Dear Sirs,

It has come to my attention that it might be the case that you are deleting Republican Presidential candidate  and fund raising powerhouse Congressman Ron Paul from your debate format in New Hampshire on January 06, 2008. Certainly it can’t be true that a reputable news organization such as yourself would leave out such a viable candidate as Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul.

If you are deleting Congressman Paul from your format could you please respond with an explanation why you would delete a candidate who in a recent Boston Globe/UNH poll was canvassing only two percentage points behind Mike Huckabee and five percentage points ahead of Fred Thompson? If you are deleting Congressman Paul from your format would you mind justifying that decision in light of Congressman Paul’s huge grassroots fund raising efforts? If you are dropping Congressman Paul from your debate would you mind explaining how I can continue to take you seriously as a news organization?

Congressman Paul continues to be a real alternative to Republican status quo politics. It would be a more than unfortunate if a news agency, that is reputed to be in the back pocket of the neo-con movement, would underscore that impression by axing Congressman Paul from its debate format.

Here’s hoping that this is all a nasty rumor.

Sincerely,

Bret L. McAtee

“Every culture and society exudes a certain convictional glue, an undergirding outlook on life and reality that preserves its cohesiveness. When that adhesive bond deteriorates, the sense of shared community tends to come apart at the seams. Recent modern thinkers define this bond of conceptualities or value-constellations as myth, that is, man’s representation of the transcendent or divine in human or earthly terms.”

Carl F. H. Henry
God, Revelation, and Authority
Vol. I, pg. 44

And herein is found the lie of multi-culturalism if by multi-culturalism one believes that one contiguous society can be sustained by a plethora of competing outlooks on life and reality which preserves its cohesiveness. The great lie of the push of all things multi-cultural is that in point of fact multi-culturalism is an attempt to create a mono-culture with all the attendant adhesive bonds and convictional glue that all shared communities share. The current multiculutural project in the West is every bit as homogeneous as the shared Muslim culture of Saudi Arabia or the shared Shinto culture of Japan. There is no more tolerance in the mono-culture of multi-culturalism then there is in the mono-culture of say Pakistan or India.

This reality explains why clear expressions of Christianity are so hated by the multi-culturalists. Epistemologically self-conscious Christians (herein after referred to as Es-cC)are a threat to moderns who desire a mono-culture built upon the myths of multi-culturalism. Es-cC attack the convictional glue that holds together the multi-cultural project identifying and labeling it as the idolatry that it is. The great problem with the Church in the West today is that it doesn’t understand that it is defining its Christianity within the pagan paradigm and by the unbelieving parameters of multi-culturalism. This is not the first time that this type of thing has happened in the history of the Church. B. B. Warfield commenting on the first century Church and its penchant for the superstitious noted,

“The fundamental fact which should be borne in mind is that Christianity, in coming into the world, came into a heathen world. It found itself, as it made its way ever more deeply into the world, ever more deeply immersed in a heathen atmosphere which was heavy with miracle. This heathen atmosphere, of course, penetrated it at every pore, and affected its interpretation of existence in all the happenings of daily life. It was not merely, however, that Christians could not be immune from the infection of the heathen modes of thought prevalent about them. It was that the Church was itself recruited from the heathen community. Christians were themselves but baptized heathen, and brought their heathen conceptions into the church with them little changed in all that was not obviously at variance with their Christian confession. He that was unrighteous, by the grace of God did not do unrighteousness still; nor did he that was filthy remain filthy still. But he that was superstitious remained superstitious still; and he who lived in a world of marvels looked for and found marvels happening about him still. In this sense the conquering church was conquered by the world which it conquered.”

The point of contact between Warfield’s observations about first century Christianity and its culture of superstition and the observation about 21st century Christianity in the West and its embracing of the ethos of multi-culturalism is that in both cases the Church was guilty then and is guilty now of re-enforcing, instead of challenging, the prevailing idolatry du jour. A genuinely muscular Church would in no way countenance official faith pluralism, or political polytheism as the means by which the mono-culture of multi-culturalism is built and sustained in the West. Those who are Es-cC will sense that they are pilgrims and strangers in this current culture and will struggle in finding a cultural harmony with those (’Christian’ or otherwise) who have embraced the adhesive bond and convictional glue that binds the adherents of the multi-cultural cult together.

