Thanks for the video. I think a lot of the reason why theocracies tend to be so oppressive is tripartite. For one most theocracies are monarchical in most cases, and if not will be centralized around a group of men/women, who are appointed from within that organization which can lead to severe issues. This leads into the second issue of no accountability to anyone except the god, and if that god-hand's-off or evil, they're unlikely to get hit by a lightning bolt. If there's clerical magic that is used and the priesthood are just mouthpieces then if one particularly acts up in high positions he could get ripped apart. And as for the third one, it's a bit more mundane. The final is related to the first but it's a bit different. It's the fact that religion and politics usually don't merge well. There's a reason why military personnel aren't supposed to get involved in politics, it takes away from their job. Now consider all the internal nonesense that must go on within a massive organization, and combine it with the sort of certainty required for a priest. For a theocracy to not be oppressive there'd have to be accountability to the people, perhaps as suggested by the Mormon idea of Theodemocracy, a very real and benevolent god that doesn't like people using their name to abuse people, and perhaps more importantly alternative power structures.
I think the notion of "oppressive" needs a closer look, to make sense. My first impulse is to say that every govern (including the most idealised Democracy, which in my opinion has to be direct and not 'representative') has an "oppression level" above zero. Govern is necessary to human life, and is by definition oppressive. Any debate around the subject has to be about "how much", if it wants to make sense. In addition to that, "how oppressive" a govern is has little to nothing to do with who gets to participate in the govern. Take that hypothetical direct democracy I just mentioned. Every single citizen gets a saying, and every individual in society is a citizen. You have some sort of real time communication tool that allows all people to participate, debate, and vote in every issue they want to take part. "Magical Telepathy", let's say. Every person has intelligence enough to understand the problems in debate as well as specialists in our world can. However, they are still people, with personal points of view. Majorities will reach consensus. Minorities will have to bend. How oppressive it can be? A lot! Milan Kundera wrote a lot in his fiction about the sort of extreme tyranny those hypothetical (allow me that "hypothetical", for charity!) "councils of citizens" are inclined to. When they get the chance to deliberate about every matter, including private intimacy of individuals. The most important element to determine if a regime is more or less oppressive is NOT who gets to be part of govern. Or how decisions are made. It is how much ground for life remains, after State (the embodiment of collective) apply its legislations. If the "public light" reaches every corner of existence, and there is no shade of privacy: that is total oppression. Regardless of who is in charge of govern. When "Personal is Politics", that's absolute Totalitarianism. Nothing but oppression. When "Politics is Personal", that's a Gangster State: Tyranny. Less bad, but perhaps still less than ideal. Lower levels of oppression are likely to be found between those extremes.
Have you read Lois McMaster BJuold's "The Curse of Chalion?" (2001) On the one hand, it's the story of a stable five-theism: five gods who cooperate between themselves and with humans. The story follows a human who slowly realizes that his dreadful past has uniquely prepared him to solve an unusual problem. The gods are a family, each with their own specific realm in human affairs, and each with their own very unhappy saints. "God-touched" isn't good. Their realms are almost like attitudes they propagate,. But for each one, people have created for each one, a priesthood, and a militia. This complicates the political landscape significantly. Anyway, a fascinating telling of the roles of immanent gods and humans, that completely side-steps both monotheism, and even inter-deity conflict. (Not that humans can't screw things up very badly.)
I think there is potentially a difference between monotheistic and polytheistic theocracies. I think that monotheistic religions are typically more focused on orthodoxy (i.e. right belief). This naturally leads to the authoritarianism and oppression you discuss. In contrast, polytheistic religions are typically more focused on orthopraxis (i.e. right action). In a theocracy this just means that religion sets the laws but it doesn't necessarily care what people believe or whether they worship other gods. That's not necessarily any more oppressive than a non-theocracy. Given that religion and culture are not necessarily separable anyway, this potentially just means that any ruler is necessarily also a devotee of the god of rulership (e.g. the head of the pantheon). Perhaps that doesn't technically count as a theocracy unless the ruler is also the head of the religion but in practical terms its basically the same, especially if it is the ruler who leads the public religious rituals of rulership. Ancient Egypt and the pharaohs are an example of this. Of course, in a world in which deities unambiguously exist and also grant magic to their followers I would imagine that almost all cultures would effectively be theocracies anyway. Given how important religion has been in government throughout human history without magic using priests, why would this not be enhanced when priests have the power of magic too? For example, in Celtic Britain would magic using druids not have even more influence and would that not count as a theocracy? The only non-theocracies would perhaps be magocracies, assuming that there are non-religious magic users of course.
