I recently watched the movie, "The Ruins", and needless to say it was a waste of time, with very little dialogue and lots of gory and bloody scenes. After watching that movie several issues started spinning through my head about what we have become as a society.
Movies like the The Ruins', the "Saw' series, Silent Hill', Son of Sam', Urban Legend', Hannibal' and others all have an effect on society. When you see things like this happening on screen, it makes you wonder how many other people have also thought about them prior to this movie.
There are so many sick people in the world today, who all have weird fetishes and sick desires. Should we as a society really be encouraging this? It is frightening to think that people actually enjoy gore. We have become so used to so much gore and barbarity on television that we have numbed our selves down, and become insensitive to the real issues at hand.
Why is there a need for this kind of genre? This is not a question for producers and directors but rather a question for society. Whatever happened to the old westerns, love stories, clever thrillers, fantasy films etc? As far as I am aware some of these genres still have immense potential, not to mention the string of comedies that come out year after year. So why then, the need for this particular genre?
Shouldn't parents be concerned about the well being of children? There is so much exposure today to such harmful ideas, especially through the media. Shouldn't that worry us enough, rather than to deal with more and more exposure of our children?
Sure these movies have ratings, children are not meant to see them. However what people overlook is the fact that children are not the only ones that can fall victim to such ideas. Even grow up people can be the victims of such movies. Look at pedophiles, serial killers and mass murderers. When people who have potential to turn into those monsters, come across information like this in movies is it not likely that they could be encouraged to act upon their inner suppressed urges of violence?
We should put an end to these sorts of movies. A little violence is essential to a particular plot of a story, but gore to the extent that some movies project is inexcusable. It is time that we as a society started taking these little things seriously in order to protect not only ourselves but our children as well.
I remember reading an article many years ago about a child who jumped out of a window thinking he could fly like superman. If a movie like Superman can induce such behavior, shouldn't we be worried about what effect movies like these can have?
Monday, April 14, 2008
Should dogs be indoor or outdoor pets?
Although dogs are domesticated animals that fact cannot be perceived in literal terms. It can be done yes, a lot of dogs are kept indoors by their owners however that it not healthy for the animal.
Dogs have evolved from the wolf, and as we all know wolves live in packs. There is a certain hierarchy within the pack, ranging from the pack leader or the head hunter, to the most submissive and docile one in the pack. All these wolves have a function in the pack. And that function is predetermined by instinct and by nature.
Dogs are the same. Different breeds of dogs have different functions, or jobs. Labradors are water babies, bred to retrieve game from lakes and rivers. Their primary function is to be strong swimmers. Bloodhounds and other scent hounds are bred to track foxes other hunted animals. Pitt bulls are bred to be fighters, and breeds like the Mastiffs were bred for blood sports like bull-baiting, lion-baiting and bear-baiting.
These dogs have a function, however as pets, they do not always get the chance to tap into their instincts, which is why it is in best interest of the dog that it be an outdoor pet. Dogs were originally wild and were used to living in the wilderness. By keeping a dog copped up in a house, you are stripping that dog away of all its instincts and its very nature of being a dog.
Dogs are active animals; they need to run, to learn new things, to be able to hear new sounds, adapt to their environment, take charge of their territory and to be the protector in a home. A dog that is protected constantly in a house is not going to learn any of these things. The dog will start getting humanized and as it does so, lose its instinct.
When dogs are left outdoors, they keep themselves busy, they run around, play with other dogs in their pack, they stimulate their senses of sight, smell and taste and so are constantly given new challenges by nature. And dogs love challenges.
A dog lover who keeps his or her dog inside the house constantly is doing harm to their dog. The dog has nothing to do but to lie around all day, or follow their owner around the house. There is no stimulation to the sense, except maybe around dinner time or when someone is watching television. But is that really the kind of education we want to give out pets?
People under estimate the importance of stimulating an animals senses. I was watching a Ceasar Milan episode one day where he was trying to instill all the animal and dog qualities back into a sniffer dog which had been traumatized. And one of the ways he did this was by getting the dog to smell a litter of new born puppies. The smell of the placenta was supposed to tap into the dogs memories of when he was just a dog, and not a worker.
Things like that, just show us how important it is, as dog lovers and pet owners, to keep our pets busy, let them run around, chase a raccoon, track a scent or play fight with another dog. All these are ways to keep their inner dog alive, to allow them to harness their abilities as trackers and swimmers. Dog behavior is a fascinating subject. And by keeping a dog outdoors you are not only punishing your dog, but you are also meddling with the psychology of a dog. Let a dog be a dog. And the only place where it can be that way, it outdoors, among nature, its natural habitat.
Dogs have evolved from the wolf, and as we all know wolves live in packs. There is a certain hierarchy within the pack, ranging from the pack leader or the head hunter, to the most submissive and docile one in the pack. All these wolves have a function in the pack. And that function is predetermined by instinct and by nature.
Dogs are the same. Different breeds of dogs have different functions, or jobs. Labradors are water babies, bred to retrieve game from lakes and rivers. Their primary function is to be strong swimmers. Bloodhounds and other scent hounds are bred to track foxes other hunted animals. Pitt bulls are bred to be fighters, and breeds like the Mastiffs were bred for blood sports like bull-baiting, lion-baiting and bear-baiting.
These dogs have a function, however as pets, they do not always get the chance to tap into their instincts, which is why it is in best interest of the dog that it be an outdoor pet. Dogs were originally wild and were used to living in the wilderness. By keeping a dog copped up in a house, you are stripping that dog away of all its instincts and its very nature of being a dog.
Dogs are active animals; they need to run, to learn new things, to be able to hear new sounds, adapt to their environment, take charge of their territory and to be the protector in a home. A dog that is protected constantly in a house is not going to learn any of these things. The dog will start getting humanized and as it does so, lose its instinct.
When dogs are left outdoors, they keep themselves busy, they run around, play with other dogs in their pack, they stimulate their senses of sight, smell and taste and so are constantly given new challenges by nature. And dogs love challenges.
A dog lover who keeps his or her dog inside the house constantly is doing harm to their dog. The dog has nothing to do but to lie around all day, or follow their owner around the house. There is no stimulation to the sense, except maybe around dinner time or when someone is watching television. But is that really the kind of education we want to give out pets?