When considering the mono-culture of multiculturalism we should ask what are the adhesive bonds and convictional glue that holds this culture together. Phrasing it another way, per the quote of Henry, we are asking what is the guiding myth that provides cohesion for multi-culturalism. There might be several ways to answer that question but this is what I see as the elements of stickiness in the convictional glue that hold the multi-culturalism of the West together.

1.) All gods are welcome and indeed beckoned as long as they know and keep their place. Any gods (save the god of multi-culturalism) who intends to create a culture that is consistent with his tenets and precepts is a god that must be banned as intolerant.

2.) Because all gods are equal, therefore all individuals are equal and because all individuals are equal therefore all ethnicities are equal and because all ethnicities are equal therefore all cultures are equal. In the multi-cultural myth there is no better or worse. No shade of differences in ethnic or cultural or individual inherent talent or ability. All are inherently equally smart, inherently equally athletic, inherently equally verbal, etc.

3.) Because order must be maintained all the gods must have a God who define the limits of how far the gods can go. This god of the Gods is the State in whom we live and move and have our being.

4.) People do not belong to a place or time but are interchangeable parts who can be shifted around on the global chessboard without consequence or damage to them or the place or time where they are transplanted. Nationality or ethnicity is not a reality but is only an idea that can be changed like eye-shadow.

5.) The ultimate destination is a world-community utopia where people are all of one tongue and one lip.

6.)Freedom and democracy are the ultimate values but it is a freedom and a democracy defined in a multi-cultural pagan paradigm. This leaves us a freedom to serve our gods as long as we don’t take them seriously and a democracy that is defined as voting for the kind of freedom just defined.

All of this needs to be kept in mind by Americans who are Christians. We believers need to realize that when we mindlessly support American domestic and international policy we are very likely supporting the advance of a culture that is in anti-thesis to the culture that would be normally created by a stoutly informed Biblical Christian faith.

From Paul’s campaign website:

December 28, 2007 10:39 pm EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – According to the New Hampshire State Republican Party and an Associated Press report, Republican presidential candidate and Texas Congressman Ron Paul will be excluded from an upcoming forum of Republican candidates to be broadcast by Fox News on January 6, 2008.

“Given Ron Paul’s support in New Hampshire and his recent historic fundraising success, it is outrageous that Dr. Paul would be excluded,” said Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “Dr. Paul has consistently polled higher in New Hampshire than some of the other candidates who have been invited.”

Snyder continued, “Paul supporters should know that we are continuing to make inquiries with Fox News as to why they have apparently excluded Dr. Paul from this event.”

You can write to Fox news at yourcomments@foxnews.com; foxnewsonline@foxnews.com; comments@foxnews.com.

Here’s what I wrote:

Is it true? Is Ron Paul excluded from the upcoming presidential debates sponsored by Fox News?

If so, I’m astounded. Congressman Paul is a serious contender in the race, not only polling with similar numbers to McCain, but raising astounding amounts of money this last quarter, over $18 million dollars. He raised over $6 million in one day (compare that to “front runner” Huckabee, who raised a paltry $95,000 in a one-day fundraiser).

Come on, let’s be reasonable!

Your motto is looking a bit silly if this is true.

O God of Kirk and Clan,
Provide now in our want
Holy Worship in this land
And children for your font.
Our sacraments are ashes,
Our families are torn—
And Christendom now crashes
In the justice of thy scorn.

From all that ‘clever’ teaches,
From all the ‘truth’ so close,
Wrapped all in shallow speeches
That excite the shallow hosts;
From trust in the Moloch god
Of circus, bread and sword—
Who rules us with an iron rod,
Deliver us, O Lord.

