The Instability of Theocratic Mindsets

Call it Passover, call it Holy Week, call it post-Ramadan zeal. This week is full of religious angst, each telling a story found only in their own books. Each story has been handed down from family to family for centuries. And while these stories may only cause about 7% of the world’s wars, their influence is much broader and the trouble they cause more violent.

Three stories have serious headlines this morning. In Pennsylvania, a man who authorities said scaled an iron security fence in the middle of the night, eluded police, and broke into the Pennsylvania governor’s mansion where he set a fire had planned to beat Gov. Josh Shapiro with a hammer if he found him, according to court documents released Monday. At this moment, hate crime charges have not been placed on the man, but there is serious consideration that Gov. Shapiro’s prominent Jewish observance may, at least in part, be responsible for the attack.

Last Friday, the State Department issued an appeal for its employees to report instances of alleged anti-Christian bias, including formal or informal actions due to opposition to vaccines or personal pronoun choice, that may have occurred during the Biden administration. To date, there has been no direct link between any person and/or issue that contains a blatant bias against any specific religion. Yet, pandering to his far-right religious base during Holy Week seems like a good thing to do for a President who wants desperately to cement power over everything anyone does.

Yesterday, the Taliban’s chief spokesman, Zabihullah Mujahid, said on X: “We must carry out disciplinary measures, perform prayers and acts of worship. We must enter Islam completely. Islam is not just limited to a few rituals; it is a comprehensive system of all divine commands.” This came directly after Taliban leader Hibatullah Akhundzada said that executions are a part of Islam. Last week, the Taliban executed four men convicted of murder. While the Taliban does not represent the mindset of all Muslims any more than the man in Pennsylvania represents all Christians, the remarks seem especially aggressive at this particular time.

This is what happens, though, when the leaders of a government come in with a specific theocratic mindset. Theocracy is never stable. In fact, it’s questionable whether theocracy represents the followers of the dominant religion.

Imagine trying to run a whole city or country based only on the specific beliefs and interpretations of one particular church, temple, mosque, or synagogue. The first big problem you run into is exclusion. What about everyone who follows a different faith or has no religious preference at all? What about people who belong to the same faith but interpret things differently? Right away, a government based on one group’s religious views makes everyone else feel like outsiders, or worse, treats them as less important or even wrong. When large groups of people feel ignored, disrespected, or that the rules don’t apply fairly to them, it builds resentment and division, which isn’t a recipe for a stable society. People need to feel like they belong and have a stake in how things are run. Right now, more than half the country is feeling like they’re on the outside looking in, being oppressed and possibly persecuted for not being Christian enough.

Then, there’s the issue of flexibility. Religious texts and traditions can, in context, provide deep wisdom, but they were written down centuries ago. A theocratic mindset often sees these laws as divinely perfect and unchanging. But the world does change – we get new technologies, face new social challenges, learn new things through science. If your government’s rules are seen as absolute divine commands that can’t be questioned or adapted, how do you deal with new situations? How do you make practical compromises? We see this in how governments still respond to LGBTQIA+ individuals. This rigidity can make it really hard for the government to respond effectively to real-world problems, leading to frustration and instability when things aren’t working.

Connected to this is how dissent is handled. In a system where laws are ideally based on open debate and consent of the people, disagreeing with the government is normal – it’s just politics. But if the government believes it’s enacting God’s will, then disagreeing with the government can easily be framed as disagreeing with God. This makes it much easier to justify shutting down opposition, limiting free speech, and punishing critics harshly, seeing them not just as political opponents but as heretics or blasphemers. There are several countries still where blasphemy or heresy are crimes punishable by death. When people don’t have safe ways to disagree or push for change, that pressure builds up and can lead to unrest or even violence.

Also, we run into the problem of interpretation. Even within one religion, people often disagree on what scripture means or how it should be applied, and these disagreements themselves have caused considerable pain at various points in history. So, who gets to decide the “correct” religious interpretation that becomes law for everyone? This often leads to power struggles within the dominant religious group itself. Different factions fight for control, each claiming they have the true understanding, which can create even more internal conflict and instability.

Finally, a government based on one religion’s divine mandate struggles with legitimacy in the eyes of those who don’t share that specific belief. Its authority isn’t grounded in the consent of all the governed but in a claim that many citizens simply don’t accept. This constant questioning of its fundamental right to rule makes it inherently less stable than a system where authority comes from the people and laws can be debated and changed through agreed-upon processes.

So, while personal faith is incredibly important to many people, basing the entire structure of government on one specific religious interpretation tends to create instability because it excludes large groups, struggles to adapt, suppresses disagreement, fights over interpretation, and lacks broad legitimacy in a diverse world.

As long as some put religion above human rights, we will continue to have these problems. We are all endowed with inalienable rights, correct? That displaces any religion as a dogma for how a country is run. We need to get away from this religious nonsense in government. The wall between church and state must be impenetrable. Outside of that, we will never see a stable government.