TaLieSin: Yes, it's a political move, it's made to appease the interests of a religious group etc. If it weren't made, the reason would be to cater to the interests of a non-religious group of secular liberals. Same difference. Except in the latter case it's obscured by the fact of secular liberalism's hegemonic dominance in the public sphere.
More interestingly, I think there's a tension between two ostensibly "liberal" principles here: autonomy and respect. The standard liberal answer is that autonomy *ought* to trump respect for group interests, but it's easy to see how that is virtually indistinguishable from a fig-leaf/trojan horse for the advancement of a very specific liberal group interest. And therefore bad conscience results. If in the interests of liberal "fairness" we censor the anti-Muslim comic strips, then we have to do the same for all other religions, correct? Or are some more equal than others?... ;)
Oh and btw, as far as personal opinions go, you'll find me putting up debunking criticisms of the book/movie everywhere, from a specifically Christian perspective even, but I don't think it should be banned, so long as you read my pieces too. =)
My response: "The interests of a non-religious group of secular liberals"?! What nonsense.
Every ideology has a very specific group interest of championing freedom of speech as long as the ideology itself is being expounded, exposited, defended or agreed with. The difference is that while many ideologies grow hysterical at other ideas being expressed, liberalism (secular or otherwise) is adamant that one should be free to vocalise views antithetical to it - instead of "a very specific liberal group interest" it instead promotes the interests of all - people would rather be free to be offended by others' views than escape offence but be unable to express (or hold, even) their own views.
The red herring of secular liberalism's tyranny simply disguises the face that you feel oppressed by other people's vocalising of their views and ideas. To call the championing of freedom for all "hegemonic dominance" is like complaining that tax cuts have suddenly made you richer.
As for the Da Vinci code, even a historical, non-Christian perspective based in reality can "debunk" it. I don't see why people don't go around debunking Superman instead.
I love how, as usual, "liberals" are pigeonholed and the promotion of freedom can be seen as oppression. Sheesh.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
`When /I/ use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you /can/ make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'
--- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
[Addendum:
"I forgive the offending people. I forgive those who made the book and the movie a "success", and who want to promote it because of their hatred and disdain for this Person and His followers. But this Person loves these people and wants to reach them."
Not all otherwise educated people can tell the difference between fiction and non-fiction. Or dismiss wild conspiracy theories out of hand.]
[
Addendum 3: Summary of Original Poster's argument:
"prove 1+1 = 2, or differentiation is useless
and you can't prove 1+1 = 2 since we may be brains in vats
therefore all maths is useless
yay"]