Breathe a Reformation
On Kirk, and King, and Clan.
Awaken now a nation,
One weapon in your hand:
A single sword, all for thee,
Your purpose as our end—
Aglow with zeal, and free,
Your Kingdom to extend.

Amen.

huck·ster (hkstr) — (n.) One who uses aggressive, showy, and sometimes devious methods to promote or sell a product.

“Huckabee is on a roll, he has gotten an enormous amount of publicity and he is doing very well with conservatives, who at least for now appear to have found a candidate.”

John Zogby
Pollster

Captain Obvious here reporting that Mike Huckabee is no conservative. Huckabee is just another neo-conservative, big government, tax and spend, pro-immigration, pro-global warming, felon loving politician, who embarrassingly enough is an ex preacher who ‘loves Jesus.’

Huckabee is a piece of work who is to clever for his own good. First, he ‘innocently’ asks, ‘aren’t Mormons the ones who believe Jesus and Satan are brothers(?),’ thus sending a subtle message to all the Jesus people that they don’t want to vote for a Mormon stupid guy when they can vote for a Christian stupid guy. Following that number he runs a Television add where in 30 seconds he mentions Christ or God or Christmas four times while a cross is subtly displayed in the background, thus, once again shouting to people, “I’m the Jesus candidate, I’m the Jesus candidate.”

Would anyone mind telling me how this guy gets counted as a conservative, never mind a ‘Christian?’ Ok, Ok … I can accept that he is a really immature Christian who doesn’t yet realize that biblically speaking the State has the unique role of providing Justice and not subsidizing the poor, releasing rapists, or stopping carbon emissions.

Quite beyond the problems of Mike Huckabee would anyone care to further explain why Christians get taken in by this pablum? Some guy rolls into town, proclaims he is a former Baptist minister, and suddenly his poll numbers spike because many of the local yahoos — I mean ministers — return back to their churches telling the pew sitters they should vote for the Jesus candidate. It’s all very depressing.

Finally, to top things off you have an organization like HSLDA who is supposed to know better come out and endorse the Huckster. I still can’t figure out why this organization would do that and it makes me sad that I’ve paid good money to support this organization over the years. Don’t all home-schoolers teach that Big Government is bad? Don’t all home-schoolers teach that government isn’t the solution but rather government is the problem? Can’t HSLDA connect the dots between what might be best for them short term and might not be what is best for the country long term.

Please don’t vote for Huckabee because he is the Jesus candidate. Give Jesus a break and find some other nonsense reason to vote for the Huckster.

This is cross-posted at Buried Treasure.

It’s been a long time since I’ve written about politics. It’s not that I don’t care about what’s happening in the political realm, but I get frustrated at apathy on the one hand and ignorant compromising on the other that I see among Christians who ought to be able to count on both hands, many times over, the number of times the wool has been pulled over their eyes in every election dating back to when the Moral Majority first gave evangelical voters a voice.

Lately I’ve been wishing I had some artistic ability because I’ve dreamed up a great idea for a political cartoon. I will have to draw you a word picture instead. I see a washtub floating on the sea, waves splashing all around. Crudely painted on the outside of this craft are the letters “G.O.P.” Inside it are three men: the butcher (Rudolph Giuliani, whose support for abortion makes him the obvious pick for that occupation), the baker (Mitt Romney, who is able to fabricate support for his supposed conservative credentials based on dubious ingredients, which include his new-found pro-life epiphany and a “faith” which both does and does not inform his political beliefs—whichever makes you feel more comfortable), and the candlestick maker (Mike Huckabee, a Christian whose beliefs give a faint light in the darkness, but that light seems to flicker with whichever way the wind blows). Outside the bobbing tub, tied to it with a thin rope, is a life preserver with the words “S.S. Liberty” printed on it, bearing up an optimistic and smiling Ron Paul, who does not appear to fear the huge waves around him. Sadly, one of the washtub’s occupants is sawing away at the rope with a saw labeled “Pragmatism.” Another is trying to submerge him with an oar named “Electability.”

