A Hypocritical "Requiem" For Coretta King””And Other Lies
Posted by David Irby on Feb 19, 2006 - 7:03:00 PM
UNITED STATES—A year ago, George W. Bush stood by the bier of Rosa Parks, and this year he stood by that of Coretta Scott King. In each instance he was full of praise for these two ladies of the Civil Rights Movement. Never mind that Bush built his career by opposing nearly everything that these noble ladies stood for, and never mind that he continues this with his recent appointment of the subtly racist Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court!
Bush's capacity for audacious hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me! Just as he stood by the bier of John Paul II, who begged him not to invade
Iraq, so he insults with his praise,
Rosa and Coretta, whose race he has ever dedicated himself to oppress.
Bush arrogates to himself the mantle of a chief protector of Christian civilization, and similarly, that of a chief protector of the State of Israel. And as to the latter, never mind that the demand of his "Christian Zionist" supporters for an "
Israel" extending from the
Jordan to the Sea must be paid for every day in the blood of Arabs and Jews alike! Such audacious lies in the mouth of a purported "Christian", contributes to an idea which is rampant in the popular mind; that, that religion which claims to be nothing less than Truth Itself, is also nothing more than a subtle lie.
And never mind again, that the lies of Bush are opposed and exposed by the best of Christian leaders, not only Popes John Paul and Benedict, who has also denounced the Iraq War, but every Eastern Orthodox prelate and nearly every Protestant one! (Bush's own ultra-right-wing supporters excepted of course!)
"No religion is really true! Certainly Christianity and especially that of the Catholic Church is not." That is the central message of Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code." His book asserts a number of purported "facts" to support this claim. Real scholars regularly rip these purported "facts" to shreds, but Brown's book and film make multiples of millions just the same.
Photo courtesy of Brittany Crouse
His "facts" are almost all an intricate web of lies and distortions cleverly packaged to appeal to a popular mind, which cannot accept a "Christianity" that cannot accept promiscuous sexual behavior and a (supposed) "female equality" which must be expressed in goddess-worship. Real scholars familiar with real Christian history see this clearly but it is difficult for us to package our facts so cleverly as Brown packages his falsehoods.
And our replies only bore a popular mind, which no longer believes in, let alone cares for, such a concept as Objective Truth: that Truth, which Jesus Christ said would make us free.
But, at the risk of boring further, I will mention a few: The effeminate-looking figure next to Jesus in Da Vinci's "Last Supper" is that of
St. John, whom artists usually depict that way to emphasize his youth in relation to the other apostles.
The Canon of New Testament Scripture was well-formed and accepted by the Christian Church, at least as early as the middle of the Second Century, nearly two hundred years before
Constantine. The idea that Christ was/is God Incarnate was there from the beginning. The vote at the Council of Nicea to continue (not innovate, as Brown suggests) that belief was 316-2.
And by the way,
Constantine's favorite bishops at that council were actually recalcitrants, but he bowed to its decision anyway, while also continuing to protect and even in some instances, favor, those recalcitrants, among whom was the bishop who baptized him on his deathbed.
The "Opus Dei" organization is but one of several "new movements" within the Catholic Church. Its members do not wear hoods or engage in self-flagellation.
I wonder if much of this is particularly interesting to the average Canyon News reader. But all of it rests against the backdrop of the continued unjust Iraq War and the current controversy over cartoons, which insult the followers of the Muslim founder, Mohammed.
These matters involve many issues, which are perplexing for a Christian. For if our religion is true than that of Mohammed must be false. But they are mostly people of good will, who also share in the Judeo-Christian Monotheist patrimony.
The reaction of a few thousand (out of more than 1 billion) to those cartoons, has frequently been too extreme. But shouldn't their beliefs be better respected? And shouldn't ours have a better right to be protected from the slanders of the likes of Mr. Dan Brown?