People under estimate the importance of stimulating an animals senses. I was watching a Ceasar Milan episode one day where he was trying to instill all the animal and dog qualities back into a sniffer dog which had been traumatized. And one of the ways he did this was by getting the dog to smell a litter of new born puppies. The smell of the placenta was supposed to tap into the dogs memories of when he was just a dog, and not a worker.
Things like that, just show us how important it is, as dog lovers and pet owners, to keep our pets busy, let them run around, chase a raccoon, track a scent or play fight with another dog. All these are ways to keep their inner dog alive, to allow them to harness their abilities as trackers and swimmers. Dog behavior is a fascinating subject. And by keeping a dog outdoors you are not only punishing your dog, but you are also meddling with the psychology of a dog. Let a dog be a dog. And the only place where it can be that way, it outdoors, among nature, its natural habitat.
Best dogs for kids
The one thing children will always want is a puppy. However what puppy they end up with isn't just based on the breed of dog but also on the characteristics of your children.
Most people assume that getting a puppy is easy. However, it is not the breed of dog that needs to be considered but the energy level of the dog. Dogs like labradors and spaniels make great companions for children as they are lovable and loyal dogs with very little aggression, however their activity level is extremmely high.
Children need to realize that a happy pup is a well exercised, disciplined and loved pup. In that very order. Playing with a puppy is not considered exercise, and even exercise like a walk needs to be scheduled. Like children, who have a certain time where they eat, bathe, play and sleep, dogs need the same discipline as well.
Taking that into account, an ideal breed of dog for children would be a smaller dog. However do not be fooler. Breeds like the jack russel terrier and the poodle are small dogs, but their energy levels are beyond what a child can handle. Breeds like the Yorkshire Terrier are small but are extremmely alert dogs, they tend to yap a lot and bark at almost anything. When considering smaller breeds as well you also have to take into account that these dogs are more delicate and if touched or held in a certain way will bit you as they get hurt easily.
I have had almost sixteen dogs till date and I always wanted the bigger breeds of dogs like boxers, german shepherds etc. However, it was only later that I realized that I couldnt handle such a dog till I was much older, organized and self diciplined.
Therefore, I think the qualities to look for in a breed when buying a dog for a child, is the tempermant, genetics, characteristics and aggression. With all these factors taken into account my advice would be to get a dog like the Pug. Pugs are small dogs, easily trained, always by their owners side, very low agression levels and are fun, loving dogs. They would make the ideal companion for children as their energy levels are relatively low.
They get along well with other dogs, are extremmely sociable pets and have charming personalities. They also happen to be one of the cutest breeds around
Does J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter book series pervert American values?
The first Harry Potter book was introduced to me when I was twelve years old, by a teacher in my school. After reading the first book I was hooked, I would anxiously wait for the next book to come out and in that time re-read the books I had over and over again.
When a new book would come out, I would read until my mother forced me to go to bed, and she would later, often find me with reading until the wee hours of the morning with torch light.
My mother never understood why I was so excited. At the dinner table, I would constantly ramble on and on about what was happening, sharing my theories as to what would happen next. My parents had no idea what I was talking about, yet they were very amused by my passion for Harry Potter.
Most parents, who have not read Harry Potter, assume that all the book is about is witchcraft, black magic and sorcery. Particularly parents who are religious; often come across newspaper articles where, the Harry Potter books are frowned upon by the church and other religious bodies.
Harry Potter however was an escape for me. As a child growing up I found the content refreshing, believable, the characters were alive in my head. Even before the movies came out, I would constantly picture the characters and Hogwarts castle and I would stay lost in those thoughts for hours on end.
So coming back to the question in hand, "Does J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter book series pervert American values?"
My answer is no. Perversion is probably the last thing that this book does to American, or any other kind of values.
The charm about the books is the fact that they are solely based on adventure, friendship and loyalty. There is nothing perverted in the books. The thought that anyone could think so is ridiculous.
The books hold an important message that is essential for the children of today to be aware of. That message is to be true to you, to trust yourself and your family and friends and to always choose the right path; no matter how hard it may be.
Children of today hardly read. My sister and I have an age gap of eleven years and I know for a fact that she would rather spend time on a computer than pick up a good book to read. The Harry Potter books are probably the only books she doesn't have to be forced to read.
What Rowling did, was a favor to society through these books. She fashioned this idea of a young orphan boy and portrayed his story in a manner that made all of us laugh and cry with Harry. Rowling's readers did not just read the book, but they took part in the story. For those of us who have been reading Harry Potter for years now, we have grown up with Harry. We too have experienced parallels of the problems Harry is faced with. We too have bickered and fought with friends, had mood swings, had crushes and then had our hearts broken. Some of us have had to deal with a death in the family, and finally all of us had to grow up.
Harry's story could be seen as just an extreme version of what all children experience when growing up. Eventually we realize the more important things in life, friendship, family, loyalty and courage. Rowling brilliantly paints two sides, good and evil. Throughout the series, she shows how Harry resists the temptation to go to the dark side, how he would rather die than betray his friends. How he ill fight for what is right at no cost.
The story is beyond brilliant. It is exactly what children today need as a reminder of what is important, of the kind of person they should be. The magic in the book is just a blank canvas for these messages Rowling put across. The magic is essential, to draw children in, to excite their curiosities and to encourage them to imagine.
With the technological advances that we have today, and children growing up so fast, it is no wonder that they lose track of certain values. What the world was ten years ago, is not the same now.
I feel that Rowling has kindled a flame inside every child, pre-teen, teenager and adult. Through her stories she has kept our imaginations on a tight exercise schedule, she has warmed our hearts with Harry's relationship with Sirius Black, with Dumbledore and his friends. She has shown that love comes from different places, and although you may seem like you are alone, you never really are.
What better values could we want for our children than these messages? Those children who were fortunate enough to stumble upon Harry Potter when they were around twelve years old are lucky. They have not only had the ability to grow up with Harry, but they have also been educated on these values for the past seven years.
When a new book would come out, I would read until my mother forced me to go to bed, and she would later, often find me with reading until the wee hours of the morning with torch light.
My mother never understood why I was so excited. At the dinner table, I would constantly ramble on and on about what was happening, sharing my theories as to what would happen next. My parents had no idea what I was talking about, yet they were very amused by my passion for Harry Potter.
