It's literally not a theocracy /in practice/. You don't get to redefine words to mean whatever you feel like. A theocracy is not a state that has some laws that correspond to one religion's moral code. It has never meant that, nor will it ever mean that.

Here are some major practical differences between a theocracy and a constitutional republic.

1. If citizens change their mind, within one election cycle they can replace every leader with atheists, or ones with different religions, and change the laws entirely. This is not possible in any theocracy, either in theory or in practice.

2. A constitution, both state and federal, limits what the state government can do, even when the leaders are all of one religion. Such limits do not exist in any theocracies, in theory or in practice, because, when you rule in the name of God, limits to your rule are sinful!

3. Utah has checks and balances via different branches of government. It has judicial procedures, for instance, where minorities can seek redresses. Our state and federal governments were explicitly designed to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. No such systems exist in any theocracies, in theory or in practice. For one, the majority doesn't rule in theocracies! When the majority rules, that makes it a democracy. I'm sure you've heard of that system of government?

> You can't get more theocratic while being inside the US.

You can't get past 0% theocratic in the US because theocracy is illegal in the U.S. You redefining the word to mean something else doesn't change this fact.

In your definition, theocracy is only a theocratic dictatorship, however there are other forms of theocracy, and I am pointing out one such case. I do not believe either Israel or Utah are literally theocratic, only because they have constitutions that allow the free practice of religion, but in /practice/ both are.

You are making up a new definition for a word, different from how it's commonly used.

I'm pointing out that the world operates pragmatically and things in practice matter, not only rigid dictionary definitions of terms. There is a difference between something meeting a literal definition and meeting that definition in practice. Does litigating the semantics matter for those who are affected by government policies created for religious reasons? No? Okay, well, then my point stands.

You are simply saying that religious people do not have any right to participate in the political process.

Should a religious person be allowed to follow said religion and be guided by it while at the same time being actively involved in policy making in a country that doesn’t have an office religion?

I’m genuinely asking because I personally don’t really have an answer. I have a personal intuition but that doesn’t count for much.

Just asking the question implies you do not believe religious people are human beings with the same rights and privileges as the irreligious.

Bummer.

I was hoping for a genuine, curiosity driven discussion and instead it will end here with a personal accusation about what you think I believe in. That’s just unfortunate.

I wish you a good day.

> because the religious minority is the majority in that region

Well that's quite the oxymoron.

If they're the majority in that region, any democratically elected government should reflect their interests. Barring infractions of Constitutional limits protecting individuals, like the Bill of Rights, of course.