Da Vinci Code

dhu · (This post was last modified: 05-21-2006, 10:31 PM by dhu.)

the book is not against the divinity of jesus. in fact, acc to dan brown, jesus was a "great philosopher", when we know that he was less than mediocre. it does, however, highlight mithras, osiris, etc precedents to the crucifixion and resurrection; this may be the only relevant point as far as indians are concerned.

That jesus may have been a charlatan is not brought out in the book. it is ok to be a lecher but not a charlatan, a hoaxter, as far as public opinion goes.... notice that the major muslim complaint against the satanic verses was not that mohammad was portrayed as a womanizer, but against the insinuation that his scribe may have "altered" the koran, or that aishia had said that mohammad's "revelations" came down only at opportune moments.

the suppression of the "divine feminine" by the church aspect is only scandalous to euros and other christians. indians in fact would immediately dissociate the jesus persona from the nasty church affairs. after all "hindus are more christian that the christians".. and, above that, there is mother mary!!!!.. it was the church (not christ) who transformed the holy chalice mary magdalene into a whore....... christ's reputation as blue eyed good guy remains untouched.. never underestimeate hindu capacity for self-delusion

as long as christ is associated with the euro white skin, he is an unassailable model of superiority for the average indian.

we may even now get some histrionic types claiming to be christ's long lost brother or such... as has happened previously in the northeast as well as in china (taiping)...

dhu · (This post was last modified: 05-21-2006, 08:00 PM by dhu.)

the allegation of hoax is catastrophic for the semetic religions since these religions are essentially conspiracy theories that must be buttressed by belief. In contrast, for us, the issue of a hoax in Rama's life or krishna's gita is a nonsensical issue, a 'false problem'...

05-21-2006, 05:54 PM

Da Vinci Code breaks Italy box office records

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060521/en_nm/...inci_italy_dc_2

Bharatvarsh · 05-21-2006, 05:55 PM

QUOTEDa Vinci Code breaks Italy box office records

Sun May 21, 12:16 AM ET

ROME (Reuters) - "The Da Vinci Code" has broken box office records in Roman Catholic Italy as tens of thousands of Italians ignoredÂ Â Vatican calls to boycott the film.

The movie adaptation of Dan Brown's bestseller earned 2 million euros ($2.6 million) on its opening night, nearly double the takings of Italy's previous top film, Oscar-winnerÂ Â Roberto Benigni's 1997 tragi-comic Holocaust drama "Life is Beautiful."

The film's distributor, Sony Corp (NYSE:SNE - news).'s Columbia Pictures, will release worldwide sales data on Sunday.

"We had an exceptionally strong Friday with sell-out business reported in territories virtually all over the world," said Steve Elzer, the studio's senior vice president of media relations.

Italian news agencies reported record lines around the country to see the film of the novel that ignited Vatican ire by saying Jesus had a child with Mary Magdalene and the Catholic Church hushed this up.

Millions worldwide are expected to flock to see the film on its opening weekend, shrugging off protests by Christian groups and tepid reviews at its Cannes film festival premier this week.

Many Christians across the world believe the theories in "The Da Vinci Code" are blasphemous, and the Vatican has led an offensive against the book and the film, calling for a boycott.

Members of the Catholic group Christian Militants picketed some cinemas in central Rome, close to the Vatican, chanting "Dan Brown remember you will also be judged by Christ."

Many Italians are fans, however, buying tens of thousands of the more than 40 million copies of the books sold worldwide.

Italy's tourist industry has also leapt on the Dan Brown boom. Special tours are running in Rome and to the church in Milan containing Leonardo da Vinci's "The Last Supper," a painting central to "The Da Vinci Code" plot.

Florence, where the Renaissance master lived, is holding a series of exhibitions throughout the European summer focused on cracking the code of Da Vinci's paintings and designs.

Reuters/VNU

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060521/en_nm/...inci_italy_dc_2

05-21-2006, 06:27 PM

It seems the Hollywood Model is to create a controversy and bring in record opening weekends and make up the rest on DVDs with 'extra features'.

I stood in the "Mother of All Lines" in Redwood City today to see this movie. And it was only So-So.

To be honest, I have not read the book so I do not know how it compares.

Later: As predicted it has grossed $77 Million (across 3735 theater screens) in US alone. Worldwide, it has raked in $224 million.

QUOTEThe 13th best domestic opening, but gave both Howard and Hanks their best ever openings. Internationally--playing in 90 markets--the gross added up to the second best opening ever, reportedly surpassed only by Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, which this time last year opened at home with $108.4 million, part of its whopping record $253 million worldwide. 

It has more or less paid for itself (and then some) in the opening weekend itself.

Well done, controversy - Sony Pictures must be laughing all the way to the bank. And Ron Howard, who is Catholic (If I am not mistaken) can say three Hail Marys after he buys up half of Hollywood Hills real estate.

05-21-2006, 09:05 PM

http://newsbusters.org/stories/dv.html?q=node/5402
Da Vinci Code Actor: Bible Should Have 'Fiction' Disclaimer
by Mark Finkelstein on May 17, 2006 - 08:44.

