Deciphering the Lost Symbol: Freemasons, Myths and the Mysteries of Washington, D.C. Book

2.5 stars-- More than just "it was okay," but less than I "liked it."

I have a few problems with this book.
1) Every chapter after the first has a cheesy little story as an introduction. We meet Carrie, a college student, who obviously is going through some issues. And somehow she doesn't have her head on straight enough to not be persuaded by friends about the sacred feminism, sex, and whatnot. She does have her head on straight enough, though, to tell her boyfriend that she wants something more spiritual than just sex. Oh my god, beat me in the head. Okay, so this little story is a waste of two to four pages at the beginning of every chapter. I'm just skipping them. Uck.

2) The authors sound like they're lumping all "feminists" together and characterizing them all as angry radical feminists who shout at men. We're not all like that, really. And then they seem to classify feminists with pagans, too... Where'd that come from??

3) Okay, fine, the Bible doesn't (in your view) "demonize" and "repress" women. Okay, so we can say that, in your interpretation of the Bible, Dan Brown got that one wrong. Can we address, then, the issue of what some Bible-believers have done to demonize and repress women, and yet still call themselves good Christians? Even though the book, itself, may not specifically say "Women are bad" some followers say "Women are bad. The Bible says so." Let's look at that, and at least acknowledge that, and then say that those people who read the Bible that way are incorrect. Don't just gloss over it and say Dan Brown is the only one who's wrong. Sure, he interpreted your literature incorrectly one way, but many of your followers are interpreting it incorrectly, just in a different way.

4) The authors make some claims that I find completely outlandish. Their *two* chapters on sex made me laugh so much I now don't remember most of them (sex in marriage is good, sex not in marriage is bad and heathenish, homosexuality is baaaaaaad). And at one point, they claim that the Church/Christianity saved women in different cultures by convincing the cultures that their treatment of women was wrong. Somehow, I just don't believe that. Granted, I don't know, but am I really supposed to believe that there was no more "sex-selection infanticide" in China after the Christians came and "saved" the country in the 1880s?

5) Some of their examples seem weak, too. In the chapter about women and how much the Bible and Christianity says they're wonderful, they list different women the Bible speaks about or who were influential in the Church's history, including: Tamar (a widow who sleeps with her father-in-law), Rahab (a prostitute), Ruth ("a woman with sterling character"), the woman who had an affair with King David, Mary, and St. Augustine's mother. In these three pages, they list (with only a brief description) twelve women: one prostitute, two women who have affairs, and two women who seem to only be included because they are mothers to men who advanced the Church (and that doesn't even include Mary, Jesus' mother. Okay, let's count her, too. Now we have three mothers). That count doesn't seem very convincing about what great roles women have played in the Church. And if the women who had affairs did so for noble reasons, please tell me those reasons. Otherwise, you've just implied that they, too, are ... disreputable. So three tramps and three mothers? Those are your stellar models of what Christianity thinks of women? They also use the example of "Katherina von Bora [without whom] Martin Luther could never have become the leader of the Protestant Reformation." Okay, I'm dumb -- who is she? Why couldn't he have lead the Reformation? If you're going to cite an example, could you please explain why that example is relevant? Otherwise, you haven't really made your case, which means your case against Dan Brown is also weak, since you're not *completely* proving your point against his point.

6) The authors make a couple of claims about Dan Brown that I find completely wacky, and they are later summed up in one sentence: "...what Robert Langdon in The Da Vinci Code told his Harvard undergraduates to do: enjoy illicit sex and invent a spirituality to go with it". Wait, say what? Where was that in the book?? I missed it! Dude, if Dan Brown/Robert Langdon had *told* me to enjoy illicit sex, I would have remembered that!

7) Their citations in the last few chapters get sloppy -- way too many end notes don't match the text they're supposed to refer to. It makes me wonder if it's just sloppy layout or if they're signs of errors in the research.

8) The chapter on symbols cites lots of sites (ha!) that seem a little ... odd. I'm not going to look at these sites myself (I don't want to get on some weird "You visited our site, thanks for worshiping the devil!" mailing list), but I *hope* that the authors did the proper academic research into the background of the websites they used to make sure they were valid, reputable sites.

9) The authors seem strongly intolerant of other belief systems, like paganism, Wicca, and Buddhism. Okay, paganism and Wicca I can understand (these are God-fearing authors, after all), but Buddhism? I didn't know there was anything controversial about the peaceful Buddhists!

10) The last few chapters sound like they're trying to completely scare the Christian readers. Hell! Fire! Devil! Pagans! Witches! Buddhists! They're all trying to change our world! They're going to take over!! Run! They even strongly imply that the hippies of the 1960s led to paganism of today. Whaaaa? And the quote they use of that culture is Bob Dylan lyrics. Okay, wait... Bob Dylan led to paganism?!?

11) "The Bible's claim to uniqueness is not motivated by narrow-mindedness, intolerance, or fear" (228). But your book/claims/proof seem to be. *eyebrow raise*

********************
Okay, breathe. Strangely, this book is still better (in my opinion) than The Da Vinci Hoax: Exposing the Errors in the Da Vinci Code. I'll definitely keep reading it I did finish reading it, because it *does* have some valuable points. There are just points that I have to say "Wha?!?" or roll my eyes, and there's definitely a whole lotta propaganda.