The Da Vinci Code, the Church and Homosexuality.

I decided I should read it. Its become influential enough that if you want to be preparred when talking with someone in our society today about the church or spiritual things, you should know what its all about. I am nowhere near being done with it--I haven't had enough time to really read it--otherwise I think I would have finished it already. I'll say this for it--its a fairly fun read. The author clearly has a handle on the "cliffhanger" endings to his chapters--which might get old if his chapters lasted more then two to three pages maximum. As it is...it keeps the book moving.

That said...I really haven't gotten very far into the book to really know the full philosophy that Dan Brown is trying to espouse. However--a few thoughts have come up that I thought I might comment on...

First: the pagan views of the feminine versus the church views of the feminine. Without going into great detail, my take on Brown's opinion (or at least, the character Langdon's opinion) is that while there is some truth in the suggestion that the church has, in its history, belittled the position of women, he is blaming the entire patriarchal system of the world on the manipulative, sinister (funnily enough, a feminine word) plot by the founders and protectors of the Christian faith. That seems overly simple minded--even if you don't accept the views of the roles between the sexes that are evidenced in the pre-church Old Testament. It ignores the fact that the role of women has never been the same as the role of men--and often women were considered second class citizens (even the enlightened Greeks of Athens, though they did give them citizenship and even bestowed citizenship through the maternal line, did not consider women equal to men).

Second: the suggestion that this pagan belief believes strongly in the need for a balance between masculine and feminine. This would seem to suggest a natural argument against homosexuality coming from the pagans--one completely unrelated to any biblical authority (because the church is pro-male, anti-female according to Brown). In fact, given the ideas that Brown suggested about the belief in male superiority, it seems like the church would be in support (if not directly, at least they would allow it) of Homosexuality (think ancient Athens, with older men loving young boys) while the pagans, the devotees of the "sacred feminine" would be the chief proponents of the arguement that homosexuality is in every way anti-nature.

Instead, one of the leaders of the pagan, Da Vinci, was apparently a homosexual. That doesn't make sense, given the deeper understanding of the universe that the pagans apparently had, compared to the superstituous and manipulative church.

So...thus far, though I am enjoying my read, its hardly a well constructed arguement from what I can see. Its not even consistent with its own presumptions.