Introduction
It may seem puzzling why those in power in the United States, who openly claim to be devout Christians, are against human rights. Why do they trample on migrants and disrupt the principle of equality among men? How can they boldly assert that their only limit is, as Trump put it, their “own morality”? Stephen Miller, his chief advisor, stated that the world “is governed by force, which is governed by power.” But where in biblical passages does he find justification for the law of the strongest to rule human relationships?
The Judeo-Christian Cosmogony: A Double-Edged Sword
The answer lies within the very Judeo-Christian cosmogony, which forms the foundation of Western civilization. Originally, it contains two distinct interpretations of the world. One legitimized blind obedience to rulers through divine mandate for centuries: personal power was seen as a manifestation of God, and might ensured order (the Leviathan of Hobbes). Stephen Miller’s assertion that “the world is governed by force, which is governed by power” echoes this tradition, as it reactivates the idea that authority stems from its ability to impose itself and that the law of the jungle is the ultimate norm.
Understanding Cosmogony
Cosmogony refers to a set of beliefs derived from a foundational narrative, in this case, the Judeo-Christian one. These beliefs shape our understanding of morality, what we consider good and bad, norms, conduct, and laws. Western culture’s dominant ideas have undergone a long transformation to form what we now call common sense. However, alternative conceptions still persist regarding how society should be governed and organized, many of which stem from interpretations of the Old Testament. In other cases, they rely on selective and context-free passages from the Gospel, whose central doctrine advocates for the stranger, the excluded, the different, and the other.
Examples from Judeo-Christian Texts
For instance, Jesus’ saying, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s,” was initially interpreted as the supreme authority of rulers over earth and its inhabitants—humans and all creatures alike. During the Middle Ages, this was understood as kings being divine representatives deserving absolute obedience. This same interpretation resurfaces today in various leadership styles that view power as personal dominion rather than a limited mandate subject to laws.
However, these texts also promote contrasting ideas: Jesus’ teachings on caring for the less fortunate, such as feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, challenge the cult of personal power and wealth exemplified by Trump and his tech magnate allies. The Gospel also presents a dichotomy between earthly matters and divine concerns, leading to the separation of state and church, limitations on power, and the establishment of constitutional law.
The Clash Between Power and Law
This conflict boils down to two interpretations of the world: one emphasizing raw power and the other upholding law. Privileging the former undermines the vision supporting universal equality and human rights, attempting to establish an unnatural order where the powerful dominate, and might is right. The latter interpretation, however, is crucial for establishing a just and stable world, asserting that human dignity (survival) and the law should prevail over force.
The Judeo-Christian cosmogony explains the origins of discourses that glorify personal power and force. Yet, it also offers an alternative ensuring peace and social cohesion: the idea that all are equal before God, and laws should govern social interactions.
Why is a “Might Makes Right” Order Anti-Natural?
An order based on the law of the strongest, where a powerful individual’s morality sets the limit (i.e., their whim), contradicts natural order. This interpretation of the Judeo-Christian cosmogony—that God’s kingdom is separate from earth, and humans establish their norms and laws—finds biological grounding in the instinct for self-preservation. A world governed by might is unstable, fragile, and dangerous, with everyone’s survival constantly at risk.
In today’s world, with nations possessing weapons of mass destruction, the notion that might ensures victory is naive. The current generation of politicians in the U.S., aiming to impose their vision, seeks to reestablish traditional gender roles where women were subordinate and lacked rights.
Implications for Women
This ideology is inherently misogynistic, as it wishes for women to cease working and focus on domestic duties and family care—an unsustainable notion within a system requiring women’s labor. Moreover, their increased workforce participation resulted from declining wages, necessitating multiple incomes to sustain a household.
Will these strongmen succeed in this cultural war at the expense of humanity’s existence? Is it merely a fleeting episode?
Key Questions and Answers
- Why are self-proclaimed Christian leaders in the US against human rights? Their actions stem from a Judeo-Christian cosmogony that, while containing progressive ideas, also supports a power-centric worldview.
- What does the Judeo-Christian cosmogony suggest about the relationship between humans and divine laws? It posits that while God’s kingdom is separate from earth, humans establish their norms and laws. This duality has led to both progressive and reactionary interpretations throughout history.
- How do specific Judeo-Christian texts support or contradict the current political climate? Texts like Jesus’ teachings on caring for the less fortunate contrast sharply with the cult of personal power and wealth exemplified by certain political figures.
- What are the potential consequences of prioritizing might over law in governance? Such an approach undermines the foundations of equality and human rights, potentially leading to social instability and danger.
- How does the current ideology impact women? This “strongman” ideology is misogynistic, aiming to push women out of the workforce and into traditional domestic roles, which contradicts both economic realities and women’s desire for autonomy.
