When the conglomerates behind the viciously anti-Catholic book "The DaVinci Code" were looking for a director, Newsweek reported Ron Howard had a secret weapon: his aw-shucks child-star Opie Taylor likeability. "Ron is not a polarizer," said one. "We all knew the book was quite controversial, and we were ready for that. But we didn’t want to add to it."
In that same article in 2006, it became clear that Howard wasn’t going to make the film less vicious (or less filled with historical lies and distortions) than the book. There would be "no placating. It would be ludicrous to take on this subject and try to take the edges off. We’re doing this movie because we like the book." (Emphasis his.)
This is where the aw-shucks routine goes out the window. It’s one thing to say you like a good mystery with historical overtones. It’s another thing to say you like a fiction book that paints the Catholic Church as an evil nest of lying murderers conspiring to protect the lie that Jesus Christ is God.
Then consider that "DaVinci Code" author Dan Brown repeatedly has claimed that his wild-eyed conspiracy theories are true. The book even carried the statement that "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate."
Now "no-placating" Howard is back, pushing a new movie version of a Brown book called "Angels & Demons." In a nasty article on the Huffington Post website, Howard spat at William Donohue of the Catholic League: "I guess Mr. Donohue and I do have one thing in common: we both like to create fictional tales, as he has done with his silly and mean-spirited work of propaganda."
As the psychologists say, Ron Howard is projecting. That is a perfect summary of the Dan Brown novels: silly and mean-spirited works of propaganda.
Howard claims "neither I nor ‘Angels & Demons’ are anti-Catholic. And let me be a little controversial: I believe Catholics, including most in the hierarchy of the Church, will enjoy the movie for what it is: an exciting mystery, set in the awe-inspiring beauty of Rome."
That’s not controversial. It’s insane. It’s a tactic, just like Howard’s partner Brian Grazer reacted during the "DaVinci" publicity tour in 2006, when Katie Couric asked him how the group Opus Dei would respond to its portrayal. They were dishonestly and ridiculously painted as a murderous cult, but Grazer said with a straight face: "I think they’ll be happy with the movie, ultimately."
Howard complained that the Catholic League "accuses us of lying when our movie trailer says the Catholic Church ordered a brutal massacre to silence the Illuminati centuries ago. It would be a lie if we had ever suggested our movie is anything other than a work of fiction."
Check the "we" and the "ever" in that sentence. Howard is easily exposed as dishonest by a sentence on Dan Brown’s own website about the book: "It is historical fact that the Illuminati vowed vengeance against the Vatican in the 1600's. The early Illuminati – those of Galileo’s day – were expelled from Rome by the Vatican and hunted mercilessly." (Emphasis mine.)
The trailer lies exactly like that. The announcer introduces the Tom Hanks character: "He exposed one of the greatest coverups in human history." A woman whispers "DaVinci!" Hanks explains: "The Illuminati were a secret society dedicated to scientific truth. The Catholic Church ordered a brutal massacre to silence them forever." At the end of the trailer, Hanks proclaims: "This is it. This is the truth!"
So who is doing the lying, Opie?
Movie watchers are going to think large chunks of this story are actual human history, and the trailer has no disclaimer about how this scientist-murdering-church narrative is pure fantasy. The real Illuminati originated in Bavaria in 1776 (long after Galileo died) and fizzled out a decade later. The Catholic Church never murdered a single member of the Illuminati.
A Catholic blogger who calls himself the Curt Jester ably underlined how audacious and ridiculous Howard sounds. He satirically proclaimed his own film project: "I am producing a movie on Ron Howard’s family. In the movie based on my research I say his father was a drug pusher, and his mother is a prostitute, and that Ron Howard engages in S&M....I will present the Howard family as something totally based on lies, and question whether his parents really were his parents in the first place." And "of course this is just a movie, so people should not be upset about my portrayal of the Howard family at all."
He then predicted the Howard family would enjoy it as an exciting mystery. Ron Howard should read this and understand exactly what his cinematic versions of Dan Brown hate-speeches feel like to Catholics.
PS: See Andrew Leigh at Big Hollywood, especially the part where Howard & Co. are trying to tamp down any offense taken by Muslims.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Curt Jester
May 2, 2009 - 15:13 ET by nolotrippenbrilliantly hits it on the head. Sadly, I learned even as a child that liberals do not grasp analogies. They just don't. But good writing Curt Jester.
Good point yourself about
May 2, 2009 - 15:27 ET by Chris NormanGood point yourself about liberals and analogies. Our resident liberal comment posters here have demonstrated that. They respond to analogies in offended tones as though the writer means them literally.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Hey Chris... So right you
May 2, 2009 - 20:16 ET by bigtimerHey Chris...
So right you are...and they always will..it's a given.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
But there's a very good reason, bt.
