Despite Dan Brown's disclaimers, his book and the movie version are attacks on Christianity. Liberalism's hopes for survival necessitate such unprovoked aggression.
Liberal intellectuals know that the survival of Christian truth is life-threatening to liberalism. Poland's Catholic-inspired revolt against Moscow is an ever-present reminder. In the United States, even with monopoly control of elementary and high schools, and our colleges, liberal-socialism ultimately cannot withstand rational scrutiny, because universal experience proves it to be ineffectual and corrosive nonsense.
Only by fabricating history and continuing to suppress teaching of American constitutional traditions can liberals hope to avoid joining the Soviet Union in history's dustbin.
This explains the crude attack in the May 23, 2006 post on The Daily Kos, one of the most popular liberal websites:
Getting back to the movie, however, I've noticed anti-Da Vinci Code signs at local churches, too. And these aren't isolated incidents, either. You can't watch Fox News for five minutes without catching a host or commentator challenging the movie, much like the network made it a point to assault Brokeback Mountain at every turn. Or bash Mexicans.
Why do people behave so irrationally? Because they fear change. They fear that the face of the 21st Century in America won't be white. They fear that fewer people view two loving people who happen to share the same sex as a threat to democracy. And they fear that people may ask questions about the origins of their faith. Why think for ourselves when these people, these arbiters of wisdom, can do it for us?
….But these people, these turds in our collective punch bowl, fail to recognize the spectacular hypocrisy inherent in their outrage…..
You want to know what's a real threat to people's faith? Church sex abuse. And the longer some blame liberals for the blight instead of looking in the mirror, the more problems the church will have. Problems like the fact that some people consider it a good thing to physically assault those whose only crime is holding different viewpoints. Problems like the notion that Pat Robertson and others like him say things they'd spend a lifetime decrying if they came from a mullah. Problems far greater than The Da Vinci Code.
Liberals are particularly exasperated by the resurgence of Christianity and religious Judaism, because they were confident that spiritual truth had been mortally wounded in the 1930s and dispatched finally in the 1970s.
In his 1934 A Common Faith, John Dewey, 20th century America's high priest of liberal-socialism, wrote:
Criticism of the commitment of religion to the supernatural is thus positive in import…. The objection to supernaturalism is that it stands in the way of an effective realization of the sweep and depth of the implications of natural human relations. It stands in the way of using the means [i.e., socialism] that are in our power to make radical changes in these relations…. Secular interests and activities have grown up outside of organized religions and are independent of their authority. The hold of these interests upon the thoughts and desires of men has crowded the social importance of organized religions into a corner and the area of this corner is decreasing.
When Dewey wrote this, liberalism was on the crest of the socialist wave from the 1917 revolution in the Soviet Union. Liberals everywhere were confident that Russian experience would demonstrate conclusively the superiority of socialism over Christianity.
As we know, it didn't turn out quite that way. Liberals nonetheless cling to their secular religious faith, blindly assuring themselves that, absent bad leaders like Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Castro, socialism would have perfected human society.
In that vein, President Clinton's Labor Secretary Robert Reich more recently wrote in The American Prospect:
The great conflict of the 21st century will not be between the West and terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, not a belief. The true battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernists; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority; between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that human life is mere preparation for an existence beyond life; between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face.
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote, on March 29, 2005:
Democratic societies have a hard time dealing with extremists in their midst…. We can see this failing clearly in other countries. In the Netherlands, for example, a culture of tolerance led the nation to ignore the growing influence of Islamic extremists until they turned murderous. But it's also true of the United States, where dangerous extremists belong to the majority religion and the majority ethnic group, and wield great political influence…
One thing that's going on is a climate of fear for those who try to enforce laws that religious extremists oppose. Randall Terry, a spokesman for Terri Schiavo's parents, hasn't killed anyone, but one of his former close associates in the anti-abortion movement is serving time for murdering a doctor. George Greer, the judge in the Schiavo case, needs armed bodyguards…..And the future seems all too likely to bring more intimidation in the name of God and more political intervention that undermines the rule of law….. America isn't yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives who aren't sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen here.
