blog break  cp break  articles break  archives

logo
Wednesday, August 30 2006

Amazing Discovery

Darrell Dow @ 4:30 pm

An amazing new discovery by professional educrats! Little boys learn better when taught by men! Will wonders never cease? Even more stunning was the discovery that girls actual learn better from women.

Professor Thomas Dee, associate professor of economics at Swarthmore College and visiting scholar at Stanford University, examined test scores as well as self-reported perceptions by teachers and students based on a national survey of nearly 25,000 eighth-graders. He found that having a female teacher rather than a male teacher raised the achievement of girls and lowered that of boys in science, social studies and English.

According to McPaper, Dee’s research “faces a fight for acceptance.” “The data, as he presents them, are far from convincing,” said Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women’s Law Center. Meanwhile, the head honcho in charge of ignorance coordination over at the NEA said there are all sorts of things that might influence the academic achievement of students. “Students benefit by having exposure to teachers who look like them, who can identify with their culture … but this is just one variable among many,” said Reg Weaver, president of the National Education Association.

Well, you wouldn’t expect common sense to become conventional wisdom in the teacher’s lounge, would you? Perhaps if a Bible were allowed within 100 yards of a schoolyard, someone might have stumbled across Titus 2 and realized the Biblical pattern for teaching involves older men teaching younger men and older women teaching younger women. Just a thought.

Tuesday, August 29 2006

And the Winner Is…

Darrell Dow @ 8:29 am

Who are the big winners in the Iraq war? Well, on top of devolving into a running recruiting poster for al-Qaeda and Bin-Laden, it appears that the primary beneficiaries are the Iranians.

The Christian Science Monitor cites a report from Chatham House arguing that by eliminating two of Iran’s chief regional rivals, Iraq and the Taliban, the U.S. has allowed Iran to jump to the front of line in the ongoing Middle East power struggle:

Consequently, Iran has moved to fill the regional void with an apparent ease that has disturbed both regional players and the United States and its European allies. Iran is one of the most significant and powerful states in the region and its influence spreads well beyond its critical location at the nexus of the Middle East, Turkey, the Caucasus, Central Asia and South Asia.

I can’t for the life of me figure out why any of this is surprising. A group very similar to the Taliban in terms of worldview will almost certainly eventually govern Afghanistan, and the notion that democracy would flourish in Iraq–a nation torn by ethnic and religious division–was preposterous on its face.

The end result of this madness was always going to be either chaos, which ultimately benefits Iran, or a Shi’ite dominated Iraq overseen by an authoritarian strongman, also a boon for the Iranians.

Wednesday, August 23 2006

Priest & King — Great Commission & Cultural Mandate

Bret McAtee @ 11:21 am

”The total life involvement of the covenant relationship provides the framework for considering the connection between the ‘great commission’ and the ‘cultural mandate.’ Entrance into God’s kingdom may occur only by repentance and faith, which requires the preaching of the Gospel. This ‘gospel,’ however, must not be conceived in the narrowest possible sense. It is the gospel of the ‘Kingdom.’ It involves discipling men to Jesus Christ. Integral to that discipling process is the awakening of an awareness of the obligations of man to the totality of God’s creation. Redeemed man, remade in God’s image, must fulfill – even surpass – the role originally determined for the first man. In such a manner, the mandate to preach the gospel and the mandate to form a culture glorifying to God merge with one another.”

 
O. Palmer Robertson

The Christ Of The Covenants

Pg 83

 
In starting we should note that, loosely speaking, the Cultural mandate is most closely associated with Jesus in his Kingly office, while the Great commission is most closely associated with Jesus in His office of High Priest. The Cultural mandate is tied to the imperatives of Scripture, while the great commission is most closely tied to the indicatives of Scripture. The Great commission is a proclamation of what the Lord Christ has done for men, as the great propitiation, while the cultural mandate is the declaration of what the Mediatorial King Jesus requires. While we note these distinctions we insist that our High Priest is King and our King is our High Priest. As our High Priest and King Jesus prays for us in the heavenlies and through His Spirit leads us, in obedience, to extend His already present Kingdom here on earth. 
 
