W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc.  Home Page   Contents Page for Volume  What is New




NEWS 289

The ONE that WINS is the RIGHT One
The Final Day is the Day of the Lord

Manchester Guardian, September 23, 2003






As we pursue our topic today, it seems best first of all, 
simply to revert to a news item from October 2001.

Here the question was the error of the USA in making so much fuss about its own (great) tragedy of 2002, whilst so little about that in Israel, so vastly comparable! Fuss ? this of course is a highly inept term if one is not making it in ironic contrast to the treatment given Israel; for if Israel really is handling a massive tragedy of greed and arrogance, invasion and aggression, terror and inhumanly callous, inveterate hatred, then how is it 'fuss', undue reaction, that it seeks to ACT ? But if it IS fuss, then is this not an apt term for the USA ?

In fact, it is apt for neither; but you cannot dissimulate, and treat the one as if it were what it is, a tragedy of great magnitude, whilst you cover up the tracks of the hidden plotting of massive nations with vast wealth, using Palestinian Islam as a wedge to divide and conquer little Israel through domestic murder, thereby adding to the enormity of the already swollen terrestrial resources of that jihad-prone power bloc, and reducing, if it were possible, Israel to a sort of historical side-show.

Let us then begin with this historical flashback (Alert 13).


bullet Meanwhile, Sharon has given his ultimatum to the PLO, as noted in News 182, our last chapter.
Now Benjamin Netanyahu, a man with powers of speech, has advised that he applauds the determination, resolution and persistent pursuit of terrorism on the part of the USA.
THIS, he says, is the way to do it. One must, then be businesslike. The US is doing this,
so what is the problem ?

This appears to be twofold from this spokesman, and former Israeli PM. First, there is criticism of Israel, and worse, effort to have her 'tone down' her response to the mere multiplied murders of citizens, such as a Cabinet Minister. This, however,  is not the way, the approved manner, according to the USA exemplification, for handling that phenomenon. Terrorism needs radical surgery.

The second 'problem' ? It is this. The USA, he avers, is guilty of hypocrisy in speaking thus to Israel. Is it not pursuing the culprits with a zeal, a passion, a purpose, a determination, a cohesion, a concert of carefully organised assaults and progressive plans, not rash perhaps, but quite radical in intention ? This seems to be the drift of the ex-PM of Israel’s charge of hypocrisy, in the context. Is Israel, certainly with the addition of the subtraction of a Cabinet Minister to consider, and contemplate ? and still, in any case, in principle to engage in endless colloquys, dispassionate plans with those often enough declaring that the occupation of its CAPITAL CITY is their intention, or of the land, or Israel's removal, or subjugation, whether at the word of one, or at the declaration of  groups of Israel-exit advocates ?

Is Israel then to do this year by year, solemn- faced, while being defaced ? Its cities are to be bombed, its people harassed, its citizens indiscriminately shrapnelled, its police maligned, its defensive forces constantly on alert to defend its people, from enemies within, while many of these are in alliance, open and declared, with hostile foreign powers ? Is it to undertake such a response with the tuition of mentor USA, itself doing the PRECISE opposite ?

It is not our intention to do more than to try to understand the charge of hypocrisy. That is Netanyahu's term. Inconsistency however appears beyond the reach of any argument. Is there a foreign power trying to oppress the liberty, democracy, due rule by elected officials in the USA/Israel ? Is one to make a multinational appeal for action, and the other to have a multinational appeal for inaction ?

Is there a number of people within one's country seeking by dynamite, dynamism and activism to subdue one's plans, programs and principles, and take over part of one's capital, in Israel/USA ? And is it that in Washington/Jerusalem this has occurred with clear and barefaced force ? Will one find this intolerable entirely, and advise the other to find it tolerable and suitable for negotiation and ‘settlement’ in terms of making a donation of a large section of the capital ?*1

Is there a body of people of organised character, possessed of arms and money, with international connections and many channels of operations and cash flow, which is seeking to DISRUPT one's country, subdue one's land, so that it will do what it wants, change its policies, in order to avoid still further 'punishment', relating to Israel/USA ?

In each case, the answer is yes.

