Summary: It is time to pitch the "divine right of groups" philosophy to the same scrap heap that our forefathers relegated monarchies to. Choosing to be consistent and just in our philosophies and actions is far more important than whether we are "chosen" or "elected."

Topics:

1. Who is More Special & Why?

2. "Divine Right of Kings" in Judeo-Christianity

3. New Visitors to The Animal Farm

4. "Divine Right of Groups" as a Fall Back Position

5. "Racism" is a Two-Edged Sword

1. Who is More Special & Why?

According to Judeo-Christian thought, God spoke to the children of Israel and declared:

"For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth." — Deuteronomy 7:6, Old Testament

This "chosen" motif is carried throughout the Old and New Testaments:

"Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine…" — Exodus 19:5, Old Testament

"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. — Jeremiah 31:33, Old Testament

"The beast of the field shall honour me, the dragons and the owls: because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to my people, my chosen." — Isaiah 43:20, Old Testament

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light…" — 1 Peter 2:9, New Testament

Why are the children of Israel more special? There are various theological theories spanning everything from pre-mortal existences to proposed physiological changes that occur at baptism or the reception of God's spirit. But, regardless, the promise is explicitly based upon their heritage, hereditary succession, or, when you get right down to it, their superior genetic makeup.

Doesn't this seem a bit unequal? It gets more odd. The chosen people spoken of include those who refer to themselves as Jews — the very people who managed to earn the distinction of being repeatedly discriminated against because of their genetic makeup, heritage, and religious affiliation.

2. "Divine Right of Kings" in Judeo-Christianity

Beyond strange, harmful societal conflicts manifest themselves via this particular religious philosophy. If one accepts the notion that one group of people are more "chosen" before God than others, it is no leap to believe that certain individuals within certain groups are extra special. In other words, that some men are so favored by God that we are required to subject ourselves to them. This doctrine is often referred to as the "divine right of kings."

Again, both the Old Testament and New Testament support the notion that there are those among us who we should obey (or be subject to):

"But I have chosen Jerusalem, that my name might be there; and have chosen David to be over my people Israel." — 2 Chronicles 6:6, Old Testament

"Then thou spakest in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty; I have exalted one chosen out of the people." — Psalms 89:19, Old Testament

"LET every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." — Romans 13:1-2, New Testament

"I EXHORT therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty." — 1 Timothy 2:1-2, New Testament

"PUT them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work…" — Titus 3:1, New Testament

"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well." — 1 Peter 2:13-14, New Testament

One need only look around at contemporary Christian and Jewish voices to witness how inculcated this mind set is. Even firebrands like Christian preacher Moses Mather struggled with this concept in the face of oppressive British rule over the American colonies. While appealing to the world to support revolution, Mather clung to, and defended, this "divine right of kings" doctrine:

"For power is entire and indivisible; and property is single and pointed as an atom. All is our's, and nothing can be taken from us, but by our consent; or nothing is our's, and all may be taken, without our consent. The right of dominion over the persons and properties of others, is not natural, but derived; and there are but two sources from whence it can be derived; from the almighty, who is the absolute proprietor of all, and from our own free consent… The questions is not whether the king is to be obeyed or not; for the Americans, have ever recognized his authority as their rightful sovereign, and leige lord; have ever been ready, with their lives and fortunes, to support his crown and government, according to the constitutions of the nation…" — America's Appeal to the Impartial World, 1775 (see Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, 1730-1805, vol. 1, p. 474)

Mather, like most of his religious contemporaries, did not argue against kings. To the contrary, he proposed again that God rightfully appointed kings to rule over men. In the case of America, however, Mather argued that rebellion was justified because this particular king had grossly violated his heavenly contract to protect his otherwise obedient subjects.

Additional Note: The New Testament not only teaches men to serve kings, but also to submit to other forms of slavery.  Consider Colossians 3:22-25, for instance: "Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God: And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons." Or Hebrews 13: 17: "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you." How can one obey his Creator, respect one's Creator-granted natural rights to be free, and yet pretend to heartily serve one's Creator through slavery? If all men are equal before the eyes of our Creator, why submit to any man at all?

Top

3. New Visitors to The Animal Farm

The ruling pigs of George Orwell's Animal Farm solidified their power by indoctrinating the other animals to believe that, "All animals are equal, but some [i.e. the pigs] are more equal than others." The "divine right of kings" doctrine is built upon the same shallow premise.

Fortunately, several founders had enough sense and skill to stand these twisted beliefs and traditions on their head. Perhaps the most enjoyable, and arguably most effective, contributor was Thomas Paine. For example:

"But where says some is the King of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain… In America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other." — Common Sense

"Every man is a proprietor in government, and considers it a necessary part of his business to understand. It concerns his interest, because it affects his property. He examines the cost, and compares it with the advantages; and above all, he does not adopt the slavish custom of following what in other governments are called LEADERS…" — Rights of Man

"We are not the hireling slaves of a beggarly tyrant, nor the cringing flatterers of an infamous court. We are not moved by the gloomy smile of a worthless king, but by the ardent glow of generous patriotism. We fight, not to enslave, but to set a country free, and to make room upon the earth for honest men to live in. In such as cause we are sure we are right; and we leave to you the despairing reflection of being the tool of a miserable tyrant." — To British General Howe, The American Crisis, Number IV, Sep. 12, 1777

"Through all the vocabulary of Adam, there is not such an animal as a Duke or a Count; neither can we connect any certain idea to the words. Whether they mean strength or weakness, wisdom or folly, a child or a man, or the rider or the horse, is all equivocal. What respect then can be paid to that which describes nothing, and which means nothing?… There was a time when the lowest class of what are called nobility was more thought of than the highest is now, and when a man in armour was more stared at than a modern Duke. The world has seen this folly fall, and it has fallen by being laughed at, and the farce of titles will follow its fate…" — Rights of Man

"If I ask a man in America, if he wants a King? he retorts, and asks me if I take him for an ideot? — Rights of Man

The Declaration of Independence in 1776 solidified the vigorous propaganda of Paine and others, shaking the halls of kings and tyrants throughout the world:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

Three years after this declaration, the National Assembly of France, in Article VI, "The Declaration of the Rights of Man," stated:

"Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents." [bold added]
Note: Interestingly, once again, Thomas Paine had a hand in the creation and adoption of this language.

