Over at the movie theater in Manhattan at 42nd and 8th, I was fascinated to see pickets with people marching around, protesting “The DaVinci Code,” declaring it to be an insult to the Catholic church.
I wonder what would have happened if I’d walked up to them and asked them if they were out protesting with great ire over the way that Jews were portrayed in “Passion of the Christ.” After all, people who demand sensitivity to their religion would certainly want to be supportive of others who feel their religion is being ill used in cinema, right? So were they marching to protest what many felt to be a profound anti-Semitic message in “Passion?” Or were they too busy filling theaters with their church groups?
I wonder if such an observation from myself would have resulted in my being with Christian charity?
PAD
• 
Posted by Bill Mulligan at May 25, 2006 11:11 AM
I’m not gonna get into a whole Fox vs CBS, CNN etc, but by the standards you’ve expressed here, none of them pass muster.
You’ll get no argument from me.
Besides, wasn’t Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? played on the Fox TV network, not Fox News–two totally different entities? (it would be like giving Fox News CREDIT for The Simpsons!).
Ah, šhìŧ, I looked it up and I think you’re right. See, this is why I’m no longer a reporter. I can’t keep anything straight.
Mulligan, I must say that I don’t appreciate the way you keep exposing my lack of command of the facts and exposing me for the idiot windbag we all know that I am. 🙂
But you’re a loveable idiot windbag which puts you way ahead of most of us.
Heh! I did a little research and quickly found an example where Fox News was indeed culpable for reporting pseudoscience as fact:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c7/c7s5.htm
So who’s the idiot windbag now, Mulligan?
Huh? It’s still me?
Crap.
Nah. That was the Fox news website. But you’re still loveable.
Bill:
I don’t think I was making a straw man argument when I talked about the broader parameters of the Crusades and the trial of Galileo. As people of the 21st century, we’re best capable of understanding and speaking of the problems and the failings of the Church of the 21st century…of which (Good Lord) there are plenty…as opposed to things that happened centuries ago.
When we say “Is the Church’s opposition to birth control a result of simple resistance to dissent and change?” we all know what sort of a world the 21st century is, I mean. We can’t evaluate the decisions of 1000 AD with the same level of understanding. But when we talk about hundreds of thousands of preventable AIDS deaths, partly due to the Church’s opposition to condoms, we can have a fuller discussion.
And sure, I know Catholic history fairly well, and I’m confident that if you don’t recall the bits where I’ve acknowledged the Church’s failings and sins, it’s only because this is a long thread and it’s easy to overlook or forget about certain elements.
We’re getting at that frustrating point in any ongoing online debate where (a) it’s becoming a cracking-good discussion between smart people who want to explore a topic, but (b) we’ve dug into areas that are complex enough that following a thought through all the way requires time and research. And a three-day weekend’s coming up. 🙂
I’ll just return to my basic point, in case I don’t have time to return to this thread: I think the Church and its members get an unfair rap for not being free-thinkers.
I think it’s easy to defend the statement that the Church doesn’t discourage debate, even on matters of doctrine. Officials only truly dig in their heels when “Let’s talk about this” morphs into “Let’s change Doctrine to reflect my/our opinion.” Even when that’s articulated as inoffensively as the statement “I’m a Catholic and I support the death penalty.” The subtle distinction is that the Church’s reaction is against the first half of the statement and not the second.
I mean, if the Church demanded that all of its members think the same way about every topic, there wouldn’t be any controversy regarding the selection of a new Pope. Even in the College of Cardinals, there are wide differences of opinion regarding the correct future direction of the Church.
Posted by: Andy Ihnatko at May 25, 2006 04:17 PM
Bill:
I don’t think I was making a straw man argument when I talked about the broader parameters of the Crusades and the trial of Galileo. As people of the 21st century, we’re best capable of understanding and speaking of the problems and the failings of the Church of the 21st century…of which (Good Lord) there are plenty…as opposed to things that happened centuries ago.
I understand, and acknowledge that you have a valid point. I was simply trying to point out, however, that the Church’s current woes are part of a historical pattern. I don’t think our perspectives are mutually exclusive.
I became irritable because I perceived, perhaps wrongly, that you were unfairly nitpicking. I apologize.
We can’t evaluate the decisions of 1000 AD with the same level of understanding.
No, but as I said, we can certainly point to those things to help put the current situation into a historical context.
But when we talk about hundreds of thousands of preventable AIDS deaths, partly due to the Church’s opposition to condoms, we can have a fuller discussion.
Agreed. But, as you said, space and time are limited commodities, so I chose one modern problem as an example.
And sure, I know Catholic history fairly well, and I’m confident that if you don’t recall the bits where I’ve acknowledged the Church’s failings and sins, it’s only because this is a long thread and it’s easy to overlook or forget about certain elements.
Or I was just getting pissy. I do that sometimes. I suspect you know the Church’s history better than I do. Most of my feelings about the Church stem from my decision at the age of 16 to break with the Church, and my parent’s insistence on trying to cram the Church down my throat. I was only 16, but had given the issue a lot of thought and reflection, and resented the way so many people around me acted as though I had to be stupid because I, perish the thought, disagreed with them.
