Attention the Ben-Gvirs, Smotrichs and Lapids of the State of Israel!

When citing God as their “guiding light,” the Ben-Gvirs and Smotrichs of Israel, the only Democracy of the Middle East, would be wise to take the following into consideration:

Whilst it is possible to argue that God exists, it is also possible to argue that God does not exist.

From a personal perspective, an individual may be able to say, I have known Him: He speaks to me! or, He inspires me! – and all the time the rationalist looks on skeptically, demanding proof of such revelatory contact – proof that a believer cannot produce.

How can you prove that God talks to you? How would you prove that God inspires you?

Furthermore, in the same way that one cannot say for certain who, what, when or where – yes when or where – God is (it is not, indeed, possible to say for certain that one cannot say for certain – and so on, ad infinitum) it is not possible to say for certain that He exists.

However, the likes of Itamar Ben-Gvir, Bezalel Smotrich and their religious coalition compatriots are, in effect, governing the State of Israel in the name of God in the firm belief that He exists.

What proof have they? Are they, the ruling coalition’s religious members, running the country because they each of them have had a personal experience that is proof to them that He exists? Is Israel being governed by their interpretation of God and His “Word”?

How would the likes of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich feel if Israel was a Meritocracy, rather than the Theocracy that unquestioning men – who will not, undoubtedly, want to understand the argument presented here – aim to establish? How, in other words, would a state governed by those whose understanding is so limited be different from the leaders of a Meritocracy? Meritocracies, after all, hand all the power to those who are educated or able. And if Israel was a Plutocracy? or any other type of state that is not a Democracy (and there are many such types)?

But, wait! What about the Lapids of Israel and their fellow opposition countrymen?

Why, those who would rule Eretz Israel in the belief that God does not exist, would also be deaf to the above argument. They would be deaf to the argument which proposes that it is not certain that God does not exist. (Indeed, it is not certain that it can be said that it is not certain that God does not exist – and so on and so forth, ad infinitum).

The logical conclusion for the inveterate atheist would be to have a state where religion is banned altogether – for example, along the lines of the system currently practiced by China – where, in other words, Communism prevails. Perhaps, though, the Totalitarian aspect of the system in force in China would not be welcome.

It may therefore be concluded that the answer to the difficulties outlined here is a Pluralist Democracy. But that is a statement that has implications which only the reader can decide to pursue.