May 3, 2009 - 00:54 ET by JerBut there's a very good reason, bt. We're stupid.
Jer
→ As I said before
May 3, 2009 - 00:59 ET by Cool ArrowStupid is a choice.
And since "too stupid by half" wouldn't sound very smart on my part, I'm going to surmise you aren't stupid.
But then again, what do I know?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Yeah, but since we libs can't even think,
May 3, 2009 - 01:48 ET by JerYeah, but since we libs can't even think, how can we be expected to reason by analogy. That would be like expecting some guy who can't even drive a car to fly an F-22. Wait...was that some sort of analogy. I always thought "analogy" was the study of the a$$hole or maybe a homosexual disease or something.
I've got to go. My brain hurts.
Jer
Let me see if this makes sense
May 2, 2009 - 15:31 ET by legacyrepublicanI make a movie about the Fonz, aka, Henry Winkler.
I show him to be pedophile and that he sexually abused Ron prior to Happy Days. The story will say that Henry was raping Ron daily between tapings of the Andy Griffith Show and that Andy allowed it to happen to keep Ron in line.
The thrill on Blueberry Hill was code talk for "yes master Fonzie, I will not tell anyone what you did to me."
I will call the movie the Fonzie Code and say to Ron that it is just a movie about what I think it is just another way to enjoy the story behind Happy Days that is meaningless.
Naive at Best
May 2, 2009 - 15:30 ET by slickwillie2001It's always foolish to assume that one of the Hollywood glitterati is anything like the character they've played. If you think Matt Damon is good at math, or Russell Crowe knows his physics, or Jon Stewart knows politics, or Martin Sheen would make a great President, you are a fool.
Oh, the humanity!
May 3, 2009 - 05:57 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsThat Martin Sheen, he's moving up in the world, he's now doing radio commercials (how crassly commercial of him) for Midas Auto Repairs. He sounds just like one of us, the little people. No, really.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Thanks
May 2, 2009 - 15:35 ET by KylerkMany thanks for posting this! As a long-time member of the Catholic League I've been following the exploits of Dan Brown and Ron Howard for some time now. This is another typical example of the intolerance of the history-altering Left that has gone completely unchecked by the Catholic-hating main stream media.
It's ironic that they continue to bend over backwards to humanize the Muslim radicals that flew planes into our buildings and killed thousands on 9/11, while demonizing Catholics - who made up a majority of the first responders killed on 9/11.
You never know.........
May 2, 2009 - 15:47 ET by DanoYou never know who or what can come at you with the dark side of intolerance. Even the sweetest looking person came be a complete idiot inside. You never know..........
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.– Thomas Jefferson
Andrew Leigh misses one point.
May 2, 2009 - 16:28 ET by DustBunny01Howard & Company probably couldn't care less about riots or someone else being beheaded; but - they would take great care not to meet up with someone wearing a suicide vest wanting to shake their perfectly manicured hand.
Da Vinci Code
May 2, 2009 - 16:54 ET by QueenMumI honestly don't know how to respond to this. Howard is an extremely talented man. His movies are among some of the best. Whenever I've heard him interviewed, I've always been impressed by his intelligence, his passion for his work, and his honesty.
But if he cared at all about the concerns of Catholics, he'd add a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie. This would take nothing away from the story. You'd think he'd realize that otherwise he's alienating a good part of the possible audience. I'm perplexed. Maybe I'm too willing to see Opie in the man. I'm holding out hope that he ends up adding the disclaimer.
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand
Oh Boo Hoo
May 2, 2009 - 17:18 ET by someloudthunderThey are books people. They are not trying to rewrite history. These are fictional novels used to entertain people. Do you think people took Mel Gibson's "Patriot" as fact or even "Gangs of New York" for that matter?
Fine. It's fiction.
May 2, 2009 - 17:49 ET by KC MulvilleThen why base it on Catholicism? Why not make up a religion and blame it on them? Let's say that the bad guys were an ancient religion that no one ever heard of? They didn't do that, did they? In fact, Dan Brown goes out of his way to say that he believes all of it.
Brown and his slimy friends based it on Catholicism specifically to exploit the worst stereotypes of medieval Catholicism. It's as offensive as depicting Jews as money-grubbers or blacks as lazy animals. They picked the stereotype of Catholics as anti-science, anti-intellectual, and violently ignorant - which is how "modern" sophisticates react to the idea that Catholics believe in obedience to authority.
The whole plot of Dan Brown's two books depends on an insulting anti-Catholic stereotype. If they made a movie based on a racial stereotype, would anyone accept "it's just fiction, man!" as an excuse? Of course not. Good clean fun, my ass.
