Someone posted a comment on the Discuss Da Vinci Blog recently in the "Ultimate Da Vinci Code Question: Who is Jesus?" thread, where they commented "Lighten up, itís just a stupid (fictional!) book. Faith is a personal thing. If your faith is strong, it shouldnít be threatened by some hackís novel." Of course this comment didn't really have much to do with the content of the original post. I replied, noting that Dan Brown doesn't think that The Da Vinci Code is "just a stupid (fictional!) book" (see the "Ultimate Question" article above). I then linked some articles about some of the things Brown got wrong in the book. The person's next comment was succinct: "Like I said emmzee, lighten up. Donít be hatiní!"

This kind of attitude annoys me. Where did the idea that disagreeing with someone is "hatin" come from? I don't hate Dan Brown, he's free to believe whatever incorrect theories he wants, but he's still wrong. And while some may view the issues discussed in The Da Vinci Code as unimportant, I certainly don't. So why shouldn't I try to correct the gross errors present in the work? As stated before, tolerance is only possible when people disagree; it is, to use the dictionary definition, "capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others". Tolerance presupposes disagreement, and stating facts, if done in a respectful manner, is not "hatin".