Can a nonsecular state be considered "rational"?

[Mr. Dictator]

A spin off of this thread.

Do you think that a theocracy can be rational? Do you think that a secular government can be considered more rational than a nonsecular one?

 

[Fifty]

Do you think that a theocracy can be rational?

Can in principle, but can't in practice.

Do you think that a secular government can be considered more rational than a nonsecular one?

Don't you mean that the other way around?

 

[cybrxkhan]

it is possible, though harder. also depend on what "rational" means>

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Don't you mean that the other way around?

no, i mean...do you think that a cornerstone of any rational nation in this day and age would be a secular nation?

it is possible, though harder. also depend on what "rational" means>

well maybe that's a question we can flesh out in this thread. i'm going on the "hey, this makes the most sense" type of rational.

 

[Thorbal]

According to Max Webers definition, a theocracy can indeed be a rational state. An institutionalised priesthood is a rational form of religion, so if a priesthood would run a state, it would be relatively rational. It would be irrational if the head of the religion would rely on personal attributes ( charisma etc ) instead of a fixed religious bureaucracy.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

According to Max Webers definition, a theocracy can indeed be a rational state. An institutionalised priesthood is a rational form of religion, so if a priesthood would run a state, it would be relatively rational.

that may have worked in the past, but such a form of gov't is destined to fail in any western nation.

 

[skadistic]

A theocracy can be rational until the fanatics take over. That is if it wasn't fanatics that set up to begin with.

 

[JohnRM]

None of the current major religions can be considered rational to begin with. I can hardly see how a government based on any of those religions can be considered rational in practice.

 

[MobBoss]

A spin off of this thread.

Do you think that a theocracy can be rational? Do you think that a secular government can be considered more rational than a nonsecular one?

This one is going to make a run at the most lop-sided poll title.

Of course non-secular states can be rational and secular states can be irrational.

Thats just common sense.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

A theocracy can be rational until the fanatics take over. That is if it wasn't fanatics that set up to begin with.

has there ever been a theocracy that wasnt founded or soon taken over by fanatics?

 

[Cannae]

It depends in which ways they will use religion. They could use it for unwavering amounts of good, or astronomical evil.

 

[DNK]

Why wouldn't they be rational? Rationality is just the application of logic to achieve desired goals. Secular nations might have purely nationalistic goals of power, wealth, and certain values (democracy); theocratic ones might have goals of welfare, religious spread, and certain values (no abortions). Either way, they'll be rational in approaching their goals.

Are you arguing that the goals themselves aren't rational?

And are we assuming that there even are purely secular states? Purely theocratic ones?

 

[Thorbal]

None of the current major religions can be considered rational to begin with. I can hardly see how a government based on any of those religions can be considered rational in practice.

Depends on how you define rational - a religion forms a body of ethics, including set rules for behaviour and personal action. They are derived from non-secular sources, but in practice, they can be as rational as a set of laws.

 

[MobBoss]

has there ever been a theocracy that wasnt founded or soon taken over by fanatics?

I dunno, tibetian monks and in turn the Dali Lama, while devout, dont seem to strike me as 'fanatical'.

Devout =/= fanatical.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

This one is going to make a run at the most lop-sided poll title.

Of course non-secular states can be rational and secular states can be irrational.

Thats just common sense.

this is an argument on whether or not nonsecular states can be rational, if that's your opinion, all you have to do is click the little box beside the first option, make your arguments, and let the conversation move on.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

I dunno, tibetian monks and in turn the Dali Lama, while devout, dont seem to strike me as 'fanatical'.

Devout =/= fanatical.

they are also not a religion that has a set of strict laws to dictate behavior.

while they have their guidelines, they do not call for your death when breaking them.

 

[Elrohir]

How are we defining rational? And non-secualar?

I mean, I think in theory there could be a rational state that recognized one religion as the "official" religion of the nation, and gave it preferred status. (I wouldn't support that in America today, but it's possible) But if you're talking "Behead the heretics!" style non-secularness, with the enforcement of religious laws and doctrines, then no, I don't see how.

I dunno, tibetian monks and in turn the Dali Lama, while devout, dont seem to strike me as 'fanatical'.

Devout =/= fanatical.

Now the Dali Lama is a nice old man. Check into the history of Tibet before the Chinese invasion in the 1950's, and you get a very different picture....think Medieval Europe. When Chinese communists take over and things improve - the guys who starved tens of millions of their own countrymen to death - you know things suck.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

while they have their guidelines, they do not call for your death when breaking them.

Surprisingly few religions do these days.

 

[skadistic]

they are also not a religion that has a set of strict laws to dictate behavior.

while they have their guidelines, they do not call for your death when breaking them.

Well some religions are more rational then others.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Surprisingly few religions do these days.

i meant to say that they didnt have a reputation for being like that. but i recognize many don't now.

well, there are some exceptions...