I hate Dan Brown!

Bertrand Russel and Dan Brown have both attacked traditional Christianity. Russel's 'Why I am not a Christian', became a classic of sorts. Brown churned out, 'Da Vinci Code', which became a bestseller. But, while I admire Russel, I abhor Dan Brown. What's the difference between the two? Dan Brown, to my mind, lacked intellectual honesty, which Russel had in plenty. Intellectual honesty and the courage to even say towards the end of his life, "philosophy has been a washout for me".
When Russel attacked Christianity, he used logic and reason. He relied on authentic historical information. He did not weave a magic of words and create fictitious characters who would mouth his own prejudices, assumptions and beliefs as if they were all incontrovertible historical facts. He did not blur the line between fact and fiction and take his readers for a ride. He did not make false claims, which have since been refuted—thankfully. That is the difference between the two men. That is why while I like one of them, I can't stand the other.
No, I am not a Christian fundamentalist. I am not even a Roman Catholic who seeks to hold a brief for the Vatican. I have issues with Catholicism myself. So, what am I? Well, I am a liberal Protestant, a "progessive Christian". To know what we believe in, log on to http://www.tcpc.org/. That is if you would like to know where I stand with regard to matters pertaining to my own religious tradition—the one into which I was born.
So much of what Dan Brown says in Da Vinci Code is inconsequential to me any way. Even if Jesus Christ would have been married—like any other young Jewish man of his time—that would not have lessened my admiration and respect for him. It does not matter to me if he travelled to India or died in Kashmir much after the crucifixion, as some claim. For that matter, even if it should be conclusively established some time in the future, by means of reliable historical evidence, that Jesus never really existed, it would still not have a bearing on my basic faith that stems from the ideology that is enshrined in the Bible. However, this ideology is not some kind of blind belief, but a rational appreciation of my tradition in light of logic, reason and the latest scientific discoveries.
I don't take the Bible literally like fundamentalists do. I am not a literalist. The Bible is a collection of writings over two millennia that faithfully records the spiritual experiences and evolving religious identity of the Jewish people and later Gentile converts to the new faith during the Christian movement in 1st century Palestine. The Christian movement itself was many-sided with three major groups competing for supremacy during the time.
My problem with Dan Brown is his intellectual dishonesty. He is a clever novelist who for commercial considerations created a controversy that contributed hugely to making his novel a bestseller and sent the unscrupulous fellow laughing all the way to the bank. That is what upsets me. The claims he has made are nothing new. His arguments don't hold much historical water. They have been torn to shreds by those who have called his bluff and exposed his half-baked knowedge of history and metaphysics. How I wish those who go ga-ga over his novels would care to read the other side of the argument before they make up their minds.
After all, he makes a poor judge who pays heed to just one side of the argument.