Card's Article on Homosexuality

Showing 76-252 of 252 messages
Card's Article on Homosexuality Jim Kasprzak 8/14/91 5:46 PM

 
 I've recieved about a dozen messages via e-mail requesting that I post or
send the Card article, so here it is. The title of the article is
"The Hypocrites of Homosexuality" and it originally appeared in Sunstone
magazine, February 1990.

********************************************************************************
 
        When I was an undergraduate theatre student, I was aware, and
not happily so, how pervasive was the reach of the underculture of
homosexuality among my friends and acquaintances.  After a while I stopped
being shocked to discover that someone I had known well, or whose talent
I admired, was either moving into or already a part of the
not-so-clandestine network of gay relationships.  I learned that being
homosexual does not destroy a person's talent or deny those aspects of
their character that I had already come to love and admire.  I did learn that
for most of them their highest allegiance was to their membership in the
community that gave them access to sex.  As a not-
particularly-pure-minded heterosexual adolescent, I understood the
intensity of sexual desire; as a student of human communities, I have since
come to understand how character is shaped by -- or surrendered to --
one's allegiances.
 
        One thing is certain:  one cannot serve two masters.  And when
one's life is given over to one community that demands utter allegiance, it
cannot be given to another.  The LDS church is one such community.  The
homosexual community seems to be another.  And when I read the
statements of those who claim to be both LDS and homosexual, trying to
persuade the former community to cease making their membership
contingent upon abandoning the latter, I wonder if they realize that the
price of such tolerance would be, in the long run, the destruction of the
Church.
 
        We Latter-Day Saints know that we are eternal beings who must
gain control of our bodies and direct our lives toward the good of others in
order to be worthy of an adult role in the hereafter.  So the regulation of
sexual drives is designed not just to preserve the community of the Saints
but also to improve and educate the individuals within it.  The Lord asks no
more of its members who are tempted toward homosexuality than it does of
its unmarried adolescents, its widows and widowers, its divorced members,
and its members who never marry. Furthermore, the Lord even guides the
sexual behavior of those who are married, expecting them to use their
sexual powers responsibly and in a proportionate role within the marriage.
 
        The argument by the hypocrites of homosexuality that
homosexual tendencies are gentically ingrained in some individuals is
almost laughably irrelevant. We are all genetically predisposed toward some
sin or another; we are all expected to control those genetic predispositions
when it is possible. It is for God to judge which individuals are tempted
beyond their ability to bear or beyond their ability to resist. But it is the
responsibility of the Church and the Saints never to lose sight of the goal of
perfect obedience to laws designed for our happiness.
 
        The average fifteen-year old teenage boy is genetically
predisposed to copulate with anything that moves.  We are compassionate
and forgiving of those who cannot resist this temptation, but we do not
regard as adult anyone who has not overcome it; and we can only help
others overcome these "genetic predispositions" by teaching them that we
expect them to meet a higher standard of behavior than the one their own
body teaches them.  Are we somehow cruel and over-domineering when we
teach young men and young women that their lives will be better and
happier if they have no memory of sexual intercourse with others to deal
with when they finally are married?  On the contrary, we would be heartless
and cruel if we did not.
 
        The hypocrites of homosexuality are, of course, already preparing
to answer these statements by accusing me of homophobia, gay-bashing,
bigotry, intolerance; but nothing that I have said here -- and nothing that
has been said by any of the prophets or any of the Church leaders who have
dealt with this issue -- can be construed as advocating, encouraging, or even
allowing harsh personal treatment of individuals who are unable to resist
the temptation to have sexual relations with persons of the same sex.  On
the contrary, the teachings of the Lord are clear in regard to the way we
must deal with sinners. Christ treated them with compassion -- as long as
they confessed that their sin was a sin.  Only when they attempted to
pretend their sin was righteousness did he harshly name them for what
they were: fools, hypocrites, sinners. Hypocrites because they were
unwilling to change their behavior and instead attempted to change the law
to fit it; fools because they thought that deceiving an easy deceivable society
would achieve the impossible goal of also deceiving God.
 
        The Church has plenty of room for individuals who are struggling
to overcome their temptation toward homosexual behavior.  But for the
protection of the Saints and the good ther persons themselves, the Church
has no room for those who, instead of repenting of homosexuality, wish it to
become an acceptable behavior in the society of the Saints.  They are wolves
in sheep's clothing, preaching meekness while attempting to devour the
flock.
 
        No act of violence is ever appropriate to protect Christianity from
those who would rob it of its meaning.  None of us are without sin -- the
casting of stones is not our duty or our privilege.  All that must ever be done
to answer them is to declare the truth, and to deny them the right to call
themselves Latter-day Saints while proclaiming their false doctrine. Even as
Christ freed from her accusers the woman taken in adultery, he told her,
Go and sin no more.
 
        No community can endure that does not hold its members
responsible for their own actions.  Being human, we try from childhood on
to put the blame for the bad things we do on someone or something else.
And to one degree or another, we do accept plausible excuses -- enough, at
least, to allows us to temper our judgment. The American polity defines the
crime of second degree murder to allow for those whose anger was greatly
provoked, as distinguished from those who coldly kill for gain.  Also, we are
willing to alter the terms of confinement of those whose unacceptable
behavior clearly derived from mental illness.  In short, we recognize the
principle that those who have as little control over their own behavior as
small children should be treated as compassionately -- yet firmly -- as we
treat small children.
 
        What we do with small children is to establish clear boundaries
and offer swift but mild punishment for crossing them.  As their capacity to
understand and obey increases, the boundaries broaden but the
consequences of crossing them become more severe.
 
        Within the Church, the young person who experiments with
homosexual behavior should be counseled with, not excommunicated.  But
as the adolescent moves into adulthood and continues to engage in sinful
practices far beyond the level of experimentation, then the consequences
within the Church must grow more severe and more long-lasting;
unfortunately, they may also be more public as well.
 
        This applies also to the polity, the community of citizens at large.
Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be
indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught
violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that
those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be
permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
 
        The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail.  The goal
is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first
place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior,
to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of
the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable,
dependable marriage and family relationships.
 
        Those who would be members of a community must sacrifice the
satisfaction of some of their individual desires in order to maintain the
existence of that community.  They must, in other words, obey the rules
that define what that community is.  Those who are not willing or able to
obey the rules should honestly admit the fact and withdraw from
membership.
 
        Thus, just as America, a democratic society, is under no
obligation to preserve some imagined "right" of citizens who wish to use
their freedom to overthrow that democracy and institute tyranny, so
likewise the LDS church, which is founded on the idea that the word of God
as revealed through his prophets should determine the behavior of the
Saints, is under no obligation to protect some supposed "right" of those
members who would like to persuade us that neither God nor the prophets
has the authority to regulate them.
 
        If the Church has not the authority to tell its members that they
may not engage in homosexual practices, then it has no authority at all.  And
if we accept the argument of the hypocrites of homosexuality that their sin
is not a sin, we have destroyed ourselves.
 
        Furthermore, if we allow ourselves to be intimidated by our fear
of the world's censure into silence in the face of attempts by homosexuals
to make their sin acceptable under the laws of the polity, then we have
abandoned our role as teachers of righteousness.
 
        The repentant homosexual must be met with forgiveness.  Even
hypocritical homosexuals must be treated individually with compassion.  But
the collective behavior of the hypocrites of homosexuality must be met with
our most forceful arguments and our complete intolerance of their lies.  To
act otherwise is to give more respect to the opinions of men than to the
judgments of God.
 
        Tolerance is not the fundamental virtue, to which all others must
give way. The fundamental virtue is to love the Lord with all our heart,
might, mind, and strength; and then to love our neighbor as ourself.
Despite all the rhetoric of the hypocrites of homosexuality about how if we
were true Christians, we would accept them fully without expecting them to
change their behavior, we know that the Lord looks upon sin without the
least degree of tolerance, and that he expects us to strive for perfection.
 
        That we must treat sinners kindly is true; that we must
courageously and firmly reject sin is also true.  Those whose "kindness"
causes them to wink at sin are not being kind at all, for the only hope of joy
that these people have is to recognize their sin and repent of it.  True
kindness is to be ever courteous and warm toward individuals, while
confronting them always with our rejection of any arguments justifying their
self- gratification.  That will earn us their love and gratitude in the day of
their repentance, even if during the time they still embrace their sins they
lash out at us as if we were their enemies.
 
        And if it happens that they never repent, then in the day of their
grief they cannot blame us for helping them deceive and destroy
themselves.  That is how we keep ourselves unspotted by the blood of this
generation, even as we labor to help our brothers and sisters free
themselves from the tyranny of sin.

********************************************************************************

Card's Article on Homosexuality Joshua Geller 8/14/91 6:56 PM

My god the guy's a fucking nazi.

I really enjoyed some of his early stuff too.

*grumble*

josh
        

Card's Article on Homosexuality Tom Christiansen 8/14/91 7:55 PM
From the keyboard of m...@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Michael Fuller):
 3> 2) I disagree with the views of OSC, and the church of LSD.
18> 4) No one is forced to be a member of the church of LSD (thank god!).
29> "I (as a member of the church of LSD) believe homosexuality is a sin.
33> The church of LDS therefore asks this of its members: that they do not
38> themselves to be members of the church of LSD. Their activity, in fact,

The Church of LDS is at Salt Lake City.  
The Church of LSD is at Haight-Ashbury.

:-)

-tom

Card's Article on Homosexuality Mitsuhiro Sakai 8/14/91 8:21 PM
Judgement of God???????
What a man he is!!! Does O.S.Card believe all of them????
There is NO logic, but full of religious crap.
Is it possible that the SF writer believes one and only religion???
Ha!!! I want to ask him about Buddism and us:Buddist.
Does he believe we:Buddist never go to Heaven?  :)

Mitsuhiro Sakai
sa...@rana.usc.edu

BTW, is it real "Xenocide" will read into another sequel
to conclude??????
Please! Don't DO thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatt!!!!

Card's Article on Homosexuality Nick Nussbaum 8/14/91 8:22 PM

Mitsuhiro Sakai: writes

>Ha!!! I want to ask him about Buddism and us:Buddist.
>Does he believe we:Buddist never go to Heaven?  :)

I believe he does, although if your descendents convert they can
baptize you. On the bright side his Heaven is full of Mormons
who think like he does. Wouldn't you rather be elsewhere?

--
Nick Nussbaum       PO 68 - MIT Branch   (617) 492-2742
n...@ai.mit.edu       Cambridge,MA 02139

Card's Article on Homosexuality Sean Eric Fagan 8/14/91 9:00 PM
In article <71...@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> m...@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Michael Fuller) writes:
>1) He is entitled to think as he likes.

Yes.

>2) He is not entitled to *force* them on anyone.
>3) An organisation whose membership is voluntary, can ask
>   what it likes of those members, if they wish to remain members,
>   within reasonable limits. [Question: what is a `reasonable limit?'
>   Has it been overstepped in this case?]


>4) No one is forced to be a member of the church of LSD (thank god!).
>
>Card believes that homosexuality is a sin ( I don't). But he doesn't
>rail against it, he doesn't call for a Jihad, he doesn't demand that
>practitioners be hunted down and exposed.....

Card wrote, in his essay:

>This applies also to the polity, the community of citizens at large.
>Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be
>indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught
>violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that
>those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be
>permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
 

Card states here that he believes that laws banning homosexuality should be
enforced.  More, given the previous paragraphs (which I didn't include),
Card believes that it is the duty of society to outlaw that which it
considers harmful or morally unacceptable.  Note that what is morally
unacceptable to Mormons is what should be morally unacceptable to all
Americans, according to Card.  (Which is natural... what is morally
unacceptable to me [very little, though 8-)] should also be morally
unacceptable to all Americans.  However, since I'm a libertarian, there are
few things I will draw the line at.)

Yich.

--
Sean Eric Fagan  | "What *does* that 33 do?  I have no idea."
sef@kithrup.COM  |           -- Chris Torek
-----------------+              (to...@ee.lbl.gov)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.

Card's Article on Homosexuality Brady Daniels 8/14/91 8:45 PM
In article <71...@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au>, m...@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Michael
Fuller) says:
>
>I feel that this position is absolutely reasonable, and wrong.
>

I totally agree with everything Michael Fuller said here.
Still, why do I see rec.arts.sf.Card_bashers on the horizon?
I mean, seriously, with this article he's probably offended
almost every gay and non-mormon who read it.
I understand his point of view. I just strongly disagree.
But, what do I know?

Brady Daniels
u35...@uicvm.uic.edu
somewhere btwn Univ Ill at Chicago and Georgia Tech

Card's Article on Homosexuality Kenn Barry 8/14/91 9:32 PM
In article <NN.91Aug...@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu> n...@ai.mit.edu (Nick Nussbaum) writes:
>Mitsuhiro Sakai: writes
>>Ha!!! I want to ask him about Buddism and us:Buddist.
>>Does he believe we:Buddist never go to Heaven?  :)
>
>I believe he does, although if your descendents convert they can
>baptize you. On the bright side his Heaven is full of Mormons
>who think like he does. Wouldn't you rather be elsewhere?

        I could be wrong (I'm not a Mormon), but I've always
heard Mormons believe virtually everyone goes to Heaven. Thing
is, there are levels in Heaven, and you up your level bigtime
if you're a virtuous Mormon.

                                                Kayembee

Card's Article on Homosexuality Mutant for Hire 8/14/91 8:00 PM
In article <71...@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> m...@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Michael Fuller) writes:
]jos...@pogo.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Joshua Geller) knee-jerks:
]>My god the guy's a fucking nazi.
]
]My god, did you read the same article that I did?
]
][few points deleted]
]
]Card believes that homosexuality is a sin ( I don't). But he doesn't

]rail against it, he doesn't call for a Jihad, he doesn't demand that
]practitioners be hunted down and exposed..... Why do you call
]him a `Nazi?' Heck, your statement was more strident, merciless,
]and forceful than anything Card said in his article, and certainly
]appears to have a lot less reasoning behind it!

Actually, you didn't go through the right bits of the article. It
starts off talking about homosexuals within the church, and purely
on that basis I have no problem with it. Its later on that the
troubles appear. Here are parts of the article, with my own responses
following.

>        This applies also to the polity, the community of citizens at large.
>Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be
>indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught
>violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that
>those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be
>permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.

Question, when is it 'necessary' to use these laws? To send a message?
If you don't enforce it in every case, then the law loses its meaning. In
order for people to take the anti-homosexuality laws seriously, they would
have to be enforced just as much as any of the other laws on the books.

Also, notice that Card believes in the regulation of sexual behavior. Now
with regards to minors I consider that not to be entirely a bad thing, but
in the case of adults I have a severe problem with the government poking
its nose into my bedroom.

Also notice that he doesn't believe that homosexuals should be considered
equal citizens. Reminds me of the comment Bush made about atheists.

>        The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail.  The goal
>is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first
>place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior,
>to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of
>the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable,
>dependable marriage and family relationships.

Don't have to jail them, you can just fine them, destroy their livelihood,
make them miserable that they ever considered to be homosexuals. Also, he
rails against hypocracy of homosexuals earlier, yet says at the very least
they should conceal their sexual preference. And that isn't hypocracy?

Also the burden of proof is on Card to show that the acceptance of
homosexuality has had a negative effect on the stability of marriages.
One can show that one is going up while the other is going down, but
there is still the need to prove a causal relation.

>        Those who would be members of a community must sacrifice the
>satisfaction of some of their individual desires in order to maintain the
>existence of that community.  They must, in other words, obey the rules
>that define what that community is.  Those who are not willing or able to
>obey the rules should honestly admit the fact and withdraw from
>membership.

The question here is whether laws banning homosexuality are necessary
to maintain the stability of the community. Card assumes it to be a fact,
something which I have a problem with. He claims that such laws are
needed to maintain the stability of marriages and families. This is
something that I fail to see at all, and Card's argument on this point
breaks down without it.

>        Thus, just as America, a democratic society, is under no
>obligation to preserve some imagined "right" of citizens who wish to use
>their freedom to overthrow that democracy and institute tyranny, so
>likewise the LDS church, which is founded on the idea that the word of God
>as revealed through his prophets should determine the behavior of the
>Saints, is under no obligation to protect some supposed "right" of those
>members who would like to persuade us that neither God nor the prophets
>has the authority to regulate them.

You know, there is an amazing mental contradiction in this one paragraph.
In the first part he claims that the citizens do not have the right to
establish tyranny, and then he goes and claims that it is the obligation
of the citizens to go and oppress one of the groups in this country. Of
course, I guess since the oppression doesn't fall on his group, its not
tyranny.

Presumably, next he'll be going after atheists like me on the grounds
that since I don't believe that God or the prophets have the right to
regulate my behavior.

[a bit where he complains that the church must go after homosexuals
in its own ranks]

>        Furthermore, if we allow ourselves to be intimidated by our fear
>of the world's censure into silence in the face of attempts by homosexuals
>to make their sin acceptable under the laws of the polity, then we have
>abandoned our role as teachers of righteousness.

Fine. Teach by example, preach at the streetcorners, send people to my
front doorstep (I'll slam the door in their faces, but that's their
problem) but just don't try forcing your views on my life.

[ending with a discussion of how to cure these sinful people]

I admit that I deleted quite a bit, however I have kept individual
paragraphs intact. The other sections dealt with homosexuality as a
religious sin and what should be done with them to persuade them to
give up sin. Also with the view that the church can't tolerate any
homosexuals in its ranks. These I have no problems with, if the church
wants to keep those people out, it has a certain amount of right to
do so. The paragraphs I kept are where he's advocating spreading their
views on the rest of us, and I start to have a problem.

--
  Martin Terman      mfte...@phoenix.princeton.edu       mfterman@pucc.bitnet
  Disclaimer: This posting is mine alone, even though I'd rather not admit it.
Mutant for Hire, Synchronicty Generator, Stealth Horndog, Future Mad Scientist!
"My priorities are straight. Or at least they're warped in the right direction"

Card's Article on Homosexuality Michael Fuller 8/15/91 12:02 AM
tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:
>From the keyboard of m...@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Michael Fuller):
> 3> 2) I disagree with the views of OSC, and the church of LSD.
[etc]

>The Church of LDS is at Salt Lake City.  
>The Church of LSD is at Haight-Ashbury.

Awwww, shit.  8-]

>-tom
Michael

Card's Article on Homosexuality Michael Fuller 8/15/91 12:18 AM
tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:
>From the keyboard of m...@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Michael Fuller):
> 3> 2) I disagree with the views of OSC, and the church of LSD.
[etc]

>The Church of LDS is at Salt Lake City.  
>The Church of LSD is at Haight-Ashbury.

Awwww, shit. 8-] I swear, LSD, ain't the reason I wrote LSD.
Hey, maybe it was an exceptionally cunning, subtle Freudian slip
which my id inserted as social commentary on religious brainwashing.
Yeah, that must be it.

BTW, having taken another look at the Card essay, I now agree that
he is perfectly reasonable at all times ... except when he starts
to talk about the community at large (at which point, IMHO, he goes from
being wrong to absolutely, utterly, [...etc...] dead wrong).

>-tom
Michael

Remember that rhetorical question? I *was* right - I am stupid.

Card's Article on Homosexuality Bob Lodenkamper 8/14/91 3:51 PM
The indented text is written by Orson Scott Card.  I deleted the
name of the person who posted it (thanks!) to prevent misattribution.

   [...]

I deleted some text I have no real problems with - it was standard
"Love the sinner, hate the sin stuff" addressed specifically to
Mormons and their relation to the LDS church.  What some group decides
to believe is their problem, not mine, so long as I am not affected.

           No act of violence is ever appropriate to protect
   Christianity from those who would rob it of its meaning.  None of
   us are without sin -- the casting of stones is not our duty or our
   privilege.  All that must ever be done to answer them is to declare
   the truth, and to deny them the right to call themselves Latter-day
   Saints while proclaiming their false doctrine. Even as Christ freed
   from her accusers the woman taken in adultery, he told her, Go and
   sin no more.

We save this for future reference....

   [...]

Card's defense of intolerance of homosexuality within the LDS church
deleted, since, again, the hierarchy of the LDS church may do as it
pleases, and it is up to the members to decide whether to follow or
not.  I have no problem with the LDS church's intolerance, since I'm
not a Mormon.

           This applies also to the polity, the community of citizens
   at large.  Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the
   books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who
   happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary
   to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's
   regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as
   acceptable, equal citizens within that society.

Card crosses the line here, by defending legislated J-C morality,
rather than his own, personal, religious narrow-mindedness.  If we
combine this statement about legislated morality, the enforcement of
which must entail violence, with Card's earlier clain that violence in
defense of Christianity is never acceptable, we find that Card is a
hypocrite.

           The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail.
   The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual
   practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed
   in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so
   discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in
   the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable
   marriage and family relationships.

Who set this goal of discouraging homosexuality?  God?  We live in a
secular society, thanks be to all the gods that never were.  And, of
course, Card merely assumes homosexuality is incompatible with safe,
stable, dependable family relationships, thereby demonstrating his
prejudice and ignorance.

           Those who would be members of a community must sacrifice
   the satisfaction of some of their individual desires in order to
   maintain the existence of that community.  They must, in other
   words, obey the rules that define what that community is.  Those
   who are not willing or able to obey the rules should honestly admit
   the fact and withdraw from membership.

           Thus, just as America, a democratic society, is under no
   obligation to preserve some imagined "right" of citizens who wish
   to use their freedom to overthrow that democracy and institute
   tyranny, so likewise the LDS church, which is founded on the idea
   that the word of God as revealed through his prophets should
   determine the behavior of the Saints, is under no obligation to
   protect some supposed "right" of those members who would like to
   persuade us that neither God nor the prophets has the authority to
   regulate them.

The funny thing is that I think he's right about the LDS church, and
wrong about America.  The reason is simple.  In America, Gay
liberation is not a self-evident threat to democracy.  In the LDS
church, any challenge to the authority of the Church by the membership
of that church is a self-evident threat to the Church (if one has an
authoritarian view of religion, which Card obviously does).

   [...]

- Bob

Card's Article on Homosexuality Andrew Langton 8/15/91 2:29 AM
Card has written on the 'hypocrisy' of homosexuals.

And yet, he belongs to a religion that believes that their view is the only
correct one, out of the x number of religions existing today.

Everyone else is wrong.

And he has the nerve to write about hypocrisy.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    ... The Knight ...     | What colour is a chameleon on a mirror??     |
|alan...@suna.mqcc.mq.oz.au| Windows and Icons and Mice ... Oh My...      |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Card's Article on Homosexuality Klaus Ole Kristiansen 8/15/91 2:26 AM
jim...@itsgw.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak) writes:


>
> I've recieved about a dozen messages via e-mail requesting that I post or
>send the Card article, so here it is. The title of the article is
>"The Hypocrites of Homosexuality" and it originally appeared in Sunstone
>magazine, February 1990.

...

>        This applies also to the polity, the community of citizens at large.
>Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be
>indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught
>violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that
>those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be
>permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
>
>        The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail.  The goal
>is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first
>place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior,
>to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of
>the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable,
>dependable marriage and family relationships.


So he does not want the laws strictly enforced, he just want to
keep people in fear. Kind and loving indeed.

BTW while it is presumably possible to quit the mormon church, how
does he want people to quit "the polity", or society?

Klaus O K

Card's Article on Homosexuality Paul Dietz 8/15/91 3:24 AM
Well, Card has convinced me.  I'm convinced I'll never buy or read
another of his books.  I couldn't enjoy reading a book by a person
who I know advocates such coercion.  Not that I enjoyed his previous
books all that much; "Ender's Game" struck me as implausible and
pandering to immature power fantasies.

BTW, has Card read "The Forever War"?  :-)

        Paul F. Dietz
        di...@cs.rochester.edu

Card's Article on Homosexuality Andrew Clayton 8/15/91 4:55 AM
In article <JOSHUA.91A...@pogo.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, Joshua Geller writes:

> My god the guy's a fucking nazi.

And you're showing a whole truckload of tolerance, aren't you.

> I really enjoyed some of his early stuff too.

