Mel Gibson Slams Da Vinci Code

NewsMax ^ | 05/22/2006 | Carl Limbacher

[SirLinksalot]

Monday, May 22, 2006 12:44 a.m. EDT Mel Gibson Slams 'Da Vinci Code'

Catholic actor Mel Gibson has slammed "The Da Vinci Code" book and movie for attacking the beliefs that he holds sacred, World Entertainment Network reported.

"The Passion of the Christ" star has been outraged about the thriller's controversial plot concerning Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene. [Editor's Note: Get NewsMax's special report "The Da Vinci Con" FREE with Ann Coulter's book, "Godless" – CLICK HERE NOW!]

Gibson says, "What worries me is that people will take this as fact.

"I'm not angry, per se, that it refutes everything I hold sacred, the foundations of my beliefs. The Da Vinci Code is an admitted work of fiction but it cleverly weaves fact into maverick theories in a way that will appear plausible to some."

The angry star was actually the first choice of Dr. Robert Lomas (the intellectual who inspired the Robert Langdon character) to play him. Tom Hanks plays Langdon in the film

[RobbyS]

Gibson knows many Christians are badly instructed and so are easily deceived. But his objection is really one who feel that this film is deliberate blasphemy. Look up the word. It used to be outlawed for some of the same reasons that there are laws against slander and libel. There are something that one has no right to say even if they are at liberty to do so,

[isom35]

well, it would help if he made Mad Max IV, then all would be forgiven.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"There are something that one has no right to say even if they are at liberty to do so."

In what country?

[N. Theknow]

A friend of mine saw it and said it's a fictionalized mystery.

Just call it "National Treasure" meets "Indiana Jones" with a script written in King James English by an Episcopal Bishop who "feels" God is doing a new thing because His Son shacked up with Mary Magdalene whose body was whisked away by the Knights Templar and turned over to Opus Dei Catholics so Leonardo DaVinci would figure out where her body was going to be after several centuries and put clues to its whereabouts in a super secret device that only someone in the 21st century could figure out.

*sigh*

Well, at least the popcorn was good.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I was commenting on your comment.

[RobbyS]

You have no right to offend the Lord of heaven, but you are at liberty to do so, so long as you are in this world.

But less than that, . Hanks would never make a movie that offended Muslims by having an actor depict Mohammad, and it would not be simply out of fear of personal harm but because he would be shunned by his colleagues for doing something shameful.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The fact that He gave me the ability to do so, gave me the right.

What you just said was that no one has the right to offend He whom you believe to be the Lord...yet, not everyone believes what you do, and I bet you offend the beliefs of other with regularity.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I haven't seen the movie yet (I will), but I don't see where anyone would be playing Jesus in it.

Jesus has been portrayed by many in many movies...including one made by Gibson.

What's your point?

Don't go see the movie.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"It used to be outlawed..."

Yeah...the Church engaged in genocide to correct blasphemy and heresy.

Books and movies that remind people of that fact are quite offensive to The Church.

[RobbyS]

I bet you offend the beliefs of other with regularity. The only way I could offend this deeply would be to paint a swastika on the door of a synagogue. The Lord gave you free will, but if you are talking about the Lord of Abraham, you must know that he did not give you the "right." You are waiting for him to strike you dead? He will, in time.

[RobbyS]

Look up the meaning of the term blasphemy. This book and movie are offensive not because they say what the Church did but what she did not do, which was to conceal the truth about Jesus and St. Maude.

[puroresu]

You've hit on the real issue here. Some years ago, a so-called artist named Serrano dropped a crucifix in a jar of urine. He called this work of "art" Piss Christ, and said it represented his contempt for the faith his parents tried to instill in him as a child. The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) declared this to be a great work, and awarded him a prize of several thousand dollars of taxpayers' money.

Conservatives & Christians objected to their tax money being used in such a manner. Of course, they were immediately accused of being censors, intolerant bigots, Ayatollahs, and they would have been compared to the Taliban had the term been around at the time. The media forgot the real issue, which wasn't Serrano's right to produce whatever garbage he wants, but the rights of the taxpayers to determine how their money gets spent.