At 16 I knew practically nothing, and thus I thought I knew everything. Ironically, though, 19 years and some change later, I still feel comfortable with my decision to break with the Church and more confident than ever that I was right to turn my back on religion in favor of a different path.
As I said, I was probably bringing some of that emotion to this debate, where it has no place. Sorry.
We’re getting at that frustrating point in any ongoing online debate where (a) it’s becoming a cracking-good discussion between smart people who want to explore a topic, but (b) we’ve dug into areas that are complex enough that following a thought through all the way requires time and research. And a three-day weekend’s coming up. 🙂
I agree that you’re a smart person. I’m not sure of the identity of the other smart person to whom you’re referring. We know it’s not me.
I’ll just return to my basic point, in case I don’t have time to return to this thread: I think the Church and its members get an unfair rap for not being free-thinkers.
I don’t want to argue around in circles. I will, however, say this in favor of the Catholic Church: it is one of the more scholarly and intellectually demanding Christian denominations. That said, I still disagree with the Church on many levels. Then again, I disagree with religion in general, so it may not be fair to single out Catholicism for this debate.
Okay, first, a little background about myself. I was raised Lutheran but when I was about 16 I started to became what I am today: an atheist. I held a master degree in electrical engineering but as a freshman I mas originally a biology major. I know weird change but thats life.
At the beginning of The Davinci Code Book is a statement about the description of the art in the book being true. I know that is debatable but the point I want to make is: he does not say the interpretation of the art is true.
Other thing, the bad guy is the one that give his theories about church, the hero say at the end: the important thing is what you believe.
I feel that the church think the faith of his members is pretty weak if they make this much fuss about a movie. This is the problem when must of the american people obtain their education from movies and television. If its in print or in the air it must be true.
Do any of you remember the movie The body with Antonio Banderas? In that one Jesus never resucitate, they found his body in a tomb with a secreat room. That movie say that Jesus perform no miracles and that he was not the son of God. Strangely I do not remember this many protests.
As a movie The Davinci Code did not impress me much because it had nothing I have never seen or heard before. The effects when Robert Langdom deduce codes remainded me of A Beautiful Mind and the car chases where underaverage and the french police where depicted as stupid and incompetent.
And why was Robert so afraid of the police at the begining if he was in front of an auditorium full of people and the in a book signing at the time of the murder. In the book the police captain ask for his help once he is already in his room and without an aliby.
Finaly I was familiar with the theory presented in the movie (and the book) yeras ago because my dad is a conspiracy theory freak. He have lots of books about the subject. He was a member of the Masons (as almost every student in his med class back in the day) and one of the levels he held is that of a Templar, but is different than what is presented in the movie.
The Catholics should try burning down an embassy or two; the Muslims got the “12 cartoons” pulled and human rights groups rallied around them
FWIW, I support the Catholics’ right to protest this movie. I also support stupid people’s rights to go see it and believe it
I also firmly support burning books as long as they are yours (i.e. they are bought and paid for)
Free Speech: It’s great!
several people have argued that you really shouldn’t protest a piece of art you haven’t seen.
now, it’s pretty hard to argue with the logic of that, but i’m gonna give it a shot.
the big problem is, by seeing a movie that you politically/religiously oppose, you’re putting money into the pockets of people espousing a political/religious view you oppose.
Mr. Mulligan mentioned upthread that there was a film based on the idea of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
now, if that film were screening in America, should every person who wants to protest it have to buy a ticket and put money into the pockets of the filmmakers first?
if i had it on reasonable authority that a film promoted child molestation, i might be inclined to protest that film without doing my part to fund further such films.
-will
Bill–I was all set to be all mad for that pseudoscience thing, and while the article itself does raise my hackles and make me want to beat my head against the wall, it ain’t at you, my friend. The face on Mars? Don’t buy it, but the layout of the Cydonia region conforming so close to the layout of the monuments in Egypt does raise some questions in my head. Articles like that just make me mad, though. Especially ones that use CSICOP as a reference. Many of the things that they list as pseudoscience I myself have experienced, but since these events leave no PHYSICAL evidence, they’re labeled pseudoscience.
Although I do think Uri Gellar’s a hack.
One thing I always want to ask these Skeptics(which is different in my head from skeptics, because a true skeptic will explore something before forming an opinion, whereas Skeptics will just say “That’s not real, because I said so”) is whether or not they have any religious affiliations. They dismiss all these phenomena, again, some of which I myself have experienced, so I think it would be interesting to find out just what they DO believe in. Wonder if any of THEM are protesting the DaVinci Code.
Problem that I have with religion dictating THE WAY THINGS ARE is any religion will be interpreted in the head of the Believer (for lack of a better word) according to the experiences of that person, so that even though you might claim to be the most Orthodox follower of any religion around, you still believe something unique unto yourself in your own frame of reference. Anybody catch that Gospel of Judas thing a few weeks back? Interesting ideas raised in that, but a lot of people are pissy about them, too, since it isn’t what’s “accepted.” So, maybe Jesus WAS married. Seriously, here. Would that change THAT much?
if i had it on reasonable authority that a film promoted child molestation, i might be inclined to protest that film without doing my part to fund further such films.
