The Da Vinci Protocols: Why Jews Should Worry About Dan Brown's Success

[Sound of Trumpet]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDY0YmNhMjc5YThmZWIxY2VjNmM3MWE0YjU1MDFhYTg=


May 05, 2006, 7:17 a.m.

The Da Vinci Protocols
Jews should worry about Dan Brown's success.

By David Klinghoffer




With less than three weeks before the May 19 release of the Sony
Pictures version of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, worries continue to
mount among Christians about both the book's and the movie's
impact. But should non-Christians be concerned, too?

Absolutely. Jews in particular need to be aware of the gift
mega-selling Dan Brown has given, in all innocence, to anti-Semites.

As everyone knows by now, Brown uses a gripping suspense story set in
the present to inform us that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and
that he has descendants living in Europe today. Furthermore, the
members of this surviving Jesus family have been protected for
centuries by an altruistic secret organization, the Priory of Sion,
which is locked in combat with a sinister, violent Catholic group, Opus
Dei. That latter seeks to keep the secret of Jesus' paternity from
getting out. Behind Opus Dei stands the Catholic Church. For millennia,
the church has perpetrated what the film calls "the biggest cover up
in human history."

Opus Dei, the real-life Catholic lay order, asked Sony to place a
disclaimer at the beginning of the movie admitting that the story is
fictional-a request the studio has so far refused. Brown himself
states at the outset of the novel that his tale is grounded in
"fact": "The Priory of Sion-a European secret society founded
in 1099-is a real organization," and so on.

Scholars have done a solid job of pointing out the fictions that
interweave Brown's "facts." Notably, the "Priory of Sion" is
"real" only in the sense that it really is the modern invention of
Pierre Plantard, a peculiar Frenchman with royalist and anti-Semitic
views. It dates to the year 1956, not 1099. Plantard's hoax merely
took the name of a medieval monastic order that had ceased to exist by
the 14th century and which had nothing to do with legends about
Jesus' fathering children.

You may wonder if Brown's readers find his tale convincing, not as
fiction but as truth. Seemingly they do. A Barna Group poll found that
53 percent of the book's readers said The Da Vinci Code aided their
"personal spiritual growth and understanding."

But why should a non-Christian care?

Consider that the alleged conspiracy underlying the "biggest cover up
in human history" bears a remarkable resemblance to another phony
conspiracy, the famous hoax called the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Apparently authored by Russian monarchist and anti-Semite Mathieu
Golovinski in 1898, the Protocols tells of a secret society of Jewish
elders that work to keep gentiles ignorant of a plot to rule the world
through "Darwinism, Marxism, and Nietzscheism."

In both conspiracy theories, an ancient world religion turns out to be
a massive fraud perpetrated to gain or maintain power. In Dan Brown's
version, the "Priory of Sion" ("Sion" simply means "Zion"
in French) is the good guys. They've been waiting for the right
moment to reveal the secret about Jesus having children and to
introduce the world to the worship of the "Goddess," a.k.a. Mary
Magdalene.

Meanwhile the Catholic Church plots to suppress forever the truth about
the "sacred feminine." Opus Dei is willing to go to any lengths,
including murder, to keep the male church hierarchy in power.

Pierre Plantard (1920-2000), the French monarchist and anti-Semite who
gave us the "Priory of Sion," spent much of his life inventing
minuscule esoteric organizations intended to "purify" France of the
evil influences of modernity-and of Judaism. In 1940 he wrote of the
"terrible Masonic and Jewish conspiracy" that threatened France.

The Priory of Sion was one group he started. The point of this occult
order was to advance Plantard's claim to be the surviving heir of the
ancient Merovingian line of French kings, whose "holy blood" was
guarded by the Priory. The idea that the Merovingians were the
descendants of Jesus and Mary Magdalene was added on later.

Besides highlighting the word "Zion" or "Sion," the two
conspiracy theories share an understanding of how to deal with ideas
you disagree with. Rather than taking traditional Christian beliefs at
face value and arguing with them (as I do in my current book by the
way), Dan Brown portrays the religion itself as resting upon a
conscious deception. That excuses him from having to make arguments at
all.

Anti-Semites do the same thing. Rather than coming out honestly against
Darwinism or Marxism or modernity in general, they concoct a story
about Judaism as a lie and a conspiracy. The Protocols remains a global
phenomenon of staggering popularity, especially in the Arab world.

I emphasize that Dan Brown never intended to foment bigotry. Yet to the
cause of conspiracy theorizing, he has done a wonderful favor, training
his readers in the habits of paranoia and gullibility. For people
committed to finding the truth through investigation and argumentation,
that's depressing.

As for Jews, we haven't fared well when the culture we live in turns
to entertaining fantasies and delusions at the expense of an
unfashionable religion. The success of Brown's book, now transformed
into a movie blockbuster, is bad news.



- David Klinghoffer is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and
the author most recently of Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning
Point in Western History.

[Eris]

On 6 May 2006 15:14:46 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"

Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDY0YmNhMjc5YThmZWIxY2VjNmM3MWE0YjU1MDFhYTg=
May 05, 2006, 7:17 a.m.
The Da Vinci Protocols
Jews should worry about Dan Brown's success.
By David Klinghoffer
With less than three weeks before the May 19 release of the Sony
Pictures version of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, worries continue to
mount among Christians about both the book's and the movie's
impact. But should non-Christians be concerned, too?
Absolutely. Jews in particular need to be aware of the gift
mega-selling Dan Brown has given, in all innocence, to anti-Semites.
As everyone knows by now, Brown uses a gripping suspense story set in
the present to inform us that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and
that he has descendants living in Europe today. Furthermore, the
members of this surviving Jesus family have been protected for
centuries by an altruistic secret organization, the Priory of Sion,
which is locked in combat with a sinister, violent Catholic group, Opus
Dei. That latter seeks to keep the secret of Jesus' paternity from
getting out. Behind Opus Dei stands the Catholic Church. For millennia,
the church has perpetrated what the film calls "the biggest cover up
in human history."
Opus Dei, the real-life Catholic lay order, asked Sony to place a
disclaimer at the beginning of the movie admitting that the story is
fictional-a request the studio has so far refused. Brown himself
states at the outset of the novel that his tale is grounded in
"fact": "The Priory of Sion-a European secret society founded
in 1099-is a real organization," and so on.
Scholars have done a solid job of pointing out the fictions that
interweave Brown's "facts." Notably, the "Priory of Sion" is
"real" only in the sense that it really is the modern invention of
Pierre Plantard, a peculiar Frenchman with royalist and anti-Semitic
views. It dates to the year 1956, not 1099. Plantard's hoax merely
took the name of a medieval monastic order that had ceased to exist by
the 14th century and which had nothing to do with legends about
Jesus' fathering children.
You may wonder if Brown's readers find his tale convincing, not as
fiction but as truth. Seemingly they do. A Barna Group poll found that
53 percent of the book's readers said The Da Vinci Code aided their
"personal spiritual growth and understanding."
But why should a non-Christian care?
Consider that the alleged conspiracy underlying the "biggest cover up
in human history" bears a remarkable resemblance to another phony
conspiracy, the famous hoax called the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Apparently authored by Russian monarchist and anti-Semite Mathieu
Golovinski in 1898, the Protocols tells of a secret society of Jewish
elders that work to keep gentiles ignorant of a plot to rule the world
through "Darwinism, Marxism, and Nietzscheism."
In both conspiracy theories, an ancient world religion turns out to be
a massive fraud perpetrated to gain or maintain power. In Dan Brown's
version, the "Priory of Sion" ("Sion" simply means "Zion"
in French) is the good guys. They've been waiting for the right
moment to reveal the secret about Jesus having children and to
introduce the world to the worship of the "Goddess," a.k.a. Mary
Magdalene.
Meanwhile the Catholic Church plots to suppress forever the truth about
the "sacred feminine." Opus Dei is willing to go to any lengths,
including murder, to keep the male church hierarchy in power.
Pierre Plantard (1920-2000), the French monarchist and anti-Semite who
gave us the "Priory of Sion," spent much of his life inventing
minuscule esoteric organizations intended to "purify" France of the
evil influences of modernity-and of Judaism. In 1940 he wrote of the
"terrible Masonic and Jewish conspiracy" that threatened France.
The Priory of Sion was one group he started. The point of this occult
order was to advance Plantard's claim to be the surviving heir of the
ancient Merovingian line of French kings, whose "holy blood" was
guarded by the Priory. The idea that the Merovingians were the
descendants of Jesus and Mary Magdalene was added on later.
Besides highlighting the word "Zion" or "Sion," the two
conspiracy theories share an understanding of how to deal with ideas
you disagree with. Rather than taking traditional Christian beliefs at
face value and arguing with them (as I do in my current book by the
way), Dan Brown portrays the religion itself as resting upon a
conscious deception. That excuses him from having to make arguments at
all.
Anti-Semites do the same thing. Rather than coming out honestly against
Darwinism or Marxism or modernity in general, they concoct a story
about Judaism as a lie and a conspiracy. The Protocols remains a global
phenomenon of staggering popularity, especially in the Arab world.
I emphasize that Dan Brown never intended to foment bigotry. Yet to the
cause of conspiracy theorizing, he has done a wonderful favor, training
his readers in the habits of paranoia and gullibility. For people
committed to finding the truth through investigation and argumentation,
that's depressing.
As for Jews, we haven't fared well when the culture we live in turns
to entertaining fantasies and delusions at the expense of an
unfashionable religion. The success of Brown's book, now transformed
into a movie blockbuster, is bad news.
- David Klinghoffer is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and
the author most recently of Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning
Point in Western History.

You people are like inflamed hemroidal tissue

[Mike O'Sullivan]

Post by Eris
You people are like inflamed hemroidal tissue

Did you really have to re-post the entire article just to add your one line?

[Eris]

Post by Mike O'Sullivan

Post by Eris
You people are like inflamed hemroidal tissue

Did you really have to re-post the entire article just to add your one line?

I used to snip but crazy people like this ahole, go crazy when you
snip their crap.
I will go back to snipping, thanks for the heads up.

[m***@yahoo.com]

I don't think Jewish people have to worry about this film, no more than
Catholics or Knights Templar. I'm not making fun of you; I wouldn't
give the sweat off my arse to see this film.

But you have to figure that somewhere, some people are going to stop
and ask, Hmm, would Dan Brown have had the success he had if he didn't
make Jesus' great great great great great great great great great great
great great great great great great granddaughter a gorgeous French
broad who just happens to hang at all these kewl Western European
places.

How about Jesus' descendents living in a gulag somewhere, or in a
tenement in Mexico City, or maybe in South L.A.? See, the folk who ate
up this sacreligious shit are fat white middle class bourgeois with
pretensions to be "cultured." Fat white middle class bourgeois morons
generally don't care much about anything other than their own
entertainment.

So I'm sure Mossad and the Vatican Guard don't have to go on high
alert--which is not to say that Jesus isn't mad as hell about this
piece of sh*$.

[Karnak 17]

Post by m***@yahoo.com
I don't think Jewish people have to worry about this film, no more than
Catholics or Knights Templar. I'm not making fun of you; I wouldn't
give the sweat off my arse to see this film.

I haven't read the book. But I was trying to argue on another thread
that the ATTITUDE of the PUBLIC towards the film is very scary to me.

Democracy does not fare well when We the People reward and excuse those
who deliberately lie and deceive. Telling people that DA VINCI is
based on fact is deliberate deception. You either have a problem with
that or you don't. And if people don't . . . <shrugging helplessly> .
. . what kind of people ARE they and what kind of democracy can they
have?

The problem isn't Brown as in individual. There will always be liars,
hoaksters, and bigots. But at this point Brown has become an entire
industry.

Some writer was in time gone by getting all up in arms about the novel
and it's claims to fact. Doubleday, the writer complained, OWED it to
its readers to make sure that any novel claiming to be based on fact
was as carefully fact checked as any book of non-fiction. Responsible
publishers and authors have an obligation to inform rather than
misinform, and to fairly admit that a novel is NOT based on facts when
in fact it isn't, was his attitude.

What a quaint attitude. I think they used to call it "honor", or
"truthfullness", or "accountability".

Problem is, in my reading of history, I have come across incidents of
NONFICTION published by major and respected publishing houses in which
errors were found and POINTED OUT in the overseas edition, or the first
edition, or in articles published prior to the book's publication. But
that those numerous errors were not corrected when the book was
published in the USA/second edition/final book form. The errors --
usually inflammatory ones -- were deliberately retained. Apparently
major publishers have no problem with this these days.

And why should they? I was listening on the radio to some media
watchdog playing clips from BILL O'REILLY in which he told one lie
after another. O'REILLY isn't claiming to be a work of fiction, but he
is lying and being rewarded for lying just the same. I won't even get
started on who the real problem liars are. THAT would be too
depressing.

<snip>

Post by m***@yahoo.com
How about Jesus' descendents living in a gulag somewhere, or in a
tenement in Mexico City, or maybe in South L.A.? See, the folk who ate
up this sacreligious shit are fat white middle class bourgeois with
pretensions to be "cultured." Fat white middle class bourgeois morons
generally don't care much about anything other than their own
entertainment.

The book is not, from what I hear, good enough to be entertaining. It
is the ideas, claimed "facts", the "accurately described documents",
that galvanize and exite people. People eat it up because they believe
that it is true, certainly in the case of the "Brownie" I talked to
last week. (I will attempt to deprogram her starting Monday).

It seems more moral to state that Sony has no right to vilify people
(that would include Opus Deii) or lie to the public (that would include
the fat middle class), than to just insult Brown's fans and then defend
Brown's right to lie to them.

I think that Opus Deii is entitled to the disclaimer that they ask for.
The public is entitled to it as well.

Post by m***@yahoo.com
So I'm sure Mossad and the Vatican Guard don't have to go on high
alert--which is not to say that Jesus isn't mad as hell about this
piece of sh*$.

Why is he mad as hell? Is he concerned about his own precious image.
Or maybe does he think that defaming people and deceiving people is a
bad thing?

Klinghoffer says: "As for Jews, we haven't fared well when the culture
we live in turns
to entertaining fantasies and delusions at the expense of an
unfashionable religion." Well, nobody fares well when this happens.
"First they came for the Jews . . .", etc. Well, it doesn't MATTER who
they come for FIRST. As long as we all sit back and encourage "them"
when they do, we have a problem.


*******
May 05, 2006, 7:17 a.m.


The Da Vinci Protocols
Jews should worry about Dan Brown's success.


By David Klinghoffer


With less than three weeks before the May 19 release of the Sony
Pictures version of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, worries continue to
mount among Christians about both the book's and the movie's
impact. But should non-Christians be concerned, too?


Absolutely. Jews in particular need to be aware of the gift
mega-selling Dan Brown has given, in all innocence, to anti-Semites.


As everyone knows by now, Brown uses a gripping suspense story set in
the present to inform us that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and
that he has descendants living in Europe today. Furthermore, the
members of this surviving Jesus family have been protected for
centuries by an altruistic secret organization, the Priory of Sion,
which is locked in combat with a sinister, violent Catholic group, Opus

Dei. That latter seeks to keep the secret of Jesus' paternity from
getting out. Behind Opus Dei stands the Catholic Church. For millennia,

the church has perpetrated what the film calls "the biggest cover up
in human history."


Opus Dei, the real-life Catholic lay order, asked Sony to place a
disclaimer at the beginning of the movie admitting that the story is
fictional-a request the studio has so far refused. Brown himself
states at the outset of the novel that his tale is grounded in
"fact": "The Priory of Sion-a European secret society founded
in 1099-is a real organization," and so on.


Scholars have done a solid job of pointing out the fictions that
interweave Brown's "facts." Notably, the "Priory of Sion" is
"real" only in the sense that it really is the modern invention of
Pierre Plantard, a peculiar Frenchman with royalist and anti-Semitic
views. It dates to the year 1956, not 1099. Plantard's hoax merely
took the name of a medieval monastic order that had ceased to exist by
the 14th century and which had nothing to do with legends about
Jesus' fathering children.


You may wonder if Brown's readers find his tale convincing, not as
fiction but as truth. Seemingly they do. A Barna Group poll found that
53 percent of the book's readers said The Da Vinci Code aided their
"personal spiritual growth and understanding."


But why should a non-Christian care?


Consider that the alleged conspiracy underlying the "biggest cover up
in human history" bears a remarkable resemblance to another phony
conspiracy, the famous hoax called the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Apparently authored by Russian monarchist and anti-Semite Mathieu
Golovinski in 1898, the Protocols tells of a secret society of Jewish
elders that work to keep gentiles ignorant of a plot to rule the world
through "Darwinism, Marxism, and Nietzscheism."


In both conspiracy theories, an ancient world religion turns out to be
a massive fraud perpetrated to gain or maintain power. In Dan Brown's
version, the "Priory of Sion" ("Sion" simply means "Zion"
in French) is the good guys. They've been waiting for the right
moment to reveal the secret about Jesus having children and to
introduce the world to the worship of the "Goddess," a.k.a. Mary
Magdalene.


Meanwhile the Catholic Church plots to suppress forever the truth about

the "sacred feminine." Opus Dei is willing to go to any lengths,
including murder, to keep the male church hierarchy in power.


Pierre Plantard (1920-2000), the French monarchist and anti-Semite who
gave us the "Priory of Sion," spent much of his life inventing
minuscule esoteric organizations intended to "purify" France of the
evil influences of modernity-and of Judaism. In 1940 he wrote of the
"terrible Masonic and Jewish conspiracy" that threatened France.


The Priory of Sion was one group he started. The point of this occult
order was to advance Plantard's claim to be the surviving heir of the
ancient Merovingian line of French kings, whose "holy blood" was
guarded by the Priory. The idea that the Merovingians were the
descendants of Jesus and Mary Magdalene was added on later.


Besides highlighting the word "Zion" or "Sion," the two
conspiracy theories share an understanding of how to deal with ideas
you disagree with. Rather than taking traditional Christian beliefs at
face value and arguing with them (as I do in my current book by the
way), Dan Brown portrays the religion itself as resting upon a
conscious deception. That excuses him from having to make arguments at
all.


Anti-Semites do the same thing. Rather than coming out honestly against

Darwinism or Marxism or modernity in general, they concoct a story
about Judaism as a lie and a conspiracy. The Protocols remains a global

phenomenon of staggering popularity, especially in the Arab world.


I emphasize that Dan Brown never intended to foment bigotry. Yet to the

cause of conspiracy theorizing, he has done a wonderful favor, training

his readers in the habits of paranoia and gullibility. For people
committed to finding the truth through investigation and argumentation,

that's depressing.


As for Jews, we haven't fared well when the culture we live in turns
to entertaining fantasies and delusions at the expense of an
unfashionable religion. The success of Brown's book, now transformed
into a movie blockbuster, is bad news.


- David Klinghoffer is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and
the author most recently of Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning
Point in Western History.

[Eris]

Post by Karnak 17

Post by m***@yahoo.com
I don't think Jewish people have to worry about this film, no more than
Catholics or Knights Templar. I'm not making fun of you; I wouldn't
give the sweat off my arse to see this film.