Is there therefore a series of principles about national integrity, that it should not cowering in the face of violent thuggery within, and evil eyes without, compromised or surrendered by those seeking to determine what is right in ways other than by foreign and internally rebellious might ? If so, do they apply to the USA and not to Israel ? Has either nation never fought a war for the acquisition of territory ? Do both nations offer to their citizens (without being in any way involved in talking of perfection, but of substantial trend), substantial liberties and aid in distress ? Do both consider that they have a place in the world for such principles, procedures, plans and ways, and that those who wish to decimate them, ruin these plans, dictate by killing a few thousand people here and there, are out of order, should not be permitted to luxuriate in any world of any sort of reasonable order, to say no more ?

If so, why such diversity of response, as that recommended on the one hand,
and done on the other, by the USA with special concern for Israel ? Neither nation is RUN by Christian principles, but both are concerned with democracy. Why such a gulf therefore ?

We could go further. Let us ask another question.

Are both nations a residue of a horrendous World War II or any other war, in which not far from one half of the nation was destroyed by a dictator, so that their suffering far outweighed that of the other participants in that conflict ?
Here the answer for the first time must be NO! USA took nowhere near this beating in World War II, and has suffered in no way comparably to the Jewish people, whose internationally defined, but never implemented homeland, was to be Palestine BY GIFT! Was the USA appointed by international convention to receive the USA ? Again, the answer must be no!

Are we then not in order in ascribing a certain degree of inconsistency to the USA when it tells Israel to do precisely what it is not itself doing, when faced with a challenge in so many points so parallel to that faced by Israel, that it would be amusing, if it were not so tragic that mirth must flee!

When it is the USA which for years past now, has been requesting Israel to do, what Israel has in large measure been doing in those murderous times of internal destruction from foreign foes in alliance with others within, who abuse their citizenship and insist on undemocratic means of furthering their cause, even horrendously inhuman kinds of violence, practised now on the Jewish residue who have made their land great, despite all this and their often small numbers,  in vast contrast to what the Moslem inhabitants did before they came: then the case grows darker.

If the USA has for years counselled and constrained in various ways, so that Israel has with this push been the more inclined to pacify its opponents, accept their destructions, make minor incursions very often in reply, and when beyond all measure harassed from some foreign country, made strikes, and then returned to base; and if Israel has for years past been often most restrained in response to terrorism, open and unabashed, then the case is the graver. When these disruptive heroics of blood flow have been further tarnished with wild religious challenges backed by force, then this is an odious scenario indeed, for the multiply invaded nation.

Not only is the USA  counselling now what it is not doing; it has for long been counselling what has not worked, and is unlikely to work in Israel, and advocating what by the USA's own action, seems foreign to its own concepts of safety, propriety, law and righteousness! Not only so, as one of the chief allies of Israel, in times now long past, its equivocal actions both in recent years and currently, to say no more, undermine what has been helped, and tend to betray what has been propounded.

If Israel is to experience one more 'friend' whose friendship requires a new definition of the term, with Britain itself earlier likewise marvellous in help, then horrendous in betrayal, it may indeed remind one of Judas. How the wheel turns! Nevertheless, that was one man; this is a nation.



The USA has paid for its rather reckless seeming change of direction concerning Israel, it might seem.

One expressed concern about the dangers in August 2001, before the catasrophe of the Twin Towers (cf. The Pitter-Patter of Prophetic Feet Ch. 4, *2, which read as follows:

Just as Great Britain did wonders for the Jews in 1917 in the Balfour Declaration (q.v.), but grew worse and worse, in 1948 handing things to the Arab Legion and not allowing many Jewish vessels to come into Israel to land after World War II’s holocaust for the Jewish people, and has considerably declined: one cannot help wondering what is in store for the US.

This nation, despite the prodigies and performances under Nixon, in the 1973 war, has in the last two administrations seemed unable or unwilling to understand the Biblical position, the interests of equity for all, and the interplay of passions on the part of an aggressive and international Islam, self-declared in its hostilities to Israel and its appointed destiny for it. The brokerage of hate and destruction is a volatile and unrewarding act. It is the root which is wrong; spraying the leaves helps but little.

As the U.S. looks more and more for further yieldings from Israel of the already all but incredibly reduced ‘Palestine’ originally guaranteed to Israel, it becomes increasingly the subject of the Biblical burdens which adverse conceptions and actions towards the restored Jerusalem, will assuredly bring.

One hopes better things; but if the process continues, the results may accrue (Genesis 12:3, 15:14, 28:4,13ff., Numbers 24:9, Genesis 27:29,  Zechariah 12:2-3  cf. Beauty of Holiness
Ch. 8.)


