Da Vinci Code - surely this film cannot damage religion

If the churches could command such large and attentive congregations as that which filled The Empire in Leicester Square last night for a preview of The Da Vinci Code, their problems would be over. We sat through two hours of ritual, symbol and mystery, along with several chunks of sermonising and a bit of mortification thrown in for good measure, while remaining rapt in unusually plush pews. Personally, I loved it. I had been dreading the mortificaton scenes with Silas but in the end they were tame, compared to Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ. There was almost no sex. But there was lots and lots of religion,lots about the transfiguring grace of women and in particular Mary Magdalene, and lots of what could almost pass for reverence. I don't see why the churches need worry about this film, although I can see why some men in the churches might. My own brief review for the paper is online here. See James Christopher's review from the preview in Cannes here. There are blogs on this here, Metacatholic here, Dave Walker at The Cartoon Blog here and Dave Lucas here. (Update 18 May: For a readable account of why any of this matters, read Boris Johnson here. Dan Brown is the new Arius, he argues. And for a selection of the most readable reviews, see the Rotten Tomatoes site here.)

One interesting feature I neglected to mention when posting this blog at first was a protest from a quarter that has not received much coverage to date - campaigners for those with albinism. Silas, the murderous monk, is an albino. One in 17,000 have albinism, and the Albinism Fellowship was handing leaflets out at Leicester  Square last night. The fellowship has offered to brief the filmmakers and has put up stories of real-life people with albinism on its website, where the picture above is taken from.

Even the Vatican was portrayed as benign, although not members of a secret cabal within it determined to destroy the 'bloodline'. There was no challenge to the Christian doctrine of the Resurrection.

To some, however, it must be admitted that the film was nothing more than 'glorious tat', albeit an improvement on the tattier construction of the book itself. I don't suppose the reviewers will be particularly kind to it. 'Not a masterpiece,' says our own reviewer James Christopher here. 'Like an Avengers episode that had suddenly come into a big budget,' said my husband and Times writer Alan Franks who also came to the Tuesday night press preview in London. 'Ian McKellen was like Gandalf after having a shave, the working principal of the Gandalf Academy of Dramatic Arts.'

Predictably, the self-appointed Catholic experts in the field of Da Vinci Code studies were sceptical. Dr Austen Ivereigh, Public Affairs Director for the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor and spokesman for The Da Vinci Code Response Group, had always believed the film was never going to be a threat to the Church. Seeing it convinced him it never would be. 'It was as dull as anything. It was like a long, tedious history lecture in dusty churches by lunatics, occasionally interrupted by the assaults of a pastiche, bloodied monk.

'I want to be indignant about it but I can’t be. The same objections that we have to the book have to stand against the film. The true believers in the Gospel of Dan will no doubt have their beliefs reinforced by this film, and that is sad.' You can read his own Da Vinci Code diary, what it is like to be a 'gamekeeper' during an episode such as this, at the Godspy website here. His original Spectator piece about the Da Vinci Code Response Group can also be read on the same site here.

Jack Valero, of Opus Dei, the Catholic organisation that is arguably most threatened by the film, said: 'Opus Dei is my family and therefore it is gruesome to see my brothers and sisters represented in a way that has no relation to reality. And it was incredibly dull. It was so boring it was just amazing.'

But however dull Opus Dei might have found the film, there was no doubt from the entranced atmosphere in the cinema that the majority was gripped. In all probability, The  Da Vinci Code will in the end not be a bad thing for Christianity or for faith. In resurrecting Mary Magdalene from her traditional role as fallen woman to the propagator of the bloodline of Christ, the film will appeal to the many women resentful of centuries of oppression by the Church. But that does not mean they will believe its tenets. Most women have more sense than that.

It was in the end perhaps a worse night for chauvinism than for religion. Before leaping to attack this film, leaders of our male-dominated churches might want to ponder a little whether its inevitable success is related simply to good directing and a good story, or whether there is something more fundamental going on, a deeper search to understand the forgotten feminine in Christianity, and the neglected humanity of Christ.

ruth gledhill

religion Opus Dei Da Vinci Code Christianity

Comments

[James]

This film is only a threat to the faith of the Christianly ignorant (of which there are many).

