CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Aug. 25-26, 2003. Nationwide.

"Do you think federal courts have generally been supportive, neutral, or hostile toward Christian religions in their rulings?" Options rotated; Form A (N=514, MoE ± 5)

16% Supportive
42% Neutral
33% Hostile
9% No Opinion

"Do you approve or disapprove of a federal court decision ordering an Alabama court to remove a monument to the Ten Commandments from public display in its building?" Form B (N=495, MoE ± 5)

19% Approve
77% Disapprove
4% No Opinion

WHAT ELSE IS ON THE MONUMENT?

TOP PANEL

"Ten Commandments" excerpts


FRONT PANEL

The inclusion of God in our pledge therefore would further acknowledge the dependence of our people and our government upon the moral directions of the Creator. -Legislative History

One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. -Pledge of Allegiance, 1954

Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. -James Wilson

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? -Thomas Jefferson


LEFT SIDE PANEL

Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? -George Washington

So help me God. -Judiciary Act of 1789

The greater part of evidence will always consist of the testimony of witnesses. This testimony is given under those solemn obligations which an appeal to the God of Truth impose; and if oaths should cease to be held sacred, our dearest and most valuable rights would become insecure. -John Jay


BACK PANEL

We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama. -Constitution of Alabama

In God we trust. -National Motto 1956

O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
between their lov'd home and the war's desolation!
Blest with vict'ry and peace may the heav'n rescued land
praise the power that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto - "In God Is Our Trust,"
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave. -National Anthem


RIGHT SIDE PANEL

The laws of nature are the laws of God; whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. -George Mason 1772

Laws of nature and of nature's God -Declaration of Independence 1776

The transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed. -James Madison

This law of nature, being co-_eval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; .upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. -William Blackstone


Article on Sculptor Richard Hahnemann.

Unfortunately if Christopher Hitchens really is a "neocon", he's in the habit of taking quite a large dollop of Neo along with his imputed Conservatism. His anti-theistic ravings should be enough to demonstrate that you don't have to be a fundamentalist to agree with Bush's foreign policy.

Marvin Olasky sounds a call for a stand-down in tensions between Christians defending Roy Moore's disobedience and those advocating compliance with the court order:

We need now a renewed discussion among Bible-defenders as to whether we are living in a new Israel or a modern Babylon. That makes a huge difference. Ancient Israel was designed to be a holy land with no witches allowed. Babylon was different, a murderous country where there is no record of the Ten Commandments being exhibited, but one in which the prophet Jeremiah told the Israelites to build houses, plant gardens, and "pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare."

Bible-believers are on thin ice to suggest that Esther in Persia was wrong to obey an order to join the king's harem, or that it was wrong for the apostle Paul to tell Christians in Rome, and the apostle Peter to tell exiles in other parts of the Roman empire, that they should obey ungodly rulers -- including those who were persecuting believers in Christ. "Fear God. Honor the emperor," Peter wrote bluntly.

Those who want a religious presence in the public square should ask political questions: Do we want a civil war? Are we declaring the federal judiciary's authority to be illegitimate, and how far do we want to take that? Maybe Congress will step in and put limitations on that authority, as it is allowed to do constitutionally, but what's right to do until then?

Christians should ask evangelical questions. How can we best proclaim the gospel of grace? Words on granite are important. So are the words written on our hearts when God changes them from hearts of stone to hearts of flesh. How do we communicate the life-changing nature of the gospel to a desperately needy world?

Dobson and Alan Keyes seem to be leading the push for civil disobedience, while Olasky, Gallagher, and Land are in my judgement advocating a path closer to scripture.

The Founders' Intent for the First Amendment

Clearly there was a range of opinion on what language should have been used for the amendment, and that just as with most of the other articles and amendments, the language actually used represented a compromise. There's no doubt from reading Jefferson and Madison's private correspondence that religious freedom was always meant to include toleration of non-Christians and atheists -- as reason and justice demand -- but when you look at some of the provisions the states enacted in their pre-1787 Constitutions (cf. Massachusetts ), clearly a massive number of America's leadership (admittedly: landowning, slaveholding, rich white males who never even heard of tofu, patchouli or Birkenstocks, but to their credit ate only organic, non-GMO produce and free-range, non-antibiotic meat, and smoked totally unfiltered tobacco) at the time of the founding believed it was part of the individual states' responsibilities to promote Christianity. It was only the *federal* government that was banned from establishing anything. It goes without saying that for most thinking Christians and all non-Christians today the idea of the Texas state government funding pastors and missionaries would send shivers down their spines. State-funded Christianity wasn't universally supported by the core Founding Fathers (in particular Madison railed against public funding of chaplains in Congress and in the military, and saw the states' sponsorship of religions as odious, and well, Madison was The Man), the idea of striking all religious expression of any kind from government surely wasn't their intent in the words "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."

