can there be a theocracy that also practices religious tolerance?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
My MC is one of 5 deities that make up the "Terram faith" The country she resides in is a theocracy of that faith; with a king and queen appointed by high priests and priestesses.
The issue I'm having is usually in theocracies people with other beliefs were at risk of persecution etc. & that doesn't align with her character.
How could a theocracy work if they are tolerant of people worshipping outside of the ruling religion?
culture politics government religion
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
My MC is one of 5 deities that make up the "Terram faith" The country she resides in is a theocracy of that faith; with a king and queen appointed by high priests and priestesses.
The issue I'm having is usually in theocracies people with other beliefs were at risk of persecution etc. & that doesn't align with her character.
How could a theocracy work if they are tolerant of people worshipping outside of the ruling religion?
culture politics government religion
(a) What's an "MC?" (b) Are all the other faiths lead by an actual, existing diety? (c) Do any of the dieties compete/fight with one another? (d) If there are non-diety faiths, do any compete/fight with the others? Theocracies are 100% intolerant when they beleive all other religions compete or are a threat to them. Theocracies become tolerant when other faiths are recognized as valid and non-competitive (assuming non-faith residents adhere to all faith-related laws and never chaff against them).
â JBH
3 hours ago
1
The Umayyad and Abbasid Empires treated the Jews and Christians they conquered with (relative) respect because of their whole "people of the book" shtick. Religious tolerance can work with theocracies.
â The Weasel Sagas
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
My MC is one of 5 deities that make up the "Terram faith" The country she resides in is a theocracy of that faith; with a king and queen appointed by high priests and priestesses.
The issue I'm having is usually in theocracies people with other beliefs were at risk of persecution etc. & that doesn't align with her character.
How could a theocracy work if they are tolerant of people worshipping outside of the ruling religion?
culture politics government religion
My MC is one of 5 deities that make up the "Terram faith" The country she resides in is a theocracy of that faith; with a king and queen appointed by high priests and priestesses.
The issue I'm having is usually in theocracies people with other beliefs were at risk of persecution etc. & that doesn't align with her character.
How could a theocracy work if they are tolerant of people worshipping outside of the ruling religion?
culture politics government religion
culture politics government religion
asked 4 hours ago
Noellektrae
1008
1008
(a) What's an "MC?" (b) Are all the other faiths lead by an actual, existing diety? (c) Do any of the dieties compete/fight with one another? (d) If there are non-diety faiths, do any compete/fight with the others? Theocracies are 100% intolerant when they beleive all other religions compete or are a threat to them. Theocracies become tolerant when other faiths are recognized as valid and non-competitive (assuming non-faith residents adhere to all faith-related laws and never chaff against them).
â JBH
3 hours ago
1
The Umayyad and Abbasid Empires treated the Jews and Christians they conquered with (relative) respect because of their whole "people of the book" shtick. Religious tolerance can work with theocracies.
â The Weasel Sagas
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
(a) What's an "MC?" (b) Are all the other faiths lead by an actual, existing diety? (c) Do any of the dieties compete/fight with one another? (d) If there are non-diety faiths, do any compete/fight with the others? Theocracies are 100% intolerant when they beleive all other religions compete or are a threat to them. Theocracies become tolerant when other faiths are recognized as valid and non-competitive (assuming non-faith residents adhere to all faith-related laws and never chaff against them).
â JBH
3 hours ago
1
The Umayyad and Abbasid Empires treated the Jews and Christians they conquered with (relative) respect because of their whole "people of the book" shtick. Religious tolerance can work with theocracies.
â The Weasel Sagas
2 hours ago
(a) What's an "MC?" (b) Are all the other faiths lead by an actual, existing diety? (c) Do any of the dieties compete/fight with one another? (d) If there are non-diety faiths, do any compete/fight with the others? Theocracies are 100% intolerant when they beleive all other religions compete or are a threat to them. Theocracies become tolerant when other faiths are recognized as valid and non-competitive (assuming non-faith residents adhere to all faith-related laws and never chaff against them).
â JBH
3 hours ago
(a) What's an "MC?" (b) Are all the other faiths lead by an actual, existing diety? (c) Do any of the dieties compete/fight with one another? (d) If there are non-diety faiths, do any compete/fight with the others? Theocracies are 100% intolerant when they beleive all other religions compete or are a threat to them. Theocracies become tolerant when other faiths are recognized as valid and non-competitive (assuming non-faith residents adhere to all faith-related laws and never chaff against them).
â JBH
3 hours ago
1
1
The Umayyad and Abbasid Empires treated the Jews and Christians they conquered with (relative) respect because of their whole "people of the book" shtick. Religious tolerance can work with theocracies.