If "The Da Vinci Code" was already feeding the flames of controversy with
its challenge to the basic tenets of Christianity, actor Ian McKellen
managed to pour a refinery tank's worth of gasoline on the fire on this
morning's 'Today' show, asserting that the Bible should carry a disclaimer
saying that it is "fiction."

Matt Lauer, in his second day "On The Road With The Code," was in Cannes for
the film festival, where the Code will have its debut. It has already been
screened to some critics, who have given it decidedly mixed reviews.

As I reported here, NBC reporter Melissa Stark yesterday dipped a timid toe
in the sea of controversy when she interviewed Code director Ron Howard,
asking how he reacted to the controversy the movie has created . . . for the
Church! Sounding more like a sensitivity trainer than a Hollywood director,
Howard offered up some ambiguous prose about it being healthy thing for
people to engage their beliefs.

Lauer took the bull of controversy more directly by the horns when he
interviewed the cast and director Howard today. Said Lauer:

"There have been calls from some religious groups, they wanted a disclaimer
at the beginning of this movie saying it is fiction because one of the
themes in the book really knocks Christianity right on its ear, if Christ
survived the crucifixion, he did not die for our sins and therefore was not
resurrected. What I'm saying is, *people wanted this to say 'fiction,
fiction, fiction'. How would you all have felt if there was a disclaimer at
the beginning of the movie? *Would it have been okay with you?"

There was a pause, and then famed British actor Ian McKellen [Gandalf of
Lord of the Rings], piped up:

"*Well, I've often thought the Bible should have a disclaimer in the front
saying this is fiction. I mean, walking on water, it takes an act of
faith.*And I have faith in this movie. Not that it's true, not that
it's factual, but that it's a jolly good story. And I think audiences are clever enough
and bright enough to separate out fact and fiction, and discuss the thing
after they've seen it."

With the camera focused on McKellen, one could hear a distinctly nervous
laugh in the background, seeming to come from either actor Tom Hanks or
director Howard. McKellen's stunning bit of blasphemy is likely to test the
adage that all publicity is good publicity.

*Finkelstein, recently a guest on the **Lars Larson Show**, lives in the
liberal haven of Ithaca, NY, where he hosts the award-winning public-access
TV show 'Right Angle'. Contact him at **m...@gunhill.net*

dhu · (This post was last modified: 05-22-2006, 04:22 AM by dhu.)

QUOTEDa Vinci stuck in India code
OUR BUREAU

May 19: Thanks to Priya Ranjan Das Munshi trying to play God, the threat has arisen that Indians might not be able to see The Da Vinci Code.

At the instigation of the information and broadcasting minister, who took it upon himself to decide if Indians should watch the Code, the censors have told the distributor, Sony Pictures, that it has to change the disclaimer in the movie.

Catholic leaders, who watched the movie with the minister, said the disclaimer in the beginning and at the end of the movie has to say: âThe film is a work of pure fiction and has no correspondence to historical facts of the Christian religion.â

In the rest of the world, where the Ron Howard film released today, the disclaimer comes at the end. It says: âThe characters and incidents portrayed and the names herein are fictitious and any similarities with anybody or to the history of any person is entirely coincidental and unintentional.â

Officials of Sony Pictures Releasing India spent Friday trying to convince the censor board to allow the standard disclaimer. âThere is no problem about the disclaimer being put at the beginning and end of the film, but changing the disclaimer on the grounds of religion only in India is not acceptable,â said a source.

Howard has refused to change it because India is too small a market.

After yesterdayâ special screening, the Catholic leaders insisted on an âAâ certificate and a 15-second disclaimer on either side of the film. It wasnât made public that they also wanted the disclaimer to change.

The Code can now be released in India only if the censors agree to let it run without adding those words.

The distributor is pointing out how the movie was shot largely on original location with the sanction of the Papacy. âWhen the Vatican did not have a problem with the filmâs shooting and the entire world is viewing it with the normal disclaimer of it being a work of fiction, how can an exception be made for only one country?â

Pope Priya should answer that question.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060520/asp/...ory_6247414.asp

05-22-2006, 04:32 PM

QUOTEhttp://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/editorial/14633739.htm
Posted on Sun, May. 21, 2006

The truth at the heart of `The Da Vinci Code'
By Elaine Pagels

Archbishop Angelo Amato, a top Vatican official, recently railed against ``The Da Vinci Code'' as a work ``full of calumnies, offenses and historical and theological errors.'' As a historian, I would agree that no reputable scholar has ever found evidence of author Dan Brown's assertion that Jesus and Mary Magdalene married and had a child, and no scholar would take seriously Brown's conspiracy theories about the Catholic group Opus Dei.

But what is compelling about Brown's work of fiction, and part of what may be worrying Catholic and evangelical leaders, is not the book's many falsehoods. What has kept Brown on the bestseller list for years and inspired a movie is, instead, what is true -- that some views of Christian history were buried for centuries because leaders of the early Catholic Church wanted to present one version of Jesus' life: theirs.