Let's just say that Messrs. Reich and Krugman exaggerate a bit.
If a disinterested observer were to survey all the news reports of recent years, he would find that violence has been perpetrated, not by Christians and religious Jews, but by liberal mobs blocking city streets, denying emergency vehicle access, smashing storefront windows, and damaging automobiles in their path.
When liberals speak to student assemblies, they are not assaulted or shouted down by Christian students. But conservatives and Christians are physically assaulted and otherwise prevented from speaking by liberal students.
I thought the name of this website was “Intelectual” Conservative. That article was nothing but a huge flame burning a straw man.
I have to disagree here. Despite the fact that this article went off of the Da-Vinci code and started to ramble on how bad liberals are, it’s premise is simply flawed. The DVC is a work of fiction, nothing more, nothing less. Christians can watch it and have a good time, realizing that….it is fiction. I never thought I’d see the day where I agreed with Kos on even the smallest word, but he’s right here. Christian leaders who go damn near insane over a movie that questions their faith make the right look like lunatics. Where there are dozens of important issues to consider, the DVC is hardly worth mention. This whole article comes across as someone who is threatened by a movie, and is hard to take seriously as such.
Yeah, okay! Christians can go a bit over the edge sometimes. However, let us remember that to my knowledge, Christians have not chopped anybody’s head off over the DaVinci Code movie…or book for that matter. Some of us take our Lord and Savior very seriously. I know the faithless among us cannot comprehend such a thing, but I ask what your response would be to someone using your mother or father as the basis for a so-called “work of fiction.” You may not be all that understanding. Goodness knows how some of you would react if Ayn Rand was the featured character in a “fictionalized” account of her life. Your heads would explode! Nope, no Christian riots. But hey, don’t get so freaked out when I get upset over the book or movie, and just want to get the word out the the premise of the flick is a load of balogna.
Kenny, it may be a work of fiction, but it is altering a lot of people’s beliefs. I have a friend who doesn’t exactly buy into the specifics, but the book has caused her to believe a lot of other stuff that is rediculous. I think the main reason Christians are making a big deal is because this book is deceiving a lot of misinformed people. If it weren’t, I don’t think it’d be such a big deal.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that I don’t think Brewton is threatened by the DVC, and I don’t think Christian leaders feel that their faith is being threatened. I think they are concerned for other people.
Brown’s timing couldn’t have been any better. Remember pedophile priests being protected by cardinals? Remember the “church” apologizing for this cover-up? I don’t. So, the “official” church set themseleves up for the slam. Dan Brown wrote a real good story with just enough truth/fiction to make you think twice — just like writers of Star Trek or OC would do. Stop the whining and get with your core principles, if you’ ve got any. I’ll believe what I want to believe — it’s my decision.
If Dan Brown had written a fictional novel based on the conceit that the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” were true, how many people would be willing to let him off by saying “it’s just fiction”? When you accuse a religious group of perpetrating a murderous conspiracy and altering the course of history to preserve its power, that isn’t called “harmless fiction”, it’s called “bigoted and slanderous”. Substitute a Jewish conspiracy for a Catholic one, and this story changes from “harmless fiction” to a deeply disturbing and virulently anti-Semitic work. Between the ludicrous fabrications of history, utterly implausible assertions, cartoonish knowledge of Christianity and repugnantly offensive agenda, Brown’s novel is utterly unredeemable. Even non-Christians should be deeply offended by Brown’s work, and it is absolutely absurd that Christians, and even Catholics, believe that they can enjoy this book as “good harmless fun”.
By the way, any 11th grader with a strong background in history should be able to debunk almost all of Brown’s historical “facts” without even blinking. Even interested amateur historians cringe at the gut-wrenchingly inaccurate information that Brown uses as his canvas. When actual scholars go into the details of his work, it gets worse. If you think that DVC has “just enough truth” to “make you think twice”, you clearly aren’t very familiar with the truth (Even the TITLE is historically confusing- “Da Vinci” is just a place name, not a surname. The novel would be more properly titled “The Leonardo Code”).
