This is not an attack on Orson Scott Card, or even his views. (Ordinarily, I would never start with a statement like that - I know that the reader is now fully charged and ready for an attack. I would be too. Bear with me.)
What this is, is a question. How do I reconcile the philosophies I hold as adult, which were shaped and guided by my reading of Card's work, with the views and philosophies I read in Card's columns on this site?
I realize the obvious answer - No one in their right mind (apologies to Scientologists) would form a worldview around a group of Science Fiction novels. Unfortunately, the obvious answer doesn't seem to be much comfort. The best kind of Science Fiction asks hard philosophical and ethical questions, and used the playground of the genre to work out the answers. The answers you find in that playground are at least as valid as the ones you find in the other playgrounds of literature.
Orson Scott Card writes the best kind of Science Fiction. Through the eyes of his characters, I have explored questions of government, war, love, hate, murder, tolerance, family, good, evil - and that's just off the top of my head. The answers his characters found were not always my own. But I never imagined that the answers I, or his characters, found would be so diametrically opposed to the views Card espouses in his opinion pieces.
I'll give a simple example first; Inclusion. This is a regular theme in Card's writings, but the easiest example to paraphrase comes from the Ender Series, in which a 'piggy' (People who only know Card from this site, beware: If it seems weird now, it's going to be downright cryptic later on. "Piggies" are a primitive alien race who - oh, just try to keep up.) realizes that he no longer needs to make war on other piggy tribes. "We are all of the same tribe," he says, "because we say we are." It's a very touching scene, and a plot point that the whole book hinges on, what with its deadly fences coming down, and a human settlement redefining itself as no longer a member of the "Starways Congress", but instead as Lusitanians. (Lusitania being the world these particular humans share with the "Piggies" and the "Buggers". Buggers are - never mind, we're moving on...)
Card, in a rebuttal to a Letter to the Editor on this site: “Inclusion” is an empty word when used as a general virtue. Its value depends entirely on what is and is not included. Every inclusion of one group is an exclusion of another."
The groups to be excluded in this case are gays and lesbians. The exclusion is to be from the social group known as "married people". One part of his argument seems to be that homosexuals have historically excluded themselves from straight society, not by their non-procreative lifestyle, but by anti-social behavior and attitudes. If this is true, isn't the quest for a state-sanctioned marriage an attempt to join the larger society? Aren't we being given an opportunity to say, "We are all of the same tribe..."?
Before this starts to sound like the much-anticipated "attack", let me back off and give some background:
Mr. Card and I share some commonalities in background. We were both raised in religions that splintered off of conventional Protestantism. Both religions experienced persecution at their inception, both have been derisively called "cults" in modern times, and both have had groups splinter off of the "Orthodox" religion with perverse, and sometimes deadly, results. (Both religions also had prophets and have dietary restrictions, but that's not the point.) The point is, we grew up being taught both the pride and the pain that comes from being excluded from the larger society. We both learned, early on, the ramifications exclusion holds for both the larger group and the excluded one.
I haven't studied Mr. Card's religion, but I gather from talking with members of the Mormon Church that Mormonism does not smile on unaided Bible study. This is one difference between the churches we were raised in. As I am no longer a member of my church, the Mormons may have the right of it.
A very large reason for my leaving organized religion was because I could not reconcile the angry Old Testament God with the principles of Christ's teachings, at least not in the context of God being unchanging, and all of His Word being divinely inspired and recorded. Christ seemed so right, Angry Old Testament God seemed so wrong.
As a young man, I was still struggling with this problem. Then I read Card's "Harmony" series, and learned an important concept that made some of the more inexplicable of the Capital Crimes in Leviticus make sense: Desert Law.
Desert Law is ideal for small social groups trying to survive for an extended period of time in a harsh wilderness environment. Card may have been inspired by the first Mormons heading "out west" to Utah, I don't know. I, of course, immediately connected Desert Law with Moses and the tribes of Israel wandering around in the Desert for 40 years.