Some of the alternative views of who Jesus was and what he taught were discovered in 1945 when a farmer in Egypt accidentally dug up an ancient jar containing more than 50 ancient writings. These documents include gospels that were banned by early church leaders, who declared them blasphemous.
It is not surprising that ``The Da Vinci Code'' builds on the idea that many early gospels were hidden and previously unknown. Brown has said that part of his inspiration was one of these so-called Gnostic Gospels as presented in a book I wrote on the subject. It took only three lines from the Gospel of Philip to send Brown off to write his novel:

The companion of the savior is Mary Magdalene. And Jesus loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often. . . . The rest of the disciples were jealous, and said to him, ``Why do you love her more than all of us?''
Those who have studied the Gospel of Philip see it as a mystical text and don't take the suggestion that Jesus had a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene literally.

Still, by homing in on that passage and building a book around it, Brown brought up subjects that the Catholic Church would like to avoid. He raised the big what-ifs: What if the version of Jesus' life that Christians are taught isn't the right one? And perhaps as troubling in a still-patriarchal church: What if Mary Magdalene played a more important role in Jesus' life than we've been led to believe, not as his wife perhaps, but as a beloved and valued disciple?

In other words, what Brown did with his runaway hit was popularize awareness of the discovery of many other secret gospels, including the Gospel of Judas that was published in April.

There have long been hints that the New Testament wasn't the only version of Jesus' life that existed, and that even the gospels presented there were subject to misinterpretation. In 1969, for instance, the Catholic Church ruled that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute, as many people had been taught. The church blamed the error on Pope Gregory the Great, who in 591 AD gave a sermon in which he apparently conflated several women in the Bible, including Mary Magdalene and an unnamed sinner who washes Jesus' feet with her tears.

But even that news didn't reach all Christians, and it is the rare religious leader who now works hard to spread the word that the New Testament is just one version of events crafted in the intellectual free-for-all after Christ's death. At that time, church leaders were competing with each other to figure out what Christ said, what he meant -- and perhaps most important, what writings would best support the emerging church.

What we know now is that the scholars who championed the ``Gnostic'' gospels are among the ones who lost the battle.

In the decades after Jesus' death, these texts and many others were circulating widely among Christian groups from Egypt to Rome, Africa to Spain, and from today's Turkey and Syria to France. So many Christians throughout the world knew and revered these books that it took more than 200 years for hardworking church leaders who denounced the texts to successfully suppress them.

The copies discovered in 1945, for example, were taken from the sacred library of one of the earliest monasteries in Egypt, founded about 10 years after the 313 AD conversion of Constantine, the first Roman emperor to join the fledgling church. For the first time, Christians were no longer treated as members of a dangerous and seditious group and could form open communities in which many lived together. Like monks today, they kept in their monastery libraries a very wide range of books they read aloud for inspiration.

But these particular texts appeared to upset Athanasius, then archbishop of Alexandria; in the year 367 he sent out an Easter Letter to monks all over Egypt ordering them to reject what he called ``illegitimate and secret books.'' Apparently, some monks at the Egyptian monastery defied the archbishop's order and took more than 50 of the books out of the library, sealed them in a heavy jar and buried them under the cliff where they were found 1,600 years later.

In ordering the books destroyed, Athanasius was continuing the battle against the ``Gnostic'' gospels begun 200 years earlier by his revered predecessor, Bishop Irenaeus, who was so distressed that certain Christians in his congregations in rural Gaul (present day France) treasured such ``illegitimate and secret writing'' that he labeled them heretics. Irenaeus insisted that of the dozens of writings revered by various Christians, only four were genuine -- and these, as you guessed already, are those now in the New Testament, called by the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Irenaeus said there could be only four gospels because, according to the science of the time, there were four principal winds and four pillars that hold up the sky. Why these four gospels? He explained that only they were actually written by eyewitnesses of the events they describe -- Jesus' disciples Matthew and John, or by Luke and Mark, who were disciples of the disciples.

Few scholars today would agree with Irenaeus. We cannot verify who actually wrote any of these accounts, and many scholars agree that the disciples themselves are not likely to be their authors. Beyond that, nearly all the gospels that Irenaeus detested are also attributed to disciples -- some, including the Gospel of Thomas, to the original 12 apostles. Nonetheless, Athanasius and other church leaders succeeded in suppressing the gospels they (and Irenaeus) called illegitimate, won the emperor's favor and succeeded in dominating the church.
What, then, do these texts say, and why did certain leaders find them so threatening?

First, they suggest that the way to God can be found by anyone who seeks. According to the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus suggests that when we come to know ourselves at the deepest level, we come to know God: ``If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you.'' This message -- to seek for oneself -- was not one that bishops like Irenaeus appreciated: Instead, he insisted, one must come to God through the church, ``outside of which,'' he said, ``there is no salvation.''

Second, in texts that the bishops called ``heresy,'' Jesus appears as human, yet one through whom the light of God now shines. So, according to the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus said, ``I am the light that is before all things; I am all things; all things come forth from me; all things return to me. Split a piece of wood, and I am there; lift up a rock, and you will find me there.'' To Irenaeus, the thought of the divine energy manifested through all creation, even rocks and logs, sounded dangerously like pantheism. People might end up thinking that they could be like Jesus themselves and, in fact, the Gospel of Philip says, ``Do not seek to become a Christian, but a Christ.'' As Irenaeus read this, it was not mystical language, but ``an abyss of madness, and blasphemy against Christ.''

