Wednesday, August 13, 2003

Christian-hating continued ...

Of course, Hollywood is one of the strongest bastions of the left wing and has long hated Christians. Film critic Michael Medved recently addressed this issue in a recent chat session about Mel Gibson's new movie Passion. This was his response to a reader who asked for his opinion about Laura Ingraham's comment that the movie would "drive the anti-Christian entertainment elite crazy."

Michael Medved: I share your concern. I wish that my friend Laura Ingraham had spoken more precisely. To say Hollywood is "anti-Christian" is misleading and inaccurate. Hollywood is "anti-religious." Those of us who try to live our lives as observant Jews also experience contempt and dismissal and hostility from the entertainment establishment, which isn't overwhelmingly "Jewish" -- it is, however, overwhelmingly, almost exclusively, secular -- and anti-religious.

Overall, I think that Medved has something of a point, because we don't see many favorable portraits of observant Jews from Hollywood (though Driving Miss Daisy is one exception that comes to mind). On the other hand, Jews aren't routinely the movie villains and idiots that observant Catholics and fundamentalist Christians are. The movie Contact, for example, was one that really got under my skin -- was it a coincidence that President Clinton put in a cameo in that film?

[Reader Question] Minneapolis, Minn.: Can you recap some of your reasons why you believe a number of people in Hollywood are so anti-religion? We have seen the proof -- they constantly fund movies mocking religion (most of which are failures) but spitefully attack anything which attempts truth or honesty.

Michael Medved: People who have rejected religion in their own lives often feel guilty and insecure about their decisions. After all, if you bet wrong on the non-existence of God the consequences could be serious -- in this life and the next.

Here, I think Medved is dead on, though I think that narcissistic feelings of intellectual superiority are a big factor as well. Many of these leftists regard Christianity as the equivalent of shamanism, ignoring the fact that Christianity produced Western civilization and the country they live in.

I honestly believe that the opposition to Passion is cut from the same cloth as much of the hatred for President Bush.

By the way, on the question of whether the Left hates Bush because he's a Christian, Bryan Preston says:

I agree. They also hate him because he's a Texan, because he's a genuine leader, because he carries that (R) after his name and because they're just plain hateful.

Maybe so, but the Left hasn't hated a Republican President with this kind of intensity since Nixon (if not Hoover), and Reagan was very much a genuine leader. There are also plenty of Texans who fit into the liberal Democrat hierarchy, such as Sheila Jackson Lee and Martin Frost, so I don't buy the Texas thing as a primary motivation. I believe that the thing that separates President Bush for special hatred is the unabashed faith in Christ that he makes so public.

Tuesday, August 12, 2003

Louisiana Gubernatorial Update

As I have predicted in this weblog before, Dan Kyle has dropped out of the governor's race. He's not endorsing anyone at this time. It looks like he's going to run for Insurance Commissioner instead. This increases the odds of a strong Republican making the general election in the governor's race.
Does the Left hate the President because he's a Christian?

I've been having some trouble comprehending the intense hatred that so many leftists feel for President Bush, and my wife finally explained it to me the other day. She said, "They hate him because he's a Christian." I instantly realized that she was right. It may not be true in every case, but there exists a real hatred among many liberals for Evangelical Christianity. They don't mind the so-called Christianity that's about going to church once a week to feel good about yourself. They don't mind the so-called Christianity that celebrates breaking up marriages and families so that people can pursue their sexual fantasies with others.

Real Christianity, on the other hand, believes in the reality of sin and the need to repent to receive God's forgiveness. Many liberals hate us because we try to live in accordance with God's will, and they feel that we are judging them because they do not. (In reality, Christ told us not to judge others, though we do have the ability to judge right and wrong -- everyone has a conscience to tell them that). True Christians recognize that we are all sinners, and none of us are "holier-than-thou," but that doesn't stop these people from rejoicing every time a Christian makes a mistake and falls victim to sin. The Christian-haters assert that we are hypocrites for condemning sin while committing sins ourselves, as if we could achieve earthly perfection.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. It's important sometimes to see what our enemies are saying, even when it's painful to read. Here, the author blatantly compares Southern Baptists to terrorists. Overall, the religious bigotry and pure hatred coming from his post is mindboggling, yet the author refers to himself as a "compassionate" liberal. Compassionate to whom?

