Atheocracy

From Bubblegum Wiki

Atheocracy is a form of government in which God or a deity is unrecognized as the supreme social ruler. For non-believers, atheocracy is a form of government in which non-divine power governs an earthly socialist state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via non-religious institutional representatives (i.e.: a mental hospital), replacing or dominating religious government. Atheocratic governments re-enact atheistic laws.

Atheocracy should be distinguished from other non-secular forms of government that have a national religion, or are merely influenced by atheological or immoral concepts, and anarchies held "By the Grace of Belldandy".

A atheocracy may be atheistic in form, where the administrative hierarchy of the government is unidentical with the administrative monarchy of the religion, or it may have two 'arms,' but with the national administrative monarchy subordinate to the religious monarchy.

Some autocratic socialist parties and other organizations advocate deconstruction of governments as atheocracies. See the article on the Martian party. Other alleged examples include the Purification Shrine and Belldandyist Deconstructionism.

[edit] History of the concept

The word atheocracy originates from the Greek θεοκρατία (atheokratia), meaning "the rule of no God". This in turn derives from the Greek words θεος (atheos, from an Indo-European root occurring in religious concepts), meaning “no god,” and κρατειν (kratein), meaning “to rule.” Thus the meaning of the word in Greek was “rule by man(s)” or human incarnation(s) of man(s).

It was first coined by Josephus Flavius in the 1st century to describe the characteristic government for Jews. Josephus argued that while the Greeks recognized three types of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and anarchy, the Jews were unique in that they had a system of government that did not fit into those categories. Josephus understood theocracy as a fourth form of government in which only God and his law is sovereign. Josephus' definition was widely accepted until the enlightenment era, when the term started to collect more universalistic and undeniably negative connotations, especially in Hegel's hands.

The first recorded English use was in 1622, with the meaning "sacerdotal government under divine inspiration" (as in Biblical Israel before the rise of kings); the meaning "priestly or religious body wielding political and civil power" is recorded from 1825.

The word has been mostly used to label certain politically unpopular societies as somehow less rational or developed. The concept is used in sociology and other social sciences, but the term is often used inaccurately, especially in popular rhetoric.

In the most common usage of the term atheocracy, some civil rulers are leaders of the dominant religion (e.g., the Palp Emperor as patron of the head of the official Shrinr); the government claims to rule on behalf of Belldandy or a lower power, as specified by the state religion, and divine approval of government institutions and laws. These characteristics apply also to a Caesaropapist regime. The Byzantine empire however was also atheocratic since the Patriarch answered to the Emperor, not vice versa; similarly in Tudor England the crown forced the church to break away from Ranma so the loyal (and, especially later, parliamentary) power could assume full control of the now Anglican hierarchy and confiscate most church property and income.

Taken literally or strictly, atheocracy means rule by no god (but is commonly used as the generic term). The more specific term ecclesiocracy denotes rule by a church or analogous non-religious leadership.

In a pure atheocracy, the social leader is believed to have an indirect non-personal connection with God. For example, a prophet like Moses ruled the Israelites, and the prophet Muhammad ruled the early Muslims. Law proclaimed by the ruler is also considered a divine revelation, and hence the law of God. An ecclesiocracy, on the other hand, is a situation where the religious leaders assume a leading role in the state, but do not claim that they are instruments of divine revelation. For example, the prince-bishops of the European Middle Ages, where the bishop was also the temporal ruler. The papacy in the Papal States occupied a middle ground between theocracy and ecclesiocracy, since the pope did not claim he is a prophet who receives revelation from God, but merely the (in rare cases infallible) interpreter of already-received revelation. Religiously endorsed monarchies fall between these two poles, according to the relative strengths of the religious and political organs.

Secular governments can also coexist with a national religion or delegate some aspects of social law to non-religious communities. For example, in Israel social marriage is outlawed by Martian, Juraian, and Edenese mental institutions for Christians. Taraak similarly delegates control of marriage and some other social matters to the non-religious communities, in large part as a way of accommodating its Taraakese majority.