I see. A person's outlook towards things _sexual_ is the all
important ingrediant in a work of literature. Sheesh.

You're a complete fuckhead.

Dac
--

Card's Article on Homosexuality Evelyn C. Leeper 8/15/91 7:25 AM
In article <71...@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> m...@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Michael Fuller) writes:
> jos...@pogo.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Joshua Geller) knee-jerks:
> >My god the guy's a fucking nazi.
>
> My god, did you read the same article that I did?

Apparently not, because you say:

> Card believes that homosexuality is a sin ( I don't). But he doesn't
> rail against it, he doesn't call for a Jihad, he doesn't demand that
> practitioners be hunted down and exposed.....

when Card says:

>         This applies also to the polity, the community of citizens at large.
> Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be
> indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught
> violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that
> those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot
> be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  e...@mtgzy.att.com
--
"I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense,
reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use."  --Galileo

Card's Article on Homosexuality Larry Smith 8/15/91 7:03 AM
In article <JOSHUA.91A...@pogo.gnu.ai.mit.edu> jos...@pogo.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Joshua Geller) writes:
>
>My god the guy's a fucking nazi.

I found the article well-written and logical - within its perview.  Considering
the polemics I was subjected to in the Catholic church, I think it's actually
pretty reasonable.  I don't agree with it, but I don't think it is proof the
writer is a flaming, frothing-at-the-mouth homophobe.  I daresay homosexuals
will disagree with that assessment - every minority in this country has
learned to do what the gov't used to call "protective reactions" when they
percieve a threat, however minor - they elevate it to major and deal with it
accordingly.

What I found interesting was the passage stating that tolerance is not the
fundamental virtue - which I happen to think is true - but that love of
God is - which I happen to think is utter balderdash, but that's beside the
point.  In this passage, Card was stating his *axioms*.  Everything in his
essay flowed from the basic assumption he stated in this passage.  This tells
me that I have no basis for argument - that is, no amount of argument will
change his view, for it all flows logically from an axiom I cannot change.
I have similar problems with people who *do* believe tolerance is the most
fundamental virtue.  It is useless to denigrate, vilify or attack people
on such a basis, they will not convert and you waste resources.  All you
can really do it attempt to consolidate people whose fundamental assumptions
are compatible with your own.  By this logic, Card is right: there is no
place for homosexuality in the Mormon church.  Also by this logic, there is
no place in Queer Nation for Mormons.  Trying to force the issue will not
change the facts, at "best" (if that's your orientation) you can break the
organization - a large homosexual contingent in the LDS might destroy its
utility as a Mormon organization.  Similarly, a large contingent of hetero-
sexuals in Queer Nation would destroy its utility to homosexuals.  The axioms
that brought such organizations into existance will not go away, in such
circumstances, the people who are forced out will form new splinter
organizations, with axioms intact, which will themselves become targets in due
course.

What matters here is not individual organizations, but the legal matrix in
which they operate.  So long as it is possible and legal to set up an
organization dedicated to your needs, regardless of whether some other
organization favors it or not, then the ideal of individual liberty, the
core of the Constitution, stands intact, and society has no need to lash out
at individual groups or to enforce conformity.  The US is arguably the most
heterogenous society in the world because of this.  If you disagree with
*that*, try living in Japan for a few years.  But to try to use these laws
to *force* organizations *within* the law to be as heterogeneous as the
whole of society simply moves the pressure for conformance to another level,
and damage inevitably results.

Sorry to drop this bit of philosophy into sf-lovers, but the above statement
really forced me to say something.  Equating anyone who disagrees with your
axioms with Nazis is popular nowadays but it is ridiculous to do it here.
In part because of the argument I put forth above, and in part because it
greatly debases a very powerful coin.  Someday you might meet a *real* Nazi
or a skinhead or whatever, who really and truly would, if he could, round
up every "queer", "kike", "mick" or whatever, and kill them with joy in his
black heart.  Whatever else Card may be, he is no Nazi.


--
Larry Smith
sm...@ctron.com
The usual disclaimer stuff...
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.  -- Barry Goldwater

Card's Article on Homosexuality ryerson.schwark 8/15/91 7:53 AM
In article <71...@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> m...@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Michael Fuller) writes:
>Disclaimer:

>Why do you call
>him a `Nazi?' Heck, your statement was more strident, merciless,
>and forceful than anything Card said in his article, and certainly
>appears to have a lot less reasoning behind it!

My dear, we'll be nice and pretend you can't read very well.  To quote:


>       This applies also to the polity, the community of citizens at large.
>Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be
>indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught
>violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that
>those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be
>permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
>
>       The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail.  The goal
>is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first
>place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior,
>to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of
>the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable,
>dependable marriage and family relationships.


Which if you will read a little more carefully, that us very out queers
ought to be locked up for the good of the community as a whole.  Have to
keep up the standards and all that.  I don't give a f*ck what he thinks
(except to the extent that I will use my right not to spend my money on
his books), but when he calls for having us locked up if we upset his
view of moral standards, then he's a nazi pig.


Ry Schwark

Card's Article on Homosexuality Scott Coulter 8/15/91 8:24 AM
In article <1333@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz> alan...@suna.mqcc.mq.oz.au (Andrew Langton) writes:
>Card has written on the 'hypocrisy' of homosexuals.
>
>And yet, he belongs to a religion that believes that their view is the only
>correct one, out of the x number of religions existing today.
>Everyone else is wrong.
>And he has the nerve to write about hypocrisy.

Nearly every major religion believes that it is the only correct one.
Most of the ones that don't believe this have self-contradictions in
their teachings.

Exactly what does this have to do with hypocrisy?

Scott D. Coulter                                "Somebody back east is probably
sc...@cc.gatech.edu                                 saying 'Why don't he write?'"
Georgia Tech Software Research Center                         -- Dances with Wolves

Card's Article on Homosexuality Joachim Schrod 8/15/91 8:59 AM
In article <199eb93d...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au>,
d...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au (Andrew Clayton) writes:

Oh yeah. This was not a statement on `a person's outlook towards
things _sexual_' but on how the US society should handle people which
does not conform the moral rules of the LDS.

You might join Card and the LDS members in their heaven, I'll go to
hell. I think it will be better there, surely we'll have more fun.
(btw, I also don't see Card as a nazi -- living in Germany I *know*
what the Nazis had done. But religios bigots are a horror for me, and
I will gladly let all of you go to your heaven.)

--
Joachim
Darmstadt, Germany
<xitijsch@ddathd21.bitnet>

Card's Article on Homosexuality John H. Jenkins 8/15/91 8:36 AM
In article <BOB.91Au...@dolores.Stanford.EDU>, b...@dolores.Stanford.EDU (Bob Lodenkamper) writes:
>
> The indented text is written by Orson Scott Card.  I deleted the
> name of the person who posted it (thanks!) to prevent misattribution.
>
>    [...]
>
>            This applies also to the polity, the community of citizens
>    at large.  Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the
>    books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who
>    happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary
>    to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's
>    regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as
>    acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
>
> Card crosses the line here, by defending legislated J-C morality,
> rather than his own, personal, religious narrow-mindedness.  If we
> combine this statement about legislated morality, the enforcement of
> which must entail violence, with Card's earlier clain that violence in
> defense of Christianity is never acceptable, we find that Card is a
> hypocrite.
>

I always find it painfully ironic to see a Mormon advocate legislation of
sexual morality, given the tremendous pressure exerted by the US government
in the 19th century to get the Mormons to abandon their "relic of bar-
barism."  To me, it is hypocritical to assert (1) 19th century anti-
polygamy laws were Bad, but (2) 20th century anti-polygamy laws are
Good (or at least OK), and (3) any kind of anti-homosexuality law is Very
Good.

John H. Jenkins
jenk...@apple.com

Card's Article on Homosexuality David Christopher Rogers 8/15/91 9:03 AM

    Message-ID: <19...@balrog.ctron.com>
    From:  sm...@ctron.com (Larry Smith)

    >I found the article well-written and logical - within its perview.  
    >Considering the polemics I was subjected to in the Catholic church,
    >I think it's actually pretty reasonable.  

Being better than the Catholic Church on issues of homosexuality is
a damn weak definition of reasonable.

I agree that it was well-written and logical, but then, I see the logic
behind the Inquisition (to save men's souls, you had to torture unbelievers
until they said they believed, then kill them quickly before they had
time to change their minds), so you can see the low esteem I hold "logic" in.

David Christopher Rogers

Card's Article on Homosexuality david carlton 8/15/91 10:00 AM
On 15 Aug 91 03:21:10 GMT, sa...@rana.usc.edu (Mitsuhiro Sakai) said:

> Ha!!! I want to ask him about Buddism and us:Buddist.
> Does he believe we:Buddist never go to Heaven?  :)

Well, do you believe that you Buddhists go to Heaven, or at least a
Heaven anything like the one that Card believes in?  If not, it would
seem to be a bit much to expect him to believe that...

(:-) here, too.)

david carlton
car...@husc9.harvard.edu

        Homosexuality was invented by a straight world dealing with
        its own bisexuality.
                                    - Kate Millett, _Flying_
           

Card's Article on Homosexuality cottr...@watt.ccs.tuns.ca 8/15/91 10:15 AM
      A nazi? Come on. Sure, he's a fanatic, but that hardly makes a nazi.
This article doesn't take away from the fact that he writes excellent SF
and Fantasy books, that is intelligent and food for thought.
      From the first few posts about the article, I expected Card to be
ranting and raving about throwing gays in jail, boy, talk about people
exaggerating the matter.
      The article wasn't poorly written, nor was it a gay bashing article,
it only clearly stated that one couldn't be a Mormon, and a practicing
homosexual at the same time, big deal! Heck, every church pretty well feels
the same way. Card puts it up front that he feels the same was about pre-
marital sex as he does about Homosexuality, as he does about every other
sin (or what is considered sin - I don't believe in sin very much).
      Now...just because I'm not insulting Card, and saying that I'll never
read any of his stuff again, doesn't mean that I agree with him. Far from
it, I think he's wrong, but that hardly means that he's a nazi.

Travis

Catholicism in SF Larry Smith 8/15/91 10:35 AM
In article <1991Aug15.1...@riacs.edu> dro...@riacs.edu (David Christopher Rogers) writes:
>
>    Message-ID: <19...@balrog.ctron.com>
>    From:  sm...@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
>
>    >I found the article well-written and logical - within its perview.  
>    >Considering the polemics I was subjected to in the Catholic church,
>    >I think it's actually pretty reasonable.  
>
>Being better than the Catholic Church on issues of homosexuality is
>a damn weak definition of reasonable.
>
>I agree that it was well-written and logical, but then, I see the logic
>behind the Inquisition (to save men's souls, you had to torture unbelievers
>until they said they believed, then kill them quickly before they had
>time to change their minds), so you can see the low esteem I hold "logic" in.

Next time do me the courtesy of keeping my remarks in context.  My own
stand on the topic should not have been deleted if you wanted to quote
this part.  "Reasonable", in this context, referred merely to the quality
of the reasoning involved.  As I was pointing out, it is the premise
from which the reasoning proceeded that was at issue.

As for the reasonableness of the Catholic Church, don't get me started.
I rate the Inquisition at precisely the same level as I rated Hitler's
extermination of the Jews, and for precisely the same reason - blind
fear and hatred leading to millions of untold deaths.  The fact that
the no-longer-named Holy Office of the Inquisition still exists today
is one reason why I no longer hold with Catholicism.  But that is, as
they say, my own cross to bear.

To try to bring this thread back to *something* resembling SF, what do
people think of the story (whose name escapes me) with the padre of
the order of St. Somebody of the Vidicon?  I've been trying to recall
this story from my library, but I can't remember any more than that.

On the same topic, what did people think of the attitude portrayed in
"A Case of Conscience" by James Blish, in which a Catholic priest
essentially condemns an entire alien species as works of teh devil
because their young essentially recapitulate their evolution in growing
from egg to adult.  The aliens, very reptilian in nature, are portrayed
as cool, logical and reasonable.  The priest's motivations appear to
be obscure, at least to me.  He makes frequent jumps of (I suppose I
should call it) logic in his process of determination.  It's been some
years since I read it.

Any other stories dealing with the Catholic Church in the future?  Waddaya
think of 'em?

--
Larry Smith
sm...@ctron.com
The usual disclaimer stuff...
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.  -- Barry Goldwater

Card's Article on Homosexuality Chuq Von Rospach -- Only here for the beer 8/15/91 11:12 AM
cottr...@watt.ccs.tuns.ca writes:

>      A nazi? Come on. Sure, he's a fanatic, but that hardly makes a nazi.

He's not a fanatic (I've met Mormon fanatics. You don't want to). Scott (who
I know somewhat socially) is a very devout and intensely religious Mormon.

What he wrote is also very much when the party line of the Mormon Church is,
also.

>This article doesn't take away from the fact that he writes excellent SF
>and Fantasy books, that is intelligent and food for thought.

That is very true.

>      From the first few posts about the article, I expected Card to be
>ranting and raving about throwing gays in jail, boy, talk about people
>exaggerating the matter.

Um, to quote from the article:

    Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to
    be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be
    caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a
    clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's
    regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as
    acceptable, equal citizens within that society.

If that isn't talking about throwing gays in jail, what is?

IF Scott had simply said "Gays have no place in the Mormon Church", that
would have been fine by me. He and the church are welcome to believe that.

What Scott proposed, however, was that the Mormon doctrine on gays be
installed into the legal hierarchy of the country and used to enforce the
Mormon doctrine. In fact, this paragraph is self-contradictory, in that is
both says the laws should not be indiscriminately used, but should only be
used by those who make themselves a public target (what IS that if not a
discriminatory use?)

Sorry, but Scott isn't proposing that the Mormon Church outlaw gays, he's
proposing that the Mormon Church's views on gays be made the law of the land
and enforced on everybody, Mormon or not. He's welcome to keep his own house
clean, but I'm not interested in him coming in and cleaning mine.

>      The article wasn't poorly written, nor was it a gay bashing article,
>it only clearly stated that one couldn't be a Mormon, and a practicing
>homosexual at the same time, big deal!

IF that were true, no problem. But read the article again.

--
Chuq Von Rospach >=< ch...@apple.com >=< GEnie:CHUQ or MAC.BIGOT >=< ALink:CHUQ
    SFWA Nebula Awards administrator =+= SF Book Reviewer, Amazing Stories
           Editor, OtherRealms =+= #include <standard/disclaimer.h>

Card's Article on Homosexuality C. Roald. 8/15/91 10:25 AM
mfte...@stroke.Princeton.EDU (Mutant for Hire) writes:
>Orson Scott Card writes:
>>        The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail.  The goal
>>is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first
>>place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior,
>>to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of
>>the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable,
>>dependable marriage and family relationships.
>
> Don't have to jail them, you can just fine them, destroy their livelihood,
> make them miserable that they ever considered to be homosexuals.

Well, that's his goal, isn't it?

> Also the burden of proof is on Card to show that the acceptance of
> homosexuality has had a negative effect on the stability of marriages.
> One can show that one is going up while the other is going down, but
> there is still the need to prove a causal relation.

> The question here is whether laws banning homosexuality are necessary
> to maintain the stability of the community. Card assumes it to be a fact,
> something which I have a problem with. He claims that such laws are
> needed to maintain the stability of marriages and families. This is
> something that I fail to see at all, and Card's argument on this point
> breaks down without it.

Well, no. His argument is that God forbids homosexuality, and commands
stable heterosexual marriage for the good of the community. QED.

You cannot touch that with arguments on logical or pragmatic grounds.

You and I may believe that there is no Absolute Truth Revealed from
Beyond, but at least in my case that is because there are too many
religions out there claiming a lock on Truth, with too many
contradictory views, and no obvious way to chose between them. So we
wimp out, declare ourselves agnostic, and sit on the fence. If God cares
who we worship, he'll send down another messenger to convince us again.

But what we can't do is prove that Card's God does not exist, and did
not order intolerance of homosexuality. His position may be irrational,
but so is ours, because THERE IS NO PROOF.

The rest of our rules about tolerance, etc., are simply pragmatic, to
allow us to live in community without killing each other. They are not
natural laws.
 
>>        Thus, just as America, a democratic society, is under no
>>obligation to preserve some imagined "right" of citizens who wish to use
>>their freedom to overthrow that democracy and institute tyranny, so
>>likewise the LDS church, which is founded on the idea that the word of God
>>as revealed through his prophets should determine the behavior of the
>>Saints, is under no obligation to protect some supposed "right" of those
>>members who would like to persuade us that neither God nor the prophets
>>has the authority to regulate them.
>
> You know, there is an amazing mental contradiction in this one paragraph.
> In the first part he claims that the citizens do not have the right to
> establish tyranny, and then he goes and claims that it is the obligation
> of the citizens to go and oppress one of the groups in this country. Of
> course, I guess since the oppression doesn't fall on his group, its not
> tyranny.

It is always interesting to see what happens when us wishy-washy
tolerant agnostics (I'd say "secular humanists" or something, but I
don't want to step on the jargon of philosophy, 'cause I'd probably get
it wrong) run into an argument based on Revealed Knowledge. We're going
to have to get more used to it, because there are lots of people out
there who believe absolutely in such things, and they're coming here,
and the cultural diversity stop-teaching-about-dead-white-men crowd is
bringing them out. (I said that rather carelessly--I don't intend to be
especially pejorative.)

The point is, on Card's terms, he's not advocating tyranny.  He wants a
democracy with freedom to go where he likes, work as he wishes, and live
by God's Laws. Neither democracy nor tyranny is absolute--our democracy
forbids lots of things, like murder, theft and rape. He wants to forbid
a few more things, like homosexuality.

I don't think he should be allowed to do so, on the basis of his
concessions-to-the-community argument. But that doesn't make his
argument contradictory.

     Roald.

Card's Article on Homosexuality Sean Eric Fagan 8/15/91 11:19 AM
In article <1991Aug15...@watt.ccs.tuns.ca> cottr...@watt.ccs.tuns.ca writes:
>      From the first few posts about the article, I expected Card to be
>ranting and raving about throwing gays in jail, boy, talk about people
>exaggerating the matter.

Well, not ranting and raving about it, but he did encourage laws against
acting homosexuals.  Read the article again; the relevent portions have been
posted in about half a dozen followups I've seen so far.

>it only clearly stated that one couldn't be a Mormon, and a practicing
>homosexual at the same time, big deal!

That, and the fact that society, as a whole, should punish practicing
homosexuals with laws and prison terms.

>Card puts it up front that he feels the same was about pre-
>marital sex as he does about Homosexuality, as he does about every other
>sin (or what is considered sin - I don't believe in sin very much).

No:  he did not advocate (in the article) laws against premarital sex.  (He
might feel that way, and, if so, he's less a hypocrite than it appears, but
he did not state that in the article, and he had ample opportunity to do
so.)

--
Sean Eric Fagan  | "What *does* that 33 do?  I have no idea."
sef@kithrup.COM  |           -- Chris Torek
-----------------+              (to...@ee.lbl.gov)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.

Card's Article on Homosexuality Timothy Jehl 8/15/91 9:20 AM

In article <doo-dah, doo-dah>, doo-dah, doo-dah (almost everyone) writes:
>
> (Major quantities of silliness deleted).
>

   Would you people lighten up !?  The guy has got religious beliefs.
(Note the key words "religious" and "beliefs").  A bunch of you disagree with
him.  So what?  If I jumped on everybody who had religious beliefs that were
in variance with mine, I wouldn't get anything done.  I certainly never would
have read any of those fine female characterizations that "Dr. A" has done
( 8-{) added because most of the people currently contributing to this thread
are members of the humor impared).
   I don't let a person's religious beliefs, sexual tendancies or astrological
signs affect what I consider to be art, whether visual, aural or written.
   As a minor aside, I believe that Mr. Card suggested that the present laws
remain on the books.  I can see disagreeing with him, as there are a lot of
incredibly silly laws on the books, but frankly people, this interminable
witch hunt has got to go.  Let's talk some science fiction, okay?

Tim

Card's Article on Homosexuality Paul Moloney 8/15/91 12:22 PM
cottr...@watt.ccs.tuns.ca writes:
> jos...@pogo.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Joshua Geller) writes:

>> My god the guy's a fucking nazi.

>      A nazi? Come on. Sure, he's a fanatic, but that hardly makes a nazi.
>This article doesn't take away from the fact that he writes excellent SF
>and Fantasy books, that is intelligent and food for thought.

...of course, if he wrote shite like Piers Anthony, _then_ it'd be OK to
call him a Nazi.

Oh, all right then. .5 * :-)

>      From the first few posts about the article, I expected Card to be
>ranting and raving about throwing gays in jail, boy, talk about people
>exaggerating the matter.

Have another read of the article. Admittedly, his tone is quite calm,
but he does advocate the indiscriminate jailing of homosexuals in order
to put the rest of them in their place, so to speak.

>      The article wasn't poorly written, nor was it a gay bashing article,
>it only clearly stated that one couldn't be a Mormon, and a practicing
>homosexual at the same time, big deal!

Maybe you didn't read the same article the rest of us did. I personally
couldn't care less what the Mormon church thinks about anything - but
once they start calling for secular punishments for "crimes" in "their"
book, then I start getting worried.

P.
--
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l  M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the  rem
james Trinity College, Dublin mind." PMOLONEY%v...@pucc.princeton.edu vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien

Catholicism in SF Paul Moloney 8/15/91 12:30 PM
In <19...@balrog.ctron.com> sm...@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:

>Any other stories dealing with the Catholic Church in the future?  Waddaya
>think of 'em?

The classic "The Streets of Ashkeron" by Harry Harrison. Never one for
being nice to religions, is Harry, and this one really puts the boot in.
Really freaked me out when a kid. Just read it. Nuff said.

P.
--
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l  M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the  rem
james Trinity College, Dublin mind." PMOLONEY%v...@pucc.princeton.edu vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien

Card's Article on Homosexuality WENDY WARTNICK 8/15/91 7:28 AM

Yeah, yeah, this is all well and interesting and all but it doesn't have a
whole lot to do with anything (except allow me a glimps of the real Orson
Scott Card).  Regardless of his views, Card is still top sci-fi author on
my list (my copy of Ender's Game needs a new binder, it has been read so
many times).  I still plan to rush out and buy the next book in the Alvin
series.  I don't have to envite the guy to dinner or even like him
personally.  As long as he writes good sci-fi, I will keep on reading.

                                wendy

Card's Article on Homosexuality Jennifer S Broekman 8/15/91 1:37 PM
In article <0rs...@rpi.edu> jim...@itsgw.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak) writes:
>
> I've recieved about a dozen messages via e-mail requesting that I post or
>send the Card article, so here it is. The title of the article is
>"The Hypocrites of Homosexuality" and it originally appeared in Sunstone
>magazine, February 1990.
>
        Suffice it to say that this article exemplifies the reasons why I
stopped reading OSC: preaching at me about the sinfulness of the sex urge and
the absolute necessity of repentance is annoying in the extreme.

                                        jb

Card's Article on Homosexuality Michael Hand 8/15/91 12:34 PM
In article <57...@inews.intel.com> tj...@wilgus.intel.com (Timothy Jehl) writes:

>   Would you people lighten up !?  The guy has got religious beliefs.
>(Note the key words "religious" and "beliefs").  A bunch of you disagree with
>him.  So what?  If I jumped on everybody who had religious beliefs that were
>in variance with mine, I wouldn't get anything done.

Oh, sure you would.  Let's do it together.  All people with
religious beliefs are hereby jumped on!  (Since I have none,
I don't need the qualifier "in variance with mine.")  People
who are smart enough, sophisticated enough, open-minded enough
and rational enough to read sf are too smart, sophisticated, open-
minded and rational to hold religious beliefs!    B-o

>I don't let a person's religious beliefs, sexual tendancies or astrological
>signs affect what I consider to be art, whether visual, aural or written.

Gee, I'm impressed.  (What was that remark about the humor-impaired?)