I haven't read the book. But I was trying to argue on another thread
that the ATTITUDE of the PUBLIC towards the film is very scary to me.
Democracy does not fare well when We the People reward and excuse those
who deliberately lie and deceive. Telling people that DA VINCI is
based on fact is deliberate deception. You either have a problem with
that or you don't. And if people don't . . . <shrugging helplessly> .
. . what kind of people ARE they and what kind of democracy can they
have?
The problem isn't Brown as in individual. There will always be liars,
hoaksters, and bigots. But at this point Brown has become an entire
industry.
Some writer was in time gone by getting all up in arms about the novel
and it's claims to fact. Doubleday, the writer complained, OWED it to
its readers to make sure that any novel claiming to be based on fact
was as carefully fact checked as any book of non-fiction. Responsible
publishers and authors have an obligation to inform rather than
misinform, and to fairly admit that a novel is NOT based on facts when
in fact it isn't, was his attitude.
What a quaint attitude. I think they used to call it "honor", or
"truthfullness", or "accountability".

It is always referred to as a work of fiction, why do you folks have
to distort? Weak religion?

Post by Karnak 17
Problem is, in my reading of history, I have come across incidents of
NONFICTION published by major and respected publishing houses in which
errors were found and POINTED OUT in the overseas edition, or the first
edition, or in articles published prior to the book's publication. But
that those numerous errors were not corrected when the book was
published in the USA/second edition/final book form. The errors --
usually inflammatory ones -- were deliberately retained. Apparently
major publishers have no problem with this these days.
And why should they? I was listening on the radio to some media
watchdog playing clips from BILL O'REILLY in which he told one lie
after another. O'REILLY isn't claiming to be a work of fiction, but he
is lying and being rewarded for lying just the same. I won't even get
started on who the real problem liars are. THAT would be too
depressing.
<snip>

Post by m***@yahoo.com
How about Jesus' descendents living in a gulag somewhere, or in a
tenement in Mexico City, or maybe in South L.A.? See, the folk who ate
up this sacreligious shit are fat white middle class bourgeois with
pretensions to be "cultured." Fat white middle class bourgeois morons
generally don't care much about anything other than their own
entertainment.

The book is not, from what I hear, good enough to be entertaining. It
is the ideas, claimed "facts", the "accurately described documents",
that galvanize and exite people. People eat it up because they believe
that it is true, certainly in the case of the "Brownie" I talked to
last week. (I will attempt to deprogram her starting Monday).
It seems more moral to state that Sony has no right to vilify people
(that would include Opus Deii) or lie to the public (that would include
the fat middle class), than to just insult Brown's fans and then defend
Brown's right to lie to them.

I believe that Opus Deii and the Mother church are very good at
vilifying people. Maybe the priest at the beginning of mass should
warn the parish that there exists ample evidence that the whole
Christian religion is based on a myth?

Post by Karnak 17
I think that Opus Deii is entitled to the disclaimer that they ask for.
The public is entitled to it as well.

Post by m***@yahoo.com
So I'm sure Mossad and the Vatican Guard don't have to go on high
alert--which is not to say that Jesus isn't mad as hell about this
piece of sh*$.

Why is he mad as hell? Is he concerned about his own precious image.
Or maybe does he think that defaming people and deceiving people is a
bad thing?
Klinghoffer says: "As for Jews, we haven't fared well when the culture
we live in turns
to entertaining fantasies and delusions at the expense of an
unfashionable religion." Well, nobody fares well when this happens.
"First they came for the Jews . . .", etc. Well, it doesn't MATTER who
they come for FIRST. As long as we all sit back and encourage "them"
when they do, we have a problem.
*******
May 05, 2006, 7:17 a.m.
The Da Vinci Protocols
Jews should worry about Dan Brown's success.
By David Klinghoffer
With less than three weeks before the May 19 release of the Sony
Pictures version of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, worries continue to
mount among Christians about both the book's and the movie's
impact. But should non-Christians be concerned, too?
Absolutely. Jews in particular need to be aware of the gift
mega-selling Dan Brown has given, in all innocence, to anti-Semites.
As everyone knows by now, Brown uses a gripping suspense story set in
the present to inform us that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and
that he has descendants living in Europe today. Furthermore, the
members of this surviving Jesus family have been protected for
centuries by an altruistic secret organization, the Priory of Sion,
which is locked in combat with a sinister, violent Catholic group, Opus
Dei. That latter seeks to keep the secret of Jesus' paternity from
getting out. Behind Opus Dei stands the Catholic Church. For millennia,
the church has perpetrated what the film calls "the biggest cover up
in human history."
Opus Dei, the real-life Catholic lay order, asked Sony to place a
disclaimer at the beginning of the movie admitting that the story is
fictional-a request the studio has so far refused. Brown himself
states at the outset of the novel that his tale is grounded in
"fact": "The Priory of Sion-a European secret society founded
in 1099-is a real organization," and so on.
Scholars have done a solid job of pointing out the fictions that
interweave Brown's "facts." Notably, the "Priory of Sion" is
"real" only in the sense that it really is the modern invention of
Pierre Plantard, a peculiar Frenchman with royalist and anti-Semitic
views. It dates to the year 1956, not 1099. Plantard's hoax merely
took the name of a medieval monastic order that had ceased to exist by
the 14th century and which had nothing to do with legends about
Jesus' fathering children.
You may wonder if Brown's readers find his tale convincing, not as
fiction but as truth. Seemingly they do. A Barna Group poll found that
53 percent of the book's readers said The Da Vinci Code aided their
"personal spiritual growth and understanding."
But why should a non-Christian care?
Consider that the alleged conspiracy underlying the "biggest cover up
in human history" bears a remarkable resemblance to another phony
conspiracy, the famous hoax called the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Apparently authored by Russian monarchist and anti-Semite Mathieu
Golovinski in 1898, the Protocols tells of a secret society of Jewish
elders that work to keep gentiles ignorant of a plot to rule the world
through "Darwinism, Marxism, and Nietzscheism."
In both conspiracy theories, an ancient world religion turns out to be
a massive fraud perpetrated to gain or maintain power. In Dan Brown's
version, the "Priory of Sion" ("Sion" simply means "Zion"
in French) is the good guys. They've been waiting for the right
moment to reveal the secret about Jesus having children and to
introduce the world to the worship of the "Goddess," a.k.a. Mary
Magdalene.
Meanwhile the Catholic Church plots to suppress forever the truth about
the "sacred feminine." Opus Dei is willing to go to any lengths,
including murder, to keep the male church hierarchy in power.
Pierre Plantard (1920-2000), the French monarchist and anti-Semite who
gave us the "Priory of Sion," spent much of his life inventing
minuscule esoteric organizations intended to "purify" France of the
evil influences of modernity-and of Judaism. In 1940 he wrote of the
"terrible Masonic and Jewish conspiracy" that threatened France.
The Priory of Sion was one group he started. The point of this occult
order was to advance Plantard's claim to be the surviving heir of the
ancient Merovingian line of French kings, whose "holy blood" was
guarded by the Priory. The idea that the Merovingians were the
descendants of Jesus and Mary Magdalene was added on later.
Besides highlighting the word "Zion" or "Sion," the two
conspiracy theories share an understanding of how to deal with ideas
you disagree with. Rather than taking traditional Christian beliefs at
face value and arguing with them (as I do in my current book by the
way), Dan Brown portrays the religion itself as resting upon a
conscious deception. That excuses him from having to make arguments at
all.
Anti-Semites do the same thing. Rather than coming out honestly against
Darwinism or Marxism or modernity in general, they concoct a story
about Judaism as a lie and a conspiracy. The Protocols remains a global
phenomenon of staggering popularity, especially in the Arab world.
I emphasize that Dan Brown never intended to foment bigotry. Yet to the
cause of conspiracy theorizing, he has done a wonderful favor, training
his readers in the habits of paranoia and gullibility. For people
committed to finding the truth through investigation and argumentation,
that's depressing.
As for Jews, we haven't fared well when the culture we live in turns
to entertaining fantasies and delusions at the expense of an
unfashionable religion. The success of Brown's book, now transformed
into a movie blockbuster, is bad news.
- David Klinghoffer is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and
the author most recently of Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning
Point in Western History.

[Karnak 17]

Post by Eris

Post by Karnak 17

Post by m***@yahoo.com
I don't think Jewish people have to worry about this film, no more than
Catholics or Knights Templar. I'm not making fun of you; I wouldn't
give the sweat off my arse to see this film.

I haven't read the book. But I was trying to argue on another thread
that the ATTITUDE of the PUBLIC towards the film is very scary to me.
Democracy does not fare well when We the People reward and excuse those
who deliberately lie and deceive. Telling people that DA VINCI is
based on fact is deliberate deception. You either have a problem with
that or you don't. And if people don't . . . <shrugging helplessly> .
. . what kind of people ARE they and what kind of democracy can they
have?
The problem isn't Brown as in individual. There will always be liars,
hoaksters, and bigots. But at this point Brown has become an entire
industry.
Some writer was in time gone by getting all up in arms about the novel
and it's claims to fact. Doubleday, the writer complained, OWED it to
its readers to make sure that any novel claiming to be based on fact
was as carefully fact checked as any book of non-fiction. Responsible
publishers and authors have an obligation to inform rather than
misinform, and to fairly admit that a novel is NOT based on facts when
in fact it isn't, was his attitude.
What a quaint attitude. I think they used to call it "honor", or
"truthfullness", or "accountability".

It is always referred to as a work of fiction, why do you folks have
to distort? Weak religion?

Who are "you folks", and why do YOU -- as an individual -- have to
ignore my clearly stated position in order to argue with a strawman.
Everyone knows that Sophie and What's-his-name and the actual plot are
fictional. BUT what Brown has claimed is that the scholarship spouted
by various characters in the book is accurate scholarship, and many
readers take him at his word. This is lying. Lying is wrong. What
part of this do you disagree with?

Post by Eris

Post by Karnak 17
Problem is, in my reading of history, I have come across incidents of
NONFICTION published by major and respected publishing houses in which
errors were found and POINTED OUT in the overseas edition, or the first
edition, or in articles published prior to the book's publication. But
that those numerous errors were not corrected when the book was
published in the USA/second edition/final book form. The errors --
usually inflammatory ones -- were deliberately retained. Apparently
major publishers have no problem with this these days.
And why should they? I was listening on the radio to some media
watchdog playing clips from BILL O'REILLY in which he told one lie
after another. O'REILLY isn't claiming to be a work of fiction, but he
is lying and being rewarded for lying just the same. I won't even get
started on who the real problem liars are. THAT would be too
depressing.
<snip>

Post by m***@yahoo.com
How about Jesus' descendents living in a gulag somewhere, or in a
tenement in Mexico City, or maybe in South L.A.? See, the folk who ate
up this sacreligious shit are fat white middle class bourgeois with
pretensions to be "cultured." Fat white middle class bourgeois morons
generally don't care much about anything other than their own
entertainment.

The book is not, from what I hear, good enough to be entertaining. It
is the ideas, claimed "facts", the "accurately described documents",
that galvanize and exite people. People eat it up because they believe
that it is true, certainly in the case of the "Brownie" I talked to
last week. (I will attempt to deprogram her starting Monday).
It seems more moral to state that Sony has no right to vilify people
(that would include Opus Deii) or lie to the public (that would include
the fat middle class), than to just insult Brown's fans and then defend
Brown's right to lie to them.

I believe that Opus Deii and the Mother church are very good at
vilifying people.

If either organization is falsely vilifying anybody right now, I hope
that you, as a decent human being, would expect them to stop, and even
to set the record straight with a disclaimer if they are doing so in a
work of fiction which claims falsely to be based on fact.

[Eris]

Post by Karnak 17

Post by Eris

Post by Karnak 17

Post by m***@yahoo.com
I don't think Jewish people have to worry about this film, no more than
Catholics or Knights Templar. I'm not making fun of you; I wouldn't
give the sweat off my arse to see this film.

I haven't read the book. But I was trying to argue on another thread
that the ATTITUDE of the PUBLIC towards the film is very scary to me.
Democracy does not fare well when We the People reward and excuse those
who deliberately lie and deceive. Telling people that DA VINCI is
based on fact is deliberate deception. You either have a problem with
that or you don't. And if people don't . . . <shrugging helplessly> .
. . what kind of people ARE they and what kind of democracy can they
have?
The problem isn't Brown as in individual. There will always be liars,
hoaksters, and bigots. But at this point Brown has become an entire
industry.
Some writer was in time gone by getting all up in arms about the novel
and it's claims to fact. Doubleday, the writer complained, OWED it to
its readers to make sure that any novel claiming to be based on fact
was as carefully fact checked as any book of non-fiction. Responsible
publishers and authors have an obligation to inform rather than
misinform, and to fairly admit that a novel is NOT based on facts when
in fact it isn't, was his attitude.
What a quaint attitude. I think they used to call it "honor", or
"truthfullness", or "accountability".

It is always referred to as a work of fiction, why do you folks have
to distort? Weak religion?

Who are "you folks", and why do YOU -- as an individual -- have to
ignore my clearly stated position in order to argue with a strawman.
Everyone knows that Sophie and What's-his-name and the actual plot are
fictional. BUT what Brown has claimed is that the scholarship spouted
by various characters in the book is accurate scholarship, and many
readers take him at his word. This is lying. Lying is wrong. What
part of this do you disagree with?

I have never heard him say that the scholarship spouted by various
characters in the book is accurate scholarship? Provide a believable
site and I will join you in your condemnation. This is alt.atheism, I
know that Christ was a fictional character, how can any scholarship
about Christ be accurate? The book is sold as a work of fiction.

Post by Karnak 17

Post by Eris

Post by Karnak 17
Problem is, in my reading of history, I have come across incidents of
NONFICTION published by major and respected publishing houses in which
errors were found and POINTED OUT in the overseas edition, or the first
edition, or in articles published prior to the book's publication. But
that those numerous errors were not corrected when the book was
published in the USA/second edition/final book form. The errors --
usually inflammatory ones -- were deliberately retained. Apparently
major publishers have no problem with this these days.
And why should they? I was listening on the radio to some media
watchdog playing clips from BILL O'REILLY in which he told one lie
after another. O'REILLY isn't claiming to be a work of fiction, but he
is lying and being rewarded for lying just the same. I won't even get
started on who the real problem liars are. THAT would be too
depressing.
<snip>

Post by m***@yahoo.com
How about Jesus' descendents living in a gulag somewhere, or in a
tenement in Mexico City, or maybe in South L.A.? See, the folk who ate
up this sacreligious shit are fat white middle class bourgeois with
pretensions to be "cultured." Fat white middle class bourgeois morons
generally don't care much about anything other than their own
entertainment.

The book is not, from what I hear, good enough to be entertaining. It
is the ideas, claimed "facts", the "accurately described documents",
that galvanize and exite people. People eat it up because they believe
that it is true, certainly in the case of the "Brownie" I talked to
last week. (I will attempt to deprogram her starting Monday).
It seems more moral to state that Sony has no right to vilify people
(that would include Opus Deii) or lie to the public (that would include
the fat middle class), than to just insult Brown's fans and then defend
Brown's right to lie to them.

I believe that Opus Deii and the Mother church are very good at
vilifying people.

If either organization is falsely vilifying anybody right now, I hope
that you, as a decent human being, would expect them to stop, and even
to set the record straight with a disclaimer if they are doing so in a
work of fiction which claims falsely to be based on fact.

They are currently falsely vilifying lots of people, some you
passionately believe should be vilified, but I do not.

[Karnak 17]

Post by Eris

Post by Karnak 17

Post by Eris

Post by Karnak 17

Post by m***@yahoo.com
I don't think Jewish people have to worry about this film, no more than
Catholics or Knights Templar. I'm not making fun of you; I wouldn't
give the sweat off my arse to see this film.

I haven't read the book. But I was trying to argue on another thread
that the ATTITUDE of the PUBLIC towards the film is very scary to me.
Democracy does not fare well when We the People reward and excuse those
who deliberately lie and deceive. Telling people that DA VINCI is
based on fact is deliberate deception. You either have a problem with
that or you don't. And if people don't . . . <shrugging helplessly> .
. . what kind of people ARE they and what kind of democracy can they
have?
The problem isn't Brown as in individual. There will always be liars,
hoaksters, and bigots. But at this point Brown has become an entire
industry.
Some writer was in time gone by getting all up in arms about the novel
and it's claims to fact. Doubleday, the writer complained, OWED it to
its readers to make sure that any novel claiming to be based on fact
was as carefully fact checked as any book of non-fiction. Responsible
publishers and authors have an obligation to inform rather than
misinform, and to fairly admit that a novel is NOT based on facts when
in fact it isn't, was his attitude.
What a quaint attitude. I think they used to call it "honor", or
"truthfullness", or "accountability".

It is always referred to as a work of fiction, why do you folks have
to distort? Weak religion?

Who are "you folks", and why do YOU -- as an individual -- have to
ignore my clearly stated position in order to argue with a strawman.
Everyone knows that Sophie and What's-his-name and the actual plot are
fictional. BUT what Brown has claimed is that the scholarship spouted
by various characters in the book is accurate scholarship, and many
readers take him at his word. This is lying. Lying is wrong. What
part of this do you disagree with?

I have never heard him say that the scholarship spouted by various
characters in the book is accurate scholarship?

At the beginning of the novel. "All descriptions of artwork,
architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are
accurate." Well, they are not. And it is real simple for Sony to
simply say so.

[Eris]

Post by Karnak 17

Post by Eris

Post by Karnak 17

Post by Eris

Post by Karnak 17

Post by m***@yahoo.com
I don't think Jewish people have to worry about this film, no more than
Catholics or Knights Templar. I'm not making fun of you; I wouldn't
give the sweat off my arse to see this film.

I haven't read the book. But I was trying to argue on another thread
that the ATTITUDE of the PUBLIC towards the film is very scary to me.
Democracy does not fare well when We the People reward and excuse those
who deliberately lie and deceive. Telling people that DA VINCI is
based on fact is deliberate deception. You either have a problem with
that or you don't. And if people don't . . . <shrugging helplessly> .
. . what kind of people ARE they and what kind of democracy can they
have?
The problem isn't Brown as in individual. There will always be liars,
hoaksters, and bigots. But at this point Brown has become an entire
industry.
Some writer was in time gone by getting all up in arms about the novel
and it's claims to fact. Doubleday, the writer complained, OWED it to
its readers to make sure that any novel claiming to be based on fact
was as carefully fact checked as any book of non-fiction. Responsible
publishers and authors have an obligation to inform rather than
misinform, and to fairly admit that a novel is NOT based on facts when
in fact it isn't, was his attitude.
What a quaint attitude. I think they used to call it "honor", or
"truthfullness", or "accountability".

It is always referred to as a work of fiction, why do you folks have
to distort? Weak religion?

Who are "you folks", and why do YOU -- as an individual -- have to
ignore my clearly stated position in order to argue with a strawman.
Everyone knows that Sophie and What's-his-name and the actual plot are
fictional. BUT what Brown has claimed is that the scholarship spouted
by various characters in the book is accurate scholarship, and many
readers take him at his word. This is lying. Lying is wrong. What
part of this do you disagree with?

I have never heard him say that the scholarship spouted by various
characters in the book is accurate scholarship?

At the beginning of the novel. "All descriptions of artwork,
architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are
accurate." Well, they are not. And it is real simple for Sony to
simply say so.