Suddenly, the God of Leviticus made sense! To survive in the desert, people had to do certain things. Back then, they had to avoid disease - both shellfish and unconventional sex had to be avoided. Back then, about the only thing more dangerous to the group than a conflicting doctrine was an unrefrigerated porkchop. They had to breed, maintain large and strong family units, and not kill each other in fits of jealous rage - adultery and masturbation are both right out. Most importantly, under desert law there are no resources for maintaining prisons, no way to punish offenders that wouldn't just leave you stuck with an angry miscreant hanging around. The solution? Death. Simple. Best for the larger group.
As I thought about it longer, I embellished this line of logic: You've got not just any social group, you've got a group of exiled ex-slaves, who by definition don't have a lot left to lose, who you've got to keep alive... At the end, while I still didn't feel comfortable with Him, I could see the logic of the God of Leviticus. I could feel empathy for those who had to administer His Law.
Empathy. Now we're back to the central theme of Ender's Game. To defeat your enemy, you have to know him well enough to love him. You have to empathize with him, and learn what he wants, because no one, except perhaps a sociopath, sets out to do evil in his own mind.
As I continue (and this is no inappropriate change in tense) to explore this theme, the question that emerges is this: If no one sets out to do evil, what is the motivation that creates evil actions?
In the series, the answer that Card seems to constantly return to is: Fear. Fear of loss, fear of the other, the unknown - these are the things that cause men and women, who believe themselves to be good, to do evil. It could also be argued that Card believes that ignorance is another cause of evil, separate from fear.
Regardless, I found the solution - to both fear and ignorance - in the Ender's Series: Communication. "If the other guy can't tell you his story, you can never be sure he isn't trying to kill you." (I didn't actually check these quotes, but they've stuck with me. I think I've got them right.)
It is the importance of empathy, and of communication, I have learned from Orson Scott Card's novels. While I see him communicating a lot of his ideas in his Op Ed pieces, at this site and at others, what I see lacking is empathy. What I see lacking is the willingness to hear the stories of the "Other".
To be fair, if all he's heard from those who oppose his stated views is the equally over-opinioned/under-thought out pre-digested pabulum I've seen while searching out Orson's editorials, I'd have a hard time listening too. But for some reason, I always assumed that Uncle Orson would be better than that. I assumed that he'd be able to cut through the rhetoric of his detractors straight to the basis of their arguments.
On the issue of Homosexual Marriage, which seems to be the center of both the recent rhetoric and this letter, I will say this: In my point of view, the issue is fouled by an original error. For the State to be in the business of sanctifying ANY contract is treading on Religious territory. Let the State draft "Civil Union" contracts to their hearts content. Sign one, and if you want it sanctified, feel free to run right out to whichever Church, Temple, Mosque, or Synagogue will have you. "Render unto Caesar..." (See? I quote other writers too!) Simple.
Or I could be wrong. (For me, that's quite a bit harder to admit than that others may be wrong.) But if I could be wrong, so could every other opinion on the subject. (There. Now I don't feel so bad.) I know this, because I feel incredibly right, and I've learned that that's generally a danger sign.
The above rambling paragraph is to illustrate another point on this subject - we've got much better tools than a quicky Supreme Court decision or a Constitutional amendment to decide this issue. We've got 50 different States, each of which have their own legislatures, voters, and courts. We've got time. We've got each other, and we're all in the same tribe, if we say we are. We'll work it out.
But to Mr. Card (and this is the "Open Letter" part): Listen. That's about it. I hope that it's not fear I'm smelling in your more venomous diatribes. I refuse to believe that this entrenched inflexibility is because of your religion. (As near as I can tell, it's been a lot more flexible over the years than the one I was raised under.) If it is, well, I guess that's better than a calculated pose (unless I get to be Locke). If it is, come on out of the desert. Have some shellfish. We survived. We have successfully populated the earth. ("Nowadays, we've got Saran Wrap. We've got refrigerators. Nowadays, if you're starving to death, a porkchop'll save your life." --Chris Rock.)
posted
You are so right, Knightboy. I feel the same way. If you don't mind me asking, what religion did you come from formally?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
People think that empathy for certain situations must mean acceptance of the behaviors that lead to those situations. If the behaviors are, as a whole, damaging to society, why should those behaviors be accepted?
