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

And they taught you that objective views and subjective views are the same thing?


> > 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.

No, it's not. It's also about logic. To make this as simple as possible: How can anyone be accused of making "false statements" about "facts" when the facts are not (and probably cannot) ever be known? There is a major fallacy here...



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.

Comparing Brown's fictional novel with Goebbels propaganda (which was not sold as "fiction") is a pretty outrageous (and false) comparison. Brown is not "fooling people" by writing a novel. Again, Baigent et al. wrote the non-fiction book and the Church says nothing about them...

> >
> > > 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

The dictionary definition is not terribly different. I really don't see where Brown's book deters others from associating with Catholics or Christians. He makes the Church a villain, but so what? It's still fiction...what if he had made the Masons the villains, or the Democrats or Republicans? It would still be fiction.

Many writers make big business the villain. Does that make it true? Are people deterred from investing in big companies? It's ridiculous...


>
>
> > 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

Hey, watch the insults! Lawyer... *shudders*


> >
> > 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.

There are elements outside the main characters that are facts, though.

>
> > 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.

Defamation, slander, etc. are all based on the intention of the perpetrator. We don't know Brown's intentions. I don't think hurting the church was necessarily his goal here.


>
> >
> > 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 ???

But didn't they? Isn't that what started this thread? Did you read the links I posted that showed the book has already been banned in Lebanon?


>
> > 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.

In that case, though, you'd also have to make clear what is neither, because it is unknown, and probably unknowable.


>
> >
> > 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.

But that's just a guess. I'm really curious to know if it was celibacy or the Opus Dei that got the RC going. If no Eastern churches get on the bandwagon, it may be the celibacy thing...