Of course, that’s exactly what’s wrong with most of the people who believe the nonsense in DVC- they DON’T care about the truth. “I’ll believe what I want to believe” some of them say. Let me make a humble suggestion: instead of believing whatever suits your fancy, why don’t you seek out and believe in THE TRUTH! “Ill believe what I want to believe” is practically the rallying cry of the new-age pseudo-intellectuals who buy into this garbage. They don’t believe there IS a universal truth, so Damn the Facts, Full Speed Ahead!
When I look for the actual “historical facts” Brown insists he used, I get just a few: France really exists (though it doesn’t remotely resemble the one in Brown’s book), The Louvre is an actual museum (though, again, it doesn’t remotely resemble the one in Brown’s book), and there was, in fact, a Roman Emperor named Constantine (yet again, he isn’t even the least bit similar to the one Brown depicts). Honestly and without exaggeration, I’m having a hard time coming up with even ONE “fact” in Brown’s story that is unequivocally true. NOT ONE. When I say that, I mean it. As Hitler said, people will sooner believe a big lie than a small one.
I guess I am going to have to break down and read this book after all. I made a brief perusal of it in the bookstores many months ago, when it first appeared. That was before all the controversy. Several things struck me looking at the book. First, it was unoriginal, second it is so contrary to documented sources that it smacks of conspiracy theory (with all the wishful thinking that entails), third, it is openly hostile to religion, and fourth it isn’t particularly well written. The dialog at the beginning of the book is so stilted and with characters so 2-dimensional you could mistake them for cut-out dolls. With all that against it, I could not figure for the life of me why it was given prominence at the front of the store and hyped as the number-one bestseller on the NYT booklist. Then again, I haven’t agreed with the New York Times’ best picks for many years. Anyway, I wasn’t about to shell out $25 bucks for a book that reads like a dime novel.
At the time, I was struck by its similarity to other defamatory works that pretend to be historical fiction. I’d have to classify it more as historical fantasy. Historical fiction is to historical fantasy what science fiction is to fantasy. In my youth, I was a big Sci-Fi fan. That was before fantasy became popular. At first, the two genres were kept apart. But gradually, bookstores began lumping them together to save space. The two genres mixed in other ways too, with some authors blending and blurring the distinction. What differentiates fiction from fantasy is that the one follows rules and the other doesn’t. Science-fiction builds on known science or plausible theory, fantasy has no rules and follows the dictum that, to a savage, science and magic are equally indistinguishable. Fantasy appeals to those writers and readers who want freedom from the rules, science-fiction to those who enjoy a mental challenge. Over time, I learned to differentiate the two in bookstores, so as not to waste time finding the real thing.
I read a few fantasy books, but soon tired of them as entirely unchallenging. They are fun for the first couple of stories, but pretty soon you get it they all revert escapism. Science-fiction (which is to say “real” sci-fi) doesn’t try to get around the rules, it tries to determine what rules must prevail and then follow to a logical outcome. For example, in the “I, Robot” collection, Issac Asimov works out what a world cohabited by humans and sentient robots might look like. Asimov spends considerable time setting up three fundamental rules that must dictate all robot behavior if the more powerful robots are not to get beyond human control. The stories, each a stand-alone piece, first appear to say one or more of these laws have been broken, only to prove later that they haven’t; that only a new and untested situation has arisen which the robots have worked out to a solution that expands without breaking the rules. Similarly, Arthur Clarke, posited a world ringed with communications satellites. This was way back in the 1950’s before he’d gone off the deep end fantasizing over alien precursors. Clarke had been a radio-astronomy engineer, and his early stories were at the forefront of what was happening technologically. He was the first to describe the new form of enhanced communication in a format the layperson could follow. In the 1980’s Charles Scheffield, an astrophysicist wrote some wonderful stories about a plucky scientist who figures out how to trap and use a rotating black-hole to power a star drive. Scheffield is scrupulous in telling his story that he hasn’t violated the known rules of physics, so our hero on returning is hopelessly out of style with the times and many of the people he knew when he left are dead. His description of the star drive and the hero’s problems managing it are detailed and unchallengeable. The only mystery is what difficulty it’s likely to get him into next. The granddaddy of all science-fiction is Jules Verne, and he is still unmatched for his perception regarding the consequences of technology.