→ That's easy
May 2, 2009 - 17:52 ET by Cool ArrowYou base it on Catholicism because if you tell the true story of a pedophile who invents a religion based on the worship of the Moon God, you get your head cut off.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
KC, To liberal
May 2, 2009 - 18:06 ET by Chris NormanKC,
To liberal writers, the Catholic Church is just another big institution to make up all kinds of horrible plots that it has supposedly has perpetrated. Remember it used to be hospitals ("Coma") or the military. They don't care if they offend it's members - they know we won't show up protesting and screeching.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Agreed
May 2, 2009 - 21:38 ET by KC MulvilleThere's no such thing as a Catholic card, that's true. That's because the work of the church is bigger than this silly crap. Unfortunately, even though it's silly in itself, it distracts from the bigger things. It's another obstacle the church has to overcome just to begin the conversation.
Lucky for Dan Brown, the people who are most targeted by this nonsense, i.e., the clergy, are professionals at forgiveness.
it's a war
May 3, 2009 - 00:24 ET by konoYou base it on Catholicism, because Rome preaches against the the culture of death's moral doctrine. It doesn't matter that the Church's economic perspective seems to agree well with Hollyweird's socialist sympathies: Unless you support (or even promote) gay marriage, free sex, euthanasia, legalized drugs, abortion on-demand, and married/women/gay clergy, you are the enemy and must be destroyed.
Brown may have admitted that the Duh-Vinci Code is fiction; but it seemed he said it with a half a wink every time. And every review or trailer for it that I recall seeing left the definite impression that it was meant to be historical.
Yes, they are books, and
May 2, 2009 - 19:57 ET by motherbeltYes, they are books, and they are movies. Fiction.
But a lot of people see the "historical" look and think they are
fact. There are still people in this country who think Oliver Stone's
"JFK" was a documentary, because that's the only retelling of the
events that they've ever seen.
What makes you think people won't come away thinking that this is in an expose of what the Church was up to a few centuries ago?
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
MB
May 2, 2009 - 21:39 ET by lotr1. I don't think for a moment that he (little Opie Cunnigham) believes this. Consider the example of the Stone propaganda piece "JFK": About 70% of Americans believe there was a conspiracy; the physical evidence shows otherwise. The fact is, a radical left-wing loner did the deed -- beyond a reasonable doubt I might add. Truth is stranger than fiction.
2. I cannot emphasize enough that it (the DVC propaganda) is far more than merely "expose on the Catholic Chruch" -- they are a direct assault on the fundamentals of Christianity itself. The primary subtext of the story is that Christianity is a lie -- the Catholic Church comes into play only insomuch that it is main protagonist in perpetrating the lie. It is the attack on the Christian Faith that I find far more offensive than the attack on the medieval and modern Catholic Church (which is also pretty offensive in its own right, of course).
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
lotr response to mb
May 3, 2009 - 00:28 ET by konoExactly!
Oh for cryin' out loud...
May 2, 2009 - 19:17 ET by nolotrippen"They are books people. They are not trying to rewrite history."
Do the people who make such comments ever think them through? When you write something that is anti-historical about something historical, it's rewriting history! The history doesn't actually change, but the reader's or viewer's perception of it does. And it says a lot about the person who thinks it's perfectly OK to do this or OK to say it doesn't matter (and that goes for you, too, Bill Shakespeare!).
It's fully naive to think people don't get their history from movies. They do. Just like they get their news from Jon Stewart and Jay Leno. That's the way it is. And that means people have a responsibility to tell the truth. And we must encourage historians, movie makers, and journalists to be honest, not apologize for mendacity with the tired: “chill, it’s only a movie (book, NY Times article).
Dan Brown tells you his book is historically accurate and based on fact before the "story" even begins. Bible knowledgeable Christians and historians knew he was lying, but what about those he's actually trying to deceive? To excuse the lie is to be complicit in the lie.
DEVIL SOMELOUDTHUNDER RAPED, KILLED AND ATE HIS OWN CHILDREN!
May 3, 2009 - 01:20 ET by Rod PatrickSomeloudthunder was wacko inhuman being who was also raped by his parent when he was a kid. His pathologically unstable family was nasty and dirty manpig eaters.
Do you like it? i hope you do... it's exciting right? And like you said, it's just a fictional novel specially written for you here at Newsbusters.
We're being waterboarded, my friends
May 2, 2009 - 17:29 ET by KC MulvilleI've learned more about waterboarding in the last week than I ever care to know. And the key to waterboarding is that it doesn't matter how much your upper brain says that you're in no danger of dying. The success of waterboarding is that no matter how strong your upper brain is, waterboarding convinces your lower brain that you're going to die. I've been told that no matter how many videos or explanations you see, once the water starts flowing, you just can't help yourself.