Another point that is clear in looking at these writings, is that there was a universal acknowledgement that both Catholics and Protestants, when they obtained power in a national government, used that power unjustly to compel allegiance to their religious doctrines and practices, imprisioning and killing multitudes in the process. It had taken decades, but as Ben Franklin says, eventually even the nutty conservative Protestants figured out that all religious practice has to be voluntary. America was the first government on Earth that did not require a religious test for its leaders and officers -- absolutely one of the pillars of the American Idea that must be defended at all costs. I believe that many Christians are fearful that the day is approaching when, while they may not be required to deny their faith outright, will be required to act against or to ignore the demands of their religion in order to participate in commerce and public life. As Tom McClintock said, "What rights have a slave? There is only one: a slave can think anything he wants: as long as he doesn’t utter it or act on it – he may think what he wants." Do whatever religious wackiness floats your boat on Sunday, but on Monday you better damn well shut up about it, and if you allow your religious convictions to influence your official behavior, we'll kick you out. Simple as that.

Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, PT. 1, ARTS. 2, 3

[Declaration of Rights]

Art. II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, or for his religious profession or sentiments, provided he doth not disturb the public peace or obstruct others in their religious worship.

Art. III. As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of public instructions in piety, religion, and morality: Therefore, To promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

And the people of this commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subjects an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend.

Provided, notwithstanding, That the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic, or religious societies, shall at all times have the exclusive right of electing their public teachers and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance.

And all moneys paid by the subject to the support of public worship and of the public teachers aforesaid shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided there be any on whose instructions he attends; otherwise it may be paid toward the support of the teacher or teachers of the parish or precinct in which the said moneys are raised.

And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.

I guess for most citizens of modern Massachusetts, these provisions seem equivalent to legalized slavery.

Must-read links:
Commentary 1 and 2 from David Limbaugh on the Ten Commandments controversy.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story's commentary on the tradition of Christianity in the colonies and the American expressions of faith within government. Wow. How far we have fallen!

And then there is The Founders' Constitution. Wow.

Billy and Ruth Graham's 60th wedding anniversary. A must-read. I visited their hometown of Montreat, NC back in November. The town and their home church (Montreat Presbyterian) were both beautiful; the church is small but led by a wonderful Bible-believing pastor.

Official US Government Acknowledgement of God... Some Historical Examples

Are these symptoms of theocracy? If you think so then some of these links will probably freak you out.

Chaplains in the US Senate.

The custom of opening legislative sessions with a prayer began in the Continental Congress,
which elected Jacob Duche, Rector of Christ Episcopal Church in Philadelphia, to serve
as its chaplain from 1774-1776. Except for a brief period... both chambers have elected
a chaplain since the First Congress in 1789....

When Congress moved to Washington in 1800, churches were so few that the
chaplains even took turns conducting Sunday services in the House chamber-- now part
of Statuary Hall. Visiting clergy also participated in these services, which were open to
the public. ...

The constitutionality of the chaplains' prayers was upheld in 1983 by the Supreme
Court (Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783) on the grounds of precedent and tradition. The
Court cited the practice going back to the Continental Congress in 1774 and noted that
the custom "is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country" from colonial
times and the founding of the republic. Further, the Court held that the use of prayer "has
become part of the fabric of our society," coexisting with "the principles of
disestablishment and religious freedom."

Prayin' in the Capitol!! What's next -- Rules against blasphemy on US Navy vessels? Jefferson and Franklin proposing religious imagery for the Seal of the United States? An army general commanding attendance at Christian worship services (general order No. 6 of July 4, 1775)? There is definitely a drive to erase the supposed barbarism of religion from all public life, and yet many public figures insist on expressing their faith in God through official channels. Actually our present Congress trying to proclaim anything remotely religious is worthy of a good guffawin'. But that doesn't negate the fact that if any country needs a good solid day of fasting and supplication, it's ours. And that's just what the House and Senate called for back in March:

Whereas the United States is currently engaged in a war on terrorism in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001; (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)

HRES 153 EH

In the House of Representatives, U.S., March 27, 2003.