I hope you can see a pattern here. The best science fiction is written by real scientist or those with a real appreciation of science. Star Wars is an adventure-movie political-statement, only loosely based on ‘science-fiction’. Star Trek is a little more careful and detailed, but it too was later usurped by those without the patience to build a brick at a time. Star Trek’s creator, Gene Rodenberry also dabbled in liberal-political statements, but never as contemptuously as does Lucas. Ultimately, both end up in the fantasy heap as regards science and politics. The same can be said of historical fiction. Those who take the time to do the research and understand the way events build one on the other invariably get it right. The rest are out for quick satisfaction, but deliver very little of it.
For an example of a work of historical fiction with a solid religious foundation, I refer you to “The Name of the Rose”, by Umberto Eco. Eco is a powerful writer who takes us into both the times and the minds of a 14th century religious culture. His work resonates with authenticity backed by real scholarship. Name of the Rose is also a great detective yarn, with characters having sufficient depth to satisfy our sense of realism. For another good read with real scholarship try, “The Autobiography of Henry VIII : With Notes by His Fool, Will Somers”, by Margaret George.
Eco did not stick to historical fiction, as George does, wandering off into historical fantasy in his later books. His book “Foucault’s Pendulum” may even be a partial template for the DVC. Both books deal with a conspiracy with ancient roots. Yet, unlike Brown’s book, Eco’s fantasy is rooted in historical detail that makes the conspiracy the product of a centuries-long delusion that obsesses on the occult; with the result Eco ultimately proves he has not lost his mind by discrediting the conspirators as a band of murdering lunatics. Pendulum keeps its readers swinging to and fro trying to keep up with Eco. First he has you believing he’s abandoned good historical authenticity as well as good sense, then takes it back, and so on until you despair even he, the author, knows where he is going. But, Eco is much more sure footed than he lets on, and at the end proves how good a web he can spin. Despite Pendulum having served as blueprint for the inferior DVC work, DVC is now getting the credit as first of its kind and parent to several copy-cat writers. Oh, well. I guess we’re just not all that evolved after all.
I will have to read the Da Vinci Code, if only to satisfy myself I did not brush it off too lightly. 60.5-million readers must see something worth reading in it, even if it is only not being left out on the joke. Still, I’m not too keen on parting with all those bucks for what is probably a poor excuse for getting published. Anybody got a used copy they’re throwing out?
Ted, four things: 1) You’re proselytizing and I’m not buying, 2) You certainly don’t (I gently suggest, shouldn’t) believe everything you read, 3) You don’t “know” anything about what emperor Constantine was really like since you didn’t live in the year 300 (I may be wrong here –a slight bow to Bob’s excellent “historical fantasy” observations), and 4) It’s still a book written for enjoyment. The sequel is really going to set you off!
Someone gave me a copy of Brown’s book as a Christmas present. The ideas on which it is based were familiar, as they derive from Baigent and Leigh’s book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Those ideas are interesting as they relate to the Arthurian Narrative Cycle, which is linked to Glastonbury and the search for the healing power of the Grail. Brown’s book was disappointing for reasons that Bob has already noted from his cursory examination, stilted dialogue and fantasy conspiracy. To that I would add inorganic plot contrivances, which degenerate into a silly “romantic” formulaic ending that seems to promise a sequel.
That the book is a number one Times bestseller does little to bolster confidence in popular taste.
“Christians can watch it and have a good time, realizing that….it is fiction.”
That’s quite a statement there…
What kind of a ‘Christian’ would watch such a blasphemous movie that undermines his/her faith with lies and deceit and have a ‘good time’ to boot?
