Civility, not censorship, is issue in "Da Vinci Code" debate

[DesertFox]

John Leo
Townhall.com
14 May 06


Tom Hanks thinks Christians shouldn't become irate about "The Da Vinci Code." He says it's just a story, "loaded with all sorts of hooey and fun kind of scavenger-hunt-type nonsense." He's right, but so is an official of the Christian Council of Korea, who said, "'The Da Vinci Code' is a movie which belittles and tries to destroy Christianity."

Isn't "destroy" too grand a word for a Tom Hanks entertainment? Maybe, but this thriller is mounting the powerful argument that Christianity is rotten to the core, based on lies and political conspiracy. It is surely one of the most effective attacks on Christian faith in generations. One of the cardinals at the Vatican said, in effect, we've had this kind of assault before, but not addressed to such a large audience of religious illiterates and uncritical minds.

Sony and director Ron Howard repeatedly brushed off requests for a disclaimer at the beginning of the film. But disclaimers are common in stories that liberally mix fact and fiction, and there should have been one here. Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" had one, mostly in gibberish, and in that story Jesus is merely tempted to consort with Mary Magdalene. He doesn't marry her and raise a long line of European royals.

More (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/johnleo/2006/05/14/197276.html)

[jason.bonham]

I haven't seen it, but for the people I know who have, it's just fiction. In my mind it takes more than a dumb movie to question the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Generally, IMHO, when Christians pick fights on battles like this, they do little other than look fanatical. They could probably spend time and energy on something that would have a greater impact on the world.

[DesertFox]

Christians are better off just ignoring such flicks, for the very reason you stated, jason.

[Rink]

How can a stupid movie 'destroy' the eternal Word of God?

Its just a stupid movie with a lotta conspiracy theorist fringe-kook crap in it.

It doesnt matter if Christ had a wife, or had children or whatnot, thats not whats important to our salvation, what IS important to our salvation is belief in Christ as the Son of the Living God and to Hear the Word of God and take HEED of it!!

THAT in a nutshell is whats important, everything else in my opinion is window dressing.

This is nothing more than a distraction, trying to shake peoples faith in God and Christ, Christianity will ALWAYS have its detractors, it will Always have people who hate it, it's a fact, there were people who hated Christ, to the point of killing him, they also hated Christ's Apostles who followed him and killed them also, they persecuted the Saints, they denigrate at every chance they can our faith, why? Because Christianity is NOT of this world and the world loves its own, and hates that which is of God.

Period.

A stupid movie cant destroy anything, especially not the eternal Word of God, it may lead the weak-minded astray, but then again they may never have been that strong in faith to begin with from the start.

I agree, this 'movie' this flick needs to just be ignored as the conspiracy-theorist kook-headed garbage it is.

Another stupid flick from unhollyweird.

[CzechPrince]

I agree. People need to quit bitching, it's a movie.

[DesertFox]

Well, movies have had powerful effect on the American scene before. One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest was almost singlehandedly responsible for getting nut cases out of the booby hatch and onto the streets as the homeless. One can argue strongly that All the President's Men, about Watergate, gave us the modern press with its determination to "get" presidents and its Leftist bias and outright antagonism toward anyone or anything conservative. The Ugly American and To Kill a Mockingbird are almost certainly the basis for the guilty conscience of political correctness.

Drama has a powerful effect on people. It isn't that they don't matter, but that there's nothing much Christians can do other than be good Christians, which is the best way to "fight back" anyway.

[Trevelyan]

It is fun, disposable summer fare, nothing more.

[DesertFox]

Well, that's too simple the other direction. This movie may well have an anti-Christian political agenda. I'm saying that that agenda can be overcome by people in real life behaving the way Christians should behave.

[DoctorDoom]

"It's just a movie" is a really lame argument.

If I could control the medium of American motion pictures, I would need nothing else in order to convert the entire world to Communism.
-- Josef Stalin

Stalin knew the value of agitprop and the persuasive power of movies. And Hollywood knows their power to spread ideas and lies today. And the Muslims know that as well. Inayat Bunglawala, media secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, had this to say:

About six months ago, on seeing a gorgeous illustrated edition of The Da Vinci Code published by Bantam Press, I finally succumbed to the mania and joined the 40 million others who had already forked out for the hardback version.

And yes, I too found the book unputdownable: it was fast paced, contained some fine puzzles and was genuinely interesting.

The book has been much criticised, however, for its alternative rendering of the life of Jesus, with one US Christian leader describing its portrayal as "candy-coated poison".

A core idea at the centre of Dan Brown's book is that Jesus never claimed to be a divine being, but rather saw himself as a mortal prophet sent by God; only later did the Christian church elevate him to divine status, claiming that he was God incarnate - a claim Christ (Greek for messiah) himself pointedly never made in the gospels. On the contrary, in John 14:28, for example, Jesus is reported as saying quite clearly: "The Father is greater than I."

The Da Vinci Code recalls the emperor Constantine, in AD325, convening the Council of Nicea, where what we today know as the Christian Nicene Creed was formally adopted. A historian, Sir Leigh Teabing (played by Sir Ian McKellen in the new movie), explains what happened at Nicea in a key passage from the book:"Many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon. The date of Easter, the role of the bishops, the administration of the sacraments, and of course the divinity of Jesus."
"I don't follow, his divinity?"
"My dear," Teabing declared, "until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet, a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless, a mortal."
"Not the Son of God?"
"Right," Teabing said. "Jesus's establishment as the Son of God was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicea."
"Hold on! You're saying that Jesus' divinity was the result of a vote?"
"Many scholars claim that the early church literally stole Jesus from his original followers, hijacking his human methods, shrouding it in an impenetrable cloak of divinity and using it to expand their own power. I've written several books on the topic."This point is of some relevance today. While both Muslims and Christians, as monotheists, proclaim their shared belief in one God, the main theological point of difference between them happens to centre on the nature of Jesus: mainstream Christians hold that Christ was indeed God incarnate and part of the Trinity, while Muslims firmly reject the Trinity and believe that Christ was a great but nonetheless very human prophet, like the others who preceded him.