Even a polytheistic religion would have some elements of inbuilt authoritarianism. "Because the gods command it" is one helluva way to make the law :D, but I think you're right that they would be somewhat better than our examples of monotheistic reports. And yeah, agreed on magic. Actual divinity or even just mages who claim diving magic is a massive game changer in terms of divine authority, which is already enormous in our own cultures.
Maybe I'm totally wrong, but wouldn't a Theocracy be the ruling by the gods/godesses/god themselves? The ruling by priests/priestesses would rather be a Hierocracy (with no matters whether the deities exist or are only believed to exist)? Fantasy could - as ancient myths - show the direct interference of gods and humans. Even if priestesses/priests reign (as the red 'socialist' priestesses in Game of Thrones), noone would be excluded from becoming priest/priestes (unless you have a hinduist-judaist-like hereditary priesthood). I would also be interested in your interpretation of the Bene Gesserit Sisterhood in Frank Herberts Dune. Interesting interpretation of medieval Europe, I'd also look to India and Israel, where divine legitimation is traditionally heavy till today in politics. Thank you so much for your videos, many interesting and inspiring inputs.
You’re welcome ☺️ A theocracy is a system of government, in which priests rule, in the name of God, or gods, or a God, according to the dictionary. A hierocracy is a ruling body composed of priests. It can rule over anything, including just religion. It is not necessarily a government. For a government you’d call it a theocracy. Does that difference make sense? And yes, fantasy can definitely have the gods actually involved, just be aware of the power pitfalls.
I was writing a novel where the magic system was kind of inspired by judeo Christian mysticism where one harnesses different aspects of God by following different levels of Virtue. The theocracy had several different branches and all that, but was very corrupt because they found a way to sin and keep their powers by faking redemption. I had a very powerful mentor figure that was a very rebellious Mystic who ended up recruiting his pupils in proving that the church was corrupt so he could tear it down in the name of justice. I got swept up by other stories. But it was an interesting and possibly philosophical story idea. (Not that is matters but that particular God does exist but not as the people knew it. It originally sought to form personal relationships with its creation but it just turned into a cosmic game of Telephone so out of annoyance it just decided to sit and watch. This God also doesn't really like it's own church due to it being built on many falsehoods that it refused to correct.)
Want to support my channel? Check out my debut novel, The Hidden Blade www.amazon.com/gp/product/B099Q5YPVB (e-book, audio & print. Kindle Unlimited Friendly) Or buy me a ko-fi: ko-fi.com/justintimeworlds
How about a story centered around Tribal Theocracy?.... the book of Judges is an OG book to read on this topic. Not only because it's a study of human nature but also it's based on historic accounts. The book ending will leave you with a bittersweet taste filled with questions.
I now wonder about the Roman republic. Becoming a priest was often the first step in a political career. Cicero was an augur, Caesar was Pontifex max. Also the magistrates performed religious rituals by office. It's it a theocracy then?
I’d say no, because the priesthood lacked all executive power. I would say the Roman Republic was heavily influenced by religion and there was definitely power wielded by the priests, but I would not call them a theocracy not even by proxy. It was a far subtler influence than say the pope on Europe’s monarchies.
4:45 i feel like i need to disagree thus far. 1. Emperors, especially polygamist ones, have courts where family politics matter, and they aren't too divided to have a state underneath them 2. Iran is in many ways Democratic. It's like an anocratic (corrupted delivery) constitutional mono-theocracy. 3. I feel like if people can be elected or chosen by lot as gods with your magic system (or just considered gods generally), then you can have a Theocracy that isn't so totalitarian, corrupt, or oppressive. Or, you could a backstory myth that explains why humans have power to (instead of empowering the gods themselves) humans have the power to choose amongst the gods who to follow. ... Not to mention the different kinds of non-western deities: kami, spirits, ritual posession, ancestor worship, nature, etc.
Does Feudal Tibet count as a Theocracy? In Buddhism, by some understandings, there are no gods, but there can be Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. In Tibet, the aristocrats alternated between choosing the Dalai Lama and the Pancham Lama. That and the system in Avatar, derived from it, are certainly both monarchies, but are they theocracies as well? Can you have a Theocracy of an "atheistic" religion?
