The Passion of the Christ: The Key to a Republican Landslide

Men's News Daily ^ | March 11, 2004 | Bruce Walker

[presidio9]

John Kerry looks strong now; George W. Bush looks weak. What are the chances that John Kerry could actually win the 2004 Election? What are the chances that Democrats could win a broadly based victory in November? Not good. America is not divided into two relatively equal ideological camps. America is conservative - overwhelmingly conservative. The highly respected, bipartisan Battleground Poll in the September 2003 reveals that 59% of the American people describe themselves as conservative (42%) or very conservative (17%) and 35% of Americans describe themselves as liberal (25%) or very liberal (10%). The September 2003 Battleground Poll results are not an anomaly. The two previous Battleground Poll results show an almost identical ideological breakdown. Even if those who identify themselves as moderate or who do not express an opinion regarding ideology are included as actually liberal, Americans conservatives constitute a far greater percentage of the electorate than those other groups combined. So how does President Bush begin to draw the ideological line in the sand? There are several different approaches, and there is no reason not to take each approach slowly and consistently beginning now. President Bush begin the refrain "I am a conservative and my opponent is a liberal."

How does Kerry respond to that? If he acknowledges that statement is true, then he has placed himself firmly in the camp of the minority ideology. If he denies that statement or equivocates, then he opens the door to a pandora's box of past statements and votes. If he ignores the statement, then he allows President Bush to define that issue completely.

But there is a stronger demarcation in American society today, and that vast chasm appears most clear in the success of The Passion of Christ, despite all the Leftist hatred of Mel Gibson and his film. President Bush should fight this campaign on religious faith, and he should fight it in a way that shows just how intolerant and bigoted Leftists are about religion. The Passion of Christ is excruciatingly vivid, but Hollywood has been churning out excruciatingly vivid films with graphic violence, explicit sex and often perverse sex scenes and highly offensive dialogue and images for years. It is the message of The Passion of Christ that infuriates Leftists.

Americans overwhelmingly believe that Jesus was crucified for the sake of mankind. Mel Gibson has done nothing more than restate and defend what the American people believe. President Bush should do the same, but he should restate and defend even more generally held religious American beliefs. How? The Republican Platform ask for a constitutional amendment that requires the words "Under God" be included in the Pledge of Allegiance, that the phrase "In God We Trust" be on all American currency and coins, and that the existing references to God in our national anthem remain. Most people are not familiar with the last stanza to The Star Spangled Banner, but these lines from that stanza are unmistakably religious:

Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land Praise the Pow'r 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!”

The platform provision, endorsed by President Bush, should also make it quite clear that preserving these three formal and long held demonstrations of the religious faith in our federal government are the only demands that religious people will make upon the American government recognizing the importance of God in our public life. President Bush should endorse this amendment and point out that the amendment threatens only the agenda of those people who wish to remove all symbols of God from our existing federal government. This is an amendment, like the Bill of Rights itself, intended to preserve those values which the Founding Fathers considered so obvious that these rights were not included in the original Constitution. What would John Kerry say about this proposed amendment? Kerry could ignore the issue, and appear weak and craven. Kerry could say that the amendment "is not important," and then hear President Bush explain to him that moral values are at the very heart of our national and even our global problems.

Kerry could warn that such an amendment would open the door to a national religion, but because the amendment would only preserve the existing and because the amendment process itself is so arduous, Kerry would look silly. Kerry could warn that the amendment is unconstitutional, but because it is an amendment to the Constitution, then unless it deprives a state of its equal representation in the Senate, it could not be "unconstitutional."

Kerry could endorse this amendment, but if he did so, he would appear to be following President Bush on an important issue and this would badly fracture the Leftist core of the Democrat Party. Kerry could pretend to support the amendment, but if he did so, Republicans could pass the resolution quickly in the House of Representatives and then present it as a resolution in the United States Senate and Kerry would either have to support it or support a filibuster or vote against it.

This issue - we should hope - would sharply divide America, and this division would be reflected in every state and federal election, because states and the federal government all have a clear constitutional role to play in the ratification of constitutional amendments. Republicans in the House of Representatives could compel a vote very quickly on this amendment. What if 340 House members voted for the amendment and 95 House Democrats voted against it? What would those 95 House Democrats say in the November 2002 election? Republicans could convene special sessions of state legislatures. What if the legislatures in South Dakota, North Dakota, Indiana, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Louisianan, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Colorado, Oregon and Florida passed a resolution endorsing the amendment? Which members of those state legislatures would vote against the amendment? What would the Democrat and Republican senate candidates in those states say?

Leftists love to whine about wedge issues, even as they create wedge issues all the time. Their real concern is when conservatives fight back. It is time to fight back. It is time to ask Americans if they want a government based upon their sovereignty and their faith in a Blessed Creator or if they want a government based upon the sovereignty of judges and other bureaucrats and their faith in atheism. If the question is asked, the good guys - that’s us - will win. Let’s ask.

[maestro]

Thanks.