Not surprisingly, many homeschoolers have decided that Huckabee is their man. Early in the Republican race, Homeschool Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) gave ex-Governor Huckabee a ringing endorsement, claiming that he would be the friend of homeschoolers and hold the conservative Christian banner high if elected president. I do find this surprising—while the average homeschooler may not be politically informed and know the background of a candidate who pushes all the right buttons in a high-profile political contest, and they count on the recommendations of trusted sources for whom to vote in big races, HSLDA does have the whole scoop which means they ought to know better. I have appreciated HSLDA’s principled stand for unpopular positions, such as being against vouchers and charter schools, but since Patrick Henry College was built on the outskirts of the corridors of power and the welcome mat has been put out by Republican lawmakers for those well-scrubbed and anxious-to-change-the-world students, their principles seem to be wearing thin. PHC is named after a man who is known for being one of our country’s foremost statesmen. Pragmatism and electability are flimsy stuff on which to build one’s statesmanship.

Ay, there’s the rub-a-dub-dub. Everyone wants to be on the winning team. Nobody wants to be a loser. So we look at polling data and listen to sound bites and ignore broken promises, hoping to keep a Democrat from the reins of power. Our political choices are often based on fear: what if Hillary got in the White House (again)?

The Values Voter Debate is the only Republican debate I have watched, and it is the only time I have heard Mike Huckabee speak except for some brief interview clips. If we were holding an election for king of our country, I might be tempted to vote for him. He’s personable and witty, and he has good intentions of using his political power for good causes. At one point in the debate, different people were allowed to ask the candidates some very detailed and specific questions and the candidates were only allowed to respond with a “yes” or “no,” indicated by lights on their podiums. Without an opportunity to explain his position on those detailed questions, Ron Paul consistently refused to go with the crowd’s sympathies for some tough situations when questioners asked the candidates to agree that they would use the power of their office to promote causes which are the hot button issues of the Christian conservatives. Even though I agree with the righteousness of the causes addressed, I do not agree with the idea of wielding presidential power in an unconstitutional way to achieve those good ends. I knew then that Ron Paul was a trustworthy man.

Let me remind you of which job we are discussing right now. We are not deciding whom to elect king of America, we are going to choose a new president. The man (oh, please, let it be a man!) we elect will place his hand on the Bible (oh, please, don’t let it be a Book of Mormon or the Koran!) and repeat these words:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

By taking that oath, the president is stating that he will abide by the law of our land which is written in the Constitution, a document which specifically constrains the power of the man who sits in the Oval Office. Have you read it? Has Mike Huckabee? I wonder, considering the king-like promises and statements he has made. He has said he supports a federal ban on smoking and an internet sales tax. When he was governor of Arkansas, state spending increased over 65 percent (three times the rate of inflation). While he talks tough on immigration now, his “get tough” plan for dealing with illegal aliens is to send them back home and let them apply for citizenship from their own country (something called “touchback” by critics, who say it still rewards border crossers and is a kind of amnesty), and when he was governor he supported tax-funded college tuition for children of illegal immigrants and opposed legislation which would have curtailed public services to illegal immigrants. One of his campaign ads boasts of providing health care coverage to 70,000 uninsured children. This is the candidate leading the charge in the party which once talked of curbing statism. If he is elected, I won’t hold my breath waiting for him to be asked what part of the Constitution grants him the authority to promote all these good causes.

I could list many more examples of Huckabee’s statist (“The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy”) proclivities, but one of the biggest red flags for me, and the reason I am sorely disappointed in HSLDA’s support of this man, is his support of federal government involvement in education. Do none of you remember when the Republicans were promising to shut down the Department of Education, that behemoth which wants to micromanage the education of every child in this country, using its massive power to keep records of our children and looking for every opportunity (through “testing”) to profile and psychologically evaluate the young prisoners locked in that system? The “No Child Left Behind” Act is the vehicle for doing just that, and it was proposed by our “conservative” Republican president, and Huckabee supports it. He calls for greater federal funding for “music and art” programs as a solution for our education woes. He has recently been endorsed by the New Hampshire branch of the National Education Association (NEA), the first time they have picked a GOP primary candidate to endorse (remember that the NEA is a very liberal union which thinks homeschooling ought to be highly regulated if allowed at all). Perhaps they have paid more attention to his record as governor of Arkansas than HSLDA, when he signed a bill in 1999 which imposed greater restrictions on homeschoolers in his state:

