Strangely, one may wonder why those who hold power in the United States and loudly proclaim to be devout Christians are against human rights? Why do they trample on migrants and break the principle of equality between men? Why do they shamelessly presume that the only limit is, as Trump pointed out, their “own morality”? Stephen Miller, his main advisor, said that the world “is ruled by force, that it is ruled by power.” In what biblical passages do you support that the law of the strongest should govern human relationships?
The answer is found in the same Judeo-Christian cosmogony or founding story of what we understand by Western civilization, which is nourished by Greek, Roman and Asian cultures. In its origin it contains two different readings of the world. One legitimized, for centuries, blind obedience to the ruler by divine command: personal power was an emanation from God, and force was the guarantee of order (Hobbes’s Leviathan). In this sense, Stephen Miller’s saying that the world “is governed by force, that it is governed by power” is not alien to this tradition, as it reactivates the idea that authority is sustained by the ability to impose itself and that the law of the jungle is the ultimate norm.
But what can be understood by cosmogony? It is the set of beliefs, derived from a great story, in this case the Judeo-Christian one, from which the conception of morality emanates, what we consider good and what is reprehensible, the norms, conduct, and laws. The ideas of the dominant culture in the West underwent a long transformation until they formed what is today common sense. However, other conceptions survive, to a certain extent marginal, of how society should be governed and organized. Much of this vision comes from interpretations of the Old Testament. In other cases, they use ambiguous and partial passages – out of context – of the Gospel, whose central doctrine advocates for the foreigner, the excluded, the different, the other.
For example, Jesus’ maxim, “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s,” was first elucidated as the supreme power of the ruler over the earth, that is, over men and all creatures: his will is the supreme law. Thus, in the Middle Ages it was interpreted that the king was the divine representative and that absolute obedience was owed to him. That same reading reappears today in various leaderships, which conceive power as a personal power, instead of a mandate limited by laws. But it also gave way to understanding that human affairs are mundane and divine issues are of heavenly order. From this difference between the human and the divine is born the idea of separating the State and the Church, of limiting power and that the ruler is earthly and fallible. It was the origin of the doctrine of human rights, of the Republic and the constitutional rule of law.
Other selective and interested readings that justify slanderous treatment of those who are different are these: “Let every person submit to higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God” (Romans 13:1-2). “He who does not provide for his own…has denied the faith” (Timothy 5:8:1), which was used to justify the exclusion of the stranger. “Servants, obey your masters” (Ephesians 6:5). “Let slaves submit in everything to their masters” (Titus 2:9-10). In the Gospel there are these contrasts: When a rich young man approached Jesus to ask for advice, he told him: “If you want to be perfect, sell what you have, give it to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come and follow me” (Matthew 19:21), regarding the cult of the power of wealth of Trump and his technological magnates. “I was hungry, and you fed me; I was a stranger, and you welcomed me; I was naked, and you clothed me; I was sick, and you visited me; in prison, and you came to me. Truly I say to you, whatever you did to these brothers of mine, even to the least of these, you did to me” (Matthew 25:35-40).
This is a cultural war between two interpretations of the world: that of pure power and that of law. The risk of privileging the first interpretation erodes the vision that supports equality and universal rights, and seeks an unnatural order where the powerful dominates and force is the law. The second reading is the indispensable foundation to sustain a just and stable world, as it affirms that human dignity (survival) and law must prevail over force. Thus, the Judeo-Christian cosmogony explains the origin of discourses that exalt personal power and strength. But it also offers the alternative that can guarantee peace and social cohesion: the idea that we are all equal before God and that the law must govern coexistence.
Why is an order based on the law of the strongest and where the morality of the powerful is the limit or, in other words, their whim? The Judeo-Christian interpretation that the kingdom of God is from another world and that on earth people establish their norms, their laws, is based on a biological principle, the survival instinct. The powerful one holds on while another stronger one arrives. That kind of world is unstable, fragile, dangerous. Everyone’s life is always at risk. Under its protection arises the separation of the earthly and the divine, imposing limits on power and making the law the norm of social coexistence.
Now, with weapons of mass destruction possessed by several national powers, pretending that the strongest will prevail is illusory. The generation of politicians that came to power in the United States wants to impose the vision that the male must dominate and return to the old roles where women were subordinate and subsidiary, without rights.
It is also a setback for half of humanity: women, who in physical strength are less powerful than men, in general terms. The doctrine of the strong man is, therefore, sexist, since they would like them to stop working and dedicate themselves to the home and caring for the family, another illusion in an economic system that requires the labor force of women. Another reason is that their incorporation into work was the effect of falling salaries. In this way, for a home to be sustained it requires several incomes.
Will today’s strongmen win the cultural war at the risk of extinction of humanity itself? Will it be a short-lived episode?
