Will the Ten Commandments signal the end of the United States?
And will the controversy resurrect the Confederacy?

by Liz Michael
www.lizmichael.com
August 29, 2003

Is the current controversy in Montgomery Alabama, concerning the 5300 pound stone monument dedicated to the Ten Commandments, going to eventually result in the end of the United States? And will it result in the resurrection of the Confederate States of America?

Have I shocked any of you with these statements? Good. Maybe it will give you some pause to think about what some are actually doing about this issue, which by all rights should be a non-issue, and what the "Unintended Consequences" of it will be.

Judge Moore is right

I would be the last person to declare myself righteous. I am, as the President is fond of saying, "a sinner". And on a lot of these social issues, like gay marriage, drugs, and that stuff, I'm pretty much of a liberal. So I'm not the kind of girl you'll see the likes of Jerry Falwell hugging anytime soon. I even believe in the separation of church and state (which I know is not in the Constitution, so let's not go there) and don't believe public school officials should be leading regular prayers. I'm not even a great fan of the Pledge of Allegiance.

However, I have heard Judge Roy Moore on this issue, and I believe without a shadow of a doubt that he's right. And this is why.

Firstly, much of our nation's jurisprudence is derived from Judeo-Christian legal principles such as those found in the Ten Commandments. This is factual and historical, and that may not be PC to say, but it is true. No, the founders, who were mostly deist, were not trying to anchor us with a state religion, and many of those men absolutely eschewed organized religion, i.e., "the Church". But none of them eschewed God or thought God had no purpose in the life of the nation they were founding.

And most people acknowledge that the Ten Commandments are a basic prototype of a successful community's rules, and a community which fails to follow them, or a form of them in their own faith or society, at least in the spirit, such community is not going to be a very pleasant place to live.

And we are talking about a monument of the Tablets. We are not even talking about the law or legislation codifying one religion's principles, or the recognition of a particular church or church doctrine under law. We wouldn't be having this conversation if this was Roy Moore trying to enforce a religious belief, or use his religion as the basis for his rulings. We're talking about stone tablets.

And were we talking about passages from Leviticus 20, from a book which almost NO ONE follows to the letter, not even the most observant Jew, and especially not the ministers superobsessed with quoting it, we would not be having this conversation.

But the declarations of Exodus 20 is a set of basic principles that almost all people of all faiths and all philosophies, acknowledge are a good set of principles to observe, and I dare say that if Confucious had written them, or Buddha had spoken them, or perhaps even Moses himself had thought them up, there would not be so much weeping and gnashing of teeth over their presence in a public building. Indeed, the monument would probably be declared as a "celebration of diversity".

No, I believe the only reason these Tablets are being challenged is that the book from whence they came declares that the Hand of God himself carved them out of stone. And I believe the basic root of the negative reaction to them is entirely one of fear, fear of being reminded of the presence of the judgment of the God who originally wrote them. The opponents of the Tablets do not act as if a mere mortal man wrote those words. The opponents act as if they knew, on a gut level, that God wrote those words himself, and that they therefore are afraid to hear them.

I could be wrong about that. But my gut tells me I've hit upon something.

Separation of church and state

As I said, I believe in the doctrine of separation of church and state. No state should declare any church or any religion as either the superior faith, or the state approved faith.

Moreover, I believe in the separation of church and state much moreso than the federal government does. Ever hear of 501c3? Know what that is? That is the code under which the federal government's Internal Revenue Service gives approval to, and exercises power over, churches and other charities. Yet you will not hear the ACLU utter a peep about it. Nor will you hear Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson utter a peep. Yet that federal practice is not only a teeming blight upon the doctrine of church and state separation, it is an abomination to the God of Israel for his churches to "register" with the government.

Morever, I believe in the separation of church and state when it comes to marriage, much moreso than all the church groups pushing for a constitutional amendment to codify man-woman marriage, instead of petitioning the government to act as it should, and stay out of marriage entirely, leaving it up to churches as a religious matter, where it should be left. "Render unto Caesar the things which ARE Caesar's, and unto God the things which ARE God's".

So how does this Tablets controversy stack up in the church-state controversy? It doesn't. There is nothing about having those Tablets in the hallway or doorway of a court building that breaches the separation of church and state. Nothing. Judges may not impose a religion. But nowhere are they forbidden from expressing a religious belief. Public officials may not be legally able to impose a religious belief, but they are not required by law to act as if they were athiests.

"But religion should be practiced in church, not in a state building"

I know I'm going to hear it, because I've already heard it. Usually I hear it from liberals. So I only have one response to it.