Now it is important to keep proper perspective. The USA has overall done far better than most in its treatment of Israel (just as, for a considerable time, did Great Britain). But it has changed, and it showed that change, as noted in the above citation from The Pitter-Patter of Prophetic Feet Ch. 4, in a way which caused one considerable concern both for Israel and for the USA, but chiefly the latter, since there are promises concerning Israel (cf. the Ch. 4 noted just above, with Galloping Events Ch. 4 and SMR Ch.  9) far more conspicuous than anything which might be imagined concerning the USA.

For the earlier good work of the latter, as in the 1973 war, when its work was prodigious, kind and timely, for Israel, and some earlier actions, one remains delighted, since one is the enemy of no nation, and  seeks the good of all men; and when the lions of the jungle seek to  destroy a mouse by a concerted  attack, one is not  really so very impressed. The USA roared back on Israel's behalf, which was good, fitting and kind.

To be sure, the Israeli mouse, on its day, was super-mouse; but this not  by any great facility of its own: it was because GOD had said it would have superior powers by HIS MIGHT, at this juncture of history, so that ONE of Israel would seem like 1000 (Zechariah 12); which is the sort of scenario which developed in 1948,1967,1973, by one means and another. The impossible became actual, the certain death if not by Auschwitz, then by Islam, accorded or to be accorded to Israel was just a matter of turning the next day's or week's paper, and sighing, it seemed to this world, when these vast assaults were made on the residue of Hitler's scum treatment. The next page would be Israel's demise, as demanded by its hostile enemies, who had rejected a fantastically liberal gift mission from the UN, on the Arabs' behalf, a year or so earlier!

However, since the word of God most clearly said otherwise for this period following the return of Israel to its land, subsequent to its piercing of the Messiah (Zechariah 12 cf. Galloping Events Ch. 3, Ch. 4 and the references given, Divine Agenda Ch. 8, The Biblical Workman Ch. 1, *3, Ch. 3,  *1, SMR
Appendix A, Of the Earth, Earthy... Ch. 10), so it was. Therefore, the world rubbed its eyes when it read the newspaper of what actually happened in those wars, and marvelled.  Instead of the devastation of Israel (ah! this wicked world! they might have said, as they turned to the next page, not greatly disturbed, in the West, or the ... East, or Middle East for that matter), there was triumph for Israel, and again and again. The combined Arab forces of hatred failed to exterminate Hitler's residue after all.

That is PRECISELY what was to occur, including both the disproportionate earthly power and bulk of the aggressor nations, seeking explicitly to destroy Israel, and the amazing character of the victories in the face of this, on the part of Israel, at the command of God from millenia beforehand.

Yes these predictions came from  a time centuries before Christ was so much as pierced, who came to offer a salvation, and to be given a grave, but not for long! That too, it was forecast, and happened in that setting of pure confrontation with fact: for this is the undoubted case,  when ONE ONE MISTAKE evacuates the Bible from its place, just as its unanswerable accuracy over millenia, removes any competition, at the outset, whether from 'science' falsely-so-called, or from political power, or military might! (cf. It Bubbles ... Ch. 1).

It is indifferent what is the sullied source of shallow misconstructions, misconceptions and mischiefs, they all fall to the same grave, where Christ declined to stay (cf. SMR Ch. 6).

Meanwhile, Britain betrayed Israel in 1948, using the Royal Navy in a most unroyal fashion, to turn back Jewish ships escaping with the devastated ruins left by Hitler, for labour in their new and promised land. It was doubly promised: by God at the outset (cf. Galloping Events Ch. 4), and by the League of Nations in general and Great Britain in particular, at the onset. For long Britain did well, as later did the USA; but then it betrayed the Jews, and only by a superb miracle did God prevent the Arab Legion from simply taking over the land from Britain in 1948.

Now the USA has shown that COMPARATIVE indifference to Israel's terrorist assaults, and suffered, prima facie at least, in consequence; but there is of course a vast hinterland of increasing indifference, especially at the State level, to the ways and will and work and ethics of God, to be discerned in the USA (*1 below, cf. News 121, Lord of Life Ch. 8, Cascade ... Ch. 10, News 18). It is all too horribly topical rather than atypical to find the Statue relating to the 10 Commandments with violence removed from a State Government location!

