Miss California: I wasn’t politically correct, I was Biblically correct

Yeah, but a de facto incorporation of Biblical laws into government law would produce something akin to Sharia if a majority voted the way implied by Carrie. The Constitution and courts prevent this, and a federalist approach gives people some variation in state law.

dedalus on April 21, 2009 at 4:16 PM

This might seem like nitpicking, but it’s actually one of the most important things people don’t usually understand.

The part I bolded above undercuts the point you were making. If there’s a vote through ordinary constitutional means, then it’s not theocracy however much the particular law tracks religious belief. The sources of law and the means by which they’re created are what matter in viewing a system as theocratic or not. It’s not nearly as relevant if the substantive law itself follows a religious belief.

Let’s keep sharia as an example. The sources of law are the Quran and Sunnah (life of Mo) as read by muftis (one kind of high sharia judge). There’s fiqh, various maddhab and whatnot which can confuse you into thinking it’s a bit like common law. But the fact is the sources of law are Quran and Sunnah, only. “Man-made” law as they call it is never valid. Nobody votes and courts don’t rely on precedent in previous cases. Case law is irrelevant and not even recorded.

So to get back to your example, if people actually vote it’s not real theocracy. I used to think Christian views being implemented through law was theocracy, until the real thing reared its ugly head in Islam over the last thirty years. Then the Enlightenment views I always thought I understood really made sense.

It’s not theocracy to tell someone their book’s subject is a sin, however much that annoys one’s secular modern outlook. But it is theocracy to put a fatwa of death on the author’s head for writing it.

Beagle on April 21, 2009 at 5:01 PM