Whereas the United States is currently engaged in a war on terrorism in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001;

Whereas the Armed Forces of the United States are currently engaged in a campaign to disarm the regime of Saddam Hussein and liberate the people of Iraq;

Whereas, on June 1, 1774, the Virginia House of Burgesses called for a day of fasting and prayer as an expression of solidarity with the people of Boston who were under siege by the enemy;

Whereas, on March 16, 1776, the Continental Congress, recognizing that the `Liberties of America are imminently endangered' and the need `to acknowledge the overruling Providence of God', called for a day of `Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer' ;

Whereas, on June 28, 1787, during the debate of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin, convinced of God's intimate involvement in human affairs, implored the Congress to seek the assistance of Heaven in all its dealings;

Whereas, on March 30, 1863, in the midst of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, at the bequest of the Senate, and himself recognizing the need of the Nation to humble itself before God in repentance for its national sins, proclaimed a day of fasting, prayer and humiliation;

Whereas all of the various faiths of the people of the United States have recognized, in our religious traditions, the need for fasting and humble supplication before Providence;

Whereas humility, fasting, and prayer in times of danger have long been rooted in our essential national convictions and have been a means of producing unity and solidarity among all the diverse people of this Nation as well as procuring the enduring grace and benevolence of God;

Whereas, through prayer , fasting, and self-reflection, we may better recognize our own faults and shortcomings and submit to the wisdom and love of God in order that we may have guidance and strength in those daily actions and decisions we must take; and

Whereas dangers and threats to our Nation persist and, in this time of peril, it is appropriate that the people of the United States, leaders and citizens alike, seek guidance, strength, and resolve through prayer and fasting: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the President should issue a proclamation--

(1) designating a day for humility, prayer , and fasting for all people of the United States; and

(2) calling on all people of the United States--

(A) to observe the day as a time of prayer and fasting;

(B) to seek guidance from God to achieve a greater understanding of our own failings and to learn how we can do better in our everyday activities; and

(C) to gain resolve in meeting the challenges that confront our Nation.

Whether God is impressed with this proclamation from a legislative body that approves of most abortions and tolerates corruption and bribery on a regular basis could be debated. You can pull up this resolution and all the debate on the floor of the House associated with it at http://thomas.loc.gov/ , an amazing resource.

This is the most well-reasoned and thoughtful treatise I've found on the case for nonviolent action. The two big problems with most of the antiwar movement were (1) lack of acknowledgement that we cannot just allow Saddam to stick around for another 12 years and (2) lack of a concrete plan of action that would have actually gotten rid of him. This piece attempts both and does it well.

America's courts choose to establish Secular Humanism as its religion and Man as its highest legal authority:




...while in other public venues, acknowledgement of God continues, in apparent contradiction with the 11th Circuit Court's decision:

Finding References to God Easy in America
Fri Aug 22, 2:32 AM ET

By SIOBHAN McDONOUGH, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Americans pledge allegiance to "one nation under God." U.S. currency says "In God We Trust." Congress opens each day's work with a prayer, including this recent exaltation: "Blessed is the nation whose God is Lord."

Even the high court that decides how much God can be in public lives starts off each session with, "God save the United States and this honorable court," and displays a frieze that includes a depiction of Moses as the lawgiver, holding tablets with the Ten Commandments.

Whatever the outcome of the battle over the Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama state Judicial Building, religious symbols and words will continue to be embedded in the government, the courts and other public places.

God is in the details — even the grand designs — of the republic. Some of the expressions of religion are widely accepted as part of American traditions — a kind of cultural deity — like a president taking office with the oath, "So help me God."

Others — school prayer, Christian icons in town squares, President Bush (news - web sites)'s turn to religious charities for social services — bring on pitched legal battles or at least a feisty debate over the separation of church and state.

Members of Congress who engage in that debate do so after a prayerful beginning to their day. A recent prayer in the Senate asked, "Fill our God-shaped void with Your presence and bid our striving to cease."

On the same day in the House, members bowed their heads to the plea that "You, Lord, will lead, guide and direct them in their affairs."

Around the country, state courthouses are decorated with religious art — although nothing quite like the 5,300-pound granite monument which made its debut in Alabama about two years ago and reignited the debate over when God is welcome in public places.

