Author Topic: Whose God May We Mock?  (Read 1725 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bogoliubtsy

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,268
Whose God May We Mock?
« on: May 23, 2006, 01:02:40 PM »
Whose God may we mock?- Patrick J Buchanan
Posted: May 16, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 Creators Syndicate Inc.

If "such lies and errors had been directed at the Quran or the Holocaust," said Archbishop Angelo Amato, the Vatican's secretary for the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, "they would have justly provoked a world uprising."

The archbishop was speaking of "The Da Vinci Code," the Ron Howard film that debuts at Cannes and opens worldwide this week, and is expected to gross $500 million by summer's end.

The archbishop's point is undeniable. Blasphemous cartoons of the Prophet with a bomb in his turban, published a few months ago in a Danish newspaper and reprinted on the front pages of Europe's major papers, ignited demonstrations in Muslim communities across Europe and violent and deadly riots across the Islamic world.

Leaders friendly to the West, from Egypt to Afghanistan, felt compelled to denounce the cartoons, as did many in the West, as a provocation and insult to the faith of a billion people.

In the 1990s, the British novelist Salman Rushdie spent years in hiding after Ayatollah Khomeini issued a "fatwa" calling for his killing for publishing the blasphemous "Satanic Verses." In the 1970s, the film "Muhammad," starring Anthony Quinn, was pulled from many U.S. theaters after bomb threats. The film had offended Muslim faithful by showing the face of Muhammad.

Last February, British historian David Irving, whose books on World War II have sold in the millions, was convicted in an Austrian court of Holocaust denial and sentenced to three years in prison. His crime: In two speeches in Austria in 1989, Irving asserted there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz. Though he recanted in court, it did not save him. Prosecutors felt his sentence was too light.

Karen Pollock of Great Britain's Holocaust Education Trust applauded the verdict: "Holocaust denial is anti-Semitism dressed up as intellectual debate. It should be regarded as such and treated as such."

In nine countries of Europe, Holocaust denial is a crime. In the United States, to deny the Holocaust happened or suggest that it has been exaggerated is not a crime, but marks one down as a social leper.

If you would know who wields cultural power, ask yourself: Whom is it impermissible to offend? Thus the hoopla attending the release of "The Da Vinci Code," based on the Dan Brown novel that has sold 7 million copies in the United States, tells us something about whose God it is permissible to mock and whose faith one is allowed to assault.

For what "The Da Vinci Code" says is that Roman Catholicism is a gigantic fraud, that the church has for centuries been perpetrating a monstrous hoax, duping hundreds of millions into believing something it knows is a bald-faced lie. At the novel's heart lies the contention that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, that they had a daughter, that the Vatican has known this and been hiding the descendants of Jesus, that Opus Dei is a secret order whose agents will engage in murder to protect the secret.

Leonardo da Vinci's painting "The Last Supper" is said to hold the secret, as Jesus is portrayed touching the hand of the youngest apostle, John, who holds the place of honor at his side — and who is, on close inspection, Mary Magdalene.

In Catholic teaching and tradition, the Holy Grail is the chalice that contained the blood of Jesus. In the book, the Holy Grail is Mary Magdalene, carrying the flesh and blood of Jesus in her womb.

If "The Da Vinci Code" is based upon facts, no other conclusion follows than that to be a Catholic is either to be in on this fraud or to be the dupe of those perpetuating it. But if it is fiction, why would Hollywood put out so viciously anti-Catholic a film that can only have the effect of undermining the faith of millions of Christians?

Putting "The Da Vinci Code" on film, with what it alleges about the Catholic Church, is the moral equivalent of making a movie based on the "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and implying this is the truth about the Jewish plot to control the world. One imagines Ron Howard and Tom Hanks would take a pass on that script.

Like the "Hitler's Pope" smear of Pius XII, a man who did more than any other to save the Jews in World War II, "The Da Vinci Code" is a Big Lie that, though readily refuted by the facts, will be believed.

But that it will be a box-office smash, that it is the subject of lavish praise in the press, that it is the best-selling novel of the 21st century, tells us we live not just in a post-Christian era, but in an anti-Catholic culture not worth defending or saving, for it is truly satanic.
"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara

Offline Fr. David

  • The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,833
Re: Whose God May We Mock?
« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2006, 03:59:23 PM »
"Lavish praise"??

Hardly.  All the reviews I've seen have been eye-rolling, "oh-brother" type of reviews.  Nobody seems to be taking the content seriously in the press.

And really, let them mock Christ.  Our God is not a God who needs humans to defend Him.  Allah of the Muslims might, and the God of the Jews isn't really under attack, but if people want to try and mock the Holy Trinity, I say so what?  The Judgement will come, and they'll be held accountable.  So will I, though, so there're other things for me to concern myself with more than Dan Brown's insipid claims.
Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)

Offline Bogoliubtsy

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,268
Re: Whose God May We Mock?
« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2006, 04:53:04 PM »
I agree with you, Pedro.

