Posted on 10/06/2017 5:44:20 AM PDT by Kaslin
Dan Brown, the author of "The DaVinci Code," is back with another blockbuster anti-religion novel, and CBS "Sunday Morning" rolled out the red carpet on Oct. 1 to honor him and his massive commercial success. The segment began with what he called his "fortress of gratitude" -- his house loaded floor to ceiling, over several stories, with bookshelves ... stuffed with copies of Dan Brown's own books.
So we know who Dan Brown worships.
CBS correspondent Tony Dokoupil vaguely noted Brown has been attacked by "religious groups" for his "depictions of Christianity." Brown complained that the Vatican told Catholics to "say Dan Brown is telling lies." (Catholics need the Vatican to tell them this?) Dokoupil allowed Dan Brown to describe his critics, but couldn't seem to find anybody on his own.
Dokoupil asked, "Do you consider yourself anti-Catholic or anti-religion?" Brown replied "Absolutely not." But then he said there are dangerous religious factions that "take the metaphors and the myth of scripture and they hold them up a literal fact."
Brown's somehow not "anti-religion," but CBS announced his new book "puts God on the edge of extinction." Brown proclaimed "Traditionally, all the gods fall. And my question is, are we naive to believe that the gods of today will not suffer the same fate?"
Dokoupil followed up. "Would that be a better planet?" Brown responded, "I personally believe that our planet would be absolutely fine without religion, and I also feel that we're evolving in that direction."
But he's absolutely not anti-religion.
Welcome to how secular liberals spend their Sundays ... while thinking it's the churchgoers who are sharing a smug affirmation of their beliefs.
For all the folderol about "fake news," the media never found it necessary to challenge the veracity of Brown's scurrilous charges he posits as facts in his novels -- that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had a child; that the Catholic Church took the human Jesus and cynically invented him as a god at the Council of Nicaea in 325; or those nonexistent "monks" in the Catholic group Opus Dei. They spent hours on ABC, CBS and NBC elaborating on Brown's "intriguing" theories, when what they were enthusiastically broadcasting was an atheist version of birtherism.
Brown's new novel, "Origin," once again features his hero, Harvard professor Robert Langdon, who tries to learn what discovery computer genius Edmond Kirsch was prepared to reveal that (as The Washington Post explains) "boldly contradicted almost every established religious doctrine, and it did so in a distressingly simple and persuasive manner."
Some critics are tiring of Brown's potboiler shtick. Post book reviewer Ron Charles complained, "For 100 pages, Brown talks like the pilot on a grounded airplane, assuring us that we'll take off any minute now." But finally, when the genius "begins to reveal his secret, some Roman Catholic zealot shoots him in the head," about which Charles joked: "Why couldn't it have been me?"
Brown is relying on an old formula. He sells books by merging fiction with alleged nonfiction. It's easy to imagine the national media wouldn't be as enthusiastic if his villains were a global Jewish conspiracy, or a global Islamic conspiracy. Brown would be seen as a hateful kook.
Back when they celebrated "The Da Vinci Code," the networks were hypersensitive to Muslim reactions to the mostly mild Danish newspaper cartoons mocking the prophet Muhammad. ABC aired a glance at one cartoon on two programs. CBS and NBC declared they would censor the images.
All religions are not treated as equally ripe for "intriguing" conspiracy theories. Christianity and Judaism are for the falling "gods of today," and where Hollywood's elites are concerned, "our planet would be absolutely fine" without them.
I wonder what, exactly. From the article, it sounds as if Mr. Brown doesn't have to explain, because he kills off the character.
Anti-theists seem to like to imagine that there's some "discovery" out there that will "prove" all religious belief wrong. What would that be? What could they find that would be proof?
Concepts like Star Trek's "The World is Hollow ..." scenario, or their Q Continuum, or Stargate SG-1's higher plane (whatever it was called) just step the questions back a level, so to speak.
Dan Brown, “Pope” Francis. Same sh*t.
What always made me laugh about brown and his davinci code (which I derisively labeled ‘the davinci ho’) was that the book desperately wanted to debunk Jesus’s divinity while at the same time it desperately wanted to worship Him via His supposed descendants.
In other words, why worship Jesus’s lineage if He is not divine?
Wikipedia:
Stephen Fry has referred to Brown’s writings as “complete loose stool-water” and “arse gravy of the worst kind”.[20] In a live chat on June 14, 2006, he clarified, “I just loathe all those book[s] about the Holy Grail and Masons and Catholic conspiracies and all that botty-dribble. I mean, there’s so much more that’s interesting and exciting in art and in history. It plays to the worst and laziest in humanity, the desire to think the worst of the past and the desire to feel superior to it in some fatuous way.”[21]
Stephen King likened Dan Brown’s work to “Jokes for the John”, calling such literature the “intellectual equivalent of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese”.[22] The New York Times, while reviewing the movie based on the book, called the book “Dan Brown’s best-selling primer on how not to write an English sentence”.[23] The New Yorker reviewer Anthony Lane refers to it as “unmitigated junk” and decries “the crumbling coarseness of the style”.[12] Linguist Geoffrey Pullum and others posted several entries critical of Dan Brown’s writing, at Language Log, calling Brown one of the “worst prose stylists in the history of literature” and saying Brown’s “writing is not just bad; it is staggeringly, clumsily,
Schmuck stole “the davinci code” from “holy blood, holy grail”. Just a theif.
Let’s see this pinhead take on Mohammadans.
A very clever stratagem. He can talk about his book all day as yielding new insights into the history of Christianity, Catholicism or whatever, but if someone finds some factual whopper in his books, he can say, "Hey! It's just a story!"
Brown is truly a hack writer and I thought his Da Vinci code and Illuminati books were ghastly. But for laughs, check out "Deception Point," in which NASA claims to have found life in a meteorite. The publication of this book was shortly followed by exactly that story in regard to a martian meteorite. Didn't work out any better in real life that it did in the novel.
“holy blood, holy grail”
I read that book years ago. Only book I ever bought and tossed in the trash after reading.
The main crime of the book wasn’t the central theme of the book. It was the very true and detailed look at the inner workings of the Catholic cult.
That’s why they hate him.
My worthless brother-in-law (If you know him he probably owes you money) really got into this Da Vinci code nonsense. He knows more about religion than anyone! All you have to do is ask him. Yet he never cracked a book or bible in his life.
Gets all his “knowledge” from TV shows.
.
Religious belief is wrong!
Religion is invented by man, and thus is weak and easy to attack.
Religion always leads away from the truth of Yehova’s word, which is pure and true in every way (Yehova’s word = Tanakh, the “Scriptures dfrom which Yeshua and his disciples and apostles preached, just as Moses preached in Deuteronomy)
.
.
>> “Gets all his ‘knowledge’ from TV shows.” <<
Yes, very reliable; TVs have no soul so they cannot lie. (honest!)
As if Dan Brown has the power to out God in the edge of extinction. That’s just downright funny.
Out = out. Stupid autocorrect.
Autocorrect did it again. Yes, I’m feuding with my smartphone in FR.
Out equals put.
I often have disagreements with Siri. But too often she seems to get the last word.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.