- This topic has 3 voices and 9 replies.
-
Posts
-
Something probably never considered back in the days of Chief Justice Marshall, Hollywood is now campaigning to stop Bush’s Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. The New York Times reported that a fundraiser – organized by the confusingly-named People for the American Way – attracted Hollywood stars (and their money) as part of an effort to thwart Bush’s nomination.
Hollywood and D.C. have become friendlier over the past 15 years or so, but now we're at a point where celebrities attempt to use their names, influence, and/or money to inject their values into the American legal system (which is different - at least in theory - from the American political system).
It's amazing how times change. Only in modern times do we see celebrities having such influence in American government without being elected. Is this a fad, or will celebrity power in government continue to grow? Or am I mistaken about this being a new phenomenon (i.e. were famous opera singers stumping for Jefferson or Jackson back in the Nineteenth Century?)?People will always be fascinated by celebrities and celebrities will always try and use that fame to their own benefit. Hollywood has always been well to the left of most of America. The fact that we’re seeing this with a judicial nomination is just confirmation that the Supreme Court is our true master and overseer. Let them babble on about meaningless drivel. This is just a phase. Once Bush is out of office, they’ll go back to leading their normal, empty, vapid lives.
Since the Supreme Court has such power today, do you think that Separation of Powers, as enumerated in Articles I, II, and III of the Constitution, is flawed? Or is it just the implementation of the articles to blame? If so, why wasn’t this implementation checked along the way through the “self-correcting” nature of checks and balances?
Perhaps an even deeper question is this: was the decision in Marbury vs. Madison to blame for the current power status of the Supreme Court?Rush Limbaugh said it best when he said the liberals view the Supreme Court as “their nine-headed god.” The Supreme Court is the last bastion stronghold of liberal hopes to legislate their worldview. Alito will tip the balance completely to the right and they are scared to death of what this might entail. Hollywood’s money will not save them from this inevitablility. 😉
But when did all this start? Perhaps it was with JFK. I’m not sure how he knew Marilyn Monroe, but that “Happy Birthday, Mr. President” song still lives in the American memory and seems to place a Hollywood-Washington link.
I don’t know when it “started” but I know when it came into its own: with the Clinton administration. He courted Hollywood like there was no tomorrow and they loved the attention from a sitting President. Here was somebody the Hollywood elite could relate to: vapid, empty, a consumate liar, a blank slate ready to assume and co-opt any position if he thought it would help him, a practised actor, someone who was all style and no substance, someone just like Hollywood.
What I would like to know is when and how did Hollywood come to be so anti-Christian? It has been a long time since Charleton Heston was running around in robes and driving chariots. Mel Gibson’s Passion would never have stirred the controversy it has back in those days. Even Disney is downplaying the Christian element of the Narnia Chronicles as depicted by Christian apologist C.S. Lewis. Is Christianity dead in Hollywood? ❓
Interestingly enough, I think that some of this has to do with “legal creep” – and no, I’m not talking about a sleezy lawyer. What I mean is that in the legal community, the adoption of the notion of “separation of Church and State” has become more and more strict over the past 50 years or so. I bet that the average college or high school student would say that these words are found in the Bill of Rights, even though they are not in any part of the Constitution.
As laws go, so does society and culture over time (hence the word "creep"). The strict "separation" between politics and religion has been interpreted by mainstream culture as a validation of moral and religious relativism, where no religion is to be given preference because they are all equally valid. (NB: I seem to have noticed this happening more and more these days, as the "separation of Church and State" argument is used not only as a rationale for arguments in Establishment Clause situations, but also in non-government situations where religion mixes with public life).
With relativism comes political correctness, which prohibits behavior which is "offensive" to a minority segment. One curious feature of this, however, is that political correctness doesn't seem to have a problem with behavior that is offensive to majority segments. Nor does it seem to have a problem with offending the truth and accuracy.
Hence, it's not surprising that Disney would downplay the Christian themes in the Chronicles of Narnia. It doesn't want the movie to be branded as a "Christian" film so that the target audience will be larger.But Mel Gibson proved that the Christian audience is a cash cow almost on par with the Star Wars crowd. Disney is just too stubborn to admit that the Christian audience has the most money to spend. Christians nailed Oliver Stone by boycotting The Last Temptation of Christ. You would think what happened to Oliver Stone and what Mel Gibson proved, would make Hollywood stand up and take notice. Arguably, the Golden Age of Hollywood was during the fifties and sixties when Christian epics were in vogue. Movies like The Robe, The Ten Commandments, Ben Hur, Quo Vadis, King of Kings, and Barabbas come to mind. Sooner or later, I believe Christianity will once again recapture Hollywood and then we’ll see the movie industry return to profitability. Until then, our moral decline will continue and Hollywood’s box office slide will continue.
DonaldBaker wrote:But Mel Gibson proved that the Christian audience is a cash cow almost on par with the Star Wars crowd.
But you're being too logical here. Businesses will go after the dollars unless it means being possibly subjected to having mud thrown at them by the media, special interest groups, and elitists. I guess a short way of saying it is they have no backbone. This makes Mel's feat so spectacular; not only did he hear it by the media, special interest groups, and elitists - but he won, and reaped the economic rewards.
So to tie it together, political correctness removes one's backbone.