I don't see how the author believes that "Southern Baptist pseudo-Christians" can approve of tax cuts that supposedly don't benefit them while at the same time being driven by "greed." In spite of the contradictions in his spewed venom, the author considers himself "intelligent" and "literate."

As a Southern Baptist myself, I must say that I haven't seen a single "stars and bars" bumper sticker on a car at my church and don't expect to (though such people would be welcome to attend, just as everyone else would be welcome). In my church, we don't hate people (like this blogger) who trash us -- we pray for them ... and we certainly don't pray for people to die, not even those who actions we believe to be responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent children. We even pray for Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, praying that they would miraculously repent of their sins and be saved.

If I were to stoop to the author's level, I'd probably call him a "pseudo-American" whose hatred of the South reflects a lack of respect of diversity and perhaps some issues in his childhood that need to be dealt with by a competent therapist. (Actually, if I were to stoop to his level, I would actually call him worse than that, but you get the point.)

People like the author (and a few people on the Right) let hatred overcome reason and civility and do much to harm the body politic in America.

Thanks to Spoons for the link.

UPDATE: Barry Bozeman has emailed me to deny that he compared Southern Baptists to terrorists. Read my post in his comments section and decide for yourself. Barry also emailed me the following comment:

You are in sore need of the loving vision of Jesus Christ as exemplified by these wonderful truly Christian sites.


your soul is more important than my politics.

I invite my readers to check out these two sites for themselves. The first site argues that the Apostle Paul corrupted Jesus's teachings and was a deceiver. The second site is a blog that starts off with a letter from a retired clergyman who says, "I often say to my friends that I am an agnostic on alternate days of the week." It goes downhill from there. Now look at Barry's last sentence to me again -- he asserts that my soul is in need of salvation because I believe the Bible!

This is simply an attack on Christianity from "within," by trying (a la Clinton) to make words mean something other than what they do. To call oneself a Christian and deny the authenticity of most of the New Testament is a contradiction in terms. According to Acts 11:26, the word "Christian" originated in Antioch as Paul and Barnabas taught there for a year. This is a political blog, so I'm not going to go too deeply into theology here, but I think that the confluence of liberal political thought and Christian-bashing is something that's going to be a lot more obvious in the future. It goes way beyond the Pryor nomination.

Monday, August 11, 2003

Governor Schwarzenegger?

I'll admit to having conflicting feelings about the Ahnuld phenomenon. I've paid attention to the comments of Rush Limbaugh and others who rightly point out that Schwarzenegger is not a conservative. I also find the whole thing somewhat icky, because I believe a recall should really only be used for misconduct, not just because someone is a lousy governor. But there are substantial benefits to an Arnold candidacy that make it well worth considering, and I'd ultimately decided to support him even before I read this excellent treatment of the subject from David Horowitz.

Horowitz points out that Arnold's celebrity will give him a bully pulpit that will greatly exceed what any other governor would have. Schwarzenegger will provide a big lift, not only for President Bush, but for the GOP as a whole -- the party will be "cool" again. Other points that I tally in Arnold's favor include his backing for Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 and the fact that there isn't a conservative alternative (because Simon is a loser and McClintock has no money). Arnold is also very likely to win, so it makes no sense for conservatives to start an adversarial relationship with him. Oh yeah ... I almost forgot ... we conservatives don't have to worry about Arnold running for President in the future.

Go Arnold!
Getting an early start

USA Today has an interesting story up detailing the early start the Bush campaign is making to ensure success next fall. I'm particularly encouraged by the early efforts toward county and precinct organization. Republicans (especially since the decline of the Christian Coalition) have lacked the kind of get-out-the-vote organizations that labor unions and minority groups have offered the Democrats. The GOP made important strides in fixing this problem in 2002, and it seems that President Bush's campaign is determined to make sure that their GOTV effort isn't outclassed this time (as it was in 2000).
Take back the House?

Today's Washington Post says that it will be very difficult for the Democrats to retake the US House of Representatives.

The story actually goes easy on the Democrats. It doesn't mention that all signs point to the GOP actually picking up seats this cycle, and it definitely doesn't mention the potential for major losses if the Democrats nominate a weak Presidential candidate.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?