Sagging pants law impossible to enforce
Wednesday, June 13, 2007 6:01 PM CDT
http://www.iberianet.com/articles/2007/06/13/people/forum/forum52.txt

Delcambre passed an ordinance this week that is extremely too vague and impossible to enforce. One of the first things a person learns in high school level Law Studies is that laws have to be specific and enforcable.

Let us analysis this ordinance line by line. The first part states: "ãIt shall be unlawful for any person in any public place or in view of the public to be found in a state of nudity, or partial nudity . . ." While the common American concept of nudity is clearly understood, which is a state of being completely exposed without any clothing, there is no clear definition of partial nudity. Partial nudity needs to be defined in the law. The second part states: ". . . or in dress not becoming to his or her sex . .. ." What does this mean exactly? Does this mean that if a man wears pink, a color associated generally with the female sex, as inappropriate? What is a man grabs his wifes pink fuzzy slippers to fetch the morning paper early one Sunday morning? Continuing, the ordinance goes on to say: ". . ..or in any indecent exposure of his or her person or undergarments. . ." What if a white grown man walks out to check his mail wearing an open robe with nothing but a t-shirt and his boxer shorts? Would that be considered indecent exposure? Finally, the ordinance says: ". . .or be guilty of any indecent or lewd behavior.ä What is indecent or lewd behavior? It is not defined. I believe noisy children in a resturant is indecent; thus, can we arrest those parents? Lewd generally refers to acts that refer to sexual acts. Given this vague definition, people could be arrested for cajun dancing at a festival. After all, some towns have outlawed dancing as lewd (but those laws were specific with their definition.

It is nearly impossible to create an ordinance to regulate sagging. While I consider it to be inappropriate dress personally, I do not think we can outlaw a dress that does not expose any genitalia. Sagging does not expose any flesh between the waist and eight inches above the knee for a man. Infact, bathing suits, such as Speedos, expose way more flesh on a male than sagging does. The sagging style is a fad that will either die out or will continue, no matter what we do. There was a time when a woman exposing her ankle was sinful! Now, you see women walking around is g-string bikinis and that is completely fine. The enforcability of the law is nearly impossible. The law sets one person's word against the other person's word. Swearing under oath or signing an affidavit is not enough evidence to convict someone of this "crime." However, if the offended person takes a picture as evidence, that person can be arrested for possessing indecent pictures without consent of the person (given the vague language of "indecent" in this ordinance). Also, attempting to enforce this law will take time away from real criminal issues, such as theft and murders, and tie up the courts even longer. Instead of pulling up some guys pants, that cop could be monitoring traffic in a school zone. Iberia Parish is already complaining they are understaffed to provide such monitoring.

Jarred James Breaux, New Iberia

Wealthy should donate land for center
Friday, March 2, 2007 3:32 PM CST
http://www.iberianet.com/articles/2007/03/05/people/forum/forum36.txt

In response to a person who suggested that a wealthy person donate land for the civic center, I salute you. Your suggestion should be taken under serious consideration by the city. In the Classical Period in Western History, the wealthy of a society began to donate money for a civic project and in return, the building or area would be named after them. This trend held on into the modern period with Carnegie Hall and Tulane University. There are countless civic projects named after the largest contributor and I believe the same thing should be done here. If anyone has land near the HWY 90 and HWY 14 interchange and they are willing to donate money for the project, then I will fully support naming the civic center after them. This is how it was done in the past and it worked, why not do it today? This is the easiest way to raise money for a project of any type that makes any sense.

I have had a lingering question though for the city officials. Within the past few years, the city/parish has spend an enormous amount of money on civic projects, including two new libraries, the SugArena, and the PepperPlex. However, it took something like 20 years to finally upgrade the sewage system, something that was necessary, and the city police was outsourced to the sheriff's office. Where is all this money for these projects coming from all of a sudden and why is it not being used toward the infrastructure of the city? I am not well versed in the budget and the money influx of the city and parish, but it seems odd to me that the city cannot afford to pay police officers but can afford a ball park and civic center. Where is this money coming from and why is it going into frivolous projects instead of upgrading the cities infrastructure, like roads, education, tourism, and bringing new jobs into the area. Roads need repairing; bridges need to be fixed; schools need to be repaired or rebuilt; tourism needs to be boasted; and channels need to be maintained in order for commercial industries to move in.

