No, they can't, at least not by a general citizenship against a general pool of candidates. The Vatican's citizens don't get to elect the pope, and among those few who do vote, they can't choose a Bhuddist to be Pope.
> I fail to see how your definition of a theocracy automatically disqualifies Utah from being an "effective theocracy".
Well,I think you have to try really, really hard, not to see that.
Why not? The vast majority of people in Utah are Mormon, and people in high positions within the LDS Church often go into state and local politics and elected, precisely because they will enact policies that align with the moral tenets of the Mormon religion...
Theocracies can be republics (basically, any non-monarchic system is a republic), and can have elected representatives.
The Islamic Republic of Iran, for instance, meets both.
Now, the assertion that Utah is effectively a theocracy rests on the claim that the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints asserts informal power loosely analogous to that held formally by, say, the Guardian Council in Iran. I’m nit saying that that’s true. But that it is formally a republic with democratic election of representatives isn’t even slightly incompatible with it being an informal theocracy, you can even be a formal theocracy with those features.
It's literally a theocracy /in practice/ because the religious minority is the majority in that region, in a state literally created for them, and they have run it since its foundation on the basis of the their religious beliefs, and continue to do so. You can't get more theocratic while being inside the US.
It's literally not a theocracy /in practice/. You don't get to redefine words to mean whatever you feel like. A theocracy is not a state that has some laws that correspond to one religion's moral code. It has never meant that, nor will it ever mean that.
Here are some major practical differences between a theocracy and a constitutional republic.
1. If citizens change their mind, within one election cycle they can replace every leader with atheists, or ones with different religions, and change the laws entirely. This is not possible in any theocracy, either in theory or in practice.
2. A constitution, both state and federal, limits what the state government can do, even when the leaders are all of one religion. Such limits do not exist in any theocracies, in theory or in practice, because, when you rule in the name of God, limits to your rule are sinful!
3. Utah has checks and balances via different branches of government. It has judicial procedures, for instance, where minorities can seek redresses. Our state and federal governments were explicitly designed to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. No such systems exist in any theocracies, in theory or in practice. For one, the majority doesn't rule in theocracies! When the majority rules, that makes it a democracy. I'm sure you've heard of that system of government?
4. Often, leaders disagree in Utah even when belonging to the same faith. The church itself has zero authority to adjudicate these disagreements. In a theocracy, the church's say would be final say, and all leaders would ultimately defer to church authority. Actually, they would be the ultimate church authority. In a theocracy, the ruling officials would be one and the same as the top church leadership.
> You can't get more theocratic while being inside the US.
You can't get past 0% theocratic in the US because theocracy is illegal in the U.S. You redefining the word to mean something else doesn't change this fact.
In your definition, theocracy is only a theocratic dictatorship, however there are other forms of theocracy, and I am pointing out one such case. I do not believe either Israel or Utah are literally theocratic, only because they have constitutions that allow the free practice of religion, but in /practice/ both are.
I'm pointing out that the world operates pragmatically and things in practice matter, not only rigid dictionary definitions of terms. There is a difference between something meeting a literal definition and meeting that definition in practice. Does litigating the semantics matter for those who are affected by government policies created for religious reasons? No? Okay, well, then my point stands.
Should a religious person be allowed to follow said religion and be guided by it while at the same time being actively involved in policy making in a country that doesn’t have an office religion?
I’m genuinely asking because I personally don’t really have an answer. I have a personal intuition but that doesn’t count for much.
I was hoping for a genuine, curiosity driven discussion and instead it will end here with a personal accusation about what you think I believe in. That’s just unfortunate.
> because the religious minority is the majority in that region
Well that's quite the oxymoron.
If they're the majority in that region, any democratically elected government should reflect their interests. Barring infractions of Constitutional limits protecting individuals, like the Bill of Rights, of course.
I would argue the U.K. and Israel count as theocracies, too. It’s not a strictly defined term. But I agree that having a religious voting block a theocracy does not make.
England (but not the UK) has caesaropapism rather than theocracy (they are similar in the absence of Church-State separation, but in theocracy the Church supervises the secular authority, where the reverse is true in caesaropapism.)
I would argue that Israel is definitely a theocracy, and for similar reasons to why Utah is. It's a democratic state specifically created to house a persecuted religious minority that make up a majority of its polity and its leadership is ethnically and religiously aligned with that group and specifically elected and governs on the basis of their religious beliefs.
So, following that chain of thought, the POTUS isn't elected either because the USA's voters only choose their electors, and those few electors who do vote can't just choose any US citizen to be president?
