2013-73980

Soc Sci 2 WFY

The monotheistic deity as ruler of a human society

Up to this day, monotheistic religions remain to be some of the largest

religions in the world. For reference, a 2010 demographic study by Pew

Research Center shows that 32% and 23% of the worlds population adheres

to Christianity and Islam, respectively. In a way, these statistics show just how

influential, if not powerful, monotheistic religions are to the contemporary

world. As such, the author finds it interesting to explore the idea of a

monotheistic deity (henceforth called the Deity) being the head of a monarchy,

and analyse how such a monarchy will be formed in terms of designation of

authority, wealth distribution, and structure of government and society. This

essay will attempt to cover such a matter. Throughout this essay, the

Jewish/Christian God will be used as the model for the monotheistic deity, as

the author has little knowledge of Quran or Allah of Islam.

We first explore some hypothetical societies formulated by several

thinkers. Aristotle has defined three forms of government according to the

number of rulers: royalty by one entity, aristocracy by a few elite, and the

constitutional government or the polity by the majority. Of interest to us is the

royalty, in which he identified five species, the most powerful of which being

the absolute royalty in which the kingly rule has the disposal of everything. St.

Augustine described a hypothetical society he dubbed as the City of God,

where the Church is the most powerful entity, having power over all citizens
and rulers but is head of no state; instead, the Church blesses the rule of some

king of some Church-influenced state, the latter then acting in accordance with

the Churchs interests. Thomas Hobbes defined the concept of a Leviathan, a

government with absolute rule over his dominion, its rule being a result of a

contract with its subject populace. The Deitys monarchy will be described

with these concepts.

The Deity leads their monarchy as an absolute royalty. Being the Deity

and the creator of their own dominion, the rule of the Deity is therefore given

as some sort of heavenly mandate and not a result of some social contract with

the citizens of their dominion; the citizens, however, are willing subjects to

their rule. The Deitys word becomes the law of the land with which the

populace should abide lest they suffer the punishment sentenced them. In a

sense, their authority would be similar to that of Hobbess Leviathan minus

the social contract, and their actions as a monarch would be similar to

Machiavellis Prince in that they are feared by their subjects but not hated, and

interference is done when necessitated. The author feels that the Flood, as

depicted in the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament, best demonstrates the

consistency of such an approximation to how the Deity would actthe Deity

is ready to take the lives of the populace if he so deems them a threat to the

society.

The society is then organized as follows. The Deity is head of a

multitude of states, the union of which we should call the City in reference

to St. Augustine. The Deity then appoints a representative, henceforth called a

prophet, to oversee the assigned state in their stead. The prophet carries with

them the word of the Deity; the prophet is tasked to spread this word to the

populace, as well as management of the populace. This organization is

reminiscent of the organization presented by St. Augustine in his City of

God, but with a small difference. In the City of God, the Church is separate

from the state, but the former sanctions the head of the latter to lead the state.

In the case of the City, the Deity is head of both Church and state, and the

Church provides the framework within which the state operates.

In Christianity, the Bible states that wealth accumulation and servitude

to the Lord is incompatible with each other, and that wealth is a gift from God

which must be used in His Service. Reminiscent of the society imagined by

Hobbes, the citizens of the City practically owns no wealth, other than

necessities with which to live by. Wealth that they temporarily possess in hand,

including their basic needs, are handed them by the monarchy and must be

shared with other members of the society. With these descriptions the wealth

distribution becomes clearall wealth is owned by the Deity, and everyone

else is equal in terms of wealth. This can be seen as a deviation from St.

Augustines City of God, in which distribution of wealth is unclear or

unspecified between the inhabitants of this society. This also means that the

populace have very few individual rights, as their actions are dictated by the

word of the Deity; the City is therefore a collective society.

 In conclusion, we have characterized the City as an absolute royalty

where all wealth and power is concentrated on the Deity. It must be noted

however, that this setup may not be sustainable in the contemporary world.