According to the New York Times, asserting that Jesus is not God or making the claim that the entire Christian faith is false is “by no means sacrilegious;” but pointing out that Bill Clinton almost certainly raped at least one woman – well, that’s bomb-throwing.
The New York Times is all in a huff about Ann Coulter’s newest book, Godless. Seems they don’t like how Ann points out the shameless celebrity-hustling undertaken by four 9/11 widows, or the shameless celebrity-hustling undertaken by Cindy Sheehan, for that matter.
Ann is a bomb-thrower who is only in it for the money, too smart to be taken in by her own rhetoric, but with fans too stupid to realize her rhetoric is completely unacceptable.
According to the New York Times editorial board, it is Ann who is just "one more nut" shamelessly hustling for money. The proof is easily demonstrated. When Hillary Clinton arose in righteous indignation to complain that Ann’s treatment of the “four witches of East Brunswick” was “vicious,” Ann was actually crude enough to remind Hillary that her own husband, Mr. Bill, was credibly accused of rape on multiple occasions. How dare she?
The New York Times, being the “newspaper of record,” would never stoop to that kind of nonsense. When, in 2003, they called The Da Vinci Code, “An exhilaratingly brainy thriller… a gleefully erudite suspense novel,” they were simply reporting the facts. When they insisted the novel was “…one that is by no means sacrilegious, though it sharply challenges Vatican policy,” they were giving dispassionate analysis.
You see, asserting that Jesus is not God or making the claim that the entire Christian faith is false is “by no means sacrilegious.” But pointing out that Bill Clinton almost certainly raped at least one woman and probably raped several – well, that’s bomb-throwing. As far as the New York Times is concerned, Hillary Clinton is an untouchably sacred cow.
Asserting that Jesus is not God or making the claim that the entire Christian faith is false?
Well, you have obviously not read the Da Vinci Code, or seen the film.
It in NO WAY says that Jesus is not God. It says Jesus was married and had a daughter- that makes no claim one way or the other about divinity.
It IN NO WAY says the entire Christian faith is false. The Christian faith is about sin and redemption. It is NOT about Jesus’ sex life or the lack therof.
The MOST you can say is that it is anti-Catholic, but that is not the same thing as anti-Christian.
I did see the Da Vinci Code, and was well entertained thereby. I admit,
I’ve not read the book, but I have several other books to read first.
Though I found the Da Vinci movie an enjoyable thriller, with plot twists
and puzzles to delight the “whodunit” mindset, the assertion that Jesus
married and had a family–often coupled with the teaching that He was
not crucified Himself, but rather had a stand-in–is usually done
with the view of postulating that He was MERELY human, with no
connection to the divine. Ian McKellan’s character seems obsessed
with proving at least the Catholic religion to be completely false, to
the extent that he highlights several coincidental “clues” in the Last
Supper of Da Vinci. The tagline, “So dark the con of man,” implies that
the Catholic Church–and by extension, all of Christianity has been a
lie.
The fact that this movie is fiction, as is the book has not escaped me. It has,
apparently, escaped the author, who, it seems, believes that at least part of
his book is based on historical record. And those who push the agenda of
Christ’s humanity exclusive of His divinity do so with one purpose: so that
they need not be subject to His dominion.
In any case, the previous poster seems to have completely missed the
writer’s point. This article was not a screed on the evils of the “Da Vinci
Code;” it was to point out that mocking, attacking, or attempting to
dismantle Christianity is not seen by the Left as doing anything immoral,
but to remind the people that the Left shield their own from the
consequences of criminal conduct as long as they toe the party line is,
to their duplicitous minds, unconscionable, hence the “Sacred Cow”
portion of the forgoing article’s title.
1.) There is nothing in DaVinci Code about a “stand in” at the crucifixion. You might as well say Dan Brown thinks Jesus was an Alien.
2.) There is nothing that states or even suggests that he is “merely” human. The debate about Jesus being wholly divine or both human and divine is as old as Christianity itself- and while it is true the book and film do not support the “wholly divine” stance, that does not make Jesus “merely” human either.
