Christian Foes of 'Da Vinci Code' Debate How to Fight It
Whist, I read interviews with Mel Gibson that took place before the outcry was so widespread that his idiocy was in danger of becoming common knowledge.
When it was clear that some kind of retraction was needed, he went on the Jay Lenno show (and I watched that, too) and Lenno asked him specifically where he stood on this issue and Gibson's answer was, "He's my father." He cast his position as one of not wanting to slur or contradict his father publicly. He followed this immediately with an explanation of why his wife is going to hell, and made the explicit assertion that God has written the movie script through his hand.
You know, Stephen Spielberg has made some wonderful and important movies but he is not an admirable person in my estimation. Mel Gibson is not an admirable person either. I do not think that making powerful movies automatically conveys sainthood on a person, or is justification for overlooking the other antisocial things that they do or the prejudicial or arguably crazy beliefs they hold. I would hope very much that people would not become Scientologist just because Tom Cruise is one, but I bet there are people who do.
Jn
eta:
Faramond, Gibson 'filled in the blanks' from visions contained in the diary of some nun. I've forgotten her name, her nationality, her exact time period ... now that I think about it, she is probably more recent than medieval times. Perhaps someone who paid closer attention to the provenance of the script can add those details.
When it was clear that some kind of retraction was needed, he went on the Jay Lenno show (and I watched that, too) and Lenno asked him specifically where he stood on this issue and Gibson's answer was, "He's my father." He cast his position as one of not wanting to slur or contradict his father publicly. He followed this immediately with an explanation of why his wife is going to hell, and made the explicit assertion that God has written the movie script through his hand.
You know, Stephen Spielberg has made some wonderful and important movies but he is not an admirable person in my estimation. Mel Gibson is not an admirable person either. I do not think that making powerful movies automatically conveys sainthood on a person, or is justification for overlooking the other antisocial things that they do or the prejudicial or arguably crazy beliefs they hold. I would hope very much that people would not become Scientologist just because Tom Cruise is one, but I bet there are people who do.
Jn
eta:
Faramond, Gibson 'filled in the blanks' from visions contained in the diary of some nun. I've forgotten her name, her nationality, her exact time period ... now that I think about it, she is probably more recent than medieval times. Perhaps someone who paid closer attention to the provenance of the script can add those details.
Last edited by Jnyusa on Thu May 11, 2006 6:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
-
truehobbit
- Cute, cuddly and dangerous to know
- Posts: 6019
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:52 am
- Contact:
That's the main reason I thought it was mean-spirited trash, rather than just trash. I hadn't even heard about "Jesus married Mary Magdalene" part.JewelSong wrote: If it slams anything, it slams the Roman Catholic church.
What I'd gathered from what I heard about the contents is that its premise is that the church is this evil, conspirational organisation, bent on supressing the "truth" etc etc - which is of course what all those little minds who love to bash something that is no danger to anyone delight in - and reason enough for me not to read it, even if I were in the habit of wasting my time on historical fiction.
So - could the people who've read it give a summary of what actually happens in the story?
You can head it "spoiler", but as I'm neither going to read the thing nor watch it, it won't be spoilers for me, and maybe also of interest to others who haven't read it.
Edited to say that I overlooked the previous page of this thread, and I wanted to wave "hi" to Alys - very nice post!
- and I see we've moved on to Gibson's Passion, no idea what that has to do with thread, but well...
Last edited by truehobbit on Thu May 11, 2006 6:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
but being a cheerful hobbit he had not needed hope, as long as despair could be postponed.
Oh, I agree that Gibson is a wild-eyed nut. He thinks I'm going to hell, too.
But to call him a holocaust denier and anti-Semite is to make some very specific and serious charges which (though they may have some basis) are not directly supported by clear evidence.
And if the media wanted me to attack my father publicly so that they could crow about it, I'd refuse them the satisfaction regardless of the issue.
But to call him a holocaust denier and anti-Semite is to make some very specific and serious charges which (though they may have some basis) are not directly supported by clear evidence.
And if the media wanted me to attack my father publicly so that they could crow about it, I'd refuse them the satisfaction regardless of the issue.
But to call him a holocaust denier
Whist, I read an interview in which Gibson said that "lots of people died in WWII and some of them were Jews," and continued (and here I can't recall his exact words so I won't put them in quotes) with the official holocaust deniers position that Jews were not singled out and the reports of the numbers who were killed are greatly exaggerated.
And if the media wanted me to attack my father publicly so that they could crow about it, I'd refuse them the satisfaction regardless of the issue.
I thought a lot about this after watching him on the Jay Lenno show. A lot. And I decided finally that it didn't wash.
My parents were racist. They didn't think of themselves that way, but that's what they were. If I were in Gibson's position, where I was so famous that people started trotting out the opinions of my parents as backstory, and some of my parents' feelings about African Americans became widely known ... it would be very uncomfortable for me but I would not be able to deny their racism. I would not be able to justify it on the basis of culture or time period or anything else. Because the horrible truth of what racism did to America is larger than the reputation of my parents alone. If something is false, and horribly damaging to large numbers of people, and you know that it is so, then you have to say so.