â The Weasel Sagas
2 hours ago
The Umayyad and Abbasid Empires treated the Jews and Christians they conquered with (relative) respect because of their whole "people of the book" shtick. Religious tolerance can work with theocracies.
â The Weasel Sagas
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
It seems like the main issue wouldn't be people who practice other religions. It would be people who refuse to follow the rules of the theocratic religion.
It's likely that there would be many laws in that nation that someone who didn't adhere to that religion would disagree with. If someone came to that country and refused to follow those laws, and was punished for it, would you consider that to be an instance of being intolerant of people worshiping outside the ruling religion? (And, perhaps more to the point: would other people in that setting consider it intolerant? Would the person being punished consider it intolerant?)
As an example, imagine if they had dietary laws that were actual political laws. Would it be intolerant to send someone to prison for eating bacon? Because that seems like the sort of thing that might happen in a setting like this.
(I'm ignoring the degenerate case where there's officially a state religion but in name only, such as the Church of England.)
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
First, as already covered in this answer, a theocracy can be more concerned with people following its rules than with people following its god. Historically some Muslim rulers were like that, such as the caliphs in al-Andalus (modern-day Spain) in the 10th-11th centuries.
Second, your religion(s) might practice monolatry or henotheism rather than monotheism. That is, they might accept the existence of other gods (and thus their worshippers), while considering them inferior to The One Important God (your deity character). Examples of such religions from our world include Zoroastrianism, Hellenism, (some?) Hinduism, ancient Egyptian religions (where the pharaohs are gods but not the only gods), and other religions of the Ancient Near East.
Third, your religions might hold that different gods rule different geographic areas. Your deity is the local one and most important in that place, but maybe some of the people living there came from elsewhere and maintain family traditions connected to their original gods. So long as they're not interfering with the dominant theocrats, that might be fine. Your theocrats might even see them as charity work -- we have to help those poor people who haven't yet come over to (insert your deity here).
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
We have examples of theocracied both in real life and fiction, in which the ruler is appointed by priests, and which are accepting of other cultures and faiths.
In real life, the Tibet is ruled by the Dalai Lama, and the Vatican is ruled by the pope. As for the latter, say what you will about catholics, but the vatican has been spreading a message about peace and love for quite some time now.
In fiction, Aang from the Avatar series lived in a theocracy under the rulle of an abbot. That is based on real life Tibet.
both were the center of century long religious conflicts. the Vatican's current state is due to it lacking any real political power since it is entirely dependent on a larger secular state.
â John
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
It can but probably won't.
All"-cracies" are political entities. The basis of politics is to maximise one's own influence, while minimising that of competitors. Religious institutions, especially political ones, only peacefully coexist when:
- there are many of them of similar levels of influence; and
- there is a strong secular polity they need to watch out for.
add a comment |Â
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
It seems like the main issue wouldn't be people who practice other religions. It would be people who refuse to follow the rules of the theocratic religion.
It's likely that there would be many laws in that nation that someone who didn't adhere to that religion would disagree with. If someone came to that country and refused to follow those laws, and was punished for it, would you consider that to be an instance of being intolerant of people worshiping outside the ruling religion? (And, perhaps more to the point: would other people in that setting consider it intolerant? Would the person being punished consider it intolerant?)
As an example, imagine if they had dietary laws that were actual political laws. Would it be intolerant to send someone to prison for eating bacon? Because that seems like the sort of thing that might happen in a setting like this.
(I'm ignoring the degenerate case where there's officially a state religion but in name only, such as the Church of England.)
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
It seems like the main issue wouldn't be people who practice other religions. It would be people who refuse to follow the rules of the theocratic religion.
It's likely that there would be many laws in that nation that someone who didn't adhere to that religion would disagree with. If someone came to that country and refused to follow those laws, and was punished for it, would you consider that to be an instance of being intolerant of people worshiping outside the ruling religion? (And, perhaps more to the point: would other people in that setting consider it intolerant? Would the person being punished consider it intolerant?)
As an example, imagine if they had dietary laws that were actual political laws. Would it be intolerant to send someone to prison for eating bacon? Because that seems like the sort of thing that might happen in a setting like this.
(I'm ignoring the degenerate case where there's officially a state religion but in name only, such as the Church of England.)
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
It seems like the main issue wouldn't be people who practice other religions. It would be people who refuse to follow the rules of the theocratic religion.
It's likely that there would be many laws in that nation that someone who didn't adhere to that religion would disagree with. If someone came to that country and refused to follow those laws, and was punished for it, would you consider that to be an instance of being intolerant of people worshiping outside the ruling religion? (And, perhaps more to the point: would other people in that setting consider it intolerant? Would the person being punished consider it intolerant?)