Something that seems to be happening within the Reformed Church is the dividing of the offices of our Liege Lord Christ. There seems to be one faction in Reformedom that so wants to insist on Jesus as High Priest that any mention of Jesus as ruling King is seen as something that doesn’t apply to us now since we are in the inter-regnum. These people are wrongly divorcing these two offices. At the same time there is another faction in Reformedom that is trying to confuse these two offices so that what God requires in salvation and what God gives in justification are so co-mingled that the doctrine of faith alone becomes a doctrine of faith and works alone.

 
There is a necessity therefore to try and understand the relationship of the believer to the offices of Jesus as King and Priest, and relationship between the Great Commission and the cultural mandate. First, we would note that even in the gospel Jesus as King commands all men everywhere to repent, while in his office as High Priest He gives what He commands to His elect.  
 
As we consider Robertson quote above I would offer that the Cultural mandate, where Jesus as King commands by His law, provides the general context wherein the text of evangelism can make sense. Allow me to try and explain. Where Christians take seriously Jesus office as King in an unrestricted sense there a cultural context is created that makes it easier for the gospel to be heard by unbelievers. Think of context and text when reading a book. The context helps the reader to make sense of the text that he is immediately reading. The text itself would be nonsense if it were set in an entirely different context. In the same way when the ‘Gospel’ goes forward in a cultural context that is informed by the unrestricted Kingship of Jesus, there the text of ‘Jesus Christ as the great High Priest’ makes more sense. Where Jesus in His Kingly office is lived out there isn’t such a huge disconnect between the message of Jesus Christ crucified and the reality of a culture that is defying King Jesus at every turn.  When we don’t engage in the cultural mandate we make it more difficult for people to hear the strains of the message of the great commission because we are helping to create a social order context that is in opposition to the gospel proclamation. Consequently when we disconnect the Great Commission (Jesus as High Priest) and the Cultural Mandate (Jesus as King) what we inevitably end up creating are Christians who view their salvation as unrelated to their cultural endeavors, or who see their cultural endeavors as unrelated to their salvation. The result would be to give us both an anti-nomian Church and an anti-nomian culture.
 
Likewise the reverse is true. Where the offices of Jesus are confused and collapsed together, with the office of King compromising the office of Priest, we will create a Church that is legalistic and a social order that is rigid. While the previous error wants a text divorced from its context, this error wants a text undistinguished from its context. The former error leads to bifurcationism where the Church as Sacred and the social order as common are isolated from one another, while this error leads to a social order that is undifferentiated as to what is Holy and what is Holy of Holy. Jesus must be proclaimed (prophetic office) in both of His offices (Priest and King) or else we eviscerate the definition of both of those offices.
 
When we find the proper tension between these offices we discover that people who have been saved and brought into the Kingdom, now seek to bring that salvation wherein they have been saved into every area of life, so that those spheres may experience salvation. In obedience to King Jesus those who have been saved by Jesus as their great High Priest now bring salvation to the gardens they tend, and the children they raise, and the books they write, and the Churches they attend, and the judicial decisions they hand down, and the art they paint, and on and on. So, as individuals are saved by Jesus in His Priestly office, they bring that salvation to their corporate life in obedience to Jesus in His Kingly office, which in turn, as we noted above, provides a general cultural context where it is easier for unsaved individuals to comprehend the Gospel.   

Now the objection will be that what I am contending for is a kind of naturalistic program for the Church where I deny the supernaturalistic agency of God for men to be Redeemed and instead am relying on cultural infrastructure to convert lost men.
 
Of course I would say this is most certainly not true! I am not saying that if we follow three easy steps people will get saved. I am saying that God appoints means to ends. I am saying that salvation by which we are saved, while a spiritual reality, happens inside a physical and corporeal context and that it is gnostic to suggest that we can get to the spiritual reality without considering the physical context. Men will never be saved by the proper cultural infrastructure but it is certain that their natural individual resistance to the message of Christ crucified will be accentuated and emboldened by cultural infrastructure that is built in defiance of King Jesus.

These offices that God has brought together let no man cast asunder. 

