Orson Scott Card and his Mormonism

[Corkobo]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

You are helping put food in the mouth of the author, regardless of what ideas are or are not in their next book. I find it ethically valid to boycott any entity if you disagree with something else they do. ....

OK, I can see where you're coming from and do not question your ethics.

But OSC did not in fact do anything bad (that I know of).
He only expressed some views that are considered unethical and wrong in this day and age.
But why not consider that he did not grow up in this day and age? If (and this is pure speculation) he was brought up in a religious family with conservative views and the community in which the family lived was the same would you expect him to be different?

I have read about and discussed cases where adults have powerful inner conflicts between the mores and memes implanted in them in their childhood and youth and their new ideas acquired from education and observation.
I admit that I did not read his interview linked above and I'm frankly not sure that I want to (maybe that makes me a moral coward, I don't know...) but if he indeed wrote a story that does not portray homosexuality as clearly evil (as it is said above in this Thread) then maybe he does have some ambiguity about the issue and maybe stories are the way he expresses this because he may not feel able to articulate these views in straightforward talking.

I am not condemning you (or indeed anybody) for your boycott but I am saying that the court of public opinion is often both misinformed and too quick to condemn without either knowing all the facts or indeed fully pondering the known facts.

I am not OSC's solicitor and I do not want to enter into an argument so I will stop arguing my point of view on this issue with this post.

I'm also going to consider that maybe I'm wrong and the majority (in this Thread) is right.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by ebusinesstutor

Of course Scientology is a good example of the danger of letting science fiction authors start their own church.

*Bad* SF writers.
Heinlein created a rather interesting religion early on. (Sixth Column. )
He regularly cautioned against tele-evangelists and their political activities, too.

SF and religion tend to be a bad mix for the most part.
SF being at core a rationalist genre it is more common to see organized religion as an obstacle/opponent for the protagonist than as a neutral or even positive social force. For example, you see more cases like the corrupt, reactionary Church in David Weber's Safehold series than the Grayson Church in his own Honorverse series. And protagonists who are actively but quietly religious are pretty rare in the genre.

Fantasy, though, does tend to feature a more balanced, nuanced portrayal usually by staying away from recognizable (and controversial) issues.

[Penforhire]

gmw, totally agree.

Corkobo, I happen to buy OSC's books. But I can understand why some people would not. You talk of someone's background as if that excuses poor behavior. It does not. It means we might have empathy for them but we still don't have to support them unless you want to argue socialism (which will take this to another forum).

"Pondering the known facts?" Some people are upset by what OSC said and wrote, not necessarily in his books. You don't need more facts unless you're suggesting he had a gun to his head or was whacked out on mushrooms at those several times.

This is a different circumstance than, say, someone you work with at a mutual employer. Here we are talking about purchasing the product of an individual's effort. A better analogy might be, if you don't like how puppies are raised by "puppy mills" then you don't buy from them and you might make an effort to spread the word.

I'm also not going to say you're wrong. You can forge your own relationships with authors on any basis you prefer. Just trying to clearly explain why some people disagree and will not be swayed by your basis. The world can probably be divided into those people who care about an artist/author/actor/politician's personal life, their off-screen behavior, and those who do not.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Corkobo

OK, I can see where you're coming from and do not question your ethics.

But OSC did not in fact do anything bad (that I know of).

Other than advocating treason. Emphasis added:

Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.

But why not consider that he did not grow up in this day and age? If (and this is pure speculation) he was brought up in a religious family with conservative views and the community in which the family lived was the same would you expect him to be different?

My father is older than OSC, and he manages to understand that there's no ethical reason to deny gay people the same rights that straight people have.

I am not condemning you (or indeed anybody) for your boycott but I am saying that the court of public opinion is often both misinformed and too quick to condemn without either knowing all the facts or indeed fully pondering the known facts.

Saying, "maybe people are misunderstanding the situation" when you yourself are unwilling to examine the evidence is disingenuous at best.