Alabama's associate Supreme Court justices ordered the Ten Commandments monument removed from the rotunda of the state judicial building Thursday, despite Chief Justice Roy Moore's fiery defense of the granite marker. The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) has said it would not stay the removal, and Moore has promised he would appeal.

There has been some allowance for references to God in older symbols of the nation.

"Over the last 200 years, our conception of what's appropriate separation has changed," says David Campbell, who teaches political science at the University of Notre Dame. These are mere "vestiges" of a past when religion and government were more entangled.

While God is in many places, in courtrooms it's a very delicate matter, says John Langan, professor of ethics at Georgetown University.

"People feel very vulnerable there," he said. "They need reassurance they won't be discriminated against and that their values will be taken seriously."

But Langan says, people don't consider religious words or signs on currency a real threat.

"You buy the same things with the money whether it has the same message or not," Langan says. "You don't have to worry about it. No one is going to ask you if you're Protestant, Catholic, Jewish or Muslim. They'll just take the money."

Even so, religious references on money are rare outside of fundamentalist Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia which says on one of its bills: "There is no God but God, and Muhammad is his prophet."

America's Declaration of Independence in 1776 presupposed that people believed in a divinity. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ..."

But the Constitution which followed says nothing about religion except to guarantee its free exercise and its only reference to a higher power was a much used expression. "Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven."

Maggie Gallagher gets it exactly right on the Roy Moore saga:

The Ten Commandments have not only exercised and continued to exercise sweeping moral influence on our society, but they are actually, historically speaking, the foundation of Western concepts of law, deeply instrumental in forming the common law of England (or the canon law of France) upon which American legal systems were formed. Does freedom require rewriting our history and excising the sources of our institutions from public knowledge and acknowledgement? I don't think so.

Try this thought experiment: Imagine Judge Moore had wanted to place a huge rock inscribed with, oh, I don't know ... the Code of Hammurabi, or stirring words from Kahlil Gibran, "Go placidly amidst the noise and confusion of life." No constitutional claim would have arisen. Under prevailing doctrines, symbols that reflect Christian beliefs tend to be peculiarly penalized in the public square, precisely because most Americans are Christians: Only majority symbols credibly risk violating the court's interpretation of the establishment clause.

But the same First Amendment protects diverse political viewpoints as well as religious liberty. The idea that a statue of the Ten Commandments constitutes an establishment of religion, depriving citizens who disagree with it of their rights, is no more tenable than that, say, the display of the Declaration of Independence violates the rights of those with other political views and creeds.

And Brian Chavez-Ochoa is right in a particular sense. Who is likely to be offended by the sight of the Ten Commandments? Not believing Jews, Christians or Muslims, all of whom acknowledge the Old Testament as sacred scripture. Not, in my experience, Hindus or Buddhists, most of whom tend to be quite comfortable with others' expressions of religious beliefs and who acknowledge moral law comes from God, too.

No, the people who are offended by the sight of this stone are the secularists, the people who do not believe in God. And if Judge Moore loses, ultimately they will get their own faith enshrined as sacred in the public square.

Maggie agrees with Richard Land that Chief Justice Moore did have an obligation to obey the misguided US Eleventh Circuit Court ruling to remove the monument.

This week I learned that there is an actual conservative running for Governor of California. This guy McClintock put together the best, most clearly articulated defense of the conservative view of the Second Amendment I have ever read:

At issue was a measure, SB 52, which will require a state-issued license to own a firearm for self-defense. To receive a license, you would have to meet a series of tests, costs and standards set by the state.

We have seen many bills considered and adopted that would infringe upon the right of a free people to bear arms. But this was the most brazen attempt in this legislature to claim that the very right of self-defense is not an inalienable natural right at all, but is rather a right that is licensed from government; a right that no longer belongs to you, but to your betters, who will license you to exercise that right at their discretion.

During the debate on this measure, which passed the Senate 25 to 15, I raised these issues. And I would like to quote to you the response of Senator Sheila Kuehl, to the approving nods of the Senators whose duty is to protect the liberty of the citizens.

She said, “There is only one constitutional right in the United States which is absolute and that is your right to believe anything you want."...

Now, compare that to the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

What rights have a slave? There is only one: a slave can think anything he wants: as long as he doesn’t utter it or act on it – he may think what he wants. He has no right to the fruit of his labor; no right to self-defense, no right to raise his children, no right to contract with others for his betterment, no right to worship – except as his master allows. He has only the right to his own thoughts. All other rights are at the sufferance of his master – whether that master is a state or an owner.

