Well well well, what have we here. The Cannes Film Festival screens the much awaited movie, The da Vinci Code, based on Dan Brown's best-selling novel of the same name. And much to the surprise of the common junta like me, the reviews weren't too good.
Anyway, that apart, I'm more interested in the controversy that was generated by the book and now, the movie. I have a simple query, if the Christians find the movie so offensive, why should they watch it? No one's made it mandatory for them to watch it.
So what's all the brouhaha over the movie and wanting a ban on it? Is the Indian Catholic Church Association, whatever it's called (yes, I don't give a shit), worried that Christians would start questioning the Church, which all along seemed to have a "our word is Gospel truth attitude"? And look what that attitude lead to, they didn't even acknowledge the fact that the Earth was geoid and not a flat table as they believed. Poor Copernicus, he'd be spinning in his grave now, only this time laughing at the Church's paranoia.
Another theory could be that the Church is worried that followers would lose faith in the religion since it targets the very foundation. If that's the case, shouldn't the Christians actually question THEIR FAITH in the religion rather than the accuracy of the book?
Whatever be the case, their arguments are flawed. Freedom of expression in supreme and sentiments here are not hurt for the fact that Dan Brown has stated categorically that the story is fictitious inter laced with a lot of true facts. Period. Personally, I would have loved for that story to be true (by story I mean the part of Christ being human and having descendents), but then that's just me at my provocative best.
If M F Hussain can paint Bharat Mata and Hindu Goddesses in the nude and it can be called as freedom of expression, I can't see why those crazy bigots are protesting against the movie. The same yard stick has to be applied here too. It's the same thing Mrs. Shabana Azmi, and even the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad are to be taken with a pinch of salt, so don't cuss those Danish artists unnecessarily.
So what's all the brouhaha over the movie and wanting a ban on it? Is the Indian Catholic Church Association, whatever it's called (yes, I don't give a shit), worried that Christians would start questioning the Church, which all along seemed to have a "our word is Gospel truth attitude"? And look what that attitude lead to, they didn't even acknowledge the fact that the Earth was geoid and not a flat table as they believed. Poor Copernicus, he'd be spinning in his grave now, only this time laughing at the Church's paranoia.
Another theory could be that the Church is worried that followers would lose faith in the religion since it targets the very foundation. If that's the case, shouldn't the Christians actually question THEIR FAITH in the religion rather than the accuracy of the book?
Whatever be the case, their arguments are flawed. Freedom of expression in supreme and sentiments here are not hurt for the fact that Dan Brown has stated categorically that the story is fictitious inter laced with a lot of true facts. Period. Personally, I would have loved for that story to be true (by story I mean the part of Christ being human and having descendents), but then that's just me at my provocative best.
If M F Hussain can paint Bharat Mata and Hindu Goddesses in the nude and it can be called as freedom of expression, I can't see why those crazy bigots are protesting against the movie. The same yard stick has to be applied here too. It's the same thing Mrs. Shabana Azmi, and even the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad are to be taken with a pinch of salt, so don't cuss those Danish artists unnecessarily.
Posts
2 comments:
Freedom of expression is a vital part of any civilised democratic society. Being able to voice your opinion is a right of every individual. However, with that freedom comes a responsibility; the responsibility is to refrain from hurting the feelings of other individuals. There is a limit, and the fact of the matter is that Dan Brown in trying to write a controversial book (a great money spinner, as the contents of the book ensure that publicity is self generated) over-stepped that limit by a mile and half. I realise that the author himself has clamied the contents are fictitious; however in using names of real people, he heavily suggests that his alternative explanation is the ‘real truth’. And it is this which has hurt the sentiments of Christians and Muslims across the world, and the not the so-called threat which suggests that they are afraid that ‘the followers will loose faith in their religion’. They wanted to ban the movie for wrongly defaming their prophet and making their religion look little more that a seriously twisted historical account about some guy named Jesus. The movie pretty much suggests that believing in the Bible is equivalent to believing in Aesop’s fables! You speak of MF Hussain drawing Bharat Mata and Saraswati in the nude (by which you seem to suggest that if Hindus don’t have a problem, if they can be open-minded then why can’t the Christians and the Muslims?). I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Hussain was arrested in February, 2006 and charged for ‘hurting sentiments of people’ because of his nude portraits (check out the links yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.F._Hussain). What I am getting at is the fact that when a group of people don’t like something they perceive as an attack on their beliefs (like the cartoons drawn of Prophet Mohammad and the ‘Da Vinci Code’) or on their culture (MF Hussain paintings and the burning of posters of films like Fire and Girlfriend) they protest (a natural thing to do when you feel your opinions and thoughts are being side-lined); and its not because they are narrow-minded, ‘crazy bigots’ but because they want their beliefs to atleast be tolerated if not respected. If everybody tried to justify their twisted logic, their hatred by hiding behind the banner of ‘freedom of speech’ it won’t be long before the thread of unity that is keeping a nation as diverse as ours together, finally breaks. The bottom line is you can’t say what to want to whoever you want, there is always a limit. If that was not the case a racist who ardently believes that everyone non-white in his country should ‘go back to where they came from’ would be able to carry of being intolerant and abusive verbally and state ‘freedom of expression’ as his right to be able to express his hatred towards people of other races.
Firstly,thanx for responding.Now,onto business:I realise that the author himself has clamied the contents are fictitious--true;but the facts that the author put forward were also true.He may have surreptitoiusly tried to sway the public's opinion towards his theory,which can be thought of as wrong,but again,why can't the public look at the facts presented ALSO,rather than only the controversial conclusion?The fact remains that the templars existed,the priory existed,Constantine changed history and rewrote stuff during his grand meetings...wherever blanks were there the author has filled them up and STATED it's FICTION-so why go up in arms?
U seem to be using the term prophet rather freely;the Muslims have a prophet-Mohammad, while the Christians believe Jesus was the son of God,not a prophet.They didn't believe he was human,which is all the book claims he was.
The movie pretty much suggests that believing in the Bible is equivalent to believing in Aesop’s fables!--Maybe, but I see it as saying "question what the Church tells you, for all they tell needn't be taken as gospel truth" (this by the way hold for all religions)
MF Hussain's arrest was a sham-arrested after decades of creating the paintings.If making cartoons of Mohammad were insulting the religion, then so are Hussains paintings-use the same yard stick.
but because they want their beliefs to atleast be tolerated if not respected--I fail to see how ppl cherish the faith they have in their religion by attacking people who may come out against it?Isn't it customary to present facts that would nulllify the false claims/beliefs that lead others to oppose it?
Your racist example was way out of line-racism doesn't deal with freedom of speech, it's an attitude.I NEVER said,nor implied that one can go over-board with what u want to say. I believe u missed this line: Freedom of expression in supreme and sentiments here are not hurt for the fact that Dan Brown has stated categorically that the story is fictitious inter laced with a lot of true facts. If sentiments are hurt, then going up in arms ios not the solution-however hurt they are. I didn't put down my views on freedom of speech completely coz that wud deviate from my article, but I fully agree and am aware that rights come with duties,and must be respected :)
Post a Comment