Worst of all, perhaps, was that many of these secret texts speak of God not only in masculine images, but also in feminine images. The Secret Book of John tells how the disciple John, grieving after Jesus was crucified, suddenly saw a vision of a brilliant light, from which he heard Jesus' voice speaking to him: ``John, John, why do you weep? Don't you recognize who I am? I am the Father; I am the Mother; and I am the Son.'' After a moment of shock, John realizes that the divine Trinity includes not only Father and Son but also the divine Mother, which John sees as the Holy Spirit, the feminine manifestation of the divine.

But the Gospel of Mary Magdalene -- along with the Gospel of Thomas, the Dialogue of the Savior, and the Gospel of Philip -- all show Peter, the leader of the disciples, challenging the presence of women among the disciples. We hear Peter saying to Jesus, ``Tell Mary to leave us, because women are not worthy of (spiritual) life.'' Peter complains that Mary talks too much, displacing the role of the male disciples. But Jesus tells Peter to stop, not Mary! No wonder these texts were not admitted into the canon of a church that would be ruled by an all-male clergy for 2,000 years.

Those possibilities opened by the ``Gnostic'' gospels -- that God could have a feminine side and that Jesus could be human -- are key ideas that Dan Brown explored in ``The Da Vinci Code,'' and are no doubt part of what made the book so alluring. But the truth is that the texts he based his novel upon contain much deeper and more important mysteries than the ones Tom Hanks tries to solve in the movie version that opened this weekend.

The real mystery is what Christianity and Western civilization would look like had the ``Gnostic'' gospels never been banned. Because of the discovery by that Egyptian farmer in 1945, we now at least have the chance to hear what the ``heretics'' were saying, and imagine what might have been.

ELAINE PAGELS, author of ``The Gnostic Gospels'' and ``Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas,'' is a professor of religion at Princeton. She wrote this article for Perspective.

05-22-2006, 08:10 PM

came in email:
QUOTEOpus Dei Network, cult or christism?

Slowly, the western world is awakening to the nature of the church organizations, Opus Dei of the Catholic church, in particular. Opus Dei means 'work of God'.

Opus Dei is said to have $3 billion in assets. Listen to the stunning video at http://www.nbc11.com/video/9235197/index.htmlÂ Does Opus Dei have a dark side? NBC11 examines both sides of Opus Dei and asks questions about whether there's a dark side to the secret society. See also the reality of the headquarters of OD in Rome at http://www.nbc11.com/video/9233201/index.html

Oaths taken at this entity are comparable to the Jesuit oath versions on the internet and in Congressional record. The interesting feature that oath is seen to be lived by. Practise self-mortification or inflict pain on oneself? Try out membership of Opus Dei. No wonder some neighborhoods in Indiana are getting worried about the spread of the christist cult. http://www.wndu.com/news/052006/news_49791.php

This is not about an anecdotal event. It is about the ethos of a christist organization and the rules which the faithful are expected to live by. Coming soon, New testimonies:Â
Â Â "Opus Dei Recruits Minors and Deceives Church Officials"
Â Â Â "Fathers, don't let your sons grow up to be Opus Dei recruits"

There is a gradation system for books <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />--
1. Books that can be read by all, even children; for example, Heidi, Marco, some stories of the Grimm Brothers, and all books written by members of Opus Dei.

2. Reading generally recommended, although it may require a little formation. In the libraries of the centers, the public, numeraries and associate members have access to books with the 1 and 2 ratings.

3. Books that can be read by those who have formation. The books may have inconvenient scenes or commentaries. Permission is needed by their spiritual director.

4. Books that can be read by those who have formation and have a necessity to read them. Permission is needed by their spiritual director.

5. Books that are not possible to be read, except with special permission from the advisory (in New York).

6. Prohibited reading. In order to read them permission is needed by the Prelate of Opus Dei (in Rome). 

http://odan.org/index.htm This site is a revelation. On May 19, there was an interview by Paula Zahn on CNN.
The person interviewed was a young woman from a poor background from Europe who was recruited as a numerary assistant. She was recruited to cook in and clean the opulent centers of Opus Dei.

Read the full, horrifying interview at http://www.odan.org/tw_basic_human_right...olated.htm

In her book, Beyond the Threshold: A Life in Opus Dei,Â (by Maria del Carmen Tapia, Continuum Publishing Company, New York), she notes: "According to the Founder, an auxiliary could never aspire to be more than a good servant... In countries where numeraries and servants perform housekeeping in centers of male members of the prelature, they receive a salary, though a low one, but no social security. On the principle of poverty, these salaries go directly to the coffers of the house where the servants live. The servants do not receive any money. It is supposed that the numeraries who accompany them will pay for whatever purchases are made. Naturally, when they need clothes or shoes, they get them, but they do not handle any money."

She was recruited by one of the catering colleges of Opus Dei. She was lured by an advertisement which offered young girls certification in household management and cookery and guaranteed full-time permanent positions at the conclusion of the catering course.

