Alternative opinions are rarely welcomed in a theocracy

The argument

Individual perspectives can be highly influential towards a person's interpretation of a text. Even in religions where one "pefect" way is preached, people will still apply these interpretations differently according to how they fit into their own lives. In a theocracy, individual opinions are frowned upon and the foundational scriptural elements of the government are interpreted by the few in power. Enforced conformity was one reason for the Lutherian church’s initial split from Rome. The concept of enforcing that there is only one way to interpret religious teachings become even harder in a theocracy because religion is so heavily embedded in the government of the country. To even question or disagree with a government policy is to disagree or question the word. This makes it virtually impossible for anyone to debate points because a theocracy creates an environment where the decision about right and wrong has already been decided. Because a theocracy creates an idea that there is only one right way to interpret things, minority groups are often not accepted. Even if certain beliefs are based in religious thought, those thoughts will not be accepted if they go against the status quo. While in some instances there might be room for engagement, many will still hold firm to the status quo and will not accept that any idea different from the status quo can be correct.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Theocracies don't overall disregard alternative opinions. Rather, theocracies are meant to create unity. Because of the fact that religious teachings are so closely tied to the inner workings of the government, the majority of citizens in the country have the same beliefs. This helps the country run more effectively and can help create the possibility of a better world. This is because the religious text that is so crucuial to theocracies are focused on the concept of loving one's neighbor. Practicing this doctrine in government will lead a better country and a better world as a whole.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise describes an authoritarian government and attaches the description to theocracy specifically. A monopoly on interpretation held by those in power is a feature of any regime that suppresses dissent, religious or not, and several states with an established church — the United Kingdom and Denmark among them — maintain broad freedom of expression, so the connection is not one of definition. [Rejecting P2] The identification of policy with doctrine is asserted, and the record complicates it. Religious traditions contain extensive internal argument about how texts bear on government — jurisprudential schools, councils, rival authorities, reform movements — and several theocratic and quasi-theocratic states have hosted vigorous policy disputes conducted precisely in doctrinal terms. The premise treats a scriptural basis as though it removed the interpretive room its own opening sentence says individuals bring. [Rejecting P3] The Lutheran example works against the premise rather than for it, showing dissent arising and prevailing within a religiously ordered society. The conclusion is also broader than what is shown: even granting that intolerance of dissent is a serious problem, "many problems" requires the other problems to be named — and the strongest of them, the position of religious minorities and the absence of any mechanism for changing a government held to be divinely mandated, are ones the argument never reaches.