3.) No, The dark con of man referred to suppressing the feminine divine- the concept of Mary Magdalene being Jesus’ wife. You have extrapolated that to mean that all of Christianity is a lie, when nothing in the book or film suggests that in the least. The only “lie” being uncovered (according to this work of fiction) is the concept of Jesus being celibate. That’s it. That one thing does not cause all of Christianity to collapse. There is no “by extension”, it’s by a slippery slope.
4.) Again, there is no “Agenda” of Christ’s humanity exclusive of his divinity: the most you can say is it supports Christ’s humanity ALONG WITH his divinity.
5.) I got the authors point- and my point is that the author is attacking windmills. He is burning straw men. He is fighting shadows.
The claim that DaVinci Code is “mocking, attacking, or attempting to dismantle Christianity” is false, so then the whole premise is false.
The belief that people on the “left” are out to destroy Christianity is not just false, it’s paranoid.
As anyone on the “left” will tell you, Liberalism as all about freedom of religion- that does NOT mean absence of religion.
6.) The left shield their own from the consequences of criminal conduct as long as they toe the party line?
Now if that is not a perfect example of casting stones while in glass houses.
Not wanting to sink to that level, but do you mean like the Church shielding child molesting priests from the consequences of criminal conduct?
That kind of black and white “right vs left” thinking is what is unconscionable.
It blinds you to misconduct done on your “side” and exagerates any misconduct done on the other “side”.
Demonizing the other side of a debate is the product of a “duplicitous mind”.
Dear Mr. Studios,
Thank you for your reply. I would ask you to re-read
my post, and this time, do so carefully. You will find
that I did not say that there was a “stand-in” at the
Crucifixion in the Da Vinci Code, only that the negation
of Christ’s divinity is sometimes coupled with this
assertion. And yes, if Christ’s divinity is negated,
as many have attempted to do, the logical result is
that he would be “merely” human–i.e., a great
Teacher, and enlightened Master, but not
God, nor the Son of God, therefore incapable of
making absolute pronouncements about what
man may do to be saved. As regards the “con of
man,” I myself do not extrapolate that Christianity
is a lie thereby–I believe no such thing at all–but
rather those who seek to undermine Christ’s
authority by casting doubt upon every aspect of
Christianity that they can find. It just so happens
that Dan Brown harps on this particular one.
Again, the point of stressing Christ’s humanity
over or exclusive of his divinity (done implicitly
in this movie, explicitly elsewhere) is indeed an
agenda undertaken by those who do not wish
to follow Him. As to mocking or attempting to
dismantle Christianity…if you read carefully
instead of just letting the words pour into your
mind, you will see that I did not ascribe this to
the Da Vinci Code specifically; it is a behavior
indulged in by those gullible reactionaries
who tend to think DVC is some sort of new
gospel, forgetting, as I have said before, that
the book is FICTION. Concerning your seventh
point, being neither a Catholic, nor a priest, nor
a molester of children, I’m afraid I cannot
answer to your charge of throwing stones while
living in a glass house. However, the misconduct
of the American Catholic Church in no way
excuses President Clinton’s misdeeds, nor do
the President’s misdeeds excuse those of
Catholic priests. It cannot be denied, however,
that the left shielded Bill Clinton very well from
the legal consequences of his actions, just as
Cardinal Law did the priests in question.
I do appreciate the passion with which you
write, but I fear that it impairs your ability to
understand exactly the points you wish to dispute.
May I advise you, Mr. Studios, to govern your
passions, lest they prove your undoing. In your
assertions that my points are paranoid,or that
I have (chuckle) “demonized” the other side
of the debate, reflect well upon your own writing.
The fighting of straw men, paranoia, demonizing,
look well that you do not do that for which you
scold others.
Finally, I am well aware that those on the Left
will say that they are about freedom of religion,
not destroying Christianity. The problem is, their
actions are at odds with their words. Thier
conduct belies their communication; in other
words, “the lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
Of course they say they’re not out to destroy
Christianity. Would anybody who thought
themselves reasonably open-minded answer an
open call to a jihad? But their actions speak
more loudly than their words. Look again–they
say “freedom of religion,” when they really mean
“freedom from religion.”