I believe that you can. At the heart of it, even an atheist or spiritual religion is about establishing a set of norms which reinforces and supports the social contract. It's societal control (I'm not saying this as a bad thing, or a good thing, that is just what it does). Therefor, even a religion without a god figure would have tenants that control certain aspects of its adherents lives and those tenants can be expanded to include a government type concept. And in fact, the warhammer 40K universe, the Empire of Man was kinda founded on this. Of course, they threw atheism out of the window in favor of worshipping the Emperor on the Golden Throne, but originally, the emperor wanted atheism and science and rationality and yet he ruled like a theocracy.
No greater example of a religion influencing the government than catholic europe? I can think of some neighbors in the Middle East who may take offense to that nowadays…
Thank you again for your amazing lessons. I made a comment in the religion series about theocracies, but I feel like I really should've waited to watch this video first. Now I'll move up Trudi Canavan's book higher in my reading list. thank you again.
Would you say that monarchies are always oppressive and don't allow questions? I didn't follow your reasoning for why theocracies are oppressive and don't allow questions. In my experience with Judeo-Christianity, God often encourages questioning. Jacob wrestled God. Abraham and Moses bargained with God. Habbakkuk and the psalmists frequently complained, asking when and why.
@@JustInTimeWorlds OMG, how long did it take you to learn Finnish? That's right up there with Georgian on the list of "hardest languages that still use the Latin alphabet."
@@dumpster_fiyah my Finnish is still terrible 😳 I can make myself understood but most of my friends prefer to speak English to me 🤣 or Swedish. My Swedish (Finland is bilingual) is excellent since Swedish is super close to Dutch which is super close to my mother tongue ☺️
My religion is a major force in my cultures, even if they aren't quite theocracies! The gods being real means that the people who are in the priesthood are incredibly powerful. I do kinda cheat with my pantheon in that the larger pantheon is split in worship between elves, orcs, and dwarves. And my Orcish gods are triple deities, which allows me to play with them a bit!
Question, I plan to create a theocracy that was made on conquered land, how would let's say the priest of the theocracy deal with the already existing nobility?
My bet would be forced conversion and then incorporation into the new Empire. Check out the relationship between King John of England and the Pope for one example.
@@thelibrarian9191 anything is possible :) you just need to come up with a reason. Maybe their god is the interfering type and kept their borders safe. Or maybe their priests can do magic and those around them can’t. Or maybe it’s less magic, and they simply train a bunch of their population as holy warriors.
You could have secular bureaucrats who assist in governance. That being said, the nature of a theocracy is to be ruled by priests and they’re normally quite good at creating bureaucracies :)
I would say that in theocracy it's the god and his doctrine with has ultimate authority. If God is their himself to run it then a priest will govern instead. Buy the priest isn't the ruler, God or if we assume that God doesn't exist the commandment are the highest authority. Having a priest or prophet lead is like have a second in command lead in your leave. He doesn't have the authority to denounce things you made clear but also may not perfectly enact your will. Even if God didn't exist and it was just commandments you still couldn't break them without consequence.
You assume a god requires priests or religion. If the gods were actually real, then there would be no need for belief, people would KNOW they exist. Most settings actually go out of their way to justify the need to believe in a real thing by somehow connecting the belief and worship of the people to the power of the god--the more people believe, the stronger the god. Which, when you really think about it, is silly--an all powerful being whose very existence depends on a few fickle mortals? It means the mortals have the real power there. A real, existing god would be little different than a king, if he were to be actively involved with his kingdom, except a lot more powerful than an actual king.
Personally, I think it's the other way around. You don't even need a real god for a priesthood :) I think humans (or any other species) are perfectly capable of making up oppressive regimes based the legitimacy on "because god said I'm in charge and all these other people with weapons agree with me". Would a real diving being need a priesthood? Not unless its power is predicated on worship. If it's the actual creator of the universe, I don't see it needing a priesthood. Would it prevent a priesthood rising though? Because again, people are amazing at making stuff up and filling in the blanks to benefit themselves :D
It's like gravity. Most of us have no desire to question gravity because we believe it, but we aren't oppressed because that's the majority opinion. We find other things to disagree about and question.
Thanks for the video. I think a lot of the reason why theocracies tend to be so oppressive is tripartite. For one most theocracies are monarchical in most cases, and if not will be centralized around a group of men/women, who are appointed from within that organization which can lead to severe issues. This leads into the second issue of no accountability to anyone except the god, and if that god-hand's-off or evil, they're unlikely to get hit by a lightning bolt. If there's clerical magic that is used and the priesthood are just mouthpieces then if one particularly acts up in high positions he could get ripped apart. And as for the third one, it's a bit more mundane. The final is related to the first but it's a bit different. It's the fact that religion and politics usually don't merge well. There's a reason why military personnel aren't supposed to get involved in politics, it takes away from their job. Now consider all the internal nonesense that must go on within a massive organization, and combine it with the sort of certainty required for a priest.
