Talk:Theocracy

"Eugene VioletÞ2DcTheocracy" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Eugene VioletÞ2DcTheocracy and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 29#Eugene VioletÞ2DcTheocracy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

"Eugene VioletTh2DcTheocracy" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Eugene VioletTh2DcTheocracy and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 29#Eugene VioletTh2DcTheocracy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

"Religious authority" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Religious authority and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 29#Religious authority until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

UK?

I would like to suggest that the United Kingdom may be considered somewhat of a theocracy, if not historically a theocracy, if with a parliament, the head of state was the head of church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.165.105.11 (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Do reliable sources describe the UK as a theocracy?

I think good sources are really needed to call any particular nation a theocracy, especially a nation that doesn't describe itself as fundamentally religiously based, especially since the term has become somewhat POV and more broadly applied than originally meant.

There's an (IMO) slightly problematic issue here in that some (many?) modern writers have expanded the term theocracy to cover situations where religion is imposed but the civil power, generally a monarch, has control over the religious authority (like the Imperial Cult of the pre-Christian Roman Empire, or other deified monarchs mentioned in the article; or the Byzantine Empire's religious policy).

Theocracy, as originally meant, referred to the opposite situation where the civil power was subordinate to religious power or divine law.

This modern broader use is, I'd say, inherently somewhat POV as it's generally applied only to systems that the speaker/writer finds oppressive, undemocratic, or whatever. Therefore it's not generally applied to modern European setups with an established church like the UK/Church of England or Denmark/Church of Denmark. The practical difference is presumably that the latter states don't impose religion on their inhabitants and the lawmaking is not in practice primarily religiously driven?

By that broader modern definition maybe you could call England in say Tudor times when religious dissenters were actively persecuted "theocratic" - but certainly not the United Kingdom as it exists now or in recent times. But even then I don't think it's usually called that (it's called a monarchy and sometimes an absolute/absolutist monarchy, for that era).Vultur~enwiki (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

No, reliable sources do not describe the UK as a theocracy (at any period)! Or good luck trying to find any. You may be aware that even the top clergy in the Tudor period were frequently in trouble with the government. Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. At the period where religious persecution occurred (which I think was mostly Kingdom of England rather than the UK as such) it was more a caesaropapist kingdom (King/State control over the Church) rather than a theocracy (religious control over the state). During the Tudor and Stuart era religious policy changed with the monarch. Royal Supremacy over the church was Henry VIII's whole push. Vultur~enwiki (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the UK is not a Theocracy. Unfortunately the same people that agree that the UK is not a Theocracy, mischaracterise Israel - which has lesser religious aspects (ie Head of State can be any religion, Faith ministers are not automatically in legislature) - as a Theocracy. Montie12 (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Antisemitic to mischaracterise Israel as Theocracy

Israel is not a Theocracy. It’s leaders are democratically elected and can be of any faith. Israel falls under the category of states with an established religion. By misrepresenting Israel as a Theocracy; when not doing same for other states that have an established religion, the authors and re-instaters of this text are knowingly breaching the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which is a form of racism. Montie12 (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The sources are unconvincing. The section does not cite Israel law, international observers, or non-opinion news, to support the claim that "Israel is a theocracy". The Gail Page citation is from an opinion piece in the Concord Monitor, a local newspaper for Concord, NH. The Haidar Eid citation is an opinion piece in Al Jazeera. The fact that Haidar Eid was an associate Professor at Al-Aqsa University in Gaza is not mentioned.

Neither of these figures are introduced, the reader is just left with statements like "Gail Page describes..." and "Haidar Eid thus describes...". From my research, Gail Page does not seem to be an expert in Israel or in the middle east. Haidar Eid is an expert, but his background is not elaborated upon.

The article defines a theocracy as the following: "Theocracy is a form of government in which one or more deities are recognized as supreme ruling authorities, giving divine guidance to human intermediaries who manage the government's daily affairs, or in which human leaders who follow a certain religion are thought of as the ideal and only class of ruler." There could be nuance to this determination, especially with the nation-state law, but Israel does not meet that definition as it is written. The section as it exists is misleading. RushCar (talk) 08:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I do not know (or care) about the antisemetic angle, but Israel is a state for the Jewish people, not Jews the religion. That is clear as the states accepts as immigrants ethnic Jews even if they are of a different religion - many Christians of Jewish decent have immigrated from the former Soviet Union for example. Furthermore, no deity is recognized as a supreme ruling authority in Israel, thereby completely eliminating the single criterion for being a theocracy given in the page. Israel is no more theocratic than any nation that has Christmas as a national holiday and should be removed from this list. If no counter argument is given, I'll happily correct the list and remove Israel from it. Dotancohen (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

In addition, calling Israel a theocracy directly contradicts another passage in the article which says:

"Having a state religion is not sufficient enough to mean that a state is a theocracy in the narrow sense of the term. Many countries have a state religion without the government directly deriving its powers from a divine authority or a religious authority which is directly exercising governmental powers."

As no counter arguments had been given for three months, it seems Israel should be removed from the list. 85.65.235.49 (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Other entries include significant nuance in their explanation of whether a country is or isn't theocratic in nature. I find it disingenuous that Israel isn't at least discussed as it has significant theocratic qualities (e.g. getting married requires a Rabbi, basic law wrt nation state, law of return specifically for those of the Jewish faith). The lack of a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_state while including ones for Christianity, Islam, Tibetan Buddhism again feels disingenuous. There's even a section there for "States with an ambiguous status" which seems like it could be an appropriate place to put something about Israel. If nothing else a section explaining why Israel isn't a theocracy (despite seeming to have a lot of qualities of one) would be helpful to readers of this page.

Accusations of antisemitism in this discussion are chilling and likely contributed to no one providing counter arguments. This entire discussion appears to have been poisoned by an attack right from the start when it could have been conducted without the accusation and had the same outcome. It is not necessary to be antisemitic to hold that Israel is theocratic in nature. 136.55.60.72 (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)