Best,
Michael "Are Smileys Really Necessary?" Hand

Card's Article on Homosexuality Mitsuhiro Sakai 8/15/91 2:44 PM
In article <NN.91Aug...@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu> n...@ai.mit.edu (Nick Nussbaum) writes:
>
>Mitsuhiro Sakai: writes
>>Ha!!! I want to ask him about Buddism and us:Buddist.
>>Does he believe we:Buddist never go to Heaven?  :)
>
>I believe he does, although if your descendents convert they can
>baptize you. On the bright side his Heaven is full of Mormons
>who think like he does. Wouldn't you rather be elsewhere?

Buwahahahahahahaha!!!
I agree with you!!!!!!        :)

Mitsuhiro Sakai
sa...@rana.usc.edu

Card's Article on Homosexuality Mitsuhiro Sakai 8/15/91 3:03 PM
In article <CARLTON.91...@husc8.harvard.edu> car...@husc8.harvard.edu (david carlton) writes:

>On 15 Aug 91 03:21:10 GMT, sa...@rana.usc.edu (Mitsuhiro Sakai) said:
>
>> Ha!!! I want to ask him about Buddism and us:Buddist.
>> Does he believe we:Buddist never go to Heaven?  :)
>
>Well, do you believe that you Buddhists go to Heaven, or at least a
>Heaven anything like the one that Card believes in?  If not, it would
>seem to be a bit much to expect him to believe that...
>
>(:-) here, too.)
Ah, Japanese Buddism Heaven is called TENGOKU or GOKURAKU-JOUDO and.....
WAIT! What am I talking about???????
NO, I don't believe any religious crap!!!.....maybe... :)
BTW, someone said that "if you don't like an article, skip it and don't bash it."
Why didn't he skip these repostings...?                :)

Mitsuhiro Sakai
sa...@rana.usc.edu

Card's Article on Homosexuality D. Owen Rowley 8/15/91 4:28 PM
In article <19...@balrog.ctron.com>, sm...@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:

> In article <JOSHUA.91A...@pogo.gnu.ai.mit.edu> jos...@pogo.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Joshua Geller) writes:
> >
> >My god the guy's a fucking nazi.
> Sorry to drop this bit of philosophy into sf-lovers, but the above statement
> really forced me to say something.  Equating anyone who disagrees with your
> axioms with Nazis is popular nowadays but it is ridiculous to do it here.

I've deleted the rest of your article, Basicly I agree with you in most of
what you said, though I would word some things differently, perhaps thats
cuz I'm queer, and proud of it.
There is one place in Cards article that does bring him close to the
Nazi metaphor.. thats when he postulates that the civil law should also
affirm the religious Dogma. As far as i'm concerned the mormons have the
right to require all their members to stand on one leg on alternate
thursdays, and throw out anyone who doesn't.. thats their bizzness and
no-one elses. Also as far as I'm concerned they are doing their queer
relatives a favor by throwing them out, it will preclude the living
pergatory of quasi-rejection such as the rest of the christain world now
imposes on queers. But do try to recognise that this essay was just on one
aspect of the restrictive Mormon dogma.. perhaps you've never heard that
old joke *eat drink and be merry.. for tomorrow you may be in Utah*..
well it wasn't a joke.. The Mormon Oligarchy in Utah extends their
restrictions to everybody
Mormon and non-mormon alike .. by default.. Believe me unless you are a
devout mormon, you wouldn't like living in a mormon culture.. but then Cards
premise is that your not s'posed to like it, your just s'posed to do it..
When that mentality and pseudo-morality is FORCED.. it is not very far from
fascism, not very far indeed.

I don't believe that Card is a Nazi, I'm sure he's just doin and sayin what
he thinks is best for himself and the rest of us. Theres no problem unless
we give them power to decide these things for US..
That is the only point he made that I take issue with.
Of course I don't agree with any of his mormon dogma, but then thats not the
issue is it?

LUX ..  owen

--
D. Owen Rowley, {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen , { ow...@autodesk.com }

New State Law in Florida " Use a hand.. Go to jail..."
                                                                                                Ted Maschal

Card's Article on Homosexuality Steve Dyer 8/15/91 2:39 PM
In article <19...@balrog.ctron.com> sm...@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:
>I found the article well-written and logical - within its perview.  Considering
>the polemics I was subjected to in the Catholic church, I think it's actually
>pretty reasonable.

Typical SciFi fan you are, aren't you?

>I don't agree with it, but I don't think it is proof the
>writer is a flaming, frothing-at-the-mouth homophobe.  I daresay homosexuals
>will disagree with that assessment - every minority in this country has
>learned to do what the gov't used to call "protective reactions" when they
>percieve a threat, however minor - they elevate it to major and deal with it
>accordingly.

What'd you say, white boy?  "However minor?"  How minor is it to
keep laws on the books to be enforced sporadically and capriciously
so that an "example" can be made of one when it suits the ones in power?
It's obvious you don't have the faintest idea of what it means to be a
member of a persecuted minority.  That doesn't seem to keep you quiet,
however.  Opinions are like assholes...

Listen, if Card had preferred to limit his comments to recommending
how the Mormon Church should behave, we might disagree with him and
say that we find his opinions odious.  But he does much further than
that and argues for the retention and enforcement of laws which have
no business being on the books as a means of enforcing social control.
This might make a good story in your next fanzine, but it's lousy and
pernicious social policy.  How hard is it to recognize that without
having to be a member of his potential target group?  Why is is that
this is "pretty reasonable" to you?

--
Steve Dyer
dy...@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
dy...@arktouros.mit.edu

Card's Article on Homosexuality D. Owen Rowley 8/15/91 1:48 PM
In article <1991Aug15.0...@odin.diku.dk>,
kl...@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) writes regarding Orson Scott Cards
statement.

>>        This applies also to the polity, the community of citizens at large.


>>Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be
>>indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught
>>violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that
>>those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be
>>permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.

>>        The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail.  The goal


>>is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first
>>place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior,
>>to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of
>>the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable,
>>dependable marriage and family relationships.

> So he does not want the laws strictly enforced, he just want to
> keep people in fear. Kind and loving indeed.
> BTW while it is presumably possible to quit the mormon church, how
> does he want people to quit "the polity", or society?

Cards diatribe is upsetting in that it shows that otherwise intelligent people
can be incredibly small minded when their vision is clouded by religious
dogma and its effects. I guess its fair to say that if thats the way Mormons
want it for themselves, then they are welcome to it, I might even be able to
see that just chucking out queers rather than string them along is a more
humane judgement than the living pergatory Catholicism weaves around Its queers.
This bit about making the religious law extend into the polity is quite
dangerous however.. The Mormon church has long enjoyed a close connection
with the civil government in Utah, and perhaps he is not inately aware that
it is not athe case in loits of other geographical areas. Utah has never had
a diverse population, it has always been dominated by the Mormon church,
with the vast majority of citizens belonging to it. In any case it certainly
looks like  the kind of thing we don't want to see spreading outside its
small area of infection.

LUX .. owen

--
D. Owen Rowley, {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen , { ow...@autodesk.com }

New State Law in Florida " Use a hand.. Go to jail..."
                                                                                                Ted Maschal

Catholicism in SF Francis Stracke 8/15/91 5:59 PM
In article <19...@balrog.ctron.com> sm...@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:

   Any other stories dealing with the Catholic Church in the future?  Waddaya
   think of 'em?

The Church plays a strong role in _Sin of Origin_ (John
somebody--begins with a B, I think) and in the two _Hyperion_ books.
In a short story by Poul Anderson anthologized in _The Gods Laughed_,
the SETI people are in contact with a race dominated by a monstrous
fundamentalism, with horribly illogical theology, and the scientists
despair of getting any coherent data out of them.  Along comes a
Jesuit.  (Arrgh! Run away! :-) (No, he doesn't try to convert them;
just asks for clarification on a few points, asks some questions
intended to make people doubt, and gets them to overturn their
theocracy.  I could believe it.  [My mom's father used to threaten his
sons, when they misbehaved really badly, by shouting, "That's it!
We're going to send them off to the Jesuits!" Catholic version of
military school.  :-])

--
/============================================================================\
| Francis Stracke              | My opinions are my own.  I don't steal them.|
| Department of Mathematics    |=============================================|
| University of Chicago        | Dave Barry for President!                   |
| fra...@zaphod.uchicago.edu  |  He'll Keep Dan Quayle.                     |
\============================================================================/

Card's Article on Homosexuality Wayne Hughes 8/15/91 6:19 PM
In article <1333@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz> alan...@suna.mqcc.mq.oz.au (Andrew Langton) writes:
>Card has written on the 'hypocrisy' of homosexuals.
>
>And yet, he belongs to a religion that believes that their view is the only
>correct one, out of the x number of religions existing today.
>
>Everyone else is wrong.
>
>And he has the nerve to write about hypocrisy.
>
>
     A valid point, but this is not called hypocrisy.
     It's called arrogance.  
_____________________________________________________________________
Wayne Hughes    E-mail to  hug...@dogwood.botany.uga.edu
                H-mail to  Botany Dept., University of Georgia
                           Athens, GA 30602  USA
_____________________________________________________________________
Card's Article on Homosexuality John Mazzocchi 8/15/91 4:26 PM
hob...@ac.dal.ca (C. Roald.) writes:

>The point is, on Card's terms, he's not advocating tyranny.  He wants a
>democracy with freedom to go where he likes, work as he wishes, and live
>by God's Laws. Neither democracy nor tyranny is absolute--our democracy
>forbids lots of things, like murder, theft and rape. He wants to forbid
>a few more things, like homosexuality.

>I don't think he should be allowed to do so, on the basis of his
>concessions-to-the-community argument. But that doesn't make his
>argument contradictory.

That either (a) you equate murder, theft and rape with homosexuality,
            (b) Card equates "       "    "    "    "        "      , or
            (c) you think that it's acceptable that Card equates.....etc.

is a scary thought from hell (my hell, otherwise known as Card's heaven).

I find it contradictory in the extreme. He wants to forbid a few more things?
Hell, why not? How's he feel about smokers? or accountants? Maybe he'd like
to get rid of some telephone sanitisers - everyone *knows* they're evil.
--
+ John Mazzocchi              +   "The mind is not a vessel to be filled, +  
+ Melbourne, Victoria         +    but a fire to be lighted" - Plutarch   +
+ Australia                   +                                      
+ rx...@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au  +                                          

Catholicism in SF Craig Becker 8/15/91 1:47 PM
In article <19...@balrog.ctron.com>, sm...@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:
...

> Any other stories dealing with the Catholic Church in the future?  Waddaya
> think of 'em?
>
> --
> Larry Smith
> sm...@ctron.com

"The Way of Cross and Dragon" by George R. R. Martin.
"The Star" by Arthur C. Clarke.
_A Canticle For Leibowitz_ by Walter M. Miller, Jr.

Gee, it's almost time to go home and my mind is going...one other story I
can think of, can't remember the exact title, something like "The Search
For St. Aquinn". Don't remember the author, either. Also, I think Ray
Bradbury wrote several short stories concerning priestly things in the
future. And gee, wasn't there a priest (or two :-) in _Hyperion_?

Craig

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--                                Craig Becker, Object Technology Products --
-- "Nice day for somethin'"           Internet: cra...@ausvm1.vnet.ibm.com --
--                                    Austin: cra...@woofer.austin.ibm.com --
--                                                  VNET: CRAIGB at AUSVM1 --
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- off 808/1K-020 zip 3008 ph (512) 823-1756 tl 793-1756 hm (512) 346-5397 --
-- IBM Personal Systems Programming,  11400 Burnet Road, Austin, TX, 78759 --
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Catholicism in SF djh...@garnet.berkeley.edu 8/15/91 7:14 PM
In article <FRANCIS.91...@magrathea.zaphod.uchicago.edu> fra...@zaphod.uchicago.edu writes:
>In a short story by Poul Anderson anthologized in _The Gods Laughed_,
>the SETI people are in contact with a race dominated by a monstrous
>fundamentalism, with horribly illogical theology, and the scientists
>despair of getting any coherent data out of them.  Along comes a
>Jesuit.  (Arrgh! Run away! :-) (No, he doesn't try to convert them;
>just asks for clarification on a few points, asks some questions
>intended to make people doubt, and gets them to overturn their
>theocracy.

I don't remember that one.  I do remember an early Trader Team story,
"The Three-Cornered Wheel," in which our heroes are marooned on a
planet with a rigid theocracy which they must, if not necessarily
shatter, at least _sidestep_ if they're to get away.  The captain,
who is Jewish, fills them full of Kabbala and a few other interesting
concepts and (a) gets permission to build his gadget and (b) leaves
a few seeds of doubt behind.  "Far be it from me," he says at one
point, "even to suggest anything that is contrary to your holy
doctrine.  (I got troubles enough.)"

Getting back to Catholic SF, there's _A Canticle for Leibowitz_
by Miller and several stories by Anthony Boucher; "The Star Dummy"
and "The Quest for Saint Aquin" come to mind.  Then there's Randall
Garrett's Lord Darcy stories--if you're willing to consider them
science fiction, not fantasy (Campbell was; he published them in
_Analog_).

Moving slightly further afield, there's Boucher's murder mystery
_Rocket to the Morgue,_ in which a slightly disguised Heinlein
is one of the major characters and several other members of the
Man~ana Literary Society make appearances.


>sons, when they misbehaved really badly, by shouting, "That's it!
>We're going to send them off to the Jesuits!" Catholic version of
>military school.  :-])
>
>--
>/============================================================================\
>| Francis Stracke              | My opinions are my own.  I don't steal them.|
>| Department of Mathematics    |=============================================|
>| University of Chicago        | Dave Barry for President!                   |
>| fra...@zaphod.uchicago.edu  |  He'll Keep Dan Quayle.                     |
>\============================================================================/

Card's Article on Homosexuality Subrata Sircar 8/15/91 7:05 PM

There is only portion of Card's article that I disagree with.  He and the rest
of the Church of Latter-Day Saints may do whatever they wish; he is quite
right when he states that the Church (as it is currently conceived) cannot
affirm that homosexuality is not a sin and survive.  It would fall apart, since
its moral and spiritual authority would be undermined; regulating sexual
practices of its members is a foundation of Mormonism.

The Church, as a religious body, may require that its members hold whatever
attitudes and beliefs they see fit; they've got a few just as ridiculous as
the idea that homosexuals are intrinsically immoral sinners.  The fact that
the idea is seen to be ridiculous is irrelevant to Card's argument that the
Church has the right to police its members behavior.  [That's why I'm not
a member of an organized religion - I'll decide for myself what's moral or
not, thank you very much.]

jim...@itsgw.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak) writes (from Card's Sunstone article):


>        The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail.  The goal
>is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first
>place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior,
>to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of
>the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable,
>dependable marriage and family relationships.

That's not the goal of any polity I would want to be a member of.  [Although
personally I feel sexual practices should be discreet, but I hate people
showing off where I can't :<)]

--
Subrata Sircar | sksi...@phoenix.princeton.edu |Prophet& SPAMIT Charter Member
        I don't speak for Princeton, and they don't speak for me.
        "Everyone is *NOT* entitled to his or her opinion.
         Everyone is entitled to an *INFORMED* opinion." -- Harlan Ellison

Card's Article on Homosexuality Will Linden 8/15/91 7:46 PM
In <1333@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz> alan...@suna.mqcc.mq.oz.au (Andrew Langton) writes:

>Card has written on the 'hypocrisy' of homosexuals.

>And yet, he belongs to a religion that believes that their view is the only
>correct one, out of the x number of religions existing today.

>Everyone else is wrong.

>And he has the nerve to write about hypocrisy.
 How is this "hypocrisy", if he believes it?
 This must be some strange sense of the word "hypocrisy" I was previously
unfamiliar with.
--
Will Linden                                 MCI: WLINDEN
Internet: wli...@panix.com            Disclaimer? We don't need no
UUCP: ...cmcl2!panix!wlinden           stinking disclaimers!
Compuserve: 72737,2150                

Card's Article on Homosexuality Graham Wills 8/16/91 4:46 AM
In article <56...@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach -- Only here for the beer) writes:
>Sorry, but Scott isn't proposing that the Mormon Church outlaw gays, he's
>proposing that the Mormon Church's views on gays be made the law of the land
>and enforced on everybody, Mormon or not. He's welcome to keep his own house
>clean, but I'm not interested in him coming in and cleaning mine.
>
 This seems to sum up a lot of people's beliefs; i.e. that Card is wrong
 to suggest that laws should be made/changed to fit in with a Mormon
 viewpoint. Presumably people would apply this to other viewpoints also
 and thus lead to the proposition that no-one should try to change laws.

 I doubt if the world would have been such a happy place if anti-slavery
 campaigners had harkened to the dictum "He's welcome to keep his own house


 clean, but I'm not interested in him coming in and cleaning mine". The
 point of laws is that they *do* affect other people's houses and that
 they *should*. You may argue that his viewpoint is wrong (and if you
 believe so, your duty as a citizen in democracy is to so argue) but it
 is absolutely and utterly wrong to condemn any person or group for attempting
 to change the law. Remember the Golden Rule: "Do to others as you would
 have them do to you". If I publicly announced that I thought that Irish
 law should ban Mormonism in any form, I would expect opposition and
 antagonism. I would be happy to be described as stupid, anti-democratic,
 bigoted, etc., but not as a sexually-active nazi for attempting to change laws.
 It is the duty of a citizen to campaign against laws he feels are wrong.

 -Graham

Card's Article on Homosexuality Larry Smith 8/16/91 5:33 AM
In article <89...@spdcc.SPDCC.COM> dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) writes:
>In article <19...@balrog.ctron.com> sm...@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:
>>I found the article well-written and logical - within its perview.  Considering
>>the polemics I was subjected to in the Catholic church, I think it's actually
>>pretty reasonable.
>
>Typical SciFi fan you are, aren't you?

I doubt it like hell.  But the net is full of idiots who can tell everything
in the world about a person from just a single posted message.

>>I don't agree with it, but I don't think it is proof the
>>writer is a flaming, frothing-at-the-mouth homophobe.  I daresay homosexuals
>>will disagree with that assessment - every minority in this country has
>>learned to do what the gov't used to call "protective reactions" when they
>>percieve a threat, however minor - they elevate it to major and deal with it
>>accordingly.

>What'd you say, white boy?  "However minor?"  How minor is it to
>keep laws on the books to be enforced sporadically and capriciously
>so that an "example" can be made of one when it suits the ones in power?

Anyone who recalls any of my prior postings knows my political affiliation:
Rabid, Frothing-at-the-Mouth Libertarian.  Card can write what he wishes and
call for anything he wants, but when he tries to enforce such laws, I will be
in the vanguard to torpedo his every effort.  "White boy"?  Does my race have
anything to do with how I feel about discrimination?  Just because I'm "white"
means I have to be for it?  Who the fuck are you to be throwing around
epithets like that?

>It's obvious you don't have the faintest idea of what it means to be a
>member of a persecuted minority.  That doesn't seem to keep you quiet,
>however.  Opinions are like assholes...

You don't know me, you don't know my background and you are dead fucking
wrong.

>Listen, if Card had preferred to limit his comments to recommending
>how the Mormon Church should behave, we might disagree with him and
>say that we find his opinions odious.  But he does much further than
>that and argues for the retention and enforcement of laws which have
>no business being on the books as a means of enforcing social control.
>This might make a good story in your next fanzine, but it's lousy and
>pernicious social policy.  How hard is it to recognize that without
>having to be a member of his potential target group?  Why is is that
>this is "pretty reasonable" to you?

Learn to read things in context, stupid.  "Reasonable" doesn't mean it
is right, as I said.  I merely pointed out the essay was a well-constructed
argument and that the conclusions were "reasonable" in such a context.  I
then went on to point out that all this reason and logic flowed from a flawed
premise.  Anybody can construct a well-reasoned, logical and "correct"
math proof of anything they want provided they start with the premise that
1==2.  The soundness of the argument is irrelevant to its correctness, one
must take the axioms into account.

>--
>Steve Dyer
>dy...@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
>dy...@arktouros.mit.edu

Steve you are a damned fool.  My message was neither for nor against, though
I did state for the record I thought Card was wrong.  Instead I had something
to say about the form of the essay and why it said what it did.  You choose
to take those comments as lauditory, because that's what you wanted to hear.
You then proceeded to insult me, deride me, and fling racial epithets at me.
Had you done that in person, sir, I would surely have punched your God-damn
lights out.  Next time READ the fucking post.  Do it without preconceptions
about whether it supports *your* preconceptions or doesn't, maybe, just maybe,
it is making some comment about the argument itself.  Shithead.

--
Larry Smith
sm...@ctron.com


The usual disclaimer stuff...
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.  -- Barry Goldwater

Card's Article on Homosexuality Larry Smith 8/16/91 5:42 AM
In article <7109@autodesk.COM> owen@Autodesk.COM (D. Owen Rowley) writes:
>In article <19...@balrog.ctron.com>, sm...@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:
>> In article <JOSHUA.91A...@pogo.gnu.ai.mit.edu> jos...@pogo.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Joshua Geller) writes:
>> >
>> >My god the guy's a fucking nazi.
>> Sorry to drop this bit of philosophy into sf-lovers, but the above statement
>> really forced me to say something.  Equating anyone who disagrees with your
>> axioms with Nazis is popular nowadays but it is ridiculous to do it here.
>
>I've deleted the rest of your article, Basicly I agree with you in most of
>what you said, though I would word some things differently, perhaps thats
>cuz I'm queer, and proud of it.

Funny.  I've been cheerfully torched by a bunch of heterosexuals who thought
I was supporting *Card* and the first homosexual who posts understood me
completely and largely agreed.  I'm relieved *someone* read what I wrote.
Thanks.

>There is one place in Cards article that does bring him close to the
>Nazi metaphor.. thats when he postulates that the civil law should also
>affirm the religious Dogma. As far as i'm concerned the mormons have the

You are quite right about that.  As a Libertarian, I let people say whatever
they want to, make whatever calls they wish, but when they try to make laws,
or make better use of idiot laws already on the books, I fight them tooth
and nail.  Of course, even the call is offensive.  For that, I'd call the man
a fool, but I wouldn't shut him up.  Since I never read any of his books, I
can do little to express my displeasure with him, but I understand people's
calls to boycott him.  Why put money in his pocket if he's going to use it
to call for laws that will hurt you?  The Church of LDS gets 10% of everything
he makes...

>Mormon and non-mormon alike .. by default.. Believe me unless you are a
>devout mormon, you wouldn't like living in a mormon culture.. but then Cards

I had a Mormon roommate once, and I *did* live in Mormon culture.  I don't have
to believe you, I *know* I don't like living in Mormon culture.

>premise is that your not s'posed to like it, your just s'posed to do it..
>When that mentality and pseudo-morality is FORCED.. it is not very far from
>fascism, not very far indeed.

A truer statement I have never heard.

>I don't believe that Card is a Nazi, I'm sure he's just doin and sayin what
>he thinks is best for himself and the rest of us. Theres no problem unless
>we give them power to decide these things for US..

And that's the line over which he may not step.  As far as Mormonism goes, it
won't just be gays marching against him.

>That is the only point he made that I take issue with.
>Of course I don't agree with any of his mormon dogma, but then thats not the
>issue is it?

--

Larry Smith
sm...@ctron.com
The usual disclaimer stuff...
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.  -- Barry Goldwater

Catholicism in SF Dan White 8/16/91 5:14 AM
In article <19...@balrog.ctron.com>, sm...@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:
        .... stuff edited out ....

|>
|> To try to bring this thread back to *something* resembling SF, what do
|> people think of the story (whose name escapes me) with the padre of
|> the order of St. Somebody of the Vidicon?  I've been trying to recall
|> this story from my library, but I can't remember any more than that.
|>

   I believe you refer to Saint Vidicon of the Cathode from Christopher
Stasheff's Warlock series. St. V. was canonized { ?carbonized? :) } when
he used his own body to replace a power fuse so that ?the Pope? could
complete a video broadcast that stopped some sort of disaster.  The priests
of the order are called Cathodians, and their symbol is a small yellow handled
screwdriver clipped in the breast pocket.


