[Joona]

Imagine a country led by religious clergy elected by the people. The parliament of the country would consist of clergymen of various faiths.

There would be two levels of parliamentary government, and they would interact with each other more or less the same way the senate and the congress in the USA do.

The upper level would consist of equal numbers of clerical representatives from the existing religious groups. So if there were 27 registered religious groups in the country, every 27th member would come from the clergy of a particular religious group.

The lower governmental level's representation of the different clergies would be determined by proportionality. So if for instance 20% of the registered religious people of the country were catholics, catholic clergymen would hold 20% of the seats.

There would be separate elections for both levels of government. The registered members of a particular religious group would vote on which people among their clergy would be best suited to govern them, and these clergymen would take the parliamentary seats as they are proportioned at the time the election is held. In order to prevent voting fraud, it might perhaps be illegal to change one's religious group during election time.

All people would be required to register themselves to some religious organisation in order to get voting rights. If the group disapproves of having a clergy (as indeed some religions lack them), it will instead elect from its ranks governmental representatives by some other name, but essentially similiar in function.

In order for a religious group to become registered, there would have to be at least a certain amount (not much) of membership, recognition of the existence of something supernatural, and at least some idea on what the group's teachings are. In order to safeguard the morals of the country, atheists would not be allowed to register themselves as a religious group.

The elected government would mainly make decisions on general matters such as economy and foreign policy, while mostly leaving the morality laws in the hands of the religious groups themselves. The religious groups would therefore have their own separate morality laws, which are legally binding on their membership. For instance, it would be legal for jews to illegalise the eating of kosher foods among their membership, but this ban would not affect the members of some other faith where these foods are allowed. However, it wouldn't be possible to escape the law by changing religious groups: If a person started eating kosher food after leaving Judaism, that would be perfectly legal; but if he did so while being a registered jew and then changed his membership to something else, he could still be prosecuted for violating the hypothetical kosher ban.

There would have to be some limitations though, for example it wouldn't be legal for religious groups to punish people for trying to leave their organisation or to legalise something obscene like human sacrifice. It also wouldn't be possible for them to restrict basic human rights by - for instance - imprisoning their members without charges, preventing them from exercising free speech, or anything like that. Courts should for this purpose be an independent entity from the religious groups, merely obligated to follow the particular group's laws in passing it's judgements. There would also have to be a generalised law decided on by the government for those not registered to any religious group (and parts of it would naturally apply to everone).

Any thoughts?

[ComradeTim]

Seeing as most highly religious countries have one religion that controls the majority of that country's faithful, this "democracy" would quickly turn into one religion theocracy, (why give minority faiths any say at all when they have little power?). In non-highly religious countries, you would have a massive rebellion of atheists/agnostics/members of minority religion, which would quickly overrun the system and introduce democracy or anything else really.

I don't see how this would give any advantages to normal democracy and the disadvantages would include probable religious war.

[Joona]

Seeing as most highly religious countries have one religion that controls the majority of that country's faithful, this "democracy" would quickly turn into one religion theocracy, (why give minority faiths any say at all when they have little power?). In non-highly religious countries, you would have a massive rebellion of atheists/agnostics/members of minority religion, which would quickly overrun the system and introduce democracy or anything else really.

I don't see how this would give any advantages to normal democracy and the disadvantages would include probable religious war.

I'm not all that sure about minority faiths having little power. While in the lower parliamentary level the more popular religions would indeed have more power than the unpopular ones, in the upper level they are all EQUALLY represented due to the seats themselves being split equally. Furthermore, all the various (Christian or otherwise) denominations would be also considered separate religious groups in this system.

As for advantages, well, there's the whole matter of religion's role in our laws. Having our laws be based on one particular religion is of course an unworkable proposal, but the modern atheistic/materialistic "anything goes / if-it-feels-good-do-it" -morality is also very faulty, and has degraded western society to a great extent in a moral sense. In my system, practically all people would be under the moral guidance of spiritually inspired lawsmanship, without being based on any particular religion. And since all of the religions will get their way at least some of the time, there will be less conflict about how to run things.

[One Degree]

Look at the world around you. You want to give religion more influence in politics?
The disaster of this is obvious in the news everyday from the Tea Party to Islam.
Religion should be a personal matter. Religion in politics just prevents politicians from doing what needs to be done in the real world.

[velvet]

In order for a religious group to become registered, there would have to be at least a certain amount (not much) of membership, recognition of the existence of something supernatural, and at least some idea on what the group's teachings are. In order to safeguard the morals of the country, atheists would not be allowed to register themselves as a religious group.

This is going to be a lot less neat than how I am sure you imagine it.

Who will be there to decide what does and doesn't constitute a religion? Because I'm almost certain that allowing the irreligious to form their own irreligious protests groupings (like Pastafarianism) in is not your intention. The obvious problem in then letting the recognised religious groups decide is that there will be an inherent bias towards rejecting new religions because it dilutes their power. That's not mentioning all the case specific biases.

[Joona]

This is going to be a lot less neat than how I am sure you imagine it.

