America, Babylon and the Ten Commandments

by Mar 6, 2005Foreign Policy0 comments

Much attention has been paid recently to a monument of the Ten Commandments between the Texas Capitol and State Supreme Court, with protestors of the statue arguing that it is a violation of the clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution commonly referred to as “separation of Church and State”. A recent editorial in […]

Much attention has been paid recently to a monument of the Ten Commandments between the Texas Capitol and State Supreme Court, with protestors of the statue arguing that it is a violation of the clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution commonly referred to as “separation of Church and State”.

A recent editorial in The New York Times chimed in that the U.S. Supreme Court “should order the displays removed.” Although the Supreme Court itself boasts an image of Moses accepting the stone tablets upon which the Commandments were inscribed by the finger of Yahweh, this is a “clearly secular display” that is “part of a montage of lawgivers throughout history”, whereas the Texas monument “falls far short of that standard.”

Prudence demands that the First Amendment actually be examined prior to executing a judgment on the matter. The relevant clause states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. On its face, displaying a sculpture depicting a symbol from a famous moment in the history of lawgiving, does not violate this prohibition, since neither any law has been passed establishing the Ten Commandments, or any belief of any sect of the Judeo-Christian religion, as public law, nor has the free exercise of any religion been prohibited by the erection of any such monument.

A much more obvious threat, with regard to that most proper of Amendments, is H.J. Res. 104 of the 102nd Congress (Public Law 102-14), designating March 26, 1991 as “Education Day, U.S.A.” As harmless as the title may seem, the law states that “Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded”, adding that “these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws”.

The Seven Noahide Laws consist of six negative and one positive law. Idolatry, incestuous and adulterous relations, murder, cursing the name of God, theft, and eating the flesh of a living animal are forbidden, while mankind is commanded to establish courts of justice to preserve a just social order. The prohibition of idolatry forbids either denial of God or worship of other gods. The same early prohibitions were codified once more in the tablets given to Moses on Sinai, and can here be found officially recognized in the public law of the United States.

The editors of The New York Times who object to the Texas monument partly on the grounds that it declares “’I am the Lord thy God’ in large letters” should most certainly agree, if we may assume that they would apply their own standard according to the principle of universality, that this piece of legislation is a far more grievous violation of the First Amendment than the one which they so recently protested.

In contrast, a Washington Post editorial recently noted the “religiousness” of the monument “seems closer to the ‘In God We Trust’ on American currency than to any improper effort to invest the pulpit with state power. It just isn’t a big problem.” But while it “isn’t a big problem” to the folks at the Post, it obviously is for some, and the point about our currency could be seen from an alternate perspective. If it is proper to remove such a monument as the one depicting the Ten Commandments from government property, then there are a number of other examples that protestors might consider concerning themselves with, including the reference found on the coin of our realm. There’s also the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance that should be dealt with similarly, it could (and has been) argued. But then, the Declaration of Independence makes mention of “God”, the “Creator”. This reference in a foundational legal document is inarguably far more odious and contrary to the First Amendment, if we apply the standard, than the monument in Texas, and so should, perhaps, be promptly excised.

Of course, it is a somewhat frivolous for free men to claim God-given Rights while at the same time denying the existence of the Deity. Prior to the Declaration of Independence, governing authorities recognized the “divine right of kings” to rule over their subjects with impunity. Jefferson’s document established a legal precedent rejecting this ancient and long-established claim of sovereignty in favor of individual sovereignty. We the People are no longer subject to the King, according to the Declaration, but rather all men, and not the King alone, are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. We are the King, according to this new doctrine (and it’s good to be the King). Even the most devout atheists make few objections to this revolution in thought codified in the Declaration, but rather choose to accept without prejudice the benefits resulting from the foundation of a free republic.

The next revolution, it seems increasingly likely, will be to remove the Creator from the equation altogether and claim that Rights are derived not from God, but from each individual, ourselves. Every man, it would follow, could lawfully choose to do “whatsoever is right in his own eyes”, which is nothing less than “the way of a fool”, according to the book of Proverbs (12:15). But then, the opinion of the authors of non-secular literature would be of little value or consequence in such a society, if that’s what it comes to.

Many (though certainly not all) adherents of the Judeo-Christian tradition, on the other end of the spectrum, defend the presence of references to the Ten Commandments in the courtroom or on other government property. If it is their arguments which are correct and if there is indeed no impropriety in the existence of the monument, then it could be suggested that their approach is altogether illogical and ineffective. It could be proposed that a far more prudent course of action would be to simply adapt the argument of their opponents, rather than fighting against them. While this suggestion might appear ludicrous, illogical, and counter-productive, to the religious defenders of the monument, a further examination might prove such initial judgments of the proposal premature.