[DoctorOhh]

OMG an author has an opinion, call the newspapers, get the word out quick, we must stop this from spreading.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Other than advocating treason. Emphasis added:

Quoted above is why I stay out of the details of these pointless debates.

Sooner or later an intelligent person, that can defend and advocate for or against a position, decides to play ignorant by making giant leaps in logic to state that someone is "advocating treason." You would have to be ignorant, stupid or purposefully exaggerating the truth beyond reason hoping no one would notice to actually state that OSC talking about destroying one government and replacing it with another government is akin to treason. I think almost 60 million folks recently voted to destroy the current government and replace it with a new government. That's a lot of treasonous folks.

Fortunately Mobileread has tools that enable users to minimize future exposure if they don't wish to participate further.

Good Reading!

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DoctorOhh

I think almost 60 million folks recently voted to destroy the current government and replace it with a new government. That's a lot of treasonous folks.

Or not.

In the US, Treason is a *very* specific crime of very limited scope:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...ion_3:_Treason

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Overt act.
Not speech.
Speech against the government would tend to fall under the definition of sedition:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sedition

Sedition is the crime of revolting or inciting revolt against government. However, because of the broad protection of free speech under the First Amendment, prosecutions for sedition are rare. Nevertheless, sedition remains a crime in the United States under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2384 (2000), a federal statute that punishes seditious conspiracy, and 18 U.S.C.A. § 2385 (2000), which outlaws advocating the overthrow of the federal government by force. Generally, a person may be punished for sedition only when he or she makes statements that create a Clear and Present Danger to rights that the government may lawfully protect (schenck v. united states, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]).

And therein lies the rub: sedition remains in the books but is rarely invoked because of the extensive body of law protecting free speech and because it can only be invoked when the speech creates a clear and present danger. (Say, inciting a riot that goes on to attack government facilities.)

In Mister Card's case, every precedent for over a century now makes it clear he has every right to state his desire for an overthrow of the government, even by force, as long as he doesn't actually carry out any overt act in that direction or suggests specific harm to the occupant of the White House.

Considering how touchy folks 'round here are about anything that even remotely resembles censorship, it is somewhat ironic that a relatively mild expression like that could cause such an emotional reaction.

You don't have to go particularly far back in time to encounter far more threatening comments in the public discourse coming from elected officials, no less.

If a writer's expressed ideas--whether personal or in a narrative--offend you, the only reasonable action for opponents of censorship is to ignore it or to counter it with an opposing viewpoint.
If censorship is acceptable, advocating a boycott is also more or less reasonable.

Expecting government action against such speech, however, is something more likely to be found in Card's own fiction (specifically, EMPIRE) rather than the real world we still live in. Not. Going. To. Happen.

EMPIRE might yet come to pass but for now it is still a controversial novel (and a pretty darn good XBOX video game).

BTW, in recent times I've noticed a certain tendency to demonize a lot of stories that present distateful scenarios/characters *solely* because those characters or scenarios are distasteful. That prevalence, I find a lot more worrisome than some author shooting his mouth off in a public forum. But then, I like cautionary tales and stories of anti-heroes.

[Canuck_in_Japan]

You're trying to debate someone who thinks "Yawnnn" is debating. Also, that voting in an election is the same as the destruction of government and treason. Don't even bother.

[fjtorres]

I didn't think I was trying to debate anybody.
I was merely providing a bit of context for the rhetoric bouncing around.
Not every conversation needs to turn into a point-counterpoint debate.

And I would hope that not every idea that offends us needs to be eradicated root and file and that not every person that displeases us needs to be ground into dust.
I for one don't mind having my views challenged anymore than I mind exploring offensive ideas. As long as they stay in the realm of ideas.

As a matter of principle, I find troublesome attempts to muzzle ideas or retaliate against people for expressing them. And for similar reasons I try to keep narratives and their ideas independent from their originator and I prefer to take stories at face value; I'm more interested in what *I* get out of a book than who created it or what *they* hoped I get from it.

In my reading world it's all about the book and *me*.

[Quexos]

I have "The lost gate" which I have not read yet but I'm wondering if it is a stand alone or if it is part of a series, I mean can it be read alone as its own story ?