The popular Islam Online website contains a review of the new film by a former Catholic priest-turned Muslim who used to teach in the UK. He argues that although some of the conjectures in the book may be outlandish - it is a work of fiction, after all - it does cleverly weave in actual facts from history and the portrayal is not deliberately disrespectful of Christ. I think he is right.

At the heart of Dan Brown's blockbuster lies a truth that could serve to bring together Christians and Muslims.This code could open doors (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/inayat_bunglawala/2006/05/a_truth_at_the_heart_of_the_da.html.printer.friend ly)

The book & film will not faze the faith of strong Christians, but it can (and will) have a devastating impact on weak Christians and people contemplating becoming Christians. And it will serve as a powerful weapon for Islam, since it parallels their view of Jesus as just another Prophet.

At the heart of Dan Brown's blockbuster lies a truth that could serve to bring together Christians and Muslims.Inasmuch as the religions are antithetical, and Islam will never alter one syllable of its teachings, the only way "to bring together Christians and Muslims" is by compromising and twisting the doctrines and teachings of Christianity. Unfortunately, in our time that is SOP. Apostasy is rampant.

2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

[aaron11]

Movie or not, it is a swipe at Christianity, one more swipe in a long "trend" of attacks made by a powerful and large group of political activists. Personally, I find it a little more then convenient that the left and Islam have paralleling agendas and common enemies, America and Christians...

The lines are being drawn, sides are being chosen, soon this war will come to arms...

[Jag Wife]

Well, movies have had powerful effect on the American scene before. One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest was almost singlehandedly responsible for getting nut cases out of the booby hatch and onto the streets as the homeless. One can argue strongly that All the President's Men, about Watergate, gave us the modern press with its determination to "get" presidents and its Leftist bias and outright antagonism toward anyone or anything conservative. The Ugly American and To Kill a Mockingbird are almost certainly the basis for the guilty conscience of political correctness.

Drama has a powerful effect on people. It isn't that they don't matter, but that there's nothing much Christians can do other than be good Christians, which is the best way to "fight back" anyway.

I have to agree with Desert Fox on this one. Before UNCLE TOM'S CABIN, not too many people were conscious of the abuses of slavery in this country. We could pretty much credit THE JUNGLE with bringing about the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906.

Actually, it was not a matter of these works bringing about reformation singlehandedly. People really knew in the backs of their minds that this stuff was going on, and these works were the flashpoint.

Unfortunately, the last 2 generations of Americans (and Europeans, I'm sure) are Bible-illiterate. Maybe many of us KNOW what the Bible says, but do we really take the time to UNDERSTAND it, get to know the history surrounding the old and new testaments, and apply the Bible to our lives? Sadly I have to agree with Tom Hanks, that maybe this will be a boot in the rear for us Christians to do our jobs. After all, I live in the Bible Belt, and you would be surprised how many teenagers think witchcraft and casting spells is just harmless fun.

[jason.bonham]

I would think christianity can survive this movie, it has survived alot worse. There has always been attacks on Chrisitians, I have no idea why you are so worried about this. I think when the Chrisitian political establishment picks there battles, they should choose something that would have more of a far more meaningful effect. When I see a minister going on and on about this movie on TV, I just want to turn it off, and go see it.

If you spend your efforts in the wrong area you might not have much credibilty left for the important ones. You won't win every battle, so pick the right ones and put your energy there.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Here's the problem I have with the novel.

The book starts with this:

FACT:
The Priory of Sion -
a European secret society founded in 1099 - is a real organization.

And yet even Wikipedia demolishes this so-called 'Fact'.


Priory of Sion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory_of_Sion#column-one), search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory_of_Sion#searchInput)
<!-- start content -->The Prieuré de Sion, usually rendered in English translation as Priory of Sion or Priory of Zion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zion), is an alleged cabal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabal) featured in many conspiracy theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theories) and works of pseudohistory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudohistory). Since its actual foundation in 1956, it has been characterized as anything from the most influential secret society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_society) in Western history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_history) to a modern Rosicrucian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosicrucian)-esque ludibrium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludibrium), but, ultimately, has been demonstrated to be a hoax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoax) created by Pierre Plantard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Plantard). Most of the evidence presented in support of claims pertaining to its historical existence, let alone significance, has not been considered authentic or persuasive by established historians, academics, and universities.

The Hoax

The association was dissolved sometime after October 1956 but intermittently revived for different reasons by Plantard between 1962 and 1993 in name and on paper only. A letter at the Sub-Prefecture of St. Julien-en-Genevois indicates that Plantard had a criminal conviction as a con man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Con_man). From the 1960s, a series of hypotheses and unproven historical associations became attached to the name Priory of Sion. These bear no relation to the origins of the 1956 association. The Priory of Sion is considered "dormant" by the Sub-Prefecture because it has indicated no activities since 1956. According to French law, subsequent references to the Priory bear no legal relation to that of 1956 and no one other than the original signatories are entitled to use its name in an official capacity (though André Bonhomme played no part since 1956, he officially resigned in 1973 when he heard that Plantard was linking his name with the association; therefore no one is around to use the name officially).


Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory_of_Sion)

There's Dan Brown's FACT.

:hahaha:


I did like the scene, however, where Sophia's grampa gets his funk on with the fat chick in the underground lair.

[Trevelyan]

Over and over again, I hear people complain about movies. "Million Dollar Baby", "V for Vendetta," "Munich," "The Da Vinci Code," and so forth. For all the fear and complaining over them, it always seems so unspectacular that really nothing at all happens as a result.

I was happy to hear a young girl talking to one of her friends behind me at the theatre prior to "The Da Vinci Code" beginning. She said that she knows it is just a movie, and one based on a fictional book at that, and that all the uproar over it was just ridiculous.

[CzechPrince]

Regardless of whether or not is phases Christians, or is an attack on Christianity, what are you going to do, tell them they can't make thier movie?

If people are stupid enough to beleive it is a fact, that's their own problem.

I've seen plenty of anti Da Vinci code advertisements for meetings/discussions on random churches around my area. I think the more people complain about it, the more publicity it's going to get in the long run.

[DoctorDoom]

Not a problem, kid. It's your church that the film slams, not mine.

[CzechPrince]

Not a problem, kid. It's your church that the film slams, not mine.

It does slam my church in many ways, and no I don't agree with it so guess what? I'm not going to see the movie.

Again, what exactly do you want to happen that isn't already?

[Maggie_T]

Nobody will forbid anyone from making movies, Prince. But I agree with Fox et al. We have come to this pass because of the shrug-it-off, it's-just-a-film attitude.

Granted, protesting against it only gives it free publicity. However, I like the idea of Christians telling Hollywacks and authors with an agenda (like Dan Brown; he admits it himself, only not in so many words) where they get off.

Think about it like this. Imagine if someone made a film against feminism. Do you really believe that feminazis and liberals will just shrug it off as "It's just a film?" Because if you do, I have a nice Statue of Liberty I can sell you at a friendly price (S&H not included).

Protest is good. Just do it with a modicum of civility to avoid making martyrs of these Christophobes (yes, I said Christophobes; sue me).

[Lubbock]

I guess I'm in the shrug-it-off camp. I haven't been to more than a couple of movies since Smoky and the Bandit. It's against my principles to keep putting money into the backpockets of the Hollywierd crowd, but for some reason, I really wanted to see just what this movie and all the fuss was all about.

I had read the book, then, someone gave me the audio book, and I listened to it on one of my long drives from Lubbock to Madill, Oklahoma to pick up the grandkids.

It was a great murder mystery, and if you think about it, the plot wasn't anymore unreal or inconceivable than three-quarters of the rest of the mystery/suspense schlock found at Barnes and Noble.

I think your take on the "faith" side of it all depends on just how well you're grounded in your faith.

There is no amount of "evidence" that anyone could present to me that will ever make me believe that Jesus Christ was anything but a divine individual, ordained by God, or that Jesus was "married", and left a child behind after his death and ressurection.

Bottom line, my take on it is, the more dust kicked up by the detractors, the more money Tom Hanks and Ron Howard have to spend.

By the way: it was a terrible movie. What was up with Tom Hank's mouth? I kept waiting for him to say something that wasn't garbled as he drew his mouth to one side while trying to talk out of the other side. The plot didn't hold together on the screen as it did in the book. The actress who played Sophie was an entirely wrong choice for the part.

But, it was coming a "duster" here on the South Plains and hotter than the hinges of hell, so overall, sitting in an air conditioned movie theater (having only paid half price for the matinee) on an otherwise miserable afternoon, wasn't all that bad. (When it's coming a "duster", even in an air conditioned hosue, if you can see the dust, you think you're hot, whether you are or not!)

[Lazarus]

Im wondering if Tom Hanks and Ron Howard are willing to make an equally "fun" movie about the Prophet Mo... Im guessing the answer would not only be a big and cowardly NO... But Im willing to bet the US State department would take extreme measures to squash the deal if it ever tried to come to life...

As we all know, its open season on Christians...

[Maggie_T]

Lubbock, I read the book, too. I thought it was just another Grisham-like thriller. And of course, my faith will not "suffer." :rolleyes:

Still, there are people who do not take kindly to have their religion mocked or even questioned. And I say those people have all the right in the world to kick up a rumpus if they like.

IAC, I will suggest once again that people (especially our ever-open-minded, educated liberal residents) read The Da Vinci Hoax. It is a well-researched book that effectively puts Dan Brown's anti-Catholic "opus" in its proper place.

[Joe Blow]

Anything that helps destroy theism is something to be applauded.

[DesertFox]

:rolleyes:

That's the most idiotic thing I've ever read. Congratulations! :claps:

[omegatrump]

True Christianity will survive anything. Satan and his co conspirators, (oops I used the C word, sorry Rihno) in his Quest to destroy Faith in the one True God is having a hayday with many of his latest presentations. His time is limmited and it's full steam ahead.

Actually, all that will happen from this will be that more of Truth will be revealed. In the context of Spiritual things, the Scripture states, "when the enemy comes in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord will raise up a standard against him".

[Lubbock]

Maggie, I haven't read The Da Vinci Hoax, but I'm going to search it out and get a copy. Hopefully from the public library, so I don't have to spend anymore money on the subject.

See, I've believed that it was a hoax all along, and everything that the History Channel has presented proves just that. But it didn't start with Dan Brown.