Not accepting those behaviors doesn't necessarily mean that one is bigoted against the persons who engage in that behavior. In fact, they should be accepting of the person, have empathy for their situation, and include them. Card's behavior toward homosexual individuals, in my limited experience, lives up to this ideal. At EnderCon, a convention that he put up his own money for in 2002, he personally invited Janis Ian to give a concert. His remarks about her were very warm and sincere, and he said she was one of the best live acts he had ever seen. She got multipe standing ovations and encores in an auditorium where probably %75 of the attendees were Mormon. And she is gay.
BTW, Card was right about her performance. It was truly remarkable.
posted
Just so the discussion doen't get off on the wrong track, I'd like to clarify a couple of points:
1) I originally wrote this for, and sent it to rhinotimes.com where OSC writes an Op Ed column. (You may've wondered why I spent so much time giving background on Card's novels, when I could've just as easily shorthanded it for the people here. That's why.)
2) I really didn't want this to center around Card's opinions on Gay Marriage. True, it was that horribly reported piece on Salon.com that started me off, but after reading that article I figured it that the author was too blinded by her own feelings to give Orson a fair shake. (She says as much in the article, so I'm pretty sure I'm right on that point.)
The thing is, I went to Rhino Times looking for something that I felt wasn't there - insightful, even-handed articles by the author that had taught me so much about compassion.
Instead what I found could've been written by just about any "ditto-head" I've ever seen.
I don't think that Card and I should agree, I just want to know -
How did I learn all of those answers from someone who seems to have rejected the questions?
Posts: 16 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can any of the current SDA's tell me what their Church's view on Church & State separation is?
When I was a kid, it was almost as important as the Sabbath - you know, the "Christian Militia" coming to take us out of our homes and tattoo our hands and heads and all that - now though, all I hear from my family is about getting in line behind P Robertson to make sure the government does what the Churches want.
Between that and Dubya running around talking about building a "bridge between Church and State", I'm starting to get twitchy.
Posts: 16 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Weird. I always grew up hearing about- The mark of the beast blue laws and how folks will try to make everyone worship on Sunday and how the Roman Catholic church would end up mixed up in that...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Welcome to Hatrack, Todd. Very well-written post. I didn't read it as an attack on OSC at all.
Just a quibble, but I think there is more to evil in OSC's novels than just fear. Ambition sometimes plays a role as well, as do unhealed hurts.
As far as how you could grok OSC's literary questions so thoroughly and disagree so strongly with his op-ed pieces . . . Do you disagree with all of OSC's stances? You say this isn't only about gay marriage, but that's the only issue you bring up here. A lot of people around here express disagreement with OSC's opinions on gay marriage and the Iraq war in general. But this is a complex man with views on a lot of other things. It may be that you agree with him on many more things than you disagree on, but these two topics are the ones he's writing about the most lately, because they are both such prominent issues in our time, and because he disagrees with the opinions that seem to ge gaining prevalence. So I don't see that being out of step with OSC on one or two issues is contradictory with drawing inspiration and even guidance from his stories, even if that inspiration leads you to different conclusions than Card's own.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Can any of the current SDA's tell me what their Church's view on Church & State separation is?
Well, I can tell you what I think the church view is... Who knows what the GC is up to now...
I am surprised that any Good Ole SDA would fall in line behind Pat Robertson with the whole Image of the Beast thing. I would think that any coalition of Protestant churches would scare the pants off any SDAs... I thought that scared us (or excited us if we want to see the end) more than those crazy liberals. But I don't know... the entire Northern branch of my family are scary democrats. (I like them otherwise.. just the whole Hillary Clinton is awesome thing frightens me.)