And given that the soul of an ignorant man is just as valuable to God as that of a learned man, the film does serious soul damage.

It is always the work of the devil to make seeming lies of God's truth. This is no different.

James

[Malcolm Bowden]

If this film opens up a sensible debate about women and the Church (and I don't just mean women priests and bishops) then it will have fulfilled a useful function. If it also invites debate about the nature of religious writings, it will not be in vain. The concept that the canonical gospels and epistles contain "truth" in the modern sense and that the non-canonical, particularly Gnostic writings do not, is not only contrary to common sense, but shown not to be so by 200 years or so of liberal Protestant biblical scholarship. Clearly, Mary Magdalene was important both to Jesus and, I suspect the early Christian movement. Equally clearly from St Luke is the fact that there were a number of women in Jesus' entourage. To go from there to Jesus being married and fathering a child who survived is, of course, pure speculation and without historical foundation and probably deflects attention from the real issue which is that the Church very quickly (probably under the influence of St Paul) became male dominated, female excluding not to say misogynistic and the canonical gospels have been constructed/edited to support this. The Church also became very hung up on the issue of sex as we see to this day in the homosexual debate and continuing misogynistic trends. The real Jesus seems to have accepted women on equal terms (the women at the well in Samaria, the Martha and Mary story etc) and chose to apper first to a woman, Mary Magdalene, after the resurrection so a woman was the first witness. I find this extremely comforting and wish the Church would come to terms with it and stop its morbid fascination with "sin" by which of course it generally means "sex".

[Marc]

Well said Ruth. It seems that the church has gone into hyper defensive mode producing profound rebuttals to Dan Brown’s make believe story. It’s not like he is a serious New Testament scholar.

[Keith Downer]

I have to agree with most of Malcolm's comments. The Da Vinci Code is a piece of superb fiction in my view and the ensuing debate does has many positive aspects.
I would argue that whatever the reasons for the domination of the Christian Church by men, it is right that any change occurs only after long and careful consideration. Stability and consistency are major considerations for any belief system and in order to remain true to the origins of Christianity, such fundamental factors must be respected and adhered to while the impetus for any change - such as the increasing role and influence of women in the church - gradually builds.
We have seen the demoralising and destabilising effect of government policies in the UK that are too sensitive to tabloid journalism and the political correctness that is now endemic in our society, resulting in hasty and ill-conceived changes to the fundamental structures and framework upon which our community depends. The Christian Church must avoid acting in a similar manner when faced with the clamour of those who seek modernisation and the acceptance of dubious moral changes that are emerging in an increasingly secular society.
Since our community's attitude to sex is at the forefront of modern life, it is also understandable that concerns where these issues are involved are treated by the Church as a major subject for debate. I would disagree that the concept of "sin" is purely concerned with issues of a sexual nature but entering into that debate is for another time.

[Carol Gray]

I cannot fathom what all the fuss is about. The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction; just like the bible.

[James]

"I find this extremely comforting and wish the Church would come to terms with it and stop its morbid fascination with "sin" by which of course it generally means "sex"."

---

Malcolm - Christian sexual morality is but one small (though important) part of Christian morality. All sins are forms of unlove (in the deepest sense) toward God, oneself, or the other.

James

[David K]

I suspect we will never know the truth of this matter; however what I find funny is that so many Bible scholars immediately dismiss this story as fantasy, without once giving mention to the hyperbole in most modern versions of the Bible. Both were written by the hand of Man!

I think the whole Mary Magdalene theory is an interesting human take on the power struggle and politics surrounding Jesus. To most people this is actually a more believable story.

[James]

"To most people this is actually a more believable story."

---

Maybe that girl I dated in the eighth grade was part of the Holy Grail. I always thought there was something very special about her!

