tim@k.cs.cmu.edu (Tim Maroney) (12/07/85)
Thank you, Bill Tannenbaum for a mostly reasonable response on a point of
disagreement. I believe our difference is in the definition of theocracy.
I do consider both England and Israel to be theocracies, because they
contain laws which explicitly refer to precepts of specific religions, and
because to some extent they limit immigration based on the religious views
of the applicant. (In case you didn't know, England will not allow any
Scientologists to enter the country, and I would guess that they treat some
other groups the same way, though I don't know for sure.) It is not
necessary to have a complete correspondence between secular and religious
law to be a theocracy, only to impose religion on others to the extent of
having laws explicitly based in religious dogma.
By the way, when did the push to make pork illegal fail? It was all over
the news in America earlier this year. Though I don't like pork and have no
intention of visting Israel any time soon, I'm glad it failed.
-=-
Tim Maroney, Software Designer, CMU Center for Art and Technology
tim@k.cs.cmu.edu | uucp: {seismo,decwrl,ucbvax,etc.}!k.cs.cmu.edu!tim
CompuServe: 74176,1360 | This is at least as funny as my other signatures.franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (12/11/85)
In article <695@k.cs.cmu.edu> tim@k.cs.cmu.edu (Tim Maroney) writes: > >Thank you, Bill Tannenbaum for a mostly reasonable response on a point of >disagreement. I believe our difference is in the definition of theocracy. >I do consider both England and Israel to be theocracies, because they >contain laws which explicitly refer to precepts of specific religions, and >because to some extent they limit immigration based on the religious views >of the applicant. (In case you didn't know, England will not allow any >Scientologists to enter the country, and I would guess that they treat some >other groups the same way, though I don't know for sure.) It is not >necessary to have a complete correspondence between secular and religious >law to be a theocracy, only to impose religion on others to the extent of >having laws explicitly based in religious dogma. An interesting distinction, and one there ought to be a word for (the best that comes to mind is "having an established religion"), but that isn't what theocracy means. Theocracy means that religious figures rule, as in Iran. The concept is basically applicable to, for example, medieval Europe, where the nominal rulers were not primarily religious figures, but the Church was in fact the dominant force. This is not really true in modern Israel, and certainly not true in modern Great Britain. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Lee Gold) (12/17/85)
I agree that a theocracy is, minimally, a nation ruled by reilgious figures. This does not, however, exclude England whose monarch is ex officio "Head of the Anglican Church." Moreover, Britain still has laws against blasphemy, which have been used to censor literary publications. --Lee Gold
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (12/20/85)
In article <2523@sdcrdcf.UUCP> barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Lee Gold) writes: > >I agree that a theocracy is, minimally, a nation ruled by religious figures. >This does not, however, exclude England whose monarch is ex officio >"Head of the Anglican Church." Moreover, Britain still has laws against >blasphemy, which have been used to censor literary publications. Nominally, the British monarch is a religious figure. In practice, she is not. More importantly, she does not rule -- Parliament rules. Likewise, the laws with a religious basis in Britain, while undesirable, play a minor role in the government of the nation. Britain could become a theocracy with little or no changes in its formal laws; but it is not one today. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108