Are theocracies preserving cultural integrity or persecuting the minority?

[Theoretica]

Just 'cause it's so much fun to have these talks with all of you, I thought of another doozy....(and I really do enjoy these threads...LOL)

Is it still religious persecution when it's a theocratic government maintaining cultural integrity by minimizing opposing (and in their mind damaging) influences??

Ready....

Set...............

GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Thao]

Ooooooo, you do think of interesting topics!

I was actually thinking about this too. But not in the sense of theocratic governments, so if I may I'd like to widen the topic to include non-theocratic governments that wish to protect their culture for other reasons.

Specifically I'm thinking about Vietnam, because that is what I know, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were others. There is religious oppression in Vietnam--the government tightly controls all religious groups and jails people who try to set up independent religious organizations. This isn't restricted to Christians, although obviously they are targeted; Buddhist monks that refuse to practice in the official church have also been jailed.

It's bad, no doubt about it. But I can't help having some sympathy for their reasons for doing it. It's not so much because they are communists and think religion is the "opiate of the people" -- the government today is basically communist in name only -- it is more because they are a former colony and the French priests that arrived in Vietnam in the 1700s acted as the vanguard of colonialism. They came and started converting people. The Vietnamese leaders reacted against this because, like most traditional societies, religion was very much the core of their culture. They thought it was barbaric that the Christian converts wouldn't worship the ancestors, and believed that such impiety would weaken the whole nation. So they told the priests to leave. The priests didn't leave, so they killed a few. Which enraged the French and gave them an excuse to invade. And so on. The Christian Mountgenards (sp?) were also used extensively by the US in the US-Vietnam as well.

So you know, I don't really blame the Vietnamese government for being suspicious of religious groups. Religion is a highly effective way to motivate and organize people, and it can and has been used for political purposes all throughout history. For a country like Vietnam, which is fairly small and has a long history of foreign domination (Chinese, French, Japanese, US) I can understand that they may feel such groups are a risk they are just not willing to take.

I strongly support freedom of religion and hope that one day there will be true freedom of religion in Vietnam. But I can't condemn the government. The fears that fuel their actions are valid, I think. In Vietnam their fears are political, but in another country it might be the fear of losing their culture. There was a comment in the other thread to the effect that converting to Christianity doesn't really affect the culture of a people, but it does, because religion is often the core of the culture.

So basically I am messed up and don't know what to think about it.

[TzippityDoulah]

again I have to say I don't think this is likely something that *can* be answered with surety. It's quite subjective.

It IS persecution/oppression. no doubt about that. BUT the meaning is clearly different than just randomly hating other religions. well atleast in part it's different - but the true underlying tone of both seems to be fear of what the religion means or will do to a country/people/person.

On the other hand... people would and could argue that religion is more important than culture. of course this would vary between religions as to which was more important. and what about it was more important. (corperate vs. personal worship ect)

In my eyes there is NO perfect governmental system. no perfect way of protecting selves AND others. no way to not discriminate while keeping selves safe. Forever it will go on trying to protect itself... changing, growing, morphing into new things. it just is. Religion as well as patriatism lives with in a person and can't be pushed into a person from the outside. this may cause people to take on the culture of the religion, but not that passion of it.

Of course, I do believe my "religion" to be more than just religion. it is my heritage AND my passion. it's my purpose. and right or wrong, I know many peopel feel the same about their religions (which boggles my mind when i think about it!) People who are not religious tend to group all religions together and say things like "a different religion is right for different people". but dare I say most passionate people simply do not believe this. (some, I realize). just as most people don't believe it's ok to beat your kids as a way of raising them or that eating deadly poison is good for you in some cultures. (I know a little far-fetched... but my point is that it isn't as a easy as "this for me, and that for you"). so again, it gets even more complicated there. and some people would say there are different religious experiences and way for each person - but only within a certain realm. (like who in America would agree with child sacrifice even if it's from a passionate people who truly believe they are doign right, for example?)

it's just... complicated. religion is complicated. it's like asking "what is the purpose of humanity?" and expecting to get the same answer from everyone. it just aint gonna happen.

did I manage to get an answer somewhere in my bunny trail there?

[Chamomile Girl]

I think that a theocracy has to be, by nature, totalitarian (although, obviously not all totalitarian govs are theocracies). Of course the most prominant example in today's world is Iran. I think that the gov there does less cultural maintainance and more attempting to create an ideal religious society. That is the big difference to me...Persian culture is actually being destroyed by the gov. there because tehy do not see it as conforming to Koranic ideals.

