Talk:Religious democracy

Mediation Cabal
There is a Mediation Cabal about this article. Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-11 Islamic democracy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sa.vakilian (talk • contribs) 17:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Essay tag
I added an "essay" tag to this article, as that is what it most resembles currently - David Oberst 08:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The section about America seems just the tiniest bit biased, don't you think? "Decline of a secular democracy?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.137.128.44 (talk • contribs) 8 March 2007  (UTC)


 * That is right. So I removed it from the article. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religious_democracy&diff=118205307&oldid=118203030 Farhoudk 05:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear David Oberst. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CU and explain why Religious democracy needs to be cleaned-up (ex. grammar, spelling, formatting, order, copyright issues, confusion, etc.) Farhoudk 07:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oberst#Religious_democracy Farhoudk 07:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE IS WRONG This article is wrong. It stipulates an implicit definition of religion. This definition of religion holds a conservative bias. I hope this article is changed or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.173.139 (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE IS BIASED
The whole article is severly biased. Almost all constitutions in the world hold their countries as countries under good. The article stipulates a definition of religion which is analogue with social conservativism. It does a crime against the ancient icelandic and greek democracy with assuming the (absurdly relativistic) notion that their 'religion' can be understood in terms of that of USA. This article has nothing to do in wikipedia in the tone it is written now. It should be changed or deleted. Essay, research and articles of own options should be put elsewhere. The idea of the article and a discussion of the topics of religion and democracy might well belong here. Not like it is now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.173.139 (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"According to some[who?], democracy is not violated when a faith is embraced; it is violated when a particular belief is imposed or disbelief is punished.[citation needed]" This is in direct contradiction of the introduction and the known facts of ancient Athenisn religion in which once the Ecclesia had voted on a religious issue it became law and disbelief was punishable by death!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.36.230 (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

NO!
If Iran and Afghanistan are democracies, on par with Greece, Denmark, Argentina or England I will eat me hat!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omulurimaru (talk • contribs) 15:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the examples for islamic democracies. I dont think Afghanistan or Somalia are good examples due to the very unstable nature of their governments. Bangladesh and Malaysia are both 'contemporary democracies with state religions' as described in the article. The relationship between religion and state in these countries is similar to that in the christian examples given e.g. uk/argentina. Iran does describe itself as a democracy but is not generally accepted by the west as a democracy. I'd support removing it as an example, or clarifying the difference between a) contemporary democracies that have Islam as their state religion and b)Islamic states that claim to be democratic but are not generally accepted as such. On the other hand, perhaps we also ought to give examples of countries with christian state religion that claim to be democracies but are not widely recogniseed as such e.g. Armenia. Halon8 (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Meaningless term...
Hello there, in my opinion, this article should be nominated for deletion, as the term is meaningless: In that context, a state is either a Theocracy, or a democracy (or a monarchy); the term Religious democracy does not make any sense (Iran is an Islamic Republic, I think; not sure about Pakistan).
 * Any state where the people elect some of their representatives is a democracy. I am aware that elections may be biased, some candates may not be eligible (etc); but thats not the issue here. Even in China, Iran, ... people elect mayors, or other officeholders.
 * Countries where religious officeholders ("clergy") have a large say in politics are called Theocracies. Examples are Andorra, or Vatican City.
 * Some countriews are absolute monarchies: the ruler and his familiy runs the country; the acts of the ruler are not limited by a constitution; examples: Gulf States, Saudi Arabia...

In short, the term "religious democracy" is confusing, and should not be used. --Eptalon (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)