About separation of Church and State... we're for it. Separation good.... what else can I say??
quote:As far as how you could grok OSC's literary questions so thoroughly and disagree so strongly with his op-ed pieces . . . Do you disagree with all of OSC's stances? You say this isn't only about gay marriage, but that's the only issue you bring up here. A lot of people around here express disagreement with OSC's opinions on gay marriage and the Iraq war in general.
As far as his opinions, yeah I disagree with a lot of them, but my question has less to do with his actual opinions as the way they're expressed. I find the tone and content of them universally without empathy, or even interest, in the other sides arguments. A big chunk of the pieces are also lacking in a logical core.
That kind of OpEd is hard to take from Rush or O'Reilly (or Stern or Franken). It's worse coming from Card.
Posts: 16 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This whole personal beliefs vs. fiction thing is why I try not to learn to much about my favorite authors. Sometimes reality doesn't fit with the fiction they create. After reading through the entire Ender quartet in about 2 days I raved to my friend about the books and OSC's writing in general. She told me that, yeah, she'd heard he was a good writer, but that he'd written some really anti-gay stuff. I was crushed. I imagined him as the Speaker for the Dead, being understanding and accepting. After that I stopped even scanning his political essays and actually most non-fiction of authors I like. Heroes don't come easy, as R.E.M. says so elequently, and I can't afford to lose mine, so I just use my "really bad movie" stratagy and forget plot innacuracies and "don't notice" huge contradictions. Yay for denial!
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
psst-- the Speaker for the Dead was understanding, but not accepting.
Unless you think that he accepted the actions/attitudes of the Lustitanians toward Marco, or Marco toward Novinha, or Warmaker toward Esteban. . .
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not asking him to accept the arguments of the opposition - just wishing that his editorials were a little more even-handed.
Also, it's probably worth pointing out that I'd no more stop reading Card's fiction because of his personal opinions than I would expect him to not read Huckleberry Finn because of Twain's Anti-Mormon propaganda.
Posts: 16 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Just a quibble, but I think there is more to evil in OSC's novels than just fear. Ambition sometimes plays a role as well, as do unhealed hurts.
As examples, both Peter's ambition and Novhina's reaction to her unhealed hurts are a reaction to what they fear.
Peter fears an unravelling of the united earth, Novinha fears loss, and both do evil to those around them in the name of "protecting their own".
(Peter also fears that he's "not good enough" in the eyes of his parents, and sets out to rule the world as a reaction to that fear. Along the way, he shoots his siblings -literally- out of his orbit...)
Posts: 16 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I haven't studied Mr. Card's religion, but I gather from talking with members of the Mormon Church that Mormonism does not smile on unaided Bible study.
? ? ? ? ?
I think it's mostly that people are lazy and don't study it like we should. But we are most definitely encouraged to study "unaided" -- daily for 15 minutes, actually.
And who knows, one of these days I may actually get off my duff and do it. Personally, I find the Bible and Book of Mormon incredibly boring and I avoid them as much as possible, meaning I will glance throuh them at church when they're being used for the Sunday School leson, but other than that. . . .I have no desire to read them whatsoever. That's my own personal opinion, and it is diametrically opposed to the church's stance that 15 minutes of "unaided" scripture study per day is desirable.
posted
The "does not smile on unaided Bible study" made me blink severely as well. I don't know of an organized religion that encourages people to draw conclusions from the Bible that go contrary to what that religion teaches. I find this in my study with Jehovah's Witnesses, that the Bible is crystal clear on what they believe. But when it comes to my beliefs, many interpretations are possible.
For instance: 144,000 means 144,000. End of discussion.
But 666 doesn't mean 666, it is more symbolic of 6 being less than 7, God's number, and therefore incomplete. Also man was created on the 6th day. So 666 therefore denotes any human government.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
P.S. On the subject of Card's views, I still don't know what his stance on legality of abortion is.
