Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Salmon Rusdie never did the nasty with Carla Bruni.
Posted on 04/08/2009 7:54:05 AM PDT by presidio9
It was described as a “phantasmagorical cocktail of inventions”, a “masonic plot” and a “pot pourri of lies”. Now a nervous Vatican is braced for the sequel to The Da Vinci Code and the return of its nemesis, Dan Brown.
Angels & Demonsis the latest Brown thriller to be turned into a film, and already the Catholic Church is agonising over how best to respond: to urge the faithful to boycott the film, or to ignore it? The Vatican and the Italian Catholic Church condemned The Da Vinci Codein its book and film version, but some church officials argued that the campaign against it merely boosted the public’s curiosity by giving it the “oxygen of publicity”.
The plot ofAngels & Demonshas all the ingredients to worry the cardinals: a sinister elite known as the Illuminati wants to destroy the Vatican using an antimatter bomb made with material stolen from the physics experiment at the CERN laboratory in Switzerland.
The film is to be released in Italy on May 13 and in Britain a day later, as Pope Benedict XVI finishes his tour of the Holy Land. A strong reaction is more likely because the antiDa Vinci campaign was led by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, then Archbishop of Genoa and now the Vatican’s Secretary of State – and as such the Pope’s right-hand man. Gianni Gennari, a leading theologian and a columnist for Avvenire, the newspaper of the Italian bishops, called on Catholics to boycott Angels & Demons, accusing the film-makers of “exploiting the Church to swell takings at the box office”. He said the film was part of a plot to undermine the credibility of the Church.
Archbishop Velasio De Paolis,
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
Of course I am not saying that. Didn't you read the book, or are you just trying to be argumentative. The book implied that various alternative gospels were hunted down and destroyed by Constantine at or around the time of the Council of Nicaea. This is demonstrably untrue, because we have something like 8 complete copies of the New Testament from the 1st century, but no one can reliably date any of the others to before the third century, and some of them were clearly written after Nicaea.
This is of course only one example. In case you are wondering, people who ran the Catholic Church not only burned books, but stole, tortured, murdered and waged unjust wars over the course of history. None of this makes anything Dan Brown has to say plausible. Virtually every "fact" he uses to weave his story is demonstrably wrong.
It is a well-documented fact that libertarians tend to be people with little understanding of the role that spirituality plays in a functioning society. In the case of this society, it was the Christian beliefs of our Founding Fathers. Ronald Reagan was a religious man to. Conservatives can never be content to "live and let live," as libertarians would have us do. We are all responsible to our fellow man, and that includes the criminals who pay the price by damaging our society with drugs.
The book is just a book to you because you are libertarian, and it does not attack the things you believe. I suspect that if you had a religion, it would still be just a book to you. And don't tell me that I don't know you. Just like Nancy Pelosi can't be Catholic and pro-choice at the same time, it is a philosophical impossibility for a person to be an honest libertarian and at the same time be practicing Judiasm or Christianity.
Actually, he claimed the stories are fiction. As far as he is concerned, the research behind them is accurate, if slighlty exagerated.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Salmon Rusdie never did the nasty with Carla Bruni.
My Jesuit religion teacher at Fordham Prep played Father Dyer in that film, the next role credited after Linda Blair. He did so with the Church's approval, because the movie did not contradict Catholic Doctrine. Get it? The Church understood that the movie was total fantasy.
Does it even state that, do biased readers dwell on every attention payed the Mary. Of course she (he) mentions these simple gestures. The book is supposedly told from her perspective. It it was definitely written no earlier than the mid second century AD, by Gnostics, an antient faith that tried to incorporate Christian beliefs at that time. In other words, the agenda of this book is not primarily an accurate presentation of the facts. Did I mention that we only have about half of the original document? How can anyone honestly infer anything from that?
By the way, the secret pot luck dinner is next week. I got you down for the secret potato salad. Don't tell anyone.
I do not think that the term 'honestly' does not belong in a discussion of Dan Brown.
Oops -- I think that the term 'honestly' does not belong in a discussion of Dan Brown.
If I had any anti-matter, would it matter?
What do I care if RR was a religious man? He has nothing to do with the conversation ...
And don't tell me that I don't know you.
You don't know me.
and that includes the criminals who pay the price by damaging our society with drugs.
God created drugs. God created man. God wants man to do drugs. How hard is that to understand? Our founding fathers never envisioned restriction on ones freedom to the point that it is today.
LOL: George Washington. Whiskey Rebellion. Look it up.
Big difference.
Big difference how?
Taxing a product is a lot DIFFERENT than outlawing a product; I'd love to be able to pay tax on marijuana, unfortunately this is not allowed, as marijuana is banned PERIOD.
Anyone who has ever begun a sentence "I'd love to be able to pay tax on..." has no business posting to FR.
"No Taxation Without Representation!" James Otis? Jonathan Mayhew? I know, I know, you can't recall those individuals at the moment ...
Regulating a product through taxation is the same thing as making it illegal for citizens who can't afford to pay the tax.