Please, Mr. Studios. Who are you trying to convince?
Me…or yourself?
Anne Coulter is indeed a bomb thrower. It is also true she’s made a lot of money from bomb throwing. But that is not what the Times has accused her of. They accuse her of throwing bombs at the left only for the money. In a word, they’re saying her bomb throwing is purely “mercenary”. Well, the Times has made a lot more money than Coulter throwing bombs at the right. Doesn’t that make them the greater mercenary?
As a Jew, I don’t believe Jesus is G-d either, but that does not mean I mock those who believe in his divinity. The question is, does Dan Brown? The Jewish position is that Jesus was a great teacher and a crucial historical personage who altered the course of the world. As such, he is due some respect even by those who do not worship him. I haven’t yet read Brown’s book, but I can gather some information from sources attacking and defending him. The whole premise of the mystery upon which the book hinges makes Jesus uncelibate and Magdalene his wife. All Christianity, and not just the Catholic Church, has long held Jesus was celebate, and that his divinity pivots, in some part, on that celibacy. There is good historical evidence to support a celibate Jesus. Jesus was either an Essene or strongly influenced by Essene concepts. Among these was the belief that holiness and celibacy are linked (There is a modern misconception that the church followed the practice of celibacy in imitation of Jesus only. Celibacy was linked to holiness in many eastern reeligions of the time, including Greek and Roman [e.g., vestal virgins]). The Essenes were not unique in this view, as Pharisee, Sadducee and Apocalyptic visionaries believed the Messiah, when he came, would be reknown by his piety and purity. Thus, it is fatuous to argue that putting a woman in Jesus’ bed does not mock the cherished beliefs of Christians (and, for that matter, Jews). Brown had to have known he would stir up a great deal of controversy pinning his story on this particular device.
In recent years, there has been speculation by feminists that G-d is feminine or neuter, by gays that Jesus had relations with his apostles, and by socialists he would side with them against the old order . Each of these is an attempt to recast Jesus or G-d in a new mold at odds with mainstream thought. I can’t help but think that Brown was in some way influenced by these speculations in finding his ‘hook’. Brown does not appear to be an extremists promoting any particular ideology or theology. Rather, he appears to be one of those people to whom all this speculation matters little. He does not stand by his assertion, so much, as tell us “Hey, it’s just at literary device!” Anne Coulter and the Times have each made money pushing viewpoints. Brown has made money assasinating the most cherished views of others. Perhaps, it is Brown the Times should be labelling “mercenary”.
This is all a matter of evidence. Show me evidence that God exists, anyone, please. Likewise, if you have real evidence that Clinton raped anyone bring it to the authorities, let him stand trial. What the hell are you standing around talking about it for?
If on the other hand you do not have any real evidence that Clinton raped anyone, to suggest that he did is not bomb throwing, it’s mud slinging.
Throw enough dirt and hope some sticks, isn’t that how it works in conservative circles?
I’m still waiting for the ‘intellectual’ conservatives to show up, where are they, can anyone tell me?
Characters in the Da Vinci Code do say things like “everything our fathers told us about Christ is false” and “Jesus’ divinity is the result of a vote; a relatively close vote at that”. So Mr Kellmeyer is fair to say that the book claims Christianity is false. However, I’ve read the book, and I don’t really think it can be classified as “bomb-throwing”. It’s not a radical religious polemic, it’s a fictional thriller!
Ann Coulter’s comments, on the other hand, do fit that description. I simply don’t see how a rape accusation made against Bill has anything whatsoever to do with Hillary’s opinion of Ms Coulter’s book. The connection is not simply tenuous, it is nonexistent. It’s simply Coulter trying to throw her favorite anti-Clinton talking point into as many arguments as possible, much like her dogged insistence on bringing up the NYTimes publisher’s SAT scores.
I myself have been at pains to point out to those around me who follow
this issue a little too closely that the movie and book are works of fiction.
I’ve seen many people lose their minds over this bool, thinking either that
it’s Satan’s work, or that it’s a new gospel. Sometimes I think I’m the only
one who remembers that this book is found in the fiction section.