The 1999 legislation called for a two-week advance statement of intent to home school or truancy charges would be filed. In addition the restrictions do not permit students to be withdrawn from school for the purpose of home schooling if the students are facing disciplinary violations. The compulsory attendance law was also revised during Huckabee’s governorship to require that attendance in school be required beginning at age 5, not 6, as previously.

HSLDA started a political action committee a few years ago called Generation Joshua. I have met some of the bright young people who work in this organization, most of them hoping to return our country to its Christian and constitutional roots. If they are looking to Mike Huckabee to do this, then they are pinning their hopes on the wrong star. The head of Generation Joshua (perhaps former head as I read a rumor that he stepped down because of HSLDA’s endorsement), Ned Ryun, is not so star-struck. You can read all his Huckabee thoughts here, where he reminds Christians that God’s Word says, “by their fruits you shall know them,” but let me sum up his well-informed position on the evangelical political hope in his own words:

I don’t think his die hard supporters want to be confronted with who he actually is, or what he’s done in the past. They’re living in the moment, have turned off their rational thinking and want to embrace him because he’s a Baptist minister and a Christian. I just know that I don’t want to be associated with him, or to have people think that he is what a social conservative looks like.

Friends, we need to get off this merry-go-round. It’s the same old story, the same old promises, and the outcome will be the same old thing. We get some crumbs from the political table and they wipe their feet on us until we are needed to further the statist agenda again. To conclude as I began, with a nursery rhyme analogy, if we follow that same old path we will find Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum waiting at the end of it. I suggest we throw out that worn-out tale and go back to a really good, old true story that begins, “We the People of the United States…”

A few thoughts from Mitt Romney’s “Faith In America” Speech.
Governor Romney said,

“Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”

Pastor McAtee responds,

This is a curious statement. There are a good number of countries that have religion and yet have no freedom. In those countries Freedom and religion most certainly do not endure together. Iran and Saudi Arabia come immediately to mind. Therefore it seems that it would be more accurate to say that Freedom requires a certain kind of religion. Now, as we look through History we might conclude the only religion that brings about true Freedom is Christianity and that doesn’t include Mormonism which is no more Christian then Shintoism is. Christianity alone brings true Freedom because only Christianity provides release from Spiritual bondage and without a multitude of individuals in a given culture being set free from their enslavement to sin the culture that is built can never be one characterized by Freedom. People enslaved to sin don’t build cultures of freedom.

Governor Romney should have said, “Freedom and Christianity endure together or Freedom is stillborn.”

FYI… if one wants to see the Mormon attitude towards Freedom one might want to look up the ‘Mountains Meadow Massacre’ or do a little investigation into their unique doctrine of blood atonement or spend some time researching their gestapo organization called the ‘Dannites.’ Mormonism, as a religion, can no more produce Freedom then the US government can produce efficiency.

Governor Romney said,

As Governor,… I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President.

And yet a couple paragraphs later he could say,

I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.

Pastor Bret inquires,

Ok, on one hand Mitt endeavors to live by his Mormon faith and has every intent of being true to his Mormon fathers and to his Mormon beliefs (does that mean he was wearing his required Mormon holy underwear during the speech?) and yet on the other hand those beliefs that he endeavors to live by and to which he will be true won’t confuse him with reference to his obligations of his office. It seems to me that there is a contradiction there and it is the same old contradiction that we hear all the time from candidates, and it goes something like this…

“Personally and privately I am against or for (fill in the blank) but in my capacity in public office I can not force my conviction on the general public.”