 

Analyzing International President Bush’s Press Conference

Bret McAtee @ 8:08 am

President Bush: 

“This (bombing) never would have occurred had a terrorist organization, a state within a state, not launched attacks on a sovereign nation…And the problem (in Lebanon) was you have a state within a state. You have people launch attacks on a sovereign nation without the consent of the government in the country in which they are lodged.

 

Bret wonders:

So the President sees problems with a state within a state in the Middle East but it is perfectly ok to have a policy on immigration that is effectually creating a state within a state in America?

 

President Bush: 

Obviously, I wish the violence (in Iraq) would go down, but not as much as the Iraqi citizens would wish the violence would go down….And any sign that says we’re going to leave before the job is done simply emboldens terrorists and creates a certain amount of doubt for people so they won’t take the risk necessary to help a civil society evolve in the country.

 

Bret wonders:

Isn’t it Iraqi citizens that are killing each other? That is a funny way to wish the violence would go down.

What we have done here is create a situation that we can’t control because we don’t have the political will and military firepower to do so. In taking out the loathsome Hussein we removed the Sunni check to Shia dominance in that region of the World. Now we can’t leave because if we leave the region is suddenly susceptible to the return of a Muslim Caliphate that could become a regional powerhouse. We can’t leave until we find a way to bring a regional check to the Shias in Iran. Of course we wouldn’t be in this position to begin with if we hadn’t decided that we would give Nation building another go.

Another point that this administration better learn is that these people are more connected to their tribal, clan or religious identities then they are to their National identities. Bush is trying to bring democracy, with all of its emphasis on the sovereign individual, to a country that doesn’t think in terms of the individual. Western ‘Democracies’ find the individual’s self-understanding as related to his national identity, most often as the national identity is incarnated in and through the State. But these people do not think of themselves as individuals but as expressions of the group. Bush keeps talking about Iraqis but these people think of themselves in terms of ‘Kurds,’ ‘Shias’ or ‘Sunnis.’ The Bush administration needs to learn that these people haven’t ingested John Locke or the social contract theory. Iraq has always been a balkanized nation and they were kept together as Iraqis, before our arrival, only by Sadaam’s brutality, and the only way to make them Iraqis now will be the willingness of somebody to practice that same brutality. Now, as I said, we do not have the political will to that (as Abu Grahib revealed) and since that is true this situation has become a tar baby of epoch proportions. It is difficult to see what could change in the regional real politic to give us an exit from this mess that we have created, short of destabilizing Iran.

 

President Bush:

The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve their objectives and their dreams, which is a democratic society…. And I know — I’m sure you all are tired of hearing me say 12 million Iraqis voted, but it’s an indication about the desire for people to live in a free society.

 

Bret responds:

Throughout this press conference the President talked about the Iraqis desire for a ‘free, and ‘democratic’ society. I would just remind people what others and I have written before and that is for the Palestinians a ‘democratic’ society led to the seizure of power by Hamas. Iran followed a ‘democratic’ procedure and now has Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as their President. Elsewhere a ‘democratic’ society has accepted a constitution in Iraq that is governed by Sharia law (so much for freedom). Creating a ‘democratic’ society in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Morocco, would radicalize those countries.

No, all this talk about helping to create a ‘fee and democratic’ society in the Middle East is just code language for saying we want them to submit to the Western Secular Humanist vision of reality and form themselves along those lines. While, I loathe the Islamic religion, and the culture of ugliness that it creates, I can’t fault Muslims for not wanting to become westernized along Secular Humanist lines.

 

President Bush:

And the only way to defeat this ideology in the long-term is to defeat it through another ideology, a competing ideology, one where government responds to the will of the people.

 

Bret responds:

This is the most intelligent thing the President said at his news conference … well, except for the implicit idea that we have a government that responds to the will of the people.

Now the question that Christians have to ask is if either of these two competing ideologies in this Worldview warfare between the West and Islam is particularly Christian? We have a tendency to see Islamic suicide bombers and to rightly think how Neanderthal those people are, all the while gliding right past our own Visigoth tendencies where mothers kill their children in the womb assisted by professional who have sworn to protect life.

