Posted on 05/17/2006 5:54:17 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
May 17, 2006
If the Da Vinci Code was already feeding the flames of controversy with its challenge to the basic tenets of Christianity, actor Ian McKellen managed to throw a refinery tank's worth of gasoline on the fire on this morning's Today show, asserting that the Bible should carry a disclaimer saying that it is "fiction."
Matt Lauer, on his second day "On The Road With The Code," was in Cannes for the film festival, where the Code will have its debut. It has already been screened to some critics, who have given it decidedly mixed reviews.
As I reported here yesterday, NBC reporter Melissa Stark timidly dipped a toe in the sea of controversy when yesterday she interviewed Code director Ron Howard, asking how he reacted to the controversy the movie has created . . . for the Church! Sounding more like the Delphic oracle than a Hollywood director, Howard offered up some ambiguous prose about it being healthy thing for people to engage their beliefs.
Lauer took the bull of controversy more directly by the horns when he interviewed the cast and director Howard today. Said Lauer:
"There have been calls from some religious groups, they wanted a disclaimer at the beginning of this movie saying it is fiction because one of the themes in the book really knocks Christianity right on its ear, if Christ survived the crucifixion, he did not die for our sins and therefore was not resurrected. What I'm saying is, people wanted this to say 'fiction, fiction, fiction'. How would you all have felt if there was a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie? Would it have been okay with you?"
There was a pause, and then famed British actor Ian McKellen [Gandalf of Lord of the Rings], piped up:
"Well, I've often thought the Bible should have a disclaimer in the front saying this is fiction. I mean, walking on water, it takes an act of faith. And I have faith in this movie. Not that it's true, not that it's factual, but that it's a jolly good story. And I think audiences are clever enough and bright enough to separate out fact and fiction, and discuss the thing after they've seen it."
With the camera focused on McKellen, one could hear a distinctly nervous laugh in the background, seeming to come from either actor Tom Hanks or director Howard. McKellen's stunning bit of blasphemy is likely to test the adage that all publicity is good publicity.
Finkelstein, recently a guest on the Lars Larson Show, lives in the liberal haven of Ithaca, NY, where he hosts the award-winning public-access TV show 'Right Angle'. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net
"Sir Ian McKellen is also very homosexual. Gays tend to dismiss the truth of the Bible because believing it would tend to cast their own personal choices in a bad light. This comes a no surprise and was, in fact, expected."
Actually, I believe that it should be "Dame Ian McKellen"
Funny how you liberal, leftist, socialist, marxists always have to go back several centuries to slam Christianity.
McKellen has always been a whiny little turd. Remember that trashy piece he wrote about Richard Harris not too long ago?
Awwww, somebody didn't get a cannes of pudding last night. :)
What's absurd? The same part of the Bible that prohibits homosexuality also prohibits eating shellfish. Why is one OK and the other not?
Now, that's absurdity.
Way, way too long.
I was thinking more along the lines of The Eternal Jew. The Nazis had more than one filmmaker shooting propaganda for them.
Learn to read. I'm concerned about re-instituting severe penalties for blasphemy. Is that what religion is all about?
The Church is the most beneficent institution in human history.
That's your opinion. Mine is that it was only very marginally successful at instilling civilized values and it's outlived its day.
But Christians certainly have been that bad before, and many are still that bad now.
The Christians arent stoning anyone and haven't had that power for centuries, if they ever did. Secularists on the other hand DO have that power. If you commit the secular sins of bigotry or initiating prayer in the public schools watch out. Why don't you go after the genuine things that are actually happening rather than scare up the bogeyman of "intolerant Christianity".
That's a real Chistian sentiment.
Regardless whether Americans "can" sort out the "truths" from the smears, the goal is to impune the Church and accuse them of evil motives.
The intent is there whether or not it is successful. That is why my beef is with the author and those who defend his agenda.
Examples. Got more than 10? How many is "many"?
Gaydalf indeed, eh?
Seriously I wish the media, including Drudge, who seem addicted to telling us what "celebrities" think about world events, would just as often utilize their valuable headline space to quote everyday citizens:
Joe, the Plumber thinks a Hillary Clinton presidency would be a catastrophe of major proportions and would, across the board, hasten the demise of the United States as we know it.
Bob, the accountant says global warming is scientific sleaze perpetrated by big government interests including the education/research cartel and other socialist entities.
EyeGuy, the Optometrist says Kerry should have been hung back in 1972 after aiding and abetting the enemy.
.......or something like that.
What's more, the left DEFENDED Islamic laws against "blasphemy" and former President Bubba Clinton supported the prosecution of the cartoonists.
What else would anyone think a homosexual could say?
You mean beahve according to your standards and I won't have to worry about you punishing me. Brilliant.
The Christians arent stoning anyone and haven't had that power for centuries, if they ever did.
They certainly did the equivalent, if not the real thing. How recently? That's an interesting question.
Why don't you go after the genuine things that are actually happening rather than scare up the bogeyman of "intolerant Christianity".
What makes you think I don't? I'm posting to this thread because I'd like punishment for blasphemy to remain a relic, and not become a present reality.
What does that have to do with me?
The network doesn't pimp every film or tv show.
Sometimes they choose to pimp the products the parent company owns (tv shows & movies & books). Sometimes the network covers another studio's films (but rarely tv shows).
A series of interviews spread out over several days is "heavy coverage".
Why can't atheists conspire if they are accusing the Christians of doing so?
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.