Jarred James Breaux, New Iberia

Someone mentioned "But the established US is far different from Iraq . . ."
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 8:10 AM CDT
http://www.iberianet.com/articles/2007/05/30/people/forum/forum63.txt

Someone mentioned "But The established US is far different from Iraq definitely don't you think? We didn't have terrorists then.... maybe the mob... but no terrorists..."

First, I like how you pointed out that the "established US" (as we know it today, I presume) is very different from Iraq. However, what is the "established US" and the "unestablished US." I tend to think of the "established US" being the time after the Civil War, when the United States developed a strong centralized government able to maintain itself. Therefore, the "unestablished US" (that being the time between 1776 and 1865) is not all that different from Iraq. Several times, the United States faced rebellious groups. Quite franky, the "mob" were an unorganized group of terrorists in the early republic. First and foremost were the Loyalists, those loyal to the British government during the American Revolution. They were exported to Canada immediately following the war. Secondly, you had radical anti-Federalists who wanted to take up arms against the government. It is said that the reason we have the "Right to Bear Arms" is because the anti-Federalists would have never signed the Constitution if there were not a way to overthrow a possible tyrantical government. Third, let us not forget Shay's Rebellion (1786-1787), the Whiskey Rebellion (1794), Fries's Rebellion (1799), the Dorr Rebellion (1841-1842), "Bleeding Kansas" (1855-1860), John Brown's Raid on Harper's Ferry (1859) and approximately 15 major riots during this time period. Finally, probably the second most important event in United States history, the sucession of the South from the Union brought about the question of the country's ability to maintain itself. These are all instances of severe instablity and outright rebellion within the United States. It took the United States 89 years before its Constitution and the power of the Federal government was solidified, centralized, and worked to the best of its ability as one united nation. Even though the Constitution "established" the Federal government, the United States remained a "shaky" government, maintained only by continuous compromises in the legislature to keep states from suceding and by being very careful to never push extreme issues, until 1865.

After several rebellions, riots, expulsions, and a civil war, the United States finally became one nation. We are asking Iraq to do all this in just four years? Also, in the United States it was always a two sided debate: North vs. South or Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists. There was never any room for a third party in United States history. With Iraq you have three sides: Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds; three groups of people that have never and will never like each other because of their political, cultural, and theological differences. At least the North and South had common ancestory and "mild" political differences; the Sunnis, Shiites, and the Kurds have little in common. The Sunnis and the Shiites have been fighting for 1,400 years over who should be the successor of Prophet Muhammad, which has eventually lead to theological and cultural differences over the centuries.

How can you force such a diverse group of people in Iraq get along on an equal basis? The United States remained ethnically White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, with power in the North and the South residing with this one group. In Iraq, you have a long history of one group oppressing the two others (similarly to the way the South oppressed the slaves and the way the North oppressed the free-blacks and the immigrants). It took the United States another 100 years after the Civil War for the oppressed groups to finally gain "equality" to the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant majority. Just think, the Civil Rights Movement and the election Robert Kennedy (since he was a Catholic) were all stages in the United States history to finally becoming "united." However, we are asking the Iraqis to accomplish all this in four years? It took us 231 years to do it and we still have not gotten it entirely right!

Jarred James Breaux, New Iberia

Thanks to Spiritual Coalition
Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:41 PM CDT
http://www.iberianet.com/articles/2006/10/25/people/forum/forum52.txt

Why was Rev. Brown not arrested for terrorism charges? Not only did he make a direct threat, but he attempted to coerce people in the community into following through with his violent acts.

The United States defines terrorism as: "Domestic terrorism refers to activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." [18 U.S.C. ¤ 2331(5)]

I would also like to thank the Spiritual Leadership Coalition and other members of the black community for standing up against the New Black Panther Party. We all know that violence solves nothing, just shows who has the biggest guns! When there is injustice in the community, we have learned from Martin Luther King that non-violence is better, although it is slower. Jarred James Breaux

Jarred James Breaux, New Iberia

Traffic problems today show lack of planning by the state department
Friday, April 27, 2007 7:25 PM CDT
http://www.iberianet.com/articles/2007/04/27/people/forum/forum37.txt

Upon my return from Baton Rouge, I could not find a way into the city of Lafayette. The rerouting of traffic up I-49 to HWY 190 was not the problem. The problem was the closure of all exits from I-10 and I-49 upon approach to the detour. I was attempting to go to the campus of the University of Louisiana, but I was rerouted as far as Gloria Switch Road and through the northside of Lafayette because of the exit closures. There was no reason to close these exits. There was also no reason to reroute all traffic Westbound I-10 to North I-49. Many people were attempting to exit onto Evangeline Thruway / HWY 167 South. I saw many people turning around on I-49 through the medium and I considered the illegal maneuver myself. The traffic was utterly ridiculous and because of the exit closures, I was more than an hour late for class.

