Treaty of 1929? I only ask because some will think you refer to the historical Roman Catholic influence over European governments, etc.
Post by: K Frame on February 08, 2008, 11:29:10 AM
The Vatican.
By which you refer to the city itself, and its government since the Lateran Treaty of 1929? I only ask because some will think you refer to the historical Roman Catholic influence over European governments, etc.
Yes. Vatican City.
The Pope is the head of state, an elected king, in essence.
Post by: Jamisjockey on February 08, 2008, 11:33:42 AM
Post by: Werewolf on February 08, 2008, 11:50:21 AM
I am referring to what could be deemed nation/states that are governed by a religious authority vice a secular one.
Technically the Vatican would I suppose qualify but it has little legal authority over catholics and is not what I am looking for.
I believe that there were some European theocracies in the middle ages, the Mayans as mentioned, modern day Iran.
True Theocracies are not that common and I was wondering why when one considers that even in contemporary times most people are what one would/might consider religious. Theocracies seem like they'd just naturally develop from that but it seems they don't. My hypothesis as to why is that theocracies in general are less than efficient economically, liberty is a dirty word, they are authoritarian, have draconian legal systems etc. So they don't last because they just kind of shrivel up and die or the people replace 'em with something more to their liking.
Not having a PhD in History, knowing that you guys are smart as hell and way over educated in some cases and not being interested enough to do the research myself on what is just a passing fancy I figured someone would know if there had ever been a benign/benevolent theocracy.
Still wondering?
Post by: roo_ster on February 08, 2008, 11:54:28 AM
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--
=====
Quote from: Werewolf
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?
Post by: BrokenPaw on February 08, 2008, 11:58:06 AM
-BP
[1]Subject to US Federal law. And Virginia State law. And Prince William County law. And HOA covenant. And BrokenMa's right of decree. But apart from those restrictions, I'm an unfettered, omnipotent monarch.
Post by: wooderson on February 08, 2008, 12:00:12 PM
Post by: BrokenPaw on February 08, 2008, 12:03:26 PM
Are there citizens of Vatican City who aren't priests/nuns/etc.?
Are the Swiss Guards considered Vatican citizens, or do they remain Swiss Nationals?Post by: SADShooter on February 08, 2008, 12:08:39 PM
Post by: Stetson on February 08, 2008, 12:10:17 PM
Post by: Archie on February 08, 2008, 12:45:04 PM
The ancient nation of Israel, prior to the monarchy was a strict theocracy and very benevolent to the Israelites. In fact, once established, it was rather benevolent to other surrounding nations who allied themselves with the God of Israel.
Historically, the further the nation departed from the theocratic system, the less benevolent and more unsatisfactory to all it became.
Post by: Scout26 on February 08, 2008, 01:19:07 PM
Quote
In fact, once established, it was rather benevolent to other surrounding nations who allied themselves with the God of Israel.
The occasional smiteing not withstanding.
Post by: BridgeWalker on February 08, 2008, 01:38:12 PM
The ancient nation of Israel, prior to the monarchy was a strict theocracy and very benevolent to the Israelites. In fact, once established, it was rather benevolent to other surrounding nations who allied themselves with the God of Israel.
Uh, not so much. I agree that no government can be completely benevolent to all people.
I found modern Jewish law very tyrannical in a variety of ways; that's one of the many reasons I no longer practice Jewish law.
In the ancient Israelite world, they were benevolent to surrounding nations as compared to the Assyrians perhaps, but a nation that has rules about humane treatment of slaves captured in war, concubines captured in war, and half-caste or semi-caste outsiders living within a nation of full-citizens, then no, that is not entirely benevolent.
I don't think Catholicism qualifies either. And I'm fine with that. I don't fault any faith for not being set up to support "benevolent theocracy". Government is not inherently benevolent. Religions have a tendency to be much more involved in people's lives and therefore if we accept minimal gov't to be the best gov't, religion is not the proper framework for good gov't.
I'm not implying that I don't think religions are good and fine and have or should have extensive authority. But the world is not set up for that. We should not have gov't trying to enforce religious law.
Do laypeople even reside in the Vatican?
Post by: MechAg94 on February 08, 2008, 04:34:44 PM
The problem with Theocracies in general is that the govt's focus is not on good govt, but on forcing everyone to be good religious followers. Everything else is secondary. A religion with political and military power over people is bound to be authoritarian and tyrannical. Freedom might allow people to question their religion. While I think that is a healthy thing, those with power would most likely fear it and seek to stamp in out. Bureaucracies are about only power and survival of the Bureaucracy.
Post by: Werewolf on February 08, 2008, 05:09:32 PM
Quote
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?
