Red-State Phenomenon

Published on December 3, 2004 By iamheather In Politics

So, yesterday, I was perusing the latest edition of Time magazine. For some reason, I always start at the last page and go backwards...call me crazy. The last article in Time magazine is always an op-ed piece that usually irriates me but rarely surprises me.

While reading last week's aggravating piece entitled "The Battle is Over, but the War Goes On" by Michelle Cottie, I came across this paragraph:

"Democrats found this election discombobulating because no matter how often they hear about a divided America, most blue staters-especially coastal elite types-still don't quite grasp that their world view is not shared by everyone. Day to day, liberals have the luxury of ignoring conservative America. Only occasionally does some red-state phenomenon like The Passion of the Christ intrude on our consciousness, and even then it's usually because of some outrage it sparks among a particular interest group on the left."

Excuse me? "The Passion of the Christ" was a red-state phenomenon? Really? No one in a "blue-state" went to see this movie? Did some one from a "red-state" direct this movie or produce it?

Michelle Cottie completely showed the ignorance of the Democratic party. This kind of thinking is exactly why the Democrats are seen as out of touch with the American public. I know Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Jews, red-staters, and blue-staters that not only went to see this movie, but actually liked it.

So tell me my friends, from both sides of the political spectrum, do you also view "The Passion of the Christ" as a red-state phenomenon?

Comments (Page 2)

Alex Gottschalk

on Dec 03, 2004

Jesus was a jew

I'm not stupid and he never meant a new religion he was only trying to reform Judaism, but his disiples made a new religion.

how many saw it

10-15

How many names do you need

What do you mean

thatoneguyinslc

on Dec 03, 2004

I never saw the movie. Never had any desire to read subtitles for that long. (well that and i think Mel has lost his mind) You just can't chalk it up to a "red state/blue state" thing. If you go back and look at the state vote totals from the election, you will find that quite a few states were within a margin that could have went the other way. Red states that could have went blue and vise versa.

TasT

on Dec 03, 2004

Why does it have to be Red VS Blue?

Friends and neibors we are going to have to come to some agreements in the future to keep this ball we call America rolling and pitting ourselves against each other will not get this done.

As far as the movie goes it was neither red or blue it was one guys interpretation of the final days of Jesus Christ. It played and was succesufll in theatres coast to coast, not just in places where conservatives live.

Dr Guy

on Dec 03, 2004

Reply #16 By: Citizen Alex Gottschalk - 12/3/2004 5:39:15 PM
Jesus was a jew

I'm not stupid and he never meant a new religion he was only trying to reform Judaism, but his disiples made a new religion.

how many saw it

10-15

How many names do you need

What do you mean

Now many names of my jewish friends saw it with me, and were moved. not to convert, but how bad people can be. And none thought it AS

dabe

on Dec 03, 2004

Michelle Cottie completely showed the ignorance of the Democratic party.

I think Michell Cottie completely showed the ignorance of Michelle Cottie. Period.

iamheather

on Dec 03, 2004

Alex

Tell me a Jew who liked it? I'm Jewish. No, I didn't see it, but i heard it was very anti-Semitic. I liked some of Gibson's flims (Patriot, Signs) but this is out-of-controll. Many Christian friends and most of many friends are Christians wholly agree with me, it being Anti-Semitic and that many things were exaggerated.

Alex, first let me express that this article is not about the merits or demerits of the movie. That being said, since I do not believe in deleting people's comments (have only done it once), do you always get your opinions from your friends? Are you a sheep and your friends your shepherds? I have a large circle of Jewish friends (I grew up in a Jewish faith for non-Jews, another story) who saw the movie and they did not feel it anti-Semetic. I will not name their names because it is disrespectful without their permission and pointless. When I walked out of the movie with my husband, we were most disgusted by humanity's depravity and mostly that of the Romans! I identified more with the plight of the Jews and understood their feelings more than I could ever understand the power hungry ignorance of the Roman heirarchy.

Dr. Guy

It portrays human beings, and the evil side of them. But they are mostly depicted by the romans.

Thank you. I see you and I arrived at the same conclusion.