[pumpkin]

I don't believe that any theocracy is even a legitimate government. Every individual has the right to choose their own religion. Its as important as food, water, or air. You are always going to have people who don't follow the religion of their parents. Its just a fact and no claim to cultural integrity should trump their rights.

[Thao]

Of course, I do believe my "religion" to be more than just religion. it is my heritage AND my passion. it's my purpose. and right or wrong, I know many peopel feel the same about their religions (which boggles my mind when i think about it!) People who are not religious tend to group all religions together and say things like "a different religion is right for different people". but dare I say most passionate people simply do not believe this. (some, I realize). just as most people don't believe it's ok to beat your kids as a way of raising them or that eating deadly poison is good for you in some cultures. (I know a little far-fetched... but my point is that it isn't as a easy as "this for me, and that for you"). so again, it gets even more complicated there. and some people would say there are different religious experiences and way for each person - but only within a certain realm. (like who in America would agree with child sacrifice even if it's from a passionate people who truly believe they are doign right, for example?)

If I am understanding you correctly you are saying that the missionary impulse comes from the passion and belief that one is saving souls for eternity, bringing people a better way of life? And so that work takes precedence over temporal things like culture and government?

If so, I do understand that. But as you said, it is so subjective. Whatever the Ultimate Truth is of the matter, from our earthly perspective one person's salvation can be another person's destruction.

Oh, and I have to add that I don't think that a universalist attitude towards religions ("this for me and that for you") is a function of how passionate one is toward their religion, it is a function of the religious beliefs themselves. There are religions that are not universalist, so even the most passionate believers accept that another religion may work better for another person. Buddhism is one. From what I've learned from the Jewish people on this board, I think Judaism is another. I'm sure there are more that I don't know about.

[Liquesce]

I have a lot of sympathy for, for example, the Saudi position on non-Muslims entering into Mecca. The religious justification is a little tenuous, but the history of colonialism and orientalism being what it is, the history of specifically European Christian travelers making a simultaneous entertainment and mockery of Islamic cultures, I do sympathize. I can't see how it can't be said to be both, however -- preserving cultural integrity AND persecuting the minority. There's no either/or there to be had.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Thao

Oh, and I have to add that I don't think that a universalist attitude towards religions ("this for me and that for you") is a function of how passionate one is toward their religion, it is a function of the religious beliefs themselves. There are religions that are not universalist, so even the most passionate believers accept that another religion may work better for another person. Buddhism is one. From what I've learned from the Jewish people on this board, I think Judaism is another. I'm sure there are more that I don't know about.

You know, Buddhism is traditionally concidered a missionary religion. Yes, many Buddhists feel the way you describe, including I believe the Dali Lama, but I don't think their reasoning is really comparable to Judaism.

As for the original question. It seems to me that a lot of theocracies have two things in common. One is that they often have a very large majority of people who belong to one religion.

The other is that they reject the possibility of secularism. And I don't think that it is so much that they think it is a bad thing, but they think it is not really possible.

In our system, the institutions of church and state are seperate. People's beliefs, though, do enter into government because the voters have beliefs, religious or otherwise, as do the representatives. Now in some cases we suspend those beliefs, allowing each individual to work them out for themselves. Usually there is a way to judge what kinds of latitude individuals need to be given, in a constitution for example. (Though there are cases where it can be very difficult.)

But theocratic systems would usually say that is a fools' dream. I suspect they would agree that belief (religion) and action (government) are always connected in the individual, and so we cannot separate them at the institutional level either. So both would see the individual as in a way the primary unit in the community, but the conclusions they draw are really different.

It also strikes me that secular systems really only work if there are a core set of beliefs that all religions or worldviews embrace in a similar way. If we ever had a sizable group of people with fundamentally different ideas about most things in our population (selfishness is good) then it would be a real problem.

Mind you, I don't think that is likely, but who knows?

I know we tend to think of some of the more brutal regimes when we talk about theocracy, but what about Bhutan?

[Thao]

You know, Buddhism is traditionally concidered a missionary religion. Yes, many Buddhists feel the way you describe, including I believe the Dali Lama, but I don't think their reasoning is really comparable to Judaism.