 

President Bush:

We passed law that encouraged consumption through different purchasing habits, like hybrid vehicles… you buy a hybrid, you get a tax credit.

Bret responds:

You just read the handbook on how government does social engineering.

You don’t act a certain acceptable way and you get financially penalized.

Now, if the President would only be as concerned about bringing liberty and freedom to America, as he is Iraq.

 

President Bush:

I’ve already distributed more than half of our $50 million pledge of disaster relief to the Lebanese people…. I’m announcing that America will send more aid to support humanitarian and reconstruction work in Lebanon, for a total of more than $230 million…. (I’m) proposing a $42 million package to help train and equip Lebanon’s armed forces…. And our government has committed over $110 billion to help (the victims of Katrina).

 

Bret responds:

Just keep in mind that the government does not have any money to give. The President is giving away money stolen from the American people through confiscatory taxation.

 

President Bush:

Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was — the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t…Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.

 

Bret:

First, the main two reasons Americans were given (whether explicitly or implicitly) for invading (sorry – liberating) Iraq were admitted by the President to be non-existent threats. We will give the President the benefit of the doubt and contend, that by his own admission, he and his administration were grossly incompetent. Republicans and Democrats alike who supported this invasion should not be considered worthy of support due to their incompetence, and yet the Christian community continues to treat this administration as if it is their favorite football team that requires their allegiance no matter how dismal their season is.

Second, while Bush may have never explicitly said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 he spoke about 9/11 and Iraq so often in the same breath during the time of buildup to war that to this day that a sizeable percentage of Americans continue to associate 9/11 with Iraq.

 

President Bush:

And one way to defeat that — defeat resentment is with hope. And the best way to do hope is through a form of government.

 

Bret:

Read that again, and please don’t ever say to me again that Bush is a conservative.

Thursday, August 10 2006

Ross Perot Impersonation

Bret McAtee @ 12:52 pm

Two days after conducting an online interview regarding my positions on several issues touching the US Senate race in Michigan I discovered that the Michigan affiliate of the Constitution Party decided to drop my candidacy in favor of one Mr. Dennis FitzSimons. I discovered this accidentally while looking at the Michigan Constitution party web site for some information. Nobody from the party contacted me to let me know of this decision and as such I don’t know the reasons why I was dropped nor even when I was dropped.

There is a tad bit of embarrassment in this but I suspect it won’t be the last time that I learn not to announce something before it is absolutely irretrievably certain. I am sure that in the end this is a wise move for the party. As a candidate I never had a large pool of influential contacts, nor the financial resources to draw on nor was I available to participate in party functions on the Saturdays that were often set aside for party business, having ministry or family scheduling conflicts.

I hope the best for Mr. Dennis FitzSimons and the rest of the Constitution Party slate in the Michigan election this November.

Wednesday, August 09 2006

Why Walberg’s Win Won’t Matter

Bret McAtee @ 7:41 am

  In one of the more closely watched contests in America, Tim Walberg defeated incumbent Joe Schwarz in Michigan’s 7th US Congressional district Republican primary. Pro-life voters no doubt are pleased by pro-abortion Schwarz’s defeat but they should hold their powder about the potential effectiveness of Walberg as he operates within the Republican Party on the National level. High hopes for Walberg’s success within the Republican party is like hoping that a Vegetarian will find success when elected as an official within the Carnivore Party.


The reason I make that observation is that several of the putative leaders among conservatives in the Republican Party, on the National level, campaigned for Schwarz against Walberg. I personally received taped phone messages urging me to vote for Schwarz from President Bush, Newt Gringrich, and Congressman Duncan Hunter. I was told in mailings that Joe Schwarz was a Reagan Republican. The point is that the Republican Party on an institutional level supported the pro-murder candidate over the pro-life candidate.