David

he never meant a new religion he was only trying to reform Judaism, but his disiples made a new religion.

If that is your view, fine. It neither enhances the movie or takes away from it. The movie makes no statement about what Jesus wanted. It simply relays his actual words. The fact that you are posting things like this makes it more than obvious that you want to discuss religion and not the movie, since you have never seen it.

thatguyinslc

You just can't chalk it up to a "red state/blue state" thing.

I agree completely.

TasT

As far as the movie goes it was neither red or blue it was one guys interpretation of the final days of Jesus Christ. It played and was succesufll in theatres coast to coast, not just in places where conservatives live.

Yes, that is exactly right. It played across the US in all states. People in all states went to see it.

Helix the II

You heard a rumor and choose to perpetuate that rumor...

Sad isn't it. Rather than not commenting at all, he chose to condemn something he had never seen. I am not expecting everyone to agree with me, but at least be knowledgable in your descent.

Note to historyishere. I deleted the comment because it offered nothing to the discussion of the article. It wasn't even your comment, but a cartoon that had no relevance. It was entertaining, but not here.

iamheather

on Dec 03, 2004

dabe

I think Michell Cottie completely showed the ignorance of Michelle Cottie. Period.

Definitely, but she is a syndicated columnist for Time magazine. The whole article was an attempt to uplift Democrats and liberals around the country that their time was coming. She was speaking on behalf of the liberals in our country of which she included herself.

Daiwa

on Dec 03, 2004

It is historically accurate

That just caught my eye. Might be a tough assertion to confirm. Perhaps "biblically accurate" would be a better description? If I'm not mistaken, there is considerable disagreement among respected historians, both secular and religious, about how that day went down, including some who vehemently disputed aspects of the movie.

Cheers,
Daiwa

historyishere

on Dec 03, 2004

Note to historyishere. I deleted the comment because it offered nothing to the discussion of the article. It wasn't even your comment, but a cartoon that had no relevance. It was entertaining, but not here.

Hey, no skin of my nose... I can respect that decision.

iamheather

on Dec 03, 2004

Hey, no skin of my nose... I can respect that decision

Thank you for being so understanding. I am trying to stray away from the merits or demerits of the movie and focus more on the belief that the movie and the phenomenom was a "red-state" thing.

kingbee

on Dec 03, 2004

prior to the film's release, a number of churches--including some with large evangelical congregations--purchased large blocks of tickets. in a few locations, they bought out every seat in the house for several showings. a number of pastors characterized the phenomenon as a 'cultural movement' and an opportunity to attract and spread the message to a public they might not otherwise reach. as to the red and blue thing, the so-called bible belt--if it were an actual belt--would be more appropriate worn by santa than a guy with a blue suit so its possible it was promoted more successfully there.

i do think the timing of the dvd release, while possibly coincidentally close to the election, worked more to the advantage of the 'moral values' campaign.

as far as the film itself, i was most surprised no romans felt sufficiently defamed to protest their protrayal as being such incompetent scourgers even a passive hippie type like jesus survived 45 minutes of their best moves. makes ya wonder how they conquered any group of barbarians...even the gauls.

iamheather

on Dec 04, 2004

Well, I know the Romans looked like ignorant assholes in my opinion after leaving the movie.

Another thing we agree on kingbee...

kingbee

on Dec 04, 2004

Another thing we agree on kingbee

works for me

philomedy

on Dec 04, 2004

I think Michell Cottie completely showed the ignorance of Michelle Cottie. Period.

Exactly.

Syndicated columnist or not, anyone can speak, or believe that they speak, on behalf of any group that they mention. It wouldn't be fair of me to judge all Republicans based on the comments of Alan Keyes, although he is a Republican, and believes he speaks on behalf of the Republicans he wishes to represent.

Michell Cottie should be criticized doubly, for her comments and for the generalization she made about Democrats. Democrats should not be criticized for being generalized.

kingbee

on Dec 04, 2004

Democrats should not be criticized for being generalized.

thats way too logical to be true aint it? (it does deserve an insightful rating tho)

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!