Katczinski,

Did you actually read what I wrote? I wrote that
I understand that the movie is fictional, you understand that the movie is fictional. But Dan Brown stands by what he wrote as being true (though, for legal reasons, he has allowed it to be categorized as fiction).

Further, there are many people who do not know the difference and are easily led astray.

http://www.catholicleague.org/06pres..._Guess_Who.htm

You either have no idea what the movie is about or you are being deliberately obtuse. His movie contends that Christianity is a massive fraud from its very beginning. If that is not attacking Christianity I do not know what is.

You have a very narrow definition of the word "attack". What else can you call the yearly attempts to remove Christian symbols from public places during the Christian national holidays of Christmas and Easter while allowing other religious symbols to be displayed?

If I were in a Muslim country I would not care if they placed Allah Akbar on their currency. I would just be thankful that they allowed me to practice my religion in peace (however, there aren't any Muslim countries that would allow me to practice my religion in peace).

hkbajwa,

In general I am in agreement with everyone that this movie is getting much more attention than it deserves. From the early critiques, it seems this movie is going to go away faster than we could have hoped. Regardless, in the face of blatant falsehoods dressed up as plausible theories, it is important that the truth be made known and emphasized. Too many people get their "religion" from secular media without ever hearing a balancing argument. Too many people accept religious pronouncements from movie stars without any critical thought.

while I agree that it is an attack on Catholicism, here is the problem with that statement. Catholicism IS Christianity. For the first 1500 years the only Christian religion was the Catholic religion. Protestantism is an outgrowth from Catholicism. Protestantism's basis of belief is the Catholic basis (the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, Redemption on the cross, Original Sin, etc).

When Dan Brown sets out to undermine the Catholic Church he is also undermining the historical and traditional understanding of Christianity.

No, but it is the only religion where the members are expected to sit back and take it.

This is very true. People in general have lost respect for traditional positions of authority from the President down to teachers. The clergy has been particularly affected due to the recent sex scandals. Never mind that 97% of the rest of the clergy have not done anything wrong, the media attention has magnified the scandal so that every priest has been tarred.

There is nothing wrong with having a respect for a person's title or position. Neither is there anything wrong with questioning an individual's behaviour regardless of the title or position they hold. However, there needs to be a distinction between tearing down the individual's behaviour and generalizing that poor behviour to everyone who holds that title/position.

Please note: I said the Roman Catholic Church.. not CATHOLICISM. Here's why:

I believe that christ's message to man could never have been " Thou shalt worship my bureaucracy". Because that is what the organization called the roman catholic church IS.

I believe that christ's message to man was to live life in harmony with god. That means be good to the world, be good to your family, be a good person, and thank god for what you get. And worship him for it.

Now what Dan brown does is illustrate some of the basic tendencies of the church at various times in history. A disputed papacy, a hotbed of political intrigue, self service and barbarity. While some of the claims are fantastic and clearly inaccurate, the basic tendencies that these stories belie are accurate of the roman catholic church at a certain time. This is not mudslinging, these are facts.

Now i can understand why the roman catcholic church feels assaulted though. The book does paint the church in a negative light. But so what? The attack is on certain people using a man-made bureaucratic system for their own purposes. Not at jesus, not at god, not at the holy ghost.

Please understand that this does not mean that the church hasn't done good things and that roman catholics are not christian. The core belief of christianity of love for man, love for jesus and love for god, are still the guiding force. The church however was created and organized and maintained by man. And therefore FALLIBLE and suceptible to corruption and exploitation.

WHat Dan Brown does is give fictitive examples of that. So how is that an attack on chritianity?

On a different note, you are pretty correct there. But one must also remember that muslim extremists are the cause of that. Us regular muslims are as much subject to attack from these groups if we don't tote the right religious line.

Again the culprits here are organized religions who get involved in politics and economics. These organizations have high stakes in their survival and therefore resort to violence, or HAVE resorted in the past to maintain their power.

Then why didn't they show the muhammed cartoons? They backed down because they are afraid of offending Muslims. They sure aren't afraid of offending Christians. Comedy Central refused to show it. That proves my point.

It was part of the joke that you obviously didn't get.

Definitely agree.
The original statement was with regards to "Christians".
Jefferson replied, and SPECIFICALLY discussed FUNDAMENTALIST Christians. Thus, I shifted my focus to FUNDAMENTALISTS.

Hopefully nobody thought I was trying to paint the FUNDAMENTALISTS as typical Christians. They are definitely NOT typical Christians.


Wow. Where do I begin?
1) I disagree that Christianity is the last acceptable prejudice.
2) I disagree that some perceived *attacks* on Christianity are actually *attacks*.
I think that some fundamentalists get attacked for their fundamentalism, and they try to deflect by claiming it's based on Christianity. I think some actions are misconstrued as attacks. Some actions are actually examples of Christian PRIVILEGE which has been excluded from other religions, and which should never have been a *privilege* for Christians in the first place.
3) "Da Vinci Code" IS NOT a "blatant attack on Christianity". It's a FICTION book, sold in the FICTION section, marketed in the movie market and NOT as a documentary. It is no more an "attack" on Christianity than a James Bond movie with an Asian bad guy is an "attack" on Asians.
4) "no outcry from the left (who stood in solidarity with the Muslim rioters over the cartoons of Muhammed)"
Say WHAAAA???
Just a minute ago, you were talking about not generalizing Christians based on fundamentalists.
I think you just committed a similar offense with regards to the "left"...


1) What other religious movies has Ron Howard done that for?
2) Seriously. MOST movies have NO disclaimer. I don't know why anybody would insist on one for this OBVIOUS piece of FICTION.


And I think a LOT (if not all) of these examples fit under the "Christian privilege" issue which is excluded for other groups.

Christianity doesn't get a free pass on violating separation of church and state. You talk about "Christmas and Easter displays", but why is it that it is typically ONLY CHRISTIANITY which gets to put up displays?

Pledge of Allegiance? The words "under God" were added during the McCarthy era as a response to McCarthy's histeria. They should never have been put in there in the first place.

"retroactive changes"? Do you realize that the Catholic church was claiming religious privilege for the ACCESSORY TO THE CRIMES that they committed in COVERING UP the crimes of their priesthood? They paid off the victims to keep silent, and then relocated the pedophile priests to fresh new parishes with fresh new victims.
Key issues you're leaving out there...

"piss Christ"? Don't bore me with the idiotic claims of "art" by idiots. If you don't like that, then you've got company. I think they're being stupid, but you should recognize that such "things" ARE NOT accepted in the mainstream.

Catholic hospitals? They should figure out if they want to practice religion, or medicine. They shouldn't practice religion under the pretense of medicine.


I have NO idea what you're talking about here...

There is a LOT about that episode I think you're not getting...

But to address your point, if you had one group of guys who you were afraid of "offending", and another group of guys who you were afraid of "offending" who might actually bomb your building or kill you...

Do you have the same "fear" of "offending" them on individual bases?
Or is it significantly different for the group that might do you physical harm?

Nice try, but that is not what the people at Comedy Central said. Comedy Central made the decision to block it out. Maybe you all are not "getting it".