James

[Liz]

I find it incredible that such a badly written book based on a seemingly random selection of theological and historical events (or myths) has created such a fuss. The book is pure pulp fiction. If accepted as such, I suppose it can be classed as readable (the prose style is easy to follow if somewhat unjustly smug). But it cannot be taken as saying anything of value or insight on a topic of art, history, religion or culture more generally. The idea that the Church has castigated woman for the fall of man is hardly a new one and has already been articulated far more fully and in far more interesting ways through a host of media. Dan Brown has simply jumped on the band wagon and written an ill-conceived and poorly researched book; it is doubtful that anyone who has any previous interest in the belief systems referred to in the story will consider it to be anything other than this. As for those who have not previously given the matter any thought, at least it has now raised awareness and debate.

[Paul ferguson]

The book seems a blend of awful literature with horrible history with a twist of blasphemous 'theology.' Sure, there are lots of horrible books and movies out there, but the issue here is the phenomenon of The Da Vinci Code. For some it represents a challenge to faith in God and Christianity. Not for me, though. I require something based on facts, truth and intelligent argument. The phenomenon of the Da Vinci Code, if anything, represents a challenge to a faith in democracy itself. Given the popularity of the book/movie, is it so wise to put the future of our state and government in the hands of the imbeciles who might even take this tripe seriously?

Given the fact that Hollywood wouldn't touch Mel's The Passion of the Christ, and the distributors refused to distribute the film because of its anti-Semitism, are we still concluding the Church is so powerful and intrusive? But it is safe to conclude Catholics won't be burning down any embassies. That is the measure of true offense these days.

[Kevin Kingston]

Dan Brown does subvert the story of Christ by going out of his way to use inaccuracies in theology, art history and the politics of Europe to create the Da Vinci Code and present it as truth. Those who have a well grounded knowledge in history and theology or know an absurd story when they see one, will not fall for it. However, the many who do not and have read it will think, ah that's why they do not like to discuss these subjects. And the Catholic Church's hierarchy has only itself to blame for the Da Vinci Code predicament it now faces. Since the hierarchy steadfastly refuses to meet the obvious pastoral need of the modern parishioners' education with an open and regular Sunday school type curriculum (church history, theology and catechism) it leaves the many who crave more knowledge about Christ subsetable to fiction like the Da Vinci Code.

For a Church that probably has the most vigorous intellectual tradition of the Christian dominations, the real problem it faces is not it spending time trying to refute the popular fictional claims in the story. It is the hierarchy's disservice to parishioners and its mission to transmit the faith by leaving so many in the dark about so much about the Church and its message for so long that has cause this problem to manifest itself. Until they decide to take steps to form a solid adult education effort the Church hierarchy will continue to face this Da Vinci Code problem in the future.

[mark wakeling]

Hi Da Vinci is from the blood line of Mary Magdalene and Jesus Christ then he is Jewish. So a nice Jewish boy painted the St Pauls Basilica

[Justin Bikram]

There is no doubt about it; Dan Brown has struck a nerve with the Christian world. Meanwhile, it appears that self educated and freethinking individuals, who have successfully emancipated themselves from the shackles of dogma and assumption, are all fascinated, if not entertained, by this negative reaction, more so than the book and now, film. The Christian world needs to ask itself why so many people have become interested in the controversial historic proclamations of this book with all its associated political and indeed spiritual implications, rather than the plotline itself. Is this a sign that society is finally maturing, growing wiser and more open minded? The witch hunts are long gone and the church holds less and less meaningful influence over our lives as each year passes. Perhaps this is genuine progress? Maybe it is not about whether or not Jesus, did or did not marry and father children thus proving his humanity. Surely it is more about whether or not an institution, which was historically regarded as the pillar of strength and trust within society, may have actually edited and censored information regarding “The truth”, for what ever reason they saw fit to do so. In other words “They lied”! Many of us have been, and still are, suspicious of institutions, which have the power to indoctrinate and programme the belief systems of different cultures. This book, and now film, has served to further our need to question everything we think we know, or at least have been told. It is therefore not surprising the Christian authorities are so concerned. Whether the allegations of The Da Vinci Code are true or not, the book and film may still encourage people to challenge and question faith. This can only further serve to undermine the already diminishing influence of the church. Wisdom is best measured by the questions we ask and not by the answers we provide.
Any piece of art which provokes this sort of reaction in people can only be healthy and serve humanity for the better by leading us towards a world with less prejudice and more tolerance.