But there’s the rub when it comes to the DaVinci Code protests. The people protesting this movie are the same pinheads who get worked into a tizzy every time a new Harry Potter comes out and still maintain that D&D teaches devil worship. These people who will believe anything said to them from behind a pulpit, no matter how ludicrous, can’t be said to have anything on “reasonable authority.”
As anybody who has read the book knows, (critiques of literary merit and historical accuracy aside) Brown goes out of his way to NOT tar the entire Catholic faith with one brush, and the movie actually goes further.
As for “The Church” pushing for a boycott of the film, even that’s not the unified front most of the “news” media would have us believe. I was really proud of our local Fox affiliate when the morning news actually paired a blurb from a Vatican official blithering about the “attack on the faith” with a clip of another Vatican official saying, in essence, that it was an entertaining fiction, nothing else, and that if it inspired discussion, then that can hardly be a bad thing. I’d love to see more actual intelligent discourse, but of course, rational people with educated opinions don’t make for good TV…
Another thing somewhat related that I wanted to ask other people who saw the movie in other parts of the country about. Were there kids amongst your protesters?
When my wife and I went on friday night, there were a grand total of five protesters (across the street where they had probably been sent by the two policemen in front of the theater), three of which were children. And I’m not talking teenagers. YOUNG children.
Now, I’m just kind of curious if I’m alone or not in thinking that drafting your kids to stand in a ditch along the side of the road holding signs in the rain is a deplorable practice. Personally, seeing that moved them down a few notches in my estimation from “Pitiable Idiots” to “People Who Should Have Their Kids Taken Away.”
-Rex Hondo-
James, I think the reason for this controversey is that the note in the beginning of the book claims that all descriptions of art, architecture, documents and secret rituals is factually accurate.
Wait…that’s why people can’t get it thru their heads that the book is made up? That nothing in it is real?
The descirptions of the churches, real. The descriptions of the paintins, real. I don’t recall what “rituals” happened…I guess the albino’s self flagelation…
The historical conspiracy in the Da Vinci Code? Made up. Dan Brown lifted it, changed the names a bit so he could later win a plagerism suit, from Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Teabing even pulls the book off his bookshelf.
(Now, you can argue about HBHG’s accuracy..it’s mentioned at the top of the page that it’s been debunked (though the debunking was also debunked….all madness)….)
Getting worked up about the “history” presented in Da Vinci Code is the same as getting worked up that the history of Bruce Banner in the Hulk movie is different than the history in PAD’s Hulk run.
If you’re upset at the concepts presented, at least be upset at the actual concepts…not the fake (more fake) ones in a movie adapted from a book that swiped from another book.
I don’t recall what “rituals” happened…
Corporal Mortification, use of the Cilice, Heiros Gamos, and probably one or two minor ones I’m forgetting…
-Rex Hondo-
The thing with Pseudoscience is less about things observed or experienced than about the language.
It is quite possible that some forms of pseudoscience work at least some of the time. But for them to be discussed in scientific terms they need to be discussed in terms of biological or psychological cause and effect, and of hypothesis, experimentation etc. When the language used to describe these phenomena or experiences is one of chi, energies, auroas, balances, entities etc. they cannot be considered scientific even if and when they seem to have an effective biological or psychological result.
Similarily with UFO’s. It is quite possible that people have seen objects zoom around that they could not identify. It is also possible that aliens visit earth. But the problem is that people have a full set of terms and expectations about very limited phenomena, that are derived from popular culture. People know a-priori how aliens look (Close and Counters), what they want (to experiments), how they communicate (telepathy), prior to any research.
“Problem that I have with religion dictating THE WAY THINGS ARE is any religion will be interpreted in the head of the Believer (for lack of a better word) according to the experiences of that person, so that even though you might claim to be the most Orthodox follower of any religion around, you still believe something unique unto yourself in your own frame of reference.”
This is not unique to religion. Any experience ar knowledge are processed by individuals.
The thing with religion is that it derives its authority from tradition, traditional sources, traditional language and the interpretational authority of appointed or charismatic leaders. This is also true of some forms of pseudoscience.
Christianity might reject the Judas Gospel because it is not accepted tradition. Historical research seems to suggest that it is a source reflecting the beliefs of gnostics that has no verified information on the historical Jesus or Judas. Is there any reasons based on historical research to think or hypothesize that Jesus was married or had children? If not, than it is only a ‘what if’ scenario which makes for fun fiction but not history.
Posted by: Rat at May 25, 2006 10:30 PM
Bill–I was all set to be all mad for that pseudoscience thing, and while the article itself does raise my hackles and make me want to beat my head against the wall, it ain’t at you, my friend. The face on Mars? Don’t buy it, but the layout of the Cydonia region conforming so close to the layout of the monuments in Egypt does raise some questions in my head. Articles like that just make me mad, though. Especially ones that use CSICOP as a reference. Many of the things that they list as pseudoscience I myself have experienced, but since these events leave no PHYSICAL evidence, they’re labeled pseudoscience.
