@Sailer @Skado correctly termed that condition a Theocracy. See The Federalist Society for elaboration.

@Sailer In a theocracy, governments laws are the same as religious laws, and therefore religious laws are imposed, because enforcement is the defining feature, which makes all laws laws. The difference is that in a democracy you can choose the government whose laws are imposed. While all religious laws are imposed on those who choose to remain in the religion.

@Sailer
The laws of Islam are enforced in Islamic theocracies but not in democracies. The only law they can enforce in a democracy is that maybe you can’t participate in their organization, or be considered a member in good standing. But in a country that maintains religious freedom, none of their other laws can be enforced. There are many Muslims in the U.S. but they adhere to their doctrines only voluntarily. The U.S. government does not enforce Islamic or any other religious laws that have not also been made secular law.

@Sailer
I don't disagree with your point. But you asked what is the difference, and there are some differences.
I grew up in the Baptist Church, which had its rules, but it made no effort to discover who was breaking those rules, and took no actions to try to enforce them. But if I knock off a Seven-Eleven I'll be going to jail. That is a difference. Abstractions are obviously different from concrete objects, but that doesn't mean they have no real-world consequences.

I think dogmatic religion is a prison because it removes freedom of creative expression.

@Sailer Yes, but they claim they don't, and that their god is unchanging, and the 'claim' is all the difference. Because they then use that as a source of fake authority, (The fallacy of proof by authority, and note that fake authority can come from tradition, just as much as a sky fairy. ) in an attempt to unbalance the debate. And to a large extent they succeed. To use a trivial example. Tell the town officials. "Don't cut that tree down, because we think its beautiful." And you may not be listened to, but tell them. "Because it is holy in our cult." And you are much more likely to be respected.

While of course that is respect for a lie, because, as you say, people actually change their god to suit themselves all the time. The claim of unchanging infalliblity is the biggest fake.

Hey everybody, let's welcome @Sailer the Magnificent Joke to this site!

(Please excuse me while I roll on the floor laughing my fucking ass off.) /@Betty @LovinLarge

@Sailer Who said that government does not exist, what are you smoking and where can I get some.

@Sailer Changing laws are a condition of non-dogmatism, not of existence, so that statement is kind of sad. I would meditate on your assumptions.

@rainmanjr I adore @Sailer's stupendous foolishness. /@Betty @Fernapple

@anglophone I adore your delight, seriously, and look forward to the jokes because I'm in agreement with you. I've posted my reply for all to consider but under Politics.

@Fernapple If you find out, please share.

@Sailer There are? 50 million ways to say I love you, Jesus? I know about the 50 ways to leave your lover but didn't know about all those freaks. You make of them what you will but I see one cult in bondage to a myth.

@Sailer Yes but the problem with comparing government to religion is that, while I accept that governments are a burden to the population, it would be hard to do away with government and achieve total anarchy. Since not only does government give us a few important services, but even more importantly, without an existing government there would be nothing to stop anyone , probably people with criminal intent, from forming a new government entirely for their own benefit and profit, without even attempting to provide any token benefit to the wider population to justify their cost. While religion is at least something which you are free to join or not.

Therefore given that you are forced to take on one burden, why take on a second.

@Sailer Government is not an illusion, goverment is a mental construct which we agree to as part of our social contract. And mental constructs are quite real, even though they are imaginary, because a thing does not have a material existence, that does not mean that it is unreal. Maths is a mental construct, yet it is quite real. If your car has four wheels and the garage told you that they have changed one of the bald tyres, but finding that you needed another changing they changed that as well. And that since they hold that one plus one equals six, they are going to charge you for six tyres, you would not be very happy. But then, since money is even more of an illusion than maths or government, then you would be wrong to be unhappy and would not have lost anything anyway.