P.P.S. Not to "call him out" on it, just to say that it's an example of a fairly big cultural war subject that I don't even know his opinion on and therefore couldn't say I usually do or don't agree with him. The "Mormon church", however, gets picketed by extreme right to lifers every year because the allow exceptions and also extend forgiveness to those who have had elective abortions.
quote: I don't know of an organized religion that encourages people to draw conclusions from the Bible that go contrary to what that religion teaches.
Well....about fifty years ago, we did. And had for a hundred years previous. But then there was this whole icky church split thing with the "liberals"...I wish we could go back to before that.
Anyway, the point is that I hear an awful lot about this or that church discouraging studying the Bible on your own. It usually comes from the idea that "if they were really reading it, they couldn't believe the things they believe."
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:How do you gather that Peter is out to rule the world because he fears his parents' rejection?
Well, for a couple of reasons - first, it's pretty clearly set up when Ender loses his Monitor. Also, it's alluded to several times in Children of the Mind. Finally, scene in Shadow where Mother and Father finally tell Peter that they know he's as brilliant and capable as Ender is a pretty telling one.
Then there's just my gut: Your parents love your brother more than you. He saves the world. You've got two choices available: Destroy the world, or take it for yourself.
(Hmmm. Kinda adds dimension to the "Peter-proof buildings...)
quote: It's an editorial. They're usually in the Opinion section of a newspaper for a reason.
And I have to admit that Editorial writing is not my favorite writing.
However, there are editorials - yes, even ones that I disagree with - that I enjoy reading, because they teach me something.
This is a bad example, but it's like the difference between "Crossfire" and "The Rush Limbaugh 3-Hours Hate Show".
quote: The "does not smile on unaided Bible study" made me blink severely as well. I don't know of an organized religion that encourages people to draw conclusions from the Bible that go contrary to what that religion teaches. I find this in my study with Jehovah's Witnesses, that the Bible is crystal clear on what they believe. But when it comes to my beliefs, many interpretations are possible.
For instance: 144,000 means 144,000. End of discussion.
But 666 doesn't mean 666, it is more symbolic of 6 being less than 7, God's number, and therefore incomplete. Also man was created on the 6th day. So 666 therefore denotes any human government.
And 666 is also the Mathematical translation of Nero's name, so Revelation could just be a coded political pamphlet...
I understand what you're saying, and I don't pretend that the SDA's are the epitome of individual interpretation. That statement was brought about by a years-old encounter I had with a couple of Missionaries:
My ex-SDA young self was amazed that every time I asked about a seeming contaridiction between the Book of Mormon and the Bible (We started at the Beginning of the BoM, so the topic was the "State of the Dead") their reaction was along the lines of, "We take it on faith that our interpretation is divinely inpired."
And then they'd go see the Bishop.
A few weeks later, they'd return with their Bishop's answer, and we'd repeat the process.
I finally just had to send them away. As I had nothing to replace their faith with, I just couldn't justify shaking the faith belonging to those (sweet, open-faced) young boys, not for the sake of, for me, mental exercize.
quote: Well....about fifty years ago, we did. And had for a hundred years previous. But then there was this whole icky church split thing with the "liberals"...I wish we could go back to before that.
Curious, what church are we talking about here?
Posts: 16 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious to know what the beginning of the BoM and the 'State of the Dead' have to do with one another.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's likely he means Alma 38-42. But I don't know what the SDA interpretation of the State of the dead is. And I don't want to get into the Jehovah's Witness view, since that isn't really what this thread is about. I just want to clarify that "Mormons" are encouraged to study the Bible on their own, and that we devote twice as much curriculum time to the Bible as a whole as we do the Book of Mormon. It works out to less per page, but given the amount of the Book of Mormon that is purely Biblical, it all balances out.
I didn't used to understand why there was so much Biblical text in the Book of Mormon, but now that I do it is some of my favorite reading.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a resident of Greensboro and a semi-regular reader of The Rhino Times, I've got to say that in the context of that publication, Mr. Card's writings come across as the "moderate" position.