I think I need to go learn how to shoot. The elected officials who can sit down and defend their beliefs like this, even supposedly solid conservatives, are few and far between. I am sick and tired of the haughty utilitarianism that has become America's ultimate First Principle in politics.

I've always been very ambivalent about gun ownership. I've kind of gone along with conservatives opposing gun control, but half-heartedly, because gun ownership and being in personal relationship with Jesus Christ just don't seem to go together. The scene in the movie Witness, in which the Amish father instructs his young boy never to use a gun, because we cannot see into the heart of any man, very much resonated in me. I have always believed in just wars, while also wanting to maintain that an army of nonviolent Christians could accomplish similar ends as war seeks, without moral compromise. I've never fired a weapon.

Then you have the example of America's Founding Fathers. Owning a gun and using it regularly was like owning a watch or a phone today -- a tool you needed to accomplish daily tasks. But private gun ownership was absolutely a pillar of colonial culture. As was Christianity. More to follow.

Okay, back to something a little more relevant: Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore and the Ten Commandments monument. Christianity Today is the place to go for an excellent full index of media coverage. It's amazing that James Dobson and Richard Land are disagreeing on the point of whether to obey the federal court injunction to remove the monument -- they agree on virtually every other issue. But I have to side with Land's arguments: the rule of law demands that the monument be removed. Moore can resign rather than carry out the court order, but he can't disobey it as a public official. What is incredibly helpful is the issue that Moore's stand has highlighted plainly: there is no way for the government, any government, to completely expunge all religious speech from public view, without embracing Humanism as its state-sponsored religion. The state cannot be neutral. It either acknowledges God as the source of legal authority, or it enthrones Man as the highest authority. What's the line from that old Rush song? "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." The First Amendment cannot be interpreted to mean that acknowledgement of God by public figures and institutions is proscribed. Instead the First Amendment prevents the government from requiring fidelity to any one religious organization or set of doctrine, and simply acknowledging the Bible as the foundation of law in America doesn't do that.

Exodus 12:33-36 (ESV): The Egyptians were urgent with the people to send them out of the land in haste. For they said, "We shall all be dead." So the people took their dough before it was leavened, their kneading bowls being bound up in their cloaks on their shoulders. The people of Israel had also done as Moses told them, for they had asked the Egyptians for silver and gold jewelry and for clothing. And the LORD had given the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they let them have what they asked. Thus they plundered the Egyptians.

This article is so nutty, I suspect it's a hoax; but enough legitimate news sites are reporting on it that I quoted the whole thing, which purports to be a translation from an Arabic publication. Insane. One funny bit is, because the Q'uran supports Moses and Aaron as true Islamic prophets, the interviewee has to say 'peace be upon them', the required Islamic blessing, while accusing them of leading the Israelites out of Egypt with hundreds of tons of supposedly stolen property and gold in tow.

Egyptian Jurists to Sue 'The Jews' for Compensation for 'Trillions' of Tons of Gold Allegedly Stolen During Exodus from Egypt
August 22, 2003 Special Dispatch Series - No. 556

The August 9, 2003 edition of the Egyptian weekly Al-Ahram Al-Arabi featured an interview with Dr. Nabil Hilmi, Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Al-Zaqaziq who, together with a group of Egyptian expatriates in Switzerland, is preparing an enormous lawsuit against "all the Jews of the world." The following are excerpts from the interview: [1]

Dr. Hilmi: "… Since the Jews make various demands of the Arabs and the world, and claim rights that they base on historical and religious sources, a group of Egyptians in Switzerland has opened the case of the so-called 'great exodus of the Jews from Pharaonic Egypt.' At that time, they stole from the Pharaonic Egyptians gold, jewelry, cooking utensils, silver ornaments, clothing, and more, leaving Egypt in the middle of the night with all this wealth, which today is priceless."

Question: "What will the group of Egyptians in Switzerland do about this issue?"

Hilmi: "Dr. Gamil Yaken, vice president of the Egyptian community in Switzerland, came to Egypt to collect information. We set up a legal team to prepare the necessary legal confrontation aimed at restoring what the Jews stole a long time ago, to which the statute of limitations cannot possibly apply. Furthermore, [the theft] is based on their holy book, the same source on which they relied when they invaded other peoples…

"The Egyptian Pharaoh was surprised one day to discover thousands of Egyptian women crying under the palace balcony, asking for help and complaining that the Jews stole their clothing and jewels, in the greatest collective fraud history has ever known.

