Simon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But you have your own objectivity and I have mine
No -- objectivity is not subjective. You have your subjective view and I have mine. The objective is what is verifiable to all.
> I know that sounds rediculous but thats the way it
> is.
Er...it sounds
ridiculous....
By denying the bigger questions in life any
> part in the discussion, only objective scientific
> and historical fact that changes year to year, you
> are placing objectivity itself in a narrow
> temporal framework that is not absolute at all.
> And what is objectivity then ? Merely the safest
> path through logic at that particular time and
> place.
Your "bigger questions" are red herringesque distractions from the subject we are discussing....
> The issue at hand is whether or not the Catholic
> Church has a right to defend accusations against
> it that are made in a fictional book but accepted
> as fact by a large proportion of its audience.
No, that is not the issue. The issue is whether a fictional book can defame anyone or any group. Defamation is a legal term.
[
www.chillingeffects.org] says this:
Question: What is the legal definition of defamation?
Answer: The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are: (1) A publication to one other than the person defamed; (2) of a false statement of fact; (3) which is understood as being of and concerning the plaintiff; and (4) which is understood in such a way as to tend to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
In the case of this book, there's no question that some known historical facts are twisted or misrepresented; however number 2 above is a problem. Is it a false statement of fact to say that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a child? No one knows the truth here. No one can be 100% certain that both or either of these people actually existed. So what is written about them
cannot be proven in court to be a false statement of fact. Therefore, there is no defamation IMO.
The novel does not make the church look good, but many things are written about many people and organizations that are much worse, but do meet the defamation standard. Amd again, this is a novel.
As for number 4, there is no evidence of Dan Brown's intentions, which may very well have been to make a lot of money writing a controversial novel based on a book of pseudo history. There's no evidence of actual malice on his part, which is part of defamation, AFAIK.
The bottom line here is that the Church should reply to whatever they disagree with in the book, but the book should not be banned. I still say if the controversy were dropped, the sales would probably drop too since it's not a very good book...
Btw, I asked earlier on in this thread whether anyone knew of any reaction to this book by the Eastern churches. No one answered.