For a theocracy to not be oppressive there'd have to be accountability to the people, perhaps as suggested by the Mormon idea of Theodemocracy, a very real and benevolent god that doesn't like people using their name to abuse people, and perhaps more importantly alternative power structures.
I think the notion of "oppressive" needs a closer look, to make sense. My first impulse is to say that every govern (including the most idealised Democracy, which in my opinion has to be direct and not 'representative') has an "oppression level" above zero. Govern is necessary to human life, and is by definition oppressive. Any debate around the subject has to be about "how much", if it wants to make sense.
In addition to that, "how oppressive" a govern is has little to nothing to do with who gets to participate in the govern. Take that hypothetical direct democracy I just mentioned. Every single citizen gets a saying, and every individual in society is a citizen. You have some sort of real time communication tool that allows all people to participate, debate, and vote in every issue they want to take part. "Magical Telepathy", let's say. Every person has intelligence enough to understand the problems in debate as well as specialists in our world can. However, they are still people, with personal points of view.
Majorities will reach consensus. Minorities will have to bend. How oppressive it can be? A lot! Milan Kundera wrote a lot in his fiction about the sort of extreme tyranny those hypothetical (allow me that "hypothetical", for charity!) "councils of citizens" are inclined to. When they get the chance to deliberate about every matter, including private intimacy of individuals.
The most important element to determine if a regime is more or less oppressive is NOT who gets to be part of govern. Or how decisions are made.
It is how much ground for life remains, after State (the embodiment of collective) apply its legislations. If the "public light" reaches every corner of existence, and there is no shade of privacy: that is total oppression. Regardless of who is in charge of govern.
When "Personal is Politics", that's absolute Totalitarianism. Nothing but oppression. When "Politics is Personal", that's a Gangster State: Tyranny. Less bad, but perhaps still less than ideal. Lower levels of oppression are likely to be found between those extremes.
Have you read Lois McMaster BJuold's "The Curse of Chalion?" (2001) On the one hand, it's the story of a stable five-theism: five gods who cooperate between themselves and with humans. The story follows a human who slowly realizes that his dreadful past has uniquely prepared him to solve an unusual problem. The gods are a family, each with their own specific realm in human affairs, and each with their own very unhappy saints. "God-touched" isn't good. Their realms are almost like attitudes they propagate,. But for each one, people have created for each one, a priesthood, and a militia. This complicates the political landscape significantly. Anyway, a fascinating telling of the roles of immanent gods and humans, that completely side-steps both monotheism, and even inter-deity conflict. (Not that humans can't screw things up very badly.)
I think there is potentially a difference between monotheistic and polytheistic theocracies. I think that monotheistic religions are typically more focused on orthodoxy (i.e. right belief). This naturally leads to the authoritarianism and oppression you discuss. In contrast, polytheistic religions are typically more focused on orthopraxis (i.e. right action). In a theocracy this just means that religion sets the laws but it doesn't necessarily care what people believe or whether they worship other gods. That's not necessarily any more oppressive than a non-theocracy. Given that religion and culture are not necessarily separable anyway, this potentially just means that any ruler is necessarily also a devotee of the god of rulership (e.g. the head of the pantheon). Perhaps that doesn't technically count as a theocracy unless the ruler is also the head of the religion but in practical terms its basically the same, especially if it is the ruler who leads the public religious rituals of rulership. Ancient Egypt and the pharaohs are an example of this.
Of course, in a world in which deities unambiguously exist and also grant magic to their followers I would imagine that almost all cultures would effectively be theocracies anyway. Given how important religion has been in government throughout human history without magic using priests, why would this not be enhanced when priests have the power of magic too? For example, in Celtic Britain would magic using druids not have even more influence and would that not count as a theocracy? The only non-theocracies would perhaps be magocracies, assuming that there are non-religious magic users of course.
Even a polytheistic religion would have some elements of inbuilt authoritarianism. "Because the gods command it" is one helluva way to make the law :D, but I think you're right that they would be somewhat better than our examples of monotheistic reports.
And yeah, agreed on magic. Actual divinity or even just mages who claim diving magic is a massive game changer in terms of divine authority, which is already enormous in our own cultures.