That is accurate, the person to Jesus's right does look like a female,
and there could be an M there. It is a great book and a fun read, the
ultra orthodox community seems be the best advertisement for the film.
I think Christianity will survive this as they did the Cathars

[Karnak 17]

Post by Eris

Post by Karnak 17

Post by Eris

Post by Karnak 17

Post by Eris

Post by Karnak 17

Post by m***@yahoo.com
I don't think Jewish people have to worry about this film, no more than
Catholics or Knights Templar. I'm not making fun of you; I wouldn't
give the sweat off my arse to see this film.

I haven't read the book. But I was trying to argue on another thread
that the ATTITUDE of the PUBLIC towards the film is very scary to me.
Democracy does not fare well when We the People reward and excuse those
who deliberately lie and deceive. Telling people that DA VINCI is
based on fact is deliberate deception. You either have a problem with
that or you don't. And if people don't . . . <shrugging helplessly> .
. . what kind of people ARE they and what kind of democracy can they
have?
The problem isn't Brown as in individual. There will always be liars,
hoaksters, and bigots. But at this point Brown has become an entire
industry.
Some writer was in time gone by getting all up in arms about the novel
and it's claims to fact. Doubleday, the writer complained, OWED it to
its readers to make sure that any novel claiming to be based on fact
was as carefully fact checked as any book of non-fiction. Responsible
publishers and authors have an obligation to inform rather than
misinform, and to fairly admit that a novel is NOT based on facts when
in fact it isn't, was his attitude.
What a quaint attitude. I think they used to call it "honor", or
"truthfullness", or "accountability".

It is always referred to as a work of fiction, why do you folks have
to distort? Weak religion?

Who are "you folks", and why do YOU -- as an individual -- have to
ignore my clearly stated position in order to argue with a strawman.
Everyone knows that Sophie and What's-his-name and the actual plot are
fictional. BUT what Brown has claimed is that the scholarship spouted
by various characters in the book is accurate scholarship, and many
readers take him at his word. This is lying. Lying is wrong. What
part of this do you disagree with?

I have never heard him say that the scholarship spouted by various
characters in the book is accurate scholarship?

At the beginning of the novel. "All descriptions of artwork,
architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are
accurate." Well, they are not. And it is real simple for Sony to
simply say so.

That is accurate, the person to Jesus's right does look like a female,
and there could be an M there.

Oh!!! The apostle John really does look like a chick, therefore all
the descriptions are accurate. Okay. But on the other hand ---

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2004/12/29/da_vinci_code/

This is a nice little summary of the historical background of the book.
SPOILERS, of course.

Post by Eris
It is a great book and a fun read,

Well, if that is all it said on the frontspiece, there wouldn't be much
of a problem, really, now would there?

[z***@yahoo.com]

Post by Eris
That is accurate, the person to Jesus's right does look like a female,
and there could be an M there.

The trouble with the book is that Brown seems to have done his homework
in some cases, like with certain details about the art and its history,
and completely ignore it (or was unaware of it) in others. In fact,
there is basically zero chance that Leonardo Da Vinci intended the
figure to the right of Jesus to be a woman. Christian art had depicted
the disciple John as a young man with no beard (like the picture) for
centuries by the time "The Last Supper" was painted, and basically any
art historian with even a passing interest in the subject would hae
known that.

Post by Eris
It is a great book and a fun read,

I agree. I didn't really think I'd like it, but I found myself turning
the pages to see what happened. The characters will a little thin, but
it was meant to be a thriller and not a character study, so who cares.

Post by Eris
the
ultra orthodox community seems be the best advertisement for the film.
I think Christianity will survive this as they did the Cathars

Agreed. I think the various groups who objected to this would do better
if they just treated it for what it was, a thriller with a few facts
about art history in there, but then a ton of unhistorical nonsense to
make the thing seem more fun.

I'm not quite sure I believe Dan Brown when he says that he feels that
all the historical aspects of the book are based on fact. Only a person
with very limited knowledge of the subject (which Brown doesn't seem to
be) or a kook would claim that everything he says in there is true,
which makes me believe that maybe Brown is just trying to hype the book
a bit and get some more people interested in it.

[t1gercat]

Post by Karnak 17

Post by Eris

Post by Karnak 17

Post by m***@yahoo.com
I don't think Jewish people have to worry about this film, no more than
Catholics or Knights Templar. I'm not making fun of you; I wouldn't
give the sweat off my arse to see this film.

I haven't read the book. But I was trying to argue on another thread
that the ATTITUDE of the PUBLIC towards the film is very scary to me.
Democracy does not fare well when We the People reward and excuse those
who deliberately lie and deceive. Telling people that DA VINCI is
based on fact is deliberate deception. You either have a problem with
that or you don't. And if people don't . . . <shrugging helplessly> .
. . what kind of people ARE they and what kind of democracy can they
have?
The problem isn't Brown as in individual. There will always be liars,
hoaksters, and bigots. But at this point Brown has become an entire
industry.
Some writer was in time gone by getting all up in arms about the novel
and it's claims to fact. Doubleday, the writer complained, OWED it to
its readers to make sure that any novel claiming to be based on fact
was as carefully fact checked as any book of non-fiction. Responsible
publishers and authors have an obligation to inform rather than
misinform, and to fairly admit that a novel is NOT based on facts when
in fact it isn't, was his attitude.
What a quaint attitude. I think they used to call it "honor", or
"truthfullness", or "accountability".

It is always referred to as a work of fiction, why do you folks have
to distort? Weak religion?

Who are "you folks", and why do YOU -- as an individual -- have to
ignore my clearly stated position in order to argue with a strawman.
Everyone knows that Sophie and What's-his-name and the actual plot are
fictional. BUT what Brown has claimed is that the scholarship spouted
by various characters in the book is accurate scholarship, and many
readers take him at his word. This is lying. Lying is wrong. What
part of this do you disagree with?

Post by Eris

Post by Karnak 17
Problem is, in my reading of history, I have come across incidents of
NONFICTION published by major and respected publishing houses in which
errors were found and POINTED OUT in the overseas edition, or the first
edition, or in articles published prior to the book's publication. But
that those numerous errors were not corrected when the book was
published in the USA/second edition/final book form. The errors --
usually inflammatory ones -- were deliberately retained. Apparently
major publishers have no problem with this these days.
And why should they? I was listening on the radio to some media
watchdog playing clips from BILL O'REILLY in which he told one lie
after another. O'REILLY isn't claiming to be a work of fiction, but he
is lying and being rewarded for lying just the same. I won't even get
started on who the real problem liars are. THAT would be too
depressing.
<snip>

Post by m***@yahoo.com
How about Jesus' descendents living in a gulag somewhere, or in a
tenement in Mexico City, or maybe in South L.A.? See, the folk who ate
up this sacreligious shit are fat white middle class bourgeois with
pretensions to be "cultured." Fat white middle class bourgeois morons
generally don't care much about anything other than their own
entertainment.

The book is not, from what I hear, good enough to be entertaining. It
is the ideas, claimed "facts", the "accurately described documents",
that galvanize and exite people. People eat it up because they believe
that it is true, certainly in the case of the "Brownie" I talked to
last week. (I will attempt to deprogram her starting Monday).
It seems more moral to state that Sony has no right to vilify people
(that would include Opus Deii) or lie to the public (that would include
the fat middle class), than to just insult Brown's fans and then defend
Brown's right to lie to them.

I believe that Opus Deii and the Mother church are very good at
vilifying people.

Interesting comment

Post by Karnak 17
If either organization is falsely vilifying anybody right now, I hope
that you, as a decent human being, would expect them to stop, and even
to set the record straight with a disclaimer if they are doing so in a
work of fiction which claims falsely to be based on fact.

Then we should condemn Shakespeare, too, I suppose, and virtually
anyone whoever wrote an historical novel. It's FICTION. Let it go.
After all, no one is blowing themselves up in a restaurant over it, or
having their sister murdered, or burning anyone at the stake. If a few
flakes believe it, so what? A year from now, it'll be a dim memory.

Wexford

[Karnak 17]

Post by t1gercat

Post by Karnak 17

Post by Eris
I believe that Opus Deii and the Mother church are very good at
vilifying people.

Interesting comment

Post by Karnak 17
If either organization is falsely vilifying anybody right now, I hope
that you, as a decent human being, would expect them to stop, and even
to set the record straight with a disclaimer if they are doing so in a
work of fiction which claims falsely to be based on fact.

Then we should condemn Shakespeare, too, I suppose,

IF the Scottish Gentleman had been alive when Shakespeare wrote the
play about him. And IF Shakespeare had access to accurate histories of
what really happened, which he delibarately misquoted and
misrepresented in his play, (while claiming at the beginning of the
play that all quotes were accurate). And IF, when the Scottish
Gentleman asked, "Could you, Mr. Shakespeare, please include a
disclaimer letting people know I didn't really do such things" and
Shakespeare refused. Then yes, _I_ would have condemned him. How
about you?

And if certain people in England knew all this, but supported
Shakespeare in his contintued insistence that his play was based on
truth even though they knew it wasn't because "The Scottish Gentleman
is a Scot, and they are all lying barbarians anyway", then I would
condemn THEM.

[Mike Schilling]

Post by Karnak 17

Post by m***@yahoo.com
I don't think Jewish people have to worry about this film, no more than
Catholics or Knights Templar. I'm not making fun of you; I wouldn't
give the sweat off my arse to see this film.

I haven't read the book.

And you can't have seen the movie yet.

So perhaps you should just stop talking about them.

[B***@thethunderchild.com]

Maybe the priest at the beginning of mass should warn the parish that there exists ample evidence that the whole Christian religion is based on a myth?

Every religion is based on myth. Some are less harmful than others.

As for the Da Vinci Code...I read it and liked it, for the most part.
Not being well versed in the Bible (I started to read it at about the
age of 13, came across the story of God "hardening the heart" of the
Pharaoh 9 times so that "He" could continue to send more plagues, death
and suffering to Egypt to demonstrate his power, thought "this guy is a
psycho," and lost all interest after that) I just took it all as a good
fiction story.




Barbara
The Thunder Child Science Fiction Web Magazine
http://thethunderchild.com

[George Peatty]

Post by B***@thethunderchild.com
Not being well versed in the Bible (I started to read it at about the
age of 13, came across the story of God "hardening the heart" of the
Pharaoh 9 times so that "He" could continue to send more plagues, death
and suffering to Egypt to demonstrate his power, thought "this guy is a
psycho," and lost all interest after that) I just took it all as a good
fiction story.

So, when you stand before God on the great day, who will you blame for
hardening your heart?











__

This space left blank

*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

[BTR1701]

Post by George Peatty

Post by B***@thethunderchild.com
Not being well versed in the Bible (I started to read it at about the
age of 13, came across the story of God "hardening the heart" of the
Pharaoh 9 times so that "He" could continue to send more plagues, death
and suffering to Egypt to demonstrate his power, thought "this guy is a
psycho," and lost all interest after that) I just took it all as a good
fiction story.

So, when you stand before God on the great day, who will you blame for
hardening your heart?

The question is based on a false assumption.

[David M. Palmer]

Post by George Peatty

Post by B***@thethunderchild.com
Not being well versed in the Bible (I started to read it at about the
age of 13, came across the story of God "hardening the heart" of the
Pharaoh 9 times so that "He" could continue to send more plagues, death
and suffering to Egypt to demonstrate his power, thought "this guy is a
psycho," and lost all interest after that) I just took it all as a good
fiction story.

So, when you stand before God on the great day, who will you blame for
hardening your heart?

That darn cholesterol.

[Karnak 17]

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17

Post by m***@yahoo.com
I don't think Jewish people have to worry about this film, no more than
Catholics or Knights Templar. I'm not making fun of you; I wouldn't
give the sweat off my arse to see this film.

I haven't read the book.

And you can't have seen the movie yet.
So perhaps you should just stop talking about them.

I'm, uh, not. As my post made rather clear. I'm talking about the
claim to factual accuracy about certain contents of the book which
appears at the beginning of the novel. This claim is false, and I
don't think people should make false claims. What difficulty do you
have with this position?

[Mike Schilling]

Post by Karnak 17

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17

Post by m***@yahoo.com
I don't think Jewish people have to worry about this film, no more than
Catholics or Knights Templar. I'm not making fun of you; I wouldn't
give the sweat off my arse to see this film.

I haven't read the book.

And you can't have seen the movie yet.
So perhaps you should just stop talking about them.

I'm, uh, not. As my post made rather clear. I'm talking about the
claim to factual accuracy about certain contents of the book which
appears at the beginning of the novel.

_The Princess Bride_ contains a chapter or two about William Goldman's life,
all told in the first person, all completely made up. Many people
who've -missed the clues he put it feel betrayed when they learn that
Goldman has no son, there was no S. Morgenstern, there are no such places as
Florin and Guilder, etc. Should _TPB_ contain a disclaimer beyond the usual
one about events and characters being fictitious?

[Karnak 17]

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17

Post by m***@yahoo.com
I don't think Jewish people have to worry about this film, no more than
Catholics or Knights Templar. I'm not making fun of you; I wouldn't
give the sweat off my arse to see this film.

I haven't read the book.

And you can't have seen the movie yet.
So perhaps you should just stop talking about them.

I'm, uh, not. As my post made rather clear. I'm talking about the
claim to factual accuracy about certain contents of the book which
appears at the beginning of the novel.

_The Princess Bride_ contains a chapter or two about William Goldman's life,
all told in the first person, all completely made up. Many people
who've -missed the clues he put it feel betrayed when they learn that
Goldman has no son, there was no S. Morgenstern, there are no such places as
Florin and Guilder, etc. Should _TPB_ contain a disclaimer beyond the usual
one about events and characters being fictitious?

Let me get this straight. Two Questions.

It is typical for writers of historical fiction to include prefaces and
afterwards regarding the scholarship on which their books are based.
Your argument seems to be that historical writers have no obligation to
be truthful to the reader about the historical bases of their works in
these afterwards/introductions. I read Scott O'Dell as a child, and he
always had afterwards about the original historical characters or
events who inspired the books that he had written. It would be okay to
you if he had been as fictitious in these afterwards as in the books.
In short, are you saying that it is okay to lie about history as long
as you are doing it in the preface or afterward to a fiction novel, or
in an interview promoting said fiction novel?

Secondly, Brown was not including himself in the story in an innocuous
light. He was including an organization which did not give consent to
be used in such a way, and who are portrayed innaccurately and
negatively. They want a disclaimer pointing this out. Opus Deii is a
real organization with real people, and this movie is undoubtedly the
only exposure the vast majority of people will have to any information
about them. Under such circumstances, is asking for a disclaimer truly
unreasonable to you? Does THEIR situation really compare to that of an
author who pretends of his own free will that he has a son when he
doesn't?

[Mike Schilling]

Post by Karnak 17

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17

Post by m***@yahoo.com
I don't think Jewish people have to worry about this film, no more than
Catholics or Knights Templar. I'm not making fun of you; I wouldn't
give the sweat off my arse to see this film.

I haven't read the book.

And you can't have seen the movie yet.
So perhaps you should just stop talking about them.

I'm, uh, not. As my post made rather clear. I'm talking about the
claim to factual accuracy about certain contents of the book which
appears at the beginning of the novel.

_The Princess Bride_ contains a chapter or two about William Goldman's life,
all told in the first person, all completely made up. Many people
who've -missed the clues he put it feel betrayed when they learn that
Goldman has no son, there was no S. Morgenstern, there are no such places as
Florin and Guilder, etc. Should _TPB_ contain a disclaimer beyond the usual
one about events and characters being fictitious?

Let me get this straight. Two Questions.
It is typical for writers of historical fiction to include prefaces and
afterwards regarding the scholarship on which their books are based.
Your argument seems to be that historical writers have no obligation to
be truthful to the reader about the historical bases of their works in
these afterwards/introductions. I read Scott O'Dell as a child, and he
always had afterwards about the original historical characters or
events who inspired the books that he had written. It would be okay to
you if he had been as fictitious in these afterwards as in the books.
In short, are you saying that it is okay to lie about history as long
as you are doing it in the preface or afterward to a fiction novel, or
in an interview promoting said fiction novel?

It's neither illegal nor dangerous to democracy.

Post by Karnak 17
Secondly, Brown was not including himself in the story in an innocuous
light. He was including an organization which did not give consent to
be used in such a way, and who are portrayed innaccurately and
negatively. They want a disclaimer pointing this out. Opus Deii is a
real organization with real people, and this movie is undoubtedly the
only exposure the vast majority of people will have to any information
about them. Under such circumstances, is asking for a disclaimer truly
unreasonable to you? Does THEIR situation really compare to that of an
author who pretends of his own free will that he has a son when he
doesn't?

Asking is perfectly reasonable. So is saying "no".

[k***@cs.com]

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17

Post by m***@yahoo.com
I don't think Jewish people have to worry about this film, no more than
Catholics or Knights Templar. I'm not making fun of you; I wouldn't
give the sweat off my arse to see this film.

I haven't read the book.

And you can't have seen the movie yet.
So perhaps you should just stop talking about them.

I'm, uh, not. As my post made rather clear. I'm talking about the
claim to factual accuracy about certain contents of the book which
appears at the beginning of the novel.

_The Princess Bride_ contains a chapter or two about William Goldman's life,
all told in the first person, all completely made up. Many people
who've -missed the clues he put it feel betrayed when they learn that
Goldman has no son, there was no S. Morgenstern, there are no such places as
Florin and Guilder, etc. Should _TPB_ contain a disclaimer beyond the usual
one about events and characters being fictitious?

Let me get this straight. Two Questions.
It is typical for writers of historical fiction to include prefaces and
afterwards regarding the scholarship on which their books are based.
Your argument seems to be that historical writers have no obligation to
be truthful to the reader about the historical bases of their works in
these afterwards/introductions. I read Scott O'Dell as a child, and he
always had afterwards about the original historical characters or
events who inspired the books that he had written. It would be okay to
you if he had been as fictitious in these afterwards as in the books.
In short, are you saying that it is okay to lie about history as long
as you are doing it in the preface or afterward to a fiction novel, or
in an interview promoting said fiction novel?

It's neither illegal nor dangerous to democracy.

Oh, but that wasn't my question, was it? Why don't you ANSWER the
question I asked? I'll repeat it for you.

"In short, are you saying that it is okay to lie about history as long
as you are doing it in the preface or afterward to a fiction novel, or
in an interview promoting said fiction novel?"

There you go. It is a yes/no question.

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17
Secondly, Brown was not including himself in the story in an innocuous
light. He was including an organization which did not give consent to
be used in such a way, and who are portrayed innaccurately and
negatively. They want a disclaimer pointing this out. Opus Deii is a
real organization with real people, and this movie is undoubtedly the
only exposure the vast majority of people will have to any information
about them. Under such circumstances, is asking for a disclaimer truly
unreasonable to you? Does THEIR situation really compare to that of an
author who pretends of his own free will that he has a son when he
doesn't?

Asking is perfectly reasonable. So is saying "no".

Why?

[Mike Schilling]

Post by k***@cs.com
"In short, are you saying that it is okay to lie about history as long
as you are doing it in the preface or afterward to a fiction novel, or
in an interview promoting said fiction novel?"
There you go. It is a yes/no question.