Now, read this about a numerary's account in Bay Area: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE These men did wear a small spiky chain around their thighs each day as penance, but: Mariano Curat, former numerary, 9 years: "The psychological pain for me was much worse than the physical pain."Â  http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=a...nt_7&id=4168073

Talk of NRMs. This should be the next topic for an NRM seminar which should be organized by Greg Treverton in an entity run in Stanford called RAND. See a critique of their previous seminar on NRM at http://www.india-forum.com/articles/103/1/ Exploring religious conflicts? This is apposite since RAND seems to have become the new NRM, the New Religious Media.
</div>

ramana · 05-22-2006, 09:11 PM

Frm Deccan Chronicle 21 AMy 2006
QUOTEThe code world
Â

Austen Ivereigh unveils the Catholic Churchâs battle-plan to rebut Hollywoodâs big summer movie

Rome: With the worldwide rele-ase of the film of The Da Vinci Code, the communications director for the UK branch of Opus Dei, a bundle of nervous energy even in calmer times, can hardly contain himself. âThis is going to be the most exciting month of my life,â Jack Valero grins, as he passes me a bundle of some of the astonishing recent coverage: pages and pages from Time magazine, Le Figaro, the New York Times, Eve, upbeat coverage getting inside the ârealâ Opus Dei, contrasted with the murderous conspirators in the Dan Brown megaseller.

The articles explain the difference between numeraries (celibate members) and supernumeraries (normally married); why they joined this Catholic organisation of 86,000 worldwide dedicated to finding God in their daily work, and how, when you meet them, they are not sinister albino monks but prayerful insurance clerks of conservative temper.

You canât buy this sort of publicity. But should you ever find yourself cast as the central villains in a film based on a novel that has sold 40 million copies and is about to be one of the most widely watched films in history, you can, at least, enable it. When that novel takes as its premise the ârevelationâ that for centuries the Church has covered up the âtruthâ that Christ fathered a line of children through Mary Magdalene, and, even more astonishingly, when people actually believe this stuff. Why not step out into the spotlight and let people see you as you really are? Opus Dei calls this âturning lemon into lemonadeâ.

In New York, Opus Dei offers the media the chance to meet Silas, the murderer in The Da Vinci Code, who turns out to be a Nigerian stockbroker in Brooklyn rejoicing in the name Silas Agbim. He regularly appears on all the major networks, discussing his life and vocation as a supernumerary. âIf we agreed to all the media requests to meet the ârealâ Silas,â says Brian Finnerty of Opus Dei in New York, âheâd have to give up his job and do this full time.â

Watching Valero and his colleagues rush between TV studios, it is hard to remember that this was once the Catholic Churchâs most furtive, defensive organisation, obsessed with secrecy and taking an almost perverse pride in the mediaâs hostility. Once the whipping boy of progressive Catholics, long associated with shadowy Spanish politics and Vatican intrigues, the face of Opus Dei is now Valeroâs cheery, transparent, as open as its doors.

âItâs like living in a goldfish bowl,â he laughs. âPeople know everything about me. Thereâs nothing private about us any more,â he adds. Opus Dei has even been happy to discuss the cilice, the spiky leg-strap that its core members wear for an hour a day. The architect of what has become known as âOperation Transparencyâ is Opus Deiâs communications director, professor Juan Manuel Mora.

An expert in communications at Opus Deiâs Santa Croce University, he has completely overturned the organisationâs subculture in 10 years.Â It would be nice to report that Mora is a stooped, cowled, puffy-eyed octogenarian monk with nervous tics and scars from overzea-lous mortification. In fact âJuanmaâ, as everybody calls him, is, like most leading Opus Dei members, a genial middle-aged Spanish layman in a suit: passionate and charming.

âWe are not taking this lying down,â he tells me over lunch at the university. He has had no more luck than anyone else in securing a preview of the film. It is enough that the film be faithful to the novel, says Mora, to take the assault on the reputation of Opus Dei and the Catholic Church to a whole new level.

âWith the novel, it was a problem of information. We could respond with books, websites and so on, countering falsehoods with truth. But with a film, you have a problem of imagination. People will associate Opus Dei with violence, the Catholic Church with deception. We canât respond to that,â he says. When it learnt that Sony had bought the rights to the book, Opus Dei made contact with the corporation.

Polite letters were sent asking that the name of Opus Dei not be used, and pointing out that because the novel claimed to be based on historical truth, many people were likely not to be able to distinguish fact from fiction. Sony replied with vague letters giving no information about the movie but insisting they had no desire to offend anyone. Mora asked for an interview with Amy Pascal, head of Sonyâs motion pictures division, but was ignored.

Then in December, the filmâs director Ron Howard told Newsweek that the movie would closely follow the book, and implied that Opus Dei was in it. Mora swung into action.
Opus Dei would now say publicly, in a series of carefully timed open letters to Sony, what the corporation had not allowed it to put to them in private. The news this generated would generate public discussion about respect for faith and freedom of speech, and create yet more opportunities to meet the ârealâ Opus Dei, so that the public would be better able to distinguish myth from fact.

In February, against the background of the row over the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed, Opus Dei called on Sony to make changes to the film âin these days in which everyone has noted the painful consequences of intoleranceâ. By making the changes, Sony would demonstrate that freedom of expression is compatible with respect for beliefs.

