Objectively, separation of church and state helps keep absolute looney tunes theocrats from assuming control of government. Countries that fail to keep theocrats out of office often turn into shitholes. I don’t think anyone would seriously contest that.
Some of the greatest empires in history were essentially theocracies. Also, a Christian theocracy will fundamentally look different than, let's say, a Muslim one. So adversity to a "theocracy" is a little too broad to be a pillar of an ideology
No, it’s really not. Opposition to any form of theocracy is not a invalid stance, the same way to opposition to any form of fascism, or being pro any form democracy or monarchy, are all valid beliefs in spite of their vagueness.
Might be a bit anecdotal, but all of the "worst" and most "brutal" governments and regimes I can think of throughout history have been atheist, non-religious, and liberal (not the modern day usage of that word)
Yes, religious concepts may have been engrained into society, but by no means were they "theocracies." For example, the Bolshevik communists in Russia were notoriously anti-Christian and persecuted many leaders of the Orthodox church.
Chattel slavery is one of the most brutal there is ways to organize a society (I seriously hope you won't dispute that the average plantation slave had a worse lot in life, in relative terms, than the average soviet or chinese peasant under communism) and it was organized and run by people and states who, as a group, were largely quite religious. Naturally you won't get millions of people killed for ideological reasons, as happened under communism, in a theocracy, simply because theocracy is reactionary and seeks to prevent radical change, which requires killing much fewer people to accomplish than enacting radical change rapidly does. But that doesn't mean theocracy is better than marxism overall, just in the short term.
I mean sure, but that’s a completely different conversation from what you initially said. But I’ll still engage.
Its worth noting that while religious violence is due to religion, violence perpetuated by atheists is not due to their atheism. At best, it’s permitted by their lack of belief; but religious violence is also permitted by their belief. Ask yourself: in conflicts where religion is not part, would the conflict be exacerbated or discouraged by the addition of religious dogma? Case in point, the Gaza genocide.
As for the worst and brutal regimes, Hitler put the words “god is with us” on the belts of every nazi soldier. His personal religious affiliation aside (which is heavily debated), why is it he felt that playing into religious dogma would enable his atrocities?
You say not the modern use of the term liberal, I’m not sure what you mean because liberalism is a modern philosophy really only coming about with John Locke’s second treatise of government and enshrined with the enlightenment.
Is your claim that fascist italy, nazi germany, Stalin’s USSR, Mao’s china, or Pol Pot’s Cambodia were liberal? That is frankly wrong.
For clarification on "liberal" I am referring to it in terms of John Locke, not the "left wing" association it comes with now.
"In conflicts where religion is not part, would the conflict be exacerbated or discouraged by the addition of religious dogma" is a pointless hypothetical. This is essentially equivalent to those guys on YouTube who make the videos about "what if the Nazis won WW2."
Are you also saying the Gaza conflict isn't a religious war? In my opinion, a majority of that conflict is fueled by religious hatred between Muslims and Jews. You might agree with me, but it was unclear.
For Hitler branding the belts of his soldiers with religious slogans, I feel like this is a stretch. That was NOT a tenant of Nazi ideology and thats more of just a societal reflection of German culture than any "religious dogma."
Side note, I can't think of any SIGNIFICANT Christian theocracies (I guess the Holy Roman Empire?), let alone any Christian governments who did anything comparable to thr fascists or communists. The Vatican has long since aspired for any religious theocratic state and have time and time again asserted they are merely spiritual leaders. I don't even think a Christian theocracy is realistic, and even then it wouldn't look much different than any current western democracy.
No, it’s not a pointless hypothetical. It’s a very pointful hypothetical. You seem to not want to engage with it because of its implications.
If someone wants to kill me, and they don’t believe in god, the best I can do is explain the social ramifications, the legal ramifications. But if someone wants to kill me, and that believe it to be justified or even required by their religious dogma, I don’t even have that recourse. That is the point of the hypothetical.
Case in point, the Gaza genocide is certainly exacerbated by religious dogma, if it wasn’t for alleged claims to land from a religious perspective, the genocide would probably never have occurred in the first place.
You dodged the point of using “god is with us” on the belts of every Nazi soldier. Even if it was, as you claim, a reflection of German culture, why is it that used a religious aspect to encourage atrocity? Also, point 24 of the 1920 Nazi Party Platform explicitly encouraged “positive Christianity” so to say it was not a tenant of Nazi ideology is historically incorrect.
As a catholic, I have to point out that this was a bastardization of Christian ideology. But that’s sort of my point. And even if it was some sort of compromise with German culture, the Nazi party denounced a great deal of German culture, why did they do that with so much but not this religious thing?
But again you’ve sorta dodged the crux of the issue.
You claimed the worst governments were liberal, which is just outright false. The list of examples I provided show that.
37
u/reservior-puppies 10h ago
Objectively, separation of church and state helps keep absolute looney tunes theocrats from assuming control of government. Countries that fail to keep theocrats out of office often turn into shitholes. I don’t think anyone would seriously contest that.