[BillSmithBooks]

Mr. Card has written some brilliant books and I have read and enjoyed many of them: Ender's Game, Speaker for the Dead, the first couple of "Seventh Son" books...

I would respectfully argue that his more recent fiction is, ahem, not quite up to the standards that he set earlier in his career. I'll leave it at that.

Mr. Card has the same First Amendment rights as all of us and he is absolutely entitled to believe in bigoted, hateful, angry, inaccurate, crazy things, regardless of whether they are rooted in religious beliefs or beliefs he arrived at all on his own.

Trying to justify wrong beliefs ("he's from a different generation," "it's just his religion's teachings," etc.) is simply excusing boorish and abhorrent behavior.

All of history has been plagued by great injustice and intolerable suffering justified by people saying, "Oh no, it's not me...it's God (whichever version they purport to believe in) and his religion telling me to do this. Hate the sin; love and murder the sinner and all that." This pattern appears to go back to the beginning of time, judging by our oldest texts.

As a society, we should no longer simply step back and nod respectfully if someone justifies bizarre and hateful beliefs when they say, "Oh, all that hate and anger. That's not ME. That's GOD. Says so right in this book. (That was dictated by angels and written on gold tables that nobody else saw.)" *

(* SIDE RANT: Or rules dictated by Fully Operating Thetons, promises of 99 Virgins in Heaven for murdering lots of infidels, "the end of the world is coming right now and everyone shall be judged and only the faithful will be raptured while the sinners will be tormented for all eternity," or Protestants and Catholics shooting and bombing each other as recently as the 1980s in certain parts of the world. Most (all?) religions have a handful of...odd...beliefs. Not singling out LDS for criticism.

Also, NOT trying to imply that only dangerous things originate in religious thought. All kinds of horrible things have come out of non-religious ideologies and philosophies. Humans as a whole are very good at justifying evil...or allowing evil to happen...for a whole host of reasons.)

Instead, we should point out that certain beliefs are crazy and unacceptable, regardless of where they originated.

Just as OSC has a right to express those beliefs, any of us have a right to call BS on his beliefs. We have a right to analyze, deconstruct and criticize those beliefs and say, "This sort of thing is simply not acceptable."

I have a right to refuse to support someone who endorses those beliefs; I have a right to tell the world exactly why I refuse to purchase from someone because they promote dangerous and harmful things with the proceeds.

Do not mistake this as an indictment of an entire religion or any religion, for that matter.

My belief is simple: If you act in love and harmony and compassion and forgiveness, live and let live, do no harm to others, I'm cool with it and IMHO you are acting in harmony with the Creator.

If you act in hate and anger and bigotry, you're not walking in harmony with God, no matter how much you insist you are. And it's high time society pointed that out and that people organized to prevent harmful actions as a result of those beliefs.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by BillSmithBooks

I have a right to refuse to support someone who endorses those beliefs; I have a right to tell the world exactly why I refuse to purchase from someone because they promote dangerous and harmful things with the proceeds.

Absolutely.

But, on general terms: what about going one step forward and mounting a campaign to force other people, say his employer, to act against him? Does that trouble you?

See, we've seen quite a few such campaigns in recent years from all kinds of pressure groups and *that* is what troubles me. Not just challenging ideas but retaliating for them; *punishing* people *solely* for their ideas.

Shouldn't there be a line somewhere if one wishes to take the high road?

[Corkobo]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Absolutely.

But, on general terms: what about going one step forward and mounting a campaign to force other people, say his employer, to act against him? Does that trouble you?

See, we've seen quite a few such campaigns in recent years from all kinds of pressure groups and *that* is what troubles me. Not just challenging ideas but retaliating for them; *punishing* people *solely* for their ideas.

Shouldn't there be a line somewhere if one wishes to take the high road?

Ah, but you see, fjtorres, the problems is, I think, that people who up the ante and take such actions feel entirely justified because their ethical code tells them that they are right.
When emotive and subjective words (like hateful, dangerous, treason) are used as "evidence" or points of argumentation one's own emotions take over and outrage can override logic and principle.

Not entirely dissimilar to people who have a book that tells them they are right or they have a priest that tells them they are right.

I believe that tolerance is only meaningful if it refers to things that are unpleasant and against one's own beliefs and moral code, otherwise what's the point?
One cannot say that they are tolerant with regards to someone that thinks just like them.
But intolerance is something that only ever comes from other people, never oneself...

Of course there are degrees of "offence" (saying believers in religion X are heretics is not the same as approving violence or discrimination against them let alone acting oneself) so not everything can be tolerated. I believe that "outrages" should elicit proportional degrees of response, e.g. it is entirely proportional to publicly criticize someone who you think is morally wrong, a bigot, etc. because of they said.
Ultimately, each society evolves codes of laws that penalize acts or words that the society (or at least the most influential in the society) agrees are unacceptable but, again, these penalties tend to be gradual and proportional.

So maybe the people who escalate from words to actions strongly believe that the society is misguided and they decide to impose penalties themselves according to their private moral code. But that places them against the rest of their society which, paradoxically, may result in action being taken against them by the very society they are trying to "cure".
In some cases this makes them even more radical (martyrdom is morally appealing to some) but such ways of thinking are outside of my comprehension.

Truly I may regret posting this as I may get some people angry which is not my intention.
Please note that I am no longer commenting about a separation between OSC's books and his "real life" views, I am just commenting on fjtorres's point which, I believe, has to do with escalation and how it comes about.

Maybe the internet is not a good place to have moral discussions like this as, not being face-tot-face people may come off as more zealous and aggressive than they really are in normal conversations and there are also no clues (tone of voice, facial expressions) that a person may have gotten so offended that the conversation should stop.

[BillSmithBooks]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Absolutely.

But, on general terms: what about going one step forward and mounting a campaign to force other people, say his employer, to act against him? Does that trouble you?

See, we've seen quite a few such campaigns in recent years from all kinds of pressure groups and *that* is what troubles me. Not just challenging ideas but retaliating for them; *punishing* people *solely* for their ideas.

Shouldn't there be a line somewhere if one wishes to take the high road?

I'm uncomfortable with that kind of escalation and I agree, pushing employers to take action, bullying people into supporting certain causes or else...yeah, a lynch mob whose cause you are sympathetic to is still a lynch mob.

It IS important to take the high road, to throw the information out there, to be sure you are being honest and factual, and trust in other people to make the right decision.

I think the appropriate level of response is public discussion, raising public awareness and let the chips fall where they may. (This is for the specific charge of publicly posting hateful and bigoted statements.)

In this particular case, no one is forced to do business with OSC -- but I do feel it is fair to make people aware of his beliefs and policies so they can make an "informed" purchasing decision.

This is the same reasoning why there are a number of companies I don't buy from **cough, Chik-Fil-A, Papa John's** ... especially knowing that there are local companies in my town run by genuinely decent guys that I can support. I don't necessarily go into detail with why I won't buy from said companies since politics is always a squeamish topic, but boy do I promote the virtues of the local guys I know and respect...fortunately, the locals' food is also vastly superior.

[fjtorres]

The case I was thinking of was the lady making the rude gesture at the Tomb of the Unknowns in Washiington, DC.
She was photographed and the image uploaded on the net. (Where everything stays forever.)
Big flap.
Roundly condemned.
They identified her by name and employer (an NGO, in fact), which was then hounded until they fired her.
We're not talking a public figure, we're not talking religion.
Just an ordinary run of the mill jerk who got lynched.
Whatever the orthodoxy she offended, I'm thinking a line was crossed by the mob.
Not a good precedent...

[BeccaPrice]

I don't denigrate his works, and I do support his right to say anything he pleases. I also have the right, however, to direct how my spending goes, and I choose not to purchase any of his books. That doesn't mean that Ender's Game isn't a brilliant book. It is. And I don't tell other people not to read his works. I just explain why I choose not to.