In the same tone of pained regret and elaborate politeness, Opus Dei in Tokyo wrote to Sonyâs shareholders and directors in April, appealing to Japanese corporate virtue and asking for a disclaimer in the film that would make clear that it was fiction. A disclaimer, the letter said, âwould be a sign of respect towards the figure of Jesus Christ, the history of the Church, and the religious beliefs of viewersâ.

Although Sony hasnât agreed to the disclaimer, the corporation has continually stressed, unlike Brown, that it is a work of fiction. The movie is âa thriller, not a religious tractâ, according to a spokesman, Jim Kennedy. But belying that statement is a website Sony has created âto educate fansâ about theological issues raised by the film. But Opus Dei has stayed positive, patient and polite. The word âattackâ is never used. Sonyâs intentions are never presumed. There is no ping-pong counter-response to the corporationâs statements.

There is barely indignation, let alone anger, in the letters and statements; no calls for boycotts or protests or threats to sue. There is none of the arrogance and defensiveness typical of religious groups deploring offensive books or films. Contrast to this approach with the speech given in Rome last week by Mgr Angelo Amato, the number two at the Vaticanâs Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He called on Catholics to boycott the film and organise protests. If âsuch lies and errors had been directed at the Koran or the Holocaust, they would have justly provoked a world uprising,â Amato said. 

This is what Mora has grasped. âSony is King Kong,â he says. âI want to be cast as the blonde girl. If Iâm the policeman who fires on King Kong, then sympathy will shift from the blonde girl to the beast,â explains Mora. The brilliance of Opus Deiâs strategy is that it realises the bind that Christians in the contemporary West are in. Muslims and Jews deserve respect for their beliefs because they are minorities, while Christians, in spite of all the facts to the contrary, are seen as a hegemonic body which it is therefore legitimate to denigrate. Ironically, this prejudice has been bolstered by secularisation: the less contact people have with churches and Christians, the more inclined they are to believe damaging nonsense about them.

The novel may have its qualities as a page-turner. But only that combination of credulity and prejudice in Western culture can explain why The Da Vinci Code has become the biggest-selling book after the Bible. That is why the real victim here is the Church. The Churchâs best response is to switch public sympathy to where the facts demand it be directed. It can do this only by inviting people to come in and see the truth for themselves. If it tries to play the victimâs power game, sympathy will switch back from the blonde to the beast.

Opus Deiâs strategy wonât stop millions watching the film and believing it. But turning lemons into lemonade has meant, that millions more will know that it is unfair on Christians because of Brownâs claim to a basis in fact. âItâs going to be amazing,â beams Valero. âThen itâll die down, and weâll be happy to be the best-known group in the Catholic Church,â he adds.

ramana · 05-23-2006, 10:03 PM

Redress Code- M.J. Akbar
QUOTEColumnÂ
Redress code 
By M J Akbar
Monday, 22 May , 2006, 11:36

A Da Vinci week should be a good one for rumination.

One of the most exquisite passages in the New Testament is the eighth chapter of St Mark. A crowd of some 4,000âastonishingly large, and soon to be astonishedâhad been following Jesus for three days, without having eaten. The compassionate Prophet wanted to feed them. His disciples had only seven loaves and two fish. Jesus offered thanks to God, and there was enough food for everyone.

Jesusâ miracles were never ostentatious. When he cured a blind man at Bethsaida by rubbing over the victimâs eyes, Jesus told the fortunate man: "Neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town. At Caesara Philippi, Jesus asked his disciples, "Whom do men say I am?" Some compared him to John the Baptist, others to Elias; all agreed he was a Prophet.

Jesus turned the question around to his disciples: "But whom say ye that I am?" Peter answered: "Thou art the Christ."

Jesus "charged them that they should tell no man of him", for "the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again".

Then followed some of the most moving words in the literature of any faith: "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospelâs, the same shall save it. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" 

There is a key phrase: "Son of man". Jesus repeats the phrase in the last verse of the chapter: "Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels".

One of the fundamental differences between the brother-faiths, Islam and Christianity, is that while the Church believes that Jesus was the son of God, Islam insists that Jesus was human.

The Quran venerates Jesus, places him on the highest of pedestals and calls him Christ 11 times. Verse 45 of Al-Imran (The family of Imran) says: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ (Maseeha) Jesus. The son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of [the company of] those nearest to Allah".

He is not only a servant of God and a messenger of God and a Prophet. In the chapter on Mary (Maryam), Jesus is thus described: "I am indeed a servant of Allah; He hath given me revelation and made me a Prophet." More remarkably, seven times in the Quran Jesus is said to possess the ruh, or spirit, of Allah: "We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear signs and strengthened him with the Holy Spiritâ¦"

Incidentally, it is perhaps revealing that while the New Testament mentions Mary 19 times, the Quran mentions her 34 times. According to certain interpretations, it is Jesus who will descend to earth a second time, before the hour of judgment. Maulana Yusuf Ali translates verse 61 of Surah 43 as "And [Jesus] shall be a sign [for the coming of] the Hour [of judgment]".