The announcement of the closure of the crossover at Captain Cade has been in place for about a week now, but I do not think everyone knew that this move was permanent. Not only has the crossover at Captain Cade Road been closed, but so have several other crossovers in the area. If the crossover was so dangerous, why not put a traffic light other? Why close all four crossovers in the area? The closure of a busy intersection is not the solution. The closure of the crossover would not be such a problem if it was not for accessibility issues.

Currently, the section of HWY 90 between HWY 93 and HWY 88 has only short potions of a frontage road. Without these crossovers, traffic attempting to access businesses on the opposite side of the highway will have to go as far as the HWY 88 exit and the crossover at Baker Hughes.

I believe there will be a new buildup of traffic at the crossover at Baker Hughes, causing an even larger problem. While a traffic light might solve some of the problem at the Baker Hughes crossover, no one will be able to make U-turns at this intersection (and I am sure many will be making such urnarounds). Furthermore, this means that 18 Wheelers attempting to access Delmar and Varco will be routed under the HWY 88 overpass or down Captain Cade Road (a very narrow road leading to residential and farm areas). None of the crossovers should be closed, but rather, the crossover at Captain Cade Road should receive the traffic light, not the crossover at Baker Hughes. I just do not understand why the Department of Transportation would close the busiest intersection and put a light at an intersection that only has traffic during rush hour. The Baker Hughes crossover is already dangerous, moreso than Captain Cade Road I believe. Several times I have encountered 18 Wheelers crossing to go westbound on HWY 90, but having to stop and wait to cross; meanwhile, the 19 Wheelers' trailer lingers in the left lane of the eastbound side. The state Department of Transportation needs to reevaluate their plans for traffic in our area.

Jarred James Breaux, New Iberia

Stop pointing fingers
Monday, April 17, 2006 11:36 AM CDT
http://www.iberianet.com/articles/2006/04/17/people/forum/forum60.txt

I think everyone needs to stop pointing fingers at each other. People are arguing that it is the parents' fault or the teachers' fault or the police's fault. Did it ever occur to anyone that the children just might be innately bad? There are plenty of excellent parents who had children turn out horribly. Likewise, there are plenty of horrible parents whose children have become very successful.

I do not think any single individual can lead a child astray. There are a number of contributing factors, such as: peer influence, home life, school life, and street life. Children who resort to crime usually do so because of poverty or boredom. When children know that their parents are faced with economic hardships, some result to illegal activies to make a life for themselves. However, some middle-class children will result to crime out of boredom rather than a need for attention. People should explore the problem with the children, not with the parents, the teachers, or the police. We should be helping these children to make a life for themselves, instead of allowing them to rot away. Challenge children more in school. Make education interesting to them. Show them the importance of education by applying lessons to real life scenarios. Give more educational grants to less fortunate children.

There are so many things that the people as a whole could be doing to improving situations such as this. Pointing fingers does nothing; cooperation and negotiation solves problems.

Jarred James Breaux, New Iberia

Idealism far from reality
Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:41 PM CDT
http://www.iberianet.com/articles/2006/10/21/people/forum/forum53.txt

I think Acadiana Concerned a good point, in regards to school shootings. However, idealism is far from reality.

Adults must first learn to be respectful to each other before we can teach our children to do the same. Our children learn from us. Our politicians constantly bully each other in their campaigns. Instead of stating "why" we should vote for him or her, we have ads where he or she bashes the opponent. This is a form of bullying.

Also, keep in mind we live in the United States, a country that has recently forgone diplomacy in Iraq and used force. We live in a society where we believe that talking evidently does not work and force is usually necessary. How can we tell our children "don't do that," if we, the adults, are doing it ourselves? Furthermore, it will be nearly impossible to stop society from outcasting individuals. It has happened and will always happened, so long as we have a competitive economy and environment. As humans, we are always competing; it is in our nature. I do not think we can stop it.

