Joanne Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>

Well that makes a nonsense of everything I was taught about history (and I assume we are talking about history here). And I was taught by some pretty impressive people that have written text books.


>
> > I know that sounds rediculous but thats the
> way it
> > is.
>
> Er...it sounds ridiculous....
>

Well its good we agree on some things, even if it is just on appearances


>
> 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....
>

No they are most definitely not. You claim (and I've just read ahead to try and understand what you think the issue is) is that its all about legal standing. Thats rubbish. Where has anyone here talked about taking Dan Brown to court ? The issue is about doing something akin to what Joseph Goebbels was an expert in. Fooling people into believing something false by making it seem believable and comfortable to believe.


>
> > 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.
>


And one not used by me. However, and not wanting to speak for Roxana who did use it, are you seriously suggesting she was talking about court action ? My understanding is she was using the dictionary definition. In websters that is defined as;

Quote

Main Entry: de·fa·ma·tion
Pronunciation: "de-f&-'mA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : communication to third parties of false statements about a person that injure the reputation of or deter others from associating with that person

> 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.
>

Yes you would make an excellent lawyer. I've never doubted that


>
> 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.
>

One where the author makes several claims such as "extensively researched" and elements outside the main characters as being based on "fact". I'm using my quotes in a legalistic way - sure. If the only people that read this book are lawyers and solicitors that would be a significant point for you to make in response.


> 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.
>


Oh no not at all. I rekon he jumped on the bandwagon of assuming he could make money out of peoples gullibility. But thats just my opinion. And irrelevant to the discussion.


>
> 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 have agreed with you on that already. As I'm sure would anyone on this thread that has disagreed with you in any way. Do you really expect the Vatican itself to come out and say it should be banned ???


> I still say if
> the controversy were dropped, the sales would
> probably drop too since it's not a very good
> book...

I don't mind whether or not the sales drop. I'd like it to be treated as a novel of fiction that some people with low expectations may enjoy as a novel of fiction. And I think its important people are well aware of what is fiction in it and what is fact.


>
> Btw, I asked earlier on in this thread whether
> anyone knew of any reaction to this book by the
> Eastern churches. No one answered.
>

I don't know but I don't rekon any church will be pleased by the number of people who take it seriously.


>
>
> Joanne
>
>
>
> "We see things not as they are, but as we are."
>
>