I wonder why you think Tibet would become a theocracy if it were independent. I don't think the current Dalai Lama would support that. Many places were not democratic before falling under foreign rule, but became democratic afterwards.

You described some example of Theocracy's that performed brutal acts against those that were perceived as "others". USA is responsible for many deaths and is constantly invading countries. Since using examples of bad things a government type has done is enough to say that the type of government is bad, democracy in turn must be bad. /s

Any form of government once formed is hard to change. How many governments do you see regularly changing from democracy to communism to theocracy to etc... Theocracy is a perfect valid form of governance.

Religion's just like governments have multiple sides to them. Which side the rulers decided to focus on changes which actions are performed.

Yes but unlike say a democracy, you can't vote the theocracy out. You can't be treated fairly if you are not of the official religion. You become an outsider, never to be treated like a full citizen, because of who you are.

Imagine if instead of religion it was skin color, or gender, or hell even height - only people over 2 meters could be in government. Can we whitewash those too? Are they as legitimate as Theocracy? Why not?