There is, for example, an enormous monument to Libertas standing in New York harbor that has long been regarded as an official representative of our nation, although the casual observer might fail to recognize her true identity. “Liberty Enlightening the World”, more commonly known as the “Statue of Liberty”, was modeled after the Roman goddess, with some slight variations, by its Freemason architect, Frédéric-Auguste Bartholdi. His original design was intended to be a colossal lighthouse standing at the entrance to the Suez Canal, with light beaming out from her crown and the torch of “Enlightenment” thrust upwards towards the heavens.

In a closer parallel to the Texas monument, the goddess may also be found standing triumphantly atop the dome of the United States Capitol building in a slightly more traditional representation by Thomas Crawford. A typical depiction on Roman coins featured the divine female with a pileus, or a felt cap worn by freed slaves, a wreath of laurels, and a spear. The version on the Capitol dome bears a sheathed sword, but retains the laurel wreath. Crawford intended for her to also bear the liberty cap, but Secretary of War Jefferson Davis objected, so she stands today with a crested Roman helmet in lieu. But, despite the alterations in outward appearance and the alternative appellations inscribed on the images, Libertas remains the pagan goddess she has always been, adapted now as the symbol of America as well as crowning our own Pantheon (the model for the Capitol building), where the public laws are legislated.

Of course, there’s no need to stop there. Going back to the our currency, a peek at the backside of the one dollar bill will reveal the “all-seeing eye”, sometimes called “Providence”, but historically better known as the Eye of Horus. The ancient Egyptians observed a resemblance between the total eclipse of the sun and the human eye. The eclipse provided the inspiration for the images of both the winged discs, which are commonly still seen today in various forms, and the eye of Horus, the son of Osiris and Isis, the solar deity symbolized as a falcon and closely associated with Ra.

Ra is the Egyptian deity said to reside in the obelisk, that ancient phallic monument. Undoubtedly, the most famous example of an obelisk today is the Washington Monument. The very streets of Washington, D.C. are laid out according to the energy lines of sacred geometry, forming various symbols such as the pentagram (the White House sits at the tip of an inverted five-pointed star within a pentagon) or the Freemason’s square and compass (the Capitol sits in the middle, between the vertexes of the compass and square formed by roads extending out at odd angles away from the building).

The pagan religions almost universally regarded the sun as the preeminent deity and celebrated the “death” and “rebirth” or “resurrection” of the sun as it journeyed through its cycle. The number thirteen, which was the number of original colonies, has other symbolic meanings. Joseph Campbell, the renowned expert in mythology, explained that the thirteen layers of the pyramid below the radiant capstone on the dollar bill also represents “the number of transformation, resurrection, and rebirth or new life.”

Furthermore, that great eagle on the front of the Great Seal found on the one dollar bill is, according to Campbell, “the American counterpart of the eagle of Zeus, the highest god”, above whose head “are thirteen stars in the form of Solomon’s Seal”, the six-pointed symbol sometimes called the “Star of David”, but known to occultists as the hexagram, which is perhaps only slightly less well recognized than the pentagram, its five-pointed counterpart. Tradition has it that it was introduced to King Solomon, the son of David who committed the sin of spiritual adultery, most likely through ancient Khabbalism. Despite its association with the Hebrew king (popularly David, but properly Solomon), the symbol only became a symbol of the Jewish people in much more recent history. Mayer Amschel Bauer displayed the hexagram on a red shield outside his home and later took the name of the emblem, thus becoming “Rothschild”. It was afterward used by the Nazi regime under Hitler, the upper echelons of which were steeped in the occult, as a derogatory symbol to discriminate against Jews. Following the war, it was, perplexingly and somewhat inexplicably, adopted by the state of Israel and may presently be found as the symbol upon its flag.

But lest the reader begin to feel that we digress, let us return to the Judeo-Christian tradition in America. A casual observer who possesses slight knowledge of the Ten Commandments might find equally perplexing the religious community’s defense of the monument in Texas, considering that one of those Commandments is “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” The argument could be made that the monument itself, unlike the original carved tablets, falls under the definition is a “graven image”. Less arguable is the fact that pagan traditions are today celebrated today under the guise of “Christianity”, such as “Christmas” and “Easter”.

“The most respectable bishops”, wrote the great historian Edward Gibbon of the Christian Church after the time of Constantine, “had persuaded themselves that the ignorant rustics would more cheerfully renounce the superstitions of Paganism if they found some resemblance, some compensation, in the bosom of Christianity.” For example, the fourth of the Ten Commandments obliges observance of the Sabbath on the seventh day, Shabbat, or our Saturday. Yet, in 321 A.D., Constantine, whose “conversion” was of questionable character, “enjoined the solemn observance of Sunday”, the first day of the week and favorite day of worship for the pagans (hence Sun-day, in honor of their most admired deity), in favor of the Sabbath. Thus a tradition of men dominates the Christian religion today while the Law of God is forgotten (one may read what the Hebrew Messiah actually had to say about such things in the book of Matthew 15:1-9, if one felt so inclined).

