Harsh Commentary from Patrick Buchanan
Selected Quotes from...
Whose God may we mock?
PERSONAL NOTE:
We needn't worry, of course. Why, you ask? Because we Christians are just overly sensitive... At least that's what the rest of the world says-- it's just a movie, for cying out loud. But we deserve this, you know. Our military has stamped and tramped unwanted throughout the third world, and more; tracking mud from our imperial jackboots through the pristine mansions of despots, tyrants, murderers, and democratically elected leaders, goose-stepping and forcing the world to eat our Big Mac's...
We've brought this on ourselves. We hate Muslims, and love Jews, and to the intellectual elite we are 180 degrees off target. Muslims are peaceful, Jews are war mongers, and Christians! Well, we crusaders aren't any better than Jews. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if one day we're all rounded, shoved into boxcars, and sent to internment camps where hot showers and fresh baked bread await us all. We'll all be re-educated, forced to drink kool-aid, and asked to choose other gods. Buddha? Krishna? Allah? Odin? Cthulhu? Doesn't matter which, so long as it isn't God Almighty. If we refuse? Well, there's always the hot showers and fresh baked bread.
Am I over-reacting? It's just a movie after all.
Whose God may we mock?
If "such lies and errors had been directed at the Quran or the Holocaust," said Archbishop Angelo Amato, the Vatican's secretary for the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, "they would have justly provoked a world uprising..."
In the 1990s, the British novelist Salman Rushdie spent years in hiding after Ayatollah Khomeini issued a "fatwa" calling for his killing for publishing the blasphemous "Satanic Verses." In the 1970s, the film "Muhammad," starring Anthony Quinn, was pulled from many U.S. theaters after bomb threats. The film had offended Muslim faithful by showing the face of Muhammad...
In nine countries of Europe, Holocaust denial is a crime. In the United States, to deny the Holocaust happened or suggest that it has been exaggerated is not a crime, but marks one down as a social leper...
If "The Da Vinci Code" is based upon facts, no other conclusion follows than that to be a Catholic is either to be in on this fraud or to be the dupe of those perpetuating it. But if it is fiction, why would Hollywood put out so viciously anti-Catholic a film that can only have the effect of undermining the faith of millions of Christians?...
Like the "Hitler's Pope" smear of Pius XII, a man who did more than any other to save the Jews in World War II, "The Da Vinci Code" is a Big Lie that, though readily refuted by the facts, will be believed.
But that it will be a box-office smash, that it is the subject of lavish praise in the press, that it is the best-selling novel of the 21st century, tells us we live not just in a post-Christian era, but in an anti-Catholic culture not worth defending or saving, for it is truly satanic.
PERSONAL NOTE:
We needn't worry, of course. Why, you ask? Because we Christians are just overly sensitive... At least that's what the rest of the world says-- it's just a movie, for cying out loud. But we deserve this, you know. Our military has stamped and tramped unwanted throughout the third world, and more; tracking mud from our imperial jackboots through the pristine mansions of despots, tyrants, murderers, and democratically elected leaders, goose-stepping and forcing the world to eat our Big Mac's...
We've brought this on ourselves. We hate Muslims, and love Jews, and to the intellectual elite we are 180 degrees off target. Muslims are peaceful, Jews are war mongers, and Christians! Well, we crusaders aren't any better than Jews. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if one day we're all rounded, shoved into boxcars, and sent to internment camps where hot showers and fresh baked bread await us all. We'll all be re-educated, forced to drink kool-aid, and asked to choose other gods. Buddha? Krishna? Allah? Odin? Cthulhu? Doesn't matter which, so long as it isn't God Almighty. If we refuse? Well, there's always the hot showers and fresh baked bread.
Am I over-reacting? It's just a movie after all.
from the mind of... Eric | 8:11 PM
22 Comments:
There is a funny review of this movie over on landoverbaptist. It is one of my favorite websites.
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/
Hey, anything that drives the catholics crazy can't be all that bad.
LOL!
I wonder if that sight is administrated by the United Church of Christ?
It fits. The only way they can attract anyone is through proselyting the true church and inviting the lost to join their lost organization.
Special place for these people!
Landover Baptist? Perhaps as dangerous a website as The Da Vinci Code book and film.
I was very confused by this site. I had to Google the site to see if it was legit. Thank God it isn't. It's parody. And malicious parody at that.
Yeah, a lot of Catholics are upset by the book and film, but seriously, what the Catholics find distasteful, and down right heretical, so too should protestant Christianity.
The book is blasphemy cloaked in pseudo fact....
It's parody? Oh. shit.
Really?
Yeah... Parody. It looked so far out I had to google it. Even Wikipedia says so... and I'm none too fond of Wiki P.
Yet another example of whose God it is socially acceptable to mock. But this is America... we don't riot or behead unbelievers here.
Even in this, our civility, we are maligned... Christians who complain are no better than Muslims who pillage, kill, and destroy.
