Theocracies: why are they so oppresive?

[Dilettante]

Since littlesoul brought up something similar, I've decided to start this new topic. In theory, a government of the godly would seem like a good thing, especially to those who think God is the basis of morality. However, theocratic governments have a terrible history of being oppressive and intolerant. As an example, John Calvin's Geneva dictatorship executed more people in 25 years than the Spanish Inquisition did in five centuries.
Present-day examples abound, from the taliban to Khomeini's Iran. So, my question is ...why do theocracies make such oppresive governments?
i think I have some answers, but I'd like to read yours first.

[aprilannies]

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Most theocracies throughout history are run by people who believe, or are able to manipulate others into believing that their rule was ordained by God, and that they speak for God, and to dissent against them is to dissent against God.

By having a theocracy, certain basic rights are automatically denied. Theocracies are, by nature, extreme. Freedom of religion is the first, obviously. Forget the freedom to pick and choose what you disagree with in the religion! More importantly is freedom to disagree with the government. They are the ruling hand of God on earth, ruling in ways that may be outlined in holy books, who are you, a mere citizen, to disagree with God? It's blasphemy!

Most leaders of theocracies are not 'men of God' but in actuality are the furthest thing from. They are strong, charismatic speakers who are able to make the masses believe that their rule is ordained by God, which helps to keep them in power, for a time.

It may be possible to have a democratic theocracy that would be successful, but I tend to think that is only possible on a small-scale level.

[Dilettante]

Thanks, aprilannies. I think you make several very good points. However, let me just add one chilling fact: it is much much easier to be cruel when you think you are acting in your victim's best interests. And, from the perspective of a theocratic ruler, no interest can be higher than the salvation of our victim's soul (and of the souls of those who could be "lead astray" by the victim were he permitted to continue to be free or alive). That's the rationale of religious oppression, I think. The tyranny of the "good" is even worse than the tyranny of the corrupt because the corrupt may be aware at some level that they are doing evil and may feel some remorse about it. The self-righteous, on the other hand, feel no remorse about doing what they perceive as God's work on Earth, so there is no limit to oppression under such a government. I find this horrifying.

P.S.: we may agree that theocratic rulers are not really acting in God's name, but they surely think otherwise. Since we lack objective criteria to help us decide who is in direct communication with God, when it comes to politics it's best to assume that no one is...just to be safe!

[MagusYanam]

I assume that by 'theocracy' you mean 'rule by an established religious authority', correct? If that is the case, which would be more preferable: a free (and theocratic) Tibet under the rule of the Buddhist authorities, or the secular Chinese 'autonomous region'?

Don't get me wrong; I'm all for the complete separation of church and state. Theocracy in the extreme cases can be oppressive and evil, especially when the religion endorsed is doctrinally rigid and has a proselytising element (such as Reformed Christianity or Islam, in the examples you mentioned). But this is a valid question. Should citizens of a country be allowed to democratically elect a clerical state? This is what would happen in Tibet were it allowed, and what would happen in Iraq were it allowed (the majority of Iraqis are Shi'a Muslims).

[Dilettante]

Good point, Magus Yanam! When I posted the original question I was thinking more of secular democracies as opposed to monotheistic theocracies. You have awakened my curiosity about a Buddhist theocracy, if such a thing can exist. Since most Buddhists apparently get along without a deity, could we even call that a "theocracy" (theos=god)?
In the case of Tibet the secular alternative is not a democratic one, but one based on a totalitarian ideology, communism, which in many ways resembles a "religion", with its rituals, its sacred texts, and its ideological dogmas. I don't know how tolerant a Buddhist government can be, so I'll have to suspend judgment until I am better informed. But it would be nice one day to see a democratic Tibet. I agree that we risk seeing a theocratic Iraq after the elections, and, sadly, I'd say the same may well be true of a future Palestinian state.

[MagusYanam]

You do have a good point. While the analogy between Communism and theocracy does tend to strain a bit, I grant you that Chinese rule in Tibet is quite oppressive. They've taken to imprisoning Tibetan clergy now (particularly the Panchen Lama).

The current Dalai Lama is a very conscientious, very humanitarian-minded man - the perfect example of a beneficent religious leader. I'm not sure how a dynastic authority such as Tibet's would have were it free (dynastic based on reincarnation, mind you, not bloodlines) would work under someone as liberal as the Dalai Lama. A Tibetan state would have the potential to be extremely repressive, but it might not be so in the slightest. I get the impression from what I've read that the vast majority of the Tibetans would be perfectly happy under the Dalai Lama.

Sorry if I'm rambling, I'm just thinking on the keyboard - I hope some of what I'm saying is helpful in some fashion.

[Karl]

Good discussion here.

IMO, there are three groups that are largely responsible for most of the misery in human history. They are:

1. The Statist - The STATE is "god", you may not question the state.

2. The Religionist - You MUST practice MY religion in EXACTLY my way.

3. The Feudal War Lord - Which nowadays could also include corporations, banks, etc. protecting their "territories", or exploiting others.

These groups have a common goal: CONTROL

They use a common tactic: FEAR

In ancient times, Esoteric Precepts were transmitted via Myth, Allegory and Religious Drama. The late Dr. Alvin Boyd Kuhn wrote in his Masterpiece 'Who is This King of Glory?'

(page eighteen)....The Gods did know that man would ape the divine paragon, and they did present the hero, the great sunlit figure of Christos, in every religion of antiquity....

(cited from http://members.tripod.com/~pc93/whosking.htm)

The problem comes in when Esoteric Meanings become lost, and fundamentalist extremist ignorance takes over. The legalist is concerned with his own rules, interpretations and fear-based exclusionist dogma (with which sheeple are kept in line) rather than Spirituality and Internal Development of the Divinity in every man, which should be the same for everyone. The stories about "the Pharisees" in the NT serve to teach about the dangerous hypocrisy and control-mongering of those types of self-aggrandizing prelates.

In reality, all three of the above groups produce the same thing: utter bondage (and sometimes worse) A theocracy is every bit as bad as Hitler or Stalin. That's all it ever can be. For where only one religion is leglislated, no others can be tolerated.

K