Calls for boycotts are interesting. They aren’t censorship, only economic activitism — voting with dollars. Such efforts fall perfectly in line with the ideals of a capitalistic and pluralistic democracy. The crucial distinction I would make, however, is that a boycott doesn’t necessarily mean a fear of opposing ideas, only a desire not to see a person enriched because of them.

I, for instance, will not go see The Da Vinci Code, nor will I rent it when it’s released, nor will I borrow it from the library, for primarily the same reasons that I “boycotted” Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 — I didn’t want to pay someone for opposing ideas I support. But I also took the first chance I could to watch Fahrenheit 9/11 when I could borrow it from a friend who’d already bought it — because I wanted to consider his (pathetically ill-developed, sensationalistic) arguments. (Actually I went in with an open mind, and was quite disgusted by his hit-and-run approach.) I’ll do the same with The Da Vinci Code — I want to know what’s being discussed, I just don’t want to put my hard-earned dollars into the creators’ pockets.

Ultimately, the great discourse touched off by the novel that you celebrate, and that should be celebrated, I believe is a credit to us and not the writer. If someone wrote a book casting aspersion on the character of a close friend that I love and admire, I wouldn’t respect that endeavor. But if it also called my friend to international attention, I’d consider that pretty neat.

You ask an interesting question (as always) — one I hadn’t considered at all. On the surface there are a number of parallels. There are, of course, many conspiracy theories about JFK’s assassination, and I’m embarrassed to admit that I long since gave up trying to follow them.

A person’s worldview, however, would hardly be threatened by the JFK film in the way The Da Vinci Code is purported to do.

The funniest thing I’ve read, actually, was from a Catholic organization someplace (not sure which of the bajillion links it was…), who said that their real worry stemmed from the problem that people tend to believe everything they see or read.

Duh. Kind of a global problem, don’t you think?

By extrapolation, then… should only scholars and intellectuals be able view or read other (new? radical? heretical?) ideas, since they’d be more like to suspend “belief”? Since evidently the church is afraid that their sheep might follow just any old shepherd with a good story?

I do wonder why religious leaders get all bent out of shape over fiction (Da Vince Code, The Satanic Verses). Could it be that they don’t want the follower to think for himself/herself? What are they afraid of? And who died and made them God anyway?