I must say, there’s a certain irony here in proponents of Christianity condemning the lack of factual foundation for the book. Yes, the book is fiction, yes the book plays fast and loose with objective truth. But, um, if you want to get technical about it, there really isn’t much objective support for religion, either. Now, don’t get me wrong — I’m not condemning religion for its lack of objective substantiation. If somebody wants to justify their faith with the statement “you just have to take it on faith”, that’s fine with me, and I can respect their faith. But it seems a bit contradictory to me for somebody who rejects objective realism as a foundation for their beliefs to criticize the objective failures of a work of fiction.
Again, I want to emphasize that I am not attacking religion here; my point is confined to the apparent contradiction of relying on faith for one’s own belief system and criticizing another person for not following the strictest standards of logical analysis. Please, let’s not get into a war here!
No one’s faith has been changed over the Da Vinci code. I’m sorry. Both Rob and Shane wrote wonderful responses to my feelings over the book. But anyone who’s “faith has been changed” over the book had no faith to begin with. Again, the idea that Christ “shacked up” with Mary Magdalen is not only not anything new, it is not anything relevant. So Jesus, the guy who walked on water, turned water to wine, rose from the dead, raised SOMEONE ELSE from the dead, and oh yes, was the son of God, had sex while he was on Earth…WHO CARES? This theory predates any of us on this board by a couple of decades. Yet, the church is still here. There are still about a billion Christians on the face of the planet. And this theory had been floated seriously before. Yet, now that it is in book form, it’s changing LIVES. Please. Don’t make me laugh. No one of any faith has been remotely moved by the book. Nor were they moved by the last fifty incarnations of this theory, Dogma being a quick entertaining (and inspiring) version.
So Christians didn’t go hacking off heads…does that make their response right? Of course not. And to have to compare yourself to mindless savages who committed murder on behalf of being insulted makes you look foolish.
Real Christians don’t care about the DVC. It is a poorly written book of fiction, one the author is being sued for, over plagerism issues. Millions of Catholics alone saw the movie…and are still Catholics. Three left the theater questioning their faith. Millions of protestants saw it, and only 6 were shaken. You get my point. Christianity has survived beheadings, cruifictions, and much more…I think it can survive a movie made by Hollywood.
Ted, ted. Why is it absurd that people can enjoy something and not be offended? Eddie Izzard makes fun of ALL the churches, and I love him for it. Robin Williams makes religious jokes all the time, and the man amuses me. South Park, one of my favorite shows, mocks religion after religion (including Catholicism and Mormons, the two religions of the shows writers), and I am entertained. It is a pathetic person who cannot laugh at themselves, or be ridiculed. I beg you to watch Lisa Lampinella, who insults people of all races, creeds, and cultures, and they all laugh. Pull the stick out of your ass, it is a piece of FICTION. Why do I not get offended? Because I am secure in my beliefs. It is my firm belief that if a man is truly offended by a piece of fiction just because it calls a belief into question, he has no belief.
And as for g Gardner. A christian can watch it and enjoy themselves because it DOESN’T undermine his faith.
Quite frankly, any of you who don’t understand this concept, have no faith.
To put it in a different context, how many white people watch Chris Rock, even though he makes fun of white people?
How many Christians enjoyed Dogma, despite its’s “blasphemy”?
Don’t like it? Don’t watch it.
But grow up about it either way.
Fine. If we want to take that attitude toward fiction, I don’t mind at all- but be consistent about it. If Dan Brown’s next work of “fiction” is based on the theory that Hitler was really not such a bad guy after all, and there has been a huge Jewish conspiracy to smear his name, then we have no right to complain. I don’t mind being ridiculed, if it’s done intelligently. What I mind is they way that offensive slander is allowed to slide because it is “just harmless fiction”. Some fiction is simply offensive, no matter how you slice it. You say Chris Rock is funny. Fine. What if he called for African-Americans to murder whites in the streets, but claimed he was “just kidding”? Is it still funny, or is it offensive?