Mocking and misrepresentation of Christianity is nothing new...and the Church is still here. I do think though that Pat Buchanan brings up a decent point about who and what we're able to criticize in our days, and how that may relate to who has the power.
"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara

Offline SouthSerb99

  • Archbishop of Shlivo, Patriarch of All Vodkas & Defender Against All Overstepping!
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,800
  • Now Internet Forum Friendly
    • Save Kosovo
Re: Whose God May We Mock?
« Reply #3 on: May 26, 2006, 02:14:01 PM »
Couple of things.

Dare I say, I actually agree with Buchanan (possibly a first for me).

Pedro is right on the money.  My God is not so frail as to withstand Dan Brown's fairytale and all of the celebrity around it.

I am troubled though, not by the blatant hypocrisy, with which Christianity is attacked, but by the failure by most to recognize it as fact.

The article by Buchanan isolates two groups; Muslims and Jews, but I believe this extends to pretty much every non-Trinitarian Christian group.

As I have stated here many times, I work in an office as the ONLY non-Jewish attorney, and I feel as though most of my co-workers are like family, but on this issue, I take exception with their behaviour.

When The Passion of the Christ was released, they were all in an uproar about the "dangerous effects" of his movie.  Now, not a word about the "effects" of this movie.

I don't mind people belittling my beliefs, what gets me, is that they won't admit they're doing it!
"Wherever you go, there you are."
 Guy from my office

Orthodox Archbishopric of Ohrid
Hungry? Click Here

Offline scooter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
  • Holy Martyr Justin the Philosopher
Re: Whose God May We Mock?
« Reply #4 on: May 27, 2006, 01:26:45 AM »
I admit that I have seen the movie just like I did when "Last Temptation of Christ" came out.  I am the type who needs to see what the "fuss" is all about.  I was much younger when I saw Last Temptation.  I do recall thinking on what if?  What if the humanity had caved in and somehow overcame the divine?  What would be the ramifications of that?  What I found interesting about that movie was that from the point of temptation forward either by vision or by actual elasped time, the movie came back to a point where Christ said no to the temptation and followed through with His passion.  I think that point got lost on many people.  There have been times where I have wondered if Satan made any last ditch efforts to tempt Christ unto his last dying breath on the Cross.  In the end I found Last Temptation to be such a low quality movie that I wondered why such the outcry.  If there had not been such an outcry I believe the movie would have come and gone in relative obscurity.  I ask for forgiveness to think about such things then and even to bring them up now.  Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.

That said, the Da Vinci Code is harder to ignore due to the success of the book.  As far as a good conspiracy theory, a good thriller, a good work of fiction, I thought it was a good movie.  Sadly, millions do not share the same view as me.  They have taken this book and movie and now seriously question the Church or their very own faith.  And in today's society, Christian bashing is quite en vouge.  It is encouraged to pile on the Christians.  Romans have seen a lot of bad press in the last decade.  In many ways also, they have brought this upon themselves by having so many organizations that have a history or mystery to them.  In the West the Catholic Church = the first church.  Orthodoxy does not exist.  The Catholic Church, as the first church, is corrupt and failed.  Therefore the whole of Christianity must be called into question.  With all of this in mind, Rome is a very easy target.  Other religious groups seem to enjoy special protection these days.  I will say it has been hard for me to refute this movie to friends and family who have seen it and have been swayed.  In this day and age of media, once something gets on the screen it can easily become validated and "true".  It doesn't matter that I have the entirity of Church History on my side, that "truth" can be awful hard to dislodge.

I think the best course of action is to avoid getting into hysterics.  Hysterical rushes to defend and loudly defend tend to provoke people into thinking "where there's smoke there's fire".  Continue to calmy explain the truth on a repeated basis with as much mercy, peace and love as is possible.  As long as is needed.  Let the chips fall where they may and pray for health and salvation.  This is a marathon, not a horse race.   

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,287
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Whose God May We Mock?
« Reply #5 on: May 27, 2006, 11:51:15 AM »
I guess that my objection is to allowing one's brother to fall... While I feel that the faith is not threatened by such a work, whose plausible truthfulness is only touted to raise sales numbers, I do feel that the faithful are, and while part of me says "if their faith is so weak as to be challenged by this, then let them go" the other part says that it is our duty to educate and protect the weaker members of the pack from the wolves that bite at them from all sides.  I know this isn't being disagreed on by anyone yet in this thread, but it bears statement.  The best course of action is probably what scooter finished off with, namely:

Continue to calmy explain the truth on a repeated basis with as much mercy, peace and love as is possible.  As long as is needed.  Let the chips fall where they may and pray for health and salvation.  This is a marathon, not a horse race.   
How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic