This is a post to a friend of mine from facebook (who shall remain nameless). I thought I'd write it here, just in case somebody else might enjoy it.
God would not be a good king. Here's why. He doesn't exist! It's hard to have a ruler, when that ruler is fake and made up. I know many of you think he is real, but the fact remains that you have nothing to substantiate that idea, no one does.
Seriously though, here's why.
Let's say hypothetically, that there is a god, and that god is the god of christianity (new testament version). He is love, he is good, etc...
If this god is love, then he also must be hate, by definition. One cannot have love without hate, because the two ideas are opposite sides of the same coin. Just as hot is to cold, tall is to short, etc... so love is to hate. One without the comparative other causes the one to have no substance. If everything was hot, then how would we know hotness. It is only through comparison that we can differentiate. So it goes with love and hate. So, if god is love but necessarily also hate, then he does not, cannot love everyone. He has to hate somebody. The question is, who does this god hate?
As a king, this god would not be benevolent to all, only to those he loved. Some people would be screwed. As Lincoln said " you can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time". Indeed, this god as king would be no different than most other monarchs that have at some point ruled nations. Now, of course to me, this is completely sensible, because the christian idea of god is so transparently man-made. God resembles us, not the other way 'round.
The founding fathers were intent upon eradicating monarchistic rule. The very basis of the political system put in place by them was done so with the intention of escaping divine right tyranny. The furthest thing from their minds was that the new country would be wholly saturated with knee-bowing christians. Why else would they have included a clause in the bill of rights regarding the freedom of religion? Such a provision was constructed precisely so that a governmental administration COULD NOT proclaim an official religion to the people of the country. Personally, I wish it had been a clause stating freedom FROM religion, but that's neither here nor there.
The current commander-in-chief is apparently not to the liking of many people out there (including my friend). I often wonder how much of the consternation is due to the person or the ideas. I hold the thought that such demagoguery and vice-versa, idolatry (George W. for instance) is a very dangerous practice to make regular use of. I did vote for our current president, and I like some of his ideas, but I certainly do not think for an instant that he has been divinely placed in the position he is in. Nor do I think that W. was the tool of Satan (who certainly doesn't exist). It's true, everyone is entitled to their opinion, I don't begrudge anyone that, I hope no one will begrudge me mine. The political system we have in place is so much better than one which would place a fictional invisible sky-daddy ruler in charge of what is closing in on 7 billion people, many of whom would die before they would ever falsely confess a belief in said deity. The idea that a divine monarchy ruled by the christian god would be the best possible political construct for America and the world is more than ludicrous, it is saddening. That being said, that's all I have to say on the matter. Pleasant night all.