....or so say non-believers.
buchanan's a prevaricating jackass.
he begins by offering the reader some cosmopolitan catalogue of speech crime wrt religion, none of which has anything to do with our own nation's constitution. then he changes gears; in typically boring fright-wing fashion, he releases his tired tirade against wicked ol' hollywood, chastising them (as a whole, of course) for the creation of this "truly satanic" (sheesh!) film. what's pat's point? does he mean to suggest that, because some other nations than our own have laws protecting specific religions from hateful rhetoric, then, by all rights, the davinci code and it's makers are to be considered in breach of some unwritten law? is he calling for the adoption of such legislation?
and we to accept his (mis)characterisation of the film as valid evidence of hate speech?
"an anti-Catholic culture not worth defending or saving"
what an a-hole. do us all a favor and off your miserable self already, pat! :D
"Am I over-reacting?"
don't your kind always?
KEvron, ex-idolator
"It's parody? Oh. shit.
Really?"
;)
KEvron
Feel the lo...er that is hate!
"Feel the lo...er that is hate!"
we seem to be in agreement wrt the jackass's tirade. cheers.
KEvron
Yep, you're overreacting. The boxcar thing is just a wee bit over the top.
Remember, we still live in a country where someone can barely get elected to office unless they are an observant Christian or Jew. Many of the founding fathers wouldn't stand a chance today.
I note that the liberal elites are panning the movie, by the way.
"we still live in a country where someone can barely get elected to office unless they are an observant Christian or Jew."
You obviously don't live in America.
Didn't like the boxcar thing... okay... but you're fine with the showers and ovens?
I should have said the boxcar thing and everything that followed. And the rest of the paragraph. Why does everyone have such a deep need to feel like they're persecuted?
And yes, I certainly do live in America, and I love it dearly. Not sure Franklin or Jefferson or Washington would recognize the place, though. They'd sure never get elected to high office, at least not in the red states.
"They'd sure never get elected to high office, at least not in the red states."
I respectfully disgree. I think they'd be very electable in red states.
Jefferson held slaves. So did Washington if I remember correctly. You would elect a SLAVEHOLDER, Sol?
Franklin was an inventor and a publisher. I'm SURE he used his political position for personal advantage at times.
Would you elect someone of such ethics, Sol?
Gee! I never thought of that! You're so smart Dad!
Since Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin were all ahead of their time back then, I'd guess they'd be up to date on that issue and a number of others by now.
Good thing there has been a progressive movement in this country to improve upon some things that weren't obvious even to luminaries like these guys.
I know you think history has been one big slide downhill. If you could beam us back to any time period, what would it be, D?
And would you vote for one of these guys, D? A (shudder) elitist non-Christian?
How can you possibly know that Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin were not Christian? Are you trusting in the word of authors more than a century removed from this notable trio? Do any letters they've written, which remain today, declare unequivocally that they are not Christian?
I have no idea whether those who comment here, and claim Christ as savior, are indeed Christian. I have to take them at their word... literally. Only God and each individual claimant knows for certain the true state of their soul.
You can't possibly know. Therefore you can't honestly say.
Interesting points, EL. But in their lifetimes, each made statements that I think would lose them the conservative Christian vote over and over.
Washington was quietest on the subject, but there are many contemporary accounts of his being a Deist, and not a Christian.
I provided some examples of Franklin's beliefs in an earlier comment
Here are some more:
". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."
"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."
"In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it."
Could this guy get elected today with such blasphemous quotations attributed to him?
Jefferson's writings are particularly voluminous on this. He cherished the teachings of Christ, but rejected his divinity.
From Jefferson:
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
"It has been fifty and sixty years since I read the Apocalypse, and then I considered it merely the ravings of a maniac."
"The truth is, that the greatest enemies of the doctrine of Jesus are those, calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them to the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come, when the mystical generation [birth] of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation [birth] of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
- to John Adams, Apr. 11, 1823
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."
"We discover in the gospels a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication."
"... I am not afraid of priests. They have tried upon me all their various batteries of pious whining, hypocritical canting, lying and slandering. I have contemplated their order from the Magi of the East to the Saints of the West and I have found no difference of character, but of more or less caution, in proportion to their information or ignorance on whom their interested duperies were to be played off. Their sway in New England is indeed formidable. No mind beyond mediocrity dares there to develop itself."
- letter to Horatio Spofford, 1816
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot.... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose."
- to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
-letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT
"They [preachers] dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live."
I think these guys would be chased out of just about any political party these days....
Oh how far we've fallen!
Solomon-- I took the liberty or re-posting your last comment, strictly for creating the link you gave.
There is a tag for this, but I'm having trouble posting it. Google:
a href=
and you'll find it easy enough.
____
As to your comment--
It would appear you have made your point, but my point stands despite this... it is still impossible to know for certain the state of anyone's soul with God, other than your own. Having said that, I still can't argue your conclusion. I honestly don't know enough about what the trio in question did or did not write/say to mount a credible rebuttal. So I offer you a well deserved,
Touche`
Thanks El, and I appreciate the html tip. And you're certainly right that it's impossible to know for certain the state of anyone's soul with God, even when we're not looking back 200 years.
Ciao,
Sol
Post a Comment
<< Home