About a year and a half ago, I wrote about the overbroad use of the term “Fascism” and what it really was or is. Another political designation that gets freely tossed around is “theocracy.” Merriam-Webster defines it as “government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.” This is too broad; governments of all kinds have claimed that God guides their heads of state. Listen to traditional patriotic songs, and you’ll hear lots of claims that the leaders act under God’s guidance.
The Cambridge Dictionary gives “a country that is ruled by religious leaders” or “government by religious leaders.” This is much closer to the traditional use of the term. Iran is the most obvious example today. Vatican City is a milder theocratic state. Israel under Moses and in some later periods was a theocracy, or at least the Bible represents it that way. The historian Josephus coined the word theokratia for Israel’s government. Many states have declared that their rulers are gods.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia defines theocracy as “a form of political government in which the Deity directly rules the people.” That would require atheists to say that there’s no such thing as a theocracy. Christians would have to say that a government run by Muslims isn’t a true theocracy, and vice versa. That definition doesn’t let people agree on which governments are theocracies.
Today people often use an implicit definition which is much too broad: that a state which enforces religious laws is a theocracy. This makes the majority of the world’s historical governments theocracies. Even in modern Europe, governments proclaim religious holidays and collect taxes that go to churches. Most people wouldn’t call all of them theocracies. The usual understanding of theocracy is that church and state are unified, with government officials being members of the clergy or chosen by them.
In principle, a theocracy could refrain from enforcing religious law other than setting qualifications for office. It’s unlikely to happen and even less likely to stay that way. Among real-life theocracies, though, there’s a big difference between Vatican City and Iran.
Laws that have no rational foundation and are the decrees of a religious leader or holy book are a serious threat to human liberty, but exaggerated terminology makes your arguments against them easy to knock down. When dealing with legislation that treats flushing a fertilized ovum as homicide or bans criticism of a “prophet,” it’s precise and sufficient to say that it forces religious rules on those who don’t choose to follow them.