Angels And Demons - Another Slap At Christianity? (Edited)

[Caution the ending of the movie Angels and Demons is revealed below]

Angels and Demons director, Opie, explains quite innocently with his Mayberry accent how his latest Dan Brown flick merely, 'presents the conflict between religion and science, and no one comes out the winner.' Wrong, Richie Cunningham Breath, as the end of the movie has a Catholic Cardinal stating that "Christianity is a very flawed religion."

It could have been more balanced if Ron Howard (Big Barack supporter See YouTube) had one of Al Gore's many Global Warming opponents telling the truth about the Environmentally ill, but no, Dan Brown has succeeded in duping the public school trained public, again after the DaVinci Code, into believing how imperfect religion is compared to atheistic science. I read one review of the Angels book on Amazon where the reader was surprised at himself for believing that "Angels and Demons" was actually fiction: "I had to constantly convince myself that this book was not totally factual." It is not hard to bet that multitudes will believe that the fabrications about the Catholic Church, as told in the movie, are gospel. Not that I don't have disagreements with RC doctrine, but any fair minded person confronts disagreements with the Roman Church in a more honest way without resorting to Hollywood fantasy and complete distortion. They could have researched the history of transubstantiation, or questioned why indulgences were sold, or why Mary is deified. Still, as a former Catholic, now nondenominational Christian, I consider Catholicism as more of an ally than Hollywood, Islam or the Universities. Some of my Baptist friends are now on the Notre Dame Campus with Alan Keyes. Evidently, a lot of Catholics were not interested in supporting his protest against the BO's commencement speech.

One of the nicest, yet biggest libs in Hollywood, Tom Hanks, grabbed this movie obviously for its adventure and for its not so subtle stab at Christendom. I have not liked Tom since the movie Philadelphia and since he became a big O supporter. Cast Away was good.

There are some differences between the book and movie, but one of the most Ron Howardly cowardly might be that one of the principal characters (bad guy) Hassasin, who is middle eastern (Islamic) in the book, looks very Gentilish in the movie. See above link for more differences. I am always amazed how Hollywood liberal Jews are so reluctant to portray Islamists - BTW their natural born enemies - as Bad Guys.

The move Angels and Demons would not be so bad if the Roman Catholic Church officials were not portrayed as such devious dummies. The Official Church supposedly had secretly supported the discovery of anti-matter by the Illuminati which had supposedly sworn vengeance against the RC - for holding a grudge for over 400 years (yeah, sure) - because it mistreated Galileo - A MAN OF SCIENCE, NOT SO MUCH RELIGION! The Camerlengo, Ewan Mcgregor, a Papal insider, uses this controversy to kill people and ultimately become the New Pope, after killing the Old Pope and a few Cardinals. He fails a la the Bible Book of Esther.

A better synopses of the movie may be found at MovieSpoilers.Com, but the gist is that the evil Camerlengo (McGregor) thought that is was blasphemous for Big Religion to approve of Big Science's discovery of anti-matter which, when applied correctly, blows people and things up.

The bad guy in the move guy is the Camerlengo, Ewan Mcrgregor, who is not just bad for killing people, but he may be especially bad for wanting to kill the anti-matter project which could potentially kill billions of people. Oh, the triumphs of science over religion. One of the greatest examples of Science winning over Religion is Al Gore's book Earth In The Balance - just to show you how desperate science (falsely so called) is.

Of course, Dan Brown has every right to churn out books like The DaVinci Code and Angels and Demons. Ron Howard has every right to make them into films.

However, we all know that if Brown produced a couple of novels depicting Mohammed as just a local dude with no special connection to Allah, and depicted the entire Islamic faith as being a violent, backward, criminal conspiracy, he'd have to go into hiding. A bounty would be placed on his head.

It would be hard to get such books published in the first place, because no major publisher would touch them, either out of fear of Islamic violence or leftist political leanings. If the books did get published by some brave publisher, many bookstores would refuse to carry them (again, either out of fear or leftism). It's likely the books would be banned in some European nations. The excuse would be that they constitute "hate speech" or that they're a threat to public order because of the potential for violent opposition to them.

Of course, there's absolutely zero chance that Ron Howard or any other Hollywood director would touch those books with a ten foot pole and make them into films. If some daring independent producer did so, Tom Hanks wouldn't appear in the films, for any price. Few theaters would show them. They'd have to go straight to DVD. Most movie critics would denounce the films as "bigoted" attacks on the faith of millions of people.

Geert Wilders is a Dutch member of parliament. He requires 24/7 bodyguard protection because he made a short independent film called Fitna in which Muslim leaders are shown speaking. The passages in the Koran that are the basis of their remarks are then displayed. For this, he is under a threat of criminal prosecution in Holland, has been barred from showing his film in Britain, and is disdained by nearly the entire EU journalistic community. The last Dutchman who made a documentary opposing Islam was Theo Van Gogh, who was assassinated by having his throat slashed

But our darling liberals will snicker and sneer at Christians who disapprove of the Brown/Howard schlock. Even though those Christians don't seek to ban this drivel, and certainly don't seek to harm the people pushing it, it will be seen as horrendous "intolerance" for Christians to even take offense at their faith being treated so disdainfully. The liberals, of course, will then insist that films exposing Islamic terror and violence are "intolerant".

So the usual liberal double standard applies. Any criticism of Islam is intolerant, and the Muslims who react violently to the criticism are to be deferred to. Any criticism of Christianity is okay, and any Christian who merely objects to it and points out the errors in it is intolerant.

Of course, this is ultimately not really a double standard but the single standard of all liberalism, which is that anything Western is to be deconstructed and trashed, while anything at war with the West (such as Islam) is to be accommodated and submitted to.

That's the problem right there. The first amendment allows freedom of speech, and even though I disagree with Opie's anti-Catholic attitude, he has the right to say it. I'd just like to see once, just once somebody like Opie make a film that portrays muzzies in a less than flattering light.

I guess Opie and the rest of Hollywood wouldn't want to insult their hero B. Hussain's faith.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.