Da Vinci Code provokes protests ahead of premiere

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

I would place Malkin in the same group as Ann "Thrax" Coulter and Michael "Moronic" Moore. She is a verbal bomb thrower.

Michael Moore lies and distorts. Coulter, IMO distorts and has some absurd opinions. But please find me where Malkin does the same? Again, I would prefer a new thread for this issue.

[Iku-turso]

I am feeling sick about all of this hype about Da Vinci -code.The book was absolutely rubbish and i think the film is also.
And i am atheist but i like good literature.
Da Vinci - code was one of the worst books i have tried to read.Maybe i compared too much for Umberto Eco :hmm:

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Really, I do not understand what you are aiming at. Are you trying to make Islamic danger appear less harmful by distracting attention towards the cruelty of other factions or times? Okay, interesting historical or political comment, then, but in no way it decreases the threat Islam poses to the rest of the world.

My goal was actually to point out that christianity can incite the same fundamentalist authoritarian behaviour that Islam can attract. In Islam's more notorious recent case it was the cartoons and the outrage we sensible Westerns felt toward their protests and how quickly people were to condemn them for protesting. Here we have something fairly similar: a harmless movie which is purely fictional generates a totally out of proportion response (boycotts, hunger strikes, protests) that results in the movie being banned from at least two countries - so far - and yet there is no similar Western outrage to these christian protests that are limiting freedom of expression in the countries that have banned this film as a result.

In fairness I'm not even that outraged myself, but then again the Danish cartoon thing didn't get my blood boiling either. But then I personally view religion, with its basis firmly rooted in the irrational, as something similar to an international mental illness so their protests and such almost make sense when viewed this way.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Michael Moore lies and distorts. Coulter, IMO distorts and has some absurd opinions. But please find me where Malkin does the same? Again, I would prefer a new thread for this issue.

One doesn't have to lie to be a political shill. To me its sufficient if they make their living on attacking only one political ideology while promoting the other. Consider for a moment that with the right-wing in power, someone who shills for them is essentially shilling for the government - you are reading something they consistently write in order to make the government look good and its opponents look bad. You are essentially reading Pravda, since that was Pravda's job as well.

If the left-wing were in power then left-wing authors who promoted the government's policy while attacking its opponents would, similarly, be Pravda as well. However until that happens those of us who read such left-wing rants will simply be practicing our right to dissent That is the difference, subtle though it may be.

(in fact all political authors who write with this modus operandi are shilling for one wing or the other, but naturally if we're political and if our politics gravitate to one side of the spectrum especially, then we won't mind those shills who happen to share our world view... whether its ideological or pure opportunism).

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by scandium

One doesn't have to lie to be a political shill. To me its sufficient if they make their living on attacking only one political ideology while promoting the other. Consider for a moment that with the right-wing in power, someone who shills for them is essentially shilling for the government - you are reading something they consistently write in order to make the government look good and its opponents look bad. You are essentially reading Pravda, since that was Pravda's job as well.

If the left-wing were in power then left-wing authors who promoted the government's policy while attacking its opponents would, similarly, be Pravda as well. However until that happens those of us who read such left-wing rants will simply be practicing our right to dissent That is the difference, subtle though it may be.

(in fact all political authors who write with this modus operandi are shilling for one wing or the other, but naturally if we're political and if our politics gravitate to one side of the spectrum especially, then we won't mind those shills who happen to share our world view... whether its ideological or pure opportunism).

Besides abusing the word "shill", this is unbelievable rhetoric.

I once again challenge you to point out any untruths that Ms. Malkin has stated.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by scandium

My goal was actually to point out that christianity can incite the same fundamentalist authoritarian behaviour that Islam can attract. In Islam's more notorious recent case it was the cartoons and the outrage we sensible Westerns felt toward their protests and how quickly people were to condemn them for protesting.

Here we have something fairly similar: a harmless movie which is purely fictional generates a totally out of proportion response (boycotts, hunger strikes, protests) that results in the movie being banned from at least two countries - so far - and yet there is no similar Western outrage to these christian protests that are limiting freedom of expression in the countries that have banned this film as a result.

Simply astounding. Do the protests against TDVC come anywhere near these messages or the same extent of violence, destruction and deaths that were a result of the Mohamed toons?

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

I once again challenge you to point out any untruths that Ms. Malkin has stated.

You previously asked for distortions to which I have pointed in this new thread as per your previos request:

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=52814

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by scandium

My goal was actually to point out that christianity can incite the same fundamentalist authoritarian behaviour that Islam can attract.

