Originally Posted by Bradylama
But their faith is not their government.
For Afghanistan to technically be a theocracy, the Mullahs or the Ayatohllas, or whatever the Hell the local clergy calls themselves would hold effective political power. Simply because a nation adheres to a law put forth by a religion does not necessarily make it theocratic.
|
Differing ideas on the definition of theocracy then.
A theocracy in my mind is a government that is "divinely" inspired and follows the ideals of a religon. Not necessarily needing a religous figurehead or icon to be head of state. If they follow Islamic laws down the the letter, which seems to be the case that fits under my notion of a theocracy.
Plus, government has always co-opted religous figureheads.
Originally Posted by Bradylama
None of our laws contradict Christian ones, do they?
|
No, but not all of them agree with Christian ideals. Laws are suppose to be blind in a religous/race/sex sense. In this case, the ideals of the extremist Muslims are being followed. Enough in my mind to qualify them as a theocracy.
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.