It didn't start with those two French nuts who cobbled together a bunch of documents, snuck them into the French National Archives and tried to pass them off as authentic, either.

I think this thing about Jesus and Mary Magdalene started with the
Feminist. Look at what they advocate and esposue regarding the supposed "relationship": keeping the "relationship" (marriage and a child) a secret, the Church covering it up, was a plot by men to keep women out of the Church.

Every feminazi I've ever listened to on the subject espouses just that. It's all a male plot, don't you know. Just something else to keep the women down. Don't forget, it is the feminazis who started the movement to neuter the bible.

It didn't start with Dan Brown. He simply picked up on the idea and ran with it.

And I agree, everyone has the right to kick up a fuss when they see their faith being attacked . . . just like the Muslims who got up in arms when their "Prophet" was caricatured. Of course, none of us Christians have advocated chopping off Dan Brown's head.

That's the difference between civilized and uncivilized people: we can debate without actually taking up a sword and doing serious bodily harm.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Anything that helps destroy theism is something to be applauded.

For me, the day god died was during the opening act of a Zamfir concert.

http://www.spieth-wensky.de/images/sponsoring/silbereisen/FlorianSilbereisen.jpg


It was then that I knew Stalin was right. That maybe 20 million corpses was worth it. Anything to keep god down, and remove the 'opiate' from their midst.

[Maggie_T]

:rolleyes:

That's the most idiotic thing I've ever read. Congratulations! :claps:


:hahaha: The phrase is definitely better applied in this case.

[Maggie_T]

Maggie, I haven't read The Da Vinci Hoax, but I'm going to search it out and get a copy. Hopefully from the public library, so I don't have to spend anymore money on the subject.

LOL. The authors are Carl Olson and Sandra Miesel. Trust me, it's a good read.

See, I've believed that it was a hoax all along, and everything that the History Channel has presented proves just that. But it didn't start with Dan Brown.

It didn't start with those two French nuts who cobbled together a bunch of documents, snuck them into the French National Archives and tried to pass them off as authentic, either.

I think this thing about Jesus and Mary Magdalene started with the
Feminist. Look at what they advocate and esposue regarding the supposed "relationship": keeping the "relationship" (marriage and a child) a secret, the Church covering it up, was a plot by men to keep women out of the Church.

Every feminazi I've ever listened to on the subject espouses just that. It's all a male plot, don't you know. Just something else to keep the women down. Don't forget, it is the feminazis who started the movement to neuter the bible.

It didn't start with Dan Brown. He simply picked up on the idea and ran with it.

Oh, absolutely. It's all about the "sacred femenine," unjustly hidden by the patriarchal Catholic Church, blah, blah, blah. :rolleyes: Anything to discredit the Catholic Church. The Da Vinci Hoax explains that in great and fascinating detail.

And I agree, everyone has the right to kick up a fuss when they see their faith being attacked . . . just like the Muslims who got up in arms when their "Prophet" was caricatured. Of course, none of us Christians have advocated chopping off Dan Brown's head.

That's the difference between civilized and uncivilized people: we can debate without actually taking up a sword and doing serious bodily harm.

Agreed. Look, Christianity has been persecuted since its inception (still is), but it has prevailed nothwithstanding. It will survive the "threat" :rolleyes: of feminazi fantasies (and their enablers) like The Da Vinci Code, I'm sure.

[ThomasMore]

Quoth the good Doctor:

The book & film will not faze the faith of strong Christians, but it can (and will) have a devastating impact on weak Christians and people contemplating becoming Christians.

2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
I do not shrug this off as "just a movie." The author and filmmakers do intend it as "just a movie," and know that its controversy gives it press and sells more tickets.

Doom is correct, it has formed false ideas for some wavering Christians and some seekers. A longtime acquaintance of mine, a sincere but not very swift Catholic, called me after reading the book to explain how shocked she was to learn what the Church had done, and how she hadn't known of it.

The concern over the movie is not how it affects the Christian church as a political or economic concern. The church exists to serve and guide people to God. Nothing is more important than our relationship with God, because it will form our eternity.

A story which peels away the wavering, the uncertain, the weak, or the seeking from the truth, does tremendous damage and evil. It endangers those souls. All the cathedrals in the world and all the worldly signs of religion mean less than one soul saved from being lost.

[Maggie_T]

You're right, Tom.

By the way, guys. A variation on the same theme. Take a look at this article. It's hysterical. The imbecilities some people will believe.


The portable Dan Brown

By Mike S. Adams

Jun 1, 2006


I used to think The Koran was the best book to read in the airport, simply because carrying it guarantees you’ll never get searched by airport security. (LOL) Later, I decided that The Book of Mormon was better because it guarantees the person sitting next to you will never start a conversation during the flight. Now, I’ve decided – once and for all, I think – that The Da Vinci Code has both of them topped.

-----

The following excerpts from real conversations – conversations people actually initiated with me after seeing my copy of The Da Vinci Code - explain why I now carry it to work, to restaurants, and just about everywhere except for church:

Conversation 1

Quacky conspiracy theorist (Q): So, you’re just now reading The Code? What took you so long? How do you like it?

Adams (A): Well, I’m trying to enjoy it like a Grisham novel but, unfortunately, people are taking it way too seriously.

Q: Oh, do you mean the religious right?

A: No, I’m talking about the whacky conspiracy nuts who actually think the book is evidence of patriarchal oppression. Those nuts really annoy me.

Q: Well, you have to agree that it’s curious that the Bible was written by males, don’t you?

A: That’s a great point, I’ve never really thought of that.
Q: Really?

