This might sound bizarre, but I connected to this because Miss Johnnie was watching a Rockies’ baseball game.
The commentators were mentioning that George Bush had been loudly booed when he threw out the “first pitch” on Opening Day.
Seemed a little outraged by it.
The comments were on the order of “They booed the PRESIDENT!” and “Hello! He’s ONLY the Leader of the free world! Duh!”
Where to start? How about, he was never appointed Leader of the free world or even Leader of all Americans. He can only lead people who are weak-minded enough to follow him.
For instance, he’s not MY leader.
I have enough personal strength and dignity to refuse to follow, really anybody in general and a low-life Murdering, lying, cowardly thief in particular.
Some of the people who say we should obey him in everything he tells us, use the Name of God to justify it.
They point to a biblical passage “Honor God (and) (by the act of) Obey the King”.
Allow me to point out, once again, this was not God speaking. It was a scribe of either King David or King Solomon. Both of whose reigns began with revolutions.
David who was anointed King in a secret ceremony and fought a long rebellion against Saul, who was anointed in a PUBLIC ceremony. We know this because King David told us that Samuel had done so. He mentioned it long after Samuel, and his father Jesse and his 8 brothers who witnessed the Secret anointing were dead.
Solomon who was born of adultery. In a union that accurately reflected what Samuel had been instructed to tell the people before anointing Saul.
“do not fear to anoint this King for them, for they do not reject you, but rather they reject Me… but tell them first what manner of King will reign over them, he will take their sons to run before his chariots, and their daughters to be his bakers and his handmaids”.
The fact that neither David nor Solomon were ever accorded universal recognition of their “authority” during their lives is duly recorded.
So the question would be, wouldn’t it be to the advantage of a King who is under constant threat from rebellions to get the people to believe that God Himself had commanded them to obey him?
But neither David nor Solomon would ever take unfair advantage of such an attitude, now would they? And again, we know this because they, themselves, told us so.
Thus the Religious point of view.
For a more immediately practical point of view, America was founded as a nation by Rebels who overthrew the lawful government of the King.
And there were ministers of the Gospel preaching the Loyalist propaganda, again using the Honor God and Obey the King bullpoo-poo. Right here in America.
But the point of that is, for 232 years now we in America have not HAD a king.
Those who wish to say that we owe him obedience and that God said so, must have had one of those very conveniently Private anointments.
Much like George Bush saying that God told him to smite Iraq, and that God had told him that there are Weapons of Mass Destruction there.
If God told him that, then God must have LIED to him.
In which case, it probably, most likely, wasn’t actually God talking to him.
Surely God would have told him exactly where to look for those WMDs, yes?
King George III of England was suffering from the delusional dreams of the terminal stages of syphillis. He spent his last years talking to trees, and, apparently, they talked back to him.
No telling what manner of Dementia afflicts our current King George the Simple.
But we do know that he is demented. Here’s a really radical thought, what would happen if somebody who has his finger on the trigger to more of every type of Weapon of Mass Destruction than all the rest of the nations of the world combined…. is at a Prayer Breakfast and the potted plants start talking to him, and telling him to do something incredibly stupid like launching a nuclear attack on Iran or having the Army occupy a couple of Third World nations?
Do we really owe him our support in such insane pursuits?