Well, I think there’s more to it than just that. I think the problem is that some people will present these phenomena as though they’ve been validated by the scientific method, when in fact no such thing has happened.
That said, I believe in God, and therefore believe in something beyond our physical existence. I too have had experiences that lead me to believe there’s… something… out there that can’t be explained by science. But I’m careful not to present these things as science.
And while I don’t believe science can explain everything, I think it’s a super-useful tool for explaining and understanding our physical existence. I sucked at science in high school — but I’m grateful for the people that don’t suck at it. We need science.
Although I do think Uri Gellar’s a hack.
Ashamed to admit I don’t know who that is, so I’ll take your word for it.
One thing I always want to ask these Skeptics(which is different in my head from skeptics, because a true skeptic will explore something before forming an opinion, whereas Skeptics will just say “That’s not real, because I said so”) is whether or not they have any religious affiliations. They dismiss all these phenomena, again, some of which I myself have experienced, so I think it would be interesting to find out just what they DO believe in. Wonder if any of THEM are protesting the DaVinci Code.
Well, I think it’s useful to point out that these things haven’t been scientifically proven. Although, who knows? Perhaps some day some of them will be. There was a time when we all just “knew” that the earth was flat.
Problem that I have with religion dictating THE WAY THINGS ARE is any religion will be interpreted in the head of the Believer (for lack of a better word) according to the experiences of that person, so that even though you might claim to be the most Orthodox follower of any religion around, you still believe something unique unto yourself in your own frame of reference.
Rat, you’ve made a very, very profound point. No two people experience the world in the same way. That’s what makes us individuals.
And it feels odd to call you “Rat” when you’re saying such profound things. 🙂 But hey, you want to use that as your handle, I can respect that.
Anybody catch that Gospel of Judas thing a few weeks back? Interesting ideas raised in that, but a lot of people are pissy about them, too, since it isn’t what’s “accepted.” So, maybe Jesus WAS married. Seriously, here. Would that change THAT much?
Depends on who you ask. There are those who would answer with a resounding “yes.” I wouldn’t be one of them. But then again, I’m not a Christian.
Posted by: Rex Hondo at May 26, 2006 01:01 AM
But there’s the rub when it comes to the DaVinci Code protests. The people protesting this movie are the same pinheads who get worked into a tizzy every time a new Harry Potter comes out and still maintain that D&D teaches devil worship. These people who will believe anything said to them from behind a pulpit, no matter how ludicrous, can’t be said to have anything on “reasonable authority.”
Rex, I’d suggest that it’s wise to avoid such sweeping generalizations about people you don’t know. After all, if we’re accusing the protestors of making unfounded judgments, we should be careful not to do the same thing.
As anybody who has read the book knows, (critiques of literary merit and historical accuracy aside) Brown goes out of his way to NOT tar the entire Catholic faith with one brush, and the movie actually goes further.
I haven’t read the book nor seen the movie myself. That’s why I think it would be absurd for me to criticize either. It sounds as though there’s room for debate about whether they truly disparage the Church.
Rex, I’d suggest that it’s wise to avoid such sweeping generalizations about people you don’t know. After all, if we’re accusing the protestors of making unfounded judgments, we should be careful not to do the same thing.
Well, I’d hardly call it a “sweeping generalization” or an “unfounded judgement.” Rather, it’s an observation backed up by the fact that the relatively small but very loud group of people out waving signs keep making demonstrably false assertions. That means they are either NOT truly familiar with the work and are merely parroting what they’ve heard, or they HAVE read or watched the work in question and are deliberately perpetrating a falsehood. Either way, it’s hardly an admirable practice.
-Rex Hondo-
Dan Brown lifted it, changed the names a bit so he could later win a plagerism suit, from Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
Considering that Brown wasn’t actually the one being sued in that case – it was his publisher, the same company who also published Holy Blood, Holy Grail – and that that company won the case, I’d say that you’re off the mark here.
So, I’d recommend reading up on the case a little. Here’s a link the Summary of Judgement for the case. You can’t copyright ideas; there was no plagarism.
Yeah, Brown said he used HBHC as one of the many sources that he researched in writing The DaVinci Code, but it’s not like anything in The DaVinci Code can’t be found in lots of other books and/or movies to begin with.
The fact that the publisher of The DaVinci Code was essentially suing itself, one has to wonder if it wasn’t all just a publicity stunt.
I saw the movie last weekend and thought it was better than the book, but that’s one of those “he’s the nicest skinhead” kind of compliments.
As for The Passion, I’m sticking with my original impression in that Gibson was focused on showing the suffering Jesus endured that the reason why his suffering was important (a little like the central Christian tenant that it was for all the sins of the world) was completely buried in a throwaway line from the devil. Without the message, the movie was just watching a guy being tortured to death for 2 hours.
And I’m still waiting for someone to show me in which Gospel Jesus is credited with inventing the dining room table.
Unfortunately, I didn’t have the time to read every single comment here, so I don’t know if I’m duplicating anyone else’s thoughts.
My two cents are: there are extremists in almost every organized group of people. You can confront or ignore them–it’s up to you–but it most likely won’t change their thinking or their actions. Example: as a Christian, I had a lengthy email debate with the creators of the RepentAmerica site over their horrendous claim that Hurricane Katrina was sent as a punishment from God, because New Orleans has so much promiscuity (of course, their emphasis was on homosexuality).
