The Da Vinci Pin Number: Controversy as the best form of publicity

I was somewhat intrigued by how “The Da Vinci Code” retained its popularity in spite of what renowned biblical scholars have said about the book; but I wasn’t completely surprised. In an age when rampant biblical illiteracy and an endemic hostility towards organized religion are the norm, it is no wonder such a literary work would attract so many loyal enthusiasts.

A survey of British readers showed that for some the book had “undermined their faith in the Roman Catholic Church and badly damaged its credibility”, although the book’s descriptions of church history and artwork have been denounced by many scholars as being grossly inaccurate. Others have called its contents an “amalgam of truth and fiction, fact and hoax, sacred and profane”; the problem is that many who read it seem to lack the appropriate tools to discern which is which.

Who would Jesus vote for? The unassailable link between Politics and Religion.

In a recent Time magazine article Andrew Sullivan describes a political phenomenon he cleverly dubbed “Christianism”. According to Mr. Sullivan, Christianism (not to be confused with Christianity) is a type of pseudo cult that some people adhere to. This misguided sect allegedly holds to the erroneous assumption that the terms Republican and Christian are virtually synonymous. But this is not the same thing as being a genuine Christian, which Mr. Sullivan maintains has nothing to do with pledging allegiance to any specific political party.  Mr. Sullivan calls himself a Christian, and declares that many like him are not supportive of this type of “politization” of the gospels.

Is it their's to reason why?

Charles De Gaulle once said that the cemeteries of the world were filled with indispensable men. Leave it to a French man to provide posthumous insight for Donald Rumsfeld, who is said to have wryly remarked once that “going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion”. 

Nevertheless, this is wisdom that Donald Rumsfeld understands well, as he has already tendered a resignation to his boss on more than one occasion. But his boss, the president of the United States, has refused to allow Rumsfeld to retire, and defied the cries from a salivating press, who have made it their crusade to remove both the captain and first mate from the ship, at any cost.

The press’ assault on Rumsfeld has been a long drawn out affair. But it peaked again a few weeks ago when several retired generals of the U.S. army orchestrated (or you could say that it was just an extraordinary set of coincidences) a series of systematically arranged discussions with a few of the major news networks. Rumsfeld’s resignation was, of course, the main topic of discussion.

Reason in Exile

I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

I think it was Voltaire who said that, but I could be wrong.

That aside, I never cease to be amazed at how flippantly this phrase is thrown around. Especially by those who insist on patronizingly uttering its other insipid and disarming cousin: let’s agree to disagree.

The problem is, there are actually things not worth giving your life for. So called freedoms, which are not worthy of the sacrifice of another human being. There are things with which you disagree, not simply because you happen to have a different point of view on the matter, but because they are WRONG.