The Divine Right of Kings
Opposing Christian Nationalism using history
For as long as people have organized themselves into recognizable nation-states with claims to specific geographical territories, the governing bodies have often been headed by a person whose title is something similar to “king.” Of course, depending on the culture, language, and specifics of that country’s ideology and method of the holder’s accession to power, the position isn’t always necessarily one of absolute power, and the title may be different from culture to culture. Some may be tempered by the advice of a council, or limited in other ways. But, in general, a majority of cultures around the world have had, in the past, some form of government where one person called the shots, usually with few limits until modern times.
Now also, at some time in the past, mankind got religion. It was, if archeology is any judge, fairly early in our development, long before we came up with the idea of nation-states, or city-states, and there isn’t much information on what form those religious beliefs may have taken. All we have to go on is what was left behind, often in where and how we find the bodies of the dead, as their surviving relatives put them to rest.
Now, sometimes, enough information is found to suppose some interesting things. For instance, with the bog bodies found in Europe, we have an interesting development. It is thought that some kingdoms/groups had kings, or chieftains, whose power was restricted by one huge limitation. Do well, and your people thrive, and all is well and good. But if the harvest should fail, you would find yourself on your knees, with your throat cut after being strangled and your neck broken, or perhaps your head caved in by a blow with a heavy object. Then, of course, you get tossed into the bog to satisfy the gods. Hopefully, the next year would be better and your successor would fare better and survive longer!
At some point, the kings and the priests sat down and had a good long conversation and figured out that they should be natural buddies. The king would ensure that the priests had the attention of the people, and the priests would see that the people knew that the gods favored the king.
Now, understand that I’m no historian. Not even an amateur. And not even close to someone like Chris Rodda! But this is pretty close to what I was taught in school and in my own readings of history since. So, forgive me if I seem a bit loose with the details!
Eventually, somebody developed an idea, and this idea was that the king was so favored by the gods that it was obvious that he should be unassailable by mere humans. In other words, absolute power. Eventually, this became a more developed idea that became a principle. By the 17th century, James VI of Scotland developed the theory and actually based his justification to rule on what he called the Divine Right of Kings.
Now, this was in Western culture. In the East, they called it Mandate of Heaven.
But the idea is similar. The god/gods above have mandated that this guy, or this Dynasty, is supposed to be in charge. Anybody that opposes his rule is also against the god/gods. (…and yes, it’s almost always a man.)
Powerful stuff! Kind of justifies pretty much any kind of measures the king might want to take against his detractors, and ensures that the priesthood is going to support his rule. A pretty big stick!
Well, in 1776, that changed.
As you all know, in July of 1776, the founders of the United States signed a document called the Declaration of Independence. That was the first repudiation of the concept of the divine right of kings to rule. It implicitly stated that the “divine right” of rule was given to THE PEOPLE, who then had the ability to pass that power in a limited form to an organized and limited government chosen by them. That was a shockwave that shook the very foundations of the feudalistic monarchies around the world, and especially in the European arena.
Now one can argue (and many do) that the Declaration of Independence did not refer to the Christian god. There are many good arguments in favor of that, but in reality, it doesn’t matter, because just a few years (and a long Revolutionary War) later, in 1789, the American people ratified the Constitution of the United States of America, our current active Constitution. That document doesn’t mention a god at all, and only mentions religion in general once in the original document, and that as a restriction forbidding any religious tests for office under the United States government. In the later ratified Bill of Rights, in the First Amendment, religion is the subject of one clause where the government is enjoined from establishing any religion at all, and further forbidden from passing laws governing how religions operate.
These restrictions on the power of the US Government are the sole mention of religion in the foundational document which provides the authority of the people of the United States as passed on to their new government with the limits on how that power may be employed.
This puts the nail in the coffin of the idea of any government being afforded its power through divine authority, by placing that power directly into the hands of the people being governed. It is, in fact, where that power is derived.
The Declaration, while it claims that the rights of the people are given by “the Creator”, uses the following language that would forever alter our view of how people should be governed:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
“Consent of the governed.” These words sounded the death knell for feudal governments across the continent. More importantly, they sound the death knell for the foundation of authority for theocratic governments. If people have to consent to be governed, that is indicative that their rights are also derived from a mutual agreement, not from the authority of a deity.
Indeed, the Preamble of the United States Constitution establishes that principle with the following words:
We the People of the United States…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Not we the people “and god,” not we the people and “The Church.” Just “We the People.” Insular, complete, under their own authority, came to a mutual agreement on what their new government would have as its mission, what rights they would agree that it should not violate, how it would accomplish its mission statement using powers specifically granted to it, and limited specifically to protect those mutually agreed upon rights.
No Divine Rights needed.
The Declaration had, as its audience, the feudal lords of Europe. Those lords had a language they used in diplomacy that was seeded throughout with religious connotations and references establishing their mutual divine authority and loyalty to God. They all agreed that their authority was from God. Hence, the Declaration needed to refer to that authority in claiming the right to separate this country from Great Britain. So, they changed the recipients of that authority from the Kings to a set of rights granted to The People. They justified that separation by claiming the abuses they had suffered were so bad that they had no choice — but they insisted they had the power. They denied the Kings had any authority from a deity, but that their authority derived from the people’s consent to BE governed.
The Constitution, however, didn’t have a diplomatic audience. It was a guiding document whose purpose was outlined in the Preamble above. It had as its founding authority the people themselves, mutually agreeing on the particulars in that document.
And those particulars were based in no wise on religion, or religious authority or theology. It says so, right there in the Preamble. “We the people… do ordain and establish…”
No divinity needed. No church, just the people themselves.
Today, a lot of folks on the right wing of American politics will try to sell you the story that our democracy was founded on, of all things, Christianity. They will peddle the idea that our system of laws was founded on the Ten Commandments.
It’s all a crock. Our system of government is derived from US. Its power is granted to it by the American People. Our rights were not granted to us by some invisible being in the sky. They come from OUR agreement with ourselves in deciding exactly what we want our government to do, how we want it to do those things, and what rights we grant to ourselves and what limits we will place on government power to guarantee ourselves those rights.
The Ten Commandments were a system of religious laws set down millennia ago to ensure the future of one particular religious group, and as a guide to that group of what their priesthood expected them to do in obedience. Those commandments not specific to the adherence to the worship of their god were generalized rules of conduct common to just about any other group in that time and place, and many societies since then as well. Nothing special. Nothing earth shaking in the world of jurisprudence — or religion, either, for that matter.
These are transparent attempts to turn the American form of government towards theocracy, and are strictly forbidden by the First Amendment.
Keep on being loyal to the American dream of Liberty for all. Join the rest of us in securing that liberty for truly ALL Americans, and keep it as that shining lamp to the world as spoken of on the base of Lady Liberty.
It’s our agreement after all. Don’t let it be taken away.