[James]

"This can only further serve to undermine the already diminishing influence of the church."

---

Actually, Christianity is by the world's most peopled religion, and the fastest growing.

James

[Tom Allen]

Shame the critics panned the film - the Church simply relax as all this hype is not going to replace 2000 years of real experience of God

[David Kemball-Cook]

In defence of Mary Magdalene's reputation, I do not believe that she is described anywhere in the gospels as a former prostitute or a sinner. We do know from Mark and Luke that she was freed of seven devils. Mark and John report that she was the first to see the risen Jesus. The association with being a prostitute comes, I think, from the versions of the washing of Jesus' feet in Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 7 and John 12. She is described as a sinner in Luke. John's version (only) names the woman as Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus, and this version may be a different event from the other three. Nobody to my knowledge has ever described this Mary as a sinner. Somehow the label seems to have stuck to Mary Magdelene, who has no associations with these events.

Does anybody have a better knowledge of how Mary Magdelene's reputation has been stained.

[Christopher]

I like Ian McKellen's comment on the Catholic Church's attitude to the Da Vinci Code - like a man who lost a shilling and found sixpence - "At least if Jesus did marry Mary Magdalen then it proves Jesus wasn't gay".

[Mike]

A sloppily written, boring book made into an even worse film. I can't understand how anyone could take it seriously. Raiders of the Lost Arc had a better plot.

[Al Faux]

I saw the Da Vinci Code and some of it is quite entertaining and even factual. But I'm not going to tell you which bits are true.

Regards
God

ps. My husband and kids liked it,too

[Alex]

What has done more damage to Christianity than anything else has been the rise of American fundamentalism. This began at the end of the 19th century and gained momentum throughout the 20th century. It is now a world-wide phenomenon with people like Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell, Tony Alamo and others of their ilk controlling the minds and wallets of millions of people. The DaVinci Code is pure speculation. It is a story, nothing more. To become bent-out-of-shape about it just adds fuel to the fire of "conspiracy" theorists. Face it, when a group spends a lot of time and effort in denial or protecting themselves especially with high-priced lawyers, many people who haven't considered something being amiss will begin to wonder if there isn't some truth behind rumors.

[James]

----

It is now a world-wide phenomenon with people like Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell, Tony Alamo and others of their ilk controlling the minds and wallets of millions of people.

----

This is pure bunkum - nonsense. Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell and Tony Alamo don't control the minds or wallets of anyone. No one need listen to them; no one need contribute to them.

James

[Craig Goodrich]

Let's see now -- DVC is provably (and grossly) inaccurate about Christian history, art history, the internal layout of well-known publicly-accessible buildings (e.g. the Louvre and Westminster Abbey), albinism, supposed secret societies, and Lord knows what-all else. The dialog is stilted, the characters even flimsier than cardboard, and the plot pure juvenile-simplified-thriller.

And the movie is apparently a Disney-P.C. version of it.

The book has sold 40 million copies and the movie looks set to make a bundle, though probably not set any records.

I believe it was the great agnostic H.L. Mencken who said, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." Apparently his only mistake was limiting this to Americans...

[Dave]

As an atheist I am often berated by christian aquaintances of mine for not even considering the possibilty of a god. However the moment someone tries to tell the story in a way which is both enjoyable to me, and gets me thinking about religion without slipping into a coma those self same christians get into a right strop. Apparently its a case of tell the story our way or don't tell it at all. A thousand years the church would have had Dan Brown burnt, 50 years ago censored into anonymity, now all they can muster is a bit of a sulk about how its all so unfair. Maybe in a couple of thousand years time they'll be willing to sit down and discuss, like adults, whether or not there is the slightest possibility that the bible may not be 100% absolute truth, maybe?

