Matt Lewis, nationally renowned campaign expert, has a very good question on his blog today. Which ticket are you buying?
If you read down a few posts (and up, depending on when you read this post), you will have no doubt what my answer to his question is. You couldn't pay me a million bucks to buy the other!!!
How about you? Which ticket are you buying? Will you bow to the Hollywood hype machine and go see a movie that is against everything you stand for just to be part of the "in" crowd?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Matt Lewis rocks! BTW, quit bragging about your hot fiancee. I know what you see in her -- but what does she see in you???
Still trying to figure that one out myself ;)
Thanks for the drop in Matt.
OK I'll bite. The latest post on Matt Lewis and the News seems to be October 3rd, and the word 'ticket' doesn't appear on the page. Is this some kind of tease to get people to sign up for a Matt Lewis Premium Membership?
no...something is apparently wrong with his site b/c I'm only getting the same as you said now too...it was a post from Wednesday I was referring to.
It was referring to Brokeback Mountain vs Narnia and how Brokeback is getting all the Hollywood acclaim while he is betting that Narnia draws the bigger crowd. Then relates it to the current political climate in America. And ends asking which ticket are you buying.
That is a very rough paraphrase but defintely don't quote me on the accuracy. Hopefully his site should be fixed soon.
However, if you are interested in campaigns and how to be effective, I would highly recommend joining his site b/c he is one of the best in the country at training grassroot activist.
Matt's site is not back up and running properly if you care to visit it again.
Long time reader, first time poster.
Which ticket am I buing? Brokeback Mountain. Why? Because, as far as my tastes go, I go to movies to enjoy a good story that is combined with good cinematography and excellent acting. Not to say Narnia does not possess these qualities. But Brokeback Mountain appears to be an original script addressing a none-too-popular subject. SO I'll check it out.
In all seriousness, Mr. Tiger, do you believe there is a war against Christianity in this country? I'd like to hear your opinion on the subject. I'm neither a secular humanist nor a Christian. Where do I fit in the two Americas put forth by Matt Lewis?
I look forward to your answer.
I'm thinking that you are probably going to see The Family Stone ...
uh, no...and I'm not sure I understand the reference. Please expand if you would, Mr. Lewis?
If Narnia isn't up your alley ... and if you're not into Brokeback Mountain, either ... a good alternative movie to see might be The Family Stone. It looks pretty good to me. Who knows? Maybe there are three Americas?
I'm waiting for Cajun Tiger to chime in here ...
Welcome Southpaw! Thanks for posting a comment.
Christianity is absolutely being attacked. Thankfully recent years it is getting better, but until we started fighting back in the courts it was the only religion that you could discriminate against.
This country was founded by Christians with the idea of freedome of religion. As time passed they realized that in order to be true to to that ideal that mean all religions.
So, over time, each form of religion was given more and more tolerance. First non-Protestants, then Catholics, then Jews, then other mono-theoist (sp?), all the way to not belief at all. Now the religion that started the tolerance is the one that is tolerated the least.
I can go on and on, but that should do it for now.
Not to speak for Matt, but in that movie Sarah Jessica Parker feels like an outsider, so he might have meant that, being you said you weren't a secularist or a Christian, then you might be able to relate.
Wow. Cajun Tiger makes my random musings seem profound. That's exactly what I meant.
I do my best =)
CT-
You explain your point, but I can't say I agree. 43 presidents (i.e. all of them) were Christian. There are I think 9 Jewish members of the Senate. The rest? Christian. No hindus, mo moslems, no buddhists- all religions that populate the U.S. heavily. So exactly how is Christianity the "least tolerated" religion? There are probably some moslems who would take issue with that statement.
"War" is a strong term, that carries with it harsh overtones and an aura of destruction. I do not believe that Christianity in America is on the brink of destruction.
How do you think a Holocaust survivor would react to the statement that there is a war on Christianity? How would an Armenian whose grandparents were slaughtered by the Turks react? THOSE were wars on a people.
While you won't find a stronger supporter of church/state separation, I think the whole "Christmas/holiday" tree brouhaha was a crock. It's a christmas tree, plain and simple. But many have used that incident (not you, but many) to illustrate an intolerance of Christianity. In my mind, it takes more than ridiculous political posturing to support a position!