But there was another issue. Would the NEA have dared to fund a work of "art" that treated Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any faith other than Christianity in such a way? Of course they wouldn't have.

And neither would Hollywood produce a film that slurred Islam the way THE DA VINCI CODE slurs Christianity. It simply wouldn't happen. Period. End of story. But let's imagine what would happen if they did.....

Well, such a film would not be hyped for weeks on the Today show and other media outlets. Posters for it wouldn't grace the walls of any business. Authorities wouldn't hang a banner for the film on a mosque (as happened in Italy to a Catholic Church with a DA VINCI poster). Public transportation wouldn't carry ads for the film. TV Networks wouldn't carry ads. The few theaters that agreed to show the film would receive bomb threats and violent riots would break out in the city. Half the nations on earth would ban the film, including nearly every European nation (where DA VINCI is doing very well). Anyone involved with the making of the film would be under a Salman Rushdie-type assissination bounty. And more.

So, Hollywood picks on religions that it's safe and fashionable to pick on. Isn't it great that being a cowardly bully is so profitable? Dan Brown & Co. may have plenty of arrogance and chutzpah, but they don't have a set. So they'll never push Islam around the way they push a faith that turns the other cheek.

[Luis Gonzalez]

That's laughable, we will all die...in time.

[RobbyS]

Exactly.

[Lancelot Jones]

The Church has buried more truth than the truth they will ever willfully uncover.

Beauseant!

[MagnoliaB]

"Two thoughts come quickly to mind.

1. If this book/movie rocks our faith then your faith wasn't very strong to begin with.
2. Even if everything in the movie were true would it really change anything?"

I have been thinking the same thing.

Even IF Jesus married and had children, it wouldn't diminish who he is, what he stands for and what he did for all of mankind.

I'm not getting a big wedgie over this movie.

Now, if they were trying to say he had a thing with John the Baptist or one of the other male disciples.....well, then I would have a major wedgie.

[geopyg]

way off topic, but I just finished reading the (older) book "Voices of 1776" by Richard Wheeler. Its mainly reprinting letters and news articles from the time of the war with a few paragraphs here and their to fill in the details and chronology. Very good book and gave me a better idea of what was going on compared to my elementary school education.

A report from American Colonel Samuel Webb, July 11, 1779 discusses some recent British attacks in Connecticut:

"On Tuesday ..they went over to East Haven and burnt all the buildings next the shore..." the British then went to Fairfield and "sent a flag to the inhabitants" that if they swear their allegiance to the King they would be spared. They said no. "The British went immediately to plundering, and at seven o'clock set fire to the town, which now remains a heap of rubbish. This village was large and as beautiful as any in this state..."

"...A child of three years old was taken from the arms of its mother and thrown into the flames, and the mother, to stop her shrieks, knocked down with a musket. A man who was an old countryman, was rolled in a sheet, bound fast, soaked with rum and set fire to....this...excursion.. has been marked with more savage cruelty than before known."

I believe that some Americans returned the favor in a latter battle, but that another battle ended with "honor" after the Americans had promised to kill all the Brits in the fort. Instead the Americans after taking the fort gave the Brits "quarter". Often after a battle the opposing commanders had dinner together after the "laying down of arms". In general it was a much more "gentlemanly" war than what I think of war as being. Citizens taking picnics on the hills so they could watch the battle. Not wanting to shoot at a British officer's funeral (even though all the other officers were present, etc.).

[ClancyJ]

I need to apologize to you. I should not have brought up whether or not you were a Christian or that about the Jews as it could easily have been misunderstood.

[ClancyJ]

There is plenty of outrage and many church groups are giving seminars on how to counter the untruths with the truth. And, the only reason is because they know that many in this world will grab on to a movie that claims a conspiracy theory and believe that indeed documents were hidden, etc., etc.

And, the reason they care? Because it is unflattering to the life of Christ when some claim that lies covered up his life. And, because they fear that too many will believe the lies and fail to become Christians thereby ruining their choice of eternity with God.

[ClancyJ]

True - it is amazing how those that do not believe have no comprehension of the power of Christ. And, they try and tell us we should go see a "movie" that offends our Savior and His message because it is entertainment?

Not a clue.