Maybe I'm totally wrong, but wouldn't a Theocracy be the ruling by the gods/godesses/god themselves? The ruling by priests/priestesses would rather be a Hierocracy (with no matters whether the deities exist or are only believed to exist)? Fantasy could - as ancient myths - show the direct interference of gods and humans. Even if priestesses/priests reign (as the red 'socialist' priestesses in Game of Thrones), noone would be excluded from becoming priest/priestes (unless you have a hinduist-judaist-like hereditary priesthood). I would also be interested in your interpretation of the Bene Gesserit Sisterhood in Frank Herberts Dune. Interesting interpretation of medieval Europe, I'd also look to India and Israel, where divine legitimation is traditionally heavy till today in politics. Thank you so much for your videos, many interesting and inspiring inputs.
You’re welcome ☺️ A theocracy is a system of government, in which priests rule, in the name of God, or gods, or a God, according to the dictionary.
A hierocracy is a ruling body composed of priests. It can rule over anything, including just religion. It is not necessarily a government. For a government you’d call it a theocracy. Does that difference make sense?
And yes, fantasy can definitely have the gods actually involved, just be aware of the power pitfalls.
Excellent video as ever! Thank you and keep em coming. Always super inspired by your videos!
Thank you! It’s a pleasure to make them 😁
I was writing a novel where the magic system was kind of inspired by judeo Christian mysticism where one harnesses different aspects of God by following different levels of Virtue. The theocracy had several different branches and all that, but was very corrupt because they found a way to sin and keep their powers by faking redemption. I had a very powerful mentor figure that was a very rebellious Mystic who ended up recruiting his pupils in proving that the church was corrupt so he could tear it down in the name of justice. I got swept up by other stories. But it was an interesting and possibly philosophical story idea.
(Not that is matters but that particular God does exist but not as the people knew it. It originally sought to form personal relationships with its creation but it just turned into a cosmic game of Telephone so out of annoyance it just decided to sit and watch. This God also doesn't really like it's own church due to it being built on many falsehoods that it refused to correct.)
Sounds like a solid premise for a great story. I like the god getting annoyed with his own creation 👏😃
Sort of like how the Christian Protestant Reformation created reforms the Catholic Church. Because Martin Luther wrote an angry letter.
@@covenawhite4855 Can't say I wasn't inspired. However there is no nailing papers to church doors in this one.
What theocracy from fantasy is your favorite one?
Probably the imperium of man in Warhammer 40k and or the Cabal from Magic the Gathering
Want to support my channel? Check out my debut novel, The Hidden Blade www.amazon.com/gp/product/B099Q5YPVB (e-book, audio & print. Kindle Unlimited Friendly)
Or buy me a ko-fi: ko-fi.com/justintimeworlds
How about a story centered around Tribal Theocracy?....
the book of Judges is an OG book to read on this topic.
Not only because it's a study of human nature but also it's based on historic accounts.
The book ending will leave you with a bittersweet taste filled with questions.
I now wonder about the Roman republic. Becoming a priest was often the first step in a political career. Cicero was an augur, Caesar was Pontifex max. Also the magistrates performed religious rituals by office. It's it a theocracy then?
I’d say no, because the priesthood lacked all executive power. I would say the Roman Republic was heavily influenced by religion and there was definitely power wielded by the priests, but I would not call them a theocracy not even by proxy. It was a far subtler influence than say the pope on Europe’s monarchies.
4:45 i feel like i need to disagree thus far.
1. Emperors, especially polygamist ones, have courts where family politics matter, and they aren't too divided to have a state underneath them
2. Iran is in many ways Democratic. It's like an anocratic (corrupted delivery) constitutional mono-theocracy.
3. I feel like if people can be elected or chosen by lot as gods with your magic system (or just considered gods generally), then you can have a Theocracy that isn't so totalitarian, corrupt, or oppressive.
Or, you could a backstory myth that explains why humans have power to (instead of empowering the gods themselves) humans have the power to choose amongst the gods who to follow.
... Not to mention the different kinds of non-western deities: kami, spirits, ritual posession, ancestor worship, nature, etc.
Does Feudal Tibet count as a Theocracy?
In Buddhism, by some understandings, there are no gods, but there can be Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. In Tibet, the aristocrats alternated between choosing the Dalai Lama and the Pancham Lama.
That and the system in Avatar, derived from it, are certainly both monarchies, but are they theocracies as well?
Can you have a Theocracy of an "atheistic" religion?