Jarred James Breaux, New Iberia

Resolution is 'a joke'
Friday, December 1, 2006 10:45 AM CST
http://www.iberianet.com/articles/2006/12/09/people/forum/forum59.txt

I am writing because I am concerned about a new resolution that the Louisiana Manufactured Housing Commission is attempting to sneak through.

A summary of the resolution was posted in the Quik Quarter on November 23 on page 42. The resolution calls to prohibit the relocation of mobile homes older than 1994. If this resolution were to pass, people could buy older model mobile homes but could not move them to new locations, such as a trailer park or onto their own land. As the article in the Quik Quarter proclaims, this "is discriminating against lower to middle class individuals, the elderly and the young couples starting a family."

This new resolution would decrease the sale of older mobile homes. Thus, this would place more people in renting or leasing situations, especially those who are unable to afford a newer model mobile home or a site built home. This resolution would also discriminate against current owners of older model by restricting them to their current locations. What would happen if someone was evicted from a trailer park? They could not take their trailer with them, but it cannot stay there because it has to be moved. I assume that this resolution is for the safer establishment of mobile homes, since older models were not built to withstand high wind gust. However, there are many older model mobile homes which have been remodelled and strengthen to withstand such winds. Many homes cannot withstand these wind gust either, but there is no quarrel over their relocation.

The resolution is completely unfair to sellers, buyers, and people currently owning a mobile home who wish to move it. The entire resolution is a joke, probably to boast new mobile home sales.

Jarred James Breaux, New Iberia

I believe Ron Williams' statements regarding polarization in American politics is right on the money. I am a member of the Republican party and I consider myself a moderate conservative. I identify with conservatives such as John McCain and Barry Goldwater, not the radical religious right.
Monday, May 14, 2007 12:07 PM CDT
http://www.iberianet.com/articles/2007/05/15/people/forum/forum54.txt

I do not agree with the path that the Republican party has taken since the 1980s in allying itself with the religious right. I do not believe religion belongs in politics and the government definitely does not belong in our religion. However, I am disgusted every time I hear someone use the word "liberal" as if it were a dirty word.

There are some things which I am more liberal about, but most things I am very conservative about. Ron Williams is right by pointing out that a person gets elected by becoming the most popular, not the most "right."

Politics is an art form that does encompass deception. This polarization is what George Washington warned us about in his farewell address when he said: "It serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration....agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one....against another....it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption...thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."

Jarred James Breaux, New Iberia

Acadiana Concerned is missing the point entirely
Wednesday, April 25, 2007 12:05 PM CDT
http://www.iberianet.com/articles/2007/04/27/people/forum/forum41.txt

There is a huge difference between embryonic stem cell research and adult stem cell research. You are comparing apples to oranges. While embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, unlike adult stem cells, the benefits of adult stem cells could be far more important than embryonic stem cell research in the future. In stem cell replacement therapies, embryonic stem cells might be rejected by the patient's immune system. The patient's immune system will not reject its own adult stem cells. It shows ignorance on your part to use an article on adult stem cells to promote embryonic stem cell research. The conservative administration has refused to fund embryonic stem cell research based on religious principles, not adult stem cells.

Americans are currently receiving the benefits from adult stem cell research. New breakthroughs in the research has allowed for new chemotherapy treatments and other treatments for autoimmune diseases, strokes, immunodeficiencies, anemias, and so on and so forth.

Jarred James Breaux, New Iberia

Please note the another article related to this one was not published, but contained more detailed information on stem cell research and how it has yet to benefit human medicine. Stem cell research, although I believe the church should state out of the debate, is not a good investment scienfically. So far, all stem cell research promises is based on unproven theories. Currently, there are no known treatments developed from stem cell research to benefite humans.

Smoking Ban in Presence of Children While Driving is Good
Tuesday, August 22, 2006 (emailed date)
Unpublished - emailed to the Daily Iberian

The smoking ban on drivers and passengers in a motor vehicle when a child is present is not an infringement on a person's freedom. HB 1010 has passed unanimously by both houses of the state legislature by June 20th and Governor Blanco signed the bill on early July. The law is in effect as of August 15, 2006.