[James]

Absolute truth for you, Dave, is presumably that there is no God.

You believe in that absolute truth just as much as a Christian believes in the absolute truth that God exists.

You are just as much a creature of faith as a Christian.

The big difference of course is that Christians find there to be tons of indirect (and sometimes direct) evidence for the existence of God - and that their consciences, that evidence, and the revelation from Christ and the Bible fit together very well and neatly.

Something to think about.

James

[Colin Cumner]

No, of course it doesn't. How many times have we been told the book and film are works of fiction. Sure, it poses a question which is worth debating but is it subversive? No, no, no.
Just go along for the ride and enjoy a rattling good yarn. After all, did we consider LIFE OF BRIAN as subversive ?

[Dave]

Well James, as it happens I am not in the habit of presenting a the non-existence of something as an absolute truth. It is true that I do not personally believe there is a god, but I would never be so arrogant as to claim that I am any more right then someone who does happen to believe. What I do believe is that there is something intrinsically wrong in one group of people trying to prevent another group from expressing their opinion on something of such great human interest as the story of Jesus. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, everyone has the right to express it, and no-one should have the right to denounce that opinion as pure unadulterated rubbish without being able to prove that with 100% certainty. As we are dealing with a 2000 year old story which contains more inferences than solid statements of fact, I find it hard to believe that is possible. By all means have your beliefs and hold true to them as you see fit, but it is surely wrong to attempt to belittle others because their beliefs differ from your own.

[James]

Yeah, Dave.

First, I didn't belittle your faith in atheism.

Second, atheism IS a belief in an absolute truth (that there is no God). If you are not sure, then you're really an agnostic.

Third, no one (in England or the US) is trying to prevent Dan Brown from saying whatever he likes. We have free speech (well, at least here in the states).

Fourth, much of what we believe true in this world cannot be proved (like quantum mechanics - you cannot prove that it is always and everywhere right). There is no requirement that one have to prove what one believes true, or disprove what one believes not. Obviously, many Christians believe what they believe to be true - because they 'discern' that truth (just as you discern your atheistic truth);

Fifth, nothing at all in history is provable. There's abundant evidence about history, but that does not consitute proof.

Yeah?

James

[David C.]

I found a wiki-based site that would benefit from your remarks and insight Ruth.

Looks like a ‘Code’ author dumped his content into a wiki so anyone can go in and edit what’s there or add new content. Seems interesting...the URL is http://secretsbehindthedavincicode.wetpaint.com

[Dave]

Ok, I really hate to do this, actually no I don't, one to one debate is remarkably good fun, so here goes.

1) "This film is only a threat to the faith of the Christianly ignorant (of which there are many).

And given that the soul of an ignorant man is just as valuable to God as that of a learned man"

Now this to me reads that in your opinion a man who is ignorant in christianity is an ignorant man. I may be wrong, please correct me if I am. But if this is the case then I could just as easily claim that a man with a lesser knowledge than myself on any topic of my chosing is "an ignorant man" because they happen to be ignorant of something about which I have great knowledge. I'm afraid this is a totally illigitimate argument.

2) To concede that one may not be right does not make one an agnostic. There are many Christians out there who have occasional doubts. Often I have heard the phrase "I sometimes wonder if there really is a god" spoken particularly after a severe tradgedy. This however does not make the person asking themselves this question any less christian, just like an atheist admitting that there is a possibility that they are wrong does not make them any less atheistic. Doubts are inherantly human and do not, in my opinion, have any bearing on our overall theology.

3) There may be no-one of any influence trying to stop Dan Brown, however read enough opinions by enough people and there are many who would have liked to prevent the publishing of the book or indeed the screening of the film. This is however, I concede, pretty irrelevant.

4) I don't think I said anything to contradict your fourth point. I was merely using the impossibility of providing 100% truth to emphasise the requirement that we be allowed free speech, again, doesn't seem to really be much disagreement there.