And I answered that one does need to realize that there is a difference between the church and its' followers, and Jesus teachings, whereas such a discrepancy is not given with regard to Islamic ideology (pendant to "church") , and Muhammad's commandments (pendant to "Jesus' teachings"). maybe because Jesus has not created and authorized any church and it's queer thinking at all, but all teaching of Islam has been created by Muhammad himself?

You can twist it as you want, you cannot bypass the fact that Islam's scriptures and teachings explicitly call for violance and war against the infidels (it is no case of interpretation, but explicitly formulated black on white, beyond all doubt), while Jesus teachings as to be red in the bible do exactly this NOT, but the opposite. So when you be violent in the name of Islam, you are in confomrity with it, whereas you are violent in name of Jesus, you abuse him.

One would think that with regard to motivations, this makes an enormous difference.

A quote by one of my favourite writers, a quote that is often given in essays and articles: H.-P. Raddatz: "Von Allah zum Terror?", the second of three books analysing the challenge Islam poses to the West by comparing both cultures' different histories and different dogmatic theologies (my translation):

"In no other culture, not to mention religion, one can find the codyfying of murder, robbery, enslavement and enforcement of tribute payments as an obligatory religious duty. In no other religion one can find the sacred legitimation of violence described as the will of God against believers of different faiths, like Islam has integrated it as an integral part of it's ideology and codiefied it in the Quran, and confirmed it's validity in it's historical praxis. Last but not least beside Muhammad there is no other founder of a great religion, whose exemplary effect does not only includes warfare , but also the liquidation of opponents and critics by ordered murder."

[squigian]

That kind of thing was all over the place during the middle ages; the Futile System, the Barons, the Weak Kings, the Spanish Inquisition, Armadillo etc.

[Iceman]

I find myself liking the word "Shill" now for some reason lol...?

Forshills...

[scandium]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Simply astounding. Do the protests against TDVC come anywhere near these messages or the same extent of violence, destruction and deaths that were a result of the Mohamed toons?

You're kind of missing the point AL. One of the chief criticisms of Islam here is that Islamic societies are authoritarian and that its practitioners seek to impose their religious intolerence on others. I'm illustrating here, with this example, that this is also true of christians as well, when something comes along that questions or that is believed to be antagonistic toward their religion.

This is not true of all christians, but enough felt antagonized by the film (without having even of seen it) to get it banned in at least two countries. And this is only a trivial example of how chrisianity tries, and too often suceeds, in imposing its authoritarian beliefs on society.

By the way, back when we did live under christian (rather than secular) law, persecution, witch hunts, and trials by ordeal (ie: having your innonence determined by your ability to survive being thrown off a cliff) were the norm. The fact that it isn't now I credit more to the triumph of secularism in society than I do to any supposed "superiority" or "benevolence" of christianity over islam. I think it no coincidence that the same societies that seem so downright midieval to us also happen to be theocracies - very similar to the christian theocracies that many of our ancestors fled from.

[TteFAboB]

For fun: The Da Vinci code shouldn't be the only movie to be banned, we'd be better off without 2/3 of all the movies ever released! We should burn the films and cinemas where all this trash is played and spare ourselves from the embarassment.

Now seriously, leave Da Vinci alone. Dan Brown is a "best-sellerer", one who writes junk entertainment stuff instead of literature, and uses the always best-selling conspiracy theme, most of the time stolen from other authors. The book is just another Romance to feed down the throat, the story is interesting and well-written, but is not worth being remembered till the end of times. Buy it, read it, enjoy it or not, then buy the next one.

Let's take an example, should kids be allowed to read Harry Potter or should responsable parents give them something else with less comercialism, hype, and cult, as a member of this board once questioned? I say, it doesn't matter, you can read to entertain yourself, or to fill your spirit (and I don't mean the supernatural ghost thing, just in case). Harry Potter is not literature, like Dan Brown's books, but it's well-written, and intriguing. However, if you want to slowly devour a book, taste the words, feel the scent of the paragraphs, not for entertainment or joy, but for a deeper pleasure, then you'll put a condition, or however else convince your kid that if he wants to read Harry Potter, he'll have to read Hamlet too. Hamlet, a masterpiece, will not entertain your child, but it will teach the kid about the game of political power, and raise an adult better prepared to face the world of cloak and daggers, and have a sharper eye for power-hungry tyrants. Harry Potter will only make him wish magic existed, and dumb him down (compared to the alternative) possibly letting him vote for the same tyrants who have a magical appeal, false magical solutions to the problems of the world (I'm exaggerating to make a joke here, just in case).