Most parents, who have not read Harry Potter, assume that all the book is about is witchcraft, black magic and sorcery. Particularly parents who are religious; often come across newspaper articles where, the Harry Potter books are frowned upon by the church and other religious bodies.
Harry Potter however was an escape for me. As a child growing up I found the content refreshing, believable, the characters were alive in my head. Even before the movies came out, I would constantly picture the characters and Hogwarts castle and I would stay lost in those thoughts for hours on end.
So coming back to the question in hand, "Does J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter book series pervert American values?"
My answer is no. Perversion is probably the last thing that this book does to American, or any other kind of values.
The charm about the books is the fact that they are solely based on adventure, friendship and loyalty. There is nothing perverted in the books. The thought that anyone could think so is ridiculous.
The books hold an important message that is essential for the children of today to be aware of. That message is to be true to you, to trust yourself and your family and friends and to always choose the right path; no matter how hard it may be.
Children of today hardly read. My sister and I have an age gap of eleven years and I know for a fact that she would rather spend time on a computer than pick up a good book to read. The Harry Potter books are probably the only books she doesn't have to be forced to read.
What Rowling did, was a favor to society through these books. She fashioned this idea of a young orphan boy and portrayed his story in a manner that made all of us laugh and cry with Harry. Rowling's readers did not just read the book, but they took part in the story. For those of us who have been reading Harry Potter for years now, we have grown up with Harry. We too have experienced parallels of the problems Harry is faced with. We too have bickered and fought with friends, had mood swings, had crushes and then had our hearts broken. Some of us have had to deal with a death in the family, and finally all of us had to grow up.
Harry's story could be seen as just an extreme version of what all children experience when growing up. Eventually we realize the more important things in life, friendship, family, loyalty and courage. Rowling brilliantly paints two sides, good and evil. Throughout the series, she shows how Harry resists the temptation to go to the dark side, how he would rather die than betray his friends. How he ill fight for what is right at no cost.
The story is beyond brilliant. It is exactly what children today need as a reminder of what is important, of the kind of person they should be. The magic in the book is just a blank canvas for these messages Rowling put across. The magic is essential, to draw children in, to excite their curiosities and to encourage them to imagine.
With the technological advances that we have today, and children growing up so fast, it is no wonder that they lose track of certain values. What the world was ten years ago, is not the same now.
I feel that Rowling has kindled a flame inside every child, pre-teen, teenager and adult. Through her stories she has kept our imaginations on a tight exercise schedule, she has warmed our hearts with Harry's relationship with Sirius Black, with Dumbledore and his friends. She has shown that love comes from different places, and although you may seem like you are alone, you never really are.
What better values could we want for our children than these messages? Those children who were fortunate enough to stumble upon Harry Potter when they were around twelve years old are lucky. They have not only had the ability to grow up with Harry, but they have also been educated on these values for the past seven years.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Living between two cultures
World War II was the beginning of an end. People saw horrors like no other and witnessed a time where war was not the only tragedy.
The Swastika of Destruction For all those people during the war and more important, the people who lived during the reign of Hitler and through the Holocaust, this symbol still stirs ghosts of the past. This one symbol has the power to open closed wounds and in a blink of an eye bring back monstrosities that cannot be forgotten. The swastika.
During Hitler's reign in Nazi Germany the swastika canopied Germany and all her colonies. It was a symbol of power and control. In his diary, the Mein Kampf Hitler wrote "I myself, meanwhile, after innumerable attempts, had laid down a final form; a flag with a red background, a white disk, and a black swastika in the middle. After long trials I also found a definite proportion between the size of the flag and the size of the white disk, as well as the shape and thickness of the swastika." Hitler stated that "As National Socialists, we see our program in our flag. In red we see the social idea of the movement, in white the nationalistic idea, in the swastika the mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryan man, and, by the same token, the victory of the idea of creative work, which as such always has been and always will be anti-Semitic."
Because of its use by Hitler and the Nazis and, in modern times, by neo-Nazis and other hate groups, for many people in the West, the swastika is associated primarily with Nazism and white supremacy. Hence, outside historical contexts, it has become taboo in Western countries. However what would you say to people of Indian origin, when you remove the red background and white disc of the German flag and are left with only the swastika? The swastika, as most people may not know is also an extremely important Hindu religious symbol. It symbolizes well being and is used all over Hindu history. Even today the swastika is used during festivals. How then can one symbol spell horror for some people and virtue for others? The swastika therefore is a very controversial symbol. However, controversial as it may be, the real question is how effective is it, and to who?
The Swastika Redefined The swastika has held a place of great importance in India and Asia for thousands of years, and is widely used by Hindus, Jains and Buddhists. The swastika is to be seen everywhere across the Indian sub-continent: sculptured into temples both ancient and modern, decorating buildings, houses, shops, painted onto public buses, in taxis - even decorating the dashboards of the three-wheeler motor rickshaws. Many religious and spiritual books display the symbol. It may well be the most prevalent symbol one will see in India. It has been seen as a symbol for good luck by people in both ancient and modern times. A closer look at the etymology of this Sanskrit word, however, reveals a deeper meaning. When the Sanskrit scholar and spiritual teacher, P.R. Sarkar visited Germany in 1979 he gave the following interpretation of the word: su - means "good", asti - means "to be, to exist", ik - means "what is in existence, and will continue to exist" and a - denotes feminine gender. So "Swastika" means a 'good existence' that is not to be destroyed and that remains in a good condition. Sarkar went on to say that its deeper meaning is permanent victory. In the context of the cultural origins of the swastika, this means the victory of dharma - the fundamental spiritual nature of humanity.
The Nazi Swastika In Nazi Germany, the swastika with its arms turned clockwise became the national symbol. In 1910, a poet and nationalist Guido von List suggested that the swastika as a symbol for all anti-Semitic organizations. When the National Socialist Party was formed in 1919, it adopted the ancient symbol, the swastika, giving it the worst meaning possible, destroying the good symbolism which the swastika had held for thousands of years prior. Today, whenever the ancient symbol is used, it is automatically assumed by most people that it is a Nazi symbol and that the people who use it are Nazis. When the Nazis took the ancient symbol, they erased the good meaning of the swastika, the symbol of purity and of life. The racist people of today further degrade the meaning of the ancient symbol by spray painting the swastika on people houses, cars, and even schools.