It's better to be honest. Was there any question about that?

Is it worth getting hysterical about, though?

Post by k***@cs.com

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17
Secondly, Brown was not including himself in the story in an innocuous
light. He was including an organization which did not give consent to
be used in such a way, and who are portrayed innaccurately and
negatively. They want a disclaimer pointing this out. Opus Deii is a
real organization with real people, and this movie is undoubtedly the
only exposure the vast majority of people will have to any information
about them. Under such circumstances, is asking for a disclaimer truly
unreasonable to you? Does THEIR situation really compare to that of an
author who pretends of his own free will that he has a son when he
doesn't?

Asking is perfectly reasonable. So is saying "no".

Why?

Because it's a work of fiction. No one associated with the film has said
otherwise. The Knights Templar didn't really create a jeweled gold falcon
either, though neither the book nor the film included an explicit disclaimer
about it.

[Karnak 17]

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by k***@cs.com
"In short, are you saying that it is okay to lie about history as long
as you are doing it in the preface or afterward to a fiction novel, or
in an interview promoting said fiction novel?"
There you go. It is a yes/no question.

It's better to be honest. Was there any question about that?

Yes there was.

Post by Mike Schilling
Is it worth getting hysterical about, though?

You seem strangely unwilling to actually condemn dishonestly, though.
And you are far from the only one. Which is something which concerns
me when it comes to democracy in general. Because as I pointed out in
my original post, it isn't only novelists on the talk-show circuits who
are granted a pass in this respect.

It is also a bit disturbing that you choose to call me hysterical
simply for pointing out that dishonesty exists. Do you apply that word
to liars, or only debunkers? And if so, why? Because you are not the
only one with this double standard, if so, and that IS worthy of
concern.

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by k***@cs.com

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17
Secondly, Brown was not including himself in the story in an innocuous
light. He was including an organization which did not give consent to
be used in such a way, and who are portrayed innaccurately and
negatively. They want a disclaimer pointing this out. Opus Deii is a
real organization with real people, and this movie is undoubtedly the
only exposure the vast majority of people will have to any information
about them. Under such circumstances, is asking for a disclaimer truly
unreasonable to you? Does THEIR situation really compare to that of an
author who pretends of his own free will that he has a son when he
doesn't?

Asking is perfectly reasonable. So is saying "no".

Why?

Because it's a work of fiction. No one associated with the film has said
otherwise.

Except the author of the book, of course.

The book has convinced real people that I have spoken to that its
historical claims are accurate. You can rattle of your Western Civ 101
spiel to them, and they look at you like you have two heads. That
won't hurt the Emporer Constantine any, or the Templars, and if people
want to believe a defunct anti-semitic organization from the fifties is
the guardian of Christ's bloodline, then they are going to do so with
or without a disclaimer.

But IF you use a present-day real-life organization full of real people
in your fiction, I think that morally you owe them the courtesy of
making sure that the above delusions don't get applied to them. Unlike
Constantine, they CAN be hurt and negatively affected by a stupid
unimportant movie. Do you follow me?

[Mike Schilling]

Post by Karnak 17
It is also a bit disturbing that you choose to call me hysterical
simply for pointing out that dishonesty exists.

Over and over and over. As if this were the most important example of it in
the world.

Post by Karnak 17

Post by Mike Schilling
Because it's a work of fiction. No one associated with the film has said
otherwise.

Except the author of the book, of course.

Did he write the screenplay? <looks> Nope. What I said stands.

Post by Karnak 17
The book has convinced real people that I have spoken to that its
historical claims are accurate.

Then they're

1. Ignorant, stupid, or both, and
2. Unlikely to be convinced otherwise by a disclaimer that the Catholic
Church *forced* them to put in.

[Eris]

On Sun, 07 May 2006 23:26:27 GMT, "Mike Schilling"

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17
It is also a bit disturbing that you choose to call me hysterical
simply for pointing out that dishonesty exists.

Over and over and over. As if this were the most important example of it in
the world.

Post by Karnak 17

Post by Mike Schilling
Because it's a work of fiction. No one associated with the film has said
otherwise.

Except the author of the book, of course.

Did he write the screenplay? <looks> Nope. What I said stands.

Post by Karnak 17
The book has convinced real people that I have spoken to that its
historical claims are accurate.

Then they're
1. Ignorant, stupid, or both, and
2. Unlikely to be convinced otherwise by a disclaimer that the Catholic
Church *forced* them to put in.

Question!

Doesn't it say in scripture that JC kissed MM? Was the punishment for
a man kissing a woman who was not his wife death?

Did not little children sit upon our lord and savior's lap? wasn't the
punishment for an unmarried man associating with children death?

[Mike Schilling]

Post by Eris
Question!
Doesn't it say in scripture that JC kissed MM? Was the punishment for
a man kissing a woman who was not his wife death?

No.

Post by Eris
Did not little children sit upon our lord and savior's lap? wasn't the
punishment for an unmarried man associating with children death?

No.

Where do these silly questions come from?

[Eris]

On Sun, 07 May 2006 23:51:08 GMT, "Mike Schilling"

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Eris
Question!
Doesn't it say in scripture that JC kissed MM? Was the punishment for
a man kissing a woman who was not his wife death?

No.

Post by Eris
Did not little children sit upon our lord and savior's lap? wasn't the
punishment for an unmarried man associating with children death?

No.
Where do these silly questions come from?

Discovery channel special, my orthodox catholic relatives where
confused for and entire hour.

[Eris]

On Sun, 07 May 2006 23:51:08 GMT, "Mike Schilling"

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Eris
Question!
Doesn't it say in scripture that JC kissed MM? Was the punishment for
a man kissing a woman who was not his wife death?

No.

Post by Eris
Did not little children sit upon our lord and savior's lap? wasn't the
punishment for an unmarried man associating with children death?

No.
Where do these silly questions come from?

Why are they silly? ABC and the discovery channel didn't think so. Is
there a contemporary of Jesus's that we could go to make determine if
he was married or not.

[Mike Schilling]

Post by Eris
On Sun, 07 May 2006 23:51:08 GMT, "Mike Schilling"

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Eris
Question!
Doesn't it say in scripture that JC kissed MM? Was the punishment for
a man kissing a woman who was not his wife death?

No.

Post by Eris
Did not little children sit upon our lord and savior's lap? wasn't the
punishment for an unmarried man associating with children death?

No.
Where do these silly questions come from?

Why are they silly? ABC and the discovery channel didn't think so.

Then they're quite stupid. Hint: two unmmarried people cannot commit
adultery.

[Eris]

On Mon, 08 May 2006 23:58:48 GMT, "Mike Schilling"

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Eris
On Sun, 07 May 2006 23:51:08 GMT, "Mike Schilling"

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Eris
Question!
Doesn't it say in scripture that JC kissed MM? Was the punishment for
a man kissing a woman who was not his wife death?

No.

Post by Eris
Did not little children sit upon our lord and savior's lap? wasn't the
punishment for an unmarried man associating with children death?

No.
Where do these silly questions come from?

Why are they silly? ABC and the discovery channel didn't think so.

Then they're quite stupid. Hint: two unmmarried people cannot commit
adultery.

We are talking promiscuity here. Nice try though. They would have to
be married for them to kiss under the Jerusalem standardized
punishment system.

[Miriam Cohen]

Post by Eris
On Sun, 07 May 2006 23:26:27 GMT, "Mike Schilling"

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17
It is also a bit disturbing that you choose to call me hysterical
simply for pointing out that dishonesty exists.

Over and over and over. As if this were the most important example of it in
the world.

Post by Karnak 17

Post by Mike Schilling
Because it's a work of fiction. No one associated with the film has said
otherwise.

Except the author of the book, of course.

Did he write the screenplay? <looks> Nope. What I said stands.

Post by Karnak 17
The book has convinced real people that I have spoken to that its
historical claims are accurate.

Then they're
1. Ignorant, stupid, or both, and
2. Unlikely to be convinced otherwise by a disclaimer that the Catholic
Church *forced* them to put in.

Question!
Doesn't it say in scripture that JC kissed MM? Was the punishment for
a man kissing a woman who was not his wife death?
Did not little children sit upon our lord and savior's lap? wasn't the
punishment for an unmarried man associating with children death?

Even more relevant; what are the chances that a 30 year old Jewish male
of that time not being married? One must keep in mind the vastly shorter
life expectancy back then.

[Eris]

On Sun, 07 May 2006 20:43:58 -0700, Miriam Cohen

Post by Miriam Cohen

Post by Eris
On Sun, 07 May 2006 23:26:27 GMT, "Mike Schilling"

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17
It is also a bit disturbing that you choose to call me hysterical
simply for pointing out that dishonesty exists.

Over and over and over. As if this were the most important example of it in
the world.

Post by Karnak 17

Post by Mike Schilling
Because it's a work of fiction. No one associated with the film has said
otherwise.

Except the author of the book, of course.

Did he write the screenplay? <looks> Nope. What I said stands.

Post by Karnak 17
The book has convinced real people that I have spoken to that its
historical claims are accurate.

Then they're
1. Ignorant, stupid, or both, and
2. Unlikely to be convinced otherwise by a disclaimer that the Catholic
Church *forced* them to put in.

Question!
Doesn't it say in scripture that JC kissed MM? Was the punishment for
a man kissing a woman who was not his wife death?
Did not little children sit upon our lord and savior's lap? wasn't the
punishment for an unmarried man associating with children death?

Even more relevant; what are the chances that a 30 year old Jewish male
of that time not being married? One must keep in mind the vastly shorter
life expectancy back then.

And he had a Jewish mother! :-)

[Miriam Cohen]

Post by Eris
On Sun, 07 May 2006 20:43:58 -0700, Miriam Cohen

Post by Miriam Cohen

Post by Eris
On Sun, 07 May 2006 23:26:27 GMT, "Mike Schilling"

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17
It is also a bit disturbing that you choose to call me hysterical
simply for pointing out that dishonesty exists.

Over and over and over. As if this were the most important example of it in
the world.

Post by Karnak 17

Post by Mike Schilling
Because it's a work of fiction. No one associated with the film has said
otherwise.

Except the author of the book, of course.

Did he write the screenplay? <looks> Nope. What I said stands.

Post by Karnak 17
The book has convinced real people that I have spoken to that its
historical claims are accurate.

Then they're
1. Ignorant, stupid, or both, and
2. Unlikely to be convinced otherwise by a disclaimer that the Catholic
Church *forced* them to put in.

Question!
Doesn't it say in scripture that JC kissed MM? Was the punishment for
a man kissing a woman who was not his wife death?
Did not little children sit upon our lord and savior's lap? wasn't the
punishment for an unmarried man associating with children death?

Even more relevant; what are the chances that a 30 year old Jewish male
of that time not being married? One must keep in mind the vastly shorter
life expectancy back then.

And he had a Jewish mother! :-)

Exactly! :)

[f***@verizon.net]

Post by Miriam Cohen

Post by Eris
Question!
Doesn't it say in scripture that JC kissed MM? Was the punishment for
a man kissing a woman who was not his wife death?
Did not little children sit upon our lord and savior's lap? wasn't the
punishment for an unmarried man associating with children death?

Even more relevant; what are the chances that a 30 year old Jewish male
of that time not being married? One must keep in mind the vastly shorter
life expectancy back then.

I see someone else who hasn't actually studied the law, just the
superficial outline thereof - if that.

Susan

[Karnak 17]

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17
It is also a bit disturbing that you choose to call me hysterical
simply for pointing out that dishonesty exists.

Over and over and over. As if this were the most important example of it in
the world.

Begging your pardon. YOU were the one who was giving me an argument.
The "it's just a movie" argument, followed by the "Princess Bride"
argument, followed by the "it isn't illegal" argument. I responded to
the "arguments" (actually evasions) that you posted to me. Because in
fact Brown was dishonest, and as you finally admitted, it is "better"
not to be. Don't blame me that it takes several posts to stop you from
arguing a ridiculous position. I didn't force you to. Nor call you
hysterical for going to such lengths to do so either.

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17

Post by Mike Schilling
Because it's a work of fiction. No one associated with the film has said
otherwise.

Except the author of the book, of course.

Did he write the screenplay? <looks> Nope. What I said stands.

So the author of the book on which a movie is based doesn't count as
"associated" with the film?

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17
The book has convinced real people that I have spoken to that its
historical claims are accurate.

Then they're
1. Ignorant, stupid, or both, and
2. Unlikely to be convinced otherwise by a disclaimer that the Catholic
Church *forced* them to put in.

1. If I was a real person/member of an organization who was
misportrayed in a movie, it would be the STUPID PEOPLE who I would be
most worried about. More likely to engage in harrassment and the like.


2. Opus Deii, not the Catholic Church. And this is the first I have
heard about forcing.

3. You are arguing that Stupid People can be convinced by a "false"
disclaimer, (Brown's claim to "accuracy" at the beginning of his novel)
but not by a "true" disclaimer? You may be right. In fact, I am
willing to bet that you are. But you seem to have a lot of energy to
argue against the use of a TRUE disclaimer, while very reluctant to
admit that false disclaimers are not such a good thing.

It is the widespread prevalence of just this attitude which I find
utterly fascinating.

[Mike Schilling]

Post by Karnak 17

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17
It is also a bit disturbing that you choose to call me hysterical
simply for pointing out that dishonesty exists.

Over and over and over. As if this were the most important example of it in
the world.

Begging your pardon. YOU were the one who was giving me an argument.
The "it's just a movie" argument, followed by the "Princess Bride"
argument, followed by the "it isn't illegal" argument. I responded to
the "arguments" (actually evasions) that you posted to me. Because in
fact Brown was dishonest, and as you finally admitted, it is "better"
not to be. Don't blame me that it takes several posts to stop you from
arguing a ridiculous position. I didn't force you to. Nor call you
hysterical for going to such lengths to do so either.

I've devoted maybe 4 posts to the subject. Care to compare hysteria levels?

Post by Karnak 17
So the author of the book on which a movie is based doesn't count as
"associated" with the film?

He doesn't speak for it, any more than the original editor and publisher do.
Ask any of the professional writers here how connected they are with a film
made from one of their books.

[Karnak 17]

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17
It is also a bit disturbing that you choose to call me hysterical
simply for pointing out that dishonesty exists.

Over and over and over. As if this were the most important example of it in
the world.

Begging your pardon. YOU were the one who was giving me an argument.
The "it's just a movie" argument, followed by the "Princess Bride"
argument, followed by the "it isn't illegal" argument. I responded to
the "arguments" (actually evasions) that you posted to me. Because in
fact Brown was dishonest, and as you finally admitted, it is "better"
not to be. Don't blame me that it takes several posts to stop you from
arguing a ridiculous position. I didn't force you to. Nor call you
hysterical for going to such lengths to do so either.

I've devoted maybe 4 posts to the subject. Care to compare hysteria levels?

In otherwords, now that you have been forced to concede that lying is
not so good, you have to call me hysterical because I argue that lying
is bad. That is pretty sad, Mike.

Neither of us are frothing at the mouth here. What we are doing is
called "arguing". I'm just the one who happened to be right. You can
choose to accept this like a grown-up, or you can choose to call me
names. Seems the actual argument is over either way.

[Mike Schilling]

Post by Karnak 17
Neither of us are frothing at the mouth here. What we are doing is
called "arguing". I'm just the one who happened to be right. You can
choose to accept this like a grown-up, or you can choose to call me
names. Seems the actual argument is over either way.

If your thesis had been "lying is less nice than not lying", sure. Since
it's "Lying in a work of fiction is a danger to democracy", you have a
higher burden of proof. Particularly since you haven't demonstrated that
any lies have been told.

[z***@yahoo.com]

Post by Karnak 17
2. Opus Deii

It's Opus Dei, actually, not Deii.

Opus = Work, nominative singler
Dei = Of God, genitive singular.

(And I thought my Latin classes would never be useful.)

[Gene Ward Smith]

Post by Mike Schilling
Because it's a work of fiction. No one associated with the film has said
otherwise. The Knights Templar didn't really create a jeweled gold falcon
either, though neither the book nor the film included an explicit disclaimer
about it.

Sure, it was the Knights of Malta who did that. These are facts,
historical facts. Not schoolbook history, not Mr. Wells's history, but
history nevertheless.

[Miriam Cohen]

Post by Gene Ward Smith

Post by Mike Schilling
Because it's a work of fiction. No one associated with the film has said
otherwise. The Knights Templar didn't really create a jeweled gold falcon
either, though neither the book nor the film included an explicit disclaimer
about it.

Sure, it was the Knights of Malta who did that. These are facts,
historical facts. Not schoolbook history, not Mr. Wells's history, but
history nevertheless.

Correction it was the Knights of Malta that the book and movie The
Maltese Falcon refer to written by Dashiell Hammett, the screen play for
the movie of the same name was co written by Hammett and John Huston.
Both were works of fiction, just like Davinci is. The Davinci Code reads
like a cross between sci fi and fantasy.

[Miriam Cohen]

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by k***@cs.com
"In short, are you saying that it is okay to lie about history as long
as you are doing it in the preface or afterward to a fiction novel, or
in an interview promoting said fiction novel?"
There you go. It is a yes/no question.

It's better to be honest. Was there any question about that?
Is it worth getting hysterical about, though?

Post by k***@cs.com

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17
Secondly, Brown was not including himself in the story in an innocuous
light. He was including an organization which did not give consent to
be used in such a way, and who are portrayed innaccurately and
negatively. They want a disclaimer pointing this out. Opus Deii is a
real organization with real people, and this movie is undoubtedly the
only exposure the vast majority of people will have to any information
about them. Under such circumstances, is asking for a disclaimer truly
unreasonable to you? Does THEIR situation really compare to that of an
author who pretends of his own free will that he has a son when he
doesn't?

Asking is perfectly reasonable. So is saying "no".

Why?

Because it's a work of fiction. No one associated with the film has said
otherwise. The Knights Templar didn't really create a jeweled gold falcon
either, though neither the book nor the film included an explicit disclaimer
about it.

[ that was the Knights of Malta] :) also an excellent book :)

[Miriam Cohen]

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by k***@cs.com
"In short, are you saying that it is okay to lie about history as long
as you are doing it in the preface or afterward to a fiction novel, or
in an interview promoting said fiction novel?"
There you go. It is a yes/no question.

It's better to be honest. Was there any question about that?
Is it worth getting hysterical about, though?

Funny how a couple of decades ago this same "theory" of Jesus's blood
line being continued by Mary Magdalene was originated in the book holy
blood, holy grail and I certainly don't remember hearing all this crap
from xians back then. In fact the only reason I know of the existence of
this book is that when Brown hit megamillion sales these other authors
started bitching that Brown "stole their idea". In the event that you've
never heard of this book here's a little article on it:
----------------------------------
holy blood, holy grail
by Alex Burns (***@disinfo.net) - October 18, 2000

First published in 1982 to immediate international acclaim and
controversy, Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln's seminal
book 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' has spawned an international media
industry and entirely new academic disciplines. Many of its themes have
become part of conspiriology's substrate, including political secret
societies, the Knights Templar and the search for fragments of an
Alternative Christianity.
'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' is a powerful example of investigative
journalism meme-spliced with religious conspiracy theory, a 'fictive
arcanum' whose provocative thesis continues to undermine the Catholic
Church's institutional reading of Judeo-Christian history. Its trash
literature veneer has introduced memes that have led readers to
subsequently study the scholarly work of Robert Eisenman, Barbara
Thiering and the Dead Sea Scrolls researchers that reveal the
suppression of early schisms within Christianity. The book's central
hypothesis - that Jesus survived the Crucifixion and together with Mary
Magdalene founded a bloodline that later became the Merovingians in
France (protected by the Knights Templar and later by the Freemasons)
amounts to a stunning re-write of Western history. Banned in
Catholic-dominated countries including the Phillipines, the book remains
an incendiary example of why culture-jamming official 'grand-narratives'
is the frontline of new information wars.