--
--------------------------------------------------------
                       Dan White (da...@mitchell.hac.com)
--------------------------------------------------------
"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life
 exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has
 tried to contact us."            Calvin (Bill Waterson)

Religion in SF (was: Catholicism in SF) Larry Smith 8/16/91 6:26 AM
In article <16994@hacgate.UUCP> da...@hazel.hac.com (Dan White) writes:
>In article <19...@balrog.ctron.com>, sm...@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:
>|> the order of St. Somebody of the Vidicon?  I've been trying to recall
>
>   I believe you refer to Saint Vidicon of the Cathode from Christopher
>Stasheff's Warlock series. St. V. was canonized { ?carbonized? :) } when
>he used his own body to replace a power fuse so that ?the Pope? could
>complete a video broadcast that stopped some sort of disaster.  The priests
>of the order are called Cathodians, and their symbol is a small yellow handled
>screwdriver clipped in the breast pocket.

That's him!  I knew I'd remember :)

I thought the Cathodians were a tad "unbelievable" but I don't know how
new orders come into being.  When Catholic priests are used in SF, do
the authors often mention their order?  Do they used established orders
or new ones, like Stasheff did?

The religion many people (human and not) believed in in Alan Dean Foster's
Commonwealth books sounds like Catholicism might have been a part of it.
I recall someone in one of the books going to some sort of church or this
religion, it sounded like a real mix, and was relatively light on devine
revelation.  Has Foster expounded at any length on his future/religious
ideas?

This thread is lot's more fun than OSC trying to rename the gay newsgroups.

--
Larry Smith
sm...@ctron.com
The usual disclaimer stuff...
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.  -- Barry Goldwater

Card's Article on Homosexuality Andrew Clayton 8/15/91 9:42 PM
In article <1991Aug15.1...@infoserver.th-darmstadt.de>, Joachim Schrod writes:

> In article <199eb93d...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au>,
> d...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au (Andrew Clayton) writes:


>
> > In article <JOSHUA.91A...@pogo.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, Joshua Geller writes:
> >
> > > My god the guy's a fucking nazi.
> >
> > And you're showing a whole truckload of tolerance, aren't you.
> >
> > > I really enjoyed some of his early stuff too.
> >
> > I see. A person's outlook towards things _sexual_ is the all
> > important ingrediant in a work of literature. Sheesh.
>
> Oh yeah. This was not a statement on `a person's outlook towards
> things _sexual_' but on how the US society should handle people which
> does not conform the moral rules of the LDS.

Not US society - Mormon society. The two are not the same.

> You might join Card and the LDS members in their heaven

Stick the religious claptrap up your fundament; Card writes SNK
books. I like reading his stories, and am convinced that _Ender's
Game_ is among the best generalised SF, *ever*.

All of this homophobe speak, and fervant foaming at the mouth
over what Card stated some twelve to eighteen months ago, is
ridiculous.

Maddox has a lot to answer for.

> But religios bigots are a horror for me, and I will gladly let
> all of you go to your heaven.)

He may be a religious bigot. He is most certainly wrong in his
outlook. However, that's his problem, and the people who believe
him. It should be pretty obvious that most of the people in this
forum believe that his sentiment is somewhat warped.

However, the issue raised in the original 'letter' that Maddox
posted, was that gay society should boycott Card on the basis of
his mores.

That smacks of censorship.

And I can't abide by that.

Heck, lets just order that Free Thinking People around the world
should look out for Card, and kill him on sight, just like the
Muslem's decreed on Rushdie.

[Please, don't speak to me of _fiction_ Vs _Sunstone_, because I
truly don't give a hoot. If you want to argue that Card's SF is
somehow rendered useless because of Card's religious beliefs,
then fire away. Show me proof. Then I'll show you a rabid
pedant.]

Dac
--
munnari!labtam!eyrie!prolix!dac      David Andrew Clayton.           // _| _  _
  prolix!dac%...@labtam.oz.au      Canberra, Australia           \X/ (_](_](_
        d...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au      I post .
prolix!d...@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au            . . I am.             +61 6 285 2537

Catholicism in SF Al Wesolowsky 8/16/91 6:54 AM
In article <1991Aug16.0...@odin.diku.dk> kl...@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) writes:
+sm...@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:
+
+>Any other stories dealing with the Catholic Church in the future?  Waddaya
+>think of 'em?
+
+I don`t remember the title or author, but I once read a short story
+about a jesuit priest who was also a geologist. It took place in
+the near future. Some aliens had been contacted by radio.

Another was a short story from the 1960s about bipedal, intelligent,
evangelical reptilian invaders who were making short work of earth's
defenses. The story is POV an earthling who witnesses a brutal ground
assault apparently directed at capturing the town church, for its
strategic value, he thinks.

He manages to sneak into the church, and witnesses the aliens opening
their packs and  breaking out all manner of clerical garb (surplices,
mitres, etc.) and proceeding to re-consecrate the church.

I have surely flubbed the details (hey, it *was* the 60s, all right?) and
would appreciate corrections and pointers to where I could find the story.

--
|     Al B. Wesolowsky  a...@bucrsb.bu.edu or arc...@buacca.bu.edu    |
|   Managing Editor, Journal of Field Archaeology, Boston University  |
|       675 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston MA 02215 (617) 353-2357       |

Card's Article on Homosexuality Mike Godwin 8/16/91 6:14 AM
In article <199fa55b...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au> munnari!labtam!eyrie!prolix!dac writes:
 
>Not US society - Mormon society. The two are not the same.

Card wants his views adopted by US society, not "Mormon society,"
whatever that is.

>All of this homophobe speak, and fervant foaming at the mouth
>over what Card stated some twelve to eighteen months ago, is
>ridiculous. Maddox has a lot to answer for.

Like what? Alerting SF readers that a favorite of fans is a bigot
seems okay to me.

>However, the issue raised in the original 'letter' that Maddox
>posted, was that gay society should boycott Card on the basis of
>his mores. That smacks of censorship.

Actually, boycotts smack of boycotts; censorship smacks of censorship.

>Heck, lets just order that Free Thinking People around the world
>should look out for Card, and kill him on sight, just like the
>Muslem's decreed on Rushdie.

Card, of course, thinks that Rushdie was just asking for it.
He has said that no decent person could have written THE SATANIC VERSES.

>[Please, don't speak to me of _fiction_ Vs _Sunstone_, because I
>truly don't give a hoot. If you want to argue that Card's SF is
>somehow rendered useless because of Card's religious beliefs,
>then fire away. Show me proof. Then I'll show you a rabid
>pedant.]

Card's fiction has its own problems, including oversimple
characterizations and an inclination to sadism. But it is a straw man
argument to challenge an effort to link the quality of his fiction, such
as it is, with his bigotry--no one was making such an effort.

--Mike

--
Mike Godwin,       |        "Someday, some way."
mnem...@eff.org   |
(617) 864-1550     |          --Marshall Crenshaw
EFF, Cambridge, MA |

Card's Article on Homosexuality Bob Lodenkamper 8/15/91 3:32 PM
In article <199fa55b...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au> d...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au (Andrew Clayton) writes:

   In article <1991Aug15.1...@infoserver.th-darmstadt.de>, Joachim Schrod writes:

   > Oh yeah. This was not a statement on `a person's outlook towards
   > things _sexual_' but on how the US society should handle people which
   > does not conform the moral rules of the LDS.

   Not US society - Mormon society. The two are not the same.

Did you read the article by Card?  Card thinks they are the same, at
least to the extent of legislating *his* morality for everyone.

   All of this homophobe speak, and fervant foaming at the mouth
   over what Card stated some twelve to eighteen months ago, is
   ridiculous.

The man is a bigot.  BFD.  Bigots are a dime a dozen.  In addition to
being a bigot, he wants to prop up his prejudices with laws.  Again,
not uncommon --- most bigots do.  The only thing I personally care
about, as far as Card's prejudices go, is whether or not they show up
in his work.  In my favorites (the Ender series) his intolerance for
homosexuality does not appear.  If his intolerance did appear in the
books, I would no longer like the *books*, and for that reason only
would not buy them any more.  For example, the Alvin series has
crossed my "obnoxiously preachy" threshold, and I will not buy any
more in that series no matter what Card does.

Other people have different ways of deciding whether or not to buy a
bigot's books.  Fine.  It's their money, and they may spend it as they
please.

   Maddox has a lot to answer for.

Why?  He gave people some information about Card as a person, for
those who care.  I now know (assuming the quoted article is accurate)
that Card is prejudiced against homosexuality, and quite ignorant of
it as well.  (More on the boycott business later)  

   However, the issue raised in the original 'letter' that Maddox
   posted, was that gay society should boycott Card on the basis of
   his mores.

And just who speaks for gay society?  Card makes the idiotic mistake
of equating gay society to the Mormon church in terms of affirmations
of faith, and obedience to authority.  Don't tell me you bought that
load of shit.  Gay men, lesbians and bisexuals are perfectly capable
of thinking for themselves - they do not follow the directives of
Queer Nation or Act Up like pious, religious sheep.

   That smacks of censorship.

It is not censorship, as you seem to know.  Boycotts can be
intelligent or stupid, effective or worthless, but one thing they
never are is censorship.

   And I can't abide by that.

If this isn't "bend-over-backwardism" what the hell is it?  Anyone
reading Card's article and the response by Queer Nation is perfectly
capable of deciding whether or not they want to buy Card's books ---
assuming said person has a mind.

   Heck, lets just order that Free Thinking People around the world
   should look out for Card, and kill him on sight, just like the
   Muslem's decreed on Rushdie.

Get real.

- Bob

Card's Article on Homosexuality Eric S. Raymond 8/15/91 11:48 PM
In <JOSHUA.91A...@pogo.gnu.ai.mit.edu> Joshua Geller wrote:
> My god the guy's a fucking nazi.

I wouldn't go quite that far.  But it's bad enough that I wince in sympathy
with Queer nation and aren't going to be paying money for more Card novels.
The more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger tone does little to disguise the homophobia
and religious absolutism undrneath.  Can this be the same guy who used to run
anti-religious "Secular Humanist Revival Meetings" at SF cons?
--
      Eric S. Raymond = er...@snark.thyrsus.com  (mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)

Card's Article on Homosexuality ryerson.schwark 8/15/91 8:03 AM
In article <19...@balrog.ctron.com> sm...@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:
>axioms with Nazis is popular nowadays but it is ridiculous to do it here.
>In part because of the argument I put forth above, and in part because it
>greatly debases a very powerful coin.  Someday you might meet a *real* Nazi
>or a skinhead or whatever, who really and truly would, if he could, round
>up every "queer", "kike", "mick" or whatever, and kill them with joy in his
>black heart.  Whatever else Card may be, he is no Nazi.


Reread the article.  Card proposes locking up social deviants (us homos)
to maintain the purity and high moral standards of the community.  This
is almost exactly the rationale the Nazis used for shipping homosexuals
off to Dachau. While he doesn't espouse the anti-semitism line (at least
here), and he saccharine-coats it with "compassion", he is fundamentally
calling for the imprisonment of gay people for the audacity of flaunting
societal norms.  That's pretty damn close to Nazism to me...

Ry Schwark

Card's Article on Homosexuality Bob Lodenkamper 8/15/91 4:34 PM
In article <1cS7rZ#3Zyl7z7MGrYv6gHJ6Q2L9zvr=er...@snark.thyrsus.com> er...@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:

   I wouldn't go quite that far.  But it's bad enough that I wince in
   sympathy with Queer nation and aren't going to be paying money for
   more Card novels.  The more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger tone does
   little to disguise the homophobia and religious absolutism
   undrneath.  Can this be the same guy who used to run anti-religious
   "Secular Humanist Revival Meetings" at SF cons?  --

Aha.  I'm not the only person who has heard of these.  Is Card
schizophrenic?  Or did he get born again, as it were, and promptly
start the Alvin cycle as penance for past misdeeds?  If so, he must
have been a very bad boy.  :-)

- Bob

Card's Article on Homosexuality Larry Smith 8/16/91 8:18 AM
In article <1991Aug15.1...@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> r...@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (ryerson.schwark) writes:
>Reread the article.  Card proposes locking up social deviants (us homos)
>to maintain the purity and high moral standards of the community.  This
>is almost exactly the rationale the Nazis used for shipping homosexuals
>off to Dachau. While he doesn't espouse the anti-semitism line (at least

True.  But Card is not proposing killing them.  He is but a few steps higher
on that slippery slope, I will admit, but I feel that when someone is called
a "Nazi" they must truly, truly deserve it.

>here), and he saccharine-coats it with "compassion", he is fundamentally
>calling for the imprisonment of gay people for the audacity of flaunting
>societal norms.  That's pretty damn close to Nazism to me...

Perhaps.  But not close enough to really merit the label. The Nazi's, whatever
they wished to be or thought they were, were the worst monsters in recorded
history.  It is sadly true they are not alone in that respect - millions of
dead Armenians and Cambodians will atest to that - but they are the most
well-known.  Until Card begins to advocate death to homosexuals, and agitates
to round them up for the gas chambers, calling him a Nazi demeans the label.
Save it for *real* Nazi's - they are still around, though they don't write much
SF that I've seen.

There are lots of other things to call him - repressive, if you like.  Even
fascist.

--
Larry Smith
sm...@ctron.com
The usual disclaimer stuff...
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.  -- Barry Goldwater

Card's Article on Homosexuality Klaus Ole Kristiansen 8/16/91 1:29 AM

WARNING: this has nothing to do with SF

hob...@ac.dal.ca (C. Roald.) writes:

>mfte...@stroke.Princeton.EDU (Mutant for Hire) writes:
...
>> The question here is whether laws banning homosexuality are necessary
>> to maintain the stability of the community. Card assumes it to be a fact,
>> something which I have a problem with. He claims that such laws are
>> needed to maintain the stability of marriages and families. This is
>> something that I fail to see at all, and Card's argument on this point
>> breaks down without it.

>Well, no. His argument is that God forbids homosexuality, and commands
>stable heterosexual marriage for the good of the community. QED.

>You cannot touch that with arguments on logical or pragmatic grounds.

>You and I may believe that there is no Absolute Truth Revealed from
>Beyond, but at least in my case that is because there are too many
>religions out there claiming a lock on Truth, with too many
>contradictory views, and no obvious way to chose between them. So we
>wimp out, declare ourselves agnostic, and sit on the fence. If God cares
>who we worship, he'll send down another messenger to convince us again.

>But what we can't do is prove that Card's God does not exist, and did
>not order intolerance of homosexuality. His position may be irrational,
>but so is ours, because THERE IS NO PROOF.

I don`t agree with you. The distinction is much deeper. The
Xian morality is that whatever God orders is good, whatever
God forbids is evil. Saul was a bad king because he spared
members of ethnic groups God had ordered exterminated, David was
a good king because he exterminated those same groups.

I don`t buy it. I can not prove that there is not some god
who has created us all, and who has the power to do whatever
he wants, but even if that is so, I reserve for myself the right
to determine what I consider good and evil. The god described
in the bible is clearly evil. If he exists, thwarting him would
be stupid, especially if hell is a reality. This just makes him
a very, very powerful tyrant.

>It is always interesting to see what happens when us wishy-washy
>tolerant agnostics (I'd say "secular humanists" or something, but I
>don't want to step on the jargon of philosophy, 'cause I'd probably get
>it wrong) run into an argument based on Revealed Knowledge.

I would just say: "If God said that, he was wrong".

Klaus O K
Support the atheist church, a non-prophet organization

Catholicism in SF Klaus Ole Kristiansen 8/16/91 1:43 AM
sm...@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:

>Any other stories dealing with the Catholic Church in the future?  Waddaya
>think of 'em?

I don`t remember the title or author, but I once read a short story
about a jesuit priest who was also a geologist. It took place in
the near future. Some aliens had been contacted by radio. These
aliens only very occasionally sent something interesting (such
as geological data about their planet) just to keep us listening.
Most of the time they just send religious propaganda. Our hero
then starts a project of sending back questions about obscure
points of the alien religious doctrine. The point of the story
is that the Society of Jesus has a lot of experience with that
kind of thing.

The plan is a succes, BTW. The infighting over the new and
unexpected questions weakens the alien priests so much that
a secular regime takes power.

Klaus O K
Support the atheis church, a non-prophet organization

Card's Article on Homosexuality Chuq Von Rospach -- Only here for the beer 8/16/91 9:10 AM
b...@dolores.Stanford.EDU (Bob Lodenkamper) writes:

>In article (Eric S. Raymond) writes:

>   Can this be the same guy who used to run anti-religious
>   "Secular Humanist Revival Meetings" at SF cons?  --

>Aha.  I'm not the only person who has heard of these.  Is Card
>schizophrenic?  Or did he get born again, as it were, and promptly
>start the Alvin cycle as penance for past misdeeds?

Alvin Maker was started before the Secular Humanist stuff went away.
Scott's position is that it stopped being fun and it was time to move
on, but when I talked to him about it (just before Conspiracy in 1987,
because I was thinking of setting up a Secular Humanist wedding
ceremony) he sounded very unhappy and bitter.

My interpretation (based on that and a few other things going on at the
time) is that it finally got popular enough that the Mormon Church took
notice and adjusted his attitude for him. Scott never saw the secular
humanism stuff as interfering with his faith -- I'm also convinced that the
Mormon church would disagree. My belief is that Scott was told "good Mormons
don't *do* Secular Humanism" and he's following the wishes of his church.

--
Chuq Von Rospach >=< ch...@apple.com >=< GEnie:CHUQ or MAC.BIGOT >=< ALink:CHUQ
    SFWA Nebula Awards administrator =+= SF Book Reviewer, Amazing Stories
           Editor, OtherRealms =+= #include <standard/disclaimer.h>

Religion in SF (was: Catholicism in SF) Craig Becker 8/16/91 9:13 AM
In article <19...@balrog.ctron.com>, sm...@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:
...
>                              When Catholic priests are used in SF, do
> the authors often mention their order?  

Geez, how could I forget Philip Jose Farmer's Brother/Father John Carmody
stories?! Lessee, two books that I know of: _Night Of Light_ (more of a
novel) and _Father To The Stars_ (story collection). I forget his order
(St. Jarius?), but I believe it was a currently non-existent one, and I
think Farmer talks a little about how it got established, although I forget
the details.

> This thread is lot's more fun than OSC trying to rename the gay newsgroups.

Yes!!!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--                                Craig Becker, Object Technology Products --
-- "Nice day for somethin'"           Internet: cra...@ausvm1.vnet.ibm.com --
--                                    Austin: cra...@woofer.austin.ibm.com --
--                                                  VNET: CRAIGB at AUSVM1 --
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- off 808/1K-020 zip 3008 ph (512) 823-1756 tl 793-1756 hm (512) 346-5397 --
-- IBM Personal Systems Programming,  11400 Burnet Road, Austin, TX, 78759 --
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Card's Article on Homosexuality Timothy Jehl 8/16/91 11:31 AM

   I'd like to try a little experiment (just for fun).  Could someone who had
a copy of Card's article repost it, except replace the word "homosexual"
with the word "prostitute".  Now don't get me wrong.  I don't think
homosexuals are prostitutes, or prostitutes are homosexuals.  I don't think
that they are related at all, with the exception that both of these tend to
be points of "morality" that portions of society try to regulate.
   What I'd like to find out with this experiment is if anybody but Coyote
(does this group still exist?) comes out and calls the author of this revised
article a raving Nazi (or some equivalent).
   After this is done, let's replace the term "prostitute" with the term
"lawyer", and find out if the author of this article can get elected.

Tim

Card's Article on Homosexuality Andrew David Weiland 8/16/91 1:03 PM
Hmm, i guess there is a need for rec.arts.sf.advocacy after all.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
| Andrew D. M. U. Weiland | aw...@andrew.cmu.edu        |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| "I for one am glad we're not all alike, because then         |
| we'd all like the same things and there wouldn't be         |
| enough haggis to go around"                        |
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Card's Article on Homosexuality Rolf Wilson 8/16/91 12:57 PM
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach -- Only here for the beer) writes:

>b...@dolores.Stanford.EDU (Bob Lodenkamper) writes:
>>In article (Eric S. Raymond) writes:

>>   Can this be the same guy who used to run anti-religious
>>   "Secular Humanist Revival Meetings" at SF cons?  --

>>Aha.  I'm not the only person who has heard of these.  Is Card
>>schizophrenic?  Or did he get born again, as it were, and promptly
>>start the Alvin cycle as penance for past misdeeds?

  I caught his SHRM at the 1986 Worldcon in Atlanta (packed house!)
I particularly remember the line
"If someone asks you 'Do you believe?' and you do not answer
'In what?' then you have written a blank check on your brain, and
it shall surely come back marked 'insufficient funds'"

Bit of a change.
--

Rolf Wilson   Illinois State Geological Survey   ro...@sparc1.isgs.uiuc.edu

Catholicism in SF Michael J. Hennebry 8/16/91 1:46 PM
In article <16994@hacgate.UUCP> da...@hazel.hac.com (Dan White) writes:
<   I believe you refer to Saint Vidicon of the Cathode from Christopher
<Stasheff's Warlock series. St. V. was canonized { ?carbonized? :) } when
<he used his own body to replace a power fuse so that ?the Pope? could
<complete a video broadcast that stopped some sort of disaster.  The priests
<of the order are called Cathodians, and their symbol is a small yellow handled
<screwdriver clipped in the breast pocket.

Don't forget the Anodeans. Stasheff's future world apparently includes
female catholic engineers.

--
Mike   henn...@plains.NoDak.edu
"My biorythms are very sensitive to electricity." -- Ms. Ginsberg

Catholicism in SF Patrick H. McAllister 8/16/91 1:50 PM
In article <19...@balrog.ctron.com>, sm...@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:

. . .


|>To try to bring this thread back to *something* resembling SF, what do
|>people think of the story (whose name escapes me) with the padre of
|>the order of St. Somebody of the Vidicon?  I've been trying to recall
|>this story from my library, but I can't remember any more than that.
. . .

I forget who the "Somebody" was, but the book(s) are _The Warlock in
Spite of Himself_ and sequels by Christopher Stasheff.                  
                                                     
Pat McAllister      m1p...@fed.frb.gov
(UUCP:              uunet!fed!m1phm02
 ATT, etc.:         (202) 452-2443
 USnail:            Federal Reserve Board, Washington, DC 20551)

Card's Article on Homosexuality D. Owen Rowley 8/16/91 10:21 AM
In article <56...@apple.Apple.COM>, chuq@Apple.COM
(Chuq Von Rospach -- Only here for the beer) writes:
RE: Orson Scott Card
> He's not a fanatic (I've met Mormon fanatics. You don't want to). Scott (who
> I know somewhat socially) is a very devout and intensely religious Mormon.

Hey chuq.. ( long time ..no read BTW! ).. aren't theses terms relative to
your position WRT the dogma of the Mormon church, and its competition?
Mormons train their young to participate in religious proselytizing in a way
that would most likely be considered as fanatic, even by many other Christian
sects. Some might say.. Yeah right..a very devout and intensely religious
Mormon.. a fanatic...

> What he wrote is also very much when the party line of the Mormon Church is,
> also.

I was thinking about that too. It reminds me of the kind of testimony that
highly structured religions require of their celebrity kin.
the RCC has no qualms in yanking strings on their intelectuals to make em
dance the vatican rag when they want 'em too.
Witness Wm F Buckleys response to the coming out of his old pal Milton
Friedman.  Its also the same tactic that was used in te early days of the
spanish Inquisition. In that time, during that reign of terror , not being
able to sing the current song was enough to get you toasted, and I'm not
talking about net-flames.
BEWARE... We have been on the cusp of a new inquistion for quite some time
now.

> >This article doesn't take away from the fact that he writes excellent SF
> >and Fantasy books, that is intelligent and food for thought.
> That is very true.

I'm in the process of finding out if thats true from my perspective.
I just finished *Enders game* today. It was a popular book amongst some of
the folks designing virtual reality systems, and I thought I ought to at
least read it for that angle.
I found his premise that these were children, wore thin and unravelled
(for me) somewhere short of the middle of the story..
It was well writen however.