In February 2005, the European Union dropped plans to ban the use of the swastika in its 25 member states. The proposal from German Conservatives, Liberals and Social Democrats in the European Parliament had been for the banning of all Nazi symbols, however, it proved impossible for member states to agree on which symbols should be banned and the proposal was dropped. The controversy arose when Prince Harry, third in line to the British throne, wore a Nazi costume and a swastika armband to a fancy dress party. The resulting proposal to introduce an E.U. wide ban on the swastika led to much discussion amongst different groups and organizations that use the symbol in their culture or religion. Most people are ignorant to the fact that the swastika was not only a Nazi symbol, symbolizing death and destruction. This is a prime example of how the world delineates the swastika as a bad symbol, and how the Nazis destroyed the meaning of the symbol by adopting it as their own.
The swastika symbolizes so much more than what the Nazis planned. The swastika existed as a symbol of good fortune thousands of years before the Nazis even existed. The symbol is to many cultures an important one, representing their history and beliefs. The Nazis, by taking the swastika, annihilated the significance of the ancient symbol. Today, the swastika is to most people a symbol of evil, a symbol of demise, and a symbol of ruination. It is extremely depressing to find that although the swastika is a symbol of life, and symbol of joy, it has been made a symbol of harm, something the people of the ancient world never intended it to be. Regardless of whether the swastika represented all those things, I personally feel that the swastika is offensive. Although I am Indian and I have grown up with the symbol, I believe that the swastika was marketed at a time when people were segregated, classed as useful and useless, genocide swept nations and people were treated with a fate worse than death. Being a student of History, I read countless accounts of events that took place during the Nazi regime. How babies were smashed to death while mothers watched horror struck. How people were left to rot in their own feces, stacked like books one on top of the other. How people were promised freedom, if only they went through a door, only to be gassed to death. Countless accounts and pictures depict these terrible things that happened to people. In Hitler's own words, the nation intended "to promote the victory of the better and the stronger and demand the subordination of the inferior and weaker." Hitler targeted not only Jews but homosexuals, gypsies, and the handicapped. Medical experiments were performed on people, which included placing subjects in pressure chambers, testing drugs on them, freezing them, attempting to change eye color by injecting chemicals into children's eyes, and various amputations and other brutal surgeries. An account of a woman in Auschwitz stated that two children were taken away, when they returned, they were in a terrible state: they had been sewn together, back to back, like Siamese twins. Their wounds were infected and oozing pus. They screamed day and night. Then their parents managed to get some morphine and they killed the children in order to end their suffering.
If this was the plight of all those people who suffered during Nazi Germany then I do not think that the swastika is a symbol worthy of being paraded. The goal of the Third Reich was never in accordance with the universal spiritual victory that the swastika represents.
So in conclusion, it was never about what the swastika was initially about but what it came to be and what it stands for today. We as people owe it to all those who suffered at the hands of the Nazi's and to respect their death. The last thing we should be doing is flaunting a representation of inhumanity.
The Swastika of Destruction For all those people during the war and more important, the people who lived during the reign of Hitler and through the Holocaust, this symbol still stirs ghosts of the past. This one symbol has the power to open closed wounds and in a blink of an eye bring back monstrosities that cannot be forgotten. The swastika.
During Hitler's reign in Nazi Germany the swastika canopied Germany and all her colonies. It was a symbol of power and control. In his diary, the Mein Kampf Hitler wrote "I myself, meanwhile, after innumerable attempts, had laid down a final form; a flag with a red background, a white disk, and a black swastika in the middle. After long trials I also found a definite proportion between the size of the flag and the size of the white disk, as well as the shape and thickness of the swastika." Hitler stated that "As National Socialists, we see our program in our flag. In red we see the social idea of the movement, in white the nationalistic idea, in the swastika the mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryan man, and, by the same token, the victory of the idea of creative work, which as such always has been and always will be anti-Semitic."
Because of its use by Hitler and the Nazis and, in modern times, by neo-Nazis and other hate groups, for many people in the West, the swastika is associated primarily with Nazism and white supremacy. Hence, outside historical contexts, it has become taboo in Western countries. However what would you say to people of Indian origin, when you remove the red background and white disc of the German flag and are left with only the swastika? The swastika, as most people may not know is also an extremely important Hindu religious symbol. It symbolizes well being and is used all over Hindu history. Even today the swastika is used during festivals. How then can one symbol spell horror for some people and virtue for others? The swastika therefore is a very controversial symbol. However, controversial as it may be, the real question is how effective is it, and to who?
The Swastika Redefined The swastika has held a place of great importance in India and Asia for thousands of years, and is widely used by Hindus, Jains and Buddhists. The swastika is to be seen everywhere across the Indian sub-continent: sculptured into temples both ancient and modern, decorating buildings, houses, shops, painted onto public buses, in taxis - even decorating the dashboards of the three-wheeler motor rickshaws. Many religious and spiritual books display the symbol. It may well be the most prevalent symbol one will see in India. It has been seen as a symbol for good luck by people in both ancient and modern times. A closer look at the etymology of this Sanskrit word, however, reveals a deeper meaning. When the Sanskrit scholar and spiritual teacher, P.R. Sarkar visited Germany in 1979 he gave the following interpretation of the word: su - means "good", asti - means "to be, to exist", ik - means "what is in existence, and will continue to exist" and a - denotes feminine gender. So "Swastika" means a 'good existence' that is not to be destroyed and that remains in a good condition. Sarkar went on to say that its deeper meaning is permanent victory. In the context of the cultural origins of the swastika, this means the victory of dharma - the fundamental spiritual nature of humanity.
The Nazi Swastika In Nazi Germany, the swastika with its arms turned clockwise became the national symbol. In 1910, a poet and nationalist Guido von List suggested that the swastika as a symbol for all anti-Semitic organizations. When the National Socialist Party was formed in 1919, it adopted the ancient symbol, the swastika, giving it the worst meaning possible, destroying the good symbolism which the swastika had held for thousands of years prior. Today, whenever the ancient symbol is used, it is automatically assumed by most people that it is a Nazi symbol and that the people who use it are Nazis. When the Nazis took the ancient symbol, they erased the good meaning of the swastika, the symbol of purity and of life. The racist people of today further degrade the meaning of the ancient symbol by spray painting the swastika on people houses, cars, and even schools.