Post by: doc2rn on February 08, 2008, 05:53:05 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 08, 2008, 06:11:38 PM
fistful, stinker.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 08, 2008, 06:35:59 PM
Quote
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?I don't think that could be documented. Again, the degree of initial tyranny will be reflective of the culture in which the political system or religion finds itself as the culture will control the setting up of the government.
Post by: Tecumseh on February 10, 2008, 09:44:52 AM
I'd say the closest is still with us today...
The Vatican.
The Mayans certainly don't qualify. Nothing benevolent about them.
I seem to remember that Montenegro was ruled theocratically for a couple hundred years....
Please expand on the Mayans. If you are talking about human sacrifice, much of that was voluntary. Obviously the slaves killed were not.The Vatican.
The Mayans certainly don't qualify. Nothing benevolent about them.
I seem to remember that Montenegro was ruled theocratically for a couple hundred years....
But we have to ask benevolent to who? All? The local people? Neighboring states? Enemies?
Post by: Bigjake on February 10, 2008, 09:51:26 AM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 10, 2008, 10:08:21 AM
I'd say the closest is still with us today...
The Vatican.
The Mayans certainly don't qualify. Nothing benevolent about them.
I seem to remember that Montenegro was ruled theocratically for a couple hundred years....
Please expand on the Mayans. If you are talking about human sacrifice, much of that was voluntary. Obviously the slaves killed were not.The Vatican.
The Mayans certainly don't qualify. Nothing benevolent about them.
I seem to remember that Montenegro was ruled theocratically for a couple hundred years....
But we have to ask benevolent to who? All? The local people? Neighboring states? Enemies?
re the Maya
Is it truly "voluntary" if the very system you "voluntarily" give your life for has told you you have to do it or face religious sanction? That allowing yourself to be murdered is in fact a good and noble thing?
I would say by its very nature that sort of a system was not benevolent as there was no real option to not volunteer and that volunteering equaled being murdered.
To avert the inevitable "but, but our political system tells us it's noble to go to war..."
It also offers other alternatives which maintain some social sanction, not to mention that simply going to war does not equal inevitable death, unlike having your heart ripped out.
Also, I'm not a moral relativist, so I don't really care that all the ancient Maya believed their state and religiously sanctioned murder was justified.
As for "to whom"...
A political system owes its first loyalty to its members, which is why any inclusive religion (you can join regardless of nationality) with a centralized authority is particularly unsuited for secular rule. It may be impossible to equally serve your citizenry and co-religionists and/or you may feel forced to bring your co-religionists under your secular hand as well.
Post by: MechAg94 on February 10, 2008, 06:38:54 PM
Quote
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?I don't think that could be documented. Again, the degree of initial tyranny will be reflective of the culture in which the political system or religion finds itself as the culture will control the setting up of the government.
Post by: antsi on February 11, 2008, 02:14:32 AM
Quote
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?
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.
Post by: ilbob on February 11, 2008, 05:12:18 AM
<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.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 11, 2008, 05:35:53 AM
The answer is that every theocracy is benevolent on its own terms.
Post by: Tecumseh on February 11, 2008, 06:11:22 PM
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.
The answer is that every theocracy is benevolent on its own terms.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 12, 2008, 12:40:53 AM
Post by: Werewolf on February 12, 2008, 04:47:45 AM
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.
The answer is that every theocracy is benevolent on its own terms.
Quote from: Tecumseh
Best answer yet.
Ahhhh...
Moral relativism - makes it so easy to justify anything.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 12, 2008, 05:29:14 AM
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.
The answer is that every theocracy is benevolent on its own terms.
Quote from: Tecumseh
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.
Post by: SlamFire on February 12, 2008, 05:31:54 AM
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.
Post by: roo_ster on February 12, 2008, 06:22:47 AM
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.
The answer is that every theocracy is benevolent on its own terms.
Quote from: Tecumseh
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.
Post by: Werewolf on February 12, 2008, 07:41:00 AM
Quote
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;
Quote from: rabbi
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.
Post by: BrokenPaw on February 12, 2008, 08:04:19 AM
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
Post by: Werewolf on February 12, 2008, 09:27:36 AM
Quote
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.As understanding changes, so must morality.
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:
Quote from: Werewolf
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.Moral relativism - makes it so easy to justify anything.
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...
Post by: The Rabbi on February 12, 2008, 11:13:20 AM
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.
Post by: Werewolf on February 12, 2008, 12:25:23 PM
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.
Post by: The Rabbi on February 12, 2008, 01:12:17 PM
Maybe the mods can close this worthless thread.
Post by: Ben on February 12, 2008, 01:42:34 PM