> Sorry, but Scott isn't proposing that the Mormon Church outlaw gays, he's
> proposing that the Mormon Church's views on gays be made the law of the land
> and enforced on everybody, Mormon or not. He's welcome to keep his own house
> clean, but I'm not interested in him coming in and cleaning mine.

Heres an interesting passage  from *Enders game*
Valentine is trying to convince Ender to come Colonizing with her, he
questions that perhaps she is just manipulating him again as he has been
manipulated by her and others .. so many times before.
Valentine sez.. ( BTW all through this book I visualized them all as
characters in a Simpsons cartoon.. read Valentine with Lisas voice :-)

        "Welcome to the human race. Nobody controls his own life, Ender. The
        best you can do is choose to be controlled by good people, by people who
        love you."

This passage says a lot in the context of the meta disscusion we're also
batting around here.
What I so often wonder, is why the strayt community seems so hell bent on
only focusing on Gay sex, when it is really threatened by Gay *LOVE*..
I don't wonder long before I am drawn back to variations on the *sex is bad*
theme so covetously held by the Jahweh cults and their sects.
Then I start to wonder what the payoff is, and why its so valuable to them?
Enders game answered these questions about Card quite clearly.. for him
it's, *the ends justify the means.*
Isn't it interesting that this is the cry of foul they so often hurtle at
those they understand least.

LUX .. owen

--
D. Owen Rowley, {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen , { ow...@autodesk.com }

New State Law in Florida " Use a hand.. Go to jail..."
                                                                                                Ted Maschal

Card's Article on Homosexuality D. Owen Rowley 8/16/91 10:46 AM
In article <BOB.91Au...@dolores.Stanford.EDU>, b...@dolores.Stanford.EDU (Bob Lodenkamper) writes:
> In article <1cS7rZ#3Zyl7z7MGrYv6gHJ6Q2L9zvr=er...@snark.thyrsus.com> er...@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
 
>    I wince in
>    sympathy with Queer nation and aren't going to be paying money for
>    more Card novels.  The more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger tone does
>    little to disguise the homophobia and religious absolutism
>    undrneath.  Can this be the same guy who used to run anti-religious
>    "Secular Humanist Revival Meetings" at SF cons?  --

> Aha.  I'm not the only person who has heard of these.  Is Card
> schizophrenic?  Or did he get born again, as it were, and promptly
> start the Alvin cycle as penance for past misdeeds?  If so, he must
> have been a very bad boy.  :-)


Again to bring in the *enders Game* reference..
perhaps the character of Peter Wiggin is an autobiographical one ?

LUX .. owen

.
.
.

--
D. Owen Rowley, {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen , { ow...@autodesk.com }

New State Law in Florida " Use a hand.. Go to jail..."
                                                                                                Ted Maschal

Catholicism in SF Francis Stracke 8/16/91 6:44 PM
In article <16994@hacgate.UUCP> da...@hazel.hac.com (Dan White) writes:

>   I believe you refer to Saint Vidicon of the Cathode from Christopher
>Stasheff's Warlock series. St. V. was canonized { ?carbonized? :) } when

Neat.  But you mean "martyred."  Canonization is the mechanism by
which the Church recognizes someone's sainthood; a martyr is someone
who died for his faith.  Martyrs are automatically saints (the
technical definition of a saint is someone who is in Heaven), without
the requirement of three proven miracles.  Canonization, interestingly
enough, does not *make* somebody a saint; it's just how the Church
acknowledges the fact.

--
/============================================================================\
| Francis Stracke              | My opinions are my own.  I don't steal them.|
| Department of Mathematics    |=============================================|
| University of Chicago        | Semprini?                                   |
| fra...@zaphod.uchicago.edu  |                                             |
\============================================================================/

Card's Article on Homosexuality Sean Eric Fagan 8/16/91 7:32 PM
In article <199fa55b...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au> munnari!labtam!eyrie!prolix!dac writes:
>However, the issue raised in the original 'letter' that Maddox
>posted, was that gay society should boycott Card on the basis of
>his mores.
>That smacks of censorship.

Proving once again that he is an idiot.

Is it censorship when you do not purchase every book printed in a given
year?  Is it censorship when a publisher discontinues a book or author
because of lack of profitability?

The right to free speech does not mean a right to force others to carry your
speech.  Not that I would expect you to understand such distinctions.

--
Sean Eric Fagan  | "What *does* that 33 do?  I have no idea."
sef@kithrup.COM  |           -- Chris Torek
-----------------+              (to...@ee.lbl.gov)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.

Card's Article on Homosexuality Dan'l DanehyOakes 8/16/91 2:14 PM
In article <7099@autodesk.COM> owen@Autodesk.COM (D. Owen Rowley) writes:

>The Mormon church has long enjoyed a close connection
>with the civil government in Utah, and perhaps he is not inately aware that
>it is not athe case in loits of other geographical areas.

Uh....

Scott doesn't live in Utah.

For as long as I've been aware of such things he's lived in -- oh, hell,
I _think_ it's North Carolina but a bit of my memory wants to say Virginia.


                        [T]he literary work is not a manipulable object
                        completely at our disposal; it is a human voice
                        out of the past, a voice which must be somehow
                        brought to life.  Dialogue, not dissection, opens
                        up the world of a literary work.  Disinterested
                        objectivity is not appropriate to the under-
                        standing of a literary work.
                                --Richard E. Palmer
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
Net.Roach

Card's Article on Homosexuality Chuq Von Rospach -- Only here for the beer 8/16/91 11:17 PM
djdaneh@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes:

>Scott doesn't live in Utah.

>For as long as I've been aware of such things he's lived in -- oh, hell,
>I _think_ it's North Carolina but a bit of my memory wants to say Virginia.

North Carolina.

--
Chuq Von Rospach >=< ch...@apple.com >=< GEnie:CHUQ or MAC.BIGOT >=< ALink:CHUQ
    SFWA Nebula Awards administrator =+= SF Book Reviewer, Amazing Stories
           Editor, OtherRealms =+= #include <standard/disclaimer.h>

Card's Article on Homosexuality Charles Parr 8/17/91 10:12 AM
You know, I don't think Card really gives a damn what Queer Nation thinks,
and I really don't care myself. You see, when I read a book, I read the book.
I don't invite the author to dinner/sleep with me/control my mind...I just
read it. If the story is good, I enjoy it.

All of this "subconscious" and "insidious" bigotry pervading his books stuff
is hooey. After all, aren't you intelligent enough to recognise propaganda
when you see it? Aren't you self cotrolled enough to resist indoctrination?

I enjoy Card's books. Prentice Alvin will quite possibly become a classic of
sf, and the Ender cycle already has, the reason these books have gained a
*very* high regard among readers is that the *story* is good and the *writing*
is masterful.

Remember the good old days? When we were more worried about how good a *read*
it was, instead of whether the author has a mindset clone (tm) of our own
little cerebral instruction set? For gods sake people! Imagine just how boring
a Politically Correct novel would be!

You know when I ran into this argument, I swore I would not join the lemming
stampede of posts, but I just can't stand it anymore! Flames welcome, but
keep 'em public: If I've got to spew vitriol, I want to strut whilst I'm
doing it.


***************************************************************

"Bring me my broadsword, and clear understanding..."

               Jethro Tull, The broadsword and the beast.

***************************************************************

Card's Article on Homosexuality Andrew Clayton 8/18/91 3:11 AM
In article <1991Aug17.023258.12509@kithrup.COM>, Sean Eric Fagan writes:

> In article <199fa55b...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au> munnari!labtam!eyrie!prolix!dac writes:
> >
> >However, the issue raised in the original 'letter' that Maddox
> >posted, was that gay society should boycott Card on the basis of
> >his mores.
> >
> >That smacks of censorship.
>
> Proving once again that he {Dac} is an idiot.

Did you read the message that Lazlo wrote?

From: la...@yenta.alb.nm.us (Lazlo Nibble)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf-lovers,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Card's article on homosexuality
Message-ID: <1991Aug16.2...@yenta.alb.nm.us>

... about Censorship and Boycotting?

You're quite quick to label me 'idiot' when the distinction that
is being made, is teetering on the interchangability (or not) of
two words!

The point being made is ensconced in your own text;

> year?  Is it censorship when a publisher discontinues a book or author
> because of lack of profitability?

Discontinuing a book, because a number of people forced the issue
[q.v. lack of profitability] is precisely what the Gay Rights
people are about, in this case.

> The right to free speech does not mean a right to force others
> to carry your speech.  Not that I would expect you to understand
> such distinctions.

Stick your rights in your ear, Fagan.  The issue is not your
beloved bill of rights.  The issue is people against people.  The
issue is "Penalize this man because he said nasty things in
relation to ``people like us''".  The issue is _STOPPING GOOD
WRITING FROM BEING SOLD_.  [Although, apparently, with Xenocide,
'good writing' is somewhat malapropos.]

Some definitions for you perpetually clueless types;

        Censor. Any person how supresses the behaviour of others, usually
        on moral grounds.

        Censorship. A policy or program of censoring.

If you boycott Card, you stop his works being sold.  You modify
his ability to act in a manner that provides entertainment for
many thousands of people.  

That is along the lines of the church castigating Galileo, or
hassling anyone else _for their heretical beliefs_.

Oh, Card is certain wrong in his opinion, but it is his OPINION.

And you know all about venting your spleen in public, don't you,
Fagan.

Chew on your bile before spitting it out. Idiot indeed!

> Sean Eric Fagan  | "What *does* that 33 do?  I have no idea."
                                               ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cluelessness incarnate.  The world stands back and laughs at you.
Do you blame them?

Dac
--
munnari!labtam!eyrie!prolix!dac      David Andrew Clayton.           // _| _  _
  prolix!dac%...@labtam.oz.au      Canberra, Australia           \X/ (_](_](_
        d...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au      I post .
prolix!d...@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au            . . I am.             +61 6 285 2537

Card's Article on Homosexuality Andrew Clayton 8/18/91 2:38 AM
In article <1991Aug16.1...@eff.org>, Mike Godwin writes:

> In article <199fa55b...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au> munnari!labtam!eyrie!prolix!dac writes:
>  
> >Not US society - Mormon society. The two are not the same.
>
> Card wants his views adopted by US society, not "Mormon society,"
> whatever that is.

So, Salt Lake City, Utah, is not a depiction of "Mormon Society"?

Pedant.

> >All of this homophobe speak, and fervant foaming at the mouth
> >over what Card stated some twelve to eighteen months ago, is
> >ridiculous. Maddox has a lot to answer for.
>
> Like what? Alerting SF readers that a favorite of fans is a bigot
> seems okay to me.

Like pulling the same stunt a year later. Maddox and Maroney were
at the fore last time this blew up! Card Against the Homosexuals.
And the posting never seemed to stop.

It happens - Heinlein is one of the perennial favourites for all
out flamewars.  I'm stating that it could be avoided.

But Maddox gets off on stirring.  Perhaps I'm a little bit
jealous?  {SFSF}

> >However, the issue raised in the original 'letter' that Maddox
> >posted, was that gay society should boycott Card on the basis of
> >his mores. That smacks of censorship.
>
> Actually, boycotts smack of boycotts; censorship smacks of censorship.

Pedantry smacks of arseholism. Care to dissect that statement,
Mike?

> >Heck, lets just order that Free Thinking People around the world
> >should look out for Card, and kill him on sight, just like the
> >Muslem's decreed on Rushdie.
>
> Card, of course, thinks that Rushdie was just asking for it.
> He has said that no decent person could have written THE SATANIC
> VERSES.

This I know.

> >[Please, don't speak to me of _fiction_ Vs _Sunstone_, because I
> >truly don't give a hoot. If you want to argue that Card's SF is
> >somehow rendered useless because of Card's religious beliefs,
> >then fire away. Show me proof. Then I'll show you a rabid
> >pedant.]
>
> Card's fiction has its own problems, including oversimple
> characterizations and an inclination to sadism. But it is a straw man
> argument to challenge an effort to link the quality of his fiction, such
> as it is, with his bigotry--no one was making such an effort.

SMACK ON TARGET!

Nobody is equating the QUALITY OF HIS FICTION with the bigotry he
is guilty of in his article; I'm not attempting to defend the
man's point of view, I'm defending his books.  This boycott aims
to stop the printing of Card's books, and that would be bad,
IMHO.

What if the rabble [ooer!] decide to boycott David Brin?  Or
didn't you know that Brin was an Oil Tychoon, aided and abetted
by the corporate multinationals?  [Apologies to Doug Merritt].

Wouldn't you be miffed if your favourite author was the victim of
a boycott?

Would you attempt to defend the authors works.  Possibly by
attempting to remove said works them from the various claims
against the authors point-of-view in other matters?

Or are you comfortable lobbing bricks at stationary targets, and
pointing your finger of blame at the person who started it all,
using that person as an excuse for your continued indolence?

The issue that has been re-aired, has been beaten to death with a
dozen large sticks, ages ago.  Seeing it rear again is more than
slightly annoying.

Seeing someone step in and lob the fragmentation grenade that
caused the problem, fills me with a desire to wreak havoc with
that persons newsfeed.

Not that that matters.  The discussion will run it's course, and
next year, or the year after, Maddox will rebomb the newsgroup
(if it even exists anymore, eh, Kent?), and the whole thing will
erupt again.

Hurrah for free speech.

Now get out of my face.

:-(
Dac
--

Catholicism in SF Will Linden 8/18/91 6:48 AM
In <10212@awdprime.UUCP> cra...@woofer.austin.ibm.com (Craig Becker) writes:
>can think of, can't remember the exact title, something like "The Search
>For St. Aquinn". Don't remember the author, either. Also, I think Ray
 Anthony Boucher, THE QUEST FOR ST. AQUIN. And add his "Balaam".
 Richard Bowker, FORBIDDEN SANCTUARY
 And under present circumstances, I would probably provoke a riot if I
pointed out that Card has interesting extrapolations on Catholicism in
SPEAKER FOR THE DEAD, so I won't.
  Then there are Farmer's stories about Father Carmody-- NIGHT OF LIGHT and
the short pieces collected in (I think) FATHER TO THE STARS.
--
Will Linden                                 MCI: WLINDEN
Internet: wli...@panix.com            Disclaimer? We don't need no
UUCP: ...cmcl2!panix!wlinden           stinking disclaimers!
Compuserve: 72737,2150                
Catholicism in SF Will Linden 8/18/91 6:50 AM
In <1991Aug16.0...@odin.diku.dk> kl...@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) writes:

>I don`t remember the title or author, but I once read a short story
>about a jesuit priest who was also a geologist. It took place in
>the near future. Some aliens had been contacted by radio. These
>aliens only very occasionally sent something interesting (such
>as geological data about their planet) just to keep us listening.
>Most of the time they just send religious propaganda. Our hero
>then starts a project of sending back questions about obscure
>points of the alien religious doctrine. The point of the story
>is that the Society of Jesus has a lot of experience with that
>kind of thing.
 Since this is the second query: This is "The Word to Space" by Poul
Anderson. (Perhaps the original publication was under his "Winston P.
Sanders" pseudonymn.) The priest is Fr. James Moriarty, and there is a
passing mention of his.... "black-sheep" ancestor.

>The plan is a succes, BTW. The infighting over the new and
>unexpected questions weakens the alien priests so much that
>a secular regime takes power.

>Klaus O K
>Support the atheis church, a non-prophet organization
--
Will Linden                                 MCI: WLINDEN
Internet: wli...@panix.com            Disclaimer? We don't need no
UUCP: ...cmcl2!panix!wlinden           stinking disclaimers!
Compuserve: 72737,2150                

Religion in SF (was: Catholicism in SF) Will Linden 8/18/91 6:57 AM
In <19...@balrog.ctron.com> sm...@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:

>I thought the Cathodians were a tad "unbelievable" but I don't know how
>new orders come into being.  When Catholic priests are used in SF, do
>the authors often mention their order?  Do they used established orders
>or new ones, like Stasheff did?
 Father Carmody is a monk of the Order of St. Jairus.
 Barnes has numerous new orders mentioned in SIN OF ORIGIN, as well as
canonizing Dorothy Day as "St. Dorothy of Brooklyn".
 And (Heh, he! here he comes again!) there are the Children of the Mind of
Christ in (Brace yourself!) SPEAKER FOR THE DEAD!
>The religion many people (human and not) believed in in Alan Dean Foster's
>Commonwealth books sounds like Catholicism might have been a part of it.
>I recall someone in one of the books going to some sort of church or this
>religion, it sounded like a real mix, and was relatively light on devine
>revelation.  Has Foster expounded at any length on his future/religious
>ideas?
  There is a bit more in the novel on the Human-Thranx first contact. I see
no resemblance to any "church" in existence, except perhaps Unitarian.


--
Will Linden                                 MCI: WLINDEN
Internet: wli...@panix.com            Disclaimer? We don't need no
UUCP: ...cmcl2!panix!wlinden           stinking disclaimers!
Compuserve: 72737,2150                

Catholicism in SF apm...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au 8/18/91 5:36 AM
In article <19...@balrog.ctron.com>, sm...@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:
> In article <1991Aug15.1...@riacs.edu> dro...@riacs.edu (David Christopher Rogers) writes:
>
 -- Anti-Inquisition rhetoric deleted --

> To try to bring this thread back to *something* resembling SF, what do
> people think of the story (whose name escapes me) with the padre of
> the order of St. Somebody of the Vidicon?  I've been trying to recall
> this story from my library, but I can't remember any more than that.
>
 This is from "The Warlock Unlocked" from Chritopher Stasheff's "Warlock
In Spite of Himself" series. The Saint refered to is St. Vidicon of Cathode,
a Jesuit who uses himself as a resistor so the the Pope can broadcast to the
world. Several of this series refer to the Church, usually in a positive
light. "Unlocked" and "The Warlock Heretical" both deal with the separation
of the Church and State: quite interesting reading, even if the plots are
a little too similar.  

>
> Any other stories dealing with the Catholic Church in the future?  Waddaya
> think of 'em?
>
  The Church shows up in lots of books set in the future. "The Mote
in God's Eye" and "Rendezvous with Rama" spring to mind immediately. I don't
suppose I need offer thoughts on these two.
  There is even a priest (might be an ex-priest now) who's written a couple of
SF novels, with the Church at the centre. The only one I've actually read
involved a priest playing a computer fantasy game that became real and the
touble he had as "God" getting everything to work out right (OK, not really
about the Church, but worthwhile reading). I think his name is Andrew Greerly,
or something like that.

Religion in SF (was: Catholicism in SF) Michael J. Hennebry 8/18/91 12:40 PM
In article <1991Aug18....@panix.com> wli...@panix.com (Will Linden) writes:
>  There is a bit more in the novel on the Human-Thranx first contact. I see
>no resemblance to any "church" in existence, except perhaps Unitarian.

Nor Crystal Tears.

BTW in what sense is the humanx united church a church?

--
Mike   henn...@plains.NoDak.edu
"My biorythms are very sensitive to electricity." -- Ms. Ginsberg

Card's Article on Homosexuality Sean Eric Fagan 8/18/91 12:39 PM
In article <19a29554...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au> munnari!labtam!eyrie!prolix!dac writes:
>You're quite quick to label me 'idiot' when the distinction that
>is being made, is teetering on the interchangability (or not) of
>two words!

Let me get this straight.

You want to force people to buy books by an author they do not like.

You do not want them to be able to talk to other people, convincing them
not to buy his books.

How is this censorship?

Please explain this.  Please explain how everyone else seems to realize that
it is merely excercising rights guaranteed in most countries (the right to
buy what you want to buy, and to not buy what you do not wish to buy).

And, yes, you are an idiot.  And an ass as well.

--

Sean Eric Fagan  | "What *does* that 33 do?  I have no idea."
sef@kithrup.COM  |           -- Chris Torek
-----------------+              (to...@ee.lbl.gov)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.

Nazis (was Re: Card's Article on Homosexuality J Eric Townsend 8/18/91 1:39 PM

Who was it that said: "Whenver somebody starts mentioning Nazis on
USENET, you know the discussion has gone on too long."?  (Or something
to that effect.)

--
J. Eric Townsend - j...@uh.edu - Systems Wrangler, UH Dept of Mathematics
vox: (713) 749-2126         Skate UNIX! (curb fault: skater dumped)
'91 CB750, DoD# 0378, TMRA# 27834
PowerGlove mailing list: glove-lis...@karazm.math.uh.edu

Card's Article on Homosexuality Mike Godwin 8/18/91 1:34 PM
In article <19a28da8...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au> munnari!labtam!eyrie!prolix!dac writes:

>So, Salt Lake City, Utah, is not a depiction of "Mormon Society"?

I don't think a city is ever a "depiction" of anything. Cities just
are.

Moreover, there's more to Salt Lake City than the Mormon Tabernacle.
Trust me on this.

>Pedant.

Are you so irritated that I refuse to be imprecise?

>Like pulling the same stunt a year later. Maddox and Maroney were
>at the fore last time this blew up! Card Against the Homosexuals.

Card *is* against the homosexuals, and against those of us who
believe that a pluralistic society should not suppress them.

>And the posting never seemed to stop.

That is because so many Card fans have difficulty with moral issues.

>It happens - Heinlein is one of the perennial favourites for all
>out flamewars.  I'm stating that it could be avoided.

Not in this society. We debate public issues all the time.

>> Actually, boycotts smack of boycotts; censorship smacks of censorship.
>
>Pedantry smacks of arseholism. Care to dissect that statement,
>Mike?

I think you reserve the term "pedant" for those who insist on thinking and
writing more precisely than you. In this context, it can only be a
compliment.

>Nobody is equating the QUALITY OF HIS FICTION with the bigotry he
>is guilty of in his article; I'm not attempting to defend the
>man's point of view, I'm defending his books.  This boycott aims
>to stop the printing of Card's books, and that would be bad,
>IMHO.

I must have missed the declared aim of the boycotters "to stop
the printing of Card's books." Can you cite your source on this?

>What if the rabble [ooer!] decide to boycott David Brin?  Or
>didn't you know that Brin was an Oil Tychoon, aided and abetted
>by the corporate multinationals?  [Apologies to Doug Merritt].

I'm no big fan of Brin's. But boycotts are usually aimed at raising
consciousness and changing people's minds. Since Brin himself, to
judge from EARTH, thinks this is a good idea, it seems unlikely that
would oppose the idea of boycotts in principle, or equate them with
censorship.

>Wouldn't you be miffed if your favourite author was the victim of
>a boycott?

Sure, but I wouldn't call it censorship. After all, nothing would
prevent my from buying my favorite author's books.

>Would you attempt to defend the authors works.

Maybe. It would depend on the circumstances of the boycott.

> Possibly by
>attempting to remove said works them from the various claims
>against the authors point-of-view in other matters?

I read this sentence out loud and still couldn't parse it. Sorry.

>Or are you comfortable lobbing bricks at stationary targets, and
>pointing your finger of blame at the person who started it all,
>using that person as an excuse for your continued indolence?

Bricks? Indolence? I am at a loss to figure out what you are referring
to here.

>Seeing someone step in and lob the fragmentation grenade that
>caused the problem, fills me with a desire to wreak havoc with
>that persons newsfeed.

Gosh, that sounds a little more "arseholey" than "pedantry."
In my opinion, of course.

>Hurrah for free speech.

Free speech is never comfortable, Dac. That's why it needs special
protection.


--Mike

--
Mike Godwin,       |        "Someday, some way."
mnem...@eff.org   |
(617) 864-1550     |          --Marshall Crenshaw
EFF, Cambridge, MA |

Catholicism in SF Randi Pollard 8/17/91 8:46 AM
In article <19...@balrog.ctron.com> sm...@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:
>To try to bring this thread back to *something* resembling SF, what do
>people think of the story (whose name escapes me) with the padre of
>the order of St. Somebody of the Vidicon?  I've been trying to recall
>this story from my library, but I can't remember any more than that.

Isn't this the one where the monk (as a representative of the church) is
sent to this planent because people are seeing visions etc?  If it isn't
the same then this is another interesting 'meshing' of
Church/religion-SF-Fantasy,  it has all three and I think it may have
been a trilogy or maybe larger set.  Can't remember the names.

>Any other stories dealing with the Catholic Church in the future?  Waddaya
>think of 'em?

