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.

Fundamentally, Mormonism is what I think of as a Club-oriented religion; it's a variation on the clubs that small children often create, where everyone agrees to conform to a list of rules, and you're either "In" or "Out" based on your ability to conform to what the leader decrees.

Within this context, it makes a whole lot of sense to kick out anyone who isn't conforming to the club rules. If you don't like the club, go create one of your own. (Which, actually, is pretty much how Mormonism was created in the first place. Joseph Smith, et. al., were dissatisfied with the existing religious choices at the time, so they seized the opportunity and created a new cult, er, religion.)

I've been expecting for some time that a fundamentalist sect would arise, formed of primarily homosexual individuals, that behaved more or less like all of the other fundamentalists sects, but recognizing gay marriage. Once it had a few thousand members, it would be hard to ignore. However, this is a side issue.

The problem is that the Mormon Church (and other major denominations) are large entities. We may well need a Henry VIII-style restructuring of religions in this country (taking away their tax-exempt status, for instance; let them decide if they really want to pay property tax on those huge buildings on prime downtown real estate...). You get a lot of potential ancillary benefits from belonging to one. There are definite arguments in the line of them being less religious centers than social centers, since typically you find upon questioning that many of the members disagree on crucial points of theology and belief; they just like hanging out together, and are more a mutual-support society than anything else. In that light, the question of restricting a person from membership based on sexual orientation becomes nit-picky, as it certainly isn't in the core statement of belief of the organization. Gay rights are not brought up in the Ten Commandments; you have to really go digging in Leviticus to even get commentary by the Jewish elders on the subject.

So it boils down to Mr. Card - and others - being personally bothered by having people of multiple sexual orientations in their congregations, rather than any serious religious argument.

Of course, all of religion is about Belief with a capital B, and this is certainly in line with Mr. Card's Belief. I tend to think that, if a god exists (on which the jury is still out), He/She/It is probably more concerned with the good/evil character of each person's actions than who that person likes to kiss. Maybe I'm naive, but there it is. That falls under the category of My Belief. :-)

Having met Mr. Card, I personally think he's a nice guy, but I also think (note that I avoided using 'believe') that he and others like him are allowing a spirit of intolerance to grow in America, and this is very, very bad. Today we can be Intolerant of gays; tomorrow it will be Muslims; next week it will be anyone non-Judeo-Christian; then anyone non-Christian; and if we don't slow it down now, by about 2015, we'll be looking at a civil war between the Baptists, Mormons and Catholics.

We really need to stop intolerance NOW.

[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.