Christian Foes of 'Da Vinci Code' Debate How to Fight It

[The Watcher]

well, the vagueness of a "large population" is perhaps not very useful... but there are plenty that don't live in the southern united states, which is my point.

Huh??

I still have yet to see how you feel offended by the statements that others have made that state that generalizing about Roman Catholicism (which if you were a Roman Catholic maybe I could even begin to understand) does not equate an atack on Christianity at large.

So, Dan Brown had a character in a fictional novel state that maybe Christ was not divine. THAT is an assault on Christianity, and a blanket proof that the world hates the religion? Seems like mighty broad leaps in conclusions to my mind, just saying. Just entertain the idea for a bit, what if Dan Brown was right? Historically and factually, there is nothing to say that his position is wrong.......you yourself have admitted that what you believe can only be found by faith.

I am not trying to start an argument - I am arguing for the very things that you seek to defend - an open mind.

[halplm]

I'm not using his book as proof of anything! I'm saying there IS hatred for christianity, and there IS hatred for the catholic church, and it's NOT JUST from american fundamentalists from the SOUTH.

So it doesnt' matter where Dan Brown lives, or what organizations he belongs to, he very well could hate Christians and hat the Catholic Church. You could even ask him and he could LIE about it.

So if I think his book is part of an agenda to discredit the Catholic Church and therefore Christianity as a whole... that's an opinion, and you can disagree, but you can't state "oh, he's not a fundamentalist Christian, he can't have an anti-catholic agenda."

[The Watcher]

I'm not using his book as proof of anything! I'm saying there IS hatred for christianity, and there IS hatred for the catholic church, and it's NOT JUST from american fundamentalists from the SOUTH.

So it doesnt' matter where Dan Brown lives, or what organizations he belongs to, he very well could hate Christians and hat the Catholic Church. You could even ask him and he could LIE about it.

So if I think his book is part of an agenda to discredit the Catholic Church and therefore Christianity as a whole... that's an opinion, and you can disagree, but you can't state "oh, he's not a fundamentalist Christian, he can't have an anti-catholic agenda."

And I haven't. You are the only one asserting this position.

[halplm]

That was Jnyusa's comment.

[Jnyusa]

hal, this is what I said, in response to Ax:

Yes, I agree that we should keep these separate. Brown is sensationalistic but I don't know if he is motivated by anti-Catholicism. Probably he is not. Anti-Catholicism belongs to the Fundamentalist culture within America and as far as I know Dan Brown is not from that culture.

and

No, it does not begin and end there but it is a property associated primarily with that culture.

eta again: just fact checking - Brown was born in Exeter, New Hampshire.

If your response was not intended to be hostile, then no problem. But it would be helpful if you would explain exactly what your objection is instead of just asking "how?"

you want to say american fundamentalists are anti-catholic, fine. I think THAT opinion is grossly misinformed, as most couldn't care less about the catholic church. But don't say an anti-catholic point of view is not likely unless one is an american fundamentalist. There is NO amount of research you could do to back that up.

Au contraire, but I am not going to do your research for you, hal. As I said, there is enough written about this phenomenon that you can easily find it for yourself.

From my perspective, it's not really a religious thing but a socio-economic thing, but discussion of anti-Catholicism in the post-bellum south is way off-topic for the thread and also pointless if you deny that it exists and refuse to learn any more about it.

Anyway, we're not talking here about casual religious opinions. We're talking about a person who troubles to write an entire novel and give it an anti-Catholic slant out of anti-Catholic motivation. I still maintain that a Yankee from an Ivy League background is far more likely to have done it for the money, or, as Brown himself claims, for the love of religious controversy, rather than to make Catholics specifically look bad.

The subject would not have come up at all if not for the fact that the authors of HBHG seem to have been motivated by anti-religious sentiments.

The Christians who are objecting to this book object because they find it prejudicial. I agree with them that it is prejudicial by its sensationalism. This has to do with the way it is likely to be received by an audience rather that the motivation of the author. An author does not have to be motivated by malice in order for a reader to read with malice in their heart.

If the subjects of this book were Jews attempting to dupe the whole world and committing murder to keep their secrets, I would be as outraged as some of the Christians are. If the flyleaf of the book contained 'factual' statements about the Jews that are known falsehoods, I would want to sue. If instead of scenes in which members of Opus Dei draw their own blood there were scenes of Jews putting blood into the Passover bread (a vicious falsehood), I would be beside myself. Members of Opus Dei who are otherwise normal don't do that. Scenes which imply that the perverted practices of a fictional character are common practice among an identifiable group of real people are indeed prejudicial.

