Theocracies create a sense of unity within society

Question: Is theocracy good?
Position1 of 3›: Yes, theocracies have many good points
Argument1 of 4›: Theocracies create a sense of unity within society

A theocracy gives all citizens something to be united over.

The argument

In practice, the word means a belief in religious unity as the necessary basis of politics. Famous theocracies throughout history include the Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire where Emperors were often declared gods. Almost every major religion has a concept of a theocracy as part of its doctrine. Of the relatively few that exist today, Islamic theocracies often receive the most attention in western culture. These include Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Afghanistan and Iran. Iran has been described as a "theocratic republic," and its constitution has been described as a "hybrid" of "theocratic and democratic elements. However other theocracies also exist. Vatican City is ruled by the Pope (who Catholics believe is a direct descendant of Saint Peter) and Mount Athos in Greece is under the direct jurisdiction the Eastern Orthodox church. The state of Israel is a theocracy and they believe they are the chosen nation of the Living God. When a government is structured as a theocracy, then the spiritual and physical needs of a society come together under the same governing umbrella. Even though there are different opinions that are accepted under this structure, everyone feels like they are on the same team.

Premises

[P1]A theocracy unites the spiritual and physical governance of a society under a single religious framework. [P2] When citizens share a common religious foundation for politics, they experience a sense of belonging and common purpose. [P3] Social cohesion and a shared sense of unity are valuable goods for any society. [C] Therefore, theocracies are beneficial because they foster unity within society.

Counter-arguments

Critics reply that the unity a theocracy produces is bought by coercion and exclusion, so it is not the shared belonging the argument claims. A state that fuses religion with power imposes one creed as public truth, which unifies believers only by marginalising dissenters, minorities and the non-religious, whose conformity is compelled rather than felt. The "everyone on the same team" feeling, they argue, describes the dominant group and masks the suppression of those outside it; genuine cohesion in diverse societies is better achieved by pluralism and equal citizenship than by enforced religious uniformity. Unity imposed from above, on this view, is fragile and unjust rather than a good.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Fusing spiritual and political authority under one creed unifies by imposing a single official truth, which coerces rather than shares belonging. [Rejecting P2] The sense of common purpose extends to the dominant faithful while marginalising dissenters, minorities and the non-religious, so it is not society-wide unity. [Rejecting C] Because this cohesion rests on exclusion and compulsion, it is not the unqualified good the argument claims, and pluralism can unite diverse societies more justly.

The argument

Premises

Counter-arguments

Rejecting the premises

Further reading