In 1885, the Abbe Berenger Sauniere discovered a collection of
parchments beneath a church in Rennes-le-Chateau. One of the complex
ciphers and codes read: 'To Dagobert II King And To Sion Belongs This
Treasure And He Is There Dead.' Sauniere quickly became part of the
Parisian esoteric underground and extracted a fortune from the Church,
which was spent on unusual interior designs that prominently featured
unusually dark interpretations of Christ's crucifixion.

The solutions to this enigma involve a twilight world where modern
intelligence agencies, a 'fake' secret society (the Prieure du Notre
Dame du Sion) and the royal family claims of the House of David.
Historical analysis covers Pythagorean and Egyptian sacred geometry and
mathematics (symptomatic of post-industrial society
hyper-specialization); the hidden cultural legacies of the Cathars and
the Knights Templar; mythopoeic themes in Nicolas Poussin's painting 'Et
In Arcadia Ego' and anything from Satanic Bloodlines and Richard
Hoagland's 'Face On Mars' to Chaos Theory and DNA phylogenetic memories.

Embarking on the 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' mystery means exploring where
Pop Culture and the Sacred intersect in an infinite regressing nest of
quantum combinations. The original book spawned several television
documentaries and brought contemporary occult subcultures into the
mainstream (even influencing conspiracy theorists like Robert Anton
Wilson), foreshadowing the impact of the 'X-Files' television series
with a combination of foreboding and wonder that entranced audiences
worldwide. If many early conspiriologists feel that armchair conspiracy
theorizing has become too popular and too mainstream, then the 'Holy
Blood, Holy Grail' phenomena may be seen in retrospect as the critical
turning point where a Culture exploded beyond previous thresholds and
began to devour itself.

http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id96/pg1/

[Jordan Abel]

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by k***@cs.com
"In short, are you saying that it is okay to lie about history as long
as you are doing it in the preface or afterward to a fiction novel, or
in an interview promoting said fiction novel?"
There you go. It is a yes/no question.

It's better to be honest. Was there any question about that?
Is it worth getting hysterical about, though?

Post by k***@cs.com

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17
Secondly, Brown was not including himself in the story in an innocuous
light. He was including an organization which did not give consent to
be used in such a way, and who are portrayed innaccurately and
negatively. They want a disclaimer pointing this out. Opus Deii is a
real organization with real people, and this movie is undoubtedly the
only exposure the vast majority of people will have to any information
about them. Under such circumstances, is asking for a disclaimer truly
unreasonable to you? Does THEIR situation really compare to that of an
author who pretends of his own free will that he has a son when he
doesn't?

Asking is perfectly reasonable. So is saying "no".

Why?

Because it's a work of fiction. No one associated with the film has said
otherwise.

FACT:

The Priory of Sion-a European secret society founded in 1099-is a real
organization. In 1975, Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parch-
ments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the
Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and
Leonardo da Vinci.

The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic
group that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of
brain-washing, coercion, and a practice known as "corporal mortifica-
tion." Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million
National Headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue in New York City.

All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals
in this novel are accurate.
-----

While this doesn't claim that the events depicted in the novel itself
are true, it can be reasonably interpreted as an implied claim that all
the historical background is true. Requiring a disclaimer is not out of
line.

[Richard Eney]

Post by Karnak 17
Secondly, Brown was not including himself in the story in an innocuous
light. He was including an organization which did not give consent to
be used in such a way, and who are portrayed innaccurately and
negatively. They want a disclaimer pointing this out. Opus Deii is a
real organization with real people, and this movie is undoubtedly the
only exposure the vast majority of people will have to any information
about them. Under such circumstances, is asking for a disclaimer truly
unreasonable to you? Does THEIR situation really compare to that of an
author who pretends of his own free will that he has a son when he
doesn't?

Just to start a comparison: are the Communists (more precisely, the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union [Bolshevik]) demanding disclaimers in,
say, Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising"?

Brown isn't the first or the only person to regard Opus Dei, Propaganda
Due, the Methodist Board of Temperance, Prohibition and Public Morals,
the Wahhabi Religious Police, or other obnoxious sectarian groups as
detestable organizations who make excellent villains.

-- Dick Eney

OPERATION CRIFANAC PUBLICATIONS
http://www.crifanac.net/Index.htm
prozines and fanzines 'n' stuff

[Mike Schilling]

Post by Jordan Abel

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by k***@cs.com
"In short, are you saying that it is okay to lie about history as long
as you are doing it in the preface or afterward to a fiction novel, or
in an interview promoting said fiction novel?"
There you go. It is a yes/no question.

It's better to be honest. Was there any question about that?
Is it worth getting hysterical about, though?

Post by k***@cs.com

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17
Secondly, Brown was not including himself in the story in an innocuous
light. He was including an organization which did not give consent to
be used in such a way, and who are portrayed innaccurately and
negatively. They want a disclaimer pointing this out. Opus Deii is a
real organization with real people, and this movie is undoubtedly the
only exposure the vast majority of people will have to any information
about them. Under such circumstances, is asking for a disclaimer truly
unreasonable to you? Does THEIR situation really compare to that of an
author who pretends of his own free will that he has a son when he
doesn't?

Asking is perfectly reasonable. So is saying "no".

Why?

Because it's a work of fiction. No one associated with the film has said
otherwise.

The Priory of Sion-a European secret society founded in 1099-is a real
organization. In 1975, Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parch-
ments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the
Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and
Leonardo da Vinci.
The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic
group that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of
brain-washing, coercion, and a practice known as "corporal mortifica-
tion." Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million
National Headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue in New York City.
All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals
in this novel are accurate.
-----

This appears in the film?

[Miriam Cohen]

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Jordan Abel

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by k***@cs.com
"In short, are you saying that it is okay to lie about history as long
as you are doing it in the preface or afterward to a fiction novel, or
in an interview promoting said fiction novel?"
There you go. It is a yes/no question.

It's better to be honest. Was there any question about that?
Is it worth getting hysterical about, though?

Post by k***@cs.com

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17
Secondly, Brown was not including himself in the story in an innocuous
light. He was including an organization which did not give consent to
be used in such a way, and who are portrayed innaccurately and
negatively. They want a disclaimer pointing this out. Opus Deii is a
real organization with real people, and this movie is undoubtedly the
only exposure the vast majority of people will have to any
information
about them. Under such circumstances, is asking for a disclaimer truly
unreasonable to you? Does THEIR situation really compare to that of an
author who pretends of his own free will that he has a son when he
doesn't?

Asking is perfectly reasonable. So is saying "no".

Why?

Because it's a work of fiction. No one associated with the film has said
otherwise.

The Priory of Sion-a European secret society founded in 1099-is a real
organization. In 1975, Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parch-
ments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the
Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and
Leonardo da Vinci.
The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic
group that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of
brain-washing, coercion, and a practice known as "corporal mortifica-
tion." Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million
National Headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue in New York City.
All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals
in this novel are accurate.
-----

This appears in the film?

Doesn't matter, it isn't "fact" at all:

The Plantard Plot
The Priory of Sion is an association that was founded in 1956, in the
French town of Annemasse. As with all associations, French law required
the association to be registered with the government. This took place at
the Sous-Prefecture of Saint Julien-en-Genevois, in May 1956, and its
registration was noted on 20 July 1956 in the Journal Officiel de la
République Française. The founders and signatories are inscribed as
Pierre Plantard (known as "Chyren"), André Bonhomme (known as "Stanis
Bellas"), Jean Delaval and Armand Defago. The purpose of the association
according to its Statutes deposited at St Julien was entered as, "études
et entraide des membres" ("education and mutual aid of the members"). In
practice, the originator of the association and its key protagonist was
most probably Pierre Plantard, its General Secretary, although its
nominal head ("President") was André Bonhomme.

The choice of the name, 'Sion’ was based on a hill south of Annemasse,
known as 'Mont Sion'. Plantard chose a local name for specific reasons.
In the 1950s France experienced a tumultuous political situation, as
these were the years of the French Fourth Republic; in Paris,
governments succeeded each other rapidly and there was great
instability. Also, the war in Algeria was in full swing. There existed
much suspicion in the country and the fear of coups d’états. Since
Plantard was an outsider in Annemasse, his part in the creation of an
association (or any association) aroused suspicion. Therefore, the
choice of a name associated with a local and well-known landmark gave it
a local character.

As with all French Registration Papers and Statutes, those of the Priory
of Sion are available to the public. We also find an accompanying title
to the name which reads: Chevalerie d’Institutions et Règles Catholiques
d'Union Independante et Traditionaliste – this forms the acronym CIRCUIT
and translates as "Chivalry of Catholic Rule and Institution and of
Independent Traditionalist Union."

The Statutes and Registration Documents of the Priory of Sion were
deposited on 7 May 1956, while the first issue of its journal Circuit is
dated 27 May 1956 (in total, twelve numbers of the journal appeared).
Its objective was indicated as a "Bulletin d’Information et Défense des
Droits et de la Liberté des Foyers HLM" ("News Bulletin for the Defence
of the Rights and the Freedom of Council Housing"). Some of the articles
took a political position in the local Council elections. Others
attacked and criticized property developers of Annemasse. It also
opposed the gentrification of the area. Therefore, the political
contents of the journal had brought it to the attention of the local
authorities and any attempt by its editor, Pierre Plantard, to form an
association was bound to be received with increased suspicion. The
offices of the Priory of Sion and the journal were at Plantard’s council
flat.

The articles of the Priory of Sion as indicated in its Statute desired
the creation of a monastic order—but the activities of the Priory of
Sion bore no resemblance whatsoever to the objectives as outlined in its
Statutes—these were two entirely different things—as noted by the Sub
Prefecture of St Julien-en-Genevois. Article VII says that its members
are expected, "to carry out good deeds, to help the Catholic Church,
teach the truth, defend the weak and the oppressed". There is ample
evidence that it had several members, as indicated by the numerous
articles contained in its journal Circuit that were written by numerous
different people, and towards the end of 1956 the association had aims
to forge links with the local Catholic Church of the area involving a
School Bus service run by both the Priory of Sion and the church of St
Joseph in Annemasse.

The association was dissolved sometime after October 1956 but
intermittently revived for different reasons by Plantard between 1962
and 1993 in name and on paper only. A letter at the Sous-Prefecture of
Saint-Julien en Genevois indicates that Plantard had a criminal
conviction as a con man.

From the 1960s, a series of hypotheses and unproven historical
associations became attached to the name Priory of Sion. These bear no
relation to the origins of the 1956 association. The Priory of Sion is
considered "dormant" by the Sous-Prefecture because it has indicated no
activities since 1956. According to French law, subsequent references to
the Priory bear no legal relation to that of 1956 and no one other than
the original signatories are entitled to use its name in an official
capacity (though André Bonhomme played no part since 1956, he officially
resigned in 1973 when he heard that Plantard was linking his name with
the association; therefore no one is around to use the name officially).

Plantard originally hoped that the Priory of Sion would become an
influential cryptopolitical pseudo-masonic lodge (similar to the P2
cabal) dedicated to the restoration of chivalry and monarchy, which
would promote Plantard's own megalomaniacal claim to being a legitimate
pretender to the throne of France.

In the 1960s, Pierre Plantard began writing a manuscript and produced
"parchments" (created by his friend, Philippe de Cherisey) that Father
Bérenger Saunière had supposedly discovered whilst renovating his church
in Rennes-le-Château. These forged documents alluded to the survival of
the Merovingian line of Frankish kings. Plantard manipulated Saunière's
activities at Rennes-le-Château in order to "prove" his claims relating
to the Priory of Sion.

Between 1961 and 1984 Plantard contrived a mythical pedigree of the
Priory of Sion claiming that it was the offshoot of the "Order of Sion"
(its correct historical title being the Abbey de Notre Dame du Mont
Sion) which had been founded in the Kingdom of Jerusalem during the
First Crusade. Calling his original 1956 group "Priory of Sion"
undoubtedly gave Plantard the later idea to claim that his organisation
had been historically founded in Jerusalem during the Crusades when
meeting Gerard de Sede during the early 1960s - this fabrication by
Pierre Plantard was part of his literary deal with the author Gérard de
Sede when they both began collaborating together during the early 1960s
in a series of published books.

Furthermore, it is reported that letters in existence dating from the
1960s written by Pierre Plantard, Philippe de Cherisey and Gérard de
Sede to each other confirm that the three were engaging in an
out-and-out confidence trick, describing schemes on how to combat
criticisms of their various allegations and how they would make-up new
allegations to try and keep the whole thing going. These letters
(totalling over 100) are in the possession of French researcher Jean-Luc
Chaumeil, who has also retained the original envelopes. Jean-Luc
Chaumeil during the 1970s was part of the Priory of Sion cabal, and
wrote books and articles about Plantard and the Priory of Sion before
splitting from it during the late 1970s and exposing Pierre Plantard's
past in French books.

In order to give credibility to the fabricated lineage and pedigree,
Plantard and de Cherisey needed to create 'independent evidence'. So
during the 1960s, they deposited a series of forged documents, the
so-called Dossiers Secrets or "Secret Dossiers", at the Bibliothèque
nationale de France (BnF), in Paris. Therefore, people who set out to
research the 'Priory of Sion' would come across these fake documents at
the BnF. One of those researchers was Henry Lincoln.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory_of_sion

[Mike Schilling]

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Jordan Abel

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by k***@cs.com
"In short, are you saying that it is okay to lie about history as long
as you are doing it in the preface or afterward to a fiction novel, or
in an interview promoting said fiction novel?"
There you go. It is a yes/no question.

It's better to be honest. Was there any question about that?
Is it worth getting hysterical about, though?

Post by k***@cs.com

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17
Secondly, Brown was not including himself in the story in an innocuous
light. He was including an organization which did not give consent to
be used in such a way, and who are portrayed innaccurately and
negatively. They want a disclaimer pointing this out. Opus Deii is a
real organization with real people, and this movie is undoubtedly the
only exposure the vast majority of people will have to any information
about them. Under such circumstances, is asking for a disclaimer truly
unreasonable to you? Does THEIR situation really compare to that of an
author who pretends of his own free will that he has a son when he
doesn't?

Asking is perfectly reasonable. So is saying "no".

Why?

Because it's a work of fiction. No one associated with the film has said
otherwise.

The Priory of Sion-a European secret society founded in 1099-is a real
organization. In 1975, Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parch-
ments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the
Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and
Leonardo da Vinci.
The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic
group that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of
brain-washing, coercion, and a practice known as "corporal mortifica-
tion." Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million
National Headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue in New York City.
All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals
in this novel are accurate.
-----

This appears in the film?

We know this. The issue is whether the film or only the book contains this
bit of psuedo-documentation.

[Jordan Abel]

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Jordan Abel

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by k***@cs.com
"In short, are you saying that it is okay to lie about history as long
as you are doing it in the preface or afterward to a fiction novel, or
in an interview promoting said fiction novel?"
There you go. It is a yes/no question.

It's better to be honest. Was there any question about that?
Is it worth getting hysterical about, though?

Post by k***@cs.com

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17
Secondly, Brown was not including himself in the story in an innocuous
light. He was including an organization which did not give consent to
be used in such a way, and who are portrayed innaccurately and
negatively. They want a disclaimer pointing this out. Opus Deii is a
real organization with real people, and this movie is undoubtedly the
only exposure the vast majority of people will have to any information
about them. Under such circumstances, is asking for a disclaimer truly
unreasonable to you? Does THEIR situation really compare to that of an
author who pretends of his own free will that he has a son when he
doesn't?

Asking is perfectly reasonable. So is saying "no".

Why?

Because it's a work of fiction. No one associated with the film has said
otherwise.

The Priory of Sion-a European secret society founded in 1099-is a real
organization. In 1975, Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parch-
ments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the
Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and
Leonardo da Vinci.
The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic
group that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of
brain-washing, coercion, and a practice known as "corporal mortifica-
tion." Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million
National Headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue in New York City.
All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals
in this novel are accurate.
-----

This appears in the film?

We know this. The issue is whether the film or only the book contains
this bit of psuedo-documentation.

And you don't think that anyone who reads the book would assume that
(common sense) the claim, if true, applies to everything in the film
that wasn't changed from the book?

Also, is a disclaimer REALLY that much to ask?

| All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance
| to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

is a standard formula.

[Mike Schilling]

Post by Jordan Abel
And you don't think that anyone who reads the book would assume that
(common sense) the claim, if true, applies to everything in the film
that wasn't changed from the book?

Anyone who believes the book believes it reagrdles of what the film says.

Post by Jordan Abel
Also, is a disclaimer REALLY that much to ask?

As I've said before, they can ask anything they like.

Post by Jordan Abel
| All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance
| to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

This would remain the case for living personseven if the pseudo-history in
the book were true. No one is suggesting that the characters in the book are
real. On the other hand, it would be foolish to argue that the Jesus and
Mary Magdalene of the book and film aren't intended to be the "real" ones.

[Miriam Cohen]

Post by Jordan Abel

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Jordan Abel

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by k***@cs.com
"In short, are you saying that it is okay to lie about history as long
as you are doing it in the preface or afterward to a fiction novel, or
in an interview promoting said fiction novel?"
There you go. It is a yes/no question.

It's better to be honest. Was there any question about that?
Is it worth getting hysterical about, though?

Post by k***@cs.com

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17
Secondly, Brown was not including himself in the story in an innocuous
light. He was including an organization which did not give consent to
be used in such a way, and who are portrayed innaccurately and
negatively. They want a disclaimer pointing this out. Opus Deii is a
real organization with real people, and this movie is undoubtedly the
only exposure the vast majority of people will have to any information
about them. Under such circumstances, is asking for a disclaimer truly
unreasonable to you? Does THEIR situation really compare to that of an
author who pretends of his own free will that he has a son when he
doesn't?

Asking is perfectly reasonable. So is saying "no".

Why?

Because it's a work of fiction. No one associated with the film has said
otherwise.

The Priory of Sion-a European secret society founded in 1099-is a real
organization. In 1975, Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parch-
ments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the
Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and
Leonardo da Vinci.
The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic
group that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of
brain-washing, coercion, and a practice known as "corporal mortifica-
tion." Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million
National Headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue in New York City.
All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals
in this novel are accurate.
-----

This appears in the film?

We know this. The issue is whether the film or only the book contains
this bit of psuedo-documentation.

And you don't think that anyone who reads the book would assume that
(common sense) the claim, if true, applies to everything in the film
that wasn't changed from the book?

So, do you believe that Martians attacked earth?