I tried to appeal to their Christian love and forgiveness. I argued against their claims from a logical standpoint, since many people in my church in California had Christian family members whose lives were devastated by the Hurricane. I even rebuked their blatant rejection of Biblical commands to love and not judge others (that’s God’s job). My comments as a fellow Christian didn’t even make them think twice.
There is no swaying someone who is desperately clinging to a ridiculous mindset. The same is true of someone who protests Harry Potter or The DaVinci Code. I haven’t read The DaVinci Code myself simply because I was working in a bookstore when it came out and it was way too hyped, but if I did read it, I would treat it in the same way I treat any other historical fiction–The Eight was a favorite of mine–as something fun to read. In some people’s minds this would make me a bad Christian, but I don’t really care. I have plenty of Christian friends who’ve read the book, liked it, and will probably see the movie.
Anyway, to get back to the point…once in a while, it would be nice to see people focus on those individuals who direct their zeal and passion toward a more positive accomplishment. For example, missionaries working to stop AIDS and save orphans in Africa, people working to build houses with Habitat for Humanity, people giving food and clothing to poor and homeless in their own commnuities, people who participate in Relay for Life and other fundraisers.
There are people working hard to do good in the world because of their faith–not just Christians, but people from every faith. It would be ridiculous for me to treat any Muslim I met with disdain because there are some extremists in his/her religion. I think it’s equally ridiculous to do the same to any group, whether it is a culture, an age-group, a historical reinactment group…whatever! For the same reason, I think it’s ridiculous to do it to Christians, as well. I’m not saying that anyone HERE is, but there are definitely people who do so, due to focusing on the most idiotic people who say they believe in Jesus Christ.
I think we need to celebrate the more positive aspects of peoples’ faiths rather than constantly harp on the negative. Focusing on those who waste their energies on such a frustratingly pointless campaign accomplishes almost nothing. People who choose to believe that Dan Brown is the Anti-Christ are too ridiculous to be swayed by any negative reaction from the mainstream culture or the media. Such reactions only pump them up, because their cause is being validated by the attention. I’d like to think that no one thinks the less of me because I call myself by the same name as those people–in the meantime, I’m working with my church to dedicate myself to the more positive causes I mentioned earlier.
Just to be clear, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t confront people on their misconceptions, especially those which are hurtful toward others. Those even-minded people who are a part of the group to which the extremists belong have the particular responsibility of doing so. What I am saying is that at some point, it’s more productive to encourage and celebrate those who do good, rather than preach at a stone wall of ignorance and extremism. The wall will be there a lot longer than you will.
Excellent points, Elisa.
People who choose to believe that Dan Brown is the Anti-Christ are too ridiculous to be swayed by any negative reaction from the mainstream culture or the media. Such reactions only pump them up, because their cause is being validated by the attention.
I think also that many of these induhviduals believe that their beliefs are being persecuted in this country (you know, the country where a mere 80% of the population identifies themselves as Christians), so any criticism of their protests is just validation of their persecution complex. It also helps them buy into things like the fictitious “war on Christmas” or that Tom DeLay isn’t a crook, he’s just being persecuted for being a conservative Christian (in the state that has one of highest percentages of conservative Christians!).
As for Brown, I would expect that the real anti-Christ will be a much better writer.
Although I do think Uri Gellar’s a hack.
Ashamed to admit I don’t know who that is, so I’ll take your word for it.
You should pick up the book James Randi wrote on Geller (or any other Randi book–they’re great).
Briefly, Geller is an Israeli magician who began to claim that his tricks were actually manifestations of psychic abilities. He managed to fool some otherwise bright people into thinking that he was real. This made randi, a magician himslef, livid and he helped put a major denty in Geller’s career by helping Johnny Carson set up geller’s much heralded appearance on The Tonight Show in such a way that his usual methods could not be used. Geller flopped, horribly.
In typical fashion, this was seized on by the believers as proof of Geller’s abilities! If it was fake, they (coff) reasoned, why does it sometimes not work?
Anyway, he’s still around, still bending the occasional spoon for the gullible but ironically his long term legacy is probably that few legit scientists will touch paranormal investigations with a ten foot pole.
Was Geller the guy who would claim to be moving a piece of paper inside and upside down fish tank?
I would love to read that book. What’s the title, Bill? I was first introduced to Randi through Sagan’s brilliant “Demon Haunted World.” I highly recommend it, excellent intro to debunking, and provides some excellent answers for the “ALIENS TOOK MY MOMMA!” crowd. (I used to drive the Wiccans at school nuts with some of the stuff in that book. *sigh* Good times….)
I have found, however, that if you operate with the assumption that 95% of the people out there are A) idiots and B) have stupid and/or bigoted and/or just plain dumb beliefs then life becomes a lot easier, AND you are pleasantly surprised about….idk..30% of the time. (I am to tired to do the math, maybe one of you engineer types could tell me exactly what I just said. Thanks.)