Along comes Ron Howard. We're so proud of him. Opie and Richie Cunningham grew up. And don't forget Tom Hanks. The ultimate best friend. He saved Private Ryan, for God's sake! Such a nice guy!
You know, of course, that you should know better. Your brain tells you that these guys are rich beyond the dreams of avarice. They grew up in the surreal world of Hollywood, where they learned how to "project" (i.e., fake) whatever emotion they wanted, and if they faked it well enough, critics would applaud them for their "authenticity." (Jean Paul Sartre is rolling in his grave, my friends.) They make a living at pretending, and they make a lot of money at it.
It's waterboarding. These explanations are so insulting, and so obviously self-serving lies, that you'd punch these jerks if you were in a bar. Your brain should know better. But we've been conditioned by fiction. Once you see Opie's face, you figure he must be a nice guy, and this movie is just harmless fun. But you also know that the religion-science debate, especially about the Catholic Church, is as slanted a debate as ever there was. And that these frauds not only reinforce the debate, they take it to criminally libelous levels: they tell teenagers that the Catholic Church was a pack of murderers who lied to cover up the "truth" about there is no God.
And their defense for these outright slanders? It's all in good fun, and you should enjoy it (and pay to see the film). And there's Opie, hey, Catholics are some of my best friends!
See them for what they are. They're as slimy as any Hollywood stereotype.
The contrast between
May 2, 2009 - 18:46 ET by Radical1979The contrast between acceptance of Howard's film to that of Gibson ("The Passion of the Christ") is amazing. Gibson was derided because it could offend Jews, and incite anti-Semitism. The truth is, the media/Hollywood isn't interested in a truly religious movie. They prefer to push inacurrate movies that incite hatred toward Christian religions, like Catholicosicm.
What/who does Dopie believe
May 2, 2009 - 19:18 ET by Dan DiegoWhat/who does Dopie believe in, Gore, Obama, Travolta, Unrev Wright, Soros..? Put it out there Dopie so we can submit a screenplay for you to direct/produce.
Of course he could pull a Chef South Park stunt.
Frost/Nixon
May 3, 2009 - 10:09 ET by ahusserI know Opie did that movie. I didn't see it and don't plan to but I would bet the good guy in that movie is not Richard Nixon. Also the timing of that movie like the HBO 'Recount' was a bit too coincidental with the election. I believe NB did some blogs on Opie's left wing bias and worship of Obama (or was it hatred of Bush?). Just saying.
Even I, a lapsed Catholic, found the bias in the Da Vinci Code destroying whatever 'willful suspension of disbelief' I had going in. Because the bias/hatred towards Catholics wasn't fiction. Maybe he is trying to emulate The Lefty Director (of Propaganda) in Chief, Oliver Stone.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
Nice article, Brent, but I have a comment...
May 2, 2009 - 20:20 ET by lotrThe "Da Vinci Code" propaganda series (I am appalled that there is actually a Part II), while they target Catholicism specifically, are more fundamentally directed against Christianity in general, for their very premise is the notion that orthodox Christianity as we know it is an elaborate hoax, perpetrated and perpetuated by a villainous Catholic Church. So never mind about "how Catholics feel" about this -- these pop-books/movies are a direct affront to all bible-believing Christians, Protestant and Catholic, East and West.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
Re: Lotr
May 2, 2009 - 20:59 ET by Tim GrahamAbsolutely right. But A&D is more explicitly about Catholic plotting than DVC. I thought the reference to the "lie that Jesus Christ is God" made that plain.
Catholics really feel that when you turn the cardinals and the pope into lying, murderous thieves, it's like calling Mother Teresa a whore. It's more personal. (Obviously, we know corruption in the clergy is not impossible, but it's the exception. To Dan Brown, it's the rule.)
I would love all Christians to unite against Dan Brown and his motion-picture minions. Let him be denounced from every place where Jesus Christ is praised as Lord.
Christians and Catholics
May 2, 2009 - 21:14 ET by KC MulvilleTwo thousand years ago, the lions didn't care about any differences between Christians. Things haven't changed much.
As the saying goes....
May 3, 2009 - 07:16 ET by motherbeltFor those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.
And Ron Howard and his ilk know just whom they can insult and lie about with impunity.
Christians in general and Catholics in particular are just about the only groups in this country against whom intolerance and bigotry are calmly accepted.
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
Rancid Ron Howard
May 2, 2009 - 20:53 ET by Tim GrahamAside from Brent's column, what really gets me about the Howard piece is the very tired pose of "you haven't even seen it yet." But we have:
1. The book. Dreadful.
2. The trailer. Misleading at best.
3. The last MOVIE you and Grazer made.
Howard wouldn't try this charade if the roles were reversed and the Curt Jester was making his Opie the S&M addict movie. You don't really have to wait to know what's coming. The odor is already here.