I can't say more about this without repeating myself ad nauseum, and I hope it is obvious that my opinion about this does not spring from love of Christianity or Catholicism but from hatred of deception whatever its motivation.

[vison]

Jnyusa, my remarks were almost entirely concerning TDVC. I read excerpts from HB, HG when it was first published and found that it was awfully, awfully awful. Dreadful. It truly reminded me of stuff from the British Israelites. For some reason we used to get this stuff in the mail, I think the guy we bought our farm from belonged to that group or something. It was funny but creepy.

My paternal grandpa was pretty violently anti-Catholic. He called himself an Orangeman, but it fact he didn't belong to the Loyal Orange Lodge, he never joined anything. I have, however, scads of Orange relatives in Belfast, they go to Ian Paisley's church and there is nothing too awful for them to say they believe about Catholicism. And a couple of them are suspected of belonging to the "secret" army of Ulster and I wouldn't be at all surprised, a more ignorant pack of jackasses I have never met and I wish I could repudiate my relationship with them. Well, I could. But it doesn't matter, they live in their dank little row houses breathing that foul air, no wonder they're all cracked.

The Church has survived a lot. If Luther and Henry VIII couldn't kill it, if schism and heresy couldn't kill it, if corruption, scandal, suspected murder, incompetence, simony, blasphemy couldn't kill it, if the Loyal Orange Lodge couldn't kill it, I doubt that Mr. Brown is going to.

Keeps 'em on their toes, I suspect.

[Impenitent]

hal, perhaps you misunderstood Jn's position?

I understood her statements as saying, in view of the south's history, anti-catholic sentiment is not an unusual element, and so if Dan Brown was from the south, putting that history together with the portrayal of Catholicism in his novel, one could infer that one of his motivations could be anti-Catholicism.

It does not necessarily follow from her statements that all southerners are anti-Catholic.

Nor does it follow that being from the north means one cannot be anti-Catholic.

And I don't believe that Jn was making those points. Perhaps that was your inference rather than her implication?

EDIT: oopsies! cross-posted. Sorry Jn.

[halplm]

I did not misunderstand, if jnyusa means what she says.

If you say "Anti-Catholicism belongs to the Fundamentalist culture within America" and then proceed to say, "that a Yankee from an Ivy League background is far more likely to have done it for the money"

you're not so much implying as directly saying that no one outside the south would have an anti-catholic agenda.

forgetting about europeans that hate catholics, and Muslims that hate catholics, lets go for california... where there are many that hate all christians, including catholics... you don't think there's an anti-christian/anti-catholic bias in HOLLYWOOD? The only group they hate worse are republicans!

So yeah, I think it's entirely possible a Yankee from an Ivy League (nice way of saying southerners are stupid, I like it) could very much have an anti-catholic and anti-christian agenda!

And Jnyusa, it's really easy to make an argument and say there's lots of research to back you up... YOU made the statements, it's ON YOU to back them up.

Find me some research that points to the fact that ONLY southern Christian fundamentalists ever have anti-catholic agendas, and I'll never question you again, but don't come in here all superior and say "I'm right, there's stuff to back me up but you'll have to go find it." That's absurd.

[axordil]

Having been raised in an anti-Catholic fundamentalist household, in a city predmoninated by good Irish and German Catholics, I admit to having rather more knowledge of internacine Christian strife than I would like. Anti-Catholicism has old roots in the US, dating back to anti-Irish nativists in the 1830s, and while it is distinct from the growth of what became the fundamentalist churches, it is contemporaneous. However, I do think much of it comes from antipathy on the part of groups threatened by immigrants (especially in New England and NY) but I also would point at the old hostility between the mainly Protestant Scotch-Irish here from the mid 1700's onward, not to mention the Anglican English, and the new arrivals via Liverpool.

A couple of things from skimming the posts: I think that if you were to ask an Irish Catholic, a French Catholic, and an American Catholic (and doesn't that sound like a bad joke setup? ) who they were, the nationality and language would more often than not come before the religion. I would hazard a guess that this would be true in most parts of Europe and the Americas. This doesn't mean there aren't people who identify themselves as Catholic first and (your culture here) second, but that they are a minority. Anywhere. Everywhere. Except maybe Vatican City.

Currently, whether or not an attack on, say, the local archbishop, would be construed as an attack on Catholicism, or on Catholics, would depend very much on context, and the individual Catholics you asked. I am certain some would take it personally, but there is little doubt that most in the US would not. Otherwise, why would the clergy have to poke them, as they occasionally do, to tell them they SHOULD be upset?