As an example, imagine if they had dietary laws that were actual political laws. Would it be intolerant to send someone to prison for eating bacon? Because that seems like the sort of thing that might happen in a setting like this.
(I'm ignoring the degenerate case where there's officially a state religion but in name only, such as the Church of England.)
It seems like the main issue wouldn't be people who practice other religions. It would be people who refuse to follow the rules of the theocratic religion.
It's likely that there would be many laws in that nation that someone who didn't adhere to that religion would disagree with. If someone came to that country and refused to follow those laws, and was punished for it, would you consider that to be an instance of being intolerant of people worshiping outside the ruling religion? (And, perhaps more to the point: would other people in that setting consider it intolerant? Would the person being punished consider it intolerant?)
As an example, imagine if they had dietary laws that were actual political laws. Would it be intolerant to send someone to prison for eating bacon? Because that seems like the sort of thing that might happen in a setting like this.
(I'm ignoring the degenerate case where there's officially a state religion but in name only, such as the Church of England.)
answered 4 hours ago
Admiral Jota
11318
11318
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
First, as already covered in this answer, a theocracy can be more concerned with people following its rules than with people following its god. Historically some Muslim rulers were like that, such as the caliphs in al-Andalus (modern-day Spain) in the 10th-11th centuries.
Second, your religion(s) might practice monolatry or henotheism rather than monotheism. That is, they might accept the existence of other gods (and thus their worshippers), while considering them inferior to The One Important God (your deity character). Examples of such religions from our world include Zoroastrianism, Hellenism, (some?) Hinduism, ancient Egyptian religions (where the pharaohs are gods but not the only gods), and other religions of the Ancient Near East.
Third, your religions might hold that different gods rule different geographic areas. Your deity is the local one and most important in that place, but maybe some of the people living there came from elsewhere and maintain family traditions connected to their original gods. So long as they're not interfering with the dominant theocrats, that might be fine. Your theocrats might even see them as charity work -- we have to help those poor people who haven't yet come over to (insert your deity here).
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
First, as already covered in this answer, a theocracy can be more concerned with people following its rules than with people following its god. Historically some Muslim rulers were like that, such as the caliphs in al-Andalus (modern-day Spain) in the 10th-11th centuries.
Second, your religion(s) might practice monolatry or henotheism rather than monotheism. That is, they might accept the existence of other gods (and thus their worshippers), while considering them inferior to The One Important God (your deity character). Examples of such religions from our world include Zoroastrianism, Hellenism, (some?) Hinduism, ancient Egyptian religions (where the pharaohs are gods but not the only gods), and other religions of the Ancient Near East.
Third, your religions might hold that different gods rule different geographic areas. Your deity is the local one and most important in that place, but maybe some of the people living there came from elsewhere and maintain family traditions connected to their original gods. So long as they're not interfering with the dominant theocrats, that might be fine. Your theocrats might even see them as charity work -- we have to help those poor people who haven't yet come over to (insert your deity here).
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
First, as already covered in this answer, a theocracy can be more concerned with people following its rules than with people following its god. Historically some Muslim rulers were like that, such as the caliphs in al-Andalus (modern-day Spain) in the 10th-11th centuries.
Second, your religion(s) might practice monolatry or henotheism rather than monotheism. That is, they might accept the existence of other gods (and thus their worshippers), while considering them inferior to The One Important God (your deity character). Examples of such religions from our world include Zoroastrianism, Hellenism, (some?) Hinduism, ancient Egyptian religions (where the pharaohs are gods but not the only gods), and other religions of the Ancient Near East.
Third, your religions might hold that different gods rule different geographic areas. Your deity is the local one and most important in that place, but maybe some of the people living there came from elsewhere and maintain family traditions connected to their original gods. So long as they're not interfering with the dominant theocrats, that might be fine. Your theocrats might even see them as charity work -- we have to help those poor people who haven't yet come over to (insert your deity here).
First, as already covered in this answer, a theocracy can be more concerned with people following its rules than with people following its god. Historically some Muslim rulers were like that, such as the caliphs in al-Andalus (modern-day Spain) in the 10th-11th centuries.
Second, your religion(s) might practice monolatry or henotheism rather than monotheism. That is, they might accept the existence of other gods (and thus their worshippers), while considering them inferior to The One Important God (your deity character). Examples of such religions from our world include Zoroastrianism, Hellenism, (some?) Hinduism, ancient Egyptian religions (where the pharaohs are gods but not the only gods), and other religions of the Ancient Near East.
Third, your religions might hold that different gods rule different geographic areas. Your deity is the local one and most important in that place, but maybe some of the people living there came from elsewhere and maintain family traditions connected to their original gods. So long as they're not interfering with the dominant theocrats, that might be fine. Your theocrats might even see them as charity work -- we have to help those poor people who haven't yet come over to (insert your deity here).
answered 1 hour ago
Monica Cellioâ¦
11.6k652115
11.6k652115
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
We have examples of theocracied both in real life and fiction, in which the ruler is appointed by priests, and which are accepting of other cultures and faiths.