What are you afraid of?
May 2, 2009 - 21:17 ET by KC MulvilleIt's just a shotgun. I haven't even pulled the trigger yet.
But as long as we teach
May 3, 2009 - 21:41 ET by balboaBut as long as we teach people how to handle the shotgun properly, all is well, right? ;-)
Those evil, dangerous,
May 2, 2009 - 22:05 ET by nadadhimmiThose evil, dangerous, violent Catholics might retaliate against Opie for trashing their religion I guess. Now the muslims would NEVER do anything like that after being "insulted" with the truth now would they. To attack peaceful Catholics and knuckle under to violent muslims indicates that Ron Howard is a <profanity deleted by moderator>. A cowardly <profanity deleted by moderator> of the most craven kind. Opie, you <profanity deleted by moderator>. Oh, Tom Hanks, you <profanity deleted by moderator> too.
mincing words
May 3, 2009 - 00:47 ET by konoThere's just no excuse for that kind of blunt language in a civilized conversation.
Too bad the arrogant pricks who profit from infecting popular culture with their systematic attacks on Christianity (like DVC) abandoned the 'civilized' realm years ago. I thought about adding to what you said here; but I think you covered the most-essential points already...
Mister, don't you know it's
May 3, 2009 - 01:09 ET by JerMister, don't you know it's just libs at dKos, HuffPo, DU, etc. who use that type of language?
Jer
Waiting to pounce weren't you
May 3, 2009 - 10:14 ET by ahusserJer. The difference is it is rare, and not welcomed on this site compared to the lib sites.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
Waiting to pounce weren't
May 3, 2009 - 15:14 ET by JerWaiting to pounce weren't you
Right ahusser, that's how I spend my time here. Roaming from thread to thread, post to post, hoping to spot profanities.
Jer
→ Jaguar Jer
May 3, 2009 - 15:26 ET by Cool ArrowThat's what we call you. That's why I keep my language so clean.
Is that a puma lurking in the crevice?
We warily wind our way through NB, hoping the ever vigilant, and agile, Jaguar Jer won't pounce on us.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
"Crevice" Cool? Are you
May 3, 2009 - 15:50 ET by Jer"Crevice" Cool?
Are you euphemistically referring to a certain area of one's anatomy which is an inappropriate topic for polite company? Sorry, but I must make a note of this.
Jer
**Jer
May 3, 2009 - 16:17 ET by pelicanmarshDoes it count against me if I use profanity in a language other than English?
I mean, if no one can understand it, does it mean it's still foul language? Or does foul language only come from the other person following its meaning?
Im afraid so, pelicanmarsh...
May 3, 2009 - 16:31 ET by JerI'm afraid so, pelicanmarsh...
In fact, I have text to audio software installed, which is then translated from all languages into Enlish that I constantly monitor through earphones like the ones used at the UN.
Jer
**Jer
May 3, 2009 - 22:28 ET by pelicanmarshWell....poo-poo on that idea, then.
So much for going on a tirade in Farsi.
Look, pelicanmarsh, I'm a
May 3, 2009 - 22:56 ET by JerLook, pelicanmarsh, I'm a reasonable guy, and if you really get upset about something, and I feel it would be theraputically beneficial for you, I'm willing to grant limited waivers. However, the proposed tirade in its entirety with English translation must be submitted to me at least 12 hours before the outburst.
Jer
→ Jaguar Jer
May 3, 2009 - 17:10 ET by Cool ArrowHeavens no. The reference is to a Smothers Brothers (Late '60's Bleedin' Heart Liberal pair of guys)
Pumas in the crevices was the comic interlude during their rendition of that traditional favorite "Boil that Cabbage Down"
Please don't put my name on the board.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Hey, Cool One!
May 3, 2009 - 17:17 ET by QueenMumIs the Jaguar designation the male equivalent of Cougar?
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand
→ QM
May 3, 2009 - 19:16 ET by Cool ArrowJer might appreciate such a monniker. That would mean he's an older person intent on having young female partners.
Perfectly describes me too, but I thought I was just a lesbian.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Cool...
May 3, 2009 - 20:45 ET by JerWhat if I didn't really intend it, but simply couldn't resist the seductive charm of a young lady showing her gratitude for my generous gift of $500.00.
Is there a moniker for that?
Jer
nadad: I personally don't
May 3, 2009 - 10:31 ET by QueenMumnadad: I personally don't know much about your history here. But although I can agree with your message, your choice of words is an embarrasment to both this site and yourself. Have the sense and decency to use the Edit function and clean it up.
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand
Ronny specializes in self-embarrassment
May 2, 2009 - 22:43 ET by Vivaldi5To be honest, I'm not too surprised about any self-embarrassing thing Ron Howard does these days after that ridiculous Obama endorsement he, Andy Griffith, and Henry Winkler did just before the election.