Very Interesting!

bttt

[sneakers]

bump to read later

[nobody_knows]

"Leftists love to whine about wedge issues, even as they create wedge issues all the time. Their real concern is when conservatives fight back. It is time to fight back. It is time to ask Americans if they want a government based upon their sovereignty and their faith in a Blessed Creator or if they want a government based upon the sovereignty of judges and other bureaucrats and their faith in atheism. If the question is asked, the good guys - that’s us - will win. Let’s ask.

Go tell it on the mountain brother!

[alloysteel]

This did not at first appear to be a wedge issue, and in a sane and rational world, it would not have been. But there is an underlying fissure in the politics of America, and this wedge just might open a broad differentiation, dividing the sheep from the goats.

[independentmind]

I think it's a terrible mistake to politicize Gibson's film.

[GulliverSwift]

I highly doubt that a movie released in February will have an impact in November.

[AMDG&BVMH]

"I think it's a terrible mistake to politicize Gibson's film."

True.

It is not the film that relates to politics.

It is the fact that people flocked to it. I.E. believing Christians now KNOW that they are not a minority to be whipped into silence by political correctness, and CAN let their voices be heard, as citizens.

[bobjam]

These are important do's, but here's a very important don't: Do not fall victim to the media assertion that the voters don't like candidates who attack their opponants. Kerry's leftist agenda and radical voting record are fair game to most voters.

[presidio9]

I think it's a terrible mistake to politicize Gibson's film.

Too late. The left already took care of that.

Meanwhile, the President, a devout Christian has gone out of his way not to step on anybody's toes. We don't know if he's even seen the film yet. I bet he has.

[familyofman]

"It is not the film that relates to politics.

It is the fact that people flocked to it. I.E. believing Christians now KNOW that they are not a minority to be whipped into silence by political correctness..."

I get the distinct feeling that a lot of folks around these parts believe that only conservative christians are going to see this movie. Or, that the message of the movie has no meaning to liberals. Both ideas don't make any sense at all to me.

[My2Cents]

All conservatives understand that we are in a “culture war” with the left, and that this war has been going on for some time – for the better part of a generation. But it isn’t so much a culture war as it is a spiritual war – and, frankly, I believe that the wider spiritual war going on in our society has allied some on both the left and the right against the influence of faith in God in our society. To wage spiritual warfare requires using the weapons of faith – the recognition that there is a power above and outside of ourselves to whom we all owe allegiance. President Bush is probably the most sincere and public believer in God we’ve had in the White House. We live in dark days, and simple ideology will not get us through them. The light of honest and real faith in God, bringing God back as a foundational value of our society, will, more than any political philosophy, dispel the darkness. This is an important aspect of what President Bush brings to the Presidency. That's why the real issues behind this election (issues which will not be mentioned openly) are spiritual issues, not so much issues of policy, ideology, personality, or party.

[Dog Gone]

The assumption here is that all conservatives are religious and all liberals are not. And that's incorrect.

[far sider]

I think it's a terrible mistake to politicize Gibson's film.

Did you read the article? The author isn't suggesting that...

Americans overwhelmingly believe that Jesus was crucified for the sake of mankind. Mel Gibson has done nothing more than restate and defend what the American people believe. President Bush should do the same, but he should restate and defend even more generally held religious American beliefs.

[dmz]

I could not agree with you more. Politicizing religion ain't a good idea, and you just don't know whose face it will blow up in.

Repeat after me...It's only a movie....

A movie that will be, what did I read, a 200 million dollar payday for Mel. Sincerely, bully for him. And I am also happy for the folks who have felt cut out of moviegoing due to the wasteland that it often is. Spending that money out is good for America.

It does not however, completely override my deeply ingrained cynicism when I see people making a ton of money on their faith.

That being said, I'll see this one, and just about any other movie he makes. (I have to anyway, my wife nearly swoons at the thought of him).

[independentmind]

Who me? Post a comment without reading an article? :)

Let me rephrase my earlier comment. Conservatives need to be very careful about not appearing to polticize the film. In that sense, I think the title of the article is unfortunate.

[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP - ELECTION 2004 - BUSH - THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST

[My2Cents]

I agree with you. And I hope no one overtly politicizes "The Passion." But rather than being an "issue" in the campaign, I think the movie, and the strident reaction to it, illustrate a deep divide in the nation -- and it's primarily a spiritual divide -- a divide which will play into the election. We need to be careful how we broach or discuss this divide, but it is there. Gibson film has helped to reveal it. We can't deny its existence. Rather than use the film as a wedge issue, my approach is to go to God in prayer about the condition of our society, and with the use of scripture, prevail upon Him to do His will within our nation. I believe God wishes to grant us mercy; but judgment isn't out of the question.

[ZULU]

WE have not politicized Gibson's film, the LEFT has. It has made it a target of criticism, not because of its violence, but because of its message, a message the left overwhelming rejects.

Christ is not their God, neither is Yahweh or Allah. MAN is their god.

[ZULU]

Your right. The cultural overtones of the war we are engaged in are merely symptomatic of the underlaying spiritual struggle.

I saw the Lord of the Rings trilogy and thought it pretty much describes what's going on in America and the western world in general, today.