My personal philosophy has always been: "Do what you want, so long as you are not hurting anyone or anything." For the most part, this is pretty much the basis of our freedoms in the United States. The government makes laws to ensure that no one's freedoms are infringed upon. Our government passes laws even against harming one's self, since harming yourself through intoxication indirectly causes harm to others, and any type of harm to others is not acceptable.

Cigarettes are a form of pollution. The same reason we continue to raise our limits on industry outputs is to slow the pollution of our environment. Cigarette smoke is a concentrated form of pollution that no only effects the smoker, but people in the immediate area of that smoker. This law is made to protect our children from the harm that cigarette smoke causes. Banning pollution is not a restriction of a freedom, but rather is an extension of our inalienable rights.

Furthermore, the reason the law is limited to only when children under the age of 13 are present because children 13 and over can make a conscious decision to say: "No, I will not ride with you if you smoke." Under this presumption, a young child does not have the mental comprehension or maturity to make such a stand, especially against a parent.

Now, someone made good point that abortion is legal in this country but yet killing a child with smoke is now illegal. While I do understand your point, since I am pro-life myself, you have to understand the legality of the situation. By law, a fetus is seen as part of the woman's body and not an independent human being until six months of pregnancy. Given this logic, you are not "killing" a child, rather you are killing a lump of "cells," according to pro-choice people. A child, on the other hand, is an independent human being with all the rights of every other person in the United States.

Jarred James Breaux, New Iberia

Innocent until proven guilty
Monday, August 14, 2006 12:31 PM CDT
http://www.iberianet.com/articles/2006/08/15/people/forum/forum39.txt

Acadiana Concerned, do not confuse "suspects" and "convicts."

While the men arrested probably were arrested with good reason and are guilty, there has to be a trial to determine that. If we hang these terrorists without a trial, than we are no better than the actually terrorists.

I am thankful for the governments' response so far and I hope there is a continuation on the global scale to combat real terrorist threats. Again, we are at the mercy of the men and women who serve our country in the military, police forces, and the Department of Homeland Security.

Jarred James Breaux, New Iberia

Terrorists vs. revolutionaries
Friday, July 28, 2006 11:27 AM CDT
http://www.iberianet.com/articles/2006/07/28/people/forum/forum41.txt

Jujubean has made a really good argument for his side, and I understand many of his points entirely. However, there are a few things I would like to point out.

For instance, he said: "But we also had an army," in regards to the United States fighting using guerrilla tactics. However, Hezbollah has its own militia, that is not all that much different from the American Revolutionary army. He also stated that "we did not deliberately target civilians" during the American Revolution. On the contrary, the Loyalist were targeted during the war. Now, I do have to admit that while the American Revolution did not seek out the Loyalist often, they were frequent casualties of the revolution. Hezbollah does target Israeli civilians, but mostly targets the Israeli military, the same way the American Revolutionaries did.

You are totally correct that we did not seek to destroy England the way Hezbollah seeks to eradicate Israel. However, the Hezbollah resistance began as an organization to remove Israel from Lebanon, thus sparking a similar revolution. In an interview with the leader of Hezbollah this past week, he stated that America is not the enemy. He said that the government of the United States makes some bad political decisions that angers him. Hezbollah does not want all Jews dead, they just want them out of the Middle East, which is a similar view that the American Revolutionaries took against Great Britain. In fact, once the American Revolution ended, a lot of Loyalist left the United States and resettled in Canada. Hezbollah believes Israel does not have the right to exist, which is a different point of view than the American Revolutionaries. The American Revolutionaries just wanted the British out of their territory. While it is an argument of semantics, we cannot forget the power words have. We get a completely different reaction when the word revolutionary or terrorist is used. For example, while the vast majority of the French Revolution was actually mobs killing unarmed people, we still call it a "revolution." The website you posted refers to the French "Revolutionaries" as terrorists actually. It also states that the word terrorism was coined during the French Revolution, which is false. In a letter from Henry James Smith to the Royal Governor of Massachusetts, Smith refers to the uprising of colonist as "terrorism." More specifically, he outlines an historic case of economic terrorism against the King of England. There are many instances in the American Revolution were colonist specifically targeted civilians, most commonly the Loyalist. There are stories of Revolutionist tarring and feathering British Tax Collectors. There were many cases where mobs ransacked the homes of Loyalist and British government officials in response to higher taxes. While most of these acts of terrorism are precursors to the American Revolution, it is the exact same group of people who became the Revolutionist.