Unless, of course, I were a racist too. Then I would start looking for the hole in the hedge.
It does not make Gibson more admirable that he used a commandment to cover a crime. Imo, of course.
Jn
Whist, I read an interview in which Gibson said that "lots of people died in WWII and some of them were Jews," and continued (and here I can't recall his exact words so I won't put them in quotes) with the official holocaust deniers position that Jews were not singled out and the reports of the numbers who were killed are greatly exaggerated.
And if the media wanted me to attack my father publicly so that they could crow about it, I'd refuse them the satisfaction regardless of the issue.
I thought a lot about this after watching him on the Jay Lenno show. A lot. And I decided finally that it didn't wash.
My parents were racist. They didn't think of themselves that way, but that's what they were. If I were in Gibson's position, where I was so famous that people started trotting out the opinions of my parents as backstory, and some of my parents' feelings about African Americans became widely known ... it would be very uncomfortable for me but I would not be able to deny their racism. I would not be able to justify it on the basis of culture or time period or anything else. Because the horrible truth of what racism did to America is larger than the reputation of my parents alone. If something is false, and horribly damaging to large numbers of people, and you know that it is so, then you have to say so.
Unless, of course, I were a racist too. Then I would start looking for the hole in the hedge.
It does not make Gibson more admirable that he used a commandment to cover a crime. Imo, of course.
Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
hobby, I would say this is the main underlying theme of the book, aside from the specifics about Mary Magdalene, etc. The church repressed the real truths of Jesus to advance their own agenda.hobby wrote:What I'd gathered from what I heard about the contents is that its premise is that the church is this evil, conspirational organisation, bent on supressing the "truth" etc etc
SSo - could the people who've read it give a summary of what actually happens in the story?
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
O
B
B
Y
As far as I recall, the protagonist is some kind of authority on something historical, working with the Louvre museum on some project. So he happens to be in Paris and hears about this murder that took place at the museum under bizarre circumstances. So he is called in to investigate, and what he encounters is basically an intriguing puzzle (in the clues left at the murder scene) that draws him in, and he begins to try to solve it. There is a woman somehow linked, and they become partners in trying to solve this murder and the puzzle/mystery behind it.
The mystery involves a secret (secret, secret) society who hold the key to evidence of a precious secret that they live their lives to guard. They are guarding it (IIRC) from the Catholic Church, and a particular society within the Catholic Church, and from a particular person (bishop) within that society. The secret is considered a threat to the church, and the church would bury the knowledge of it if it could. I think the person who is murdered at the beginning is the last living guarder of the secret, so the protagonist and sidekick have to solve the puzzle so that they can retrieve the knowledge and start to guard it again.
Well, the process is labyrinthine and I don't remember much of it, but the gist is this Mary Magdalene angle. That Jesus had a child with her, and the descendants of that child live to this day. MM was in effect, the holy grail.
I apologize for the clumsiness of this, and perhaps others will correct and amplify.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Catherine_Emmerich
More information on that nun. Named Anne Catherine Emmerich, she died in 1824, and was German. At least according to wiki, which could be wrong.
More information on that nun. Named Anne Catherine Emmerich, she died in 1824, and was German. At least according to wiki, which could be wrong.
Faramond: Jn, if you'll forgive another question, why isn't Stephen Spielberg an admirable person?
Yeah, I did make this as an offhand statement and I would like to look up some of the details before making detailed accusation. But Spielberg ran afoul of the environmental community some years ago for buying up an island that had environmental protections attached to it and turning it into a private golf course. He's also been the object of a class action suit by his neighbors for a multi-story barn that he built on his property which was such an eyesore that it lowered everyone else's property values. And, he used the media junket for War of the Worlds to carry a pro-war message to Europe concerning Iraq on behalf of the Bush Administration (people who hate Jane Fonda may extrapolate that to my feelings about all movie stars who become political mouthpieces, regardless of orientation), and the Jewish perspective that he presents in his movies is one which ... I find exploitive to a certain extent and also ... not what Jews should be talking about. It would take a three page essay to explain what I mean by this. Suffice it to say that I am very sorry he is such a well-known mouthpiece for the Jewish people.
He is also one of the most litigious people in Hollywood, so I've heard, and I don't find that admirable.
jn
eta: sorry, I can't keep up with this thread. Thanks for the link, Faramond. I do want to read up on her story again as I've forgotten most of it.
hal, it's not a crime to tell a lie, unless you do it in court, but it is a sin, no?
Yeah, I did make this as an offhand statement and I would like to look up some of the details before making detailed accusation. But Spielberg ran afoul of the environmental community some years ago for buying up an island that had environmental protections attached to it and turning it into a private golf course. He's also been the object of a class action suit by his neighbors for a multi-story barn that he built on his property which was such an eyesore that it lowered everyone else's property values. And, he used the media junket for War of the Worlds to carry a pro-war message to Europe concerning Iraq on behalf of the Bush Administration (people who hate Jane Fonda may extrapolate that to my feelings about all movie stars who become political mouthpieces, regardless of orientation), and the Jewish perspective that he presents in his movies is one which ... I find exploitive to a certain extent and also ... not what Jews should be talking about. It would take a three page essay to explain what I mean by this. Suffice it to say that I am very sorry he is such a well-known mouthpiece for the Jewish people.