This country I believe is struggling mightily to find its moral and spiritual identity. There are great values in Christianity that are pillars of our society, as are values from other religions. But as a member of a religious minority, I have to say "walk a mile in my shoes." Then you may have a different view about who is at war with who.
Southpaw...
I know you have to be more aware of current events than your statement alludes. To say that Christianity hasn't been under constant attack over the last 50 years is willfully choosing to ignore reality.
While "war" is pushing it in light of your accurate portrayal of true wars, you know as well as I do that no one truly equates the two.
My biggest problem is with the courts who are clearly overstepping their constitutional mandates and stripping away all traces of our heritage completely against public will and to the detriment of the country.
"My biggest problem is with the courts who are clearly overstepping their constitutional mandates and stripping away all traces of our heritage completely against public will and to the detriment of the country."
We have a VERY different idea about the role of the courts.
The courts do not exist to bend to public will. That's what the legislative, and to a lesser degree, executive, branches of government are for. The courts are part of an integral system called "checks and balances."
Please elaborate- perhaps some examples of overstepping constitutional mandates? Stripping away traces of heriatage? Detriment to the country?
If you want to learn about the power of the courts in the U.S., go read Marburry vs. Madison. That should set you straight on the "mandate" of the courts.
And exactly who is doing the attacking? The courts? Are you trying to tell me there are no christians on the bench?
There are currently 6 Christians on the supreme court. 91 in the Senate. I'm just having a hard time believing that the religion that controls government is subject to a stripping away of its heritage.
There are many cases that the court has overstepped it's constitutional bounds. Any case where it forced anyone to remove a Christian symbol from any property is completely against the constitution.
Placing the 10 Commandments or a nativity in public view does not establish a national religion forcing everyone to be a Christian or have no rights. And it also doesn't establish any laws by doing that. It does however prohit the free exercise of one's religion.
As far as saying there are 91 Christians in the Senate and 6 on the Court...well...that assumes a very loose description of Christian. But that is another debate for another time.
after you finish reading Marbury, you have to go to Lemon vs. Kurtzman. A 3 prong test was established:
The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.
As far as the court overstepping it's constitutional bounds, you are missing a basic concept: IT CAN'T! The courts have the final say. The only way to change what a court has established, especially the supreme court, is a constitutional amendment.
Please stop telling me about "many cases," and start naming some. Just the facts, CT.
"Placing the 10 Commandments or a nativity in public view does not establish a national religion forcing everyone to be a Christian or have no rights."
on private property, yes, I agree. But on government property, it violates the second prong of the Lemon test. It may not establish a national religion, but it certainly endorses one over another.
A loose description of Christian? they may not be zealots, but they certainly ain't moslems, hindus, or buddhists!
I missed the part where bloggers, you or me or anyone, were given the power to determine who is a christian.
PS,
good luck in Texas. I miss working on campaigns- it's been a while, but it was the most fun I had.
You just proved my point. The Lemon case is a perfect example of the court treading all over the constitution. I absolutely agree we need a constitutional admendment or a change in jurisdiction to get us back to where the constitution intended.
As far as "many" cases, I can't name court cases, but let's see...prayer in school, silent prayer in school, 10 Commandments on public property, One Nation Under God, Boy Scouts barred from public property...all those cases and many, many more are completely against the original intent of the constitution.
We are supposed to have freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion.
Campaigns are lots of fun, but based on a new development this morning, I'm not going to TX for the campaign. Stay tuned for a new post with the details.
Changes in society should not challange your faith, but rather make it stronger.
My faith is definitely not challenged and in fact is strengthened by my standing up for it on a regular basis.
We are called as Christians to point out unrighteousness and not just let sin go unchallenged. For far too long Christians stayed out of the public arena and now they are finally starting to take back the country that was founded by Christians.
It is really our only hope to survive as a great nation in my opinion.
On an early point made by Southpaw that I forgot to address...you are right in that it is not our job to decide who is and who isn't a Christian, but we are required to point out sin (Ezek 33:7-9).
Post a Comment