Some have compared the Christian protests against the soon-to-be release film The Da Vinci Code to the Muslim protests against the Danish Cartoons earlier this year. Is this an accurate comparison and why?
PS. It is not only Christians who have condemned the film, and some Christians welcome the film, even if they disagree with it.
Get the RSS
Comments to this entry
Catholicgauze
May 18, 2006
2:39 pm
Number of embassies burnt: Zero
Number of calls for a holy war against Hollywood and the west: Zip
Now let us think about the cartoon riots.... People killed (some of the protestors), embassies attacked, priests murdered, calls for war, and even ungrateful Muslim students in North Carolina going nuts with their SUV.
Chirol
May 18, 2006
3:51 pm
"Massacre those who insult Christianity"
"Behead those who insult Jesus"
etc
to show what a good comparison the two are. Don't forget all the Norwegians rioting and burning the Syrian embassy in Oslo.
Half Sigma
May 18, 2006
3:57 pm
Naman Mantra
May 18, 2006
4:21 pm
The Da Vinci Code has it's fair share of violence. Not to mention Christians in Mumbai threatened to violently shut down theatres that were planning to show the film.
Obviously it's not as bad as the Mohammad Cartoon protests, but it's still pretty bad.
http://www.eni.ch/articles/display.shtml?06-0391
Sean
May 18, 2006
4:45 pm
let's try: one is based on more fact than the other.
to wit: Mohammed was a man of violence, as are jihadists. The Da Vinci Code is fictional crap based on a totally implausible take on Christianity that some postmodern people (read: have cut moorings loose from reasonable historiography) find titillating.
Naman Mantra
May 18, 2006
5:10 pm
The Mohammad cartoons were only meant to mock the Prophet and his religion. Drawing him is strictly forbidden in Islam. The newspaper had earlier refused to print a Jesus cartoon because they were afraid of offending Christians. Muslims had already been alienated before this.
It is quite apparant that their motives differed greatly.
Swede
May 18, 2006
5:27 pm
The movie, just another piece of "junk" out of the ever starved depraved minds in "Hollywood!"
Not even worthy of discussion.
Swede
Chirol
May 18, 2006
5:29 pm
Sean
May 18, 2006
5:35 pm
perhaps the magazine is unfairly offending (Islam v. Christianity). i cannot speak to that. i do know there are plenty of degrading/blaspohemous portrayals of Jesus in Western culture that do not inspire violent protest, South Park, The Last Temptation... and Maplethorpe, to name just three.
purpleslog
May 18, 2006
7:32 pm
purpleslog
May 18, 2006
7:36 pm
Did you look at the images? They were pretty tame. Could you be refering to the later images inserted by muslims as an excuse to to make noise over? Those don't really count.
Curzon
May 18, 2006
7:46 pm
I would assert that both of these so-called pieces of "art" were more offensive than the Danish cartoons.
!http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/455000/images/_459846_ofili_work150.jpg!
!http://www.thecityreview.com/s00conc2.jpg!
Discuss?
Tagore
May 18, 2006
7:52 pm
There are extremists in all religious camps. Free speech is not an issue which violates the taboos of Christian extremists. This does not mean that given the right issues, Christians cannot also be considered terrorists.
Catholicgauze
May 18, 2006
8:14 pm
There are nuts in every tree. The question is who has more nuts and which do much greater damage. Some hicks forget what pro-life means and do some damage in the past. However, Islamists continue to be a threat and are a threat on an international level.
Pavlov3
May 18, 2006
11:54 pm
You are correct, and they are considered criminals by 99.999% of Americans even many on the anti-abortion side. As a minister I once heard said, "murder of a clinic worker is murder, and God will see it as such." Now contrast that with Islam..."behead them, kill them, die die die..." Hmmm.....not quite the same.
Dan Brown can walk in public anywhere in the West perfectly safe, except for someone perhaps yelling at him or getting mugged for money, how about a cartoonist walking in ____ fill in Islamic country?
J.Kende
May 19, 2006
3:39 am
Tagore
May 19, 2006
5:46 am
Nevertheless, I do not excuse the use of violence against civilians.
Islam clearly has a complex relationship with violence and its followers are currently producing more violence than they can consume locally. However, I would caution that one needs to study that faith carefully and engage a wide range of its adherents before passing summary judgement on the beliefs of 1.3 billion people.
An us vs. them discourse only harms the moderates and strengthens the hand of extremists and reactionaries on both sides.
marquer
May 19, 2006
7:08 am
Dan Brown can walk in public anywhere in the West perfectly safe, except for someone perhaps yelling at him or getting mugged for money, how about a cartoonist walking in fill in Islamic country?
Or a translator!
Look at what the Islamists did to Rushdie's translators.
Italian translator? Stabbed. Japanese translator? Fatally stabbed.