And I'm silly. Hello. You can not possess marijuana at all. It's banned. Do you understand that? Did you just smoke? Are you high?
No constitutional amendment, no popular vote ... but that's ok. Who cares about the constitution ...
Taxation would be a much better alternative than having it outlawed ...
Personally, I don't smoke, drink or use drugs,
I already knew that, being a member of the perfect conservative organization here on FR, you have no vices, and do everything PERFECT ...
Just like YOU know me, I know YOU.
Here in NY, Unelected Governor Patterson i
The public knows that if an elected official is unable to finish his/her term, the official who ranks next in line takes over official duties ...
It seems to me like you do not like the constitution at all, or only when it supports your personal opinion.
I'd love to be able to pay tax on..." has no business posting to FR.
Individuals who support something as unconstitutional as the WOD have no business living in the United States of America, yet alone being able to vote.
The Whiskey Rebellion settled this issue... Government has always taxed individuals ... Taxes are never going to go away ...
Individuals living in reality know this, but we also know that if we press the issue harder, vote in member of congress who will not raise taxes, we can have very low taxes ...
Since you turned this thread into something that has nothing at all to do with the subject at hand, I'm concluding with this:
I can't wait for Dan Browns Da Vinci Code sequel to come out.
If the Catholic Church does not like it, they do not have to read it ... Simple solution.
God still loves me for reading the Da Vinci Code. And god will still love me for reading the sequel. God still loves you too, even if you are misguided on many many issues ...
Since the drugs have clearly clouded your thinking, I have no problem abandoning this discussion. Ronald Reagan was the main architect of the Drug War as we know it. I'm a Conservative, and that's more than good enough for me.
If the Catholic Church does not like it, they do not have to read it ... Simple solution.
God still loves me for reading the Da Vinci Code. And god will still love me for reading the sequel. God still loves you too, even if you are misguided on many many issues ...
You really are a silly man. The Catholic Church has a third option which they are exercising. They can point out where the book is wrong, and refuse the moviemakers the right to shoot scenes on the Church's property. This is the appropriate response, and it is exactly what the Church is doing. The Church does not, of course, have the right to ban a book anymore, but it does have the right to criticize anything it disagrees with. I'm not sure why this is a difficult point for you.
Just so you know, I read both the da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons. You won't need to wait for any sequel. It was published first. In the future, you might want to read the article before jumping into the thread. Otherwise it looks even more like you have no idea what you're talking about.
Good.
Ronald Reagan was the main architect of the Drug War as we know it.
Nooo! You just said you were going to abandon this discussion. What's wrong with you? And drugs are clouding up my thinking ... Ha!
I'm a Conservative,
Don't you mean Perfect Conservative?
I'm not sure why this is a difficult point for you.
The church can respond, but no one can respond to the church!!!
If I make a final point in the last paragraph, I am ending the discussion, not continuing it. You're probably just mad because I took the time to restate the fact that legalized drugs can never have a place in Reagan Conservatism. And that's what 99% of us are here: Reagan Conservatives.
The church can respond, but no one can respond to the church!!!
Um, no. Your only purpose on this thread was the fact that you didn't like Catholics complaining about a book. Of course, Catholics are free to complain about anything they want to. As a matter of fact, they are more justified, because the book specificially lies about and attacks their faith. Then you attack them for defending themselves. This makes you not just a hypocrite, but a buysbody.
After having this discussion with you, I can now say I know you. "And don't tell me that I don't know you" (sound familiar)
You seem to hate independent thinkers or libertarians, or moderate Republicans. Everyone without your exact political view is a RINO, or is worst than a democrat.
You claim to promote a conservative agenda, but battle others whose political views are not far off from your own ... all the while avoiding conflict from ultra liberals at all costs ...
You have made not a single argument using facts (which most WOD supporters never do). You can not offer a valid explanation as to why the United States Government has continued to conspire against the American people's freedom and liberty by enforcing unconstitutional drug laws for the last 50+ years.
You claim to be a conservative, yet you support unconstitutional actions.
If I make a final point in the last paragraph, I am ending the discussion, not continuing it.
You keep on continuing the discussion ... You have not ended it yet.
And that's what 99% of us are here: Reagan Conservatives.
Ask 5 different people on FR what a Reagan Conservative is and you'll get 5 different answers.
If you mean you would do everything exactly how RR would do things, then you better start hiring more Spanish interpreters, as you gotta sign into law that Amnesty.
Anyway, You do not speak for 99% of Free Republic.
Yes, RR was a good president. Ronald Reagan was President from 1980 to 1988. It is now 2009. Events 21 years ago do not reflect events today.
Your attempts to score cheap points from fellow Freepers by invoking RR's name has failed ...
But this has nothing to do with RR or other people on FR. It's your personal anger against a subject that should be a no-brainier for any supporters of the constitution.
Your only purpose on this thread was the fact that you didn't like Catholics complaining about a book.
It appears your only purpose was to waste bandwidth while trying to blast me for anything and everything you can dream of ...
This makes you not just a hypocrite, but a buysbody.
Straight out of the mouth of a perfect conservative /s
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.