In February 2005, the European Union dropped plans to ban the use of the swastika in its 25 member states. The proposal from German Conservatives, Liberals and Social Democrats in the European Parliament had been for the banning of all Nazi symbols, however, it proved impossible for member states to agree on which symbols should be banned and the proposal was dropped. The controversy arose when Prince Harry, third in line to the British throne, wore a Nazi costume and a swastika armband to a fancy dress party. The resulting proposal to introduce an E.U. wide ban on the swastika led to much discussion amongst different groups and organizations that use the symbol in their culture or religion. Most people are ignorant to the fact that the swastika was not only a Nazi symbol, symbolizing death and destruction. This is a prime example of how the world delineates the swastika as a bad symbol, and how the Nazis destroyed the meaning of the symbol by adopting it as their own.
The swastika symbolizes so much more than what the Nazis planned. The swastika existed as a symbol of good fortune thousands of years before the Nazis even existed. The symbol is to many cultures an important one, representing their history and beliefs. The Nazis, by taking the swastika, annihilated the significance of the ancient symbol. Today, the swastika is to most people a symbol of evil, a symbol of demise, and a symbol of ruination. It is extremely depressing to find that although the swastika is a symbol of life, and symbol of joy, it has been made a symbol of harm, something the people of the ancient world never intended it to be. Regardless of whether the swastika represented all those things, I personally feel that the swastika is offensive. Although I am Indian and I have grown up with the symbol, I believe that the swastika was marketed at a time when people were segregated, classed as useful and useless, genocide swept nations and people were treated with a fate worse than death. Being a student of History, I read countless accounts of events that took place during the Nazi regime. How babies were smashed to death while mothers watched horror struck. How people were left to rot in their own feces, stacked like books one on top of the other. How people were promised freedom, if only they went through a door, only to be gassed to death. Countless accounts and pictures depict these terrible things that happened to people. In Hitler's own words, the nation intended "to promote the victory of the better and the stronger and demand the subordination of the inferior and weaker." Hitler targeted not only Jews but homosexuals, gypsies, and the handicapped. Medical experiments were performed on people, which included placing subjects in pressure chambers, testing drugs on them, freezing them, attempting to change eye color by injecting chemicals into children's eyes, and various amputations and other brutal surgeries. An account of a woman in Auschwitz stated that two children were taken away, when they returned, they were in a terrible state: they had been sewn together, back to back, like Siamese twins. Their wounds were infected and oozing pus. They screamed day and night. Then their parents managed to get some morphine and they killed the children in order to end their suffering.
If this was the plight of all those people who suffered during Nazi Germany then I do not think that the swastika is a symbol worthy of being paraded. The goal of the Third Reich was never in accordance with the universal spiritual victory that the swastika represents.
So in conclusion, it was never about what the swastika was initially about but what it came to be and what it stands for today. We as people owe it to all those who suffered at the hands of the Nazi's and to respect their death. The last thing we should be doing is flaunting a representation of inhumanity.
What ever happened to customer service?
In its March edition, Time magazine featured '10 ideas that are changing the world'. Of these 10, the one that I found quite amusing was idea number 2, The End of Customer Service. What astounds me is how as a society, we have welcomes this phenomena with open arms.
Intially the idea of self dependence was liberating. Being able to self check in at airports instead of waiting in long lines, only to have to switch to another queue, ATM's, and even self check out counters at supermarkets. All of these were luxuries.
Time magazine posed a very valid question, ' By adding all these new tasks to our daily routine, are we overstressing ourselves and reducing our quality of life?'.
Now, just to clarify, these new tasks that Time is referring to are things like the ' Airport of the Furture, that Alaskan Airlines is building in Seattle. The ticket counter has been obliterated; only islands of self-service-check-in kiosks remain'. ' In Malaysia, IBM has outfitted a chain of sushi restaurants with ordering screens linked to the kitchen; so much for waitresses'. Out of all these examples that Time put forward, the one that was truely a shame was ' Heritage Valley Health Hospital System in Pennsylvania, that will soon join ranks with hospitals using chek-in kiosks for emergency-room visits. Simply touch the image of the human body where it hurts'.
So going back to the question that Time magazine put forward. I think we are overstressing ourselves. Ever call up your bank, or your cell phone company? Have you like most others, wasted time, pressing buttons only to find yourself talking to a computerized voice that really can't help you, because well, your query was a few buttons behind. I always find myself directly dialling zero to speak to an operator. Somehow, even though they can't always help you, it is comforting knowing a 'human' is trying to help you instead of a computer.
So where are we now? I feel like I am stuck between a generation that was moving towards a slightly more tech-savvy way or life and a generation that is literally drowning in it. To be quite frank, I prefer the prior.
There is something almost romantic about quaint little shops, there's a certain warmth when you talk to the old man behind the counter and he hands you your goodies in a little brown paper bag.
Nowadays all we have are computers and plastic. Theres no romance left, no people to help people, but rather a world where we have to help ourselves.
I was thinking about the health systems that Time mentioned, and it dawned upon me, that these kiosks could offer no compassion, no sympathy, no comforting words to someone who just brought in a patient that had to be admitted. Is that really the world we want to live in?
I think as a society we are losing track of the little things in life, we are forgetting simplicities and we are so wrapped up in this technological world that some of us even forget to look out a window, or take a walk to enjoy nature. None of us could survive without our cellphones or laptops.
So in response to Time Magazines question, yes I do think we are reducing our quality of life. It is not just a matter of customer service, but the principle behind it. Forget the fact that it takes away jobs from people, but it also takes away a piece of who we are as human beings.
It takes away our ability to do something for some, it robs us of the action of giving, and it supresses our humanity. Afterall, if we cannot help each other, we cannot help ourselves.
NB:- Some of the information in this article was taken from Time Magazine.
Intially the idea of self dependence was liberating. Being able to self check in at airports instead of waiting in long lines, only to have to switch to another queue, ATM's, and even self check out counters at supermarkets. All of these were luxuries.
Time magazine posed a very valid question, ' By adding all these new tasks to our daily routine, are we overstressing ourselves and reducing our quality of life?'.