Post by Jordan Abel
Also, is a disclaimer REALLY that much to ask?

To ask, no, to *DEMAND* yes.

Post by Jordan Abel
| All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance
| to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
is a standard formula.

Most *EDUCATED* people don't go to the movies to learn facts, most
*EDUCATED* People go to the movies to be *ENTERTAINED*. You should try
it sometime, some of them make you laugh, some make you cry and still
others get your pulse racing because of the action.

[Miriam Cohen]

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Jordan Abel

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by k***@cs.com
"In short, are you saying that it is okay to lie about history as long
as you are doing it in the preface or afterward to a fiction novel, or
in an interview promoting said fiction novel?"
There you go. It is a yes/no question.

It's better to be honest. Was there any question about that?
Is it worth getting hysterical about, though?

Post by k***@cs.com

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17
Secondly, Brown was not including himself in the story in an innocuous
light. He was including an organization which did not give consent to
be used in such a way, and who are portrayed innaccurately and
negatively. They want a disclaimer pointing this out. Opus Deii is a
real organization with real people, and this movie is undoubtedly the
only exposure the vast majority of people will have to any information
about them. Under such circumstances, is asking for a disclaimer truly
unreasonable to you? Does THEIR situation really compare to that of an
author who pretends of his own free will that he has a son when he
doesn't?

Asking is perfectly reasonable. So is saying "no".

Why?

Because it's a work of fiction. No one associated with the film has said
otherwise.

The Priory of Sion-a European secret society founded in 1099-is a real
organization. In 1975, Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parch-
ments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the
Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and
Leonardo da Vinci.
The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic
group that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of
brain-washing, coercion, and a practice known as "corporal mortifica-
tion." Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million
National Headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue in New York City.
All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals
in this novel are accurate.
-----

This appears in the film?

We know this. The issue is whether the film or only the book contains this
bit of psuedo-documentation.

I fear for the state of the human race when people get so ridiculous
over a work of fiction. One wonders how these people reacted to the
Wizard of Oz in 1939? Does anyone go to the movies expecting
documentaries? :)

[Miriam Cohen]

Post by Jordan Abel

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by k***@cs.com
"In short, are you saying that it is okay to lie about history as long
as you are doing it in the preface or afterward to a fiction novel, or
in an interview promoting said fiction novel?"
There you go. It is a yes/no question.

It's better to be honest. Was there any question about that?
Is it worth getting hysterical about, though?

Post by k***@cs.com

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17
Secondly, Brown was not including himself in the story in an innocuous
light. He was including an organization which did not give consent to
be used in such a way, and who are portrayed innaccurately and
negatively. They want a disclaimer pointing this out. Opus Deii is a
real organization with real people, and this movie is undoubtedly the
only exposure the vast majority of people will have to any information
about them. Under such circumstances, is asking for a disclaimer truly
unreasonable to you? Does THEIR situation really compare to that of an
author who pretends of his own free will that he has a son when he
doesn't?

Asking is perfectly reasonable. So is saying "no".

Why?

Because it's a work of fiction. No one associated with the film has said
otherwise.

The Priory of Sion-a European secret society founded in 1099-is a real
organization. In 1975, Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parch-
ments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the
Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and
Leonardo da Vinci.

Au contraire, mon frere:

The Plantard Plot
The Priory of Sion is an association that was founded in *1956*, in the
French town of Annemasse. As with all associations, French law required
the association to be registered with the government. This took place at
the Sous-Prefecture of Saint Julien-en-Genevois, in May 1956, and its
registration was noted on 20 July 1956 in the Journal Officiel de la
République Française. The founders and signatories are inscribed as
Pierre Plantard (known as "Chyren"), André Bonhomme (known as "Stanis
Bellas"), Jean Delaval and Armand Defago. The purpose of the association
according to its Statutes deposited at St Julien was entered as, "études
et entraide des membres" ("education and mutual aid of the members"). In
practice, the originator of the association and its key protagonist was
most probably Pierre Plantard, its General Secretary, although its
nominal head ("President") was André Bonhomme.

The choice of the name, 'Sion’ was based on a hill south of Annemasse,
known as 'Mont Sion'. Plantard chose a local name for specific reasons.
In the 1950s France experienced a tumultuous political situation, as
these were the years of the French Fourth Republic; in Paris,
governments succeeded each other rapidly and there was great
instability. Also, the war in Algeria was in full swing. There existed
much suspicion in the country and the fear of coups d’états. Since
Plantard was an outsider in Annemasse, his part in the creation of an
association (or any association) aroused suspicion. Therefore, the
choice of a name associated with a local and well-known landmark gave it
a local character.

As with all French Registration Papers and Statutes, those of the Priory
of Sion are available to the public. We also find an accompanying title
to the name which reads: Chevalerie d’Institutions et Règles Catholiques
d'Union Independante et Traditionaliste – this forms the acronym CIRCUIT
and translates as "Chivalry of Catholic Rule and Institution and of
Independent Traditionalist Union."

The Statutes and Registration Documents of the Priory of Sion were
deposited on 7 May 1956, while the first issue of its journal Circuit is
dated 27 May 1956 (in total, twelve numbers of the journal appeared).
Its objective was indicated as a "Bulletin d’Information et Défense des
Droits et de la Liberté des Foyers HLM" ("News Bulletin for the Defence
of the Rights and the Freedom of Council Housing"). Some of the articles
took a political position in the local Council elections. Others
attacked and criticized property developers of Annemasse. It also
opposed the gentrification of the area. Therefore, the political
contents of the journal had brought it to the attention of the local
authorities and any attempt by its editor, Pierre Plantard, to form an
association was bound to be received with increased suspicion. The
offices of the Priory of Sion and the journal were at Plantard’s council
flat.

The articles of the Priory of Sion as indicated in its Statute desired
the creation of a monastic order—but the activities of the Priory of
Sion bore no resemblance whatsoever to the objectives as outlined in its
Statutes—these were two entirely different things—as noted by the Sub
Prefecture of St Julien-en-Genevois. Article VII says that its members
are expected, "to carry out good deeds, to help the Catholic Church,
teach the truth, defend the weak and the oppressed". There is ample
evidence that it had several members, as indicated by the numerous
articles contained in its journal Circuit that were written by numerous
different people, and towards the end of 1956 the association had aims
to forge links with the local Catholic Church of the area involving a
School Bus service run by both the Priory of Sion and the church of St
Joseph in Annemasse.

The association was dissolved sometime after October 1956 but
intermittently revived for different reasons by Plantard between 1962
and 1993 in name and on paper only. A letter at the Sous-Prefecture of
Saint-Julien en Genevois indicates that Plantard had a criminal
conviction as a con man.

From the 1960s, a series of hypotheses and unproven historical
associations became attached to the name Priory of Sion. These bear no
relation to the origins of the 1956 association. The Priory of Sion is
considered "dormant" by the Sous-Prefecture because it has indicated no
activities since 1956. According to French law, subsequent references to
the Priory bear no legal relation to that of 1956 and no one other than
the original signatories are entitled to use its name in an official
capacity (though André Bonhomme played no part since 1956, he officially
resigned in 1973 when he heard that Plantard was linking his name with
the association; therefore no one is around to use the name officially).

Plantard originally hoped that the Priory of Sion would become an
influential cryptopolitical pseudo-masonic lodge (similar to the P2
cabal) dedicated to the restoration of chivalry and monarchy, which
would promote Plantard's own megalomaniacal claim to being a legitimate
pretender to the throne of France.

In the 1960s, Pierre Plantard began writing a manuscript and produced
"parchments" (created by his friend, Philippe de Cherisey) that Father
Bérenger Saunière had supposedly discovered whilst renovating his church
in Rennes-le-Château. These forged documents alluded to the survival of
the Merovingian line of Frankish kings. Plantard manipulated Saunière's
activities at Rennes-le-Château in order to "prove" his claims relating
to the Priory of Sion.

Between 1961 and 1984 Plantard contrived a mythical pedigree of the
Priory of Sion claiming that it was the offshoot of the "Order of Sion"
(its correct historical title being the Abbey de Notre Dame du Mont
Sion) which had been founded in the Kingdom of Jerusalem during the
First Crusade. Calling his original 1956 group "Priory of Sion"
undoubtedly gave Plantard the later idea to claim that his organisation
had been historically founded in Jerusalem during the Crusades when
meeting Gerard de Sede during the early 1960s - this fabrication by
Pierre Plantard was part of his literary deal with the author Gérard de
Sede when they both began collaborating together during the early 1960s
in a series of published books.

Furthermore, it is reported that letters in existence dating from the
1960s written by Pierre Plantard, Philippe de Cherisey and Gérard de
Sede to each other confirm that the three were engaging in an
out-and-out confidence trick, describing schemes on how to combat
criticisms of their various allegations and how they would make-up new
allegations to try and keep the whole thing going. These letters
(totalling over 100) are in the possession of French researcher Jean-Luc
Chaumeil, who has also retained the original envelopes. Jean-Luc
Chaumeil during the 1970s was part of the Priory of Sion cabal, and
wrote books and articles about Plantard and the Priory of Sion before
splitting from it during the late 1970s and exposing Pierre Plantard's
past in French books.

In order to give credibility to the fabricated lineage and pedigree,
Plantard and de Cherisey needed to create 'independent evidence'. So
during the 1960s, they deposited a series of forged documents, the
so-called Dossiers Secrets or "Secret Dossiers", at the Bibliothèque
nationale de France (BnF), in Paris. Therefore, people who set out to
research the 'Priory of Sion' would come across these fake documents at
the BnF. One of those researchers was Henry Lincoln.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory_of_sion

[Jordan Abel]

Post by Jordan Abel

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by k***@cs.com
"In short, are you saying that it is okay to lie about history as long
as you are doing it in the preface or afterward to a fiction novel, or
in an interview promoting said fiction novel?"
There you go. It is a yes/no question.

It's better to be honest. Was there any question about that?
Is it worth getting hysterical about, though?

Post by k***@cs.com

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17
Secondly, Brown was not including himself in the story in an innocuous
light. He was including an organization which did not give consent to
be used in such a way, and who are portrayed innaccurately and
negatively. They want a disclaimer pointing this out. Opus Deii is a
real organization with real people, and this movie is undoubtedly the
only exposure the vast majority of people will have to any information
about them. Under such circumstances, is asking for a disclaimer truly
unreasonable to you? Does THEIR situation really compare to that of an
author who pretends of his own free will that he has a son when he
doesn't?

Asking is perfectly reasonable. So is saying "no".

Why?

Because it's a work of fiction. No one associated with the film has said
otherwise.

The Priory of Sion-a European secret society founded in 1099-is a real
organization. In 1975, Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parch-
ments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the
Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and
Leonardo da Vinci.

Don't look at me, Dan Brown wrote it.

But, on the other hand, there's a reason it's called a SECRET society.
They couldn't have registered it centuries AFTER it was founded?

[Miriam Cohen]

Post by Jordan Abel

Post by Jordan Abel

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by k***@cs.com
"In short, are you saying that it is okay to lie about history as long
as you are doing it in the preface or afterward to a fiction novel, or
in an interview promoting said fiction novel?"
There you go. It is a yes/no question.

It's better to be honest. Was there any question about that?
Is it worth getting hysterical about, though?

Post by k***@cs.com

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17
Secondly, Brown was not including himself in the story in an innocuous
light. He was including an organization which did not give consent to
be used in such a way, and who are portrayed innaccurately and
negatively. They want a disclaimer pointing this out. Opus Deii is a
real organization with real people, and this movie is undoubtedly the
only exposure the vast majority of people will have to any information
about them. Under such circumstances, is asking for a disclaimer truly
unreasonable to you? Does THEIR situation really compare to that of an
author who pretends of his own free will that he has a son when he
doesn't?

Asking is perfectly reasonable. So is saying "no".

Why?

Because it's a work of fiction. No one associated with the film has said
otherwise.

The Priory of Sion-a European secret society founded in 1099-is a real
organization. In 1975, Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parch-
ments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the
Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and
Leonardo da Vinci.

Don't look at me, Dan Brown wrote it.

But you quoted it as fact, in fact you called it a *FACT* yourself. Most
educated people know how to do their own research, hell even moderately
intelligent people can use google to find out other sides of things.
Everything has two sides. I realize that xianity discourages critical
thinking ("don't ask why") but even a 10 year old can google a phrase
and learn something.

Post by Jordan Abel
But, on the other hand, there's a reason it's called a SECRET society.
They couldn't have registered it centuries AFTER it was founded?

Had you followed the link that was provided (that you conveniently cut
out in your reply) you'd have found the fact that there was indeed a
group by that name formed in 1099 and that group was disbanded and that
the group calling itself that same name today was founded in 1956.

I infer that since you deleted the entire quote of mine except for the
intro line that you didn't even read it, let alone have questions about
it. It's much easier to just accept what they tell you than to wonder
why, isn't it?

[Eris]

Post by Karnak 17

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17

Post by m***@yahoo.com
I don't think Jewish people have to worry about this film, no more than
Catholics or Knights Templar. I'm not making fun of you; I wouldn't
give the sweat off my arse to see this film.

I haven't read the book.

And you can't have seen the movie yet.
So perhaps you should just stop talking about them.

I'm, uh, not. As my post made rather clear. I'm talking about the
claim to factual accuracy about certain contents of the book which
appears at the beginning of the novel.

_The Princess Bride_ contains a chapter or two about William Goldman's life,
all told in the first person, all completely made up. Many people
who've -missed the clues he put it feel betrayed when they learn that
Goldman has no son, there was no S. Morgenstern, there are no such places as
Florin and Guilder, etc. Should _TPB_ contain a disclaimer beyond the usual
one about events and characters being fictitious?

Let me get this straight. Two Questions.
It is typical for writers of historical fiction to include prefaces and
afterwards regarding the scholarship on which their books are based.
Your argument seems to be that historical writers have no obligation to
be truthful to the reader about the historical bases of their works in
these afterwards/introductions. I read Scott O'Dell as a child, and he
always had afterwards about the original historical characters or
events who inspired the books that he had written. It would be okay to
you if he had been as fictitious in these afterwards as in the books.
In short, are you saying that it is okay to lie about history as long
as you are doing it in the preface or afterward to a fiction novel, or
in an interview promoting said fiction novel?
Secondly, Brown was not including himself in the story in an innocuous
light. He was including an organization which did not give consent to
be used in such a way, and who are portrayed innaccurately and
negatively. They want a disclaimer pointing this out. Opus Deii is a
real organization with real people, and this movie is undoubtedly the
only exposure the vast majority of people will have to any information
about them. Under such circumstances, is asking for a disclaimer truly
unreasonable to you? Does THEIR situation really compare to that of an
author who pretends of his own free will that he has a son when he
doesn't?

Why is it needed, this has given you folks a venue to proselytize
witch you are doing very well. It is historical fiction and I have not
seen you folks react to other false historical fiction including your
own. People will not be swayed one way or another.

I have read about Opus Deii in magazines, newspapers, and on the
Internet, haven't read much positive about them. They are a rich and
powerful organization and not helpless in the least.

[k***@cs.com]

Post by Eris

Post by Karnak 17

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17

Post by Mike Schilling

Post by Karnak 17

Post by m***@yahoo.com
I don't think Jewish people have to worry about this film, no more than
Catholics or Knights Templar. I'm not making fun of you; I wouldn't
give the sweat off my arse to see this film.

I haven't read the book.

And you can't have seen the movie yet.
So perhaps you should just stop talking about them.

I'm, uh, not. As my post made rather clear. I'm talking about the
claim to factual accuracy about certain contents of the book which
appears at the beginning of the novel.

_The Princess Bride_ contains a chapter or two about William Goldman's life,
all told in the first person, all completely made up. Many people
who've -missed the clues he put it feel betrayed when they learn that
Goldman has no son, there was no S. Morgenstern, there are no such places as
Florin and Guilder, etc. Should _TPB_ contain a disclaimer beyond the usual
one about events and characters being fictitious?

Let me get this straight. Two Questions.
It is typical for writers of historical fiction to include prefaces and
afterwards regarding the scholarship on which their books are based.
Your argument seems to be that historical writers have no obligation to
be truthful to the reader about the historical bases of their works in
these afterwards/introductions. I read Scott O'Dell as a child, and he
always had afterwards about the original historical characters or
events who inspired the books that he had written. It would be okay to
you if he had been as fictitious in these afterwards as in the books.
In short, are you saying that it is okay to lie about history as long
as you are doing it in the preface or afterward to a fiction novel, or
in an interview promoting said fiction novel?
Secondly, Brown was not including himself in the story in an innocuous
light. He was including an organization which did not give consent to
be used in such a way, and who are portrayed innaccurately and
negatively. They want a disclaimer pointing this out. Opus Deii is a
real organization with real people, and this movie is undoubtedly the
only exposure the vast majority of people will have to any information
about them. Under such circumstances, is asking for a disclaimer truly
unreasonable to you? Does THEIR situation really compare to that of an
author who pretends of his own free will that he has a son when he
doesn't?

Why is it needed, this has given you folks a venue to proselytize
witch you are doing very well. It is historical fiction and I have not
seen you folks react to other false historical fiction including your
own. People will not be swayed one way or another.

Again. Who are "you folks".

I am an individual poster on usernet. If you cannot react to ME
instead of to some little stereotype in your tiny head, then that is to
your discredit, not mine. I haven't done anything close to
"proselytizing", I don't give a rat's ass about your religious beliefs,
or Opus Deii's, or Dan Brown's. I care about HONESTY. And you are on
record as having a problem with that.

Post by Eris
I have read about Opus Deii in magazines, newspapers, and on the
Internet, haven't read much positive about them. They are a rich and
powerful organization and not helpless in the least.

So it is okay to lie about them, because you don't like them. Based on
what you have HEARD, of course.

Thank you. THAT is exactly the morality which, if widespread, cannot
sustain a democracy. Exactly my point.

[BTR1701]

Post by Karnak 17

Post by m***@yahoo.com
I don't think Jewish people have to worry about this film, no more than
Catholics or Knights Templar. I'm not making fun of you; I wouldn't
give the sweat off my arse to see this film.

I haven't read the book. But I was trying to argue on another thread
that the ATTITUDE of the PUBLIC towards the film is very scary to me.
Democracy does not fare well when We the People reward and excuse those
who deliberately lie and deceive. Telling people that DA VINCI is
based on fact is deliberate deception.

Oh, who cares? The first scene in the movie "Fargo" says that the
"following is based on true events". It wasn't. The writers just thought
it would be funny to say it was and watch people spend countless hours
researching the movie to try and find the real story.

It's a fucking movie. It's not anything that really matters.

Post by Karnak 17
You either have a problem with that or you don't.
And if people don't . . . <shrugging helplessly.
. . what kind of people ARE they and what kind of
democracy can they have?

How does not giving a shit about a movie spell the end of democracy as
we know it? Please enlighten us.

Post by Karnak 17
The book is not, from what I hear, good enough to be entertaining.

Yeah, 40 million people bought it because it's boring. Sure.

Post by Karnak 17
I think that Opus Deii is entitled to the disclaimer that they ask for.
The public is entitled to it as well.

Neither is "entitled" to anything. It's a movie. It's not anything that
really matters.