The Da Vinci Code is no different from Harry Potter, Nostradamus, the Book of Revelation, Pyramid Power, Crossing over with John Edward or anything else of the ilk. One one hand you have the nuts who 100% BELIEVE OMG ITS HOW I LIVE MY LIFE!
On the other extreme you have the OMG IT IS THE EVILZORS!!!!111 crowd.
and in between you have the somewhat rational people who might believe some of it, or think that the results/interpretations are interesting and worth further consideration, but spend most of their time rolling their eyes at the nutcases.
Personally, I am surprised that more Christians didn’t get pìššëd at Colbert’s “The Word.” I mean, c’mon, he appropriated the term for the Holy Bible and uses it to spread “truthiness!”
HE MUST BE STOPPED!
Probably. His psychic abilities had the uncanny luck to be a LOT like magician’s tricks or have a very logical explanation. Here’s one I demonstrate to my students–you take a wind up watch that has stopped working (Grandmothers usually have a drwer ful of them). Begin rubbing while you chant “Owa Tajer Kyu Arrr” or something and Shazamm! The watch will begin ticking! I saw Geller do this on the Mike Douglas or Merv Griffin shpw and people were calling up all excited because they did it at home and it worked.
It’s a good way to explore the scientific method–it turns out that the reason the watch stopped was because of dirty oil in the gears. Rubbing the watch heats the oil, allowing the watch to tick for a few minutes.
Geller was full of stuff like that and earned several million dollars from the gullible.
if you go to wikipedia and look up Uri Geller, under a section title Disagreements over measuring success, there is a link to a video of James Randi talking about Geller and several other scams.
James, the name is THE MAGIC OF URI GELLER
Amazon link http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345247965/qid=1148690431/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/102-5329059-2901732?n=507846&s=books&v=glance
Gellar was on The View not too long ago and impressed those yentas with the old “make a compass move by hiding a magnet in you hand” trick. Good grief.
It’s me, the artist formerly known as Rat. Reading Bill’s comments above made me realize that I wasn’t really sure why I was still going by that handle. Other than Rat being my favorite of my characters to write. But, then, none of you have read my stuff (yet!) so the connection isn’t made, so I come off as some sort of rodentia-influenced…kookoo.
And Rex, as far as the protestors go, at LEAST on the D&D front, generally they ARE just parroting what they’ve been told. At least, the ones that I’ve met are, being a long time player meself. My cousin the Baptist once tried to lecture me for forty five minutes about the EVILS of gaming before she realized I had my earphones in and wasn’t listening to a word she’d said.
Elissa–not to sound to corny, but AMEN. There are a LOT of faithful (of any type) people doing good work just because it’s the right thing, but even when they change an entire neighborhood for the better (like Fr. Bob Tynski, formerly of Trenton, NJ) no one ever hears about it, mostly because the news media doesn’t seem to think that good news appeals to anyone but Pollyanas and Kumbaya singers, and who wants to talk to THEM, now? It’s much easier, in their eyes, to keep people’s attention by appealing to their baser instincts.
As for Randi, he’s the only one of the well-known “skeptics” that I have any respect for. Not just because he’s skeptical, but he’s still searching. People like Phil Klass and that guy from Skeptical Inquirer(a misnomer if eer there was one, that magazine never inquires nor is it truly skeptical) simply trot out their “This can’t be!” mantra, but then resort to belittling those experiencers rather than exploring the issue themselves. James Randi, on the other hand, investigates and points out where the illusions are, when he investigates.
Den, excellent points about Dan Brown not being the Anti-Christ. Not only will he be a much better writer, but wait until you hear him sing! And MAN, can he dance!
James–trust me, I’m sure more Christians DO get pissy at Colbert, as do conservatives (those that ever watch Comedy Central, that is) and talk show hosts and bear lovers. Most of them, though, don’t wanna waste the energy to protest in front of the studios. But maybe most of them realize that if you don’t call so much attention to something, maybe it won’t get too much attention.
Anybody else out there think it’s ironic that Colbert is so obsessed with bears when his name is pronounced Col-BEAR?
There are people working hard to do good in the world because of their faith–not just Christians, but people from every faith.
Absolutely. Unfortunately, on the one hand, they don’t make for entertaining television. On the other hand, only speaking for myself, I only have so much positiveness (positivity?) in me, and I try to save it up for my wife and daughter. 😉
-Rex Hondo-
Bill Myers: Luigi, note that I didn’t say that Fox’s right-wing bias is what leads me to doubt the veracity of their report about the “real story” behind Isaac Hayes quitting South Park. You assumed that was the case — wrongly, in this instance.
Luigi Novi: I know you said that you saw statements from Hayes making it explicitly clear that he quit South Park, but you didn’t cite sources for them. That’s why I wonder if those statements were just those said to be made by his Scientologist handlers. I also was under the impression (mistaken, it seems) that the story about Hayes quitting SP over their Scientology parodies being made not by him but by his Scientology handlers was widely reported. I did not know that FOX was the only source for it. Nonetheless, I’m not inclined to disbelief something by FOX ad hominem simply because it’s FOX who’s saying it, especially when it’s something that’s not poilitically oriented.
