Orson Scott Card, an Authoritarian

[matt_arnold]

The SF author Orson Scott Card posted an essay to a Mormon website about why Mormonism is incompatible with being openly homosexual.This may come as a surprise to him, but the argument on which Mr. Card bases his entire essay actually is ethical relativity. Let us take an example. Either raping a woman is wrong because of the suffering of the

Comments

[rmeidaking]

I both agree and disagree with OSC on this - and a bunch of other topics

[matt_arnold]

How can "we" (by whom I presume you mean those who are already tolerant) "stop intolerance NOW"? By being intolerant of the beliefs of intolerant people? Those who oppose acceptance of homosexuality feel no less persecuted and oppressed. You can hear the voice of the victim in several paragraphs in Mr. Card's essay. Violence and legislation -- such as the legislation against gay marriage in America, or legislation censoring speech against homosexuals on the radio in Canada -- is persecution. We can be accepting of both in our laws for the sake of freedom, to keep government from regulating the hearts and thoughts of either side; but we can't be accepting of both in our consciences.

[ericthemage]

Let's stop intolerant legislation, and let private entities discriminate as they choose. I would rather not force any private entity to tolerate what they do not wish to. In return, I will not do business with any entity that discriminates, and will let them know why I am not doing business with them.

For example, Weyco Insurance in Michigan fired people for smoking or not taking a tobacco test. There has been so much negative publicity, and yet Michigan is considering passing a law stating that you cannot be fired for doing a legal activity in your own home. I disagree, I'd rather let the market take care of it. Weyco has probably taken a big hit because of all the negativity.

For religious intolerance, I say that as a private individual, if you disagree with gay marriage, don't marry a homosexual. Don't force your beliefs on me, and I won't force mine on you.

[matt_arnold]

Yes, it's compatible with Humanism, but I'm careful not to create another authority out of it. You can't determine what is Secular Humanism in the same way you determine what is Christianity. With most of the religions of the world, you look up the teachings in a book that defines the official stance. The followers follow that set of teachings, so authority is invested in the original sources and goes from the top downward. Not so with individualistic movements, in which authority transmits from the bottom upward and the teachings of the past are usually considered inferior to the present and future. The "Affirmations of Humanism" or the "Humanist Manifesto" (and its revisions 2 and 3) are not scriptures to be obeyed, they are classification records of what certain individuals managed to broadly agree on. The way they are compiled is to notice that there is a large number of people who already have certain pre-existing beliefs in common, and then write it down and slap the label of "humanism" on that. Instead of serving to inform

[phecda]

Great discussion, folks. I, for one, am just glad to get insight into the origins of the current Something Positive arc. :-) I now return you to your discussion of the relative merits of the jello belt.