However, our concern is merely to cover these elements as background today. It is to  EUROPE in the presence of the other 3 arbiters self-appointed for Israel, the UN, Russia, the EU and the USA, that we look now, to see the force of the flow to a new and increasing dynamic, for which the relative failures of Great Britain and the USA, not merely re Israel but in their own moral and religious postures, are mere preliminaries (cf. News 13, Divine Agenda Ch. 3, Red Heart ... Ch. 10). In the last reference, some account is given of the UN movement in this sphere; but now our concern is at the action of the United Nations, alongside the joint action of the FOUR (the other three), each in place, and all together. Indeed the QUARTET as they are called, have had their movement to some extent explored in Earth Spasm... Ch. 5, to which the enquiring reader is now directed, as an hors d'oeuvre.

The ROAD MAP of Bush seems very agreeable to all, in terms of robbing what little is left to Israel, and 'appeasing' her bloodthirsty terrorist enemies. This represents a U-turn in US policy since the earlier decades; and threatens the nation with its obtuseness. The US courting of the Moslem middle has merely aggravated the godless extravanganza (cf. Lord of Life Ch. 8).

Now we need to look at this in the light of most recent words from Kofi Annan, in terms of his view of who should DO war, and with WHOSE permission; and his apparent horror at unilateralism. After all, the USA is to be hamstrung as soon as possible, if world rule is to occur, a fact so many seem to have seen in Foreign Relations Council workings, and other global estimates,  where the 'world' is the oyster, and the US appears perhaps more as one of the diners. John Stormer's None Dare Call It Treason held something of the same thrust, a sort of national suicide in favour of this world, which actually simply means denying whatever of godliness remains in the nation as a distinctive, and submerging like some ducking submarine, into the muddied waters of international aspirations for man.



It was said that Annan, of the UN, was a careful diplomat, but that in this recent utterance, he spoke very directly.  (DW TV, Manchester Guardian, September 23, 2003).

bullet The U.N. chief spoke out against the American stance - formulated by Defense Secretary
Donald H. Rumsfeld after the Sept. 11 attacks - for taking pre-emptive action against enemies
who could launch a surprise chemical, biological or nuclear attacks.
bullet Such attacks, Annan warned, ``could set precedents that result in a proliferation of the unilateral
and lawless use of force, with or without credible justification.''
bullet He underlined that the world should collectively address the threats from terrorists and weapons
of mass destruction that spur such ``pre-emptive'' strikes.

``It is not enough to denounce unilateralism, unless we also face up squarely to the concerns that make some states feel uniquely vulnerable, and thus drive them to take unilateral action. We must show that those concerns can, and will, be addressed effectively through collective action,'' he said.


In view of the significance of these words, let us consider some of Annan's text itself.

bullet "Since this Organisation was founded, States have generally sought to deal
with threats to the peace through containment and deterrence, by a system based on
collective security and the United Nations Charter.

Article 51 of the Charter prescribes that all States, if attacked, retain the inherent right of self-defence. But until now it has been understood that when States go beyond that, and decide to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, they need the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations.

Now, some say this understanding is no longer tenable, since an “armed attack” with weapons of mass destruction could be launched at any time, without warning, or by a clandestine group.

Rather than wait for that to happen, they argue, States have the right and obligation to use force pre-emptively, even on the territory of other States, and even while weapons systems that might be used to attack them are still being developed.

According to this argument, States are not obliged to wait until there is agreement in the Security Council. Instead, they reserve the right to act unilaterally, or in ad hoc coalitions.

This logic represents a fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last fifty-eight years.

My concern is that, if it were to be adopted, it could set precedents that resulted in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without justification.

But it is not enough to denounce unilateralism, unless we also face up squarely to the concerns that make some States feel uniquely vulnerable, since it is those concerns that drive them to take unilateral action. We must show that those concerns can, and will, be addressed effectively through collective action.

Excellencies, we have come to a fork in the road. This may be a moment no less decisive than 1945 itself, when the United Nations was founded.

At that time, a group of far-sighted leaders, led and inspired by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, were determined to make the second half of the twentieth century different from the first half. They saw that the human race had only one world to live in, and that unless it managed its affairs prudently, all human beings may perish.

So they drew up rules to govern international behaviour, and founded a network of institutions, with the United Nations at its centre, in which the peoples of the world could work together for the common good.