A: Yes, really. I’ll remember that the next time I read a report from the Women’s Resource Center or the Women’s Studies department.

Q: What does that have to do with it?

A: Obviously, since all the authors of those reports are women, they must be involved in a conspiracy to oppress men. I think I just discovered a new concept; matriarchal oppression. Thanks for the inspiration.

-----

(And my favorite)

Conversation 5

Q: Did you hear that they have uncovered evidence that Adam had another wife before Eve?

A: No. But, please, tell me more.

Q: She was not subservient to Adam so he divorced her and married Eve. Since Eve was more submissive they put her in the Bible.

A: Well, that’s certainly impressive research. When you got your Master’s Degree at Duke, I assume there was a “Dr. They” who uncovered all of this information. Or maybe there was a They Institute of Historical Research.

Q: Why do you have to be so crass and cynical?

A: I’m only joking. But when people talk about what “they” have discovered or research that “they” have done, I find that “they” generally don’t know what the hell “they” are talking about.

The Portable Dan Brown (http://www.townhall.com/print/print_story.php?sid=199382&loc=/opinion/columns/mikeadams/2006/06/01/199382.html)




LOL. You stupid, stupid cow. Marriage wasn't even invented then, much less divorce. What an outrageously stupid and ignorant woman.

However, one must admit that ignoramuses are very corageous. I'd rather kill myself than blurt out such imbecility in public. :grin:

[Popperite]

LOL. You stupid, stupid cow. Marriage wasn't even invented then, much less divorce. What an outrageously stupid and ignorant woman.

However, one must admit that ignoramuses are very corageous. I'd rather kill myself than blurt out such imbecility in public. :grin:


Then again I don't suppose these conversations ever took place.

[Maggie_T]

No, of course not. They make feminists, liberals, and anyone else who takes Dan Brown's anti-Catholic rantings, look bad. Can't have that. :rolleyes:

You're entitled to your opinion, Pop. As I am entitled to mine. And I believe Adams. I live in a socialist hellhole. I've encountered many people on the same intellectual level as Adams' conspiracy nuts.

[Popperite]

No, of course not. They make feminists, liberals, and anyone else who takes Dan Brown's anti-Catholic rantings, look bad. Can't have that. :rolleyes:

You're entitled to your opinion, Pop. As I am entitled to mine. And I believe Adams. I live in a socialist hellhole. I've encountered many people on the same intellectual level as Adams' conspiracy nuts.

Well, in real life people come up with even more bizzarre things than you can satirize.

The "liberals" overhere are much smarter than the US variety of course! :grin:

[Maggie_T]

Exactly. That's why I believe Adams is telling the truth.

[ThomasMore]

Then again I don't suppose these conversations ever took place.

I have heard people say equally idiotic things. University professors and university students have their fair share of those who are so used to spinning worlds inside their own heads, that they have completely lost track of reality.

The thing that is sad, dangerous and funny about it at the same time is that they will, with complete conviction, try to direct everyone else's lives and be quite militant and arrogant about it.

Whether the conversations happened exactly as Adams describes, I don't know. But I immediately saw the faces of certain people who came to mind as I read those comments.

[ConspiracyBuff]

aaron11-Movie or not, it is a swipe at Christianity, one more swipe in a long "trend" of attacks made by a powerful and large group of political activists. Personally, I find it a little more then convenient that the left and Islam have paralleling agendas and common enemies, America and Christians...

Do you find that odd? Gee, what does that tell you about people behind the scenes, the ones who make decisions and dont answer to the public?

[ConspiracyBuff]

You're entitled to your opinion, Pop. As I am entitled to mine. And I believe Adams. I live in a socialist hellhole. I've encountered many people on the same intellectual level as Adams' conspiracy nuts.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
Not all socialists are conspiracy nuts, thats a little bit of a generalization considering the fact that most conspiracies center around socialist propaganda and intent. Also, there is a difference between believing in every theory no matter how much evidence there is against it, and using your intellect to make logical connections and reasearching factual evidence to support a good conspiracy theory, which mind you, do exist. Admittedly there are PCT (paraniod conspiracy theorists) but they are easily debunked by people who know what they are talking about, or in most cases they contradict themselves by belevieving in 3 or 4 theories which would cancel each other out, or one wouldnt be possible if the other were true. PCT's treat theories as their religion, but it would be comparable to having many Gods- they can never stick to a theory, maybe because they are so gullible and not credulous.

[Maggie_T]

CB, when I talk about socialists, I'm referring to those I have regrettably come in contact with (you'll notice I referred to Maine - where I live - in the part of my post you parsed). Whether there are "good, intelligent" socialists, I have yet to meet them. So, for the moment, I will work with what I'm given, so to speak.

[Popperite]

CB, when I talk about socialists, I'm referring to those I have regrettably come in contact with (you'll notice I referred to Maine - where I live - in the part of my post you parsed). Whether there are "good, intelligent" socialists, I have yet to meet them. So, for the moment, I will work with what I'm given, so to speak.

In a way I can understand a part of where you're coming from on that. Postmodernism has had a regretably large influence on the US acedemia. Especially in the humanities that are already perceived by many as "left", "liberal" or "socialist". This has had an appaling influence on the discourse. I know of many people on the left side who resent that developement deeply however. Also because it has spawned much political resentment against the left.

[DoctorDoom]

Postmodernism has had a regretably large influence on the US acedemia. Especially in the humanities that are already perceived by many as "left", "liberal" or "socialist".Perceived? Egad! One might as well say that skunk spray is "perceived by many" as malodorous.