But the Quran categorically rejects the divinity of Jesus, or that he died on the cross and was resurrected; the crucifixion was a "counterfeit": "But they killed him [Jesus, son of Mary] not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to themâ¦"

Commentators like Sayyid Ahmad Khan have explained that Christ did not die on the cross, since the piercing of palms and feet is not necessarily fatal, and that Jesusâ body was taken down after three or four hours by his disciples and concealed till he recovered. 

In Sufi tradition, Jesus is the greatest model of the wandering preacher, particularly during his life after his punishment on the cross. There is even a belief, not substantiated, that Kashmir was the last resting place of Jesus.

But what about the miracle of his birth? The Quran is as insistent as the Bible on the virginity of Mary. But that, says the Quran, does not make Jesus divine. Adam had neither mother nor father, but we do not consider Adam divine. It is up to God, who created us all, to choose the means of His creation.

And, of course, the Quran is categorical that Muhammad is the last Prophet of Allah, the "seal" of the Prophets. A traditional saying of Muslims puts it neatly: "Our Lord Abraham is the beloved of God. Our Lord Moses is the voice of God. Our Lord Jesus (Issa) is the spirit of God. But our Lord Muhammad is the Prophet of God."

These are the great issues of faith that divide billions of people who, otherwise, have so much in common. Jews, Christians and Muslims are "people of the Book", owing allegiance to the same God, but differing on the messenger. Islam predates its last Prophet, but naturally, and Muhammad restored the monotheism of Abraham and Moses from which the faithful had so often deviated.

There is a lovely hadith, or saying of the Prophet Muhammad: "My brother Moses had only one eye, it was the eye of the law. My brother Jesus had only one eye, it was eye of compassion. God has given me two eyes, both the law and compassion." In other words, society is best ruled through a combination of law and compassion.

What is interesting, in the context of the furore over the bogus Leonardo da Vinci code, is the strong, if often suppressed tradition of what might be called the "human Jesus" within the various strands of Christian belief. Dan Brown is only a terrible writer with a terrific sense of pace who has won an unbelievable lottery. We should not take him more seriously than that.

But if he has hit a nerve in these godless times, it is only because the Christian worldâor should we say "post-Christian" communities are trying to turn religion upside down. Instead of faith lifting man towards salvation in the after-world, they are pulling down the supernatural into the straitjacket of explicable behaviour. Jesus needs to do explicable things like getting married and having children: how else can a middle class that finds religion to be such a bore claim him? Dan Brown is a graceless, if inevitable, child of Darwin.

The film apparently achieves what the book adroitly avoided: it ends in titters rather than jitters. But the most interesting reaction to the film was surely from those Muslim imams who joined many Christian priests in demanding a ban in India. The imams were following their ethics, for Jesus does not belong to Christians alone. If you demand a ban on a book that slanders Muhammad then it is equally logical that you should demand a ban on a film that slanders Jesus.

Hollywood is the ivory tower of globalisation. Satellite television, freer trade and increasingly unipolar tastes may be turning the world into a single marketplace. But it is not yet a market without exit routes. 
Courtesy: The Asian Age and Deccan Chronicle

05-24-2006, 09:02 PM

Da Vinci: Cross with the Code?
By Sandhya Jain
Organiser

**acharya** · 05-25-2006, 12:22 AM

QUOTE
A very useful backgrounder to understand geopolitics:

http://www.historyguide.org/

Self study using the contents bar on the left.

To understand the world of today one needs to understand the world of yesterday.


Why we have to understand the western philosphy because in that we can understand the expansion of Chistianity.

Da Vinci is trying to revive the pagan symbols and motifs of early christanity worldwide so that it connect to the pagan world of the east and then convert them to christanity.

dhu · (This post was last modified: 05-25-2006, 07:06 AM by dhu.)

QUOTEWhy we have to understand the western philosphy because in that we can understand the expansion of Chistianity.

Da Vinci is trying to revive the pagan symbols and motifs of early christanity worldwide so that it connect to the pagan world of the east and then convert them to christanity.

Good Point. Da Vinci represents a genre unique to the semetic religions: conspiracy theory- in which the opus dei cult takes the place of the jews. It is an attempt to expand the 'learning configuration' (per Balu ) of the conspiracy theory. Can we imagine Hindus making a film about the secret history of the Ramayana in which the brahmins are accused of having suppressed the true Ramayana. Perhaps it is a good thing that we got an indication from Sony that they considered India to be a small market.

05-26-2006, 07:17 AM

QUOTEIndian state bans The Da Vinci Code

Agencies
The Guardian, UK
Wednesday, May 24, 2006

At least one part of the globe looks set to escape the spell of The Da Vinci Code after an Indian state announced today it would ban Dan Brown's bestselling book on blasphemy grounds.

Nagaland, a small and predominantly Christian state in India's far north-east, decided to ban the novel because of the "immense publicity" generated by the release of the film version, its education minister, Imkong L Imchen, told Reuters.

In better news for Brown, India's billion-plus population will be able to see the film from Friday, a week later than the rest of the world, after its distributors reached a deal with the country's censors over a statement saying the film is fictional.