Bill Myers: I believe Fox News has a right-wing bias, mind you, but I believe that is but one of the problems with their reporting. I also believe they are more prone to sensationalism then many other news operations, and, as the travesty they called Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? Shows…
Luigi Novi: As I believe someone else pointed out, wasn’t that on the FOX network, rather than FOX news?
And how is this relevant? Are you aware of the shear number of programs that promote pseudoscience uncritically on the Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, PBS, etc.? Any one of those channels puts out far more programming and pseudoscientific claptrap than any I’ve seen on the FOX network.
Bill Myers: Mind you, I’m aware that other more liberal news outlets have similar problems. But Fox is, in my opinion, one of the worst. And it’s not because they’re right-wing. It’s because they’re šhìŧŧÿ reporters.
Luigi Novi: But if those other outlets are bad, then how can you rely on them either, as when you mention the statements Hayes made that made it clear he quit over Scientology? Does the fact that FOX News is worse mean that the ones that are “merely” bad are suitable for citing when forming one’s conclusions?
Bill Myers: Why? I’ve seen the story from various media outlets, and Fox is the only one that reported that Hayes quit South Park for reasons other than anger over their treatment of Scientology.
Luigi Novi: As aforementioned, I was under the impression that others had reported it too. In looking more closer at those sources, I saw that they were mostly citing FOX. Mea culpa. 🙁
Posted by Luigi Novi at May 27, 2006 12:12 AM
I know you said that you saw statements from Hayes making it explicitly clear that he quit South Park, but you didn’t cite sources for them. That’s why I wonder if those statements were just those said to be made by his Scientologist handlers. I also was under the impression (mistaken, it seems) that the story about Hayes quitting SP over their Scientology parodies being made not by him but by his Scientology handlers was widely reported. I did not know that FOX was the only source for it. Nonetheless, I’m not inclined to disbelief something by FOX ad hominem simply because it’s FOX who’s saying it, especially when it’s something that’s not poilitically oriented.
Well, as I said, I’m more skeptical of Fox News than I am of most other news networks. I don’t automatically disbelieve Fox either, but I am more likely to question them.
As I believe someone else pointed out, wasn’t that on the FOX network, rather than FOX news?
Yes, it was that dámņáblë Bill Mulligan, holding me to standards of accuracy. That guy is getting to be a royal pain in my ášš, making me look bad just because I don’t know what I’m talking about. I mean, is that fair?
Actually, it is fair, isn’t it? Crap.
And how is this relevant? Are you aware of the shear number of programs that promote pseudoscience uncritically on the Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, PBS, etc.? Any one of those channels puts out far more programming and pseudoscientific claptrap than any I’ve seen on the FOX network.
I haven’t done a content analysis of Fox News vs. other networks, so I really can’t say with authority whether that statement is true. I’m a little surprised that you included PBS in there, though. With top-notch scientific programs like Nova, for example, I’ve always considered PBS to be on the forefront of providing educational science programming.
But if those other outlets are bad, then how can you rely on them either, as when you mention the statements Hayes made that made it clear he quit over Scientology? Does the fact that FOX News is worse mean that the ones that are “merely” bad are suitable for citing when forming one’s conclusions?
No. I also don’t rely on CBS, NBC, ABC, or CNN. I prefer NPR, PBS, the BBC’s World News service, and the Christian Science Monitor. Believe it or not, the Christian Science Monitor is known as one of the most objective news sources out there.
As aforementioned, I was under the impression that others had reported it too. In looking more closer at those sources, I saw that they were mostly citing FOX. Mea culpa. 🙁
We all make mistakes (I make assloads of them!). That’s why most computer programs have an “undo” function. 🙂
“As for Brown, I would expect that the real anti-Christ will be a much better writer.”
Actually, the anti-Christ is the one behind all the bad music (and I use the term loosly), bad books, bad TV and movies, etc. that somehow have huge success at the expence of good stuff. You know who they are.
I used to think that religion was a bad thing because religious ideology claims to represent the will of god and therefore cares less about people. But I’ve come to realize that any ideology religious or secular, right or left, can end up perceiving itself in absolute terms at the expence of the actual people. Furthermore, it should be remembered that some of the greatest humanists in history were religious: Gahndi, Martin Luther King, Dali Lama, Desmond Tutu (sp?).
It is very difficult to argue with people on political issues. Sometimes it is necessary.
I haven’t done a content analysis of Fox News vs. other networks, so I really can’t say with authority whether that statement is true. I’m a little surprised that you included PBS in there, though. With top-notch scientific programs like Nova, for example, I’ve always considered PBS to be on the forefront of providing educational science programming.
Except during Pledge Drive Week, which seems to occur at lest once in every month that has an R in it. Then you get Deepak Chopra and Dr. Christiane Northrup et al. NPR has interviewed the occasional psychic, with far less critical thought than I’d want (really, why is it so difficult to show these people up? James Randi will give them 1 million dollars if they can demonstrate what they say they do every day. The usual response that they don’t care about money rings hollow given their speaker fees. Or they could give the money to charity and shut up a persistant critic at the same time. I’d jump at the chance–assuming I knew I was real. And therin lieth the rubbith.)