"The theft was not limited to gold alone. The thieves stole everything imaginable. They emptied the Egyptian homes of cooking utensils. One of the women approached Pharaoh, her eyes downcast, and said that her Jewish neighbor who lived in the house on the right of her house had come to her and asked to borrow her gold items, claiming she had been invited to a wedding… The Jewish neighbor took [the items] and promised to return them the next day. A few minutes later, the neighbor to the left knocked on the door and asked to borrow the cooking utensils, because she was having guests for dinner. Using this same deceitful system, they took possession of all the cooking utensils…"

Question: "It is clear why they stole the gold, but why the cooking utensils?"

Hilmi: "Taking posession of the gold was understandable. This is clear theft of a host country's resources and treasure, something that fits the morals and character of the Jews. Yet what was not clear to the Egyptian women were the reasons for stealing the cooking utensils, when other things may have been of greater value. However, one of the Egyptian priets said that this had been the Jews' twisted way throughout history; they seek to cause a minor problem connected with the needs of everyday life so as to occupy people with these matters and prevent them from pursuing them to get back the stolen gold...

"A police investigation revealed that Moses and Aaron, peace be upon them, understood that it was impossible to live in Egypt, despite its pleasures and even though the Egyptians included them in every activity, due to the Jews' perverse nature, to which the Egyptians had reconciled themselves, though with obvious unwillingness. Therefore, an order was issued by the Jewish rabbis to flee the country, and that the exodus should be secret and under cover of darkness and with the largest possible amount of loot. The code word was 'At midnight.' In addition, the Jewish women were told to steal the gold and cooking utensils of the Egyptian women, and that is what happened."

Question: "Did they leave individually or as a group?"

Hilmi: "They left in a convoy of 600,000, that is, about 120,000 families. There were a few wagons in the convoy, and a long line of donkeys loaded with the stolen goods… They crossed the desert in the heart of Sinai, in an attempt to confuse Pharaoh's army, which was on their trail… Later they rested and began to count the stolen gold, and discovered that it reached 300,000 kg of gold."

Question: "But the Jews can cast doubt on this story with their usual methods. What is the religious evidence you said is in the Torah?"

Hilmi:"Naturally, the Jews cast doubt on this story because that is in their interest. But the answer would be that the story is based on what is written in the Torah. It can be found in Exodus, [Chapter] 35, verses 12 through 36…"

Question: "So what arguments can be made in support of getting back our stolen gold?"

Hilmi: "There are two types of claims, one religious and the other legal. From a religious standpoint, all monotheistic religions have called not to steal… It is also in the Ten Commandments, which the Jews were ordered [to observe]. Therefore, they have a basic religious obligation to return what was stolen, if it exists.

"From a legal standpoint, fleeing with the Egyptians' goods could be for the purpose of borrowing or for the purpose of stealing. If it is for the purpose of borrowing, legally it has a temporary dimension, not a permanent dimension, and therefore they must return [the gold], with interest, to its owners.

"On the other hand, if the Jews took the goods from the Egyptians not for the purpose of borrowing it but to keep them for themselves, by legal norms this is theft, and therefore they must return the stolen goods to their owners, in addition to the interest for its use over the entire period of the theft."

Question: "What do you think is the value of the gold, silver, and clothing that was stolen, and how do you calculate their value today?"

Hilmi: "If we assume that the weight of what was stolen was one ton, [its worth] doubled every 20 years, even if the annual interest is only 5%. In one ton of gold is 700 kg of pure gold – and we must remember that what was stolen was jewelry, that is, alloyed with copper. Hence, after 1,000 years, it would be worth 1,125,898,240 million tons, which equals 1,125,898 billion tons for 1,000 years. In other words, 1,125 trillion tons of gold, that is, a million multiplied by a million tons of gold. This is for one stolen ton. The stolen gold is estimated at 300 tons, and it was not stolen for 1,000 years, but for 5,758 years, by the Jewish reckoning. Therefore, the debt is very large…

"The value must be calculated precisely in accordance with the information collected, and afterward a lawsuit must be filed against all the Jews of the world, and against the Jews of Israel in particular, so they will repay the Egyptians the debt that appears in the Torah."

Question: "Is a compromise solution possible?"

Hilmi: "There may be a compromise solution. The debt can be rescheduled over 1,000 years, with the addition of the cumulative interest during that period."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Al-Ahram Al-Arabi (Egypt) August 9, 2003.