Some Quranic maniac even burnt down a hotel in Turkey (incinerating 37 guests there) where Rushdie's Turkish translator had been *rumored* to be staying.
Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace
May 19, 2006
10:35 pm
Personally I am disappointed that 'Piss Christ' is taken seriously by anyone - why show such trash??
Nice article in this month's Atlantic about cartoons.....
dave
May 19, 2006
11:07 pm
The funny thing is the point of the hoopla is missed by most people. This outrage at a fictional depiction of Jesus' history reveals just what a fundamentalist country we live in. Consider that the "Creationist" movement is a product of our country and once you really look at it, we are one of the most fundamentalist populations in the world. These nutty Christians should be laughed out of town.
Religion will never kill art.
dave
Sean Meade
May 19, 2006
11:20 pm
Kenneth
May 20, 2006
2:38 am
_The funny thing is the point of the hoopla is missed by most people. This outrage at a fictional depiction of Jesus' history reveals just what a fundamentalist country we live in. Consider that the "Creationist"Â? movement is a product of our country and once you really look at it, we are one of the most fundamentalist populations in the world. These nutty Christians should be laughed out of town._
Couldn't have said it better myself. I might also point out the double standard Christians use when they insult their favourite bogeyman, "secular humanists" yet take umbrage when it is pointed out that theirs is a faith only marginally less bloodthirsty than Islam.
Naman Mantra
May 20, 2006
1:40 pm
Nope, I'm not against profit hehe...I was actually trying to show that in a good light. Dan Brown's book isn't as blatantly offensive as the cartoons, is all I was trying to prove.
But see you guys just don't get it. Islam prohibits ALL depiction of the Prophet, be it made out of clay or drawn with a pen. Then a non-Muslim does so, after refusing to put up a Jesus cartoon, to criticize certain aspects of Islam. How do you expect the Muslims to react?
In Christianity, it's not against "the rules" (for lack of a better term) to create a fictional movie based on a fictional book for commercial purposes, that shows Christianity in a bad light.
By the way, I don't think it's appropriate for non-Muslims to say who is a believer and who is just a "so-called" believer of Islam.
And I'm not justifying any of this killing and bountying. Obviously both groups went too far. But one had greater justification.
Younghusband
May 20, 2006
2:14 pm
Kirk H. Sowell
May 20, 2006
3:37 pm
Note that the dominant response among churches has been to put up articles on their websites and give out sermons and literature rebutting the Da Vinci Code showing it to be the historical fraud that it is, since Dan Brown has claimed that it is based on a true background. This is how Muslims should have reacted.
Sean Meade
May 20, 2006
8:56 pm
your summary dismissal of those who object to the desecration of what they consider to be holy is appalling.
Kenneth: how does the 'secular humanist' bogeyman critique apply to this conversation?
Christianity, in essence, is not bloodthirsty, though, unfortunately, it has often been in practice.
Hi Naman.
'How do you expect the Muslims to react?'
without violence. do you propose to weigh the cartoon violence as less reprehensible because something was done by a non-Muslim that's against Islam? outrage? yes. boycotts? sure. violence? no.
dave
May 20, 2006
9:12 pm
"the rule of law does not apply to the Taliban or Saddam Hussein."
I'm not sure what this was in response to.
"your summary dismissal of those who object to the desecration of what they consider to be holy is appalling."
Frankly, I find it appalling that these religious extremists are given any credibility at all. If we wish to live in a rational world based on the rule of law we must openly dismiss this superstitious nonsense. These people should be allowed to continue to worship whichever invisible guy in the sky they wish, but I draw the line when they attempt to intrude in the world of reason.
dave
Sean Meade
May 20, 2006
9:36 pm
you talked about the US violating the rule of law and i thought you were talking about Afghanistan and Iraq, but it seems i was wrong. to what were you referring re: US violations of the rule of law?
i would qualify as one of these religious extremists that you want to de-credible-ize. i am glad that you are not the arbiter of 'rational' or 'superstitious nonsense'. your postmodern arrogance regarding faiths that are thousands of years old and held dear by millions of people is execrable.
Naman Mantra
May 21, 2006
12:28 am
"...I'm not justifying any of this killing and bountying. Obviously both groups went too far."
My main point was simply "...one had greater justification."
Elizabeth
May 21, 2006
9:56 am
Christians who protest the Da Vinci Code, or pissing on a cross, or any other form of "artwork" (hesitant to call DVC "art") that contains blasphemous material, also want the entire world to conform to their own standards of propriety. They want the Christian view of God, morality, and freedom of speech (or lack thereof) to moderate the entire public space. This is just as annoying as when Muslims insist that non-Muslims respect the prophet.
But the means of protest are totally different. There has been no rioting, and very little destruction of property (none that I've heard of, but let's assume people have defaced movie posters). There have been no calls for the death of anyone.