I am in no way supporting the acts of Hezbollah or any terrorist organization. I am just pointing out similarities between the Hezbollah organization and the American Revolutionaries. I just want people to understand that terrorism is the last ditch effort of a defeated people who are subjugated to another group. I am not seeking sympathy for Hezbollah, but rather I am seeking sympathy for the poor innocent Lebanese and Palestinian people who are caught in his power struggle. I also do not think Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. are terrorist, but rather I was pointing out the ambiguity of the definition. I personally think that all terrorist organizations need to be eradicated from the Earth, however, we must evaluate who is a terrorists and who is a legitimate revolutionary.

Jarred James Breaux, New Iberia

Agreement on stem cell research
Tuesday, July 11, 2006 11:12 AM CDT
http://www.iberianet.com/articles/2006/07/12/people/forum/forum34.txt

For once, I have to agree with Acadiana Concerned, in regards to embryonic stem cell research. I believe that religion regards the supernatural and should embrace science, not disregard it.

When science comes into conflict with religion, there should be serious discussion about the religious belief and how it conflicts with religion. The Catholic Church is one of the best religious institutions for evaluating scientific beliefs when they come into conflict with religious doctrine. In the last 50 years, the Catholic Church has made countless reevaluations of its beliefs. For instance, the Catholic Church accepts evolution. The Catholic Church first accepted it in the 1950s and they reaffirmed the acceptance in 1996. During the Middle Ages, with the rise of the Enlightenment which challenged many of the Aristotelian beliefs of the Church, a great saint of the Catholic Church (I do not remember which one) said that religion described what we could not see and science described what we saw everyday. I agree with this notion.

However, there are religions that hold firm beliefs against things we see as benign in other cultures. For instance, the Muslims and the Jews fear pig's blood. And there are religious people who refuse certain medical treatments, even though they may lead to the advancement of the human race. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses cannot have blood transfusions, even to save their lives. The reason Catholics are so against embryonic stem cell research is because it comes from aborted fetuses. In regards to religious discrimination, I fully support anyone of any religion and their own personal beliefs, so long as they do not infringe upon my rights. If someone wants embryonic stem cell research and that person is Catholic, that is a personal issue between that person and the Church. However, if you are Catholic and breakthroughs are made with embryonic stem cell research, I expect you to for-go the procedure in accordance with your religious beliefs. I wholeheartedly support any Jehovah's Witness who refuse to accept a blood transfusion because that is their own personal decision and it is accordance with their beliefs. I do not think anyone's religion is the right one, nor to I believe that anyone's religion is the wrong one. I think the majority of religions are equally valid, even though some out there are very entertaining.

Jarred James Breaux, New Iberia

Analysing 'Code' objections
Wednesday, May 24, 2006 2:03 PM CDT
http://www.iberianet.com/articles/2006/05/26/people/forum/forum74.txt

I do not understand why the DaVinci Code is so contraversial as well, despite the objections made by Mr. Steve Bergeron.

If you have faith in Jesus Christ, then no matter what anyone says, it should not affect your beliefs. Also, even if Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, how would that affect his divinity?

I would like to analyse the objections made by Mr. Bergeron one-by-one.

* He claims that Jesus was not God, He was only man.

This "fact" is not a fact, but rather a theological debate. Jesus did take the form of a man, but remained divine. The book never says that Jesus is not "God," just not God incarnated as a man. There is a big difference. The movie claims that the family still has divine power, passed down through the bloodline. So if Jesus is not divine, as you claim the movie/book states, then how has this power been passed down? Like I said, it is a theological debate, which depends on your point of view.

* He claims that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, who is to be worshipped as a goddess.

Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene is not that far-fetched. However, the fact that she should be worshipped as a goddess does not appear in any text. That is a fictional statement by Dan Brown. However, I would say that the Virgin Mary replaced the ancient concept as the earth mother goddess when Christianity was converting the early pagans. Look around South Louisiana and you will see that there are far more statues of the Virgin Mary than Jesus Christ himself. This is not wrong nor is it against Catholic beliefs in any way, but it is a continuation of ancient pagan traditions that trickled down into Christianity over the centuries. We know from the Christian faith that neither the Virgin Mary or Mary Magdalene are worshipped as a goddess; therefore, this is definitely an outrageous claim which is obviously false.