In real life, the Tibet is ruled by the Dalai Lama, and the Vatican is ruled by the pope. As for the latter, say what you will about catholics, but the vatican has been spreading a message about peace and love for quite some time now.
In fiction, Aang from the Avatar series lived in a theocracy under the rulle of an abbot. That is based on real life Tibet.
both were the center of century long religious conflicts. the Vatican's current state is due to it lacking any real political power since it is entirely dependent on a larger secular state.
â John
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
We have examples of theocracied both in real life and fiction, in which the ruler is appointed by priests, and which are accepting of other cultures and faiths.
In real life, the Tibet is ruled by the Dalai Lama, and the Vatican is ruled by the pope. As for the latter, say what you will about catholics, but the vatican has been spreading a message about peace and love for quite some time now.
In fiction, Aang from the Avatar series lived in a theocracy under the rulle of an abbot. That is based on real life Tibet.
both were the center of century long religious conflicts. the Vatican's current state is due to it lacking any real political power since it is entirely dependent on a larger secular state.
â John
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
We have examples of theocracied both in real life and fiction, in which the ruler is appointed by priests, and which are accepting of other cultures and faiths.
In real life, the Tibet is ruled by the Dalai Lama, and the Vatican is ruled by the pope. As for the latter, say what you will about catholics, but the vatican has been spreading a message about peace and love for quite some time now.
In fiction, Aang from the Avatar series lived in a theocracy under the rulle of an abbot. That is based on real life Tibet.
We have examples of theocracied both in real life and fiction, in which the ruler is appointed by priests, and which are accepting of other cultures and faiths.
In real life, the Tibet is ruled by the Dalai Lama, and the Vatican is ruled by the pope. As for the latter, say what you will about catholics, but the vatican has been spreading a message about peace and love for quite some time now.
In fiction, Aang from the Avatar series lived in a theocracy under the rulle of an abbot. That is based on real life Tibet.
answered 3 hours ago
Renan
37.1k1184188
37.1k1184188
both were the center of century long religious conflicts. the Vatican's current state is due to it lacking any real political power since it is entirely dependent on a larger secular state.
â John
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
both were the center of century long religious conflicts. the Vatican's current state is due to it lacking any real political power since it is entirely dependent on a larger secular state.
â John
1 hour ago
both were the center of century long religious conflicts. the Vatican's current state is due to it lacking any real political power since it is entirely dependent on a larger secular state.
â John
1 hour ago
both were the center of century long religious conflicts. the Vatican's current state is due to it lacking any real political power since it is entirely dependent on a larger secular state.
â John
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
It can but probably won't.
All"-cracies" are political entities. The basis of politics is to maximise one's own influence, while minimising that of competitors. Religious institutions, especially political ones, only peacefully coexist when:
- there are many of them of similar levels of influence; and
- there is a strong secular polity they need to watch out for.
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
It can but probably won't.
All"-cracies" are political entities. The basis of politics is to maximise one's own influence, while minimising that of competitors. Religious institutions, especially political ones, only peacefully coexist when:
- there are many of them of similar levels of influence; and
- there is a strong secular polity they need to watch out for.
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
It can but probably won't.
All"-cracies" are political entities. The basis of politics is to maximise one's own influence, while minimising that of competitors. Religious institutions, especially political ones, only peacefully coexist when:
- there are many of them of similar levels of influence; and
- there is a strong secular polity they need to watch out for.
It can but probably won't.
All"-cracies" are political entities. The basis of politics is to maximise one's own influence, while minimising that of competitors. Religious institutions, especially political ones, only peacefully coexist when:
- there are many of them of similar levels of influence; and
- there is a strong secular polity they need to watch out for.
answered 14 mins ago
nzaman
8,07011341
8,07011341
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f128453%2fcan-there-be-a-theocracy-that-also-practices-religious-tolerance%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
(a) What's an "MC?" (b) Are all the other faiths lead by an actual, existing diety? (c) Do any of the dieties compete/fight with one another? (d) If there are non-diety faiths, do any compete/fight with the others? Theocracies are 100% intolerant when they beleive all other religions compete or are a threat to them. Theocracies become tolerant when other faiths are recognized as valid and non-competitive (assuming non-faith residents adhere to all faith-related laws and never chaff against them).
â JBH
3 hours ago
1
The Umayyad and Abbasid Empires treated the Jews and Christians they conquered with (relative) respect because of their whole "people of the book" shtick. Religious tolerance can work with theocracies.
â The Weasel Sagas
2 hours ago