Top

4. "Divine Right of Groups" as a Fall Back Position

While the American revolution shot holes in man's foolish reverence for, and subservience to, monarchical tyranny and its supporting doctrine of the "divine right of kings," it was a temporary and incomplete victory. The foundational Judeo-Christian philosophy that particular groups of people are "more special" than others remained virtually unassailable. This "divine right of groups" has again expanded its miserable tentacles in recent decades.

This piece does not argue that merit cannot be derived by a sense of pride in the positive attributes of one's race or heritage. Frankly, in an intellectually free society, people could even openly discuss whether there are mental or physical strengths and weaknesses between the various races and ethnicities who share this planet. In fact, discussions regarding voluntary segregation, proffered by Louis Farrakhan and others, are also not inherently dangerous. Contrary to modern political paranoia and warped, effeminate views of "civility," public and private debate is simply not dangerous to mature adults.

The warning lights should start flashing, though, when we seriously adopt the notion that a certain group of people is more favored by, or important to, Deity than is another group. At this critical juncture, the individual group becomes an entity unto itself, transforming into some thing more important (more "special") than the individuals who comprise it.

If this belief grows unchecked, eventually the more powerful societal groups will become more "legitimate" than other groups. Backed up by God, this majority may develop sufficient justification to utilize government to back up their religious inclinations. Unlike debate and voluntary action, government relies upon brute force and intimidation to accomplish its objectives. The "divine right of groups" doctrine historically opens the door for conniving politicians to become venerated icons and eventually unquestioned monarchs. It provides false philosophical ammunition to justify one group's horrific exploitation of another group's apparent and/or contrived weaknesses.

Another George Orwell classic, 1984, termed this "divine right of groups" mentality as "groupthink." Individuals in Orwell's frightening society were indoctrinated to forsake their individual identity to include abandoning terms like "I" or "me." This is the natural conclusion, for ultimately, once your Creator forsakes (or lowers) you, your worth and value are no longer determined by your inherent or developed merits, but rather by the group to which you belong.

The dismal effects of groupthink philosophy are replete throughout history. Americans, for example, armed with blind religious zealotry, continued the debilitating practice of slavery in spite of their own Declaration of Independence. If one accepts the Judeo-Christian philosophy, deep down inside one must accept that blacks and other races are spiritually inferior.  To not accept this, but to still maintain that one is chosen over another is illogical.  By defining who is spiritually superior, you define who is not.

Across the Atlantic, Karl Marx of Communist Manifesto fame devised distinct, hierarchical group constructs to build the philosophical foundation for another political system of slavery: communism, or socialism.

Groupthink has spread its ruin across the globe, engulfing all corners of the political spectrum.  Today militant homosexual and minority race groups seek thought crimes legislation that places victims on unequal grounds before the law — based upon the color of the victim's skin or upon some other group affiliation. On the other hand, under the same group affiliation pretext, the federal government holds Muslims in foreign prisons for years, and despite ample time and resources, refuses to provide them adequate due process to determine if they were perhaps picked up by mistake.

And the Judeo-Christian philosophy that enabled groupthink to flourish in the Western world is again at the forefront. Like the poverty pimp industry that drains our domestic economy by wealth redistribution policies, prominent Christians abuse national television networks and pulpits to justify huge, annual taxpayer subsidies to the foreign government of Israel. Their rationale boils down to plain, old groupthink: They believe that Israel and the Jews are more "equal" to God than are others. They believe that the impure masses — present company included — should be forced by government to surrender their money to a more "chosen" or "worthy" people.

The majority of those who call themselves Jews, both in America and Israel, are immensely outraged whenever they are oppressed or feel discriminated against. Yet, where is the outrage at the widespread Christian practice of openly discriminating against non-Jewish groups because they possess an "inferior" genetic code and heritage? Where is the outrage from contemporary Christians who should know better than to force Caesar's image down everyone else's throat?

Top

5. "Racism" is a Two-Edged Sword

Whether we are all physically, mentally, or even genetically different is not as crucial as how our beliefs translate into action. And there is certainly nothing impressive about those who either cry racism or look the other way depending solely upon whether they will ideologically or financially profit thereby. We are all equally "choice" and loved by our Creator, or we are not. We do not believe that one race has a corner on God's market — or that one group has God in their morally superior back pocket.

It is time to pitch the "divine right of groups" philosophy to the same scrap heap that many of our forefathers wisely relegated monarchies to. Choosing to be consistent and just in our philosophies and actions is far more important than whether we are "chosen" or "elected."

Additional Note: This article does not discuss the immense pressure put upon members of these "chosen" groups who don't appreciate the handicap in their relationships with other people.  Someone who excels in mathematics or sports, or is gifted at singing, should be credited for the individual, hard work they put into his/her achievements, rather than be brushed off because he/she had "the right genes."

Top

Sign up!

Receive free e-mail updates and

share this information with others.