Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

Congratulations to the Royal Family, and Two Cheers for Monarchy

The nations of the West are all made in the image of ancient Israel, from the Visigoths and Franks of the low Middle Ages through to the Tudors.

by
David P. Goldman

Bio

July 23, 2013 - 9:50 am
Page 1 of 3  Next ->   View as Single Page

0615-kate-middleton-royal-baby_full_600

Apropos of England’s royal baby, a kind word for monarchy is in order. The popular fascination with Britain’s royal family reflects something less shallow than a collective celebrity crush: the longing for something more permanent, more reverential in the character of the state. One of the most penetrating discussions of the issue was penned by the great Jewish theologian Michael Wyschogrod in the journal First Things in 2010. There is something profoundly inadequate in the mere rough-and-tumble of political interests so beloved of the Hobbesians who dominate what now passes for political philosophy on the secular right wing of American academia.

The moment we place any restriction on popular will (as does the U.S. Constitution), Wyschogrod observed, we impose a higher criterion which must in some way be thought of as theological. That is obvious on a moment’s reflection:

To discuss theological criteria for the constitution of a secular republic runs against the grain of modern political thought, even though constitutional restrictions on popular sovereignty imply reliance on an authority that is greater than human. In a republic the people are sovereign, yet the purpose of a constitution is precisely to restrict the power of any future majority. If popular sovereignty is absolute, what right has a constitution to frustrate a future majority by, for example, imposing some form of supermajority? In the extreme case, suppose a majority of the delegates to a constitutional convention enacts a constitution that forbids any change forever, or requires a 98 percent majority of the future legislature to enact any constitutional change.

This is no different in principle from the two-thirds supermajority that the United States requires for constitutional amendments. The only basis for a polity to accept severe restrictions on popular majority rule is the conviction that the founding constitution derives its power from a higher form of sovereignty than the voters in any given legislative session. Without such a theological foundation, a republic cannot feel bound by the rules laid down by its founders. A purely secular republic would self-destruct because it could not protect its constitution from constant amendment.

That is not the way that classical political rationalism looks at the matter, but Wyschogrod’s logic is sound. Where does that higher authority come from? And how can it be embodied in politics? In America it was embodied in a religious consensus, as de Tocqueville explained so well in his 1836 Democracy in America. In England it is expressed not only by democratic forms, but also by tradition, and embodied by the monarchy, which also is the custodian of the national church. That is a problematic arrangement in many respects, but one that has endured and still has the power to evoke loyalty and love of country.

Since the conversion of the Visigoths in Spain and the foundation of the Merovingian dynasty in France around 700 C.E., though, the notion of monarchy in the West has derived in important ways from the biblical concept of monarchy, centering on the reign of King David — which we now know to be a historical fact, rather than a legend as an earlier generation of skeptical scholars falsely believed. And it is in the State of Israel today that the issue might be brought most clearly into focus, Wyschogrod argued.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Monarchy is a form of government based on the theory that the state is the property of the king, who can pass it on to his heirs. It is an inherently unjust idea, and it has led to dynastic wars and bad government. Strange as it may seem, new monarchies are still being created. North Korea's Kim Il Sung and Syria's Hafez al-Assad willed their countries to their sons. Their successors, Kim Jong Il and his son Kim Jong Un, and Bashar al-Assad, certainly prove that hereditary succession makes no moral or political sense. 3,000 years ago, the Biblical Prophet Samuel knew that kings were a bad idea. "And ye shall cry out in that day, because of your king..." (1 Sam. 8:18).
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
" The danger in secular rule is that modern Israel will fail to present itself unambiguously as a Jewish state and eventually lose the battle to remain a Jewish state…."

As a Roman Catholic, let me say that I'm worried about Israel. It's the only worthwhile state in the Middle East, yet seems to share in the West's predilection for cultural suicide. Only a few years ago Israeli leadership was considering ceding the Golan Heights to Syria. You'd think they would've learned the bitter lessons from earlier, when they stupidly gave away the Sinai in '79 and when they more recently gave away the Strip.

While Israel seems to have wised up on the Golan thing, it's still necessary to worry about Israel, and not only because of Iran's stated intent to launch nuclear missiles to wipe Israel from the map.

It's too bad that Jews don't take a more realistic view of Moslems and their "religion," which has as one of its foundation stones the purpose of not only blaming Jews for their shortcomings, but the killing or at least enslavement of them.