@Sailer There are a vast number of mental constructs, which we chose to believe, often collectively as a social contract, because we get benefits from that belief, such as maths, money, reading and writing, maps and plans, contracts and marriage etc.. All that atheism means is the rejection of the one mental construct called a theistic god, like the word says a-theism, and sometimes religion as well. Because people who chose not to believe in it, think that it does more harm than good and that it is one mental construct that you can do better without, and easily do without. While mental constructs such as maths, I see as wholly beneficial, and I therefore chose to believe that there is such a thing as circle of three hundred and sixty degrees.

Democratic government on the other hand, does a lot of harm and comes at great cost, but it also brings many benefits. I would not think that in the world today, it would be good to try living without money or roads organized nationally, or to have policing run by unaccountable for profit gangsters. There are countries in the world where the governments and policing are run by unaccountable gangsters, and it is truly horrible. So on balance I think that, faith in democratic government, however imaginary it may be, and trying your best to keep it as democratic as possible, is the best option despite the cost.

Which is doubly why I reject religion. Because since government does come, whatever the benefits, at great cost, I see no reason to wilfully accept the cost of a second government, which is what religion is. Especially so as it tends to be run by people who have rejected the ideas of democracy and accountability, and who chose it rather than government often exactly because of that lack of accounting. You say that you can see no difference between government and religion, and in many ways you are quite correct, therefore why would I chose wilfully to accept double the problems. And secondly, while I can chose easily not to accept religion, as the populations of many countries like Japan and Denmark already largely have, and there is little cost. If I reject democratic government, then I end up with the none democratic sort, or in other words the gangsters step in to fill the void.

And religion really is a form of gangsterism based government. Under democracy, the will of the people can be very unjust, ill informed and unkind to minorities, but at least it makes an attempt to be accountable to most of the people. The rule of gangsters however is accountable to nobody, however kind it may try to appear at the lower level.

You know the scene, the gangsters employee walks into the shop, and says. " Really nice little business you have got here, would be a shame if something nasty happened to it. And I really don't want it to come to harm, because I love your products, and I really like you, and I really am a gentle kind man. So I would hate that, and I know times are hard, but can you not just find the money this week. Because sadly my boss is not like me, he is a really cruel and unkind man, who makes nasty things happen to people, and he frightens me too. So I have to do what he tells me. However much I hate it. " ( Even though he may never have met the boss.) And the priest says. "Nice little soul you have got there, would be a shame ........... but it is my god you see, he is really cruel and he frightens me too. Etc. " ( Even though he may never have met god.)

@Sailer No, sorry I did say that all government came at a price, and certainly tyrannies are not a thing I would want anyone to believe in. But if you can not respect and support your government, ( and try to help improve and democratize it, then it will not die. The only thing that will die, is the democratic part of it, however small, and you will just be left with the worst bits of all. And like it or not, it was the democratic goverment which in part helped make America great, it is sad that people who claim to value that greatness can not understand and value the main thing which made it so and helped to keep it so.

While if you can not tell the difference between a tyranny, and governments which are at least to some degree democratic, then you are a lost cause, and I am wasting my time. Bye.

@LovinLarge I am going to enjoy running @Sailer ragged for his absurdity.

"God is a fairy tale for fools." YES!

True. Religious types would disagree as they would argue their invisible friend does so much; thus, some governments get saddled with religious fanaticism as part of the rule (US, etc) or absolute (Iran, etc).

@Sailer Only when we allow it to.

@Sailer See my post about Hobbes, please. Long explanation.

I am having trouble following your logic.

@BDair I'm afraid I don't see the logic. I must really be dense. lol

@BDair cognative dissonance is an experience that people get when exposed to new information that opposes previously held beliefs.

You may be thinking "pasta in the sky with meatballs " whenever you see the word "god". So, because the information is not famuliar with your previous style of god, the new information to you is something you then have a hard time learning the 2000 year old usage that you have never been education on previously.

@Betty Not you being dense.

@Beowulfsfriend Thank you.

