re: #211 000G

We don’t have to go that far. It is sensible to call a rule by priests a theocracy, so Tibet would qualify. It is also sensible to call a rule based mainly on “revealed” religious law a theocracy, even if the revelator doesn’t assert the existence of God or gods proper. A matter of not so much philosophy, as practicality. Same as with atom and antisemitism and a host of other terms. I don’t think many people are confused.