can there be a theocracy that also practices religious tolerance?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash 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?










share|improve this question





















  • (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).
    – 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.
    – The Weasel Sagas
    2 hours ago














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?










share|improve this question





















  • (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).
    – 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.
    – The Weasel Sagas
    2 hours ago












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?










share|improve this question













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






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










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).
    – 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.
    – 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).
    – 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.
    – 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).
– 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).
– 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.
– 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.
– The Weasel Sagas
2 hours ago










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.)






share|improve this answer



























    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).






    share|improve this answer



























      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.






      share|improve this answer




















      • 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.
        – John
        1 hour ago


















      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:



      1. there are many of them of similar levels of influence; and

      2. there is a strong secular polity they need to watch out for.





      share|improve this answer




















        Your Answer




        StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
        return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
        StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
        StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
        );
        );
        , "mathjax-editing");

        StackExchange.ready(function()
        var channelOptions =
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "579"
        ;
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
        createEditor();
        );

        else
        createEditor();

        );

        function createEditor()
        StackExchange.prepareEditor(
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        convertImagesToLinks: false,
        noModals: false,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: null,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        );



        );













         

        draft saved


        draft discarded


















        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






























        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.)






        share|improve this answer
























          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.)






          share|improve this answer






















            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.)






            share|improve this answer












            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.)







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 4 hours ago









            Admiral Jota

            11318




            11318




















                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).






                share|improve this answer
























                  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).






                  share|improve this answer






















                    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).






                    share|improve this answer












                    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).







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered 1 hour ago









                    Monica Cellio♦

                    11.6k652115




                    11.6k652115




















                        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.






                        share|improve this answer




















                        • 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.
                          – John
                          1 hour ago















                        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.






                        share|improve this answer




















                        • 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.
                          – John
                          1 hour ago













                        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.






                        share|improve this answer












                        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.







                        share|improve this answer












                        share|improve this answer



                        share|improve this answer










                        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.
                          – 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.
                          – 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.
                        – 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.
                        – John
                        1 hour ago











                        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:



                        1. there are many of them of similar levels of influence; and

                        2. there is a strong secular polity they need to watch out for.





                        share|improve this answer
























                          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:



                          1. there are many of them of similar levels of influence; and

                          2. there is a strong secular polity they need to watch out for.





                          share|improve this answer






















                            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:



                            1. there are many of them of similar levels of influence; and

                            2. there is a strong secular polity they need to watch out for.





                            share|improve this answer












                            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:



                            1. there are many of them of similar levels of influence; and

                            2. there is a strong secular polity they need to watch out for.






                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered 14 mins ago









                            nzaman

                            8,07011341




                            8,07011341



























                                 

                                draft saved


                                draft discarded















































                                 


                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                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













































































                                Comments

                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Long meetings (6-7 hours a day): Being “babysat” by supervisor

                                Is the Concept of Multiple Fantasy Races Scientifically Flawed? [closed]

                                Confectionery