Should Dan Brown be put to death?

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Really? Because there isn't any indication that it is.

Yes there is, it's on my previous post before that one.

Context, you see?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
So you do not believe that were the Da Vinci code released in let's say the 15th Century, that Dan Brown would have been executed for heresay?

If the Da Vinci code had been released in the 15th century, Dan Brown would have been either hanged or canonized for his visionary/prophetic work. They would have considered him either a witch or a prophet, as he would have been foretelling events which had not yet occured.

The Last Supper (Il Cenacolo or L'Ultima Cena) was not complete until the very end of the 15th century (1498), while the other pivotal work, Mona Lisa (La Gioconda) was without question completed in the 16th century (1503) thus rendering the fictional work impossible without supernatural intervention.

Originally posted by David C
Had Brown been unlucky enough to be born during the Unenlightened Dark Ages, he surely would have shared a bonfire with Bruno.

Er... no.

You've just illustrated your ignorance of history.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Er... no.

You've just illustrated your ignorance of history.

But, as Dan Brown and his legion of fans have evidenced, ignorance is bliss.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Er... no.

You've just illustrated your ignorance of history.

Enlighten us O informed one.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Er... no.

You've just illustrated your ignorance of history.

Since you've not elaborated, I'll assume you object to either a) that Bruno was put to death prior to the events described in the Da Vinci Code or b) I chose to capitalize Unelightened Dark Ages, a point on which KAFKOV has already taken me to task... (I'll not mention that I misspelled "congratulations" twice).

Forget Brown and forget the "Da Vinci Code" reference. Please choose anyone in relatively modern times who has been accused of heresy or heretical actions/writings. If it is your opinion that putting that person to death is wrong, does it not demonstrate moral relativity? With all due respect to Pal's suggestion that it is intellectually dishonest to compare modern times with centuries past, therein lies my point. Morality changes as society progresses.

Originally posted by David C
Since you've not elaborated, I'll assume you object to either a) that Bruno was put to death prior to the events described in the Da Vinci Code or b) I chose to capitalize Unelightened Dark Ages, a point on which KAFKOV has already taken me to task... (I'll not mention that I misspelled "congratulations" twice).

Forget Brown and forget the "Da Vinci Code" ...[text shortened]... imes with centuries past, therein lies my point. Morality changes as society progresses.

Or you could assume I object to your assumption that heretics were automatically sentenced to death. Your list is by no means exhaustive.

Saying that putting a heretic to death is wrong demonstrates moral relativity is no more meaningful than saying that putting a Jew to death in a concentration camp is wrong demonstrates moral relativity.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Or you could assume I object to your assumption that heretics were automatically sentenced to death. Your list is by no means exhaustive.

Saying that putting a heretic to death is wrong demonstrates moral relativity is no more meaningful than saying that putting a Jew to death in a concentration camp is wrong demonstrates moral relativity.

OK, then perhaps you could tell us; what percentage of heretics convicted in the middle ages escaped with an excommunication?

Just to make sure I understand your holocaust point, you're saying Hitler's final solution wasn't a moral outrage?

Originally posted by David C
Since you've not elaborated, I'll assume you object to either a) that Bruno was put to death prior to the events described in the Da Vinci Code or b) I chose to capitalize Unelightened Dark Ages, a point on which KAFKOV has already taken me to task... (I'll not mention that I misspelled "congratulations" twice).

Forget Brown and forget the "Da Vinci Code" ...[text shortened]... imes with centuries past, therein lies my point. Morality changes as society progresses.

What's being missed here (as is often missed when the shortsighted opine on the shortcomings of those whose stories have already been set to ink) is the fact that--- right or wrong--- historical figures overwhelmingly acted based upon what they thought was right. Every so often, we come across an historical figure who knew their actions were wrong and yet they did them anyway because they could, but history is filled with the actions of people acting out of their flawed understanding.

Translation: it's but a matter of time before we are viewed by those who follow as a bunch of buffoons.

Originally posted by David C
OK, then perhaps you could tell us; what percentage of heretics convicted in the middle ages escaped with an excommunication?

Just to make sure I understand your holocaust point, you're saying Hitler's final solution wasn't a moral outrage?

The death penalty was reserved only for the most unrepentant heretics. For repentant "heretics" (i.e. people found guilty of heresy who subsequently repented), the penalty depended on the degree and matter of the heresy -- excommunication was reserved to the most grave of these. Most people found guilty of heresy had milder sentences (e.g. pilgrimage, fines, a fixed period of service at a monastery etc.)

My point about the Holocaust is that a substantial number of people agreed with it at the time -- my now saying it's wrong does not imply moral relativity. All it implies is that those people who supported it were wrong.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The death penalty was reserved only for the most unrepentant heretics. For repentant "heretics" (i.e. people found guilty of heresy who subsequently repented), the penalty depended on the degree and matter of the heresy -- excommunication was reserved to the most grave of these. Most people found guilty of heresy had milder sentences (e.g. pilgrimage, ...[text shortened]... not imply moral relativity. All it implies is that those people who supported it were wrong.

Were the people (the Catholic Church) would supported the death penalty for unrepentant heretics wrong?

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Were the people (the Catholic Church) [who][sic] supported the death penalty for unrepentant heretics wrong?

Objectively speaking, I would say that the death penalty is wrong (whatever the offence).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Objectively speaking, I would say that the death penalty is wrong (whatever the offence).

inclusive of murder? maybe after some sickening torture, possibly on children? the guilty party should be allowed to avoid the death penalty right? now imagine it's your own child and answer.

Originally posted by Rolfey
inclusive of murder? maybe after some sickening torture, possibly on children? the guilty party should be allowed to avoid the death penalty right? now imagine it's your own child and answer.

Objectively speaking, I would say that the death penalty is wrong (whatever the offence).

Originally posted by David C
If your answer is no, congratualtions: You have just demonstrated to yourself that "morality" is malleable. Had Brown been unlucky enough to be born during the Unenlightened Dark Ages, he surely would have shared a bonfire with Bruno.

If you answered "yes", then congratualtions once again...you should find comfort in the Islamo-facist ideologies of the world.

I think he should be put to death.
And his publishers.
How crap like that can get published, while utter brilliance, like my writing, can't, is beyond human understanding!