[Popperite]

Perceived? Egad! One might as well say that skunk spray is "perceived by many" as malodorous.

Which would be exactly right!:grin:

[Maggie_T]

Exactly, Doc. "Perceived" is the understatement of the year. You want to do more than "perceive'? Read David Horowitz' The Professors, The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. In it, Horowitz does more than "perceive." He actually gives you researched quotes, dates, names, etc.

As for this part of your paragraph:

This has had an appaling influence on the standard of rational thinking in those fields and in others. I know of many people on the left side who resent that developement deeply however. Also because it has spawned much political resentment against the left.

Color me unmoved. Those on the left who "deeply resent that development" is easily explained. The left resents the "development" because it exposes the left for what it really is.

The resentment against the left stems from where it always has: the fact that the ideology is all wrong, and only leads to totalitarianism, intolerance, oppression, mediocrity, government-dependency, and all other blights against freedom.

Which, by the way, is why the left only succeeds in imposing its ideology through indoctrination, not honest debate.

[DoctorDoom]

Which would be exactly right!Tell ya what, kid. Do research BEFORE posting. Once you have a clue, then post.

The "liberals" overhere are much smarter than the US variety of course!No doubt that's why Europe is in the toilet and the water is swirling.

Liberalism and smartness are mutually exclusive. If they had IQs higher than that of a lobotomized kumquat, they wouldn't be liberals.

[Popperite]

Tell ya what, kid. Do research BEFORE posting. Once you have a clue, then post.

Research? About what? Skunkspray?

[dajoga]

My wife and I were in a Barnes & Nobel a week or so ago and there in the middle aisle was a big DaVinci Code display. As I looked at the various books on display, I spotted the book Exploring the Da Vinci Code by Lee Strobel and Gary Poole. I laughed b/c I'll bet they had no idea that these authors are strong evangelicals and the book reveals all the false "facts" in Brown's book.

It's just not theologians who are objecting to Brown's "facts" but so are art experts and historians. Even 60 Minutes, CNN.com, and a National Geographic special have had their say in dismantling Brown's claims.

[DoctorDoom]

Research? About what?The hyperleftism of US colleges, which you claim is "perceived", implying a subjective PoV.

Postmodernism has had a regretably large influence on the US acedemia. Especially in the humanities that are already perceived by many as "left", "liberal" or "socialist".

[ldb83]

Liberalism and smartness are mutually exclusive. If they had IQs higher than that of a lobotomized kumquat, they wouldn't be liberals.
The hyperleftism of US colleges, which you claim is "perceived", implying a subjective PoV.
Here's your problem Doc. You ride the IQ joke beyond its utility. IQ isn't measured by political balance or even sanity.

I didn't read Dangerous Academics but I'm guessing the reason Horowitz thinks those professors are so dangerous is because they are immensely smart... at least in their field of study. So smart in fact that they've become successful at persuading or even "indoctrinating" a lot of their students and maybe even colleagues.

Many professors have landed their jobs because they are amazing researchers, and plenty are actual geniuses with IQs way out on the upper whisker. It should be common knowledge though that some geniuses tend to be a little weird, maybe even insane in some respects. Their lives have been made on having new ideas and publishing them. They'd be nowhere if they operated on a "way-daddy-done-it" mentality. Therefore, what in the hell should make them conservative?

Of course they're liberal. If you want to make fun of liberals (at least the academic ones) you'd cover more bases by just calling them insane. Saying they're plain stupid gets you nowhere.

I don't see a point in trying to silence or smear liberal professors out of fear of them. Maybe this is the problem (if you see it as a problem):

Nowadays, most college kids are required to take about 20-24 credits of general education courses that consist of social science, natural science, and writing within their first couple years. There's essentially no reason professors in those fields would have much of anything to do with conservative thought, Christianity, or anything like that. You can trust me on this, these profs are almost all far left. It's nearly an inherent requirement of those fields.

Most students try to get these classes out of the way early. That means they have about a full year or more of liberal professors critiquing their papers, lecturing to hundreds of students without giving opportunity for dissent, and ultimately handing out the grades that determine their later placement within the university.

While obviously some professors go too far, the big picture problem is that students are spending their first $15,000 of college likely taking rather uninteresting courses from far-left social/natural science professors. If anything, the system is set up wrong. The liberalism of these professors is inevitable, but the idea that ALL students must sit through their courses as a right of passage to becoming upperclassmen should not be inevitable.

Sorry for the lengthy post.

[Trevelyan]

the big picture problem is that students are spending their first $15,000 of college likely taking rather uninteresting courses from far-left social/natural science professors.

What do politics have to do with the natural sciences? I was a biology major, so I took plenty of natural science courses, and politics never popped up in class.

[Popperite]

The hyperleftism of US colleges, which you claim is "perceived", implying a subjective PoV.

Uuuhhh.....when you claim that something is perceived in a certain way, you implicitly disagree with the perception? You've completly lost me here!

This was just about certain circkles within some field of the humanities btw.

[DoctorDoom]

Here's your problem Doc. You ride the IQ joke beyond its utility. IQ isn't measured by political balance or even sanity.When people believe stupid things, it does not bespeak intellect and wisdom. Liberalism is a stupid thing.

IAC, intelligence is NOT synonymous with wisdom. Intellect is a capacity. Wisdom is appling that capacity constructively. IQ is potential energy. Wisdom is using that energy productively. And quite often there is far more wisdom in people of average IQ than in geniuses.