Now, just to clarify, these new tasks that Time is referring to are things like the ' Airport of the Furture, that Alaskan Airlines is building in Seattle. The ticket counter has been obliterated; only islands of self-service-check-in kiosks remain'. ' In Malaysia, IBM has outfitted a chain of sushi restaurants with ordering screens linked to the kitchen; so much for waitresses'. Out of all these examples that Time put forward, the one that was truely a shame was ' Heritage Valley Health Hospital System in Pennsylvania, that will soon join ranks with hospitals using chek-in kiosks for emergency-room visits. Simply touch the image of the human body where it hurts'.
So going back to the question that Time magazine put forward. I think we are overstressing ourselves. Ever call up your bank, or your cell phone company? Have you like most others, wasted time, pressing buttons only to find yourself talking to a computerized voice that really can't help you, because well, your query was a few buttons behind. I always find myself directly dialling zero to speak to an operator. Somehow, even though they can't always help you, it is comforting knowing a 'human' is trying to help you instead of a computer.
So where are we now? I feel like I am stuck between a generation that was moving towards a slightly more tech-savvy way or life and a generation that is literally drowning in it. To be quite frank, I prefer the prior.
There is something almost romantic about quaint little shops, there's a certain warmth when you talk to the old man behind the counter and he hands you your goodies in a little brown paper bag.
Nowadays all we have are computers and plastic. Theres no romance left, no people to help people, but rather a world where we have to help ourselves.
I was thinking about the health systems that Time mentioned, and it dawned upon me, that these kiosks could offer no compassion, no sympathy, no comforting words to someone who just brought in a patient that had to be admitted. Is that really the world we want to live in?
I think as a society we are losing track of the little things in life, we are forgetting simplicities and we are so wrapped up in this technological world that some of us even forget to look out a window, or take a walk to enjoy nature. None of us could survive without our cellphones or laptops.
So in response to Time Magazines question, yes I do think we are reducing our quality of life. It is not just a matter of customer service, but the principle behind it. Forget the fact that it takes away jobs from people, but it also takes away a piece of who we are as human beings.
It takes away our ability to do something for some, it robs us of the action of giving, and it supresses our humanity. Afterall, if we cannot help each other, we cannot help ourselves.
NB:- Some of the information in this article was taken from Time Magazine.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
The Da Vinci Code - Truth behind fiction?
Truth behind Fiction
Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't.
- Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
The Da Vinci Code is one of the most brilliant books ever written and later produced into a movie. Although the book and movie are fictitious, the argument that Brown presents cannot be ignored. The impact the book and movie has had on people is colossal. ‘Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Archbishop of Genoa and a possible successor to the Pope, immediately took up the fight by claiming that the novel was a deliberate attempt to discredit the Roman Catholic Church through absurd and vulgar falsifications.[1] Brown has ingeniously sculpted a theory on Christianity and the Holy Grail. ‘Referring to the Council of Nicaea, Brown claims that "until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet … a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless."[2]. Countless examples like these throughout his work have left readers thinking why not?
Although the theory of the Holy Grail existed before Brown wrote the book, people never considered that theory could possibly be true until the Da Vinci Code came out. The reason behind this being that Dan Brown took history and facts and interpreted them to present the theory of the Holy Grail. US Catholic bishops launched a website rebutting the key claims in the novel. The bishops were concerned about what they perceive as serious mis-statements. So how could a book that was mere fiction cause such a stir, that priests and bishops were launching websites in order to convince people that the book was not true?
The impact comes down to the story telling of Brown and how he uses history to his advantage. Brown manages to persuade many people that the greatest story ever told was in fact a hoax. The truth being that Jesus Christ was married to Mary Magdalene, that they had children, that there was a Priory of Sion, Knights that protected Mary and the secret blood line of Jesus. With the Bible playing a central role in Christianity, the question of Scripture's historic validity bears tremendous implications. Brown claims that Constantine commissioned and bankrolled a staff to manipulate existing texts and thereby divinize the human Christ. Brown also went on to write about how Leonardo Da Vinci was a grandmaster at one point, protecting the secret himself and depicting it in The Last Supper. Brown discusses Constantine, the Counsel of Nicaea and Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland. He uses all these things and presents his theory. It is essential to look deeper into them to see whether Brown had reasonable evidence to convince people.
Constantine
Like Brown writes, Constantine was in fact a pagan emperor. He was baptized on his deathbed. In 313 Constantine announced toleration of Christianity in the Edict of Milan, which removed penalties for professing Christianity and returned confiscated Church property.[3] The reason behind this being that Christianity was high on the rise and Constantine did not want a divided Rome. It was Constantine that called for the Counsel of Nicaea.
The Counsel of Nicaea
First Council of Nicaea, held in Nicaea (present-day Iznik in Turkey), was the first Ecumenical council of the early Christian Church, and most significantly resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Nicene Creed. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent 'general councils of Bishops, the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.
The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements in the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same substance as God the Father or merely of similar substance. Another result of the council was an agreement on when to celebrate the resurrection the most important feast of the ecclesiastical calendar. The council decided in favor of celebrating the resurrection on the first Sunday after the first full moon, independently of the Bible’s Hebrew Calendar.[4]
Since the Counsel of Nicaea did take place, and the fact that belief of Christianity was defined by ‘people’, why could it not be possible that there was a cover up over the immortality and divinity of Jesus? There is no proof suggesting that Jesus did not have a family, but here we have proof that mere mortals debated over Jesus’ life and death, and then decided to present that as fact. Brown emphasizes this fact throughout his book. Brown claims "almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false." Why? Because of a single meeting of bishops in 325, at the city of Nicea in modern-day Turkey. There, Brown argues, church leaders who wanted to consolidate their power base (he calls this, anachronistically, "the Vatican," or "the Roman Catholic church") created a divine Christ and an infallible Scripture—both novelties that had never before existed among Christians.
The Knights Templar
The Templar’s' success was tied closely to the Crusades; when the Crusaders suffered defeat and lost the Holy Land, support for the Order faded. Rumors about the Templar’s' secret initiation ceremony created mistrust, and King Philip IV of France, deeply in debt to the Order, began pressuring Pope Clement V to take action. In 1307, King Philip had many of the Order's members in France arrested, tortured into giving false confessions, and burned at the stake.[5] In 1312, Pope Clement V, under continuing pressure from King Philip, disbanded the Order.