The Discovery Channel is practically the Pseudoscience channel. I can’t complain though, because I love the cryptozoology stuff.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at May 27, 2006 09:05 AM
Except during Pledge Drive Week, which seems to occur at lest once in every month that has an R in it. Then you get Deepak Chopra and Dr. Christiane Northrup et al.
Point taken. Deepak Chopra in particular really gets my blood boiling. I took a class in Transcendental Medititation in my early twenties. I paid a $1,000 for it. Turns out I could’ve learned the same technique from a $5.95 book, without all the mystic mumbo-jumbo.
If there are any TMers out there, I’m sorry to get your hackles raised, but — the Ayurvedic movement really is a cult. Don’t believe me? Google it and you’ll find some astonishing articles about what goes on behind the scenes.
Anyhoo, I admit that PBS and NPR air some real crap. But I’ve found very few programs of the caliber of Nova outside of public broadcasting.
I’m a Christian and a minister in a Protestant denomination. As to where I fit in the theological spectrum, I’m too conservative for liberals and too liberal for conservatives.
Anyway, I shake my head when I hear that people feel that their faith is threatened by a fictional novel. Sheesh! How strong is their faith to begin with? And yes, there are apocryphal documents and Gnostic gospels out there. Deal with it!!
When it comes to “Passion,” I always thought that the point of the New Testament was that Christ died to redeem sinners. So who is responsible for Christ’s death? I am because I’m a sinner in need of redemption!
Posted by: Steve Bierly at May 27, 2006 03:53 PM
I’m a Christian and a minister in a Protestant denomination. As to where I fit in the theological spectrum, I’m too conservative for liberals and too liberal for conservatives.
You and I share something in common. If I think a liberal idea makes sense, then I adopt it. The same with conservative ideas that make sense.
Man, does that get the ideologues’ pants in a wad when I do that.
Anyway, I shake my head when I hear that people feel that their faith is threatened by a fictional novel. Sheesh! How strong is their faith to begin with? And yes, there are apocryphal documents and Gnostic gospels out there. Deal with it!!
I may not share your particular beliefs, but I have to respect someone who is so secure in their convictions.
When it comes to “Passion,” I always thought that the point of the New Testament was that Christ died to redeem sinners. So who is responsible for Christ’s death? I am because I’m a sinner in need of redemption!
I am no longer a Christian, but that was what I was taught back when I was a good Catholic boy.
I’m not sure if I’m supposed to call you Minister or Reverend! Because of my upbringing, I feel obligated to address you properly.
Anyway, Minister/Reverend Bierly, I’ve done a lot of ranting against religion in this thread. And, y’know, I stand by my decision to eschew religion in favor of a more individual spiritual journey.
That said, I do respect you and your commitment to your faith. God bless you.
Luigi Novi: I know you said that you saw statements from Hayes making it explicitly clear that he quit South Park, but you didn’t cite sources for them.
Hey, guess what, Luigi? I cited a source who said the story about Hayes having a stroke was bûllšhìŧ: his publicist.
Now, are you going to respond to MY posts, or should I just assume you’re intentionally ignoring me because you don’t have anything to back you up at this point?
It’s interesting that “people” (or is it Opus Dei’s PR wing?) are lumping so-called “criticism” of Opus Dei in this book and movie, with “anti-Catholic” sentiments. Numeraries in Opus Dei – individual members devoted to the church in a fashion not so far from Scientology’s “Sea Organization,” without the million years of work – torture themselves just as Paul Bettany’s character does. (He wears a painful device around his leg, and self-flagelates on a regular basis.) The Ayurvedic movement is not the only cult out there.
The Opus Dei people exist separately from the more mainline, progressive Catholic Church, as an evangelical movement. In fact, there are many within the Church who are concerned about Opus Dei trying to create a competing structure. They are not subject to the same rules as other leaders (i.e. having to go through the local parish, bishop, etc.). They’ve also been reported in doing very heavy-handed prosletyzing of celebrities and people in power (they apparently were most successful during Franco’s reign in Spain). Kate Holmes anyone? A cursory check of the RickRoss.com database brings up many recent articles where people discuss their experience with the cult. It hardly matters what they believe per se, it’s their methods and interest in power that rings true – even if some of this “Code” is bunk. Their aims are not the same as the average Catholic, nor the average priest in the mainline church. These are not nice people.
The amazing thing, already noticed, is that Isaac Hayes got sensitive about religion when his religion(?) got hit. At least the Catholics got upset about a rather average insult to their religion and my intelligence.
What do you do if your religion is a poorly written insult to anyone’s intelligence?
If your faith is shaken by a book or movie, maybe, instead of protesting the movie in an attempt to tell people what to think, you should examine the strength of your faith.
Some of the commentary I’ve seen descends to the ridiculous. In an op-ed piece on May 18, Dr. Ted Baehr of Movieguide.org compares the Da Vinci Code to such works as Mein Kampf, Mao’s Little Red Book, and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
The good man apparently knows how to be offended, and how to push buttons. He hasn’t actually studied the afore mentioned books however. Comparing DC to those books isn’t so much apples and oranges as Granny smith apples to alley apples.