I believe that you can. At the heart of it, even an atheist or spiritual religion is about establishing a set of norms which reinforces and supports the social contract. It's societal control (I'm not saying this as a bad thing, or a good thing, that is just what it does). Therefor, even a religion without a god figure would have tenants that control certain aspects of its adherents lives and those tenants can be expanded to include a government type concept.
And in fact, the warhammer 40K universe, the Empire of Man was kinda founded on this. Of course, they threw atheism out of the window in favor of worshipping the Emperor on the Golden Throne, but originally, the emperor wanted atheism and science and rationality and yet he ruled like a theocracy.
No greater example of a religion influencing the government than catholic europe? I can think of some neighbors in the Middle East who may take offense to that nowadays…
Indeed
Thank you again for your amazing lessons. I made a comment in the religion series about theocracies, but I feel like I really should've waited to watch this video first. Now I'll move up Trudi Canavan's book higher in my reading list. thank you again.
Would you say that monarchies are always oppressive and don't allow questions?
I didn't follow your reasoning for why theocracies are oppressive and don't allow questions.
In my experience with Judeo-Christianity, God often encourages questioning. Jacob wrestled God. Abraham and Moses bargained with God. Habbakkuk and the psalmists frequently complained, asking when and why.
What a great channel to find! Marie, I love your accent! Where are you from?
Originally South Africa, now living in Finland 😆
@@JustInTimeWorlds OMG, how long did it take you to learn Finnish? That's right up there with Georgian on the list of "hardest languages that still use the Latin alphabet."
@@dumpster_fiyah my Finnish is still terrible 😳 I can make myself understood but most of my friends prefer to speak English to me 🤣 or Swedish. My Swedish (Finland is bilingual) is excellent since Swedish is super close to Dutch which is super close to my mother tongue ☺️
Love watching your videos, such great content.
Thank you 😊
My religion is a major force in my cultures, even if they aren't quite theocracies! The gods being real means that the people who are in the priesthood are incredibly powerful.
I do kinda cheat with my pantheon in that the larger pantheon is split in worship between elves, orcs, and dwarves. And my Orcish gods are triple deities, which allows me to play with them a bit!
Question, I plan to create a theocracy that was made on conquered land, how would let's say the priest of the theocracy deal with the already existing nobility?
My bet would be forced conversion and then incorporation into the new Empire. Check out the relationship between King John of England and the Pope for one example.
@@JustInTimeWorlds Can I ask, is it possible to have an autonomous theocratic province within an already existing state?
@@thelibrarian9191 anything is possible :) you just need to come up with a reason. Maybe their god is the interfering type and kept their borders safe. Or maybe their priests can do magic and those around them can’t. Or maybe it’s less magic, and they simply train a bunch of their population as holy warriors.
@@thelibrarian9191 The small autonomous theocratic city-state known as the "Vatican" is located within the capital city of Italy, Rome.
Theocracy doesn't mean it has to be governed by exclusively priests.
You could have secular bureaucrats who assist in governance. That being said, the nature of a theocracy is to be ruled by priests and they’re normally quite good at creating bureaucracies :)
I would say that in theocracy it's the god and his doctrine with has ultimate authority. If God is their himself to run it then a priest will govern instead. Buy the priest isn't the ruler, God or if we assume that God doesn't exist the commandment are the highest authority.
Having a priest or prophet lead is like have a second in command lead in your leave. He doesn't have the authority to denounce things you made clear but also may not perfectly enact your will. Even if God didn't exist and it was just commandments you still couldn't break them without consequence.
You assume a god requires priests or religion. If the gods were actually real, then there would be no need for belief, people would KNOW they exist. Most settings actually go out of their way to justify the need to believe in a real thing by somehow connecting the belief and worship of the people to the power of the god--the more people believe, the stronger the god. Which, when you really think about it, is silly--an all powerful being whose very existence depends on a few fickle mortals? It means the mortals have the real power there. A real, existing god would be little different than a king, if he were to be actively involved with his kingdom, except a lot more powerful than an actual king.
Personally, I think it's the other way around. You don't even need a real god for a priesthood :) I think humans (or any other species) are perfectly capable of making up oppressive regimes based the legitimacy on "because god said I'm in charge and all these other people with weapons agree with me".
Would a real diving being need a priesthood? Not unless its power is predicated on worship. If it's the actual creator of the universe, I don't see it needing a priesthood. Would it prevent a priesthood rising though? Because again, people are amazing at making stuff up and filling in the blanks to benefit themselves :D
It's like gravity. Most of us have no desire to question gravity because we believe it, but we aren't oppressed because that's the majority opinion. We find other things to disagree about and question.