and you be wrong there is only one actual theocracy. the holy see. no other country is actually ruled by priests. no countries in the middle east of heavily involved state religions but none of them are ruled by the imans themselves
Iran is so ruled. And there are plenty of states that have adopted Sharia law as the basis for their states, maintain religious courts, have no observable separation of church and state, etc.
There might be an aspect of guilt about it, as we didn't exactly welcome Jewish refugees from Nazism. But we did support the creation of Israel, and we have had a close diplomatic relationship with Israel for 60 years. You don't just throw that away for no reason. They are extremely helpful with regard to our shared enemies in the region. They speak the same language for the most part too.
there are no shared enemies. there are people who hate us because we support Israel. that's a damn good reason to kick their ass to the curb in my mind. the only reason we supported Israel in the first place was votes. hell they lucked out that Rossevelt died dies. Rossvelt was very supportive of the palestinains wishes. Truman didn't give a fuck and supported Israel to ensure jewish votes.
No I under stand completely. The United Kingdom has as its head of state the leader of Anglican church by your definition of having religious people in the government that makes it a theocracy.
I think that's a large part of it, but there is also the link between religious imperatives and the land. I do think our ties to Israel are a bit extreme, almost to the point that some would involve us in a war with Iran simply because it would serve Israeli interests.
And then, when they came for the Rastafarians, I didn't say anything because I wasn't a Rastafarian. The importance of a relationship should be determined by the value of its partners, not the mindful or mindless detractors.
That would be "Supreme Governor of the Church of England," but the relevant point is that both that title, and the title of "Head of State" in question are essentially titular roles. You are invoking accidental details of historical circumstances while totally ignoring the actual governance of the UK. That is not any definition that I have accepted, much less advocated. You can go back up this very page to post #22 - posted in direct response to yourself - where I list some defining aspects of "theocracy." You have not even attempted to argue that any of them apply to the UK, but instead just stuffed some pathetic strawman into my mouth.