When it comes to being a dupe--from Dan Brown's idiotic and Christianity-bashing conspiracy theories to Mr. "Hope/Change/Yes, We Can"--Ronny shows himself quite accomplished!
Heresy
May 3, 2009 - 06:50 ET by adamsmithI'm a Catholic. That being said I've researched many non-canonical works over the years including the Gnostic Gospels, Apocryphal works including The Book of Enoch, and other non- orthodox writings. I have studied the Crusades and the various heresies that ran through Europe from the introduction of Christianity to present.
While I can understand that Mr. Brown and Mr. Howard are simply regurgitating a heresy that is as old as the earliest French dynasties(who of course benefitted from them) it is simply a distortion of Orthodoxy with the Cathar movement at its center. Unfortunately, and Howard should know this if he doesn't(sure) most people seeing these movies and reading these books have no idea that these heresies have been around for more than a thousand years, take them as some new found revelation, and proof that the Church is evil, Christ was not Divine, and why not insist God doesn't exist while we're at it. To present these conspiratorial heresies in this light is dishonest. I don't find them dangerous however, Christianity has survived much worse over the centuries and will continue to do so with the will and aid of God...
Go to church Opie, it does a body good.....
Other comments...
May 3, 2009 - 07:08 ET by adamsmithAfter posting, I read through all the above comments and agree that Ron Howard should do a movie on Mohammed if he were to have any kind of moxie at all. Show the true version of him being a caravan trader, murderer, etc...and bring that to the screen. I'd say his life wouldn't be worth a Dinar or a Shekle after that kind of theatrical release.....
Spot on, adamsmith. It's
May 3, 2009 - 08:30 ET by QueenMumSpot on, adamsmith. It's not likely that Catholics will declare jihad on Howard. That is, in the sense of lopping off heads, stoning, etc.
Note to those who see an opportunity to begin a Catholic-bashing sidebar: Don't bother bringing up the Inquisition. All of civil society have gotten beyond such things. Not so for radical Islam.
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand
"It's not likely that
May 3, 2009 - 11:44 ET by lotrGotta beware of those Catholics -- they might have a rosary strapped to them, or they might bludgeon you with a bible or missal, or even resort to chemical (Holy H2O) warfare. Terrifying.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
**lotr
May 3, 2009 - 16:12 ET by pelicanmarshI just remembered the old Monty Python skit entilted:
"The Bishop"
which was a take-off on the old "The Saint" TV series.
Re mohamed
May 3, 2009 - 11:14 ET by slickwillie2001Mo is an obvious choice for a movie, but Hollywood won't touch it. Anything fairly done on mohamed and the meteorite-fondling cult would cause rioting among his followers.
the dignity of secondary causality
May 3, 2009 - 11:39 ET by lotrTrue, but bear in mind that it did not happen by "good people doing nothing." God, for his own purposes, has ordained that men and women take an active role in salvation history. If Christians are to witness to the truth in word and deed, then it is our mandate to resist overt blasphemy and heresy, albeit, unlike Islam, using love and reason instead of the sword.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
Islam.
May 3, 2009 - 14:39 ET by someloudthunderActually Islam is considered the religion of love and reasoning. Islamic scholars made many advances in science-religious compromise, math and astronomy - paralleling early Christian scholars transcriptions and explorations into Classical World discoveries, theories and astronomy too.
→ Thanks thunder
May 3, 2009 - 14:58 ET by Cool ArrowPerhaps you could name three such advances?
Make it quick, I'm holding my breath.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Cool Arrow, Proof by
May 3, 2009 - 15:36 ET by hydrodynDMCool Arrow,
Proof by mathematical induction.
Concept of a function.
Invention of the tangent function.
Also, if I remember correctly, astronomy basically came to a standstill in Europe during the Middle Ages. Islamic astronomers, using Greek texts, kept the study of astronomy alive, continued to work on it and provided the source for the reintroduction of astronomy back into Europe in anticipation of the Copernican Revolutions.
(Granted, I'm no historian, so maybe this is just a bunch of baloney or an oversimplification of what really happened).
→ Names? Dates?
May 3, 2009 - 16:02 ET by Cool ArrowYeah, those Greeks were some awesome Muslims, weren't they?
Waitaminnit?
If you say so, but I'm not finding "Concept of a function" anywhere in the Muslim column.
Cool Arrow, Did you miss
May 3, 2009 - 16:27 ET by hydrodynDMCool Arrow,
Did you miss the part about how they continued to work on astronomy while Europe slept on that topic?
If I'm wrong about the function thing, OK. No skin off my nose. I mean I can point to a wiki article that says otherwise, but I honestly don't care enough to get into a debate about it.