Tell it to the civil rights movement. Tell the survivors of the civil rights movement that they were wrong to dare to bring religion to the public square in order to eliminate segregation, separate but equal, and state sponspored oppression of Negroes. Go ahead, tell them that.

And while you're at it, tell it to the feminists. The feminists? Yes, the feminists. The founders of the feminist movement, largely revealing itself in the movement for women's suffrage, were staunch Christians like Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Women such as these pioneers of women's equality and women's suffrage were often extremely devout Christian women, and were promoting these ideals as a matter of Christian justice.

Get real. Religious people, REAL religious people, do not bury their religious practices behind the closed doors of a church, temple, or mosque. REAL religious people practice their principles everyday, in public and in private, and demonstrate them in the lives they lead. To fail to do so is to dishonor the God they worship. And these REAL religious people, openly advocating and professing their faith, have revolutionized this nation.

How could the Ten Commandments controversy actually destroy the United States?

Ever see the Star Trek series? There is an episode where the Klingons demonstrate what they do to a person who has caused dishonor to the people. They don't kill him. They don't beat him. They don't imprison him. They stand him at the center of a circle of other Klingons, and each Klingon simply, one by one, turns his back on the condemned, and they from that day forward treat him as anathema.

I do not doubt for a second that the God of Heaven is watching all these proceedings with acute interest. Many a modern day prophet has prophesied all manner of destruction upon the United States for their sins, claiming divine inspiration. I have heard the dire predictions of invasion by Russia, invasion by China, invasion by Cuba, and invasion by Mexico, even invasion by Germany of all people. Not to mention all the various plottings by Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and various other Jihad advocates desiring to topple "The Great Satan".

But what if it doesn't go down like that? What if the United States doesn't go out with a bang, with rockets red glare, with "thy cities destroyed in all thy dwelling places"? With nuclear weapons ravaging the landscape. After all, there is still something noble and honorable about losing a war through sheer force of might. That is still a dignified ending. Many a righteous Jew and righteous Christian has had that ending, and has died with honor. And the world thinks well of the people who lose a war, and are thereby enslaved by the victors. Why, this almost seems too honorable of an end to the United States of America.

What, though, if instead of a bang, the United States exits the world stage with a whimper? In disgrace? With the very citizens, such as those 77% of the citizens of Alabama who wanted to retain the Tablets monument, turning their back on the federal government, just as the federal government flashed the middle finger to the divine creator of the universe, as state officials dutifully just "followed orders"? What more pitiful an ending for an empire could there be than the citizens of that empire pulling the plug on it.

The last time an empire fell

But when did that ever happen, you ask? Well, the last time it happened was 1989. The great and mighty Soviet Union had the plug pulled on it, not only by the Soviet people, but by its own premier. Not a nuclear bomb fell on it. Not a single enemy troop set foot in its territory. It just simply collapsed of its own weight.

But what could replace the United States? Wouldn't there be complete anarchy if the federal government suddenly all at once disappeared. Well, again, what happened to the Soviet people? Every single square inch of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact still had a government ruling over it. A freer government, a government more responsive to the People. The 15 Soviet Republics became 15 free nations. Perfect nations? Hardly. Nations without misery and pain? Hardly. Perfectly free? No. But markedly freer than they had been even just ten years earlier.

So if the United States were dissolved tomorrow, every single square inch of the United States would continue to have a government, and have a government in a republican form. The 50 states would become what they really were all along, 50 Sovereign Nations free of federal oppression. But more than that, there would also be the Sovereign Indian Nations. As well as all the other nations conquered by the United States and forced into the Union. Such as the Confederate States of America, and such as the Kingdom of Hawaii, both lawfully constituted governments which were never lawfully dissolved.

But why would such a dissolution happen?

Listen to the words of Judge Roy Moore himself: "The Alabama Constitution specifically invokes 'the favor and guidance of Almighty God' as the basis for our laws and justice system. As the chief justice of the state's supreme court I am entrusted with the sacred duty to uphold the state's constitution. I have taken an oath before God and man to do such, and I will not waver from that commitment. By telling the state of Alabama that it may not acknowledge God, Judge Thompson effectively dismantled the justice system of the state."

Do you get that? Essentially, what the federal judge is doing here is declaring null and void the Alabama Constitution. The judge is actually forcing a loyalty issue: either you can be loyal to the United States, or you can be loyal to Alabama, but you cannot be loyal to both.

States' rights is something that has been frequentely invoked by various entities, sometimes for good cause, and sometimes for wrong cause, such as segregation. And what may develop out of this incident, out of the 77% of the People of Alabama who support the monument, is a states' rights movement in favor of the ability to freely acknowledge God.