You are right, as I understand it Judaism basically sees itself as God's plan for the Jewish people only, so it has no missionary impulse at all. Buddhism is very much a missionary religion but really has no problem with it if the local population says "no thanks" because that decision isn't going to condemn them to an eternity in hell; the worst that will happen to them according to Buddhism is that they may need to go through a couple extra reincarnations before they reach enlightenment. So there just isn't the urgency there that other religions' missionary efforts have.

It is interesting that you brought up Bhutan, since it is a Buddhist theocracy. Apparently it is ranked as one of the happiest countries in the world (number 8 on the list, and the only poor nation in the top 20) but it also is consistently identified as being oppressive to other religions and persecuting Christians in particular. So how's that for a total mixed bag?

[Thao]

I wanted to add that I think part of the reason Western countries in general have more freedom of religion is because we are confident enough in our power that we can afford the luxury of freedom of religion. A small country like Vietnam or Bhutan does not have that luxury. Even a big, powerful country like China, while not afraid of military invasion by a foreign power, is afraid of "cultural colonialism" where the immensely powerful Western culture, through the internet, movies, trade, etc etc, eclipses and replaces traditional Chinese culture. So they try to assert their identity, in part by returning to their traditional religion and banning all other religions.

[Theoretica]

Ok my take is that Buddhism is a missionary religion but not a proselytizing religion. There's a HUGE difference. Buddhists do good works, but will help even those who don't have any interest in (or even reject) buddhism itself.

So does a government have a right to say hey, our country is based on this belief system, it incorporates this belief system into our daily lives, our daily laws, and we aren't ok with any other faith interference?

The first thought that came to me was Iran. I'm sure there are more.

I'll opine a bit longer when I'm not juggling the kiddos...

[Thao]

Well to be fair a lot of Christian organizations do good works for people regardless of whether the people accept Christianity or not. I used to work for a Christian charity in a refugee camp; certainly we hoped our example would lead people to Christ, but we weren't going to pull out if they didn't.

So does a government have a right to say hey, our country is based on this belief system, it incorporates this belief system into our daily lives, our daily laws, and we aren't ok with any other faith interference?

This is the crux of the issue, isn't it? I suppose the answer depends on whether one prioritizes the collective (the whole country) or the individual. Obviously the answer here in the US is "no, the government does not have that right". Because we prioritize individual rights. However I can think of Western countries that have drawn the line in the sand, not at religion, but at other cherished national values. The comment made by a Dutch (I think?) politician comes to mind along the lines that the one thing they will not tolerate is intolerance because it goes against the national character.

[TzippityDoulah]

Originally Posted by Thao

Well to be fair a lot of Christian organizations do good works for people regardless of whether the people accept Christianity or not. I used to work for a Christian charity in a refugee camp; certainly we hoped our example would lead people to Christ, but we weren't going to pull out if they didn't.

yes I'm not exactly sure why people think all of Christianity tries to convert everyone. and disrepects other religions. the real honoring of God/Christianity comes from obedience to their commands, not by changing others. Which I believe is the main principle in MANY religions.

however yes there are those that try to change everyone around them with no thought to their own feelings or journey... but what can I say? every group has it's ignorance people.

for me? I hope to be an example and to always be open to discussion and it is true I do hope they will want what I have and join me in my journey b/c clearly I believe it to be truth. but that is a FAR cry from those terrible missions everyone seems to have come to mind where people harass people into "becoming Christian". (I'm so sorry that those things exist at all! it's a mockery!) Religion is a very personal journey between God and His people. and I always try to encourage people to seek truth. but yes i would help people out REGARDLESS of their interest in my religious beliefs.

anyhow a bit of a tangent... but I felt it need better explained so my last comment made sense.

[cappuccinosmom]

Is it still religious persecution when it's a theocratic government maintaining cultural integrity by minimizing opposing (and in their mind damaging) influences??

I'd have to ask, what do you mean by "minimizing"?

If it's a theocracy one would expect that laws and leadership would generally be pretty much under the particular belief set of said theocracy.

I would label it persecution if minority religions were not permitted to gather freely, to speak openly, or to practice their own worship privately.

For instance, were I living in a country who's laws included certain standards of dress in public (certain Islamic countries, for example), I wouldn't consider it persecution. I'd obey the law and dress appropriately. If the national holidays and national days of worship co-incided with the prevailing religions holidays, that wouldn't bug me. If school religion classes taught that prevailing religion, well, that would be expected. If certain materials were not allowed (porn, for example, or even Western movies), I'd find that a sad but to-be-expected part of living under a theocracy (ETA, not sad about banning porn but sad that information and education was restricted).