5) Depends what you call provable and what you call history. Many things in history ARE proveable. However the further back you go, and the more contentious the issue, the less likely you are to be able to prove anything.

6) See what I mean, isn't this fun.

[James]

Dear Dave,

I shall correct you. I did not say in any way shape or form that a man who is ignorant in Christianity is an ignorant man (though given that 1/3 of all people in the world are Christian, such a man will simply not understand what makes 1/3 of the people in the world tick).

So now I shall say it; such a man would be an ignorant man - since not understanding what makes 1/3 of all people tick would constitute a great ignorance. What I did say, in effect, was that the Da Vinci code is not a threat to the faith of a non-ignorant Christian. It isn't.

On other things. Agnosticism is the unsuredness of the existence of God, by definition. In my own case, I believe God exists, 100% (even when tragic things happen). I have no agnosticism in me.

You are correct on the irrelevancy of people's not wanting Dan Brown's book to be published - as long as you are speaking from somewhere that has free speech and free press. (I don't honestly know if England is now such a place.)

And again, nothing in history is actually provable. There is abundant evidence for some things in history, but not proof. (The videotape of what happened yesterday could have been doctored, your own memory could have been tampered with, etc. etc. ) For anything you think occurred in history, there are alternative possibilities.

Yes, it's fun.

James

[Dave]

Dear James,

I assume by non-ignorant Chrsitian what you actually mean is one such as yourself with 100% faith. As you have already stated yourself a lack of knowledge or proof of something has no effect on a persons faith in it. Therefore a Christian who was 99% ignorant of details of Chritianity would still be unaffected by the Da Vinci Code as long as his/her faith were strong. The ignorance of the individual would be neither here nor there.

Now, not wishing to point out the obvious here but if a non-christian is ignorant of what makes 1/3 of the worlds population tick, and is therefore an ignorant man. Then surely a Christian is ignorant of what makes the other 2/3s tick and therefore is twice as ignorant. Unless that is you are willing to concede that just because someone does not believe in something does not mean that they cannot understand it, at least on some level. In which case it must be agreed that in terms of theology the vast majority of us (and by us I mean everyone) are not ignorant, merely in disagreement.

You are very lucky to have no doubts about your belief. You are either very strong of will or very blinkered in your perception. I shall give you the benefit of the doubt (mine obviously, you don't have any) and opt for the former.

England most certainly is a country of free speech and free press, I would have thought at least as much so as the good old US.....OF A (altho we don't manage to get quite so many alien abduction stories into our papers, must be a big cover up), however that I feel is an entirely seperate debate. I am intrigued as to why you doubt our free speech so much, please elaborate.

And finally.....

"And again, nothing in history is actually provable. There is abundant evidence for some things in history, but not proof. (The videotape of what happened yesterday could have been doctored, your own memory could have been tampered with, etc. etc. )"

Wow, with a mentality like that you could fit in really well with the Da Vinci Code Christian cover up conspiracy theorists. For a guy with so few doubts about your belief you seem to be awfully worried about the veracity of anything anyone else tells you.

Glad your enjoying yourself.

[Christopher]

"We have free speech (well, at least here in the states)." As in Utah where they wouldn't screen Brokeback Mountain??

[James]

---

"I assume by non-ignorant Chrsitian what you actually mean is one such as yourself with 100% faith."

---

No, Dave, I don't mean what you say you assume. I mean a man with a serious knowledge of Christianity.

And while a man who knows nothing of Christianity would indeed be an ignorant man in today's world, the vast majority of Christians are perfectly well aware of what makes the pagan world tick (and are therefore not ignorant in that sense).

But where I will agree with you is that I am indeed fortunate in my faith!

Best,

James

[Christopher]

"Agnosticism is the unsuredness of the existence of God, by definition. In my own case, I believe God exists, 100% (even when tragic things happen)."