More interesting books are the Warlock books by Christopher Stasheff.
These books deal with magic, time travel, science and the Church.  I have
all the books in a trilogy (book club editions) and really enjoyed them.

And then, there is Kurtz.  Who write reasonably accurate descriptions of
Church activities from Blessings to Excommunications, intermixed with
magic and other fun stuff.  Good Books.
>
--
GONPHURCOUGHIE  
************************************************************************
*  Randi Pollard        e-mail to:  sporty!ra...@ursa-major.spdcc.com  *
*                              or   randi@sporty.uucp                  *
*  Columbus, OH                or   ra...@sporty.col.oh.us             *
*  Data Phone....614-863-0374       Voice Phone....614-863-4801        *
*                    B3 t w- dc- g k+ s m e+ p                         *
************************************************************************

Catholicism in SF Randi Pollard 8/17/91 9:18 AM
In article <1991Aug17....@sporty.col.oh.us> ra...@sporty.col.oh.us (Randi Pollard) writes:
>In article <19...@balrog.ctron.com> sm...@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:
>>To try to bring this thread back to *something* resembling SF, what do
>>people think of the story (whose name escapes me) with the padre of
>>the order of St. Somebody of the Vidicon?  I've been trying to recall
>>this story from my library, but I can't remember any more than that.
>
>Isn't this the one where the monk (as a representative of the church) is
>sent to this planent because people are seeing visions etc?  If it isn't
>the same then this is another interesting 'meshing' of
>Church/religion-SF-Fantasy,  it has all three and I think it may have
>been a trilogy or maybe larger set.  Can't remember the names.

Upon reading further in the newsgroup, I realize that I have made an OOPS
;-{)  
The description above is accurate but not the book in question.  >

Religion in SF (was: Catholicism in SF) Sean Eric Fagan 8/18/91 4:20 PM
In article <11...@plains.NoDak.edu> henn...@plains.NoDak.edu (Michael J. Hennebry) writes:
>BTW in what sense is the humanx united church a church?

The Church of the Indifferent Agnostic on the human side united with some
Thranx church (I forget what it was called, and I could be wrong about the
CotIA, of course).

A church is anything that wants to call itself a church; anything else
starts having the state define what is an acceptable religion, which is
something I would rather not see, thank you.

--
Sean Eric Fagan  | "What *does* that 33 do?  I have no idea."
sef@kithrup.COM  |           -- Chris Torek
-----------------+              (to...@ee.lbl.gov)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.

Nazis (was Re: Card's Article on Homosexuality Mike Godwin 8/18/91 2:50 PM
In article <1991Aug18....@menudo.uh.edu> j...@navier.math.uh.edu (J Eric Townsend) writes:
>
>Who was it that said: "Whenver somebody starts mentioning Nazis on
>USENET, you know the discussion has gone on too long."?  (Or something
>to that effect.)

I said it.

Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies: As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the
probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

--Mike

--
Mike Godwin,       |        "Someday, some way."
mnem...@eff.org   |
(617) 864-1550     |          --Marshall Crenshaw
EFF, Cambridge, MA |

Catholicism in SF djh...@garnet.berkeley.edu 8/18/91 7:47 PM
In article <1991Aug18.2...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> apm...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>  There is even a priest (might be an ex-priest now) who's written a couple of
>SF novels, with the Church at the centre. The only one I've actually read
>involved a priest playing a computer fantasy game that became real and the
>touble he had as "God" getting everything to work out right (OK, not really
>about the Church, but worthwhile reading). I think his name is Andrew Greerly,
>or something like that.

Andrew Greeley, who is still a priest so far as I know.  He used to write
real neat essays in the religion column of the local paper (syndicated
from somewhere or other).  Now he writes novels.  He has written one
fantasy and one sf to my knowledge, the others are what we can loosely
call mainstream.  They sell extremely well: they contain your basic
mainstream novel's share of sex and violence, and I suppose there are
those who go for S&V and think it's even more exciting if written by
a priest.... even though he always manages to come out on the side of
the good guys in the end, by pointing out how misuse of S&V is not good
for you.  He makes quite a bundle off these things, all of which he donates
to worthy causes.

Nazis (was Re: Card's Article on Homosexuality Subrata Sircar 8/18/91 7:30 PM
mnem...@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies: As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the
>probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Sircar's Corollary:  If the Usenet discussion touches on homosexuality or
Heinlein, Nazis or Hitler are mentioned within three days.  [Your propagation
may vary.]

                                Another one for the History of the USENET,

--
Subrata Sircar | sksi...@phoenix.princeton.edu |Prophet& SPAMIT Charter Member
        I don't speak for Princeton, and they don't speak for me.
        "Everyone is *NOT* entitled to his or her opinion.
         Everyone is entitled to an *INFORMED* opinion." -- Harlan Ellison

Catholicism in SF Techno 8/19/91 9:40 AM
Well, and then there's Alan Dean Foster's Homanx Commonwealth universe.
In it the Church has had to adopt to intelligent insects but still tries
to retain it's original principles.
Interesting stuff, but then Foster always is. Highly recommended.

                               Techno

--
| tec...@zelator.in-berlin.de ||| Please do not e-mail from outside Germany ! |
| tec...@lime.in-berlin.de   / | \ Hardcore ST user !  ====================== |
| Nothing that's real is ever for free, you just have to pay for it sometime. |
|                                        (Al Stewart)                         |

Card's Article on Homosexuality Joachim Schrod 8/19/91 7:15 AM
In article <1991Aug18.193920.20309@kithrup.COM>, sef@kithrup.COM
(Sean Eric Fagan) writes:

> In article <19a29554...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au> munnari!labtam!eyrie!prolix!dac writes:
> >You're quite quick to label me 'idiot' when the distinction that
> >is being made, is teetering on the interchangability (or not) of
> >two words!
>
> Let me get this straight.
>
> You want to force people to buy books by an author they do not like.

Perhaps he should start with himself and should buy all books of
Anthony/Heinlein/Asimov/...   Otherwise he censors them!!!! Ugly,
isn't it?

> And, yes, you are an idiot.  And an ass as well.

No, just illogical and obviously unable to catch important distinctions.

--
Joachim
Darmstadt, Germany
<sch...@iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.de>

Card's Article on Homosexuality C. Roald. 8/19/91 7:03 AM
rx...@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (John Mazzocchi) writes:
> hob...@ac.dal.ca (C. Roald.) writes:
>
>>The point is, on Card's terms, he's not advocating tyranny.  He wants a
>>democracy with freedom to go where he likes, work as he wishes, and live
>>by God's Laws. Neither democracy nor tyranny is absolute--our democracy
>>forbids lots of things, like murder, theft and rape. He wants to forbid
>>a few more things, like homosexuality.
>
>>I don't think he should be allowed to do so, on the basis of his
>>concessions-to-the-community argument. But that doesn't make his
>>argument contradictory.
>
> That either (a) you equate murder, theft and rape with homosexuality,
>             (b) Card equates "       "    "    "    "        "      , or
>             (c) you think that it's acceptable that Card equates.....etc.
>
> is a scary thought from hell (my hell, otherwise known as Card's heaven).
>
> I find it contradictory in the extreme. He wants to forbid a few more things?
> Hell, why not? How's he feel about smokers? or accountants? Maybe he'd like
> to get rid of some telephone sanitisers - everyone *knows* they're evil.

First, I didn't "equate" homosexuality to anything. I have no idea what
Card would say about (b), but you can be assured I don't think (a) or (c).
I don't agree at all with Card on this one. Homosexuality should not be
illegal. Should I say it again?

My point was that you can advocate forbidding something (say, jacking
off in movie theatres) without assaulting the principle of democracy.
The purpose of democracy is, to some degree, to allow The People to
forbid what they like. (Homosexuality should not be illegal.)

His argument is contradictory in that he says, violence is unacceptable,
and then advocates enforcing a law.  But you seem to be saying that
condemning homosexuality is somehow contradictory in itself. That, I
don't track. (Homosexuality should not be illegal.)

    Roald.

--
Many are cold, but few are frozen.

Catholicism in SF C. Roald. 8/19/91 7:06 AM
>sm...@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:
>> Any other stories dealing with the Catholic Church in the future?  Waddaya
>> think of 'em?

There are also endless versions of the Second Coming, of course.

Has anybody mentioned Ellison's "The Deathbird"?

   Roald.

Card's Article on Homosexuality Andrew Clayton 8/19/91 5:39 AM
In article <1991Aug18.193920.20309@kithrup.COM>, Sean Eric Fagan writes:

> In article <19a29554...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au> munnari!labtam!eyrie!prolix!dac writes:
> >You're quite quick to label me 'idiot' when the distinction that
> >is being made, is teetering on the interchangability (or not) of
> >two words!
>
> Let me get this straight.
>
> You want to force people to buy books by an author they do not like.

Incorrect. And disingenious.

The objection I have to a boycott of an author based upon his
religious beliefs and his statement of opinion, is that it is a
mindless, puerile activity.  An activity that is just as wrong as
the original transgression made by the author in question.

> You do not want them to be able to talk to other people, convincing them
> not to buy his books.

I don't want them to stop Card from writing SF.  And if the
market is significantly affected by small minded people with an
axe to grind, then Card may well stop writing.  I think that
would be a loss, and I equate that to being tantamount to
censorship; even if it isn't censorsious in the truest fashion;
the word is close enough, for my liking.

What am I meant to be, Merriam Webster Inc.?

> How is this censorship?

Do you talk out loud when you read, or merely move your lips?

READ WHAT I'VE WRITTEN instead of presenting yourself as an
obnoxious cretin.

Better still, go back to Dick and Jane books.  They won't have
any rape scenes, and I believe even the most militant homosexual
isn't boycotting those!  [Although some nutter religious sect
prolly is; let's be careful to be politically correct at all
times out there, eh!  PAH!  Think for yourself for a change, you
sheep!]

> Please explain this.  Please explain how everyone else seems to
> realize that it is merely excercising rights guaranteed in most
> countries (the right to buy what you want to buy, and to not buy
> what you do not wish to buy).

Sure.  Buy what you want to buy.  Stop chopping down forests for
books.  When are you going to be a vocal proponent of the
luddites, and rise up to smash the evil machines?

Learn to read. Learn to think. Learn to make your own mind up.

> And, yes, you are an idiot.  And an ass as well.

Oh, I care a whole heap for your opinion, Sean. A whole heap.

Tell me about rape scenes again, and your nightmares, and then
ask me if I care.

If you ask nicely enough, I might even tell you. Graphically.

Dac
--
munnari!labtam!eyrie!prolix!dac      David Andrew Clayton.           // _| _  _
  prolix!dac%...@labtam.oz.au      Canberra, Australia           \X/ (_](_](_
        d...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au      I post .
prolix!d...@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au            . . I am.             +61 6 285 2537

Card's Article on Homosexuality Andrew Clayton 8/19/91 5:53 AM
In article <1991Aug18.2...@eff.org>, Mike Godwin writes:

> In article <19a28da8...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au> munnari!labtam!eyrie!prolix!dac writes:
>
> >So, Salt Lake City, Utah, is not a depiction of "Mormon Society"?
>
> I don't think a city is ever a "depiction" of anything. Cities just
> are.
>
> Moreover, there's more to Salt Lake City than the Mormon Tabernacle.
> Trust me on this.
>
> >Pedant.
>
> Are you so irritated that I refuse to be imprecise?

Mike, you've always been so terribly terribly cruel.  It is
almost pointless to continue this discussion, because I don't
have the time or inclination (or maybe even ability) to be able
to construct invunerable sentences.

Waffling on about why pedants are pedantic could waste a few
megabytes, Mike, but really, it's not going to gain me anything,
and you're already far too comfortable with your easy wins.

Sigh.

> >And the posting never seemed to stop.
>
> That is because so many Card fans have difficulty with moral issues.

And putting two words together.  Go on.  Tell me again.

> >out flamewars.  I'm stating that it could be avoided.
>
> Not in this society. We debate public issues all the time.

Debate?  There is no debate going on here, Mike.  Calumny,
prejudice, grinding_of_axes.  A debate has rules, points awarded,
facts.  Not overly stilted puffery and obnoxious pedantry for the
sake of it.

Or wasn't it you who countered my statement of;

> >So, Salt Lake City, Utah, is not a depiction of "Mormon Society"?

With this asininity;


 
> I don't think a city is ever a "depiction" of anything. Cities just
> are.

Show me the grace and skill involved with that retort, Mike.

> >> Actually, boycotts smack of boycotts; censorship smacks of censorship.
> >
> >Pedantry smacks of arseholism. Care to dissect that statement,
> >Mike?
>
> I think you reserve the term "pedant" for those who insist on thinking and
> writing more precisely than you. In this context, it can only be a
> compliment.

Take it as a compliment. Use it as an enema if you think it will
make you happy.

> >Nobody is equating the QUALITY OF HIS FICTION with the bigotry he
> >is guilty of in his article; I'm not attempting to defend the
> >man's point of view, I'm defending his books.  This boycott aims
> >to stop the printing of Card's books, and that would be bad,
> >IMHO.
>
> I must have missed the declared aim of the boycotters "to stop
> the printing of Card's books." Can you cite your source on this?

I must have missed the part where you said "I am now going to be
reasonable about this." I guess I'll just have to go with my
feelings, Mike, and leave you to your empty 'victory'.  Enjoy.

> >Wouldn't you be miffed if your favourite author was the victim of
> >a boycott?
>
> Sure, but I wouldn't call it censorship. After all, nothing would
> prevent my from buying my favorite author's books.

Excepting of course if they weren't published.  But that's too
obvious, isn't it, Mike.  Too obvious by half.  

> > Possibly by
> >attempting to remove said works them from the various claims
> >against the authors point-of-view in other matters?
>
> I read this sentence out loud and still couldn't parse it. Sorry.

I had difficulty too ... :-(.

It was meant to read as follows:

{>> Would you attempt to defend the authors works.  Possibly by
{>> attempting to remove said works, from the various claims


{>> against the authors point-of-view in other matters?

But the point is already lost in history. It's time has gone.

> >Or are you comfortable lobbing bricks at stationary targets, and
> >pointing your finger of blame at the person who started it all,
> >using that person as an excuse for your continued indolence?
>
> Bricks? Indolence? I am at a loss to figure out what you are referring
> to here.

Indolence as in you dislike to expend effort; you would rather
pick single words out of an argument, and then go to town on the
arguer, rather than the argument. Of course, I knowingly use the
colloquialism 'go to town', watching the pedant in you rise up,
and gloat knowingly.

I guess if you like playing that game, that your style would be
rather rewarding.  Congratulations, Mike.

> >Hurrah for free speech.
>
> Free speech is never comfortable, Dac. That's why it needs special
> protection.

By *special* people like you.  Ones who excel at picking apart
the various idle concoctions from others.  Ones who would prefer
that we speak in clear terms that cannot possibly be
misconstrued.

I tip my hat to your skill at being an obnoxious twat, Mike.

> --Mike

Indeed.

Dac
--
p.s. I don't own a hat. :-)

munnari!labtam!eyrie!prolix!dac      David Andrew Clayton.           // _| _  _
  prolix!dac%...@labtam.oz.au      Canberra, Australia           \X/ (_](_](_
        d...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au      I post .
prolix!d...@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au            . . I am.             +61 6 285 2537

Card's Article on Homosexuality C. Roald. 8/19/91 7:38 AM
kl...@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) writes:

> WARNING: this has nothing to do with SF
Of course it does.  Comparative religions is an old and respective
tradition in SF; consider STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND, etc.

> hob...@ac.dal.ca (C. Roald.) writes:
>>Well, no. His argument is that God forbids homosexuality, and commands
>>stable heterosexual marriage for the good of the community. QED.
>> ...
>>But what we can't do is prove that Card's God does not exist, and did
>>not order intolerance of homosexuality. His position may be irrational,
>>but so is ours, because THERE IS NO PROOF.

> I don`t buy it. I can not prove that there is not some god
> who has created us all, and who has the power to do whatever
> he wants, but even if that is so, I reserve for myself the right
> to determine what I consider good and evil. The god described
> in the bible is clearly evil. If he exists, thwarting him would
> be stupid, especially if hell is a reality. This just makes him
> a very, very powerful tyrant.

Hmm. Well said. The point is yours.

> I would just say: "If God said that, he was wrong".

This does require a certain awesome arrogance...

> Klaus O K
> Support the atheist church, a non-prophet organization

     Roald.

Card's Article on Homosexuality gordon e. banks 8/19/91 8:25 AM
In article <56...@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach -- Only here for the beer) writes:
>
>What Scott proposed, however, was that the Mormon doctrine on gays be
>installed into the legal hierarchy of the country and used to enforce the
>Mormon doctrine. In fact, this paragraph is self-contradictory, in that is
>both says the laws should not be indiscriminately used, but should only be
>used by those who make themselves a public target (what IS that if not a
>discriminatory use?)
>

Chuq, it might be appropriate here to point out that

1) There is no Mormon doctrine that homosexuality should be illegal.

2) Card does not speak for all Mormons or for the Church.

What he said was his own opinion.  No one has taken a poll of Mormons
to see what percentage agree with his views.  It wouldn't surprise
me if a majority did, but to assume that almost all would is this
same sort of stereotype-thinking common to racism, anti-semitism,
and all other tendancies to lump people into groups and then condemn them.
The Church doctrine is that sex should only take place between
married couples (and no provisions are made for both partners being of
the same sex).  This is not a stricture peculiar to Mormons, but is
standard among Catholics, Jews, Muslims, etc.  There are members of
all those religions that dissent from the standard view, as there
are among Mormons.  In fact, Card's essay was denounced by most
of the responding letters to the editor of Sunstone where it was
published.  As far as homosexuals in the church, it should also
be pointed out that there have been several instances of Mormon homosexuals
who have "come out" as far as revealing their sexual preferences
and have not been relieved of their church positions, as long as
they remain celibate.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP        | "It ain't what you don't know.
g...@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu     |  It's what you know that ain't so"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Card's Article on Homosexuality Mike Godwin 8/19/91 9:30 AM
In article <19a40cf0...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au> munnari!labtam!eyrie!prolix!dac writes:

>Mike, you've always been so terribly terribly cruel.

Perhaps, although I'm unclear about how you arrived at this decision.
Some people think it is cruel to insist on a reasonable amount of
precision and clear thinking on the Net. I don't, however.

>Waffling on about why pedants are pedantic could waste a few
>megabytes, Mike, but really, it's not going to gain me anything,
>and you're already far too comfortable with your easy wins.

Wins? Is "winning" your concern here? Why? Certainly, if winning
arguments were all that mattered to me, I could find more satisfying
targets than you--the least bit of challenge, and your postings collapse
into collections of puerile insults.

>> That is because so many Card fans have difficulty with moral issues.
>
>And putting two words together.  Go on.  Tell me again.

Oh, no, they're good at generating text. But they seem to have
trouble with such things as the difference between a boycott and
censorship. I didn't create this trouble--I'm just remarking on it.

I think that a desire for moral simplicity infects most Card fans.
There are some exceptions to this trend, but they are notable for
being exceptions.

>A debate has rules, points awarded,
>facts.  Not overly stilted puffery and obnoxious pedantry for the
>sake of it.

I can't help thinking that "pedantry," as you use it, is a compliment.
"Pedant" is a word some people resort to when they're unable to keep up.

>> I don't think a city is ever a "depiction" of anything. Cities just
>> are.
>
>Show me the grace and skill involved with that retort, Mike.

Well, I didn't mean for those sentences to be examples of "grace and
skill." This is not a bullfight, after all. But pointing out the
misuse (if that's what it was) of "depiction" highlights a certain
confusion of map and territory, which compounded the mistake of supposing
that Salt Lake City is a "Mormon society."

>Take it as a compliment. Use it as an enema if you think it will
>make you happy.

With friends like you, who needs enemas?

>I must have missed the part where you said "I am now going to be
>reasonable about this." I guess I'll just have to go with my
>feelings, Mike, and leave you to your empty 'victory'.  Enjoy.

I don't think I've posted anything unreasonable.

>Excepting of course if they weren't published.  But that's too
>obvious, isn't it, Mike.  Too obvious by half.  

Is the goal of this boycott to prevent Card from being published?
I missed that bit. Maybe Tom can send me a copy of the original QN
article, which I missed, since I don't normally read r.a.sf-lovers
these days.

>Indolence as in you dislike to expend effort; you would rather
>pick single words out of an argument, and then go to town on the
>arguer, rather than the argument.

I believe that the argument, in this case, actually concerns
the use of words, such as "boycott" and "censorship." My postings
regarding those words have been as substantive as anything you've written
here.

>Of course, I knowingly use the
>colloquialism 'go to town', watching the pedant in you rise up,
>and gloat knowingly.

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else; I have never opposed the
use of colloquialisms. The language would be poorer without them.

>> Free speech is never comfortable, Dac. That's why it needs special
>> protection.
>
>By *special* people like you.  Ones who excel at picking apart
>the various idle concoctions from others.  Ones who would prefer
>that we speak in clear terms that cannot possibly be
>misconstrued.

There are no terms that are invulnerable to misconstruction,
unfortunately. But one can avoid misusing "boycott" and "censorship"
(and the concepts that underly those words) without any great mental
effort.

>I tip my hat to your skill at being an obnoxious twat, Mike.

This seems inconsistent: first you claim there is no skill in
what I wrote. Then you tip your hat to it. Ah, well. I shouldn't
expect better.

You seem to think I'm out to get you. This seems strange to me, since I
don't recall ever having read anything by you before now. Is there some
reason you think I should have any great feelings about you, one way or
the other? Even your insults aren't of the sort that really get me
going--a little too weak.


--Mike

--
Mike Godwin,       |        "Someday, some way."
mnem...@eff.org   |
(617) 864-1550     |          --Marshall Crenshaw
EFF, Cambridge, MA |

Card's Article on Homosexuality C. Roald. 8/19/91 10:39 AM
mnem...@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
> munnari!labtam!eyrie!prolix!dac writes:

>>man's point of view, I'm defending his books.  This boycott aims
>>to stop the printing of Card's books, and that would be bad,
>>IMHO.
>
> I must have missed the declared aim of the boycotters "to stop
> the printing of Card's books." Can you cite your source on this?

Perhaps I'm being oversimple, but what other purpose is a boycott likely
to have, other than stopping distribution of whatever-it-is the
boycotters find objectionable?


>
>>What if the rabble [ooer!] decide to boycott David Brin?  Or
>>didn't you know that Brin was an Oil Tychoon, aided and abetted
>>by the corporate multinationals?  [Apologies to Doug Merritt].
>
> I'm no big fan of Brin's. But boycotts are usually aimed at raising
> consciousness and changing people's minds. Since Brin himself, to
> judge from EARTH, thinks this is a good idea, it seems unlikely that
> would oppose the idea of boycotts in principle, or equate them with
> censorship.

I personally have not (yet) read anything of David Brin, but I hope he would
not advocate boycotts of opposing literature. Boycotts and censorship
and all their ilk are tools of ignorance--Don't read that. It has nasty
ideas we don't want you to be corrupted by. We know better than you do.
Be a good sheep and do as we say.  

What did Orwell call it: "wrongthink", or something like that?

I certainly do condemn boycotts in principle, in the sense of organised
efforts to convince people not to read something. (Anything else is just
an individual decision to buy or not to buy.)

   Roald.

Card's Article on Homosexuality Allen Wessels 8/19/91 12:09 PM
In article <19a40cf0...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au> munnari!labtam!eyrie!prolix!dac writes:

>Mike, you've always been so terribly terribly cruel.  It is
>almost pointless to continue this discussion, because I don't
>have the time or inclination (or maybe even ability) to be able
>to construct invunerable sentences.

Mike is well-equipped to defend himself, but I just HAD to throw in a couple
of observations.  For one thing, you don't have to construct invulnerable
sentences.  It is those wide-open, unqualified claims that will get you every
time.

>Debate?  There is no debate going on here, Mike.  Calumny,
>prejudice, grinding_of_axes.  A debate has rules, points awarded,
>facts.  Not overly stilted puffery and obnoxious pedantry for the
>sake of it.