The premise to justify the "banning" of the movie is foolish. Assuming Dan Brown is a liar, all his inventions will continue to exist and circle, receiving space in the media, wether the movie is banned or not, so it simply doesn't work anyway or serve any purpose even if you don't like it or believe it. There is also no excuse to infringe the freedom of expression in such a way in a Democracy. Anyone can make their own films against Dan Brown/Da Vinci Code or presenting their own views, as long as it's not criminal (incite to hatred, etc.), where there is freedom of expression there is the freedom of the press, to print books and articles against the movie, if that is the case/necessary/worth it.

It is important, however, that we do not fall into the trap of equating all religions, putting them all in one basket and discarding it. Religions are not equal, if we are not willing to understand Islam, Christianism, Judaism, Bhuddism, or another, and investigate what's particular to them, and why they are not exactly the same, though still share many similarities, we run the risk of failing this mission, never understanding the phenomenons, and alienating ourselves from any person who wants to use his religion against us.

Let's take this event, how many of us know how to answer the calls for banning, boycotts, etc.? How many of you would know how to talk, for example, to someone who doesn't like the movie at all?

"Go to hell, religious nut!"?

That won't cut it. The reality is out there, way too many Christians exist, like so many Muslims, if we ignore the religion and the churches, how do we expect to deal with all these people realistically? Are we better than a terrorist or an inquisitor when all we have to say about it is that by getting rid of each and every one of them the problem would be solved?

I don't want to live in a world where people are separated by their religion. Christians in Concentration Camp 666, Muslims in Disciplinary Virginal School 79, Jews in Golam, and Bhuddists hiding deep inside the Thai jungle.

I have only recently began studying Islam beyond the surface (I knew of the fundamental difference from other religions philosophically but not that it affected the entire structure so significantly), and now I know what a mistake that was. As most of us, I suppose, I was caught with my pants down.

As the saying goes: All it takes for evil (in this case, I suppose religious, hehe) to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.

As long as Christians continue to let Evil men take charge of their churches, we'll find a movie director dead with a cross stuck in his heart someday. Or, as others would prefer, churches burned to the ground with people inside. We've seen this one before, it ended in the Holocaust.

[Skybird]

scandium,

as long as you do not realize that Christian churches and many Christian sects are not in conformity with the teachings of Jesus as expressed in the new testament, your arguments remain a contradiction in themselves. In opposition to that, Islam is very much in conformity with the teachings of it's founder. You simply avoid to adress this major difference. Muhammad gave a textbook of how to act intolerant. Jesus did not, bot taught how not to be intolerant and aggressive. How can you compare these two by saying "Christianity did like Islam?" the church did like Islam. But the church was in violation of it's religion in doing so. Islam is violant becaue it IS in conformity with it's religion and ideology. You compare a true Islam of the present to a perverted chrstianity of the medieval. You compare things that are many centuries apart. And you ignore the difference in authenticity oin both factions.no wonder then that your argument does not make much sense.

Want to tell you that we moved beyond the medieval. That'S why we have protestantism now. and no more inquisition. No inner-religious wars, as we had for centuries. A diverse theology. A multi-faced philosophy. Science. Arts of many kinds. Legal protection of females. You compare the present of Islam to the christian reality several hundred years ago (and even then christianity never acted as aggressive - and as successful in that aggression! - as Islam.) You think it is politically correct that if one says Islam acts intolerant today, one need also to say that Christianity acted or acts the same way. Your demand of justice in argujent here is basing on a quantitaive argument only, not a qualitative argument. And that is were your chain of thoughts becomes weak from.

Islam's history is the history of the - by far - biggest, most expansive and most successful conquest of all times. It overcame all backsteps, all times of temporary defeat, it survived the Mongolian attack, it survived Spain, Vienna two times, the fall of the Osman empire. Not the mongoles can rival it. Not the Romans. Not the Chinese unification of kingdoms. Not the time of the fighting kingdoms in Japan. Not Alexandre. Not the empires of the European powers. None of these empires was as huge, as long-lasting as Islam is until today, and now Islam is expanding - again. the only thing that is different is that this time it does not try with military means in the first.

So again, please pay attention to the difference between Jesus' teachings and the NT, and the church not being in conformity with this, and Islam and it's teachings, both of which ARe in conformity. That the church acted violent when abusing it's religion hardly can be a counterargument in order to put a violent Islam into relation when it is acting in conformity with it's rules. there are qualitative and decisive differences, no matter if they are considered to be politically correct or not.

"Tolerance towards an evil is a crime." (Thomas Mann) Thanks again for that, AL!