Now we must decide whether it is possible to continue on the basis agreed then, or whether radical changes are needed."


For all the "Excellencies" which word was bandied about prolifically, there is a clear overtone of collective dominance in one grouping which Annan would like to see control all. In this, it is most fitting as a verbal introduction to Revelation 13, where precisely that is slated to happen biblically. Here are the foothills appearing so meekly, of those towering powers to come.


One is reminded of A.A. Milne's nursery rhyme, which went something like this:

James, James, Morrison, Morrison, Wetherby, George Dupree,

Took great care of his mother,

Although he was only three. 

'Mother,' he said, 'mother,' he said, 'mother' he said, said he,

Be sure you don't go down to the end of town,

Unless you go down with me.


It was very like that, the humorous verse. What Annan seems to be saying is this (with due regard to the "Excellencies" whose exquisite excellency may be sufficient to enable them to become one world dominating echelon of power),


Be sure you never to to the place of a war, unless you go down with me!

Now you may protest that it was not personal; but Annan is MOST personal, and his intentions, thoughts, earlier words, aspirations, idea of gaining a company of EMINENT PERSONS (so glorious, these) for consultation etc., all this savours of the politesse of power.

If you want WAR, then, the message seems to be, don't go spluttering about and invading and acting. It is not good enough to talk about being nuked before the UN gets around to taking action which you may think to be urgent. Get used to being less urgent. Calm down and wait and wait and wait. We'll manage somehow - though the recent case of Iraq may not have been very reassuring, and the calamity when Nasser invaded Israel and UN troops, very capably, withdrew, is not very heartening.

What Annan fails to note is simply this: that if one nation can imperil others by unilateral action in DEFENCE (such as one may take when a thug starts hitting one on the head with a beer bottle, to take an individual parallel), then also one nation can imperil another by unilateral action in the ONSET. If the latter do not feel inclined to talk it over, and seek a UN resolution on whether to blow up the latest bundle of Jewish humanity, which seems in DIPLOMATIC PRACTICE so very far from any plans of the UN, but just do it, then perhaps it is at least understandable that some nation may wish to do something before the UN gets around to it. In the case of Israel, some 50 years have not sufficed to enable it to do one small thing: PROTECT the State of Israel from murderous marauders, extinction fiends, anti-semitic passions, terrestrial foreclosure on the part of surrounding monied tyrants,  and the like.

They do not see that it matters so very much; they do not see that Israel needed a land, League of Nations assurance and Balfour Declaration or not; they do not see that Israel ever needed a capital called Jerusalem, or any part of it, feeling the international nuance the best; they did not find it necessary to confront Nasser as he sought, in one more extermination sortie to carry on from Hitler, to do anything very particularly different from NOTHING. It was the power of God which stopped the ineptitude and principial prejudice of the UN. With JUST ONE power, there is JUST NO opportunity for correction, for self-control when the majority follow their cultural noses; and as Lord Acton so notably put it, there is always this danger that if power corrupts, then absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Not necessarily! you may rightly say; but when you DEFINE yourselves to be the absolute power by right, and then set about setting your house (the world) in order, the corruption is HERE ALREADY. You have forgotten your status as creatures, and become equal with God, very much along the lines suggested by Satan in the Garden of Eden. You have forgotten your own errors in the past, limitations in the present, and the argument and power-play, and imagined that being together and the ONLY ONE will in some magical or miraculous way, make you the RIGHT ONE. Powers in this world have often played this game; and sought to make one world where it will be MADE to happen, and while having impact for a while, never manage. 

Always there is sanity OUTSIDE the power-brokers, and the world is delivered.  Now the idea is to make it seem RIGHT to be the universal power, then NO ONE (but God of course) is going to get in the way. No more Britain, no more USA (they are sinking in their religious, Christian credibility at an enormous rate, as morals are cut down like a lad whittling some stick): now up and over, we're away.

So supposedly the world, like some stork or slowly mounting bird, will loftily flap its created wings, and ignoring its creator, move momentously over the terrain beneath its majestic gaze.