[Karnak 17]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Karnak 17

Post by m***@yahoo.com
I don't think Jewish people have to worry about this film, no more than
Catholics or Knights Templar. I'm not making fun of you; I wouldn't
give the sweat off my arse to see this film.

I haven't read the book. But I was trying to argue on another thread
that the ATTITUDE of the PUBLIC towards the film is very scary to me.
Democracy does not fare well when We the People reward and excuse those
who deliberately lie and deceive. Telling people that DA VINCI is
based on fact is deliberate deception.

Oh, who cares? The first scene in the movie "Fargo" says that the
"following is based on true events". It wasn't. The writers just thought
it would be funny to say it was and watch people spend countless hours
researching the movie to try and find the real story.
It's a fucking movie. It's not anything that really matters.

If the William H. Macy character in FARGO _had_ been a real person,
whose real name and description had been used, and he asked for a
disclaimer making it clear that his portrayal in the film was fiction,
and was refused it, I think that would be morally wrong.

And if the public at large had supported this immoral position on the
grounds that "WHM" was Catholic, or a Jehovah's Witness, or a
Scientolgist, I would find that even more disturbing. And yes,
dangerous to democracy.

[BTR1701]

Post by Karnak 17

Post by BTR1701

Post by Karnak 17

Post by m***@yahoo.com
I don't think Jewish people have to worry about this film, no more
than Catholics or Knights Templar. I'm not making fun of you; I
wouldn't give the sweat off my arse to see this film.

I haven't read the book. But I was trying to argue on another thread
that the ATTITUDE of the PUBLIC towards the film is very scary to me.
Democracy does not fare well when We the People reward and excuse
those who deliberately lie and deceive. Telling people that DA VINCI is
based on fact is deliberate deception.

Oh, who cares? The first scene in the movie "Fargo" says that the
"following is based on true events". It wasn't. The writers just
thought it would be funny to say it was and watch people spend
countless hours researching the movie to try and find the real story.
It's a fucking movie. It's not anything that really matters.

If the William H. Macy character in FARGO _had_ been a real person,
whose real name and description had been used, and he asked for a
disclaimer making it clear that his portrayal in the film was fiction,
and was refused it, I think that would be morally wrong.
And if the public at large had supported this immoral position on the
grounds that "WHM" was Catholic, or a Jehovah's Witness, or a
Scientolgist, I would find that even more disturbing. And yes,
dangerous to democracy.

How does not giving a shit about a movie spell the end of democracy as
we know it? Please enlighten us.

[k***@cs.com]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Karnak 17

Post by BTR1701

Post by Karnak 17

Post by m***@yahoo.com
I don't think Jewish people have to worry about this film, no more
than Catholics or Knights Templar. I'm not making fun of you; I
wouldn't give the sweat off my arse to see this film.

I haven't read the book. But I was trying to argue on another thread
that the ATTITUDE of the PUBLIC towards the film is very scary to me.
Democracy does not fare well when We the People reward and excuse
those who deliberately lie and deceive. Telling people that DA VINCI is
based on fact is deliberate deception.

Oh, who cares? The first scene in the movie "Fargo" says that the
"following is based on true events". It wasn't. The writers just
thought it would be funny to say it was and watch people spend
countless hours researching the movie to try and find the real story.
It's a fucking movie. It's not anything that really matters.

If the William H. Macy character in FARGO _had_ been a real person,
whose real name and description had been used, and he asked for a
disclaimer making it clear that his portrayal in the film was fiction,
and was refused it, I think that would be morally wrong.
And if the public at large had supported this immoral position on the
grounds that "WHM" was Catholic, or a Jehovah's Witness, or a
Scientolgist, I would find that even more disturbing. And yes,
dangerous to democracy.

How does not giving a shit about a movie spell the end of democracy as
we know it? Please enlighten us.

Perhaps you might want to google up my orginal post and actually read
it this time. If you cannot figure out for yourself why a tolerant
attitude towards journalists and non-fiction writers and publishers who
deliberately spread misinformation might be a bad thing for democracy,
I cannot help you. The Dan Brown movie is just a symptom of this
problem.

Secondly, if you don't give a shit about the movie, why are you getting
into arguments about it. My position is that Opus Deii should get a
disclaimer if they want it, and they do. What problem do YOU have with
this position? You WANT Opus Deii to NOT get a disclaimer? Why?

[BTR1701]

Post by k***@cs.com

Post by BTR1701
How does not giving a shit about a movie spell the end of democracy as
we know it? Please enlighten us.

Perhaps you might want to google up my orginal post and actually read
it this time.

I read it. I'm still waiting for an actual answer to the question. How
does not giving a shit about a movie spell the end of democracy as we
know it? Please enlighten us.

Post by k***@cs.com
You WANT Opus Deii to NOT get a disclaimer? Why?

I don't care if they get one or not. However, they're not *entitled* to
one as you claimed.

[Karnak 17]

Post by BTR1701

Post by k***@cs.com

Post by BTR1701
How does not giving a shit about a movie spell the end of democracy as
we know it? Please enlighten us.

Perhaps you might want to google up my orginal post and actually read
it this time.

I read it. I'm still waiting for an actual answer to the question. How
does not giving a shit about a movie spell the end of democracy as we
know it? Please enlighten us.

As I ALREADY SAID, major publishers of non-fiction and journalists are
getting away with the exact sort of thing that Brown, a mere novelist,
is getting away with.

The problem is not Brown, per se, but the attitude of the PUBLIC IN
GENERAL. They clearly feel -- and the reaction to Brown's novel is
just an example of this general attitude -- that it is okay for people
in a position of public trust (journalists, etc) to misrepresent the
truth, as long as those lies are about people they don't particularly
like, or find unpopular.

Brown doesn't just tell fiction in the story, but lies outside of it.
And the public -- and posters here -- are okay with this. To the point
of getting angry with people who point it out. Even if those people
are portrayed in the actual book, and have every reason to want the
matter clarified.

Democracy cannot survive without an honest free press. And the only
thing compelling the press to honesty is people. If we prefer lies,
we will get them. If only we only preferred lies about what was going
on in the first century, or only granted Lying Rights to novelists
promoting their books, I guess I could live with that. But it is not
the case.

Post by BTR1701

Post by k***@cs.com
In short, are you saying that it is okay to lie about history as long
as you are doing it in the preface or afterward to a fiction novel, or
in an interview promoting said fiction novel?
You WANT Opus Deii to NOT get a disclaimer? Why?

I don't care if they get one or not. However, they're not *entitled* to
one as you claimed.

Not legally, no. Morally. It is as another poster said, a matter of
simple common decency. I don't find a public which has a problem with
simple common decency to be a positive sign for democracy either.

[BTR1701]

Post by Karnak 17

Post by BTR1701

Post by k***@cs.com

Post by BTR1701
How does not giving a shit about a movie spell the end of democracy as
we know it? Please enlighten us.

Perhaps you might want to google up my orginal post and actually read
it this time.

I read it. I'm still waiting for an actual answer to the question. How
does not giving a shit about a movie spell the end of democracy as we
know it? Please enlighten us.

As I ALREADY SAID, major publishers of non-fiction and journalists are
getting away with the exact sort of thing that Brown, a mere novelist,
is getting away with.
The problem is not Brown, per se, but the attitude of the PUBLIC IN
GENERAL. They clearly feel -- and the reaction to Brown's novel is
just an example of this general attitude -- that it is okay for people
in a position of public trust (journalists, etc) to misrepresent the
truth, as long as those lies are about people they don't particularly
like, or find unpopular.
Brown doesn't just tell fiction in the story, but lies outside of it.
And the public -- and posters here -- are okay with this. To the point
of getting angry with people who point it out. Even if those people
are portrayed in the actual book, and have every reason to want the
matter clarified.
Democracy cannot survive without an honest free press. And the only
thing compelling the press to honesty is people. If we prefer lies,
we will get them. If only we only preferred lies about what was going
on in the first century, or only granted Lying Rights to novelists
promoting their books, I guess I could live with that. But it is not
the case.

So you're obviously not going to actually answer the question. Fine. I
suppose the best we can hope for from you are more unsupported and vague
assertions that "democracy cannot survive without an honest free press",
as if Doubleday's fiction novel department or Warner Bros. Studios
constitutes the free press.

[BTR1701]

Post by Karnak 17

Post by BTR1701

Post by k***@cs.com

Post by BTR1701
How does not giving a shit about a movie spell the end of democracy as
we know it? Please enlighten us.

Perhaps you might want to google up my orginal post and actually read
it this time.

I read it. I'm still waiting for an actual answer to the question. How
does not giving a shit about a movie spell the end of democracy as we
know it? Please enlighten us.

As I ALREADY SAID, major publishers of non-fiction and journalists are
getting away with the exact sort of thing that Brown, a mere novelist,
is getting away with.
The problem is not Brown, per se, but the attitude of the PUBLIC IN
GENERAL. They clearly feel -- and the reaction to Brown's novel is
just an example of this general attitude -- that it is okay for people
in a position of public trust (journalists, etc) to misrepresent the
truth, as long as those lies are about people they don't particularly
like, or find unpopular.
Brown doesn't just tell fiction in the story, but lies outside of it.
And the public -- and posters here -- are okay with this. To the point
of getting angry with people who point it out. Even if those people
are portrayed in the actual book, and have every reason to want the
matter clarified.
Democracy cannot survive without an honest free press. And the only
thing compelling the press to honesty is people. If we prefer lies,
we will get them. If only we only preferred lies about what was going
on in the first century, or only granted Lying Rights to novelists
promoting their books, I guess I could live with that. But it is not
the case.

So you're obviously not going to actually answer the question. Fine. I
suppose the best we can hope for from you are more unsupported and vague
assertions that "democracy cannot survive without an honest free press",
as if Doubleday's fiction novel department or Warner Bros. Studios
constitutes the free press.

[Nick Keighley]

<snip>

Post by Karnak 17

Post by BTR1701

Post by Karnak 17
Democracy does not fare well when We the People reward and excuse those
who deliberately lie and deceive. Telling people that DA VINCI is
based on fact is deliberate deception.

its just an amusing and mildly entertaining *story*. Get a grip.

Post by Karnak 17

Post by BTR1701
Oh, who cares? The first scene in the movie "Fargo" says that the
"following is based on true events". It wasn't. The writers just thought
it would be funny to say it was and watch people spend countless hours
researching the movie to try and find the real story.
It's a fucking movie. It's not anything that really matters.

If the William H. Macy character in FARGO _had_ been a real person,

what real persons are mentioned in Da Vinci?

Post by Karnak 17
whose real name and description had been used, and he asked for a
disclaimer making it clear that his portrayal in the film was fiction,
and was refused it, I think that would be morally wrong.
And if the public at large had supported this immoral position on the
grounds that "WHM" was Catholic, or a Jehovah's Witness, or a
Scientolgist, I would find that even more disturbing. And yes,
dangerous to democracy.

JR really did love Sue Ellen. I'm surprised the city of Dallas didn't
sue
over the lies that were told on that program.

[Miriam Cohen]

<snip>

Post by Karnak 17

Post by BTR1701

Post by Karnak 17
Democracy does not fare well when We the People reward and excuse those
who deliberately lie and deceive. Telling people that DA VINCI is
based on fact is deliberate deception.

its just an amusing and mildly entertaining *story*. Get a grip.

Post by Karnak 17

Post by BTR1701
Oh, who cares? The first scene in the movie "Fargo" says that the
"following is based on true events". It wasn't. The writers just thought
it would be funny to say it was and watch people spend countless hours
researching the movie to try and find the real story.
It's a fucking movie. It's not anything that really matters.

If the William H. Macy character in FARGO _had_ been a real person,

what real persons are mentioned in Da Vinci?

Well, the Knights Templar did really exist until the French king had
them all murdered in the 1300s. :)

[Karnak 17]

Post by Miriam Cohen

<snip>

Post by Karnak 17

Post by BTR1701

Post by Karnak 17
Democracy does not fare well when We the People reward and excuse those
who deliberately lie and deceive. Telling people that DA VINCI is
based on fact is deliberate deception.

its just an amusing and mildly entertaining *story*. Get a grip.

Then it should SAY that it is just a story. Instead it says
differently. Get a grip youself. Why are you arguing with the idea
that an author should NOT lie to his readers on the frontspiece of his
book? Why don't you say; "Yeah, if the scholarship in the book is
bogus, he shouldn't have said it wasn't". Just WHY is this somehow a
controversial moral position?

Post by Miriam Cohen

Post by Karnak 17

Post by BTR1701
Oh, who cares? The first scene in the movie "Fargo" says that the
"following is based on true events". It wasn't. The writers just thought
it would be funny to say it was and watch people spend countless hours
researching the movie to try and find the real story.
It's a fucking movie. It's not anything that really matters.

If the William H. Macy character in FARGO _had_ been a real person,

what real persons are mentioned in Da Vinci?

Well, the Knights Templar did really exist until the French king had
them all murdered in the 1300s. :)

OPUS DEII is a Cathlic lay organization which exists in the present
day. One of the villains of the book is an evil Opus Deii
"monk"/assassin. OD wants a disclaimer on the movie, possibly to point
out the fact that their organization has neither monks or assassins.

[Eris]

Post by Karnak 17

Post by Miriam Cohen

<snip>

Post by Karnak 17

Post by BTR1701

Post by Karnak 17
Democracy does not fare well when We the People reward and excuse those
who deliberately lie and deceive. Telling people that DA VINCI is
based on fact is deliberate deception.

its just an amusing and mildly entertaining *story*. Get a grip.

Then it should SAY that it is just a story. Instead it says
differently. Get a grip youself. Why are you arguing with the idea
that an author should NOT lie to his readers on the frontspiece of his
book? Why don't you say; "Yeah, if the scholarship in the book is
bogus, he shouldn't have said it wasn't". Just WHY is this somehow a
controversial moral position?

Post by Miriam Cohen

Post by Karnak 17

Post by BTR1701
Oh, who cares? The first scene in the movie "Fargo" says that the
"following is based on true events". It wasn't. The writers just thought
it would be funny to say it was and watch people spend countless hours
researching the movie to try and find the real story.
It's a fucking movie. It's not anything that really matters.

If the William H. Macy character in FARGO _had_ been a real person,

what real persons are mentioned in Da Vinci?

Well, the Knights Templar did really exist until the French king had
them all murdered in the 1300s. :)

OPUS DEII is a Cathlic lay organization which exists in the present
day. One of the villains of the book is an evil Opus Deii
"monk"/assassin. OD wants a disclaimer on the movie, possibly to point
out the fact that their organization has neither monks or assassins.

I am betting that there are more than just one crazy person in Opus
Deii.

[z***@yahoo.com]

Post by BTR1701
Oh, who cares? The first scene in the movie "Fargo" says that the
"following is based on true events". It wasn't. The writers just thought
it would be funny to say it was and watch people spend countless hours
researching the movie to try and find the real story.
It's a fucking movie. It's not anything that really matters.

A movie, even one that presents itself as fictional, can most certainly
matter, in a bad way. To use an extreme case, when "Birth of a Nation"
was released in 1915, the director DW Griffith didn't claim he was
presenting a documentary, he said it was a fictional story (for the
most part). Except that his fictional story happened to be set in the
years after the civil war, and he showed the black characters as evil,
conniving monsters who were hell bent on raping white women and
committing other crimes, and presented the Ku Klux Klan as heroic
saviors of virtue. It was so successful that it helped lead to a
revival of the KKK (which up to that point had basically ceased to
exist). African American civil rights groups at the time (and others)
expressed their strong disapproval of the film, and rightly would have
been unsatisifed with the answer, "Stop your whining, it's just a
movie."

Obviously I don't mean to imply that the historical fallacies in "The
Da Vinci Code" are anywhere near as evil as the ones in "Birth of a
Nation," or as influential. But if I was a member of this group "Opus
Dei," which from what I can tell is basically an inocuous Catholic
charity group, I would be pretty upset that the only mainstream
exposure I was getting was in a book that claimed the group was filled
with insane monks and murderers.

Post by BTR1701

Post by Karnak 17
I think that Opus Deii is entitled to the disclaimer that they ask for.
The public is entitled to it as well.

Neither is "entitled" to anything. It's a movie. It's not anything that
really matters.

If you were a member of a somewhat obscure club that was basically a
charity organization, and then somebody decided to write a fictional
story in which charactrers said things like, "Opus Dei is an evil group
that is full of assassains and conspirators," and then the author put a
disclaimer at the beginning of the book that said, "Opus Dei is a real
organization" without any further clarification, I think you'd
rightfully be pretty pissed off.


I believe in free speech, so I of course don't think that Brown or the
filmmakers should be *required* to put any disclaimer in their film,
and so the group isn't "entitled" to it. But I think basic human
decency would dictate that there ought to be some kind of explanation.

[Karnak 17]

Post by z***@yahoo.com

Post by BTR1701
Oh, who cares? The first scene in the movie "Fargo" says that the
"following is based on true events". It wasn't. The writers just thought
it would be funny to say it was and watch people spend countless hours
researching the movie to try and find the real story.
It's a fucking movie. It's not anything that really matters.

A movie, even one that presents itself as fictional, can most certainly
matter, in a bad way. To use an extreme case, when "Birth of a Nation"
was released in 1915, the director DW Griffith didn't claim he was
presenting a documentary, he said it was a fictional story (for the
most part). Except that his fictional story happened to be set in the
years after the civil war, and he showed the black characters as evil,
conniving monsters who were hell bent on raping white women and
committing other crimes, and presented the Ku Klux Klan as heroic
saviors of virtue. It was so successful that it helped lead to a
revival of the KKK (which up to that point had basically ceased to
exist). African American civil rights groups at the time (and others)
expressed their strong disapproval of the film, and rightly would have
been unsatisifed with the answer, "Stop your whining, it's just a
movie."
Obviously I don't mean to imply that the historical fallacies in "The
Da Vinci Code" are anywhere near as evil as the ones in "Birth of a
Nation," or as influential. But if I was a member of this group "Opus
Dei," which from what I can tell is basically an inocuous Catholic
charity group, I would be pretty upset that the only mainstream
exposure I was getting was in a book that claimed the group was filled
with insane monks and murderers.

Post by BTR1701

Post by Karnak 17
I think that Opus Deii is entitled to the disclaimer that they ask for.
The public is entitled to it as well.

Neither is "entitled" to anything. It's a movie. It's not anything that
really matters.

If you were a member of a somewhat obscure club that was basically a
charity organization, and then somebody decided to write a fictional
story in which charactrers said things like, "Opus Dei is an evil group
that is full of assassains and conspirators," and then the author put a
disclaimer at the beginning of the book that said, "Opus Dei is a real
organization" without any further clarification, I think you'd
rightfully be pretty pissed off.
I believe in free speech, so I of course don't think that Brown or the
filmmakers should be *required* to put any disclaimer in their film,
and so the group isn't "entitled" to it. But I think basic human
decency would dictate that there ought to be some kind of explanation.

Thank you. Exactly.

[BTR1701]

Post by z***@yahoo.com
But if I was a member of this group "Opus
Dei," which from what I can tell is basically an inocuous Catholic
charity group, I would be pretty upset that the only mainstream
exposure I was getting was in a book that claimed the group was filled
with insane monks and murderers.