I look at Noam Chomsky, Peter Singer, Ward Churchill, and other high-profile assholes in academia, and my question is why any rational parent would want their kids exposed to those vermin. And for every one of them there are a hundred more assholes who never make the headlines but who have turned higher education into higher indoctrination in liberal politics.

I'd rather put my kids in a pit of scorpions than send them to a leftist sewer like Berkeley or UMass.

BTW, you might want your kids "educated" by insane people, but you're in a small minority.

[DoctorDoom]

Uuuhhh.....when you claim that something is perceived in a certain way, you implicitly disagree with the perception? You've completly lost me here!Kid, I "perceive" that fire is hot, but that fact is not dependent on my perception. Fire IS hot.

And I "perceive" that the educational system is the US is infested by America-loathing liberal scumbags, but that fact is independent of my perception. It IS so afflicted.

This was just about certain circkles within some field of the humanities btw.They are just the most obvious of the lot.

By coincidence, this leftward surge is the topic of a just-published investigation, "Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty." Ponderous title aside, this rigorous and important study contains much of interest.

Using such methodologies as cross-tabulating political self-descriptions and multiple regression analysis, the co-authors - an emeritus professor of government at Smith College, Stanley Rothman; a professor of communication at George Mason University, S. Robert Lichter, and a professor of political science at the University of Toronto, Neil Nevitte - answer two questions:

How do American faculty see politics? When professors are asked about their political outlook, they call themselves liberal about four times more often than the general public. In some departments (English literature most of all, followed by philosophy, political science, and religious studies), more than 80% of the faculty calls itself liberal and less than 5% calls itself conservative. This disparity has prompted "a substantial shift to the left" since the mid-1980s, and is still increasing.

Why are faculties so liberal? Conservatives complain of endemic political bias. Liberals retort that conservatives are dumb. In the words of Robert Brandon, chairman of Duke University's philosophy department, "We try to hire the best, smartest people available. If, as John Stuart Mill said, stupid people are generally conservative, then there are lots of conservatives we will never hire."

Which side is correct? The conservatives are.Conservative Professors, an Endangered Species (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2526)

And no doubt the Washington Post was multi-orgasmic about this.

College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

"What's most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field," said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. "There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It's a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you'd expect to be dominated by liberals."College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html)

That's what I mean by researching the issue.

[Lubbock]

Hyper-leftism in US acdemia is not perceived.

That is not a theory. It's an absolute dead-bang, sure fact!

And one that many of us have known for well over a generation.

Acdemia is where hyper-leftism has deep, deep roots. Look at where PC started.

It is the absolute goal of acedemia to obliterate all individualism from the face of the earth. What or where better place to start than classrooms full of young skulls full of mush?

Obliteration of indivisualism is not the only goal of acedemia. Just the most obvious.

Every leftoid leftover from the 60's who couldn't make it in the real wold, ended up a tenured professor in some university or other.

[Maggie_T]

I didn't read Dangerous Academics ...

Then you shouldn't talk.


...but I'm guessing the reason Horowitz thinks those professors are so dangerous is because they are immensely smart... at least in their field of study.

Of all the ludicrous leftism apologists ... :rolleyes: ldb, this is the reason for my above-phrase. Immensly smart? Is this what you call immensly smart?

"... the Day of Judgement will never happen until you fight the Jews ... and the stones shall say, "Oh, Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him!"-- Hatem Bazian, Lecturer at UC Berkeley. Calls for an "intifada" in America

Or maybe this one:

"... racist and white supremacist and exploitative practices are engrained in American society and government."--Kathleen Cleaver, Senior Lecturer in law at Emory University (then again, I'm sure you agree with her, so maybe this is not a good example)

Or this one:

"Most American white men are trained to be fags. For this reason it is no wonder their faces are weak and blank ... The average ofay (white person) thinks of the black man as potentially rapping every white lady in sight. Which is ture, in the sense that the black man shoud want to rob the white man of everything he has. But for most whites the guilt of robbery is the guilt of rape. That is, they know in their deepest hearts that they should be raped, and the white woman understands that only in the rape sequence is she likely to get cleanly, viciously popped."-- Amiri Baraka. Former LeRoi Jones. Rutgers University, Stony Brook

A white woman asked Baraka what whites could do to help the black cause, Baraka replied "You can help by dying. You are a cancer. You can help the world's people with your death."

And those are but some examples cited in Horowitz' book. You call that hate-mongering garbage immensly smart? "In their field of study"? Their field of study is hatred and nothing else. And if you don't admit that, then you are too stupid - or too far indoctrinated yourself - to post in websites like this one.

So smart in fact that they've become successful at persuading or even "indoctrinating" a lot of their students and maybe even colleagues.

Oh, Lord. Another example of your immense stupidity. ldb, these hate-mongers's success at indoctrinating (sans quotes) others is not proof of their "smartness," but proof of the willful imbecility of those who let these vermin indoctrinate them without even questioning, much less confronting, the hatred that permeates their "lectures."


Many professors have landed their jobs because they are amazing researchers, and plenty are actual geniuses with IQs way out on the upper whisker.

*S N O R T*

Yeah, like Ward Churchill, for example. A department head who receives an annual salary of $120,000, he lacks a doctorate, which is a standard requirement for tenured positions, let alone chairs. His "academic training" is in communications as a graphic artist. Nothing whatsoever to do with ethnic studies. His masters' degree is from a third-rate experimental college which did not even award grades at the time he was there, in the 70s. Even his "ethnic background" (a member of the Keetoowah Band of the Cherokees) is a fraud and a lie.

