I have a confession to make. I have not read "The Da Vinci Code". Nor, in fact, do I intend to. An even greater blasphemy is laid to my credit when I confess that I will also not be seeing the movie.

There will be a tendency for those among you to assume that my decision has something to do with my rather conservative religious leanings. Not so. The reason I haven't read the book and will not be seeing the movie is quite a novel one, actually. It is the fact that I am simply not interested. Like the countless "Harry Potter" installments, Dan Brown's missive just does not excite me.

And so I stand on the sidelines watching with amusement the controversy that surrounds this book. While it is quite clearly labelled a work of fiction, critics are treating it as blasphemous and insulting to the Christian faith (although, as a side note to those who would compare Christianity to Islam, I MUST note that NO major Christian leader has called for Dan Brown's head; quite a different response than the Islamic reception of "The Satanic Verses"). And yet, no serious anti-Christian scholar has used "The Da Vinci Code" as support for their talking points. While they may have used the sources that Dan Brown drew upon, they don't take the book as seriously as a number of Christians apparently do.

If I had a dollar for every Christian who has purchased this book or who will see this movie to justify their outrage at Dan Brown and his alleged assault on Christianity, I'd be a wealthy man. The book and movie have been talked up in churches and on every Christian talk radio show and television network since the book's release, and have no doubt contributed heavily to the book's success. The numerous critique books that have critiqued "the Da Vinci Code" have referenced the book so heavily that any intelligent reader would be inclined to buy the book to read the offending passages in context.

And yet, in all of this, nobody has pointed out the quite laughable, yet quite obvious flaw in the argument of those who would argue Dan Brown's mission. Da Vinci's masterpiece, The Last Supper, while inspiring, was painted long after everyone present at that fabled event had been deceased. Even if Da Vinci intended the individual next to Christ to be Mary Magdalene, it was (surprise!) NOT A PORTRAIT OF THE ACTUAL EVENT. It was, instead, an artist's interpretation. Thus even if Da Vinci intended the individual in question to be Mary Magdalene, it is quite conceivable that he was entirely misguided in his interpretation.

So, take your Bible studies "exposing" "The Da Vinci Code". Watch your evangelical tapes. Read your book. I have better things to do than to overanalyze a work of fiction. Even if I were so inclined, an in dept analysis of 1940's "Looney Tunes" cartoons would be FAR more compelling than dissecting Dan Brown.