When the Sunni and Shia tire of killing one another, they'll inevitably turn to killing the Jews.

Yeah, God save the Queen. But not the stupid and counterproductive antisemitism that infects the royalty and most of England.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (45)
All Comments   (45)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
my best friend's ex-wife makes $72 every hour on the laptop. She has been without a job for 5 months but last month her pay was $21319 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site http://www.wep6.com
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
just as Billy implied I am dazzled that a mother can make $7924 in one month on the internet. have you read this link>Bar40.ℂom
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"The nations of the West are all made in the image of ancient Israel..." and that's the problem.

Ancient Israel blew it when it desired a king to reign over them instead of God Himself, through His judges.

1 Samuel 8:4-19
So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.”

But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”

Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king.

He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights:
-- He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots.
-- Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.
-- He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers.
-- He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants.
-- He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants.
-- Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use.
-- He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.

When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”

***********

It's pretty clear all Western nations except the United States of America are set up like "all the other nations" around pre-king Israel and that Israel gave away its uniqueness to become like all the others.

This lead in three moves to Solomon with his 700 wives and 300 concubines. Solomon taxed his way to wealth such that upon his death the people pleaded for relief.

Solomon's son Rheoboam "followed the advice of the young men and said, “My father made your yoke heavy; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions.” So the king did not listen to the people....

Civil war erupted between Judah and the rest of Israel; the kingdom failed, the glory of Solomon and his riches were carried off and eventually all Israel was exiled and enslaved.

All because they wanted a king like all the nations around them.

America is exceptional because we don't have royalty. We as a people once cried, "No king but Jesus!"

Now we cry, "Save us Obama!" Or we just cry.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.”

The Gnostics believed flesh is too evil for the spirit. That is why Christian. Gnostics refused to believe Jesus was raised from the dead in the flesh . His spirit and soul too pure for the evil flesh.
For the flesh turns everything the eyes touch to idolatry so God will always remain invisible so they believe.
Deep in the heart of man they desire a release from idolatry I believe that to be the road of the idolator. So this strong desire for having a flesh King could be a desire to see heaven on earth as Jesus say :"Father, let your Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven"
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
footnote
That is such a heart warming picture of the prince and his wife . I was not planning to do this but next week maybe I meet with them in flesh , God willing when they fly here to my pure purgatory at the foot of the white Mountains and I ask God to bring great blessing to them if this is God's will
more latter
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Wow ! That last photo of Israeli female remind me of Queen of Sheba standing guard over the thrones in hell I visit in the north and now worthy of the 7th heaven in the south and in the middle where the 6th heaven is all are welcomed so it seems even the rif raf makes me yearn for winter some days with rif raf flee
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There seems to be some confusion here about the difference between a constitutional monarchy and an absolute monarchy. The British monarch is constitutional, "monarchs" such Kim Il Sung and Bashar Assad are absolute monarchs and are no different from any other dictator.
The British monarchy is a political answer to the age old question "Quis Custodiet, Ipsos Custodes?". Who polices the police? In Westminster style parliamentary systems the House of Commons is supreme, however the Monarch has the constitutional duty to monitor the activities of politicians to ensure that their actions conform to constitutional rules, but note that Parliament can change the constitution. The theory is that because the monarch is very rich they cannot be bribed, and because it is not an elected position they owe nobody for their power, and incidentally if you are the one who is to serve it is very difficult to avoid. The point is that in a constitutional monarchy the monarch is not just a figurehead but actually has a constitutional (and therefore political) duty and very considerable power. Two examples come to mind: The dismissal of Gough Whitlam as Prime Minister of Australia by governor General Sir John Kerr acting under the authority of the Crown, and the refusal by Queen Elizabeth II to accept a govt. formed by Edward Heath with Jeremy Thorpe, the Queen dismissed Heath and invited Harold Wilson to form a govt. These are examples of real political power being wielded by the Crown.
Of course the system does not work very well as the major aim of any monarch is to protect the succession, that is, to keep this very desirable position in the family.
To those of you who declare the superiority of the US Constitution, you should be aware that to say that "the US is a free country" is a statement so ridiculous as to be laughable. federal agents can enter your property at any time for any reason, confiscate your property, imprison you, even kill you, and you have no appeal. We are all the property of the govt. who allow us to pursue our lives, or not, as they please. We have a phony crook as a President who was elected twice by a cowed or bought constituency.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
As regards the birth of an heir to a throne, quoting Tom Selleck as Monte Walsh:

"You can't have no idea how little I care."