Look, I'm no Islamic apologist - I think radical Islam is a disease.
But to deny that Islamic culture has contributed to math and science is just silly. If you really want to get into back and forth on this, OK.
As I said, I'm no historian. The stuff I mentioned was just off the top of my head from stuff I thought I had read over the years - if I'm wrong, I'll admit it. My fault for not looking it up first.
I'm back hydro
May 3, 2009 - 16:47 ET by Cool ArrowI'm at work, and can't respond as quickly, because although they don't mind, they have this rule about getting the work done.
I found the guy who devised the tangent, and sure enough, a Muslim from around 790 AD, or something like that.
You're likely much more knowledgeable in Math and science than I am. You brought up a point I was unaware of.
"Silly" is usually a conversation killer with me, but I'm hoping you meant it as "uninformed". I can go with belittling condescension for awhile, as long as it's not part of some "mine's bigger than yours" argument.
Personally, my opinion is that Islam killed off the productivity of the Arab world, unless you count Persian Rugs and International trade.
Which brings me to another observation. They've done quite well in the trade of two commodities. Both commodities were black.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Cool Arrow, I get your
May 3, 2009 - 17:07 ET by hydrodynDMCool Arrow,
I get your point about Islam and I'm inclined to agree.
But back in the day (or centuries), Islamic culture did make contributions to math and science.
Yes, the "silly" comment was a bit condescending, but then, your Greek comment was as well - so let's call it even.
→ Fine Hydro
May 3, 2009 - 17:13 ET by Cool ArrowI knew I left myself hanging out there on the Greek thing. I was hoping you'd catch it and throw it back at me.
I came out ahead, though. I learned something about history.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
someloudthunder, As much as I'd like to give the ZERO
May 3, 2009 - 17:14 ET by upcountrywaterinvention to the molems, they come up nadda, zippo.ZERO
Many other peoples lived within the moslem rule
Let's get back to basics: Here is some islamic science
Reagan VS 0bama
come again??
May 3, 2009 - 18:33 ET by lotrHuh? By whom? I couldn't disagree more. Christianity, and only Christianity, speaks of God (Christ) as simultaneously being "the Truth," the "eternal Word," and "Love." "God is love" is a Christian concept. The passion and death of Christ is considered quite simply the proof of God's love for man. Even if a Muslim came to me and told me that "we believe God is Love" (which I doubt), I would reply "how do you know that? -- prove it". These are teachings about God unique to Christianity. Oh, and let us not forget, Rationalism arose in the West. Sorry, but I don't buy that plug for one moment.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
I don't get the Brown books' popularity
May 3, 2009 - 13:19 ET by carolina09And I'm someone who likes a page-turning potboiler (as long as it doesn't pretend to high art or fact-based history).
I only have the kind of knowledge about Leonardo that anyone who's done a high-school report on him would have. That means I know enough to call him "Leonardo" and not "da Vinci." Of course, there's that famous Buonarroti who sculpted the Pieta and painted the Sistine Chapel, but he's called Michaelangelo.
When I first saw the "daVinci Code" I thought, wonder if that means the mirror-style writing of his famous notebooks, and I decided to read the book. No, something much more arcane must be meant by Brown, since the mirror writing would be so obvious an answer to the clue. Then, more than halfway through the book, it came clear that Brown did mean the obvious! The well-known mirror writing was the code!
Junk. Crap. Blasphemous, juvenile, ignorant. Can't believe he's sold so many copies. Usually a best-seller has something to recommend it...
If you were to die today . .
May 3, 2009 - 13:17 ET by 1611LilacLadyAre you 100% sure you would go to Heaven?
That my friends is what it is all about . . It's not about Ron Howard, Brent Bozell or me or anyone else.
It's about Believing in Jesus Christ as your Saviour.
http://www.bible-knowledge.com/what-is-salvation.html
Isaiah 5:20a Woe unto them who call evil good, and good evil. . . KJV
Lilac: Thank you for the
May 3, 2009 - 13:23 ET by QueenMumLilac: Thank you for the reminder. Now off to knock on the next door. If no one's home, just stick the tracts in the slot in the front door. God bless.
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand
Oh goodie, Brent! Another
May 3, 2009 - 20:35 ET by balboaOh goodie, Brent! Another round of arguing about a work of fiction!
"It’s another thing to say you like a fiction book that paints the Catholic Church as an evil nest of lying murderers conspiring to protect the lie that Jesus Christ is God."
Yeah, 'cause you're not allowed to say that...
the DVC hoax revealed
May 3, 2009 - 21:02 ET by lotrThe DVC is an intentional "fiction"? If this is true, then when one considers the nature of this "fiction," i.e., a story or "report" that spreads a malicious and false portrait of a real personal entity, then there's a special name for this type of "fiction":
Gossip.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
You had it right the first
May 3, 2009 - 21:13 ET by balboaYou had it right the first time: story. Not a report.
