Da Code

the release of the Da Vinci Code whipped up a storm by reviving and (perhaps) even magnifying the controvesies of the book by the same title, leading to protests, demonstrations, demands to boycott and even ban the film.

i think the people who are orchestrating and taking part in all these 'violent' reactions are really making a mountain out of a molehill. no. wrong. they are just plain stupid.

the reason why these people are reacting as such is, as i understand, because they feel that the story is sacriligious, heretical, blasphemous and undermines the Christian faith. however, such reactions as what those people have just demonstrate how insecure they are with their own faith, that they are worried that what some story/movie say about their faith would shake their faith, then this faith of theirs is pretty tenuous to begin with. if what the book/movie is portraying is truly false, then bring up counter-evidence, trust in people's better judgement to see the things portrayed in the book as nothing but fiction and/or blatant lies.

further, the protests, demonstrations, call to ban the movie reeks of hypocrisy. remember the Danish cartoons and how the West was all defending the Danish cartoonist's freedom of speech and condemning the Muslims who were protesting? by the same yardstick, should we not be condemning those who are now protesting and places where the film is banned as being violating the right to freedom of expression? where are all the stalwarts of the freedom of expression? why are they so profoundly silent?

hypocrisy and over-reactions aside. what exactly is the big deal? CNA had a whole series of documentaries about some of the things raised in the book. i only saw one, which basically came up with tonnes of evidences to discredit various things which Dan Brown claimed to be fact, such as: the Priory of Sion, that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, that Jesus had a bloodline, which might exist in the modern day. which is fine and well... but i don't think the book is about all these.

the book's main contentious point is that Jesus was a mortal man. one who is filled with wisdom and love, who has great teachings, but a mortal man nonetheless rather than the son of God and definitely not divine. this leads on to the other controversial point that the reason why Christianity is what it is today is due to largely political developments. i.e. Christianity both being a tool in the political struggles as well as being rife with political infighting.

but so what? what does that all mean? what if Jesus was indeed only human? does it make the Jesus' message any less relevant, any less applicable? if the answer to that is yes, then i think that there really wasn't much of a message there anyway.

but i don't think that's the case. i think that strip away all the talk of divinity, the message is still as relevant and applicable (i mean you can't go too far wrong with things like be nice to people, be kind, compassionate, have faith in life, don't be greedy, work hard, etc etc.)

which brings me to my one of my pet peeves about Christianity (and for that matter, any institutionalised religion). that while it started out with the intention to save our souls, lead us to leading a good life, it has, through the corruption of human folly, it is now about power, control, prestige, how big the institution is. i know that this isn't being fair to a lot of the truly devout (Christians or any members of any other institutionalised religion) who really understand the function behind the form of the religion and spread their religion in a quiet composed manner (as opposed to shoving it down your throat or up your ass...).

which got me thinking about religion. i do believe in some form of the divine (though not of a God-figure per se, defintely not the Christian notion of a God), and i do see the value of rituatls. but i can't stand it when people claim that the only path to salvation is through their religious institution. can't they see that beyond the superficial level, the underlying message is the same?

of course my ex-gf just went ballistic when i shared my views (that i've shared here) with her. which led us down a slippery path that eventually brought about the demise of the relationship. of course it didn't help that she refuse admit any form of historical evidence that is even slightly uncomplimentary to Catholicism (unless it's something as blatant as the Inquisition, she's not stupid...). so she refuses to even consider the possibility that Catholicism develop as Constantine's cunning political move, that the New Testament as we know it is compiled and translated specifically to entrench the power of certain groups of people. but me, being me, just wouldn't let it go. and kept questioning and questioning. thing is... again, i felt that all these does not make the message of the religion any less valid or applicable. it just undermines the institution. which made me question whether she believed more in the institution or in the true spirit of the religion (of course, at that point of time, i've not read Small Gods yet, so didn't articulate it as such). and that kind of killed the relationship.

of course there were other factors. which i won't go into, cos it's just not my nature to talk about these things, not so openly as to do it on my blog anyways. yes... i'm an ogre. or an onion, whichever you prefer. i have layers. most of which i am not comfortable with most people knowing. which... well... some people tell me is a problem. is it? perhaps. i don't know. it is late. i need sleep. but i'm hungry. now writing just based on stream of consiousness. whatever comes to mind, i write down. looks like nothing but a whole bunch of random rantings. but rantings can be good. perhaps the rantings would reveal, subconsciously, something about me. but of course, then the sentence structure won't be that good la. perhaps it reveals that my thinking isn't really that lucid right now. ah heck. food. then sleep. sure going to get fat(ter) that way one.