Theocracies are fine as long as it is my religion

Question: Is theocracy good?
Position‹3 of 3: Theocracies can be implemented in different ways
Argument‹5 of 5: Theocracies are fine as long as it is my religion

There is nothing wrong with a theocracy - as long as it is the right religion.

The argument

The anti-Islam rhetoric tends to criticize theocracies as “awful and abusive, not only because they oppress human beings but because they also blaspheme God.” These authors indicate that the problem is the religion rather than theocracies per se. The Catholic church and State of Israel are both theocracies but they seem oblivious to sharing many of the same failings they critique Iran or Afghanistan for. Theocracies are considered blasphemous towards God because this means that leaders can be fleecing money from their countrymen in the name of God. There is also evidence present in the Bible that suggests that Jesus considered that those who claimed the right to rule through divine rule were fraudulent. When spiritual leaders, and government leaders (in a theocracy), claim that what they say has been ordained by God, they are presuming to speak on things that God has not ordained. Therefore, these leaders are presuming to lie to their parishioners and countrymen. Secularism is not meant to say that religious practices or beliefs cannot be observed. However, secularism makes sure that no one is forced into religion, which is what can happen in a theocracy. A theocracy also forces its citizens to interpret religious texts and teachings in only one way. It is important for citizens in a country to be able to live freely, whether as a religious believer or a non-religious citizen, and a theocracy does not allow that freedom.

Premises

[P1]Critics often condemn theocracies such as Iran or Afghanistan as awful and abusive while overlooking that the Catholic Church and the State of Israel are also theocracies sharing many of the same failings. [P2] This suggests objections are frequently aimed at the particular religion rather than theocratic rule itself, even though any theocracy forces a single interpretation of religious texts and can compel belief. [C] Therefore, theocracies are implemented in different ways across different religions, and they are too often judged by whose religion holds power rather than on consistent principle.

Counter-arguments

Placing theocracy in a negative light because it is restrictive is not true. Because faith is largely connected to the government in a theocracy, this keeps the country united under one umbrella. This helps a country run smoothly as there are few, if any, opposing opinions within both the leadership and the citizens. Because of this efficency, policy can be better implemented and can allow for decisions in running to be made quicker.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The classification is wrong in both examples. The Catholic Church is not a state, and Vatican City — which is one — governs a few hundred people rather than a society; Israel is a parliamentary democracy with an established religious character and religious courts in matters of personal status, which is not clerical rule. The comparison the argument needs is with states where clerics hold constitutional authority, and it does not hold. [Rejecting P2] This is an argument about the consistency of critics rather than about theocracy, and inconsistency in an objector leaves the objection standing. The argument then makes the general case against theocracy — compelled belief, one official interpretation of the texts — which is the sibling position that theocracy is bad, not the position that theocracies can be implemented in different ways. The title's ironic framing is not matched by the body, which nowhere defends any theocracy at all.