So, let me ask you. Do you have proof to back up your sycophantic assertion that "these professors are amazing researchers, and plenty are actual geniuses with IQs way out on the upper whisker"? Can you give us the names of these geniuses and where they teach? Do you know of unbiased tests that were performed on these geniuses? Or is it just your blind faith in all leftist "professors," that they speak the truth and nothing but the truth?

It should be common knowledge though that some geniuses tend to be a little weird, maybe even insane in some respects.

This is another pathetic attempt at apology. Even by your low standards.

Their lives have been made on having new ideas and publishing them. They'd be nowhere if they operated on a "way-daddy-done-it" mentality.

Oh, brilliant. So every loser with a chip on his shoulder has the right to abuse his tenured status in academia and indoctrinate his captive audience into hating their own country. And why? Because they refuse to do what their fathers did? And incidentally, what's with you "way-daddy-done-it"? Is speaking bad English another qualification for tenured professorship in your "educated" opinion?

Therefore, what in the hell should make them conservative?

Another immensly stupid thing to say. But keep going. You're making it so easy for me to call you stupid without it being an ad hominen attack. Rather, in your case it's an accurate description.

Many genuine good professors got everywhere because they did it the way daddy did it. Take Condi Rice, for instance. Oh, but she doesn't qualify because she's part of the Bush adminstration, right?

Of course they're liberal. If you want to make fun of liberals (at least the academic ones) you'd cover more bases by just calling them insane. Saying they're plain stupid gets you nowhere.

They are neither insane nor stupid. They are dangerous hate-mongers who should be expelled from academia for abusing their tenured status and for teaching hatred. Remember hatred? That horrible sentiment that you liberals whine about constantly, and tell us how we should avoid it?

I don't see a point in trying to silence or smear liberal professors out of fear of them.

You don't fear those who teach hatred in such a marked and vicious and undissembled manner? No, of course not. As long as they direct their hatred at American whites and at Jews, that's not a problem, is it, you bloody hypocrite.

Nowadays, most college kids are required to take about 20-24 credits of general education courses that consist of social science, natural science, and writing within their first couple years. There's essentially no reason professors in those fields would have much of anything to do with conservative thought, Christianity, or anything like that.

Why not, pray?

You can trust me on this, these profs are almost all far left. It's nearly an inherent requirement of those fields.

Ah, well. I'm glad you acknowledge that. But for you, that's not a problem is it. It would be a problem if the requirement would be that the professors be conservative. Then you would scream blue murder, wouldn't you.


While obviously some professors go too far, the big picture problem is that students are spending their first $15,000 of college likely taking rather uninteresting courses from far-left social/natural science professors. If anything, the system is set up wrong. The liberalism of these professors is inevitable, but the idea that ALL students must sit through their courses as a right of passage to becoming upperclassmen should not be inevitable.

Well, at last, some mild form of criticims. Bland, tepid, but at least you acknowledge that it "should not be inevitable."

Sorry for the lengthy post.

The length is immaterial. It's the contents that make it so absurd and even offensive. Of course, coming from you, that is ... inevitable.

[ldb83]

What do politics have to do with the natural sciences?
Well the answer should be nothing. But nowadays, evolution v. creationism is what ties a lot of Nat Sci courses to politics. It's been a heated issue lately, so the natural science academics are fighting back.

I was a biology major, so I took plenty of natural science courses, and politics never popped up in class.
This is worth noting. Maggie and Doom might let Horowitz convince them that campuses from east to west are infested with the types of crazies he picks out to include in his book. I never had any indoctrinating nutjobs teach my college courses either, so I'm inclined to believe such professors are a minority.

[Maggie_T]

This is worth noting. Maggie and Doom might let Horowitz convince them that campuses from east to west are infested with the types of crazies he picks out to include in his book. I never had any indoctrinating nutjobs in my college courses either, so I'm inclined to believe such professors are a minority.

ROFL. Well, isn't that typical. The characteristic pose of communism apologists. "They are just a minority ... I've never encountered any ... They are just nutjobs," and other brainwashed assertions.

This is on the same level of those who try to excuse Stalin by saying that he was also "just a nutjob." Some say he was just senile. So now senility is a viable excuse for killing millions of people? Uh-huh. I wonder what would happen if I said that Pinochet's execution of a few thousand commies was due to "temporary insanity."

Our "learned" friend, idb83, pompously refuses to let Horowitz convince him that academia is fully in the hands of America-hating communists of all nationalities, races, and skin color.

OTOH, he rolls over and lets the above-mentioned "professors" convince him that they are just a figment of feverish right-wing imagination.

There is no man blinder than he who will not see. ldb83 is a good example. He sees only what he wants. Communists could walk all over him, preaching hatred for America and he would dismiss it as "boys will be boys."

What a sorry excuse for a human being.

[DoctorDoom]

The libertroll also ignores news reports that back up Horowitz' statements, two of which I cited above. How unexpected. :rolleyes:

Liberals will never be influenced by facts. They don't think. They can't think. They feel. They emote. They react. And they faithfully recite the standard mantras from the Official Liberal Bullshit Talking Points Manual.

ROFL. Well, isn't that typical. The characteristic pose of communism apologists. "They are just a minority ... I've never encountered any ... They are just nutjobs," and other brainwashed assertions.How often have we seen those same lame-ass "arguments" repeated about faggotry, global warming, evolutionism, et al? They must be keyboard macros with Windows Liberal Edition.

[Maggie_T]

Liberals are so pathetic. And people wonder why I have such contempt for them. Even contempt is too good for them.