The customs and rituals of the holy-day known as “Christmas” long pre-date the birth of the Hebrew Messiah in a manger in a little town known as Bethlehem. But while this holiday, unlike the forgotten observances of God’s Law, is nowhere commanded in the Scriptures, evidence of its origins may be found in the Tanakh, the Hebrew Old Testament, in the book of the prophet Yirmeyahu (Jeremiah 10:2-4), although the message contained therein might be surprising to those who know little of the origins of the contemporary holiday (which seems to include most Christians):

Do not learn the way of the Gentiles; Do not be dismayed at the signs of heaven, for the Gentiles are dismayed at them. For the customs of the peoples are futile; for one cuts a tree from the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the ax. They decorate it with silver and gold; they fasten it with nails and hammers so that it will not topple.

With Easter, little attempt was made to disguise its origin. The word itself derives from Eostre, the ancient mother-goddess of the Saxons, also known variously as Aphrodite, Astarte, Ostara, and Ishtar. One may wonder what in God’s name the “Easter bunny” and colored eggs have to do with the resurrection of the Hebrew Messiah, Yahshua (a.k.a. Yeshua or “Jesus”). Christians rarely ponder such questions, if the answer to the question may be taken as any kind of evidence. The answer is, of course, “nothing”.

Goddesses of fertility were universally celebrated in the spring (“eastre”), so the coincidental timing with the Passover served the adaptation of paganism into the “Christian” religion well. The symbols of the Norse goddess Ostara were the hare and the egg, both representing fertility. In Babylon, she was Ishtar, goddess of fertility and queen of heaven.

Babylon was, of course, the “land of Shinar” mentioned in the Torah (Genesis 10:10), the realm of Nimrod, the founder of Babel and Ninevah, and, as one tradition has it, the founder of the Babylonian mystery religions practiced throughout history in schools of the occult and secret societies, such as the Prieuré de Sion, Freemasonry, and Adam Weishaupt’s Illuminati.

Considering the Lord Yahweh’s command to His people to “take heed” to not follow after the way of the pagans and to “not inquire after their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations serve their gods? I also will do likewise.’ You shall not worship the LORD (YHWH, the four-character name of God, or “tetragrammaton”, in the original text) your God in that way” (Deuteronomy 12:30-31), it seems unbecoming of adherents to the Christian faith to participate so passionately in rituals and ceremonies deriving from the great mystery religions of Babylon.

If the reader will pardon the apparent digression of the author, we will now return to the subject of the Ten Commandments and the First Amendment, with the hopes, if a proper execution can be made, of demonstrating the relevance of all of the above to the original topic. In conclusion, there are two possible outcomes to this conundrum. Either the monument will remain as a harmless representation of one of the great moments in the history of law or it will be removed as an odious violation of the First Amendment.

Adherents to the Christian religions should rightfully, it seems, be taking up the argument of their opponents in this particular matter and, citing the First Amendment, calling for the removal of all things pagan which similarly offend the senses and spirit and which defile both the secular Supreme Law of the Land and the Divine Law of the Supreme Deity. Given the unwillingness to exorcise these demons from their own faith systems, however, this seems unlikely to occur.

If, on the other hand, such a theoretical argument were to be made, the logic of the resulting determination would be inescapable. If the monument remains tomorrow, no crime will have been committed and no tort damages ensued. We will not be any less free to worship whichever god we choose in whichever manner we choose than we were yesterday. But if the monument is removed, then by those same standards of reasoning, the semblances of other religions must also be excised from our national identity. If the presence of the Ten Commandments on government grounds is found to be altogether offensive to our laws and to our senses and removed on that basis, then it must also be recognized as just and equitable that, for starters, the pagan goddess atop the Capitol dome be removed, the Seal on the one dollar bill erased, and the Washington Monument toppled asunder.

I would expect at least the editors of The New York Times to agree, since it is their standard which is being applied. If, on the other hand, this notion of national exorcism is found to be too repulsive to our citizens, then perhaps it would be best for them to leave well enough alone and allow Moses’ tablets to continue to occupy their position on the ground, where they will continue to do no harm, and for Americans on either side of the debate to find matters of more pressing importance and more worthy of devoting their energies to. God knows (if the reader will pardon the expression) that there’s plenty of other ways in which we could make better use of our time. Lucifer, the Morning Star and god of “illumination”, on the other hand, if he truly exists, must certainly delight in the distraction resulting from the present quarrel over a matter of such questionable significance.

Did you find value in this content? If so and you have the means, please consider supporting my independent journalism.

About Jeremy R. Hammond

About Jeremy R. Hammond

I am an independent journalist, political analyst, publisher and editor of Foreign Policy Journal, book author, and writing coach.

My writings empower readers with the knowledge they need to see through state propaganda intended to manufacture their consent for criminal government policies.

By recognizing when we are being lied to and why, we can fight effectively for liberty, peace, and justice, in order to create a better world for ourselves, our children, and future generations of humanity.

Please join my growing community of readers!

 

My Books

Related Articles

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Shares
Share This