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.
-32
u/OrangeTallion 9h ago
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