According to Vikramjit Roy, a spokesman for Sony Pictures in India, viewers would be assured that the film's plot, involving a Vatican cover up of the supposed fact that Jesus had a child with Mary Magdalene, was not meant as history.

"The characters and incidents portrayed and the names herein are fictitious, and any similarity to the name, character or history of any person is entirely coincidental and unintentional," reads the statement, to run for 15 seconds at both the start and end of the film.

Although the film, which has been heavily criticised by Roman Catholic groups in India, was passed without cuts, Indian censors ruled last week that only adults could watch it, and that a statement saying it was fiction must be displayed.

The film took more than $230m at box offices around the world during its opening weekend, despite reviews that ranged from the tepid to the downright scathing.

Authorities in Nagaland had urged India's national government to ban the film.

"The book is an affront on the Christian faith. Christians have been severely hurt," Mr Imchen said. "Publishing, selling and reading of the book has been banned from yesterday."

Around 1% of India's population is Christian. {when did 2% become 1% standard reporting line? SAJA courtesy?}
http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,...16,00.html

ramana · 05-26-2006, 07:40 PM

Add Punjab to the list per DNA.

Bharatvarsh · 05-26-2006, 09:06 PM

QUOTEPunjab springs Da Vinci ban
OUR CORRESPONDENT

Chandigarh, May 25: One day before The Da Vinci Code is to hit Indian cinemas, the Punjab government today banned its "release" or "exhibition" in the state "to maintain communal harmony, peace and tranquillity".

The Amarinder Singh cabinet's move comes at a time when the state's Christians have been vocal in their demand for reservation.

The decision was taken after Christian leaders condemned the "objectionable contents" of the film, a government official said. "There is a possibility of violent confrontation at some places, particularly those having a sizeable Christian population."

On Monday, Nagaland had banned Dan Brown's book of the same name, on which the film is based, and said it would request the Centre to ban the film "at least" in Nagaland.

The Centre had, after a bit of dithering, cleared the film on condition that a disclaimer saying it's a work of fiction be shown both before and after the show.

The novel and its screen adaptation both say Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had offspring by her and accuse the Catholic Church of suppressing this.

With Punjab going to the polls in February 2007, its 18 lakh Christian voters spread across 21 Assembly segments could tilt the balance.

The state's Christians have demanded they be declared "most backward class" and allowed Scheduled Caste benefits. They have also sought bigger representation in government boards, commissions and corporations, and a separate development board. They will hold a rally in Ludhiana on June 10.

"We welcome the action by the Punjab government on the movie," said Daniel B. Das, Diocese of Amritsar, Church of North India. "We also hope the government will move as fast on our other demands."

http://www.telegraphindia.com//1060526/asp...ory_6271010.asp

05-27-2006, 09:40 AM

QUOTEThe state's Christians have demanded they be declared "most backward class" and allowed Scheduled Caste benefits.

Even after conversion they are still most backward class.

05-28-2006, 05:16 PM

QUOTE(acharya @ May 25 2006, 12:22 AM)Why we have to understand the western philosphy because in that we can understand the expansion of Chistianity.

Da Vinci is trying to revive the paganÂ symbols and motifs of early christanityÂ worldwide so that it connect to the pagan world of the east and then convert them to christanity.
[right][snapback]51676[/snapback][/right]


It would be interesting to find out the reactions of the Anglican church to the book - since they have no problem with a woman at the "head" of that church. Of the major Christian sects would you say that the Anglican church comes closest to the pagan roots since it has to share its power with a secular head of state.

One would think most Christians today at least would be comfortable with the idea of Jesus as a historical figure. The book only makes him even more accessible - particularly to the more questioning type of person. So the effect of the book can only be positive for the growth of Christianity as a whole. It never hurts to have an "amma" even if she is only in the background thereby softening the more austere aspects of the religion. So perhaps the Catholic church doth protest too much.

QUOTE(dhu) ... It is an attempt to expand the 'learning configuration' (per Balu ) of the conspiracy theory. ...


Could you expand on meaning of this?

Regards,
Sandeep

dhu · 05-29-2006, 01:33 AM

QUOTE(s.k.mody @ May 28 2006, 05:16 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dhu) ... It is an attempt to expand the 'learning configuration' (per Balu ) of the conspiracy theory. ...


Could you expand on meaning of this?
[right][snapback]51782[/snapback][/right]
</div>

There are certain questions which confront the Hindu/Pagan as absurd, nonsensical, or otherwise as false issues, etc. For example, the abrahamic obsession with the number of gods is for most Hindus an absurd question, besides the point, if indeed there is a substantive point to be made by "worshipping" one or two or whatever number of gods. When these abrahamic questions or issues begin to make sense to the Hindu, the process of conversion has begun. Da vinci Code poses a number of questions like the difference between the philosopher Christ and the Divine Christ which only make sense in the abrahamic framework and, as such, can be seen to expanding the abrahamic framework. Can we ever imagine a hindu asking about difference between the Philosopher Rama and the Divine Rama. Is Ramayana the expression of Rama's Philosophy as the Bible is the expression of the Abrahamic Lord's plan for Mankind???? (These issues are brought about in Balagangadhara's work.. thread has been deleted from IF....)...

Login




Remember me Lost Password?