The Rhino has a local reputation as being a firebrand: it's bias is there pretty much as a means of setting it apart from other local publications and news coverage. It seems to relish the "frothing-mouthed mad dog" image that it carefully courts. And their "journalists" take glee in turning anything to its worst possible stand. Almost all of their news coverage takes the tack of "look what these stupid people are doing now" or when they can't call the actions idiotic, they portray this image of shock that someone did something right for once.
Locally, it serves the same role as that one boisterous and boorish fellow at the end of the bar who looks down on all of the other customers, but somehow never finds his way to a different bar that might suit his tastes better.
Honestly, it wouldn't have much of a readership at all if it wasn't for OSC's reviews (Mr. Card is a big draw and rightly so), their carrying the syndicated "News of the Weird" and the running of "Beeps" which allows anyone anywhere to call in and leave a message on any topic, to be printed in the paper verbatim -- and it gets it's share of venom-spewing and crack-pot commentary that can make for entertaining, though not enlightening, reading.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The following reply from OSC to Mr. Knight was published in the Rhino Times Sept. 2nd:
I'm glad this wasn't an attack. If it were an attack, then my reasoned essays would be called "venomous diatribes" and my motive for writing would be called "fear" and my adherence to my views would be "entrenched inflexibility."
What Mr. Knight overlooks is the possibility that someone can look at the same data and reach a different conclusion - and still be a good person with a reasonable degree of intelligence. That is the fundamental principle of tolerance, and Mr. Knight hasn't learned it. The pose of mild manners is not the same thing as civil discourse. You will notice that Mr. Knight has not responded to a single point I actually make in the pertinent essays. He has not provided evidence for his views. He merely writes from the supreme confidence of knowing that he is correct, and now he is (kindly) trying to understand why another person would be so wrong-headed as to disagree with him.
I have no ill-will toward homosexuals, nor do any of my essays advocate depriving them of anything that would have the slightest benefit to them. If the course of action I advocate were followed universally, homosexuals would be living in a golden age of acceptance and tolerance - and they would also be practicing tolerance toward those who actually attempt the difficult practice of procreative marriage.
The idyllic view that Mr. Knight suggests, with the states experimenting with various forms of the abolition of the protected status of procreative marriage, is impossible under the Constitution, because the moment one state, in this case Massachusetts, allowed homosexual "marriage," the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Consitution required all other states to recognize that "marriage" as having legal force. States that attempt to circumvent this clause in the Constitution will discover that even the most conservative members of the Supreme Court will uphold it, because unlike the "right" to abortion and the "right" to homosexual "marriage," the full-faith-and-credit clause is actually written in the Constitution and can't be ignored. There will be no patchwork of experimentation.
Such a patchwork would be meaningless anyway. We're not experimenting with some states letting motorists drive on the left and drive on the right - everyone knows that would be insane, and there's no benefit from doing it. But it could be done. Homosexual "marriage," however, once it has the force of law anywhere, will be projected by the politically correct elite that control our schools and media into every town and every home in America. It will then be impossible for parents to raise their children without a constant barrage of propaganda attempting to "normalize" a reproductive dysfunction.
We will all be caught up in a vast experiment on our families and our children, which is being entered into without a shred of scientific data supporting its supposed harmlessness, without any attempt at democratic process, and without any plan to exit from the morass if we find out that it's the disaster that all the existing rational evidence indicates it's going to be.
But Mr. Knight has unalterable faith, without evidence, that this experiment will be harmless and beneficial; and he's so sure that his religion is right that he's happy to let it be forced on everyone, without democratic process, though he does condescend to allow us to have it forced on us one state at a time.
The fact remains that procreative marriage is different in kind from a union between homosexuals, whatever you might call it. If you decide that all flying waterbirds will be called ducks, it doesn't make them all ducks, and when you're done renaming, you'll still have to come up with a new word for duck that doesn't include all the nonducks that you've decided to call ducks.