Now, some will contend that with the defeat of Schwarz that the Republican Party will be more responsive to the pro-life message. This was the position of Dr. James Dobson when he supported Walberg over Schwarz. In supporting Walberg Dobson said that, “Walberg is a man of great courage to take on a sitting Congressman, and the defeat of Joe Schwarz would send a mighty signal that the days of anti-family, liberal Republicans are finally over.” What Dobson seems incapable of understanding and what many Christians in America who follow him seem incapable of understanding is that it is impossible to vote for a man without voting for a Party. The Republican Party, by campaigning for Schwarz, revealed yet again (remember the 2004 Pennsylvania primary of Arlen Specter vs. Pat Toomey) that when push comes to shove it is fundamentally committed to candidates that are pro-death. People can run all the Vegetarians they want in the Carnivore Party but in the end the Carnivore Party are still going to be Meat Eaters.


Now some will object at this point and insist that men like Tim Walberg will be able to change the party. Such objections miss the incredible pressure that the National Party brings to bear on individually elected officials. The National Party has the ability to freeze out any individually elected official who does not play according to the whims of the National Party apparatus. Do we really think that Tim Walberg is going to be willing to isolate himself for the sake of the issue of abortion against all the pressure that the National Party can bring to bear?


The Republican Party does not want the issue of abortion to go away. The issue serves as a stick with which to beat Democrats over the head. If the issue of abortion goes away the Republican Party will have lost one of its best leverage issues. All of this is why Republicans talk the talk regarding abortion but in crunch time will refuse to walk the walk. That the Republican Party is decidedly unconcerned about pro-life can be easily gathered by looking at the front-runners for the 2006 nomination. Not one of those considered to be front-runners has given anything more but lip service to a pro-life agenda.

While we have no doubt that Tim Walberg is a fine man, it is unfortuante that he decided to align himself with a Party that is now oxymoronically defined as representing Big Government Conservatism and that has shown itself to be a weak reed in the defense of life. Because the Republican Party is what it is Tim Walberg will not bring us any closer to the end of abortion. What is needed is a Political Party that is institutionally committed to the end of abortion. The Constitution Party is that party and this explains why conservative Americans in the General election need to vote for the Constitution Party candidate, David Horn in the Michigan 7th district Congressional race.

Tuesday, August 08 2006

E-Interview — Issue Soundbites

Bret McAtee @ 9:23 am

Recently, I conducted what was called an ‘e-interview,’ regarding my position on various issues.

Below are the topics that the interviewer sent and the responses I returned.

Please keep in mind that in an age of ‘sound bite politics’ this is not intended to be exhaustive.

Topic 1: Require companies to hire more women & minorities

 

US Senate Candidate McAtee, 

I find nothing in the U.S. Constitution that informs me that the Federal Government has the responsibility to dictate to private businesses how they are to conduct their hiring practices. Further, nothing in the U. S. Constitution makes provision for Elected officers, by way of legal codification, to force either segregation or integration upon people(s) in or out of the workforce.

In short, I believe that since the power to provide quotas in the private workforce is not a delegated responsibility of the U. S. Federal Government, as articulated in the Constitution that said responsibility belongs uniquely to those who own their businesses.

Topic 2: Sexual orientation protected by civil rights laws

U.S. Senate Candidate McAtee 

If employers and prospective employees practiced a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy, civil rights, according to ones sexual orientation, wouldn’t even be an issue. I suspect that the pursuit of civil rights for sexual orientation has more to do with legitimizing deviant sexual orientations in our society than it has to do with ‘civil rights.’

Secondly, the U. S. Constitution says nothing about sexual orientation or civil rights pertaining thereto, therefore I see no authority for elected Federal officials to seek civil rights protection according to sexual orientation.

Topic 3: Teach family values in public schools

 

 

U. S. Senate Candidate McAtee 

First let it be clearly noted that Since the US Constitution makes no provision for the Federal Government to be in the Schooling business I am opposed to Government schools in general.

But, given the reality that Government schools exist, I am opposed to teaching family values in Government schools for the simple reason that ‘family values’ is a concept that could be filled with all kinds of deleterious ideas depending on the belief system of those who are constructing the curricula that inform those classes.

I would strongly support that families teach family values.