Well, if that was what you were upset about, then you'd have no leg to
stand on because neither the book nor the movie claims Opus Dei is
filled with insane monks and murderers.

Post by z***@yahoo.com

Post by BTR1701

Post by Karnak 17
I think that Opus Deii is entitled to the disclaimer that they ask
for. The public is entitled to it as well.

Neither is "entitled" to anything. It's a movie. It's not anything that
really matters.

If you were a member of a somewhat obscure club that was basically a
charity organization, and then somebody decided to write a fictional
story in which charactrers said things like, "Opus Dei is an evil group
that is full of assassains and conspirators,"

Since no one, let alone Brown, has actually done that, I'm not sure what
your point is.

[Mike Schilling]

Post by BTR1701

Post by z***@yahoo.com
But if I was a member of this group "Opus
Dei," which from what I can tell is basically an inocuous Catholic
charity group, I would be pretty upset that the only mainstream
exposure I was getting was in a book that claimed the group was filled
with insane monks and murderers.

Well, if that was what you were upset about, then you'd have no leg to
stand on because neither the book nor the movie claims Opus Dei is
filled with insane monks and murderers.

As I'd pointed out upthread. It sems not to matter.

[z***@yahoo.com]

Post by BTR1701

Post by z***@yahoo.com
But if I was a member of this group "Opus
Dei," which from what I can tell is basically an inocuous Catholic
charity group, I would be pretty upset that the only mainstream
exposure I was getting was in a book that claimed the group was filled
with insane monks and murderers.

Well, if that was what you were upset about, then you'd have no leg to
stand on because neither the book nor the movie claims Opus Dei is
filled with insane monks and murderers.

As for the movie, it hasn't even come out yet so I don't know what's in
it. As for the book, I read it about a year and a half ago, so I don't
really remember all the details. But I do remember that the character
who was supposed to be in Opus Dei was a monk with some kind of mental
problem, and did things like sneak around trying to kill somebody
because his boss (or the person he thought was his boss) told him to.
The book implied that this was because Opus Dei was some sinister
organization where that kind of thing was par for the course.

It's one thing for Brown to take on the Catholic Church as a whole.
That's a big enough organization that everybody reading the book (or
seeing the film) will probably have already made up their opinion about
it. But I don't think it's fair to do it to this Opus Dei.

As an aside, in describing his church conspiracy, Brown seems to use
the term "Christian" and "Catholic" interchangeably, as if the Eastern
Orthodox Church didn't even exist. The Orthodox Church and Catholic
Church have been completely indpendent of one another formally since
1054, and in practice for centuries before then. I kind of wonder how
the Greeks feel about the fact that they aren't apparently important
enough to be part of the "sacred feminine" snowjob. But that's an
entirely different subject.

[BTR1701]

Post by z***@yahoo.com

Post by BTR1701

Post by z***@yahoo.com
But if I was a member of this group "Opus
Dei," which from what I can tell is basically an inocuous Catholic
charity group, I would be pretty upset that the only mainstream
exposure I was getting was in a book that claimed the group was filled
with insane monks and murderers.

Well, if that was what you were upset about, then you'd have no leg to
stand on because neither the book nor the movie claims Opus Dei is
filled with insane monks and murderers.

As for the movie, it hasn't even come out yet so I don't know what's in
it. As for the book, I read it about a year and a half ago, so I don't
really remember all the details. But I do remember that the character
who was supposed to be in Opus Dei was a monk with some kind of mental
problem, and did things like sneak around trying to kill somebody

Okay, so you've remembered enough of the story to know that there was
one monk involved but yet you stated that the story portrays Opus Dei as
"filled with insane monks and murderers".

How do you get from one lone monk to "filled with" multiple "monks"?

And by the end of the book, it's made quite clear that the Opus Dei
organization itself is not complicit in either the killings or the plot
to suppress the "truth". It was just the work of two individuals who
were themselves conned into it by someone wholly unconnected to Opus Dei.

Post by z***@yahoo.com
because his boss (or the person he thought was his boss) told him to.
The book implied that this was because Opus Dei was some sinister
organization where that kind of thing was par for the course.

The book did nothing of the sort. As I just said, the book was quite
clear the organization itself was not complicit in either the killings
or the plot to suppress the "truth".

Post by z***@yahoo.com
It's one thing for Brown to take on the Catholic Church as a whole.
That's a big enough organization that everybody reading the book (or
seeing the film) will probably have already made up their opinion about
it. But I don't think it's fair to do it to this Opus Dei.

Life isn't fair.

[Eris]

Post by BTR1701

Post by z***@yahoo.com

Post by BTR1701

Post by z***@yahoo.com
But if I was a member of this group "Opus
Dei," which from what I can tell is basically an inocuous Catholic
charity group, I would be pretty upset that the only mainstream
exposure I was getting was in a book that claimed the group was filled
with insane monks and murderers.

Well, if that was what you were upset about, then you'd have no leg to
stand on because neither the book nor the movie claims Opus Dei is
filled with insane monks and murderers.

As for the movie, it hasn't even come out yet so I don't know what's in
it. As for the book, I read it about a year and a half ago, so I don't
really remember all the details. But I do remember that the character
who was supposed to be in Opus Dei was a monk with some kind of mental
problem, and did things like sneak around trying to kill somebody

Okay, so you've remembered enough of the story to know that there was
one monk involved but yet you stated that the story portrays Opus Dei as
"filled with insane monks and murderers".
How do you get from one lone monk to "filled with" multiple "monks"?
And by the end of the book, it's made quite clear that the Opus Dei
organization itself is not complicit in either the killings or the plot
to suppress the "truth". It was just the work of two individuals who
were themselves conned into it by someone wholly unconnected to Opus Dei.

Post by z***@yahoo.com
because his boss (or the person he thought was his boss) told him to.
The book implied that this was because Opus Dei was some sinister
organization where that kind of thing was par for the course.

Some of it's exmembers do, are you associated with the Opus people?

Post by BTR1701
The book did nothing of the sort. As I just said, the book was quite
clear the organization itself was not complicit in either the killings
or the plot to suppress the "truth".

Post by z***@yahoo.com
It's one thing for Brown to take on the Catholic Church as a whole.
That's a big enough organization that everybody reading the book (or
seeing the film) will probably have already made up their opinion about
it. But I don't think it's fair to do it to this Opus Dei.

Life isn't fair.

[BTR1701]

Post by Eris

Post by BTR1701

Post by z***@yahoo.com

Post by BTR1701

Post by z***@yahoo.com
But if I was a member of this group "Opus
Dei," which from what I can tell is basically an inocuous Catholic
charity group, I would be pretty upset that the only mainstream
exposure I was getting was in a book that claimed the group was filled
with insane monks and murderers.

Well, if that was what you were upset about, then you'd have no leg to
stand on because neither the book nor the movie claims Opus Dei is
filled with insane monks and murderers.

As for the movie, it hasn't even come out yet so I don't know what's in
it. As for the book, I read it about a year and a half ago, so I don't
really remember all the details. But I do remember that the character
who was supposed to be in Opus Dei was a monk with some kind of mental
problem, and did things like sneak around trying to kill somebody

Okay, so you've remembered enough of the story to know that there was
one monk involved but yet you stated that the story portrays Opus Dei as
"filled with insane monks and murderers".
How do you get from one lone monk to "filled with" multiple "monks"?
And by the end of the book, it's made quite clear that the Opus Dei
organization itself is not complicit in either the killings or the plot
to suppress the "truth". It was just the work of two individuals who
were themselves conned into it by someone wholly unconnected to Opus Dei.

Post by z***@yahoo.com
because his boss (or the person he thought was his boss) told him to.
The book implied that this was because Opus Dei was some sinister
organization where that kind of thing was par for the course.

Some of it's exmembers do, are you associated with the Opus people?

I didn't write that. You misquoted.

Post by Eris

Post by BTR1701
The book did nothing of the sort. As I just said, the book was quite
clear the organization itself was not complicit in either the killings
or the plot to suppress the "truth".

Post by z***@yahoo.com
It's one thing for Brown to take on the Catholic Church as a whole.
That's a big enough organization that everybody reading the book (or
seeing the film) will probably have already made up their opinion about
it. But I don't think it's fair to do it to this Opus Dei.

Life isn't fair.

[Pastor Kutchie]

<snip>

Because none of what you illegally copied & pasted alters the fact that
your - and Klinghofer and Bin Laden's death cult is 492 years beyond
its shelf life.

[Mike Schilling]

Post by Sound of Trumpet
The Da Vinci Protocols
Jews should worry about Dan Brown's success.

Naaah, we still control 99.8% of the world's wealth. But that Rowling broad
had better watch her step..

[Mark K. Bilbo]

Previously, on alt.atheism, Sound of Trumpet in episode

Post by Sound of Trumpet
Jews should worry about Dan Brown's success.

Talk about getting desperate. You folks noticing how resoundingly
unconcerned everybody else is about a mediocre fiction novel?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]

http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC

"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com

[raven1]

On 6 May 2006 15:14:46 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"

Post by Sound of Trumpet
Absolutely. Jews in particular need to be aware of the gift
mega-selling Dan Brown has given, in all innocence, to anti-Semites.

Anything like the gift that Mel Gibson gave to anti-Semites with "The
Passion of the Christ"?
--

"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"

[Jon Schild]

Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDY0YmNhMjc5YThmZWIxY2VjNmM3MWE0YjU1MDFhYTg=
May 05, 2006, 7:17 a.m.
The Da Vinci Protocols
Jews should worry about Dan Brown's success.
By David Klinghoffer
With less than three weeks before the May 19 release of the Sony
Pictures version of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, worries continue to
mount among Christians about both the book's and the movie's
impact. But should non-Christians be concerned, too?

There will be no impact on anyone who is smart enough to realize that it
is a novel, and by definition fiction.

[Michael Gray]

Post by Jon Schild

Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDY0YmNhMjc5YThmZWIxY2VjNmM3MWE0YjU1MDFhYTg=
May 05, 2006, 7:17 a.m.
The Da Vinci Protocols
Jews should worry about Dan Brown's success.
By David Klinghoffer
With less than three weeks before the May 19 release of the Sony
Pictures version of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, worries continue to
mount among Christians about both the book's and the movie's
impact. But should non-Christians be concerned, too?

There will be no impact on anyone who is smart enough to realize that it
is a novel, and by definition fiction.

Billions of people are not smart enough to recognise that the Bible is
a work of fiction.

--

[George Peatty]

Post by Michael Gray
Billions of people are not smart enough to recognise that the Bible is
a work of fiction.

Billions of people have enough faith to believe its contents and its Author
..











__

This space left blank

*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

[Alric Knebel]

Post by George Peatty

Post by Michael Gray
Billions of people are not smart enough to recognise that the Bible is
a work of fiction.

Billions of people have enough faith to believe its contents and its Author

Enough faith, and gullible enough to throw it away on just one more
religious tract in a world full of religious tracts.

[BTR1701]

On Sun, 07 May 2006 12:10:36 +0930, Michael Gray

Post by Michael Gray
Billions of people are not smart enough to recognise that the Bible is
a work of fiction.

Billions of people have enough faith to believe its contents and its Author

Yep. And once upon a time the vast majority of the world's population
believed the world was flat, too. Didn't make them right. It just meant
a lot of people were fooled.

The "appeal to popularity" is one of the classic logical fallacies.

[Michael Gray]

On Sat, 06 May 2006 23:04:11 -0400, George Peatty

Post by George Peatty

Post by Michael Gray
Billions of people are not smart enough to recognise that the Bible is
a work of fiction.

Billions of people have enough faith to believe its contents and its Author

Billions of people believe in astrology, homeopathy, crystal healing,
voting Republican, telekinesis, astral travelling, predicting the
future, alien abductions, and countless other forms of patent
irrational rubbish too.

Your sweeping implication that sheer popularity makes something
neccessarily correct is preposterously naive.
(And quite wrong)

--

[wbarwell]

Post by George Peatty

Post by Michael Gray
Billions of people are not smart enough to recognise that the Bible is
a work of fiction.

Billions of people have enough faith to believe its contents and its
Author ..

No, there is no god, its a book written by morons.

And even so, the moron believers will not follow the commands of their own
Jesus these morons loudly procvclaim is son of god or even god himself.

That failure right there shows these morions are indeed morons who really do
not bvelieve what they loudly claim they believe in their deluded asnd
confused states of mind, if you can call it a mind at all.

Jesus says divorces are forbidden, the nutters divorce each other
all the time. Jesus says prayer is to be private, the idoits want public
prayer everywhere. Jesus says sell all you have and give to the poor.
No christains do this.

Morons the entire lot.

[FED UP]

Post by Michael Gray
Billions of people are not smart enough to recognise that the Bible is
a work of fiction.

So you define yourself as superior to all these billions ?
I note that most of the greatest minds of human history also were
devout believers.
And you define yourself superior to all these ?

Oh I'm sure you'll reply "Well those people of the past, they didn't
have access to all our science."

Our science in no way disproves the existence of God. Not in the
anyway.

You atheist here cannot understand religion I notice. You miss the
point completely.
It has nothing at all to do with proof.
You such obvious pride in your weak logic...even when we know that
logic falls so short when we
get down to any DEEP understanding of the universe in which the
paradox roams.

I also notice that athiest/existentialist gurus like Sartre in the end
suggest that since the
universe has no purpose (his thinking), just make up something to
create a meaning or you life.
Given that, what the heck is wrong with Christianity to you people ?
It's as good as anything else isn't it ? It WORKS for many people
obviously.
Or is it that you are fascist, in demanding that others MUST adopt
YOUR made up meaning to life.

By the way....how's your made up meaningless existence going for all
you atheist ?

I'll keep my REAL Christianity thank you. Dan Brown is no threat
either....merely another
anti-Christ pimple.

Yes Christianity works in REAL ways that none of you atheist came even
begin to grasp.

And all your attempts to destroy religion WILL fail because you've
nothing at all to offer to replace it.

[Eris]

Post by FED UP

Post by Michael Gray
Billions of people are not smart enough to recognise that the Bible is
a work of fiction.

So you define yourself as superior to all these billions ?
I note that most of the greatest minds of human history also were
devout believers.
And you define yourself superior to all these ?

Whom? and leave all of the saints.especially Aquinas

Post by FED UP
Oh I'm sure you'll reply "Well those people of the past, they didn't
have access to all our science."
Our science in no way disproves the existence of God. Not in the
anyway.
You atheist here cannot understand religion I notice. You miss the
point completely.
It has nothing at all to do with proof.
You such obvious pride in your weak logic...even when we know that
logic falls so short when we
get down to any DEEP understanding of the universe in which the
paradox roams.
I also notice that athiest/existentialist gurus like Sartre in the end
suggest that since the
universe has no purpose (his thinking), just make up something to
create a meaning or you life.
Given that, what the heck is wrong with Christianity to you people ?
It's as good as anything else isn't it ? It WORKS for many people
obviously.
Or is it that you are fascist, in demanding that others MUST adopt
YOUR made up meaning to life.
By the way....how's your made up meaningless existence going for all
you atheist ?
I'll keep my REAL Christianity thank you. Dan Brown is no threat
either....merely another
anti-Christ pimple.

Than why all of the hulabaloo?

Post by FED UP
Yes Christianity works in REAL ways that none of you atheist came even
begin to grasp.

Manipulates and fleeces the sheeple

Post by FED UP
And all your attempts to destroy religion WILL fail because you've
nothing at all to offer to replace it.

[BTR1701]

Post by Michael Gray
Billions of people are not smart enough to recognise that the Bible is
a work of fiction.

So you define yourself as superior to all these billions?

If I were alive in the 1400's and believed the world was round, despite
the fact that hundreds of millions of people believed it to be flat,
would that make me wrong and them right?

The "appeal to popularity" is one of the classic logical fallacies.

Given that, what the heck is wrong with Christianity to you people?
It's as good as anything else isn't it? It WORKS for many people
obviously.

The problems arise when those people start imposing laws on and
slaughtering the rest of us for not believing in their fairy tales and
superstitions.

By the way....how's your made up meaningless existence going for all
you atheist ?

Just fine, thanks.

[BTR1701]

Post by Michael Gray
Billions of people are not smart enough to recognise that the Bible is
a work of fiction.

So you define yourself as superior to all these billions?

If I were alive in the 1400's and believed the world was round, despite
the fact that hundreds of millions of people believed it to be flat,
would that make me wrong and them right?

The "appeal to popularity" is one of the classic logical fallacies.

Given that, what the heck is wrong with Christianity to you people?
It's as good as anything else isn't it? It WORKS for many people
obviously.

The problems arise when those people start imposing laws on and
slaughtering the rest of us for not believing in their fairy tales and
superstitions.

By the way....how's your made up meaningless existence going for all
you atheist ?

Just fine, thanks.

[David Canzi -- non-mailable]

Post by FED UP

Post by Michael Gray
Billions of people are not smart enough to recognise that the Bible is
a work of fiction.

So you define yourself as superior to all these billions ?

There are billions of faithful whose faith happens to be something
other than Christianity. There are more of them that there are
Christians. So no matter which, if any, of the world's competing
faiths is right, most faithful people are faithful to falsehoods.

Faith misleads. QED.

[Rich]

On 6 May 2006 15:14:46 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"

Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDY0YmNhMjc5YThmZWIxY2VjNmM3MWE0YjU1MDFhYTg=
May 05, 2006, 7:17 a.m.
The Da Vinci Protocols
Jews should worry about Dan Brown's success.
By David Klinghoffer
With less than three weeks before the May 19 release of the Sony
Pictures version of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, worries continue to
mount among Christians about both the book's and the movie's
impact. But should non-Christians be concerned, too?
Absolutely. Jews in particular need to be aware of the gift
mega-selling Dan Brown has given, in all innocence, to anti-Semites.

Fascinating. But what the whole article says is that the writer (and
all Jews) just HATE being out of the limelight, even for a second.
This movie centres around Christian beliefs, but how can you discuss
them without discussing the centre of the universe, the Jews?
Mention anything about WW2, the Holocaust HAS to come up, no
matter how narrow the particular WW2 discussion happens to be.
Mention the Middle East, in any context, and discussion related to
Jews HAS to come up. Nihilistic, ethno-religio centric ass-----s.
The DaVinci Code's take on Christianity? What is that compared to
the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and it's effect on the
perception of the Jews?! Yes, let us centre ALL actions and
discussions around a race who make up less than 20 million people
in a World of 6 billion!

[f***@verizon.net]

Post by Rich

Post by Sound of Trumpet
With less than three weeks before the May 19 release of the Sony
Pictures version of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, worries continue to
mount among Christians about both the book's and the movie's
impact. But should non-Christians be concerned, too?
Absolutely. Jews in particular need to be aware of the gift
mega-selling Dan Brown has given, in all innocence, to anti-Semites.

Fascinating. But what the whole article says is that the writer (and
all Jews) just HATE being out of the limelight, even for a second.
This movie centres around Christian beliefs, but how can you discuss
them without discussing the centre of the universe, the Jews?

Gee, just when you think bigots can't get any dumber, here comes "Rich"....

Susan

[RichA]

Please, notice us, notice us! WE are the important ones!!!
It's like someone seeing their best friend killed then turning
to the person next to them and saying, "But how does this
effect me??!!"
Centre of the universe.