one small girl

sweet as a eucalyptus, terrible as a tempest

why?

to many christians,
just the notion that jesus christ had a child with mary magdalene is blasphemous and an insult to his Godhood/Lordship. that is why the da vinci code is being met with such passionate opposition among religious quarters. (i suppose i can spend time expounding on why the notion is insulting but i think enough arguments have been made on this.)

the christian camp goes: how can a christian allow his/her God to be mocked and keep silent about it?
the rest of the world would go: what's the fuss? it's just fiction!

here's what i think.

i think christians have every right to react on something they believe is an attack to their faith. i mean, why be christians in the first place if they do not defend their beliefs. they should not be condemned for doing so. somehow, i just notice that christians are often criticized, even made fun of, for standing up for what they believe is right and for opposing popular views that they believe are contrary to the Bible. Ban the book and the film? how medieval!

In contrast, attack a Muslim doctrine, do a caricature of Mohammad, and violence results. the bellicose actions are absurd to the non-muslim world; but somehow, there's that allowance of understanding given them. well, that's expected, Mohammad is a deeply revered figure to them so maligning him, even as a joke, is a no no. what would you call a person who publicly pokes fun at Mohammad? and what would you call a person who mocks the way Muslims react to their perceived insult to mohammad? ignorant. irreverent. insensitive ass.

that christians today do not go out waging war against those they consider heretics is a sign of what? that they learned from history and do not want a second inquisition? apathy and irreverence to their God? that they are now more tolerant? what?

that anybody can curse Jesus and not be sentenced to death is a sign of what? Jesus curses are everywhere, including mainstream/popular culture.
is anyone as free to do the same to Mohammad?

these are things i do not understand.

anyway, i don't believe in censorship. and i believe that christians themselves, before speaking out against anything, should first be informed firsthand of what that anything is about. how can you react objectively to something you haven't seen or read?

but i also think this religious tolerance is slanted a bit against christianity. is it because most of the western imperial first world is "christian" and therefore not deserving of the same understanding as the others? i don't know.

but if we preach religious tolerance, then none of the god figures of any religion deserve any mockery. criticism yes. but not mockery.

***
so is the movie good? i haven't seen it. i can't say i liked the book either. historical and research inaccuracies aside, i found the plot interesting, but the storytelling reminiscent of a Tagalog telenovela.

but i semi-enjoyed that the book reminded me of me. i was a perennial presence in there. i was part of the code. heck, i was the code. he he.

posted by: onesmallgirl at 10:11 | link | comments (2) |

Comments:

#1  23 May 2006 - 19:24

 

it was an interesting book but it was SO begging to be made into a movie!!! i liked angels and demons better though.

Anonymous

#2  29 May 2006 - 03:10

 

a little bit interesting sis. in holy blood, holy grail, there's a little more oomph. mary magdalene daw is actually mary of bethany. she comes from the abrahamic tribe of levi; while jess comes from the tribe of benjamin. jess dies in massada (that's historical fact, mind) and mary of bethany with lazarus (said to be the author of the gospel of john), go to europe. and that's where the story of the holy grail begins. it's really true how the romans and kings of other lands and popes had to to go through lengths to distort the bible. after all, if the child of jess nga naman was closer to god than any or all of them, san na sila pupulutin di ba?

ezky

Comments: