this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2026
210 points (96.1% liked)

Europe

6645 readers
111 users here now

Europe

Rules:

  1. All sources allowed. Voting decides what is reliable unless
  2. Articles which have been proven false beyond any doubt may be removed
  3. No personal attacks
  4. Posts in English, translations allowed

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
210
Womens rights (lemmy.ml)
submitted 3 days ago by geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml to c/europe@lemmy.ml
201 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Spectrism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The part where you have enough social liberty that you don't have government officials telling you how to dress.

That would be good indeed, but isn't really an aspect of secularism.

'secular theocracy' is wordplay making fun of their attempts to secularize in such a way that they take on features of a theocracy, such as dress codes.

Fair point.

You could presumably have a Buddhist theocracy without any sort of belief in a supreme ruling deity.

I think that wouldn't make it a theocracy, as it's more of a philosophy or way of life rather than a belief in a higher being that has a strict set of rules that a state could enforce. But I don't really know that much about buddhism, so I might be wrong.

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That would be good indeed, but isn’t really an aspect of secularism.

I would say it's an aspect of secularism when done in a sane way.

I think that wouldn’t make it a theocracy, as it’s more of a philosophy or way of life rather than a belief in a higher being that has a strict set of rules that a state could enforce. But I don’t really know that much about buddhism, so I might be wrong.

Well, I would say that ultimately all theocracies are that. In my view there aren't any deities, so all theocracies which claim to base their legitimacy on a supreme being are, well, wrong. They are really enforcers of cultural norms that just happen to have a belief in a particular deity as one of those norms.

[–] Spectrism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I would say it's an aspect of secularism when done in a sane way.

What anyone considers sane is subjective, but if that's what you consider a more sane approach to secularism, I can't argue against that.

Well, I would say that ultimately all theocracies are that. In my view there aren't any deities, so all theocracies which claim to base their legitimacy on a supreme being are, well, wrong. They are really enforcers of cultural norms that just happen to have a belief in a particular deity as one of those norms.

Buddhism doesn't really have specific cultural norms, though, does it? As far as I know, Buddhism is based on guiding principles (wisdom, ethics, mental discipline), not on specific rules as it's the case with theistic religions. So there's not really a way for states to enforce any laws from Buddhism itself, they can only abide by its principles to make their own laws, whereas theocracies enforce laws not thought of by themselves but based on things written hundreds or thousands of years ago, often with little to no consideration about ethics, logic or usefulness.