Posted on 05/08/2006 5:08:09 PM PDT by wagglebee
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.
I think that is one of the reasons that Opus Dei requested that a disclaimer be put into the movie. There are many who have been skeptical and critical of Opus Dei, but I am unaware of any allegations of violence. Most of their critics are wayward "cafeteria-style" Catholics who think that Opus Dei is too "strict" and "rigid."
It's not a matter of Dan Brown being powerful. He's just a hack writer who collects conspiracy theories and throws them together in novel form.
The issue here is that Christians are tired of constantly being bashed in novels, films, and other media. If Islam were bashed in this manner it would be considered bigotry and every film critic in America would already have given the film a negative review without ever having seen it. Not to mention that those involved with the film would have bounties on their heads.
But since Christianity is the only religion it's Politically Correct to treat in a negative manner, and since Christians don't decapitate people on live TV, we're the ones who get bashed all the time.
Imagine if you were a fan of a particular sport team. You and other such fans are well behaved and never riot or harm others. However, fans of a rival team riot all the time, and even kill opposing fans and players on occasion. They issue death threats, bomb threats to stadiums, actually plant bombs, etc.
Yet, you pick up a novel or turn on a movie, and quite often it's about a crazed fan of your team killing, raping, bombing people, engaging in grand conspiracies of various types. You never see these things being done by the fans who actually behave that way.
So you try to find out why. And the answer is that your team and your fellow fans are "out of vogue" with writers, actors, and directors, while the team whose fans really are violent is considered Politically Correct and thus can't be caricatured negatively without loss of Tinseltown social status. Besides, since those guys really are violent, it's dangerous to write a book or produce a film that portrays them as anything less than wonderful. It's much safer to pick on people who won't kill you.
Wouldn't you get tired of that after a while? Well, imagine how people feel when it's their very faith in God that's treated this way, not just their favorite sports franchise.
Interesting analogy. I don't think I quite agree with it, but it's interesting. And as a life long Red Sox fan, I can relate.
The biggest problem is that articles like this, and the constant debate over the DaVinci Code and Dan Brown just bring him and the book, and now the movie, more attention and more money. This article, and many others I've seen posted here recently, elevate the author and the book to something MUCH more than they actually are. These articles are a BIG part of the problem.
Much of the discussion was about the Jesus/Magdalene marriage angle. Several said "I don't have a problem with the idea of Jesus being married. If he came to earth to live a normal life, whut's wrong with that?" Even the host made reference to Jesus coming to earth "to set an example for us by living a normal life". None of them seemed to consider that (according to orthadox Christian thought) Jesus was God Incarnate, who came to earth to be the substitutionary sacrifice for the sins of His people. Therefore, He was not termpted to "get some" as a human might be.
I did not hear any discussions of some of Brown's other claims (such as the particularly ludicrous one that no one worshipped Jesus as divine until the time of Constantine), but one caller made reference to "a bunch of Bishops deciding whut oughta be in the Bible, and gittin' rid of whut they didn't like, etc"
It's clear to me that with so many so-called Christians stating that the book "deepened their faith" the real problem is not Dan Brown and his book. The real problem is that many Christians are unfamiliar with even the most elementary Christian doctrines, and will fall for any screwy idea that comes down the pike. Those so-called Christians were lost before Dan Brown put pen to paper because they didn't believe in anything to begin with.
Heck, this sounds like the belief system of the ID/Creationist/Discovery Institute wackjobs.
Ha-ha-ha! All Jews
must go see the movie so
they'll see what's afoot . . .
Advertising! If
this film could threaten PETA,
that would tip it in!
You have to wonder what led him to apply this interest to this particular subject as a story, though. I doubt it was chosen at random.
It seems reasonable to me that he holds some degree of anti-Catholic bigotry. He either believes there is some truth in it or he wants there to be.
Haven't these rumors been around for a while? I think it is an interesting idea too. Doesn't mean I'm hoping for the downfall of Christianity.
Yes, as you say, the whole this is blasphemous and anti-Christian. But beyond that, it's very specifically anti-Catholic. I haven't read the book, and I don't plan to. Nor will I see the movie. But it's impossible not to know what it's about.
Beyond the blasphemy and the harmful lies, that will mislead many Christians who are weak and ignorant in their faith, it is a deliberate slander against the Catholic Church.
I happen to have a number of old friends who belong to Opus Dei. They are perfectly normal, decent, family-oriented, and faithful Catholics. So I don't appreciate the albino Opus Dei villain, who is much in the same vein as the drooling, money-grubbing Jews depicted by the worst kind of antisemites. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a pretty good comparison, in that regard.
You could say that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was also a fiction. Nobody with any sense would believe it for a minute. Nevertheless, it did enormous harm. And The DaVinci Code is liable to do enormous harm too.
It's vile and disgusting. Calling it a novel does nothing to excuse it.
Note I used the word "supposedly."
Yeah, you're right. It is a BIG thing. I saw the other day, Google had something about it on a fairly plain search page, and at Barnes & Noble, they've gone all out (at least at my neighborhood's branch).
Certainly, but would to put in the effort to write a whole book about it?
...ID..whackjobs...
What, someone who might hold an opinion differing from your own on this topic is a priori a "whackjob"? Such an open, inquisitive mind you exhibit...
> 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.”<
How would one define "Nietzscheism?" The "ubermensch" Nietzsche talked about had nothing to Hitler's.
Yes, it is.
I read with great interest what these clowns are saying and how they are trying to destroy our Civilization.
What's a neolib?
The book and movie are blasphemous.
What I find blasphemous is abridging the First Amendment to protect religious dogma from scrutiny - through the coercive power of the State by armed men with badges.
"What's a neolib?"
The new lib, more to the left than the old lib. The old libs respected religion.
"What I find blasphemous is abridging the First Amendment to protect religious dogma from scrutiny - through the coercive power of the State by armed men with badges."
WHAT are you talking about?
Neolibs forget that the First Amendment is a two-way street. Here it is, and tell me where it says that Christians aren't allowed to boycott, sign petitions or picket:
Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Leftist? Moi? Oh, that's rich. ROFLMAO! If it wasn't so ridiculously funny I'd be offended. You should choose more wisely whom to attack next time.
WHAT are you talking about?
I'm talking about the headline the other day that stated that certain cardinals of the Church Militant are joining their Jihadist counterparts in agitating to have laws passed to protect religions from criticism.
THAT is the abridgement of the First Amendment I was talking about.
You guys can picket, boycott, sign petitions, and brow-beat people to your hearts' content if it makes you feel better. Just as long as it is peaceful, civil, and without making threats.
I respect your right to believe as you wish. All I ask in return is the same courtesy regarding my right NOT to believe.
(Like dangling a piece of string in front of a kitten heh heh heh)
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.