However, if I lived in that country and obeyed the laws to the best of my ability, but was subject to beatings, jail time, having my house trashed, having my place of worship burned to the ground, etc because my personal belief is not in line with the beliefs of the nation, then I would call that persecution. If it were probable that I would be harrassed by authorities for having a cross necklace or a cross in my home, that would be persectution. If I had to hide my minority religion in order to avoid physical abuse or death, that would be persecution.

[Theoretica]

Originally Posted by pumpkin

I don't believe that any theocracy is even a legitimate government.

I'm not sure I follow you on this? Could you explain?

[Theoretica]

Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom

I'd have to ask, what do you mean by "minimizing"?

If it's a theocracy one would expect that laws and leadership would generally be pretty much under the particular belief set of said theocracy.

I would label it persecution if minority religions were not permitted to gather freely, to speak openly, or to practice their own worship privately.

For instance, were I living in a country who's laws included certain standards of dress in public (certain Islamic countries, for example), I wouldn't consider it persecution. I'd obey the law and dress appropriately. If the national holidays and national days of worship co-incided with the prevailing religions holidays, that wouldn't bug me. If school religion classes taught that prevailing religion, well, that would be expected. If certain materials were not allowed (porn, for example, or even Western movies), I'd find that a sad but to-be-expected part of living under a theocracy (ETA, not sad about banning porn but sad that information and education was restricted).

However, if I lived in that country and obeyed the laws to the best of my ability, but was subject to beatings, jail time, having my house trashed, having my place of worship burned to the ground, etc because my personal belief is not in line with the beliefs of the nation, then I would call that persecution. If it were probable that I would be harrassed by authorities for having a cross necklace or a cross in my home, that would be persectution. If I had to hide my minority religion in order to avoid physical abuse or death, that would be persecution.

ITA that abusive behavior is unacceptable on a humanitarian level, regardless of the intent or purpose.

WikiSnip:
A theocracy, by definition, is a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the state's supreme civil ruler, or in a broader sense, a form of government in which a state is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e., a church), replacing or dominating civil government.

So, is when does it cross into persecution? Abuse issues aside (which, like I said before, are unacceptable regardless of intent or reason), what would make it ok for a theocratic government to not allow other religious influences? If it's a true theocracy (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Vatican City, Tibet) then by default doesn't the state maintain the right to not allow other religions out of state vested interest?

Oh...and by minimizing I mean discouraging or not allowing. I do NOT mean 'abusing those who disagree'.

[cappuccinosmom]

Wouldn't discouraging or not allowing minority religions require abuse (as defined by jailing, punishing, or physically "discouraging" gatherings or the like) in order to actually work?

[Theoretica]

I was having the same thought.

So a theocracy has the right to dictate religious affiliation within its borders.

But how...without being abusive?

[pumpkin]

Originally Posted by Theoretica

I'm not sure I follow you on this? Could you explain?

I believe that freedom of and from religion is so critical that any government that tries to establish a state religion in any way is an illegitimate government that should not be allowed to continue in its current form. I'm not advocating a violent revolution in any location. I just think the people of the world should be working towards the complete separation of church and state. Even the U.S. that supposedly sets a example on this issue has a long, long way to go towards actually becoming a truly secular government.

The only way a theocracy could be a legitimate government is if every single citizen agreed with the chosen religion supported by the theocracy. That is impossible since each day new people are born and there is simply no way that every single one of them will end up believing in the state sponsored religion.

[Theoretica]

Originally Posted by pumpkin

I believe that freedom of and from religion is so critical that any government that tries to establish a state religion in any way is an illegitimate government that should not be allowed to continue in its current form. I'm not advocating a violent revolution in any location. I just think the people of the world should be working towards the complete separation of church and state. Even the U.S. that supposedly sets a example on this issue has a long, long way to go towards actually becoming a truly secular government.

The only way a theocracy could be a legitimate government is if every single citizen agreed with the chosen religion supported by the theocracy. That is impossible since each day new people are born and there is simply no way that every single one of them will end up believing in the state sponsored religion.

Well, without playing semantics here, theocratic governments like Iran *are* legitimate governments. I realize your opinion is that they shouldn't exist...but they do....so there we are.

I guess the other side of it is that people who disagree w/the theocracy could live elsewhere?

FWIW I'm not saying I have even remotely close to 'the right' answer, I just thought this was a fascinating question to play around with.