@Betty @Beowulfsfriend I regard BDair as infamous for his insanity.

@Word Why do you call my president "Brandon"? Is every person who lives in Texas fucking asshole?

@barjoe why do you call that part of my ancestry that's been here 1000s of years "Mexican, Indian and native American ". Is everyone that lives in the "USA" a governmental terrorist supporter of the European invadors?

@Sailer it's called noun or a proper noun.

noun
/noun/
a word (other than a pronoun) used to identify any of a class of people, places, or things (common noun), or to name a particular one of these (proper noun).

Proper noun
a name used for an individual person, place, or organization, spelled with initial capital letters, e.g., Larry, Mexico, and Boston Red Sox.

@Word Answering a question with a question lol The point is, you referred to Joe Biden as "Brandon" so fuck off.

@barjoe I never mentioned Joe Biden. But please feel free to return to your land of ancestry prior to the governmental terrorist European invasion of 1492 and take your governmental terrorism with you.

@Word "It's like you call president Brandon, president for the position that he is in." Don't give me your bullshit.

@barjoe don't give me your governmental terrorism capitalism slavery of your secret theocracy racist devil worshipper European invador government to force your "in god we trust" and "god bless America " on me and those that that would greatly prefer true human rights freedoms from your governments terrorism capitalism slavery tactics and taxation.

@Word You sound angry. Trust me when I caution that anger is a bad place to come from. Detachment and letting go of ego, time, and place help a lot in shifting one's POV. Nothing can be done about 1492 so we are better served, personally, by letting go of expectations for the year.

@rainmanjr I would not say anger is the right word. Disgust would be a little more like it. However, indirect aggression is not how I would want to see about dealing with their wrongs. Sure, we could see they deserve proper true justice capital punishment to get them eradicated. Where as I would prefer that they get fixed of their terrorism mentality and capitalism slavery ways. Yet, that is about as realistic as having a vicious carnivorous shark evolved to be a fruit eater, over night.

Whereas anger is associated with high-cost, direct aggression, disgust is associated with less costly indirect aggression. Finally, whether the target of a moral violation is the self or another person influences direct aggression partially via anger and influences indirect aggression partially via disgust.

[ncbi.nlm.nih.gov].

@Word Disgust for this population is what I feel so we'll go with it.

@Betty As I have said to @LovinLarge, I am going to enjoy running @Sailer ragged with his own absurdity. It might not take long to make him so full of his own sh!t that that he quits this site.

@anglophone I accept. I will leave him in your oh so capable hands. I will sit back and enjoy the show. Should I get some popcorn?

@Betty I suggest a truckload of popcorn.

@anglophone This is going to be epic. I'll see what I can do about the popcorn.

@Betty I almost (but not quite) feel sorry for @Sailer. He has no idea what he is up against, and I can already see him quitting this site while screaming in outrage, this in exactly the same way as all who are like him have already come and gone from here.

@anglophone Make me proud.

@Betty I will do my best, and I could name a few other members who will doubtless assist. (Are you listening, @Sailer?)

@anglophone I can almost imagine the temper tantrum with every comeback he gets. I don't think he has any idea what he stumbled into here.

@anglophone Should we make bets on how long he will last?

@Betty 10 to 1 on @Sailer leaving in less than seven days from now. (Okay @Sailer, that is my challenge to you: can you tolerate being subject such intense scrutiny for that long?)

@anglophone I was also thinking about a week. So to be fair I will say 10 to 1 @Sailer will leave in less than 14 day from now.

I wonder what the other's will predict?

@Sailer I offer you Congress, and the Parliaments of England, Scotland, Wales, New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia by way of proof.

Show Me proof of the existence of the Internet!

(See, two people can play at the game of Silly Buggers.)

@Sailer I honestly think YOU don't exist so whatever is eating you is not a thing for me to consider.

@Sailer Your absurdity amuses me, as do your debilitating defects of personality and catastrophic failures of cognition.