Where then is 'right' in such a scenario ? It is not in the thought of this one or that, or in the group thought that one day wants to exterminate a valiant little people, as far as territory is concerned, in favour of those whose lands for their religion and race are vast already. It is not to be found in mere social interchange, for such has been the way of this or that group of balance of power nations invidiously and insidiously for centuries in Europe, whether be it Rome with its Romanism, or Napoleon with his Gallic philosophy, or Stalin with his bearish breaches of the lowest depths of tyranny with the highest oblivion of reality, or Hirohito, opportunist for glory for his land, or whatever other gullible and vainglorious oddity. Perhaps roll them all into one ?

This is nothing less than an appeal to submit power to man, in terms of the proclivities of preference, the principles of self-worship and the adulation of 'Excellencies' who have displayed much to the exact contrary, and in many cases, remain notorious for the same.

The power, past, principles and pretensions of the United Nations are scarcely re-assuring.

The case is not merely not re-assuring; it is ludicrous. It becomes an international agreement on paralysis in order to allow the ruling convention and cultural norms, which most nations at some time may want, to be forged and then forced on people,  as to its eternal discredit, the UN sought to do with Israel in 1947, and has largely sought to do ever since. What is the use of unexcellent Excellencies, where intrigue and evil teem, where violence is subversively anointed, and international support for folly is actively aroused!

The TRUST is to be in THEMSELVES, for God has no place in this humanistic furniture; the POWER is to be in themselves, for there are to be no exceptions or exemptions for principles or practices other than those which appeal to the assemblage of the nations (man!); the PRINCIPLES are to be their own (in terms of whatever rule of thumb for survival or levelling or human kind may be opted). This would be in view, together with the gap where there is no conception of what human kind really  IS, reductionist or irrationalist premises for his estate, and no knowledge of whether and why you should seek to SURVIVE, while left in the obscurity of everlasting darkness!

If they are wrong, there is no outside correction, and only the judgment of God then directly remains, a point made clear as you pursue Revelation 13 through to 19, where God acts on the nations who have elevated themselves to fight AGAINST HIM (Revelation 19:19). Neither making, nor understanding, nor able to make, nor even to understand themselves, the nations built on a secular of international co-operation (and 'unknown' polystrate gods would scarcely be an improvement), are mere mouthings, or as Revelation puts it, makers of 'pompous words', swelling words, as if their mouth could become their Maker and their words their creation. Their own lord, they aspire to be lord for all, who know none!

Yet they know nothing of the God of creation, who is disinclined to be mixed with political verbal flow and diplomatic phraseology (Isaiah 29:13, Mark 7:7ff.), and acting in their own terms, are exponents of ignorance of a highly systematic character, prescribing for what is beyond them (cf. Sparkling Life ... Ch. 4). The end of the matter is to be vast suffering for many. Here we find merely the political aspect of the cultural secularism which seeks in humanistic flow, to cover the globe. This would mean that religion and culture and principles would all be the subject of the minds of statesmen, and their agreements would 'create' what logic cannot accept, truth does not even relate to (cf. SMR Chs. 3, 5,10), indeed what power alone would seek to make to stand.

This elevation of man to divine status is again wholly biblically predicted (II Thessalonians 2) and is as inane as history declares in every single episode where man has become his own way, witness, and his will his own declaration of rights and his own song of wrong (cf. SMR pp. 620ff., 623ff., Cascade ...  Ch. 10, Pitter-Patter of Prophetic Feet Ch. 4). Comparing themselves with themselves, as Paul put it (II Corinthians 11), they are not wise.

Though they sin, they cannot win. The One that wins is the right one: He always does prevail, though long He suffers the patently impatient and impenitent corrupt conundrums of fallen man, elevating himself in a draft of hot air (cf. II Peter 2:18), that really won't accomplish very much, by the time that it cools.

Meanwhile, the Road Map of God rolls on, the destination continually nearer as events fall like Autumn leaves, red on the ground beneath; and this, it is in direct disproportion to the other Road-map, made by man.



*1  It is interesting to gain some facts on what is occurring, or has occurred, in Alabama. For this some short excerpts, from a larger CNN news item, follow.

Ten Commandments monument moved

New poll says Americans disapprove of federal court order

Thursday, August 28, 2003 Posted: 12:25 PM EDT (1625 GMT)

MONTGOMERY, Alabama (CNN) -- Only one in five Americans approve of the federal court order under which workers removed the Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of Alabama's state judicial building Wednesday, according to a new poll.

The new CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll found 77 percent of the 1,009 Americans interviewed earlier this week disapproved of U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson's order to remove the monument.