Who will be there to decide what does and doesn't constitute a religion? Because I'm almost certain that allowing the irreligious to form their own irreligious protests groupings (like Pastafarianism) in is not your intention. The obvious problem in then letting the recognised religious groups decide is that there will be an inherent bias towards rejecting new religions because it dilutes their power. That's not mentioning all the case specific biases.

I'll admit this is a bit of a grey area, and I have no 100% clear answer on how it ought to be approached. But I'm leaning on allowing groups like Pastafarianism, because while they obviously are meant as a joke, they nevertheless project an outer image of religiousness, which may be better than nothing.

[Dystopian Darkness]

I missed the part where Clergymen ruling is a good idea. There's not many current or past situations when clergymen ruled with dignity. I have no religious affiliation and therefore no intention in supporting this idea. By the way, religion causes divisiveness between people, so it's highly irrational to govern a state based on religious groups

[ComradeTim]

I'm not all that sure about minority faiths having little power. While in the lower parliamentary level the more popular religions would indeed have more power than the unpopular ones, in the upper level they are all EQUALLY represented due to the seats themselves being split equally. Furthermore, all the various (Christian or otherwise) denominations would be also considered separate religious groups in this system.

As for advantages, well, there's the whole matter of religion's role in our laws. Having our laws be based on one particular religion is of course an unworkable proposal, but the modern atheistic/materialistic "anything goes / if-it-feels-good-do-it" -morality is also very faulty, and has degraded western society to a great extent in a moral sense. In my system, practically all people would be under the moral guidance of spiritually inspired lawsmanship, without being based on any particular religion. And since all of the religions will get their way at least some of the time, there will be less conflict about how to run things.

Well, while I would agree that materialism is generally bad for society, I have grave doubts that those of minority religions would be respected under this system, particularly by the followers of Abrahamic religions which are notorious for foisting the beliefs on others, whenever possible, though often others have been almost as bad. I doubt they would be satisfied with only partial control of the masses. You did not address my point of an atheist rebellion against their new political irrelevancy either.

[velvet]

But I'm leaning on allowing groups like Pastafarianism, because while they obviously are meant as a joke, they nevertheless project an outer image of religiousness, which may be better than nothing.

Pastafarianism exists as an explicit attempt to delegitimise religion and it's place within the public sphere. There's no outer-image of religiousness.

I think the best thing to do would to be to preserve the idea of religious groups setting the morality laws for themselves, with religious groups having their own right to enforce these laws in their own religious courts, and then having general governance - to-do with economics, foreign affairs, etc. - left to a secularised executive and legislature.

[Joona]

I think the best thing to do would to be to preserve the idea of religious groups setting the morality laws for themselves, with religious groups having their own right to enforce these laws in their own religious courts, and then having general governance - to-do with economics, foreign affairs, etc. - left to a secularised executive and legislature.

That's more or less as I intended, except for the idea of general governance being in the hands of elected clergymen or other spiritual representatives. Even if that's a flawed arrangement, I would at the very least retain my original idea on how the parliamentary seats are divided and how the representatives are elected. The religious groups would therefore choose who among them would represent them in the two parliamentary levels, but these representatives wouldn't neccessarily have to be clergymen, merely people from the ranks of the group in question.

As for the courts, they really shouldn't be in the hands of the religious groups themselves, but rather exist as a separate entity that's legally obligated to apply the case-specific group's morality laws in making it's judgements. There'd be less corruption that way, unless I'm somehow mistaken.

[velvet]

I would at the very least retain my original idea on how the parliamentary seats are divided and how the representatives are elected.

It's the central idea I see as flawed on the basis of the first criticism.

I'm also unsure why you see religious engagement with economic or foreign policies something to strive for. I can understand how delegating the creation morality laws to the different religious traditions might seem like a good idea - combating perceived "moral degradation" - but I see no reason why the same approach to other aspect of governance might be considered the same.

As for the courts, they really shouldn't be in the hands of the religious groups themselves, but rather exist as a separate entity that's legally obligated to apply the case-specific group's morality laws in making it's judgements. There'd be less corruption that way, unless I'm somehow mistaken.

I would agree if it was a suggestion I made about courts dealing with members of all religion.

I was suggesting that religious traditions run their own courts and deal with members of their own religion who violate their laws. I don't see the scope for corruption there. Existing above these should be secular courts which deal which have appellate jurisdiction over the religious courts and deal with whether the judgements and legislation of religious communities are in-line with the national constitution and national-level legislation. I have reservations about whether judge's in the secular appellate courts would be capable of shrugging off their religious baggage in a state where religious identification is made to be such an integral part of people's lives but that's still the best theoretical model in my opinion.

I would also suggest looking in to the workings of the identities like the Beth Din for what I would consider preferable alternatives to what you are suggesting. I think secularism is a valuable foundation for creating legislation upon because (in theory) it forces people to use logical reasoning and empirical evidence in crafting their policies, but I would have no issue with two people deciding to engage in non-official arbitration in-line with their religious beliefs within a secular state.