The situation is very different for both Jews and Protestants. The latter do not have a cohesive structure, or rather, have hundreds of unrelated ones, many of which do not speak to each other. Launching an attack on Protestantism would be like bisecting a sneeze. The Jewish people, on the other hand, have a very strong cultural identity formed by a combination of sheer willpower and centuries of living on the edge of societies, or at least living there until they were needed as scapegoats for something and kicked out entirely. Part of the reason the Elders of Zion claptrap went over so well was because it was difficult for non-Jews to look at the networks of Jewish communities in Europe and NOT imagine a central authority.

One thing occured to me in relationship to how hated Christians are: I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that, if you totalled up the number of Christians ever killed for their faith, the most common perpetrators would be, in fact, other Christians. I think there is resentment and jealousy of Christianity as the dominant religion of the opulent and powerful West these days, sure...and probably hatred in some quarters, yes. But no one, I mean, NO ONE, is capable of hating a Christian like another Christian.

Finally, I would like to leave this discussion with words of wisdom from Tom Lehrer:

Oh, the Catholics hate the Protestants
And the Protestants hate the Catholics
And the Hindus hate the Muslims
And everybody hates the Jews
But during National Brotherhood Week
National Brotherhood Week
It's National Everyone-Smile-At-
One-Another-hood Week
Be nice to people who
Are inferior to you
It's only for a week, so have no fear
Be grateful that it doesn't last all year!

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

The Da Vinci Code on the Priory of Sion

The book Holy Blood Holy Grail purports that the Priory of Sion was founded in 1099, but this claim is untrue. Now, I agree that 1099 does not equal 1956. Obviously, it appears Mr. Brown has used a factual organization, but utilized the more conspiracy aspects in his novel, which makes sense because he uses the brainwashing conspiracy of Opus Dei despite no evidence to prove that Opus Dei brainwash.

Does one hope that some mass delusion will seize the whole population so that the stream of amusement will not be interrupted? Or that millions of people just won't give a damn? Or what?

You hit the nail on the head! My entire generations' goal is to muddle the meaning of everything so everything means nothing and nothing means everything all in an attempt to keep our stream of amusement uninterrupted.

Now, let me repeat again: nothing Brown utilizes (the existence of Opus Dei and the Priory of Sion) is untrue, but fabricates the specifics for the entertainment of the fictional work. Heavens to bessie, that's exactly what, after rooting around a bit, he just might have done with regards to Opus Dei (and dubious claims of brainwashing) and the Priory of Sion (and the dubious claims of it's year of birth, as well as specific grand masters). But yet, I am part of the generation aimed at destroying the notion that anything has true meaning. I prefer to blame Andy Warhol and the post-modernist movement (one which I am not a part of) for it all.

[Ethel]

Finally, I would like to leave this discussion with words of wisdom from Tom Lehrer:

Oh, the Catholics hate the Protestants
And the Protestants hate the Catholics
And the Hindus hate the Muslims
And everybody hates the Jews
But during National Brotherhood Week
National Brotherhood Week
It's National Everyone-Smile-At-
One-Another-hood Week
Be nice to people who
Are inferior to you
It's only for a week, so have no fear
Be grateful that it doesn't last all year!

Ax! I came by this thread earlier and I was going to post the exact same lyrics from that song... but then I thought it might be in bad taste. Allow me to congratulate you on your bad taste!

There was a time when Catholics were cordially hated in New England, too. That's where the Irish diaspora mostly landed at first, and there was a terrible lot of bad feeling against them. "Coming in, taking our jobs, working for less, marrying our women... " - that ancient refrain. The draft riots in New York, in 1863, were mostly people by Irish Americans.

But that was long ago, and eventually everyone more or less settled down. The Irish were here to stay. Then came the Italians, who also got their share of hatred, but more as dark-skinned Mediterraneans rather than as Catholics per se.

Would it be too much of a cliche to say that my very best friend in the world is an Irish-American Catholic?

[The Watcher]

I will see the movie - and think of everyone of the indignant posters here when I do so.

I am sorry, but this has gone way over the top.

So, if Dan Brown had written his first sentance in TDVC "A long, long time ago in a galaxy far far away....."

this discussion would be moot?

Only asking!!

[Whistler]

I'm one of the indignant posters, and even I agree that this is becoming much too much.

I don't care for the the idea of re-inventing the story of Jesus for the sake of a "good read," or for two hours of escapism over a box of popcorn. For me, the topic is too important for that.

But this movie, and the book that inspired it, will be forgotten soon: Even its biggest fans agree that it is not a story for the ages.