Thompson ruled that Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's placement of the 2.6-ton granite edifice in the state building two years ago violated the U.S. Constitution's principle of separation of religion and government.

"It is a sad day in our country when the moral foundation of our law and the acknowledgment of God has to be hidden from public view to appease a federal judge," said Moore, suspended by the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission last week for refusing to obey Thompson's order.


The 17-page ruling from U.S. District Judge William Steele did not address the merits of the complaint but said the proper venue for the case was Montgomery.

"If the court were to grant the plaintiffs the relief they seek and order the defendants not to remove the monument, chaos would ensue," Steele wrote.


'Church and state' issues

Moore and his supporters say the Ten Commandments are the foundation of the U.S. legal system and that forbidding the acknowledgment of the Judeo-Christian God violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free exercise of religion.

But a lawsuit filed after its installation argued the massive stone marker constituted a government endorsement of Christianity.

"He said that he placed this monument here to acknowledge the sovereignty of God over the affairs of men, and that's pretty much it," said civil rights lawyer Morris Dees, whose Southern Poverty Law Center was one of the plaintiffs that sought the marker's removal.

"He said that all the little quotes around the bottom -- the things that have the word God in them by various historical figures -- weren't there for the purpose of making it historical but to show that the Ten Commandments sitting on top of the monument was recognized as the supreme law of the land."

The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called Wednesday's action "a tremendous victory for the rule of law and respect for religious diversity."

You can see here that the concept is that it is not good to acknowledge such actual godly foundations as were present in the American Declaration of Independence. Certainly, there has always been in this American background approach a measure of ambivalence, for though God was to be there, Creator, assigning Providence, trustworthy in so doing, holding forth laws from Himself for people, yet people were to have their own ways of doing things. Nevertheless, His were laws seen to be beyond those of Nature, divine directives which assigned people to particular ends.

When, however, it comes to the re-definition of the current flow of the river of USA life, of the contemporary thought, the change is now profound; for God is not permitted to show in the precincts of Government, anything as basic as the 10 commandments, not even in terms of an exhibit in stone.

Such respect is too much for the 'law' of the land. Is it possible that God will make the USA look foolish before some foolish nation because it is so foolish as to be ashamed of, or even embarrassed by God, not as BINDING on anyone, but as FEATURED before anyone: as if He never had ANYTHING to do with the American legislature, whether in history, or in principle or in past acknowledgment or present respect.

Flushing out God has been an event all too obvious in the secular drift in the power-politics approach of Kissenger for long, and many more who followed the politics of savvy-sophistication rather than the rule of the righteous God Almighty to whom the Declaration of Independence makes abundant reference, including "Divine Providence", on which they have a firm reliance for protection, "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", and endowments of "their Creator".

There is no fear of mentioning laws of Nature's God as distinct from laws of nature. There is no concern about divine providence being offensive. These were the terms of their separation. The point is that there has now been a profound movement, so that the mere presence of a monument becomes inflammatory.

Making a memorial illegal is asking with bended knee, for some action! What is ANY nation ? what is it when it is ashamed of God to the point that it will not have a memento, a monument, in confines of
power ? (Acts 17:36-31). Can a memorial for a war exist ? do ALL agree with the war ? But when it comes to God, NO! Though many disagree with this lashing from legislative fury and fuzziness, this extradition of so simple a monument, so historically apt, yet the removal is PERMITTED, and the monument goes.

The nation is not IMMUNE to the decisions of its freely elected leaders. Once have the state of the State like this, and there is danger it will begin the decline to the fate of the State. In fact, American liberty is in peril, for there is neither in logic nor in life, any liberty apart from God (cf. Predestination and Freewill, It Bubbles... Ch. 9, Little Things... Ch. 5, Deliverance from Disorientation Ch. 8, Licence for Liberty).

Putting the matter to the empirical test can be an expensive matter.

This is not to comment on the American citizenry, which vary greatly; but whatever this may be, when power in political places is ALLOWED by whatever presidential selection, election, by whatever voting and Party methods, to become like this, then the nation must either oust the radicalism of humanism which makes of past provisions of law, a 'literalism' to be avoided, and lays down new ways; or stand ready to be ousted. It is the ARRIVAL OF GOD which matters, not how long you draw breath on this globe.

As to that arrival, it is near (Answers to Questions Ch. 5).