He is also one of the most litigious people in Hollywood, so I've heard, and I don't find that admirable.
jn
eta: sorry, I can't keep up with this thread. Thanks for the link, Faramond. I do want to read up on her story again as I've forgotten most of it.
hal, it's not a crime to tell a lie, unless you do it in court, but it is a sin, no?
Last edited by Jnyusa on Thu May 11, 2006 7:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
I'm not saying it's not offensive or reprehensible.
But to call it a crime IS to say someone is not allowed ot delude and lie to themselves. It's telling them they MUST believe a certain way.
Yes, you can show someone facts and PROVE events happened, but they still have the right to not believe it.
To call a belief a crime, not matter HOW horrifyingly bad that belief is... is not right. Actions are crimes, beliefs are simply something you can think are ignorant or dispicable.
But to call it a crime IS to say someone is not allowed ot delude and lie to themselves. It's telling them they MUST believe a certain way.
Yes, you can show someone facts and PROVE events happened, but they still have the right to not believe it.
To call a belief a crime, not matter HOW horrifyingly bad that belief is... is not right. Actions are crimes, beliefs are simply something you can think are ignorant or dispicable.
For the TROUBLED may you find PEACE
For the DESPAIRING may you find HOPE
For the LONELY may you find LOVE
For the SKEPTICAL may you find FAITH
-Frances C. Arrillaga 1941-1995
For the DESPAIRING may you find HOPE
For the LONELY may you find LOVE
For the SKEPTICAL may you find FAITH
-Frances C. Arrillaga 1941-1995
-
truehobbit
- Cute, cuddly and dangerous to know
- Posts: 6019
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:52 am
- Contact:
There's a camp?I am just bitten by the irony that the camp which dismissed these kinds of concerns before is now finding them quite serious.
At the risk of more osgiliation, I'd like to know what that's supposed to mean. Or maybe you could just post the link to the TORC-thread, I don't think I read the discussion at the time.Please don't tell me that that movie was historical when half of it was taken from the spiritual adventures of a psychotic medieval nun.
but being a cheerful hobbit he had not needed hope, as long as despair could be postponed.
I'm sorry, I react more strongly to someone trying to criminalize thoughts than I do pretty much anything else, so... didn't mean to sidetrack everyone...
For the TROUBLED may you find PEACE
For the DESPAIRING may you find HOPE
For the LONELY may you find LOVE
For the SKEPTICAL may you find FAITH
-Frances C. Arrillaga 1941-1995
For the DESPAIRING may you find HOPE
For the LONELY may you find LOVE
For the SKEPTICAL may you find FAITH
-Frances C. Arrillaga 1941-1995
Whoops! You guys post FAST...
My post was removed because it didn't mean anything anymore!
My post was removed because it didn't mean anything anymore!
Last edited by anthriel on Thu May 11, 2006 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"What do you fear, lady?" Aragorn asked.
"A cage," Éowyn said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
"A cage," Éowyn said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
Hobby: I'd like to know what that's supposed to mean.
Hobby, Faramond gave a link to the Wikipedia account above.
Since hal posts faster than I can read, I will repeat my eta from above.
It's not a crime to tell a lie, hal, unless you do it in court, but it is a sin. It is also, imo, wrong at a very basic level to use one's religious beliefs to deny verifiable history for purposes of promoting hatred.
Hobby, Faramond gave a link to the Wikipedia account above.
Since hal posts faster than I can read, I will repeat my eta from above.
It's not a crime to tell a lie, hal, unless you do it in court, but it is a sin. It is also, imo, wrong at a very basic level to use one's religious beliefs to deny verifiable history for purposes of promoting hatred.
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
-
truehobbit
- Cute, cuddly and dangerous to know
- Posts: 6019
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:52 am
- Contact:
Thanks so much for the reply, Cerin, and the summary! 
So, um, who, in Mr Brown's opinion, are those descendents?
I'm glad I got that right, and feel justified in my above assessment of the book.Cerin wrote:hobby, I would say this is the main underlying theme of the book, aside from the specifics about Mary Magdalene, etc. The church repressed the real truths of Jesus to advance their own agenda.hobby wrote:What I'd gathered from what I heard about the contents is that its premise is that the church is this evil, conspirational organisation, bent on supressing the "truth" etc etc
So, um, who, in Mr Brown's opinion, are those descendents?
Last edited by truehobbit on Thu May 11, 2006 7:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
but being a cheerful hobbit he had not needed hope, as long as despair could be postponed.
War of the Worlds was supposed to be pro-Iraqi War?
One of the screenwriters specifically said that the aliens were meant as metaphors for the Americans in Iraq. The film even contains a line to the effect that "occupations always fail." I almost skipped it because it seemed so overtly political.
Sorry to change the topic. Or maybe not.
One of the screenwriters specifically said that the aliens were meant as metaphors for the Americans in Iraq. The film even contains a line to the effect that "occupations always fail." I almost skipped it because it seemed so overtly political.
Sorry to change the topic. Or maybe not.