* He claims that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a daughter who subsequently gave rise to a family that is still present in Europe.

It is possible, but not proven. But this is probably another fictious statement, you are correct. However, how does that attack Christianity?

* He claims that Jesus was deified by Constantine in the 4th century. Before that time, He was thought to be just a man.

At the First Council of Nicea in 325, they debated the Holy Trinity, or Jesus as God the son. There was no issue that Jesus was divinely inspiried, rather it was his relationship with God the Father that was in question. Saint Nicholas, who we call Santa Claus here in the United States, was one of the presenters at this meeting. Arius believed that Jesus was not the son of God, but rather a prophet of God. Outraged by this blasphemy, Saint Nicholas punched Arius in the nose, and he was arrested by Constantine's guards. The point of this story was that there was a minority of ancient Christians who believed that Jesus was not God, but rather a divine prophet, more like Buddha. After the Council of Nicea, a sect of Christianity, known as Nestorian Christianity, continued to believe that Jesus was a divinely inspired man, not God. This fact of the book is false, but it has some legitimacy to it.

* He claims that the Gospels were edited to support later claims of Christians.

The Gospels were edited and re-edited over the years, by common people, political dignitaries, and the early Church. The reason Matthew, Mark, John, and Luke were accepted over the other 30 were because they contained less "errors" than the others. The early Christians wrote the Gospels, not the disciples they are attributed to. When King James ordered the translation of the Latin Bible into English, many of the translations were politically motivated.

The reason the Catholic Church believes you need a priest to tell you what the Bible says is because of these editions and revisions to the Bible. Priests study religion their entire lives, just like a college professor of English may study poetry. The same way we need a teacher to tell us what a poem says, we need a Priest to tell us what the Bible says. By having scholars explain the text to us, we avoid errors attributed to mistranslations and editing. This system is very admirable of the Catholic Church because it standardizes Christianity and keeps it valid. If you let common people interpret the Bible themselves, they make all kinds of outrageous claims.

* He claims that in the original Gospels, Mary Magdalene, not Peter, was directed to lead the Church.

If you read the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, Mary claims that Jesus told her to lead the church, and she explains some teachings he told her. Ironically, these teachings are very close to the Buddhist Eightfold Path. But other Gospels do contradict these statements. The Gospel of Thomas claims that Jesus did not want to establish a Church at all. The question of the legitimacy of these Gospels comes into play, hence the reason they were rejected.

* He claims that there is an ancient, secret society called the Priory of Sion that still worships Mary Magdalene and is trying to keep the faith alive.

You are mistaken here. The Priory of Sion protects the bloodline of Jesus in the DaVinci Code. It does not worship Mary Magdalene, but rather they respect her. It says they protected her casket for centuries. If she was in a casket, she was dead. Who would worship a dead woman? Also, the Priory of Sion was a temporary sect of Christian monks that existed for a little while during the middle-ages. There is no evidence to support that they were protecting the "Holy Grail."

* He claims that the Catholic Church has been fighting for centuries to suppress all this information and has frequently turned to murder to do so.

There are many autrocities committed by the medival Catholic Church in the name of God, such as the Crusades, anti-Semetism, and the Spanish Inquisition, but none of that has to do with protecting the bloodline of Jesus. Many free-thinking women were killed during the "witch hunts," but that was to protect the patriarchal establishment, not necessarily the power of the Church. This part of the book is false on unsubstanciated claims. The DaVinci Code makes many unsubstanciated claims. Thus, it is fiction. As educated Americans, we should know these false claims and not let them interfere with our faith. No one's belief in Jesus Christ as God should cause them strif because of an obviously fictional story.

Jarred James Breaux, New Iberia

After writting this article, I took a class labled "The Bible as Literature" where we went over every detail of the Old Testament. One of the most fascinating things is the well scenes in the Old Testament. It seems almost cliche that every time a man approaches a well where there is a woman, he is getting married in the next passage. The diciples of Christ and Jesus himself would have been well aware of the well allusion in their day. This leads me to wonder why they placed such emphasis on Jesus meeting that woman at a well if indeed they were not married (John 4)?