People CAN enjoy DVC for what it is, but they’d better be ready to be consistent about it.
I must admit to being curious about the motives behind liberals interest in advocating, promoting, and recommending others see this movie. From what I see and hear on a daily basis, liberals complain that they don’t want religion pushed down their throats. I am left to conclude that one or more of the following is true.
1) They are open to anything that demeans and debases Christ and Christianity.
2) They are seeking a different truth that better coincides with their worldview, by recreating God in their own image.
If those who claim to know that this is a fictional account, what do they consider true and why are they so disinterested in fact. Is the bible true in which case they are joining in actively besmirching God incarnate who sacrificed his life for them, or do they believe that he was a “good person” invested in self-aggrandisement by putting himself on a par with God, or do they see him as a completely fictional character. I don’t think the question is why Christians oppose the movie, but why agnostics are so enamored of it.
I’d welcome any liberal agnostic (or athiest) who supports this movie to explain why.
Tom
It’s a bit hard to agree with an article that begins by making valid, justified comments about a book of mistruths, and then turns toward comparing ALL liberals (every single one? All of them in the world?) into Hitler. In debate, it is a poor tactic to compare one’s enemy to Hitler. It is appealing to the fundamental disgust (and fear) all right thinking humans have of that monster, and a cowardly attempt to associate that primal hatred with one’s opponent. It smacks of a lack of effort and truthfulness.
Do you really believe there is a vast liberal conspiracy to ban religion, private or public, to replace every single value YOU hold dear with atheist propaganda? Do you really believe that every single liberal on the planet is a rabid atheist committed to the destruction of everything you hold dear? Do they have huge international conventions where they pray to Karl Marx and make toasts to the future of abortion?
The first tactic of propaganda is to demonise in illogical and fundamentally primal ways one’s enemy. Good work.
Apart from that stange interlude abot Hitler and Mao, however, I agree with the substance of your article, the part that relates to the da Vinci code, that is.
Great movie! Loved it!
Dan (a Christian)
The book is a work of fiction, based on facts. The socities in the book DID exist, you cannot deny that. It’s history; there are documents. The book is just using fiction to connect facts in a possible hypothisis. Not to say Dan Brown believes his story to be ture, nor that he wants anyone else to. It is purely for entertainment sake.
I saw the Da Vinci Code last weekend. I was struck by how much fun it was to watch a good murder-mystery. In my mind, there was only the lamest hint that there was any truth to some of the “clues”. It was fun to watch – a good story.
Again, I do not get the uproar against this book and film- it is in NO WAY anti-christian. It’s anti Opus Dei, and to a slight extent anti-Catholic, (and maybe even anti-albino!) but not anti-Christian or anti-Jesus. It never questions Christ’s divinity, it never questions Christ’s teachings. It only questions his marital status. If your faith is soo fragile that it can be broken just because Jesus may have has a child, then your faith is not very strong in the first place.
Re: ValanceStudios
With all due respect Sir, your comment (not just yours, but many postings on this forum) points to a lack of knowledge and love for God. No ones faith can be broken by such stupidity and lies, because those who truly believe are overcomers, and HE will finish the work HE started. I will not sit silent and read these comments go without refute.
When it comes to the cross, it is the job of all Christians to refute arguments, lies and deceptions, whether they be fiction or not. The thing is that everyone in this forum knows that the Da vinci code is mainly based on Gnostic writings—proven time and time again to be lies…and you know who is the father of lies!
“For many deceivers have gone out into the world.”
You said,” just because Jesus may have had a child,” and, “It only questions his marital status.”This shows in part that you have swallowed the lie and have become indifferent to the precious blood shed on the cross. Do you not yet comprehend that it is impossible for Jesus to have known a woman?
If God forbids his angels to know women(and you know what happened to them), how much more His only begotten son?
If you know the TRUTH, why then do you seek entertainment in lies?
2 Th 2:9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,
2 Th 2:10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2 Th 2:11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,
2 Th 2:12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Correction to post 23 Re: MagentaStudios