Incorrect. Agnosticism is not a gutless form of atheism. It means we CANNOT know, using scientific criteria and the rules of evidence whether God exists or does not exist. So, James, you are free to go on believing it if you want to - equally I might choose to believe in the Keralan god Ayyappa. There is simply no means to prove which of us is right. You probably believe in the Judaeo-Christian sky god because you were born an American - and for no better reason. Professor John Bowker has called religions licensed insanity.

[Dave]

James, this is just getting rediculous. You are claiming that a Christian can understand every other religion and theology in the world and yet none of them (incidentally pagans are any who are not of Christian, Muslim, or Jewish faith, not just Christian as you seem to believe) can understand Christianity. I have to point out that this is rather at odds with your statistic of one third of all people being christian. Surely simply by being so prevelant in world society we all come into contact with Christianity (at least in this country, and indeed your own) far more often than other religions and so general understanding of Christianity will be greater than of any other religions. In fact as an atheist I am far more to run into people who hold your beliefs than you are to run into people who hold mine. As I am exposed to more christians than you are atheists, is it not likely that my understanding of christianity is going to be greater than your understanding of atheism.

Incidentally, on the whole issue of one third of the world being Christian, that is a highly misleading figure. It is generally accepted that christianity is not infact the most PRACTICED religion. A large percentage of people who state their faith as christian do not in fact go to Church except for maybe Christmas and Easter at a push. In many cases that I know they also seem to have little problem with blaspheming, swearing and mocking those less fortunate than themselves, hardly Christian traits. Now don't get me wrong (you seem to have a nack for that). You are clearly not one of these. However you might be interested to know that it is thought (altho obviously by the very nature of this argument statistics are hard to come by) that Islam is in fact the most practiced world religion. As such it may be considered a little rich to denounce the entire non-christian world (I simply refuse to use the word pagan in this context) as ignorant.

[James]

Yeah, Dave, it's getting ridiculous.

Let's give it a rest. Interesting talk, though.

Best!

James

[John Logan]

From the beginning the Archbishop of Canterbury made the mistake of thinking that those opposed to homosexual behaviour could be conciliated. He put the unity of the Anglican Church ahead of truth, ahead of good theology, and ahead of doctrinal development through the experience of Christians. He must now know that these opponents cannot be conciliated; and he must be beginning to realise that the cost of putting unity before truth is excessive. In pure scriptural terms he might have reflected on the tensions between truth and unity that come out of John’s gospel. And in practical terms he might have grasped that his opponents would have nowhere to go in the longer run if they broke the present unity of the Church for the sake of a view on sexual behaviour.

John Logan

[Robin Bather]

I must be one of the last people to see The DaVinci Code because I took my wife and teenage daughter to see it just this morning.
Catholics will be delighted to hear that there were only nine people in the theatre but I put that down more to it being Sunday morning and many catholics would have been at mass.
However, to use Ruth's term, we found it to be a "stonking good" film full of interesting codes and symbols together with a fast paced theme--not as good as the book, but the films never are.

I can understand how devout catholics would be upset with their church fathers and the Opus Dei being shown up in a terrible light, what with tortures, massacres, murders, evil plots and ancient bowdlerization of the bible. It all seems to hinge on the Catholic Church changing Christ from a man to a God and thereby giving him a quite different character. Also the mysogenistic face of Catholicism which continues to this day.

Silas the albino monk was deliciously evil and masochistic (nothing to do with him suffering from albinism; in fact one of my best friends is....)and thereby hinges a story. As I was eating handfulls of buttered popcorn, I just couldn't help visualising another person as the obsessed religious fanatic Silas. Someone we all know.
Who did I visualise as Silas?
Well, maybe it is another DaVinci Code for bloggers to figure out.

Here are the clues:
He is a fanatic catholic just like Silas.
Unable to be convinced of his errors.
He has a 5 letter name just like Silas.
His name has 3 consonants and two vowels just like Silas.
His name finishes with the letter "s" just like Silas.

It's just too much of a coincidence.

All winners will recieve a used copy of my book "Religion and Other Outdated Illogical Beliefs that Have Caused Grief to Mankind".

As a last hint,
He doesn't want to be my friend, as I imagine Silas wouldn't.