Either way. There have
May 4, 2009 - 21:43 ET by lotrEither way. There have already been a number of posters providing analogies that illustrate the point. The "it's just fiction" line is like Jon-boy Stewart saying "I'm just a comedian." It's mass-media sensationalistic propaganda, and it works. One thing I'll agree with you on: It also sells.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
IT IS fiction. It's a
May 4, 2009 - 21:58 ET by balboaIT IS fiction. It's a made-up story, sold in the Fiction section of book stores. It's not sold in the History section. The movie is not being marketed as a documentary.
If people aren't smart enough to figure out these facts, then that's there fault, not the director, author, or actors.
I'm going to make a book,
May 4, 2009 - 22:56 ET by CortillaenI'm going to make a book, then a movie version, about somebody named "balboa". They will look like you, talk like you, and have your habits, but they will also be a racist, murderous thug intent on dominating other people. "It's just fiction" isn't going to prevent anyone who is ignorant of the real you from developing a very poor impression of you.
The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church was chosen as a target of a distinctly libelous story when an entirely fictional entity could have sufficed. Fiction or not, writing a real entity into a story intended for mass consumption and turning the fictional version into the villain will have an adverse impact on how the real entity is viewed, especially by those who have very little knowledge of said entity prior to reading the story.
www.daybydaycartoon.... Proving that conservative comedy is very real.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
Balboa, Always defending
May 5, 2009 - 00:29 ET by LiberalliesBalboa,
Always defending the crazies.
Balboa, how would you like it if I made a fictional movie about your mother, eh? In which I used her name, and her looks. I depict her as the worst possible person every to set foot on planet Earth.
It is fiction, right? but wouldn't you be offended? Think about that before you defend this trash!
Tell me, what would happen if a movie which depicted homosexuals groups in the same manner that Ron Howard depicts the Church was made? Want so see how fast the tolerance demanded by the left goes out the window?
This is complete and utter trash and this is the reason why I stopped watching Ron Howard films and Tom Hanks films.
Hey Howard, how 'bout a
May 4, 2009 - 20:38 ET by rbosqueHey Howard, how 'bout a movie on mohommed? You can even expoit the 9-year old child sex! Or are you affraid to go underground like Saloman Rushdie? Don't you Hollywood types like to show how they are a peaceful religion???
Angels & Demons is a huge
May 4, 2009 - 20:42 ET by balboaAngels & Demons is a huge hit as a book. That's why he did Davinci and is now doing this one.
By The Way, Did You Know Catholicism Is Akin To Nazism?
May 5, 2009 - 00:20 ET by The7SticksJust think about it for a moment. The only reason you mock a religion or movement is because you want to bring out the real ugliness masked behind all the holier-than-thou garb. It's sort of like Hitler's rise to power and his move to create a super race, the National Socialists (NAZI) Party and their attempt to exterminate the Jewish people. Before then, the Catholic Church was the biggest persecutor towards the Jews, culminating with Pope Pius XII aiding Hitler in hunting down and murdering the Jews. It's not a crazy conspiracy theory, you can ask my father that. He is a great expert on the history of persecution against the Jews throughout the centuries, and the Catholic Church was one of them.
Ron Howard is simply slandering an organization that has a history similar to that of Nazism, Communism, Islamo-Fascism, all those groups that have persecuted the Jews since the Crucifixion of Christ. After all, isn't it okay to ridicule the Ku Klux Klan, white supremacists, the like? The Vatican is akin to that particular ideology, plus they were also the greatest (in terms of horror, that is) censors in 20th century history. They were the ones who enforced the Hayes Codes for all those years, the ones responsible for organizing the burning of comic books in he forties and fifties, the ones responsible for trying to snuff out films and TV shows because they don't want to be exposed as the cowards that they are.
FYI, If you'd like to see William Don-of-puke of the Catholic League of Douchebags get his comeuppance by being bifurcated by Jesus, using his Holy ninja shuriken, you can check it out on : http://www.southparkstudios.com/show/display_episode.php?season=11&id1=1105&id2=162
It's only fitting for a rotten POS like William Don-of-puke.
7sticks... your post
May 5, 2009 - 00:31 ET by Liberallies7sticks...
your post shows your hatred and complete and utter ignorance of the Roman Catholic Church.
you are an incredibly ignorant and hateful person.
Agreed.
May 5, 2009 - 02:17 ET by Kelly72Agreed. It's also very ironic. As a student of history, I can tell you that if one were to take most of those statements and turn them around to make opposite statements... one would then have what is quite close to the truth. ^^