Both sides have responsibilities in a debate, and while I like to see
constructive cooperation employed, I'd much rather see those who have a hard
time expressing themselves shot down in flames rather than propped up by
the crutch of the Principle of Charity

>Or wasn't it you who countered my statement of;
>
>> >So, Salt Lake City, Utah, is not a depiction of "Mormon Society"?
>
>With this asininity;
>
>> I don't think a city is ever a "depiction" of anything. Cities just
>> are.
>
>Show me the grace and skill involved with that retort, Mike.

Hmm.  I've been to Salt Lake City.  I wandered around the Tabernacle and the
local shops and even spoke with a few "locals".  SLC is no depiction of
"Mormon Society".  (It may be an inaccurate reflection of some parts of
the Mormon way of life.)

The skill and grace of the retort are apparent in the clarity of it's truth.
The retort would probably have appeared more so if it's object were more
substantial.  Are you berating Mike for overkill?

>Excepting of course if they weren't published.  But that's too
>obvious, isn't it, Mike.  Too obvious by half.  

Uh, so you reject the idea of a free market?  People MUST buy simply on the
basis of whether the product is functional?  An author's previous work is a
necessary component of judging future work.  

>Indolence as in you dislike to expend effort; you would rather
>pick single words out of an argument, and then go to town on the
>arguer, rather than the argument. Of course, I knowingly use the
>colloquialism 'go to town', watching the pedant in you rise up,
>and gloat knowingly.

Why do you get to choose who expends the effort?  You've already pointed out
that you can't be bothered to "tighten up" your posts.  Why do you expect
effort when you aren't willing to spend it?

>By *special* people like you.  Ones who excel at picking apart
>the various idle concoctions from others.  Ones who would prefer
>that we speak in clear terms that cannot possibly be
>misconstrued.

You've said it again.  "Idle."  How come you get to "shoot from the hip" with
what is basically a "shotgun"?  You respond from impulse, use fairly fuzzy
rhetoric, and don't review your posts (from what I've read here.)

Shoot, in the sentence of yours that Mike couldn't (nor I) parse, your intent
could barely be construed, not to mention the content.

About all I can winnow out of your posts is that you're for the evalution of
works on their own merits, and I'm not even sure if that is really what you
intend given the various points you raise.

Nazis (was Re: Card's Article on Homosexuality James Davis Nicoll 8/19/91 12:31 PM
In article <1991Aug18.2...@eff.org> mnem...@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1991Aug18....@menudo.uh.edu> j...@navier.math.uh.edu (J Eric Townsend) writes:
>>
>>Who was it that said: "Whenver somebody starts mentioning Nazis on
>>USENET, you know the discussion has gone on too long."?  (Or something
>>to that effect.)
>
>I said it.
>
>Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies: As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the
>probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

        Odds increase greatly if the discussion concerns a group of people
who are, are seen as, or see themselves as oppressed (in the past, present
or future tense). Why use the Nazis?

        1: Everyone's heard of them. Compare someone to Cromwell or
                what's her name from Madagascar and people won't
                get the point.

        2: Nazi in current usage is just another word for 'really
                naughty'. It's also easy to spell. The original
                meaning is lost, alas, meaning other terms need
                to used to label the National Socialists. It's
                'facsist' or 'Politically Correct'; a phrase that
                is used mostly as a different way of saying 'I
                disagree with your view, but can't back up my side
                of the argument, so I'm going to call you unpleasant
                names instead.' There is a very high probablity that
                postings including the words 'nazi' 'fascist' or 'PC'
                will be charmingly content free, much like Mulroney's
                speech last week (Ob Canadian Content). Oh, for the days
                when 'Fascist' 'nazi', 'PC' and terms like them still
                had meaning beyond 'bad politics'.
                                                                
                                                                James Nicoll

Card's Article on Homosexuality James Davis Nicoll 8/19/91 1:20 PM
In article <1991Aug19....@ac.dal.ca> hob...@ac.dal.ca (C. Roald.) writes:
>mnem...@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>> munnari!labtam!eyrie!prolix!dac writes:
>
>>>man's point of view, I'm defending his books.  This boycott aims
>>>to stop the printing of Card's books, and that would be bad,
>>>IMHO.
>>
>> I must have missed the declared aim of the boycotters "to stop
>> the printing of Card's books." Can you cite your source on this?
>
>Perhaps I'm being oversimple, but what other purpose is a boycott likely
>to have, other than stopping distribution of whatever-it-is the
>boycotters find objectionable?

        I know I'm going to regret this.

        A boycott will stop the people participating in the boycott
from having spent money on a book, part of whose profits would go to
a person the buyer(s) for whatever reason do not want to give money to.
Since the boycott is (as far as I know) at the consumer level, the first
effects will be the sales of the books will be lower than they might have
been. The book will still have been shipped to the bookstores, but more
will have been returned. The boycott probably won't affect the initial
distribution, but might affect the net distribution.

        The simple version is: if you buy a book, odds are good some of the
money will go to the author. If you don't like the author and don't want to
give him money, not buying the book denies him your money.

        Note the above is not a discussion of whether or not the author's
life outside of the his books should be cause not to buy his books.

        Much deleted

>What did Orwell call it: "wrongthink", or something like that?

        'Thoughtcrime.' Hmmm. Must be a prole or thoughtcriminal not
to know that.

>I certainly do condemn boycotts in principle, in the sense of organised
>efforts to convince people not to read something. (Anything else is just
>an individual decision to buy or not to buy.)

        How do you feel about negative reviews? There's someone trying
to convince many people that a book isn't worth getting and using mass
media to do so.

Card's Article on Homosexuality Mike Godwin 8/19/91 12:53 PM
In article <1991Aug19....@ac.dal.ca> hob...@ac.dal.ca (C. Roald.) writes:

>Perhaps I'm being oversimple, but what other purpose is a boycott likely
>to have, other than stopping distribution of whatever-it-is the
>boycotters find objectionable?

Perhaps enlightenment.

As I say below:

>> I'm no big fan of Brin's. But boycotts are usually aimed at raising
>> consciousness and changing people's minds.

You misread me in the following paragraph:

>> Since Brin himself, to
>> judge from EARTH, thinks this is a good idea, it seems unlikely that
>> would oppose the idea of boycotts in principle, or equate them with
>> censorship.
>
>I personally have not (yet) read anything of David Brin, but I hope he would
>not advocate boycotts of opposing literature.

I was saying that Brin thinks raising consciousness is a good idea, not
that he thinks boycotts are, although perhaps he does.

>Boycotts and censorship
>and all their ilk are tools of ignorance--Don't read that. It has nasty
>ideas we don't want you to be corrupted by. We know better than you do.
>Be a good sheep and do as we say.  

Here is the source of your confusion: you think boycotts are organized
efforts to prevent reading. What they are, of course, are organized
efforts to prevent *buying*--buying Card's books, in this case.

>I certainly do condemn boycotts in principle, in the sense of organised
>efforts to convince people not to read something. (Anything else is just
>an individual decision to buy or not to buy.)

Your parenthetical sentence hits the mark on boycotts. The first sentence,
however, confuses boycotts with something else. Boycotts are about buying,
not about reading.


--Mike

--
Mike Godwin,       |        "Someday, some way."
mnem...@eff.org   |
(617) 864-1550     |          --Marshall Crenshaw
EFF, Cambridge, MA |

Card's Article on Homosexuality Matt Austern 8/19/91 6:17 PM
In article <7099@autodesk.COM> owen@Autodesk.COM (D. Owen Rowley) writes:

> Cards diatribe is upsetting in that it shows that otherwise
> intelligent people can be incredibly small minded when their vision
> is clouded by religious dogma and its effects.

Yes, that is one of the most upsetting things about it, although I
would have said "otherwise empathetic."  I would never have called
myself a fan of Card's, but I at least would have thought from some of
his books that he had more compassion than to write such hateful
things as he did in this article.
--
Matt Austern        ma...@physics.berkeley.edu    Lots of things worth saying
(415) 644-2618      austern@lbl.bitnet           can only be said loosely.

Catholicism in SF Lcdr Smith 8/19/91 2:36 PM
And then there is Arthur C. Clark's wonderful, disturbing short story
anthologized in "The Nine Billion Names of God" about a Jesuit priest
onboard a spaceship that finds the ruins of a world circling a very
old supernova corpse.  The title is, I believe, "The Star."  Really blew
me away as a teen.
Sheri

UUCP: humu!nctams1!pnet16!003
ARPA: humu!nctams1!pnet16!0...@nosc.mil
INET: 0...@pnet16.cts.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               You call this Paradise???
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nazis (was Re: Card's Article) parme...@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu 8/19/91 3:22 PM
In article <1991Aug18.2...@eff.org>, mnem...@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
> In article <1991Aug18....@menudo.uh.edu> j...@navier.math.uh.edu (J Eric Townsend) writes:
>>
>>Who was it that said: "Whenver somebody starts mentioning Nazis on
>>USENET, you know the discussion has gone on too long."?  (Or something
>>to that effect.)
>
> I said it.
>
> Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies: As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the
> probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
>
        The first followup I saw to the Card article used the word, does
that mean the "discussion" was too long when it started?

___ Gregg Parmentier ____ parme...@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu ___

        "I waited in the dim hallway on a high-backed Spanish
        chair which Torquemada had made with his own hands."
                                        Ross Macdonald - Black Money

Card's Article on Homosexuality ryerson.schwark 8/19/91 3:47 PM
In article <1991Aug15...@watt.ccs.tuns.ca> cottr...@watt.ccs.tuns.ca writes:
>      From the first few posts about the article, I expected Card to be
>ranting and raving about throwing gays in jail, boy, talk about people
>exaggerating the matter.


Dear Goddess where do people like you come from?  Would you please go
back and re-read the paragraph where he espouses locking gays up as
a threat to society?  I consider that pretty damn extreme.  The Nazis
did it, now he wants to, and surprisingly enough for the exact same
reasons.  


Ry Schwark

Nazis (was Re: Card's Article) Mike Godwin 8/19/91 5:59 PM
In article <1991Aug19...@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu> parme...@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu writes:
>>
>> Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies: As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the
>> probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
>>
>        The first followup I saw to the Card article used the word, does
>that mean the "discussion" was too long when it started?

No, it just means the rate at which the probability approaches one varies,
And even in short discussions there's a finite, if small, probability that
the comparison will be made.


--Mike

--
Mike Godwin,       |        "Someday, some way."
mnem...@eff.org   |
(617) 864-1550     |          --Marshall Crenshaw
EFF, Cambridge, MA |

Card's Article on Homosexuality John Mazzocchi 8/19/91 10:30 PM
hob...@ac.dal.ca (C. Roald.) writes:

>rx...@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (John Mazzocchi) writes:
>>
>> That either (a) you equate murder, theft and rape with homosexuality,
>>             (b) Card equates "       "    "    "    "        "      , or
>>             (c) you think that it's acceptable that Card equates.....etc.
>>
>> is a scary thought from hell (my hell, otherwise known as Card's heaven).
>>
>> I find it contradictory in the extreme. He wants to forbid a few more things?
>> Hell, why not? How's he feel about smokers? or accountants? Maybe he'd like
>> to get rid of some telephone sanitisers - everyone *knows* they're evil.

>First, I didn't "equate" homosexuality to anything. I have no idea what
>Card would say about (b), but you can be assured I don't think (a) or (c).
>I don't agree at all with Card on this one. Homosexuality should not be
>illegal. Should I say it again?

No need, I agree with you.

>My point was that you can advocate forbidding something (say, jacking
>off in movie theatres) without assaulting the principle of democracy.
>The purpose of democracy is, to some degree, to allow The People to
>forbid what they like. (Homosexuality should not be illegal.)

>His argument is contradictory in that he says, violence is unacceptable,
>and then advocates enforcing a law.  But you seem to be saying that
>condemning homosexuality is somehow contradictory in itself. That, I
>don't track. (Homosexuality should not be illegal.)

Just so we've got it straight - I apologise for any confusion my possible
misunderstanding may have caused.
--
+ John Mazzocchi              +   "The mind is not a vessel to be filled, +  
+ Melbourne, Victoria         +    but a fire to be lighted" - Plutarch   +
+ Australia                   +                                      
+ rx...@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au  +                                          

Card's Article on Homosexuality George Martin 8/19/91 10:36 PM
In article <19...@balrog.ctron.com> sm...@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:
>In article <1991Aug15.1...@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> r...@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (ryerson.schwark) writes:
>>Reread the article.  Card proposes locking up social deviants (us homos)
>>to maintain the purity and high moral standards of the community.  This
>>is almost exactly the rationale the Nazis used for shipping homosexuals
>>off to Dachau. While he doesn't espouse the anti-semitism line (at least
>
>True.  But Card is not proposing killing them.  He is but a few steps higher
>on that slippery slope, I will admit, but I feel that when someone is called
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>a "Nazi" they must truly, truly deserve it.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Larry, I am been following this thread with both interest and boredom.
Did you really mean this underlined phrase the way it came out? *If* I
were to call you a "Nazi" would you think that you "must truly, truly
deserve it"?  I would hope that you would have the rest of us think
better of you than that.
>
>>here), and he saccharine-coats it with "compassion", he is fundamentally
>>calling for the imprisonment of gay people for the audacity of flaunting
>>societal norms.  That's pretty damn close to Nazism to me...
>
>Perhaps.  But not close enough to really merit the label. The Nazi's, whatever
>they wished to be or thought they were, were the worst monsters in recorded
>history.  It is sadly true they are not alone in that respect - millions of
>dead Armenians and Cambodians will atest to that - but they are the most
>well-known.  Until Card begins to advocate death to homosexuals, and agitates
>to round them up for the gas chambers, calling him a Nazi demeans the label.
>Save it for *real* Nazi's - they are still around, though they don't write much
>SF that I've seen.
>
>There are lots of other things to call him - repressive, if you like.  Even
>fascist.
>
>--
>Larry Smith
>sm...@ctron.com
>The usual disclaimer stuff...
>Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.  -- Barry Goldwater


--
George Martin
Systems Analyst                     NRAO/VLA                  Socorro NM
Internet: gma...@zia.aoc.nrao.edu  Bitnet:  gmartin@nrao
I AM NOT the other George Martin

Card's Article on Homosexuality Ciaran McHale 8/17/91 8:08 AM
In <1991Aug16....@maths.tcd.ie>
gwi...@maths.tcd.ie (Graham Wills) feels that Card has a right to try to
impose his moral beliefs in law because:

> It is the duty of a citizen to campaign against laws he feels are wrong.

I think that is a very simplistic attitude. As an extreme analogy, I might
follow a religion that thinks it is morally wrong to eat apples, yet I
don not see how this would entitle me to (try to) enforce this moral
belief in law. While eating an apple may be a grave sin in my mind, it
does not cause harm to anybody else so I have no right to prevent others
from eating apples. Having a law against the eating of apples would be
to restrict the freedom of people.

Now reread the above paragraph, subsituting "having a gay relationship"
for "eating apples."

BTW, welcome to soc.motss.


Ciaran.
--
Ciaran McHale      "I have some faults, but modesty isn't one of them."  ----
Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.      \bi/
Telephone: +353-1-7021538               FAX: +353-1-772204                \/
Telex: 93782 TCD EI                     email: cjmc...@cs.tcd.ie

Card's Article on Homosexuality Andrew Clayton 8/20/91 6:56 AM
In article <1991Aug19.1...@infoserver.th-darmstadt.de>, Joachim Schrod writes:

> In article <1991Aug18.193920.20309@kithrup.COM>, sef@kithrup.COM
> (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
>
> > In article <19a29554...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au> munnari!labtam!eyrie!prolix!dac writes:
> > >You're quite quick to label me 'idiot' when the distinction that
> > >is being made, is teetering on the interchangability (or not) of
> > >two words!
> >
> > Let me get this straight.
> >
> > You want to force people to buy books by an author they do not like.
>
> Perhaps he should start with himself and should buy all books of
> Anthony/Heinlein/Asimov/...   Otherwise he censors them!!!! Ugly,
> isn't it?

And a clearly inappropriate response to the question that Fagan
uttered.

> > And, yes, you are an idiot.  And an ass as well.
>
> No, just illogical and obviously unable to catch important distinctions.

Illogical? Important distinctions?

I stated that the boycott of Card's works SMACKED of censorship.

[Do I now have to provide a dictionary definition of 'smacks'?]

[Meta complaint; How about a dictionary definition of
'dictionary'!  Sheesh]

I went to some lengths to explain what I meant, showing how a
boycott could be construed as being censorious.

Where did I state that the actions of the Gay Rights group *was*
censorious?  Where did I state that Boycott == Censorship?

And I'm accused of being everything, from an idiot and an ass, to
an idle git with no ability at grammar, bereft of point, and
totally without merit.

Pah.

Come alone, Joachim, show me where I made these outrageous
claims.

Or are the 'important distinctions' of which you speak,
supposedly self evident?  There is a great many other posters who
equate the boycott to an act of censorship.

What a pity that there isn't a version of Emily Postnews that can
arbitrate dictionary definitions, eh?

"This is the fifth time this month that you have been witnessed
 utilizing a term in a completely unorganised, unstructured, and
 imprecise fashion. Please add a whole slew of proof to your
 acidic little posting, before trying to pull the wool over the
 eye of the collected reader's of the Net.

                                      Emily Postnews 'Dictionary Companion.'
                                      Pinched from an idea by David Brin
                                      Probably hated by Brinophobes."


Dac
--

[Pissed off, and rather burnt from Godwin's puffery :-)]


 
munnari!labtam!eyrie!prolix!dac      David Andrew Clayton.           // _| _  _
  prolix!dac%...@labtam.oz.au      Canberra, Australia           \X/ (_](_](_
        d...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au      I post .
prolix!d...@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au            . . I am.             +61 6 285 2537

Card's Article on Homosexuality Larry Smith 8/20/91 8:54 AM
In article <1991Aug20.0...@zia.aoc.nrao.edu> gma...@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (George Martin) writes:
>In article <19...@balrog.ctron.com> sm...@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:
>>In article <1991Aug15.1...@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> r...@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (ryerson.schwark) writes:
>>on that slippery slope, I will admit, but I feel that when someone is called
>                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>a "Nazi" they must truly, truly deserve it.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Larry, I am been following this thread with both interest and boredom.
>Did you really mean this underlined phrase the way it came out? *If* I
>were to call you a "Nazi" would you think that you "must truly, truly
>deserve it"?  I would hope that you would have the rest of us think
>better of you than that.

I was not implying that this *is* the case, I was sort of wishing out loud
that that *was* the case.  To me, a Nazi is the very epitome of everything
wrong in the human mind, everything bad, everything evil.  It represents the
unmitigated power of human hatred and ignorance turned into a deadly weapon
used by a few perverted people.  To me, there is nothing *worse* than calling
someone a Nazi.  Now, if they *are* a Nazi - or congruent thereto - then it
is justified.  If they are not - however bad or wrong or stupid they might be
- then they should not be called that.  "Nazi" has a great deal of emotional
loading (as you could see from my thumbnail sketch above), and people with an
axe to grind are quick to use it.  What I was saying, was that *if* you call
someone a Nazi, you should be sure in your own heart that they are not only
as bad as a Nazi, but that most people in possession of the same facts would
agree.  In Card's case, this is clearly not so.  I think he's a religious
twit, wrong-headed, maybe even homophobic, perhaps even stupid, but he is no
Nazi.  If he began calling for *extermination* of homosexuals, if he was
advocating using existing laws to *execute* people who come "out of the closet",
then I would say he was a Nazi, with all that that implies.  But I feel
strongly that until and unless he does that, that "Nazi" should be reserved
to refer to The American Nazi Party, the skinheads, etc. who really and truly
*are* Nazis and who really and truly *do* want to "round up all the queers and
off 'em."  Because there *are* people like that, and it is never wise to
forget they are around.

As for what you all think of me, my general impression is that nobody thinks
much of me.  I don't post often, but when I do, people get offended.  I guess
I'm really just a polite Kent Paul Dolen in most people's eyes.  But I pride
myself on my honesty and sense of justice.  I've drawn my lines well outside
of where most people will, but I am far quicker to shoot to kill if someone
crosses them.

--
Larry Smith
sm...@ctron.com
The usual disclaimer stuff...
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.  -- Barry Goldwater

Card's Article on Homosexuality C. Roald. 8/20/91 8:44 AM
jdni...@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
> hob...@ac.dal.ca (C. Roald.) writes:
>>Perhaps I'm being oversimple, but what other purpose is a boycott likely
>>to have, other than stopping distribution of whatever-it-is the
>>boycotters find objectionable?
>
>         The simple version is: if you buy a book, odds are good some of the
> money will go to the author. If you don't like the author and don't want to
> give him money, not buying the book denies him your money.

Do you really think boycotts are organised for the purpose of
not-giving-money to the author?  Seems sort of a trivially mean sort of
goal.

Most boycotts I've seen are organised for the purpose of generating
enough outrage to get something tossed/banned/removed from distribution.

>>I certainly do condemn boycotts in principle, in the sense of organised
>>efforts to convince people not to read something. (Anything else is just
>>an individual decision to buy or not to buy.)
>
>         How do you feel about negative reviews? There's someone trying
> to convince many people that a book isn't worth getting and using mass
> media to do so.

A review is (should be) based on the quality of the book, and generally
consists of an opinion (I hated it) and advice (not recommended). A
well-written review also provides enough information that the reader can
make a moderately informed decision about whether she wants to go buy
it.

This seems to me to be different in kind than telling people of your
'group' they must not buy something because of its ideas, or the
moral qualities of the writer, or what have you.

A reviewer expresses his opinion. A boycotter tries to foist it off on
everyone he sees.

Perhaps the distinction is fuzzy, but it seems to me there is one. In
any case, my criticism of boycotts as a weapon of ignorance stands.

    Roald.

Card's Article on Homosexuality C. Roald. 8/20/91 8:59 AM
mnem...@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
> hob...@ac.dal.ca (C. Roald.) writes:

> Here is the source of your confusion: you think boycotts are organized
> efforts to prevent reading. What they are, of course, are organized
> efforts to prevent *buying*--buying Card's books, in this case.

Aren't we picking nits here? I grant you it is possible to read a book
you did not buy (presumably by borrowing from a library--though if the
libraries are convinced to boycott as well this won't be possible).

I should think though, that the general effect of convincing people not
to buy something is to keep them from reading it, because there will be
fewer copies in circulation, etc.

Also, isn't it just the teensiest bit hypocritical to say, My principles
forbid me to buy this book, but pleeeeze let me borrow it 'cause I
really want to read it...

     Roald.

--
Suppose you're on a cruise ship, and there's a tropical storm 5 km dead
ahead, and a hurricane advancing from the south at 20 km/h...isn't this
the worst vacation you've ever had?        --Mr. Interesting.

Catholicism in SF Pud Wud 8/20/91 9:16 AM
In article <1991Aug19....@ac.dal.ca>, hob...@ac.dal.ca (C. Roald.) writes:
> Has anybody mentioned Ellison's "The Deathbird"?

    I wish I hadn't lost my copy of DEATHBIRD STORIES... I read it back when
I was 14 or 15, and it left a powerful impression on me (especially a story
involving a cult and some heavy drug use -- all I remember after seven years,
but the story was "deep"... :-).  Is it still in print?  I hope so...

>    Roald.

                                                  Derek L.
--
it just takes a minute and you'll feel no pain

Card's Article on Homosexuality Rich Holmes 8/20/91 9:04 AM
In article <1991Aug17....@acs.ucalgary.ca> pa...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Charles Parr) writes:
> You know, I don't think Card really gives a damn what Queer Nation thinks,
> and I really don't care myself. You see, when I read a book, I read the book.
> I don't invite the author to dinner/sleep with me/control my mind...I just
> read it. If the story is good, I enjoy it.

Right, right, and right, except, remember... if you're buying his books, you're
giving money to the man.  If you're voting for his works on the Hugo ballot,
you're giving prestige to the man.  Money and prestige are power.  Is this the
kind of person you want to empower?