Such persistence of the federal government to force removal of monuments with religious significance, may force state populations to have to come to grips with issues such as whether they want to remain under federal jurisdiction, or whether they ought to sever these ties and declare their states a separate nation outside of the United States. This may not be the intent of the ACLU and the ADL in pursuing such rulings, but it may become the unintended consequence.

And it is not just something happening to conservative and fundamentalist officeholders. Recently, the liberal Governor of Arizona Janet Napolitano actually had to fight the ACLU to prevent the removal of long existing monuments with religious themes in the Grand Canyon. California has been attacked for its monuments with religious theme. The City of Beverly Hills has had to defend an annual Menorah display in one of its parks during Hanukkah.

The Confederate States

The Southern states and territories which made up the old Confederacy today would number some 18 states. And with slavery and segregation now permanent relics of the past, an attempt to impose imperial will from Rome, Maryland, now become Washington DC, may result in the states that were a part of that Confederacy choosing to reassert the 1861 Constitution, or establish a new one, and essentially fire Washington DC as authority over them. But it may not stop there. The populations of other states, especially Western states. many of who face massive imposition of the federal government, may see a Confederate government more sympathetic to their needs, and bolt to it. Many states struggling with the ramifications of illegal immigration, seeing that Washington is willing to do nothing about it, may opt for the protection of the Confederate States in desperation.

And having repented of those old sins, this God of Heaven which the opponents of the Tablets seem so eager to silence, and place in an inner chamber so the People cannot see him, and seeing a United States so eager to abandon him, may indeed bless the Confederacy, and restore her. The American People, seeing their government acting continually as the modern day Babylon, may heed the call to "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues!"

Already, the controversy has crossed state lines. Governor Ronnie Musgrove has issued an invitation to Judge Moore, that he is willing to fetch the monument, bring it to the Mississippi state house, and feature it in a prominent lace of honor.

Could this really happen?

Jefferson Davis, the Confederate President, after the war, declared that "The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form." General Robert E. Lee stated "All that the South has ever desired was the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth." Even Abraham Lincoln, in 1847, stated that "Any people whatever have a right to abolish the existing government and form a new one that suits them better."

Perhaps one day not all that far from today, those stone tablets having provoked all this controversy will be moved to a more appropriate location in Montgomery. Perhaps they will be moved to a new Confederate Capitol, or to the entrance of a new Confederate White House. In a new nation where they would be welcomed as a symbol of where we as a People have been, where lawyers and judges are no longer terrified to see them. In a nation which does respect the religious rights of all, but hasn't lost its collective mind and sought to bar even the very presence of the Creator whose blessings they seek.

Now, all this need not be, if the federal government would come to its senses, and realize its role to serve the People, and not rule over them as dictators. But I can reliably predict that they will not. And the People will rise to abolish the government as Lincoln predicted, and the principle shall reassert itself, as Davis predicted. And the desire of General Lee may indeed finally be fulfilled, that the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth. With God in Heaven watching, and deciding upon whom to bestow his blessings, having to choose between those seeking him and willing to proclaim his glory, or those seeking to hide his proclamations in a closet, which do you really think he would choose?

Liz Michael is the webmistress of LizMichael.com ( http://www.lizmichael.com ) and has an exploratory committee to run for the United States Senate from Arizona ( http://www.lizmichael.org )

Home
Political Links
News
Soap Box
Cartridge Box
Jury Box
Humor
Boycott
America's Least Wanted
Biography
Contact Liz

Classics professor Hanson is also, like generations of his family before him, a fruit farmer in California's central valley. He has employed immigrants, seen them flood his community during the last 30 years of mass flight from Mexico, and endured the crime associated with illegal immigrants. Hanson is immensely sympathetic to poor Mexicans, however, and the most powerful chapter here outlines the harried life of the illegal alien. But he hates to see the ordered culture in which he grew up drowned by an alien inundation whose undeserving beneficiaries are Mexico's kleptocratic rulers, for whom an open border is a safety valve expelling the potential for democratic change. The four solutions to the mess that Hanson enumerates include continuing de facto open borders but insisting on rapid acculturation; patrolling the border effectively and reducing legal immigration; imposing "sweeping restrictions on immigration" and ending Mexican chauvinism in the U.S.; and allowing present policies to make California increasingly mirror an unreformed Mexico. Hanson thinks that the U.S. "still need not do everything right" to prevent social collapse in the Southwest and that the totalitarian uniformity of valueless mass culture may soften that collapse. He also sees very clearly what has brought this crisis on: the American globalist ideology's lust for cheap labor and emphasis on "raw inclusiveness" instead of "standards and taste." - Ray Olson