As regards a new life on God's Earth, I am happy for the child and his parents that life begins anew and that God's wish is fulfilled that humans can go forth and multiply.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Well if that is what Tom Selleck actually said, he seems to be as illiterate as you are.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Instead of addressing my comment, I get reported

And so the backlash grows

Please, continue the hypocrisy
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The problem is not Judaism; The problem is secularism.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/secularism
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Jews-control-the-world conspiracy theories belong over on Huffpo, Alex Jones, and Mother Jones. Please, the last place I want to see them is here.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Anyone can flag you, and that doesn't mean we're "infiltrating" you, Mr. Paranoid. Whatever we may think of Jews preaching multiculturalism, victimary politics is at heart resentful of Jews; you are nor its primary target.

Jewish identity in the diaspora has never depended on controlling the state, and there has never been such control, so claims that we do so are just seen as hate mongering by the flagging types.

All that Spengler is saying, in my translation, is that only one nation needed to be "chosen" or needed to choose to bring humanity the revelation that we are all children of the same God. It is pointless resenting Jews for this paradoxical necessity that someone went first in saying our God is everyone's God. Jews have a particular duty to remember this, a duty which you can't take on without becoming a Jew, because when other nations try to change the historical record so that they can be first in this place of the Jews, they can only do violence. That doesn't mean every nation can't be particular in its own way. No one can change the fact that all nations are historically particular, not even the Jews. Of course there are many people who choose multiculti empire over national cultures, even some misguided jews.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Agreed. As I understand it God chose the Jews to codify and live out (to the best of their ability) His universal law of reason and justice, and as you said, to spread these universal human values of truth, life, love, liberty and creativity to the whole world. We Christians also believe that the Jews were chosen by God to be a proper host civilization for bringing His son, Jesus, into the world. So, three cheers for our elder brothers - the Jews - and no cheers for any earthly king.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Monarchy is a form of government based on the theory that the state is the property of the king, who can pass it on to his heirs. It is an inherently unjust idea, and it has led to dynastic wars and bad government. Strange as it may seem, new monarchies are still being created. North Korea's Kim Il Sung and Syria's Hafez al-Assad willed their countries to their sons. Their successors, Kim Jong Il and his son Kim Jong Un, and Bashar al-Assad, certainly prove that hereditary succession makes no moral or political sense. 3,000 years ago, the Biblical Prophet Samuel knew that kings were a bad idea. "And ye shall cry out in that day, because of your king..." (1 Sam. 8:18).
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
“Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him?” Thomas Jefferson

“That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles — right and wrong — throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, ‘You work and toil and earn bread, and I’ll eat it.’ No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race [or class] of men as an apology for enslaving another race [or class], it is the same tyrannical principle.” Abraham Lincoln
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
" The danger in secular rule is that modern Israel will fail to present itself unambiguously as a Jewish state and eventually lose the battle to remain a Jewish state…."

As a Roman Catholic, let me say that I'm worried about Israel. It's the only worthwhile state in the Middle East, yet seems to share in the West's predilection for cultural suicide. Only a few years ago Israeli leadership was considering ceding the Golan Heights to Syria. You'd think they would've learned the bitter lessons from earlier, when they stupidly gave away the Sinai in '79 and when they more recently gave away the Strip.

While Israel seems to have wised up on the Golan thing, it's still necessary to worry about Israel, and not only because of Iran's stated intent to launch nuclear missiles to wipe Israel from the map.

It's too bad that Jews don't take a more realistic view of Moslems and their "religion," which has as one of its foundation stones the purpose of not only blaming Jews for their shortcomings, but the killing or at least enslavement of them.

When the Sunni and Shia tire of killing one another, they'll inevitably turn to killing the Jews.

Yeah, God save the Queen. But not the stupid and counterproductive antisemitism that infects the royalty and most of England.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
" Only a few years ago Israeli leadership was considering ceding the Golan Heights to Syria. You'd think they would've learned the bitter lessons from earlier, when they stupidly gave away the Sinai in '79 and when they more recently gave away the Strip."

The problem, I suspect, is mostly with young people. I recently spent a couple of years working for a large company. This particular project was run out of their Israel branch, and so was mostly staffed by Israelis. I was shocked to hear one of them say that Israel should just give the "Palestinians" their land, and then Israel would be left alone.