The abrupt disappearance of a major part of the European infrastructure gave rise to speculation. Could it not be possible that the Pope was being threatened by the Templars? They had grown strong and were very powerful, so it is quite possible that the Church was feeling threatened. The Templars did protect a secret according to Brown; they were the protectors of the Holy Grail, of the royal bloodline of Jesus. It is no surprise that people actually consider this theory because of the history behind it and because of the links between the Templars and the Church. So in essence of all of this, could it be possible that the claim Brown makes in his book is true? That after the Council of Nicaea where the divinity of Jesus was decided, could it not be possible that Jesus was in fact a mere moral, that he had children and was married.
So, is it beyond the realm of possibility that the Church felt threatened by this bloodline of Jesus and sought to destroy it? If that were true then it should come as no surprise that there was a protective order for Mary Magdalene’s safety. In his book Brown claims that Mary was pregnant at the time of the crucifixion of Jesus, that the Knights Templar led her way to a secret place where she gave birth to a baby girl called Sarah. It is ironic that the child is called Sarah because Sarah in French means Princess. This girl would in fact be a princess as both Mary and Jesus were descendents of Kings.
The Last Supper
One of the most important key features in Browns novel is Leonardo Da Vinci’s Last Supper. According to Brown the painting depicts the idea that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and as Brown states, it was she who was supposed to carry on his Church and not St Peter. Brown describes the painting, uncovering the hidden implications. The figure on the right hand of Jesus, with red flowing red hair, folded feminine hands and a hint of a bosom is Mary Magdalene. Brown focuses on the way their clothed, like mirror images. She is joined at Jesus’ hip and is leaning away from him to create a ‘V’ shape, which is the symbol for the womb. Recently an article stated that ‘an Italian musician and computer technician claims to have uncovered musical notes encoded in Leonardo Da Vinci's "Last Supper."[6] So if years later, people are finding music encoded in the painting, it is quite possible for Da Vinci to have included secret messages. Da Vinci is said to be one of the Grand Masters of the Priory. It would have been within his duty to pass the message on someway without suffering the wrath of the church.
Rosslyn Chapel
In the book, Brown’s protagonist goes to Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland because the Holy Grail is said to be there. The architecture within the chapel depicts what Brown is telling us. That it is where the sarcophagus of Mary Magdalene is, and where the Grail documents are hidden. In the novel the protagonist finds a rose in place of the sarcophagus (the rose was a symbol for Mary Magdalene), and he finds records that go back to the death of Christ. The documents show a line of Merovingian kings with the name St Clair. The irony here is that Rosslyn Chapel was built by one William Sinclair who was a descendent of the Norman Knights. Within the chapel stands a pillar called the Princess Pillar which holds the engraving ‘wine is strong, a king is stronger, women are stronger still but truth conquers all’.[7] The ‘green men’ carvings all over the chapel symbolize fertility.
The chapel has been a burial place for several generations of the Sinclair’s. The parallels here are too much to ignore. Rosslyn Chapel is covered with symbols of fertility, William Sinclair was said to be ‘a Grand Master’[8] at some point, the chapel holds generations of Sinclair’s and here Brown is telling a story which involves these very things. Brown did not make up the whole façade. There is truth to a lot that he has presented. How ironic is it that the very chapel Brown chose for the Grail documents to be hidden has a pillar called the Princess Pillar (Princess in French is Sarah- the very name of the ‘daughter’ of Jesus) and he pillar states that women are stronger than men and kings?
The exigency here is irrefutable. If Brown’s theories were true, the repercussions would be colossal. It would shake the foundation of Christianity and everything half the world believes in. There have been wars in the past because of religion, however what would happen if the greatest story ever told was a lie. The church would face serious damage.
Brown however, maintains that his novel was just a work of fiction. The novel ends very diplomatically saying ‘what matters is what you believe’. Sure, there may be many people influenced by Brown’s work. People who may question their beliefs and feel that maybe, just maybe there is more than what meets the eye. Christians have for thousands of years believed in what the Bible and the Church have told us. Questioning our faith could be seen as treachery; however I believe that people who do question their faith, and still believe are far more commendable. After all, what is the point in believing in something blindly? There is no passion there. If one has to believe one should look at all the counter arguments and theories. And if one still believes, that is the true test of faith. Brown’s work is brilliant and captivating but it is still fiction. After all, Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't. Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't.
- Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
The Da Vinci Code is one of the most brilliant books ever written and later produced into a movie. Although the book and movie are fictitious, the argument that Brown presents cannot be ignored. The impact the book and movie has had on people is colossal. ‘Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Archbishop of Genoa and a possible successor to the Pope, immediately took up the fight by claiming that the novel was a deliberate attempt to discredit the Roman Catholic Church through absurd and vulgar falsifications.[1] Brown has ingeniously sculpted a theory on Christianity and the Holy Grail. ‘Referring to the Council of Nicaea, Brown claims that "until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet … a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless."[2]. Countless examples like these throughout his work have left readers thinking why not?
Although the theory of the Holy Grail existed before Brown wrote the book, people never considered that theory could possibly be true until the Da Vinci Code came out. The reason behind this being that Dan Brown took history and facts and interpreted them to present the theory of the Holy Grail. US Catholic bishops launched a website rebutting the key claims in the novel. The bishops were concerned about what they perceive as serious mis-statements. So how could a book that was mere fiction cause such a stir, that priests and bishops were launching websites in order to convince people that the book was not true?
The impact comes down to the story telling of Brown and how he uses history to his advantage. Brown manages to persuade many people that the greatest story ever told was in fact a hoax. The truth being that Jesus Christ was married to Mary Magdalene, that they had children, that there was a Priory of Sion, Knights that protected Mary and the secret blood line of Jesus. With the Bible playing a central role in Christianity, the question of Scripture's historic validity bears tremendous implications. Brown claims that Constantine commissioned and bankrolled a staff to manipulate existing texts and thereby divinize the human Christ. Brown also went on to write about how Leonardo Da Vinci was a grandmaster at one point, protecting the secret himself and depicting it in The Last Supper. Brown discusses Constantine, the Counsel of Nicaea and Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland. He uses all these things and presents his theory. It is essential to look deeper into them to see whether Brown had reasonable evidence to convince people.