The simple response here is …

Given the fact that all public policy reflects somebody’s personal and private conviction could you tell us whose personal and private conviction will you be forcing on the general public since it will not be your own?

Another question might be …

How can you say that you are going to be true to your (in this case) Mormon faith when you won’t allow your Mormon faith to inform you on policy decisions?

Anyway, the whole notion that a man’s religion doesn’t guide whatever he does is a pure sophistry concocted by ambitious politicians, and itself is reflective of the true religion of most moderns. If Romney’s Mormonism doesn’t guide him in his policy decisions then Romney is not Mormon just as ‘Christian’ candidates are not Christian if their religion doesn’t inform them in their decision making process as a public official.

I suspect though that Mitt is probably like most ‘Christian’ politicians and that his Mormonism is just a label.

Governor Romney said,

I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God.

Pastor Bret responds,

Mitt is not a Mormon but a Unitarian just as our current President. A vote for Mitt is not a vote for a Mormon but for a Unitarian. Mitt is a disciple for American civil religion where what is really important about God is that he can be mentioned in Inauguration addresses, invoked at football games, and enlisted in support of expanding Empire through War.

We are currently where the Romans were at in their Empire before they fell. All religions were to be tolerated as long as their adherents would pinch incense to Caesar. In America all religions draw one closer to God and are to be accepted except for those religions that insist that all religions except one leave men without God and without hope.

Governor Romney said,

It’s important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions.

Pastor Bret responds,

I wish he would have elaborated a little bit on what this common creed currently is. I seriously doubt that Americans share a common creed of moral convictions.

Governor Romney said,

We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion.

Pastor Bret responds,

Actually, we don’t separate but rather we distinguish between church and state affairs in this country. The whole notion of separation the way it is currently understood today is relatively recent. Secondly, while we agree that no religions should dictate to the State we would say that the State’s actions always reveal that it is operating in submission to some god or god concept. A Biblical Christian would advocate that the since the State always operates in submission to some god or god concept that it submit to the Law-Word of the one true God.

Governor Romney said,

Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: Does he share these American values – the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

Pastor Bret responds,

Note the Governors PC speak where he references human kind as opposed to mankind.

First, the equality of mankind is not a doctrine that Biblical Christians could support UNLESS one is talking about the equality of all men before the law. Currently, equality of mankind typically means that legislation works to make sure everyone is the same – a most unbiblical doctrine.

Second, if a steadfast commitment to liberty is an American value then why does America kill 1.3 million people annually?

Governor Romney said,

The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed….We do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith.

Bret responds,

There is a great deal in the Governor’s speech about religious diversity. One needs to keep in mind that when this country was founded that there most certainly was NOT a great deal of religious or ethnic diversity. Oh sure, there were different flavors of the Christian faith which created what we might call broad ideological common ground but what the founders in no way attempted was to create a civilization that could embrace competing Christian, Mormon, Islamic, Jewish or Hindu faiths. A culture’s strength lies in its homogeneity and begins to weaken when it becomes to diverse UNLESS the intent is to build a culture where the homogeneity is built upon the reality that nobody takes their confessed religion to seriously, thus allowing the common religion that unites the various religions to be a commitment to the God of the civil religion who instructs the adherents of the diverse faiths that their devotion to the God of the civil religion must outweigh their devotion to their respective lesser gods.

In the end I don’t see how Governor Romney’s milquetoast Mormonism should prevent the typical American Christian from voting for him anymore then it prevented them from voting for George W. Bush with his milquetoast Christianity. Both these men, like most religious Americans today, are adherents of the same faith, and whether one votes for Tweedle-dumb-Mormon or Tweedle-stupid-Christian in the end they both belong to clan Tweedle.

Americans who won’t vote for Romney who is Mormon, but will vote for Huckabee because he is Christian are shallow in the worst sort of way. Both Romney and Huckabee are going to give us more big government. Both Romney and Huckabee belong to their respective religions only after they belong to the civil religion.

The Biblical Christian on the other hand would take a long hard look at Ron Paul.

Cross posted at my new home

www.ironink.org