And those of us who recognize that procreative marriage predates civil society and is the foundation on which a civil society must rest and which a civil society must protect and preserve will immediately start looking for a new civil society to give our allegiance to, which will offer the protection that the atheocracy of the politically correct is denying us in the name of the doctrine of "inclusion." For their society will absolutely and dangerously exclude procreative marriage and will persecute those who try to maintain it. And just because some of the atheocrats, instead of frothing at the mouth, will be mild-mannered and kindly in their condescension, like Mr. Knight, will not change the fact that they have imposed their religious beliefs on others by force of law and without democratic process, and that they have done it with no evidence for their faith except their extreme sincerity in believing in it.
--Orson Scott Card
[ September 03, 2004, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: kacard ]
Posts: 35 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do I never see OSC railing on against the high divorce rate, or the vast number of children in single parent homes, or the racial education gap. Why does he always choose THIS "threat to the family" to rail against? And frankly, on the civil discourse scale, I would rank Knight's missive a bit higher. I just don't understand. I really don't think I can write a coherent response to this right now.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because this is the point that people always poke him about, so this is the point that he is always needing to defend.
The high divorce rate is obvious, and he often talks about the culture of selfishness that this is a symptom of. So are the vast number of children in single parent homes: a symptom of high divorce rate and "Gimme sex now, I don't care about the consequences".
Card's point was also that 'civil discourse' should be more about truth and point by point refutation as it is about being polite, and to get your point across it is often far better to state your argument plainly and logically than to couch your argument in polite ambiguousness.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm -- I'm amazed. As soon as I can get my head out of fanboy mode (Omigawd! He typed my NAME!), I'll post a response.
Posts: 16 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess that my main problem right now is that the question "Why shouldn't gay people have the right to get married, OSC?" wasn't part of the original letter. The question that was asked (which I myself struggled with unsuccesfully until I finally got tired of fighting with myself and simply walked away from OSC) was "How can I reconcile the compassion and love and total lack of condemnation that I see in your books with the condemnation and lack of compassion I see in your other writings? It doesn't even center entirely on homosexuality, though that seems to be the only thing anybody ever talks about. It's just difficult for me because Knight's original letter was torn and conflicted, striing to make sense of the message he learned from OSC's characters when contrasted with OSC's essays. And rather than either clarify what he meant, OSC pulled out his usual accusation thatthe other side was persecuting him for his beliefs, although he gives Knight credit for persucuting him very politely. It just seems a rather harsh way of dealing with someone who is trying their absolute best to hold on to their respect for you. And while Knight did show respect for OSC in his letter, OSC seems to be guilty of exactly what he accuses his attackers of doing.
posted
To get a good handle on how OSC views compassion, perhaps you should read the Book of Mormon. In it people who love other people must fight against them or else be killed. Compassion and understanding do not and cannot equate letting bad things happen just because you love and understand the perpetrator of those bad things.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still working this out in my head, but Demo's objections parallel my own.
One exeption: Use of the word "persecute", which I feel is a little loaded for the tone of OSC's response.
Posts: 16 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
He has many times decried the casual disrespect given the institution of marriage and the self-indulgent selfishness that is sometimes touted as the solution to various problems.
But if a question is asked about a particular subject (as in the open letter) or if the particular topic is currently a hot one, obviously, he will want to speak on that topic.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gay marriage isn't a threat to heterosexual marriage. Gays have been "technically" marriaged for centuries. A real threat would be things like poverty, like so many families trying to maintain a high standard of living while working two low income jobs each. Internal forces are a threat to marriage... No one has YET to prove to me how, if by some fluke I meet a girl (And I really hope I do one day.) and marry her how that will put a strain on a heterosexual marriage. I have respect for marriage. I think we should do all we can to help married couples starting out. i believe that communities should be strong and solid to keep children from slipping through the cracks to crime and other negative things. But focusing on gay marriage is like misdirection in a coin trick. You miss what the right hand's doing.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, OSC's editorials on the Homosexual Marriage issue were an example, not the point, of my original letter.
Posts: 16 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
SDA?
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