Constantine
Like Brown writes, Constantine was in fact a pagan emperor. He was baptized on his deathbed. In 313 Constantine announced toleration of Christianity in the Edict of Milan, which removed penalties for professing Christianity and returned confiscated Church property.[3] The reason behind this being that Christianity was high on the rise and Constantine did not want a divided Rome. It was Constantine that called for the Counsel of Nicaea.
The Counsel of Nicaea
First Council of Nicaea, held in Nicaea (present-day Iznik in Turkey), was the first Ecumenical council of the early Christian Church, and most significantly resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Nicene Creed. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent 'general councils of Bishops, the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.
The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements in the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same substance as God the Father or merely of similar substance. Another result of the council was an agreement on when to celebrate the resurrection the most important feast of the ecclesiastical calendar. The council decided in favor of celebrating the resurrection on the first Sunday after the first full moon, independently of the Bible’s Hebrew Calendar.[4]
Since the Counsel of Nicaea did take place, and the fact that belief of Christianity was defined by ‘people’, why could it not be possible that there was a cover up over the immortality and divinity of Jesus? There is no proof suggesting that Jesus did not have a family, but here we have proof that mere mortals debated over Jesus’ life and death, and then decided to present that as fact. Brown emphasizes this fact throughout his book. Brown claims "almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false." Why? Because of a single meeting of bishops in 325, at the city of Nicea in modern-day Turkey. There, Brown argues, church leaders who wanted to consolidate their power base (he calls this, anachronistically, "the Vatican," or "the Roman Catholic church") created a divine Christ and an infallible Scripture—both novelties that had never before existed among Christians.
The Knights Templar
The Templar’s' success was tied closely to the Crusades; when the Crusaders suffered defeat and lost the Holy Land, support for the Order faded. Rumors about the Templar’s' secret initiation ceremony created mistrust, and King Philip IV of France, deeply in debt to the Order, began pressuring Pope Clement V to take action. In 1307, King Philip had many of the Order's members in France arrested, tortured into giving false confessions, and burned at the stake.[5] In 1312, Pope Clement V, under continuing pressure from King Philip, disbanded the Order.
The abrupt disappearance of a major part of the European infrastructure gave rise to speculation. Could it not be possible that the Pope was being threatened by the Templars? They had grown strong and were very powerful, so it is quite possible that the Church was feeling threatened. The Templars did protect a secret according to Brown; they were the protectors of the Holy Grail, of the royal bloodline of Jesus. It is no surprise that people actually consider this theory because of the history behind it and because of the links between the Templars and the Church. So in essence of all of this, could it be possible that the claim Brown makes in his book is true? That after the Council of Nicaea where the divinity of Jesus was decided, could it not be possible that Jesus was in fact a mere moral, that he had children and was married.
So, is it beyond the realm of possibility that the Church felt threatened by this bloodline of Jesus and sought to destroy it? If that were true then it should come as no surprise that there was a protective order for Mary Magdalene’s safety. In his book Brown claims that Mary was pregnant at the time of the crucifixion of Jesus, that the Knights Templar led her way to a secret place where she gave birth to a baby girl called Sarah. It is ironic that the child is called Sarah because Sarah in French means Princess. This girl would in fact be a princess as both Mary and Jesus were descendents of Kings.
The Last Supper
One of the most important key features in Browns novel is Leonardo Da Vinci’s Last Supper. According to Brown the painting depicts the idea that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and as Brown states, it was she who was supposed to carry on his Church and not St Peter. Brown describes the painting, uncovering the hidden implications. The figure on the right hand of Jesus, with red flowing red hair, folded feminine hands and a hint of a bosom is Mary Magdalene. Brown focuses on the way their clothed, like mirror images. She is joined at Jesus’ hip and is leaning away from him to create a ‘V’ shape, which is the symbol for the womb. Recently an article stated that ‘an Italian musician and computer technician claims to have uncovered musical notes encoded in Leonardo Da Vinci's "Last Supper."[6] So if years later, people are finding music encoded in the painting, it is quite possible for Da Vinci to have included secret messages. Da Vinci is said to be one of the Grand Masters of the Priory. It would have been within his duty to pass the message on someway without suffering the wrath of the church.
Rosslyn Chapel
In the book, Brown’s protagonist goes to Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland because the Holy Grail is said to be there. The architecture within the chapel depicts what Brown is telling us. That it is where the sarcophagus of Mary Magdalene is, and where the Grail documents are hidden. In the novel the protagonist finds a rose in place of the sarcophagus (the rose was a symbol for Mary Magdalene), and he finds records that go back to the death of Christ. The documents show a line of Merovingian kings with the name St Clair. The irony here is that Rosslyn Chapel was built by one William Sinclair who was a descendent of the Norman Knights. Within the chapel stands a pillar called the Princess Pillar which holds the engraving ‘wine is strong, a king is stronger, women are stronger still but truth conquers all’.[7] The ‘green men’ carvings all over the chapel symbolize fertility.
The chapel has been a burial place for several generations of the Sinclair’s. The parallels here are too much to ignore. Rosslyn Chapel is covered with symbols of fertility, William Sinclair was said to be ‘a Grand Master’[8] at some point, the chapel holds generations of Sinclair’s and here Brown is telling a story which involves these very things. Brown did not make up the whole façade. There is truth to a lot that he has presented. How ironic is it that the very chapel Brown chose for the Grail documents to be hidden has a pillar called the Princess Pillar (Princess in French is Sarah- the very name of the ‘daughter’ of Jesus) and he pillar states that women are stronger than men and kings?
The exigency here is irrefutable. If Brown’s theories were true, the repercussions would be colossal. It would shake the foundation of Christianity and everything half the world believes in. There have been wars in the past because of religion, however what would happen if the greatest story ever told was a lie. The church would face serious damage.
Brown however, maintains that his novel was just a work of fiction. The novel ends very diplomatically saying ‘what matters is what you believe’. Sure, there may be many people influenced by Brown’s work. People who may question their beliefs and feel that maybe, just maybe there is more than what meets the eye. Christians have for thousands of years believed in what the Bible and the Church have told us. Questioning our faith could be seen as treachery; however I believe that people who do question their faith, and still believe are far more commendable. After all, what is the point in believing in something blindly? There is no passion there. If one has to believe one should look at all the counter arguments and theories. And if one still believes, that is the true test of faith. Brown’s work is brilliant and captivating but it is still fiction. After all, Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't. Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)