The book that inspired both is not about to disappear...not from the bookshelves, not from our culture, not from our imaginations. Certainly, it's not about to disappear from discussion both here and in ten thousand other places.

And so...speaking strictly for myself, I am ready for the next topic.

[halplm]

Well, I'm sorry I got so over the top. I guess if Jnyusa says it it really is the last word. there's tons of research after all...

[Ethel]

Well, I'm sorry I got so over the top. I guess if Jnyusa says it it really is the last word. there's tons of research after all...

Maybe you and Jn could take this offline? It seems pretty apparent that you are offended, but I don't think that Jn meant to offend - though maybe she was a little stiff-necked too.

[Jnyusa]

Ax: Currently, whether or not an attack on, say, the local archbishop, would be construed as an attack on Catholicism, or on Catholics, would depend very much on context, and the individual Catholics you asked.

And I think that the reality of the motivation behind the attack would depend on context as well.

The context in the South is certainly changing, largely (I suspect) because of the increasing confluence and centralization of the Baptist churches. As the mainstream Baptists develop their own convergent theology and a reliable donation base, convincing the population of the evilness of other denominations becomes less important.

The vehement rejection of Catholicism and mainstream Protestanism in the South began during the Reconstruction, where the visible boil on the skin was the KKK. I don't know that the Methodists were subjected to cross burnings but the Catholics and the Jews certainly were, and African Americans of course. This configuration is far more suggestive of economic forces than of religious forces. I have read some compelling analyses that attribute the television preacher phenomenon to this dynamic as well - as an expression of mistrust for northern economic exploitation in the character of northern church organizations rather than an expression of religious belief per se. But I take a rationalist view of such phenomena and tend to find economic arguments more persuasive than ... you know, pure politics or religion.

Recent outrage over pedophilia in the Catholic Church is highly unlikely to have its root motivation in economics, imo, the way hatred of Irish Catholics, Italian Catholics, etc. did. It might be that in the Southwest the economics of immigration play a larger role, but I've not heard or read about significant anti-Catholic sentiments in that region of the country.

When Adlai Stevenson and Jack Kennedy ran for President, the northern anti-Catholic propaganda was primarily blue-collar. That too had a strong economic component, of course.

This is all just btw, since the conversation seems determined to turn in this direction.

Jn

[Cerin]

I also failed to make the connection Jn was referring to, between anti-Catholicism and southern Fundamentalism, but once The Watcher offered a few remarks about it, I was able to connect to what was being said. So it can be helpful to offer some guiding comments if someone professes ignorance, just in case they are missing the point due to a lack of awareness on the subject.

I do think it's going a bit far to say that because Brown isn't from the southern fundamentalist school, it is unlikely that he is motivated by anti-Catholicism. I think it would be far more reasonable to assume that Brown was anti-Catholic because he was from the southern school, than to assume that he isn't because he isn't. If you see what I mean.

[anthriel]

I guess I thought that perhaps it was conceivable he was somewhat anti-Catholic because he wrote a "fictional" book (that he tried to sell as at least partially factual) outlining unsubstantiated dark and devious deeds plotted and carried out by Catholic leaders.

But that's just me.

[halplm]

Jnyusa, I can't read what you say how you say it without being insanely and overpowerinly offended. I'm sure it's my own issues, so I'll leave you all to it. I'm not trying to be dramatic or anything, I just can't handle the way you talk in general and to me specifically.

[Jnyusa]

Cerin: I think it would be far more reasonable to assume that Brown was anti-Catholic because he was from the southern school, than to assume that he isn't because he isn't. If you see what I mean.

Yes, I do see what you mean. But I was coming at the whole issue from the other direction. There was no particular reason to look for an anti-Catholic bias on Brown's part - in spite of my objections to his sensationalism. Why assume religious prejudice in particular without evidence? If there had been some kind of red flag in his background suggesting the possibility of a religious bias, then I might have questioned his motivation from that perspective, but there was no reason to do so.

If he had come from a culture within the US where anti-Catholicism has been quite virulent in the past and still persists today in less malign forms, then I would have considered that a red flag and might have asked myself whether this played some role in his writing decisions. I would not have concluded that it must be the case, but it would have been a reason to ask additional questions.

Also, I have to stand corrected on one point. Cross burning was not used by the KKK during the Reconstruction era, according to Wikipedia but began in the very early 20th century. Googling around I could only find two incidents in the past ten years where a cross-burning was aimed at someone other than an African-American. One was a Native American an the other was a Moslem family.

Jn