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Skybird

scandium,

as long as you do not realize that Christian churches and many Christian sects are not in conformity with the teachings of Jesus as expressed in the new testament, your arguments remain a contradiction in themselves. In opposition to that, Islam is very much in conformity with the teachings of it's founder. You simply avoid to adress this major difference. Muhammad gave a textbook of how to act intolerant. Jesus did not, bot taught how not to be intolerant and aggressive. How can you compare these two by saying "Christianity did like Islam?" the church did like Islam. But the church was in violation of it's religion in doing so. Islam is violant becaue it IS in conformity with it's religion and ideology. You compare a true Islam of the present to a perverted chrstianity of the medieval. You compare things that are many centuries apart. And you ignore the difference in authenticity oin both factions.no wonder then that your argument does not make much sense.

I'm going to have to get into scripture after all, since you seem to be insisting that christian acts of authoritarianism and intolerance have absolutely no basis in scripture and are only due to the church which is what seperates it from Islam. Read the following and then explain how you can feel that way:

Exodus 22:20 "He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed."

Psalms 79:6: "Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not known thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name."

Deuteronomy 13:6-10 "If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die..."

Deuteronomy 17:2-5 "If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and inquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die."

Those are from the Old Testament, and before you respond with "But Jesus...", I'll remind you that the christian book is made up of both the old testament and the new testament. While certain christian faiths may put more weight on one text than the other, there is no such universal practice and the bible contains no instruction to do so. The bible, again, contains both texts and having been raised as a Catholic and attended Catholic school, I know from my own prior reading that there are many more intolerant examples than these few. And this shreds your arguement completely as to the supposed benelovence of christianity versus the intolerance of Islam. Both are filled with intolerance and the fact that Western society isn't authoritarian and backward like Islamic theocracies is because of the rise of secularism and inspite of christianity, not because of it. We no longer live that way because our society is governed by secular, rather than christian, law.

Want to tell you that we moved beyond the medieval. That'S why we have protestantism now. and no more inquisition. No inner-religious wars, as we had for centuries. A diverse theology. A multi-faced philosophy. Science. Arts of many kinds. Legal protection of females.

These things - science, philosophy, women's rights - have again attained prominence in spite of christianity, not because of it. Recall that there was a period in our own history when scientific and philosophical inquiry was carried out only at the peril of one's life - for blasphemy, heresy, etc - and that people really were put to death for these "crimes" against the church. The "church" being the instrument of organized christian religion that had profound, tyrannical rule over people's lives. They were, and still are, the body that interpreted scripture and presribed the "correct" way for people to live in harmony with it.

Islam's history is the history of the - by far - biggest, most expansive and most successful conquest of all times

Really? And yet when one looks at the continents of North America, South America, and Australia, one sees the predominence of christianity in these places and where it was not formerly even known to exist. If one continues to examine these continents a couple other things would stand out as well:

a: they were colonized by states whose national religion was christianity;

b: they were either accompanied, or followed by, christian missionaries to convert the indigenous "heathen hordes";

c: very few of these indigenous peoples remain in much of these places, having in many cases simply been wiped out completely by the supposedly enlightened and benevolent christian Europeans. I live in one such place where the indigenous native tribe that formerly occupied this region was exterminated, completely, by my European ancestors who colonized it.

If that doesn't count as conquest (with a healthy does of genocide mixed in there for good measure) than I don't know what does.

So again, please pay attention to the difference between Jesus' teachings and the NT, and the church not being in conformity with this, and Islam and it's teachings, both of which ARe in conformity.

Sorry skybird, but it doesn't work that way. It is profoundly intellectually dishonest to give christianity a pass by excluding the Old Testament (where all of the intolerance and such is that you profess christianity is free of) to make a point that "only Islam" is intolerant and authoritarian. That might work with someone who knows nothing of christianity, but being a product of one of the most influential christian faiths I know better.

[Iceman]

Scandium...you need to learn it seems the difference in meaning between "OLD Testament" and "NEW Testament"....Until you do your comments here are "shredded" and there is NO compairison...The NEW Testament was made by the testator...Jesus Christ. by the shedding of BLOOD, and ALL LAWS are summed up in one command now...Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself.

That is it....This is where myself and Avon Lady come into conflict because the Jew sees this as abolishing the laws of old yet what Christ did was FREE us from the curse of the law...curse being that NO FLESH CAN be justified before God by means of the law.

The law is not abolished by Christ but fufilled, in following and accepting what was done for us we are saved thru grace and the works we do, we do now in pure FAITH that we may now please God and our works will be found acceptable to Him by our obedience to his command...which is....

John 3
[3] Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
[4] Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
[5] Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
[6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
[7] Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
[8] The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

When this is done in faith a new creature is created one of spirit no longer of this world.This is the difference between Jew and Muslim and "True Christian"...the old ways are dead.