This only applies to these two incidents, though. The reason it's been difficult to compare the bloodiness of the crimes of Christians and Muslims (and by many other religionists, as well, including Hindus, Jews, secular humanists though they haven't been around long, they've still made their mark with communism and fascism, way to join the club of major religions guys)- is so long we seem to be unable to get to the end of it.
So, while the score on this one might be Christians 1, Muslims, 0, that's just one point in a very long game.
Elizabeth
May 21, 2006
9:59 am
Sean Meade
May 21, 2006
11:54 am
Elizabeth: that's a big jump from 'protest the DVC' to 'want the enitre world to conform'.
some Xians want to impose their morality by hook or crook, and to hell (literally) with those who disagree. this strain is beyond annoying.
on the other hand, some Xians propose what they believe to be a better way. ideally, this really is motivated out of the love that they believe God has shown them. yes they 'want' the world to 'conform' to that morality, but it's coming from a different place, a different motivation.
as a Xian, i try to live out the dynamics of that second group i described, but it's not easy and i certainly do not hold myself up as a model.
one of the great challenges of being a Xian who tries to live that way is being chained to the wing that finds their identity in 'righteous indignation'.
Elizabeth
May 21, 2006
12:14 pm
Let me clarify. When I say "protest", I mean "take to the streets", peacefully or violently. A Christian who, when the topic comes up, makes it clear that he thinks the DVC is a bunch of bunk, is not "protesting" (in my narrow use of the term) but expressing an opinion.
Note that in the New Testament, there are no- NO- examples of Christians protesting any injustices or blasphemies outside of the Church itself.
If a Christian decides to spend his time protesting someone else's "art" because he thinks that this will make society better, it means that he (implicitely or explicitely, usually implicitely as many such people have never thought through their actions or beliefs) believes that the world should become a more Christian place by doing what he, the Christian, believes God wants. Otherwise, what is the point of protesting???
Such acts are contrary to a more traditional Christian view that the world will not become a better place but instead descend into a terrible state; there will never be a truly Christian state or world outside the Church until the return of Christ; that the duty of the Christian is to live in the world but not be of the world; that Christians will be known by their love, not ability to paint Bible verses on placards; etc.
Sean Meade
May 21, 2006
3:39 pm
while i really appreciate your knowledge of the history and trasitions of Xian practice, today it must take account of 2000 years of history. while we look to the first century and the NT, and before that to Judaism and the OT, we will be faced, obviously, with situations that were not experienced before.
one of those is Xianity in a culture where protest and, further, political action, is possible and does not result in martyrdom. in my view, Xians may engage in political action, broadly construed (and including protest) AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT RESULT IN THE COMPROMISE OF THEIR FAITH. because we Xians believe God is the final judge and we believe in the possibility of miracles, more Machiavellian compromises are not open to us (i scored pretty low on that Machiavelli test from a while back ;-). at the point of compromise, we have to abstain, and then the results are left to God: an unforseen miracle, martyrdom, apparent disaster. God must finally be the one who triumphs through His Church.
(somewhat tangentially, i have concluded, based on the above capitalized premise and the additional premise that politics is compromise and the compromise increases as the domain increases, it's awfully hard for Christians to politic, as such, at a national or international level, and maybe long before that.)
a corrollary here: 'power corrupts...' and Xians, who must above all remain faithful to God, regardless of the consequences, cannot afford any more corruption than what is already found in 'the world, the flesh, and the Devil' (to quote the Apostle Paul). accordingly, i have determined that any Xian use of 'power' must not result in corruption.
finally (still there ? ;-), your last paragraph: you are right that the traditional Xian view sees the world decaying (often called 'premillenial' nowadays, if you know the code), but, again, it need not be and is not the only view. many Xians believe we should do our best to improve the world (still in but not of) until Christ's return.
without putting too fine a point on it, my own participation with Tom Barnett and his vision is, in some small way, a personal outworking of this latter view.
Elizabeth
May 22, 2006
4:10 am
A few questions:
-Why did Jesus protest the pharisees' behaviour, but not the practice of infanticide? Could it be that he condoned reprimanding those within the circle of believers, but didn't waste time with those who had not yet decided to join?
-Why does it say that Christians should intervene with a believer who has fallen away, but then leave him alone if he refuses to turn away, if Jesus wanted Christians to bother everyone else about their personal behavior?
-Why, if missionaries and Christians are supposed to occupy themselves with making the world a better place even where there are no Christians, does it say that apostles should preach the message once and then shake the dust off their feet and leave if the people don't accept the message?
-I would be interested to know where, exactly, in the New Testament it says that "we should do our best to improve the world" (or similar) until the coming of Christ? I personally have never seen anything remotely to that effect in the Bible.