Topic 4: More federal funding for health coverage

 

 

U. S. Senate Candidate McAtee 

Since the US Constitution does not provide for the US Government to be involved with health care I would be opposed to the continued incremental pursuit of Socialized medicine, which requires more federal funding for health coverage.

Topic 5: Privatize Social Security

U. S. Senate Candidate McAtee 

First let it be clearly noted that Since the US Constitution makes no provision for the Federal Government to be in the Retirement funding business I am opposed to Social Security in general.

I would be for incrementally eliminating Social Security thus allowing people the freedom to save, spend and give their own money as they desire, thus eliminating the slave -slaveholder relationship that exists between so many American citizens and the
Federal Government.

I am strongly for people having the freedom to save, give, and spend their own money the way they desire.

Topic 6: Parents choose schools via vouchers

 

 

U. S. Senate Candidate McAtee 

First let it be clearly noted that Since the US Constitution makes no provision for the Federal Government to be in the Schooling business I am opposed to Government schools in general.

But given the reality that Government schools exist I would be opposed to school vouchers. The reason I am opposed to school vouchers is that in most school vouchers programs the Government remains involved in the process. Such involvement allows the Government to continue to dictate school agendas, create curricula, and implement standardized testing.

Topic 7: Death Penalty

 

 

U. S. Senate Candidate McAtee 

I am strongly in favor of letting the punishment fit the crime. If a crime includes the wanton disregard for life and if that wanton disregard for life is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, apart from prosecutorial malfeasance, then I am in favor of the death penalty.

Topic 8: Mandatory Three Strikes sentencing laws

 

 

U. S. Senate Candidate McAtee 

I would prefer electing judges, who, because of their sagacious sentencing practices, would provide us with reason for not needing these kinds of laws that do not allow consideration for unique situations and cases.

If current judges show a set foolishness in their sentencing practices then they can be impeached in the cases of life tenure or voted out of office in the cases of position by election.

Topic 9: Support & expand free trade

 

 

U. S. Senate Candidate McAtee 

I strongly support free and fair trade.

 

Topic 10: The Patriot Act harms civil liberties

 

U. S. Senate Candidate McAtee 

I strongly believe that the Federal Government, in general, harms civil liberties. The Patriot Act is no exception.

Topic 11: Stricter limits on political campaign funds

 

 

U. S. Senate Candidate McAtee 

I am strongly opposed to stricter limits on campaign funds. The giving of money in political campaigns is a form of free speech. I am for Candidates and campaigns making public their donor’s list so that all can see what money from which organizations is going towards a candidate thus revealing to the voting public which special interest the Candidate will be beholden to if elected.

 

Topic 12: Replace US troops with UN in Iraq

 

U. S. Senate Candidate McAtee 

The military involvement in Iraq was a profound mistake of major proportions, but now that we are in Iraq there really are no good options on how to extricate ourselves from the situation while at the same time providing a balance of power that serves American interests.

Topic 13: Replace coal & oil with alternatives

 

 

U. S. Senate Candidate McAtee

The search for alternative energy supply should continue in the private sector. Expanding the use of Nuclear energy should be given further consideration. Drilling for oil in those geographic areas that have, to date, been legislatively restricted should be pursued.

Topic 14: Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it

 

 

U. S. Senate Candidate McAtee 

Drug use is stupid but apart from Nanny State tendencies I don’t know how we can legislate against the stupidity that creates a black market to provide the supply, which the demand for illegal drugs currently meets. If people insist on being stupid, then I advocate heavy ‘sin’ taxes on the products (drugs) that stupid people use so that the stupid people in a society can pay for the necessary limited government that is needed in order for people with common sense to carry the stupid people.

Since the power to tax is the power to destroy, perhaps heavy taxation on these products will significantly choke demand.

Topic 15:

 

Allow churches to provide welfare services

U. S. Senate Candidate McAtee 

I would be for lifting the heavy Tax burden on the American taxpayers so that they had more income to freely give to the Church so that the Church in turn could help those in genuine need.

I would be strongly opposed to the Church providing Welfare services if the financial provision of the Welfare service is coming from the State. To pursue such an agenda would effectively make the Church in America even more an arm of the State then she currently is.