I had thought that kind of head-in-the-sand 'thinking' was limited to American Jews, but I was wrong. It's very much alive in Israel, and I suppose election results there should have clued me in a lot sooner.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Sadly, if Iran is successful and launches a nuke at Israel, the obamunist will not initiate any activity in response. He will, once again, be unavailable, smoking a joint to cope with the stress of being prezi-deezy.

He will then feel obligated to blame republicans for the atrocity and will continue to campaign for nuclear disarmament, citing the destruction of Israel as the reason "no one should have nukes" much as he decries gun ownership.

Utopia.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
In general things are doing better in Israel. Fertility for Jewish women is 3.0, by far the highest in the developed world (and 2.6 for non-Haredi women, still the highest in the industrial world). A Modern Orthodox religious party has replaced the ultra-Orthodox in the governing coalition. Science, art and entrepreneurship flourish. As for the royal family: Prince Charles is a notorious Islamophile (Daniel Pipes once conjectured that he might be a secret convert) and the Queen has never visited Israel. I am not at all happy with that. Nonetheless my respect for the monarchy as an institution and my congratulations to the royal family are sincere.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
As an American citizen (in my extreme naïveté) I took for granted that line about "inalienable rights" (in the Declaration of Independence), and assumed something similar would be true in Canada...Then I came across an article (written by Canadian lawyers) which explained the difference between the U.S. and Canada with respect to "rights". To my shock I discovered that (unlike an inalienable right which cannot be forfeited, even with my consent, and which is embued in each individual, thanks to a higher power -- the Creator) in Canada rights are a "privilege" bestowed by a monarch and can be rescinded at any time...
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Canada has jailed a pastor for speaking out against homosexuals now that the Canadian State has legalized homosexual marriage. Once you cross the jailed-for-speech line, I think you're pretty well a despotic society: http://www.sternresolve.jaycenrigger.com/?p=309

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
If you are referring to Pastor Steven Boissoin's run in with the outrageos Alberta "Human Rights" Commission, he wasn't jailed and he won his case on appeal. The only way an HRC can get you in jail is if you refuse to pay their fine and they get a real court to hold you in contempt of court.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Yes, there have been some other shocking things going on in Canada with respect to free speech -- we do not have robust rights or civil liberties -- recently, there was a disastrous flood, the police secured the area (residents out), and the next thing you know, the police go house to house confiscating firearms (without warrants). The Prime Minister has told them to return the guns...
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
But did the confiscate all guns or only guns left unsecured?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
They confiscated all guns, hundreds of them. Some (the owners insist) were properly stored, some (the owners say) may have been improperly stored. (Another disturbing aspect of this story -- not just the unwarranted seizure of guns -- the changing stories the cops provided as to their "rationale".) The investigation is continuing.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You are misinformed. The rights in Canada's Charter of Rights (which is the supreme law of the land) can only be taken away by Constitutional amendment.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The first part of the Charter states: "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." In other words the "guarantee" is limited, and rights can be rescinded. I"ll try to find the article I read about the Charter (written by Canadian lawyers)...
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The basis of rights is the same everywhere - how can humankind have two or more contrasting realities/natures? What you are talking about is someone's theory. To the extent I have rights here in Canada they emerge from shared understandings about, for example, what is and has been necessary to achieve "peace, order, and good government" (to use a Canadian legal phrase).

Rights (as opposed to privileges) are not the gift of government, nor even of some "natural law" existing outside of human history. All rights stem from agreements with others who are our linguistic (human) equals, from the common human condition that in order to share any understanding, so that any human society might organize itself, we all must sign off, in some shape or form, on that understanding (or leave). Rights stem from a universal linguistic constitution, from our necessity to share signs, and become concrete as part of a specific historical evolution in ethical self-understanding. Of course it's true that that self-understanding is more or less limited in different societies, and our legal theories have something to do with that. Historically, there has always been a need to trade off resentments of social hierarchy for collective strength vis a vis other societies and that debate never ends and works it way out in all kinds of ways.

Pragmatically, a lot of our "rights" stem from the security of private property. Whatever one's theory about "natural law" vs. monarchical privilege (and the Canadian Charter of Rights - which declares our rights to be negotiated under the fundamental nature of "a free and democratic society" - was written with the decision to exclude a specific "right to private property"), I am not at all sure that Americans today are more secure in their property than Canadians. For example, both our currencies are fiat, but yours is currently more exposed to attempts at state-managed inflation, though probably we all sink or swim together in the end.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What you are describing are not rights at all, only agreements.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All