- Who was Spartacus? Whom did Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus lead in their land reforms? Socrates, well read in the Roman Empire, practiced civil disobedience and even died for it. But- but- when Christians were asked to go to jail, they never even protested their own imprisonment, but on the contrary, were told to "rejoice".
-Why do Christians think that an effective mode of societal change is to tell everyone else, with megaphones, "WE ARE RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG" ("Hey! That DVC isn't true! The Bible is!") as if the whole world was not already aware that Christians are of this opinion? Who in the church thought up this ingenious method of "making the world a better place"?
Of course, I might ask the same of Muslims, but there are no Muslims arguing here with me. :-)
Sean
May 22, 2006
2:52 pm
i agree with you that, in general, Jesus was not speaking to those who were not interested in His message. NT ethics universally apply to the 'faithful' and not to the 'world'. but, obviously, some of that ethic pertains to how to interact with the world.
i find it very interesting that you are applying a literalist hermeneutic in your critique here to the effect of 'if Jesus didn't say it, you can't do it'. i thought it was only the fundamentalists who do that. ;-) i don't remember having come across that before in criticism.
the hermeneutic of the Bible itself is a broader hermeneutic that interprets the spirit of certain culturally specific situations for broader usage. is your hermeneutic 'if the Bible doesn't say it, you can't do it' or 'if the Bible doesn't say you can't do it, you can'? i stand with Martin Luther on (a reasonable interpretation of) the latter one.
'if missionaries and Christians are supposed to occupy themselves with making the world a better place even where there are no Christians'
technically, i never said this. i hadn't thought about the 'where there are no Xians' part.
'I would be interested to know where, exactly, in the New Testament it says that "we should do our best to improve the world" (or similar) until the coming of Christ? I personally have never seen anything remotely to that effect in the Bible.'
come on, Elizabeth. aren't you being a little obtuse here? you seem to know the Bible pretty well. don't you think that's a reasonable interpretation of passages like 'you are the salt of the earth and the light of the world'; God blessing Abraham so that he could bless others; 'God sends his rain on the just and the unjust...'; when Jeremiah tells the exiles to settle down and build and work for the prosperity of Babylon so that they will prosper, too; etc?
'-Why do Christians think that an effective mode of societal change is to tell everyone else, with megaphones, "WE ARE RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG" ("Hey! That DVC isn't true! The Bible is!") as if the whole world was not already aware that Christians are of this opinion? Who in the church thought up this ingenious method of "making the world a better place"?'
again, you are painting with too broad a brush here. there are distinctions among Christians. do you oppose the efforts of a Francis of Assissi who said 'preach the gospel at all times, and if necessary, use words'? Bonhoeffer? MLK Jr? Wilberforce?
Sonagi
May 22, 2006
8:20 pm
These two sentences contradict each other. Presumably, "one" means "Muslims." What did they have "greater justification" for?
Naman Mantra
May 22, 2006
8:55 pm
Fine change the paragraph to the following:
"And I'm not justifying any of this killing and bountying. Obviously both groups went too far. But one had a better reason to be pissed than the other."
CTDeLude
May 22, 2006
11:22 pm
By Tabula Cain (or whatever) let it not be so!
Elizabeth
May 23, 2006
4:21 am
Not in general. There are no instances of Jesus giving instructions to people on how to change the world or of Jesus telling non-Jews or non-followers how to act. On the contrary, when he was asked to establish a kingdom on earth, He refused.
"i find it very interesting that you are applying a literalist hermeneutic in your critique here to the effect of "Ëœif Jesus didn't say it, you can't do it'."
I think we need to look at the whole body of acts and words of Jesus to see what His message was. If we do not find any examples of a certain type of act, we can assume that that is not what He wanted Christians to do.
"i hadn't thought about the "Ëœwhere there are no Xians' part."
But surely, DVC is not targeted at Christian communities, but at non-Christian or non-orthodox families. The same with abortion: nobody expected fundamentalist women to be the main beneficiaries of increased access to abortion, you know?
"Come on, Elizabeth. aren't you being a little obtuse here? you seem to know the Bible pretty well. don't you think that's a reasonable interpretation of passages like "Ëœyou are the salt of the earth and the light of the world'"
No, I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of "you are the salt of the earth." Salt remains salt and doesn't try to get the rest of the food to turn into salt, or act like salt. It preserves food and makes it tasty by acting according to its own properties. Christians can improve the world by loving their neighbour, serving the poor, helping widows, and being kind etc. If all Christians did this, the world would be much more pleasant than it is now, in which many Christians spend most of their time telling other people what to do (i.e. being really annoying).
"you are painting with too broad a brush here"
Yes, I meant to say, "some Christians", because I certainly do not think that all Christians (I among them) are like that.
To Naman Mantra, re: justification:
Blaspheming a prophet vs. denying the divinity of God: which is a greater justification for killing other people and acting violently?