Goddesses ancient and modern

Steve Sailer does a neat job of taking down some of the absurd pretentions of The Da Vinci Code. For example, he writes:

… Brown, with all his talk of “the sacred feminine,” is being intentionally hazy about what pagans have tended to mean by it: i.e., fertility goddesses. Now, you can see a bit of a problem for modern feminists in praising ancient conceptions of women as most sacred when barefoot and pregnant, but Dan Brown and his 60 million readers apparently can’t.

Right on. Modern liberals’ notion of the Goddess—which they imagine is the object of the “true” cult that was suppressed by Christianity until modern liberalism liberated it—is a childless 40 year old female tenured professor of literature at Harvard.

- end of initial entry -

Van Wijk writes:

Last week “Sir” Ian McKellan commented on The Da Vinci Code, essentially saying that the Catholic Church and Christians should be grateful if Christ married because it would prove that he wasn’t gay. [LA: Charming.]

The gears of his mind are easily readable: I am gay, therefore all the world revolves around me and my gayness.

Jesus as pious Son of God, the belief system of Christians, Christian values—these things never even enter into his brain. There is only the altar of homosexuality.

I’ve noticed that most liberals are idiot savants like this. They have their one little cause and it consumes their lives entirely. They are only united by their hatred of conservatism, so that if conservatism were to finally die, liberalism as we know it would be snuffed out overnight. All the talk of tolerance for this or that group would be gone, and the various focus groups would tear at each other like hyenas.

I will also note here that the Crown ought to reserve knighthood for successful military commanders or persons who have broken new ground or moved the United Kingdom forward in some concrete way. That is, if they want it to continue to have real meaning.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 25, 2006 12:23 PM | Send