If so, do it... If not, don't.  Borrow his books from the library and don't
ever admit you liked 'em...   :-) :-)

- Rich Holmes


--
This program posts news to billions of machines throughout the galaxy.  Your
message will cost the net enough to bankrupt your entire planet.  As a result
your species will be sold into slavery.  Be sure you know what you are doing.
Are you absolutely sure you want to do this? [ny] y

Card's Article on Homosexuality Sean Eric Fagan 8/20/91 10:24 AM
In article <1991Aug20....@ac.dal.ca> hob...@ac.dal.ca (C. Roald.) writes:
>Most boycotts I've seen are organised for the purpose of generating
>enough outrage to get something tossed/banned/removed from distribution.

I suspect you don't know what you're talking about.

Let's take a successful boycott:  the tuna boycott.  Thousands of people
boycotted buying tuna, in an effort to save some dolphins from being
inadvertantly killed.  After a decade or two, several tuna companies
capitulated, and changed their fishing habits.

No coercion was involved.  The tuna companies did this, if they did, of
their own free will, because they hoped to win back some customers.

Once again:  a boycott is not censorship.  We've had a frigging *lawyer*
come up and say this, for crying out loud!

The difference between a boycott and censorship is one of violition:  if I
join a boycott, I do so of my own free will.  If a boycott is so successful
that it's likely going to take away the product or service I want, I can
always inform the provider of said product or service that I will continue
to support it, and try organizing a counter-boycott of my own.

With censorship, there is no such freedom.  If something is censored, it is
removed from my ever having access to it.  (Various people get confused by
this, because they think, "duh.... but if, like, you know, the book is taken
off the shelves, and is no longer published, because people aren't buying
it, because of the boycott, isn't that, duh, censorship?"  Of course not:
no more so than the thousands of other books that are taken of shelves
because nobody buys them because they're crap.  If you wanted the book, you
could always have gone out and bought three or four hundred copies yourself,
and pursuaded any friends you might have to do the same.)

People who think that boycotting is censorship actually seem to be stricken
by the censor bug themselves:  "It's censorship, so let's shut them up!"

--
Sean Eric Fagan  | "What *does* that 33 do?  I have no idea."
sef@kithrup.COM  |           -- Chris Torek
-----------------+              (to...@ee.lbl.gov)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.

Card's Article on Homosexuality Sean Eric Fagan 8/20/91 10:28 AM
In article <19a56d46...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au> munnari!labtam!eyrie!prolix!dac writes:
>Where did I state that the actions of the Gay Rights group *was*
>censorious?  Where did I state that Boycott == Censorship?

Right here:

|Discontinuing a book, because a number of people forced the issue
|[q.v. lack of profitability] is precisely what the Gay Rights
|people are about, in this case.
|Some definitions for you perpetually clueless types;
|        Censor. Any person how supresses the behaviour of others, usually
|        on moral grounds.
|        Censorship. A policy or program of censoring.
|If you boycott Card, you stop his works being sold.  You modify
|his ability to act in a manner that provides entertainment for
|many thousands of people.  
|That is along the lines of the church castigating Galileo, or
|hassling anyone else _for their heretical beliefs_.

As I said:  an idiot, and an ass.

--
Sean Eric Fagan  | "What *does* that 33 do?  I have no idea."
sef@kithrup.COM  |           -- Chris Torek
-----------------+              (to...@ee.lbl.gov)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.

Card's Article on Homosexuality Jeff Shaevel 8/16/91 9:16 AM
Mr. Card writes:

> >Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be
> >indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught
> >violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message
> >that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that
> >society.

Personally, I thought he was doing fine until this paragraph.  So much
for the separation of church and state.  With the phrase above he stops
representing just LDS, and starts speaking for society as a whole.

Sadly, he's a good enough writer to probably convince a lot of people...

=============================================================================
Jeff Shaevel   /   :-))-: <- drama masks   \   sha...@shaevel.austin.ibm.com
"We're both civilized.  We just use different civilizations as our standard."

Card's Article on Homosexuality James Davis Nicoll 8/20/91 12:19 PM
In article <1991Aug20....@ac.dal.ca> hob...@ac.dal.ca (C. Roald.) writes:
>jdni...@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>> hob...@ac.dal.ca (C. Roald.) writes:
>>>Perhaps I'm being oversimple, but what other purpose is a boycott likely
>>>to have, other than stopping distribution of whatever-it-is the
>>>boycotters find objectionable?
>>
>>         The simple version is: if you buy a book, odds are good some of the
>> money will go to the author. If you don't like the author and don't want to
>> give him money, not buying the book denies him your money.
>
>Do you really think boycotts are organised for the purpose of
>not-giving-money to the author?  Seems sort of a trivially mean sort of
>goal.

        Well, I think at least some of the people participating in the
boycott are doing so for just that reason. Another possible reason is that
some people seem to feel that buying an author's work supports the other
activities of the author (or gives the appearance of supporting the other
actvities).

        I wouldn't call a 'mean goal'. If you think part of the money
you spend will be spent on activities you strongly dislike, it may
seem sensible to deny the activity *your* money.

        <An aside: who gets the profits from 'Mein Kampf' (sp) these
days?>

>Most boycotts I've seen are organised for the purpose of generating
>enough outrage to get something tossed/banned/removed from distribution.

        Hmmm. At last some of the boycotts I've seen were to pursuade
the target to change certain policies. I haven't noticed anyone saying
'Tell your local stores to remove Card from the shelves.'  

        Note that I'm really talking about 'What are the uses of a
boycott', not 'Should Card be Boycotted?'
 
        Now, for me, the interesting issue is 'Should a book be judged
on itself only, or can the other activities of the author have an effect
on how a reader sees the book?' There's an interesting thread over on
rec.arts.books re: Le Carre and his (alleged) politics that has a slight
application to this thread; I recommend Maddox's posting especially.  

                                                        James Nicoll

Card's Article on Homosexuality U19...@uicvm.uic.edu 8/20/91 11:02 AM
In article <NN.91Aug...@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu>, n...@ai.mit.edu (Nick
Nussbaum) says:

>Mitsuhiro Sakai: writes
>>Ha!!! I want to ask him about Buddism and us:Buddist.
>>Does he believe we:Buddist never go to Heaven?  :)

>I believe he does, although if your descendents convert they can
>baptize you. On the bright side his Heaven is full of Mormons
>who think like he does. Wouldn't you rather be elsewhere?

Hey,I'd rather be in the _other_ supposed Sphere Of The Afterlife if
"Heaven" is full of Orson Scott Card-types.....at least I can get into
better conversations with all those "heathens" (y'know-like Voltaire,
Julian Huxley,Asimov when _he_ pops off) down there.....

-Chris Krolczyk (U19807@UICVm.BITNET)

Card's Article on Homosexuality U19...@uicvm.uic.edu 8/20/91 11:10 AM
In article <34...@hydra.gatech.EDU>, sc...@kong.gatech.edu (Scott Coulter) says:

>Nearly every major religion believes that it is the only correct one.

Too true. But.....

>Most of the ones that don't believe this have self-contradictions in
>their teachings.

Now,now,Scott...where's the IMHO,eh? Perhaps _you_ might perceive their
doctrines as self-contradictory,but chances are that they don't. All orga-
nized religions tend to contradict older (or newer,depending on any sec-
tarian differences within that particular religion) doctrines,so what
are you trying to say here,exactly? That any religion that claims to be
"non-contradictory" (virtually all of them) is better than the ones that
are "self-contradictory" (virtually all of them,again)?

-Chris Krolczyk,agnostic at large at (U19807@UICVM.BITNET)

Card's Article on Homosexuality James Davis Nicoll 8/20/91 12:54 PM

        Here's the rec.arts.books article I refered to earlier. I think it
provides a useful perspective on the issue of authors' politics and the
worth of their books. I don't think I'm infringing on Maddox by reposting it
here; if I am, well, it's simply to make his views better known, so I can't
see why he'd complain.

                                                                James Nicoll

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Smiley and Karla--not twins, spiritual or otherwise
Message-ID: <1991Aug20.0...@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 20 Aug 91 07:39:58 GMT
References: <1991Aug19....@eff.org> <5281@beguine.UUCP> <JMC.91Au...@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: The Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington
Lines: 54

In article <JMC.91Au...@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU> j...@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Perhaps it is a defect in my ability to appreciate novels, that
>when a story is based on such propositions, I find it difficult
>to enjoy the novel.  Perhaps I should take some exercises in
>appreciating for their story values novels based on premises I
>regard as false and immoral.  Does anyone know a good Nazi novel
>in which the hero does great work for the fuehrer in spite of the
>evil Jews who cause his tragic demise?

        No, but I know of great writers--for instance, Homer, Dante,
Shakespeare--who apparently express allegiance to ideas I find disgusting or
at least wrong.  However, I do not read Dante to understand the righteousness
of the punishments he rather sadistically portrayed for those he and his
church considered worthy of damnation; nor Homer to revel in the slaughter of
the suitors; nor Shakespeare to shore up my regard for virginity and kingship.

        I read them for a complex set of reasons that I can't do justice to
in a Usenet posting, but I can allude to some of them.  And *character*, the
notion that got you started on all this, is a clue.  I do read these writers
for their portrayals of humankind--Freud pointed out several times what
most of us already know, that psychologists' understanding of human behavior
has to go some to catch up with such writers.  I also read them for the
accuracy of their observations about the world.  I also read them for the
beauty of their language--though I cannot read Homer in Greek or Dante in
Italian, something of that beauty comes through even in translation, for
reasons that belong in some other thread.  

        I also read them for the joys of storytelling, and here, Professor
McCarthy, is where you seem dreadfully at sea.  "Once upon a time," writers
(or oral tellers) say, and in doing so give us vital cues as to what sort of
language situation ("game," in Wittgenstein's usage) is at hand.  Phrases such
as "willing suspension of disbelief" are crucial.  Dante tells us he was lost
in a wood--he wasn't, you know, but it's *extremely interesting* to go along
with him, to pretend that he *was*, and to see what comes of it.

        Back to LeCarre and Smiley:  really, who gives a damn what LeCarre's
politics are, assuming one *could* extract them from the novels (a questionable
assumption, at best, but again, one for another thread)?  The books themselves
are what matter, not the politics of their creator, and if their writer is
any good at all (and LeCarre is, in my opinion, very very good), his or her
political views are subordinated to the demands of writing fiction, which in
practice means the technical demands of creating a story.  

        You see, LeCarre knows quite well what he's really about, and that's
creating fiction, not expressing his political views.

        However, to understand these things, you must recover (from your
childhood, where I presume you left it) your sense of what really is
important in reading or listening to a story, and it's *not* examining the
tale being told for signs of ideological taint or correctness.  
--
                                Tom Maddox
                        tmaddox@milton.u.washington.edu
        "It is imperative to write invulnerable sentences."  --  Hugo Ball

Card's Article on Homosexuality C. Roald. 8/20/91 12:48 PM
sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
> hob...@ac.dal.ca (C. Roald.) writes:

>>Most boycotts I've seen are organised for the purpose of generating
>>enough outrage to get something tossed/banned/removed from distribution.
 
> I suspect you don't know what you're talking about.
>
> Let's take a successful boycott:  the tuna boycott.  Thousands of people
> boycotted buying tuna, in an effort to save some dolphins from being
> inadvertantly killed.  After a decade or two, several tuna companies
> capitulated, and changed their fishing habits.

We're talking about books here, not tuna. You can't censor tuna.

Tell me something: what is a book boycotter's aim?  What defines
the "success" of a book boycott?  Why does one go about organising a
mass boycott of a book, rather than simply personally refraining from
buying it? (One person does not a boycott make.)

Compare that to what I said above.

I agree, book boycotts and censorship are not the same.  The methods and
legalities and ethics are different.  But the objective is the same:
obstruction of ideas.

That is what I was saying, and I'll thank you for not raving at me about
anything else.

    Roald.

Card's Article on Homosexuality Sean Eric Fagan 8/20/91 2:17 PM
In article <1991Aug20....@ac.dal.ca> hob...@ac.dal.ca (C. Roald.) writes:
>I agree, book boycotts and censorship are not the same.  The methods and
>legalities and ethics are different.  But the objective is the same:
>obstruction of ideas.

No, that's not quite right.

The object of a boycott, for anything, is to a) cease the promotion of an
idea or set of ideas, and/or b) to let the author or publisher (or some
other provider) know that people disagree with the ideas contained therein,
or promoted by the provider.

As I've said before, if a boycott is so successful that the product needs to
be dropped for financial reasons, well, then, I guess nobody cared enough to
promote it, did they?

And, no matter how many times you say it, it's not censorship.  It's free
enterprise.

--
Sean Eric Fagan  | "What *does* that 33 do?  I have no idea."
sef@kithrup.COM  |           -- Chris Torek
-----------------+              (to...@ee.lbl.gov)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.

Card's Article on Homosexuality Dan'l DanehyOakes 8/20/91 11:37 AM

Mike Goodwin wrote:
 
>> I must have missed the declared aim of the boycotters "to stop
>> the printing of Card's books." Can you cite your source on this?

To which the usually-reasonable C. Roald, who seems to be badly missing
the point, responded:

>Perhaps I'm being oversimple, but what other purpose is a boycott likely
>to have, other than stopping distribution of whatever-it-is the
>boycotters find objectionable?

And also:

>I certainly do condemn boycotts in principle, in the sense of organised
>efforts to convince people not to read something. (Anything else is just
>an individual decision to buy or not to buy.)


C., you clearly _are_ being oversimple -- or perhaps you simply don't
understand the basic concept of a boycott.

A boycott is an economic gesture.  It is a public statement:  "We
find your actions unacceptable and choose not to do business with
you."

It is _not_ an "effort to convince people not to read something."  For
example, I shall probably continue to read OSC's books when they interest
me -- but I shall purchase used copies of them.  I will not support him
financially.

There are several fundamental differences between a boycott and
censorship:

First of all, there is the intention.  Censorship intends to prevent
anyone from obtaining access to something (generally, information or
opinions.)  Boycotting intends to send a message to a producer that
their behavior is unacceptable, and will cost them profits.

Second, there is the duration.  Censorship (with the demi-exception
of wartime censorship of items like troop movements) is intended to
be forever.  Boycotts are for a specific purpose, and end when that
purpose is achieved.  For example, if Card were to recant the specific
part of his paper in which he calls for legal harassment of gays,
the boycott would almost certainly be called off immediately.  He is
entitled to his (nauseating) opinion; he is not entitled to call for
its enforcement by force of law.  (Note:  I do not mean _legally_
entitled.  He is legally entitled to call for any damnfool thing he
chooses.  I mean that his _moral_ right extends up to but does not
include such a demand.)

Third -- and most important of all -- there is the fundamental nature
of enforcement.  Censorship is essentially totalitarian; a central
force will not permit the "something" to be distributed.  Boycotts
are essentially populistic; they work only if a large number of
people freely choose to participate.  Queer Nation can ask you not
to buy Scott Card's books; they can not refuse you the right to do
so.  They can ask (though I believe they have *NOT* done so) that
shop owners not carry his books; they can not prevent them from carrying
them.  Etc.

I think these distinctions are clear.


                        [T]he literary work is not a manipulable object
                        completely at our disposal; it is a human voice
                        out of the past, a voice which must be somehow
                        brought to life.  Dialogue, not dissection, opens
                        up the world of a literary work.  Disinterested
                        objectivity is not appropriate to the under-
                        standing of a literary work.
                                --Richard E. Palmer
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
Net.Roach

Card's Article on Homosexuality Mike Godwin 8/20/91 4:30 PM
In article <1991Aug20....@ac.dal.ca> hob...@ac.dal.ca (C. Roald.) writes:
>I should think though, that the general effect of convincing people not
>to buy something is to keep them from reading it, because there will be
>fewer copies in circulation, etc.

I don't think QN actually cares whether anyone reads or has read Card's
books. The issue is sales.

>Also, isn't it just the teensiest bit hypocritical to say, My principles
>forbid me to buy this book, but pleeeeze let me borrow it 'cause I
>really want to read it...

I'm sure it would be hypocritical, were anyone ever to do such a thing.
Who's doing it? Name names, please.


--Mike

--
Mike Godwin,       |        "Someday, some way."
mnem...@eff.org   |
(617) 864-1550     |          --Marshall Crenshaw
EFF, Cambridge, MA |

Catholicism in SF gle...@mwk.uucp 8/20/91 11:33 AM
In article <1991Aug19....@ac.dal.ca>, hob...@ac.dal.ca (C. Roald.) writes:
>>sm...@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:
>>> Any other stories dealing with the Catholic Church in the future?  Waddaya
>>> think of 'em?
>
> There are also endless versions of the Second Coming, of course.
>
 
  My personal favorite, a Poul Anderson short story entitled _Kyrie_

gleason@mwk.uucp

Catholicism in SF Cfarer @ 'Realities R Us' 8/20/91 4:17 PM

The story is apocraphal as far as I know, but supposedly, when some fan or
critic had the chutzpah to tell Ted Sturgeon that "90% of all science fiction
is crud!", his calm, measured response was "90% of *everything* is crud."
--
               >>>ALL OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE MINE ALONE<<<
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
          INTERNET: h.mo...@ieee.org                 COMPMAIL: h.modell    
          UUCP: uw-beaver!bcsaic!ssc-bee!howie        COMPUSERVE: 72376,252
Card's Article on Homosexuality nago...@amherst.bitnet 8/20/91 12:09 PM
In article <19a29554...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au>, d...@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au (Andrew Clayton) writes:
>
> Stick your rights in your ear, Fagan.  The issue is not your
> beloved bill of rights.  The issue is people against people.  The
> issue is "Penalize this man because he said nasty things in
> relation to ``people like us''".  The issue is _STOPPING GOOD
> WRITING FROM BEING SOLD_.  [Although, apparently, with Xenocide,
> 'good writing' is somewhat malapropos.]

>
> Some definitions for you perpetually clueless types;
>
>         Censor. Any person how supresses the behaviour of others, usually
>         on moral grounds.
>
>         Censorship. A policy or program of censoring.
>
> If you boycott Card, you stop his works being sold.  You modify
> his ability to act in a manner that provides entertainment for
> many thousands of people.  

        So anytime I choose not to buy an author's work I'm censoring him/her?

        BTW, it's much more than just saying nasty things about gays, as you
should know if you read the excerpts from the Card article. OSC advocated laws
against, and the jailing of, homosexuals. If he said that about blacks,
hispanics, Jews, or Muslims, would you fel the same way? He's not just saying
bad things about homosexuals, he's calling for legal action to be taken against
them.

nate
>> Se

Card's Article on Homosexuality C. Roald. 8/21/91 6:35 AM
sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
> hob...@ac.dal.ca (C. Roald.) writes:
>>I agree, book boycotts and censorship are not the same.  The methods and
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>legalities and ethics are different.  But the objective is the same:
>>obstruction of ideas.

> And, no matter how many times you say it, it's not censorship.  It's free
> enterprise.

Hello? Are you reading the same thing I am?

I can't deny the legality of book boycotts, as they are in a sense free
expression.  But that doesn't mean I have to approve.

    Roald.

--
Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow it may be illegal.

Catholicism in SF Michael J. Hennebry 8/21/91 7:33 AM
In article <44...@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.boeing.com> ho...@ssc-vax.boeing.com (Cfarer @ 'Realities R Us') writes:
>
>The story is apocraphal as far as I know, but supposedly, when some fan or
>critic had the chutzpah to tell Ted Sturgeon that "90% of all science fiction
>is crud!", his calm, measured response was "90% of *everything* is crud."

'Twas crap not crud. With that caveat TS admits to saying that in approximately
the situation described. He also admits surprise at hearing it called S's Law.
The "critic" was someone who had claimed dislike for SF after reading little
of none of it. As a result another someone had given him a bookself full of
SF books, which he read and summarized in a fashion that resulted in S's Law.

--
Mike   henn...@plains.NoDak.edu
"Afterplay was a little rough, but not fatal." -- Mrs. Beard

Card's Article on Homosexuality James P. Taylor 8/21/91 2:01 AM
In article <7099@autodesk.COM> owen@Autodesk.COM (D. Owen Rowley) writes:

   In article <1991Aug15.0...@odin.diku.dk>,
   kl...@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) writes regarding Orson Scott Cards
   statement.

   >>        This applies also to the polity, the community of citizens at large.


   >>Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be
   >>indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught
   >>violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that
   >>those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be

   >>permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.

   >>        The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail.  The goal
   >>is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first
   >>place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior,
   >>to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of
   >>the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable,
   >>dependable marriage and family relationships.

   > So he does not want the laws strictly enforced, he just want to
   > keep people in fear. Kind and loving indeed.
   > BTW while it is presumably possible to quit the mormon church, how
   > does he want people to quit "the polity", or society?

 [Omitted ---   perfectly valid discussion]
 
  This bit about making the religious law extend into the polity is quite
   dangerous however.. The Mormon church has long enjoyed a close connection
   with the civil government in Utah, and perhaps he is not inately aware that
   it is not athe case in loits of other geographical areas. Utah has never had
   a diverse population, it has always been dominated by the Mormon church,
   with the vast majority of citizens belonging to it. In any case it certainly
   looks like  the kind of thing we don't want to see spreading outside its
   small area of infection.

   LUX .. owen

   --
   D. Owen Rowley, {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen , { ow...@autodesk.com }

   New State Law in Florida " Use a hand.. Go to jail..."
                                                                                                   Ted Maschal

Given the Mormon's historical legal persecution it is disturbing that Card
wants to use the law as a moral weapon.  But ...

jim taylor

Card's Article on Homosexuality Dan'l DanehyOakes 8/21/91 3:27 PM
In article <1991Aug21....@ac.dal.ca> hob...@ac.dal.ca (C. Roald.) writes:

>I can't deny the legality of book boycotts, as they are in a sense free
>expression.  But that doesn't mean I have to approve.

Ah.

Do you mean that you disapprove of boycotts in general; of all boycotts of
books; or of this _specific_ boycott?  I warn you:  it's a trick question,
and you look like an ass no matter _which_ you choose.

Screen break inserted for you to make your decision.  Imagine, if you
will, the "final jeopardy" theme playing over.

Time's up!  (Pencils down.)

If you choose "C" -- you are against _all_ boycotts -- then, of course,
you are saying that consumers should not have a right to use their
purchasing power to influence the behavior of corporations.  In which
case, you are an obvious ass.

If you choose "B" -- you are against all boycotts of books -- then
there are essentially two possibilities:
        1)  You think people should be forced to purchase things
            when they feel it would be unethical to do so, or
        2)  You completely misunderstand the nature of boycott (which
            I suspect is the case).  Boycott is not about "preventing"
            something from being sold; it is about choosing not to
            buy something, and asking -- *N*O*T* demanding -- that
            others do likewise.
In the first case, you are a fascistic ass; in the second, you are an
ignorant ass.

If you choose "C" -- you are against _this_ boycott -- then you are
supporting OSC's stand, in which case you are a homophobic ass.

So:  what kind of ass are you:  obvious, fascistic, ignorant, or
homophobic?


                        "Pedant" is a word some people resort to
                        when they're unable to keep up.
                                --Mike Godwin

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
Net.Roach

Catholicism in SF Mike Van Pelt 8/21/91 2:35 PM
In article <502.28b10c01@mwk.uucp> gleason@mwk.uucp writes:
>  My personal favorite, a Poul Anderson short story entitled _Kyrie_

Yes! Yes!  Wonderful story.

Also by Poul Anderson, _Game of Empire_ has as a main character
a Jerusalem Catholic (whatever that is) priest.  (Said priest
is also a Wodenite, of the same breed as Adzel of the Adzel/
Falkayn/Chee Lan/Muddlin' Through "Trader Team" stories.  That
is to say, a half-ton lizard/centaur type.)
--
Mike Van Pelt          | It was a typical net.exercise -- a screaming
Headland Technology    | mob pounding on a greasy spot on the pavement,
m...@hsv3.lsil.com      | where used to lie the carcass of a dead horse.
...ames!vsi1!hsv3!mvp

Catholicism in SF G. Wolfe Woodbury 8/21/91 7:59 PM
There is also James Blish's "A Case of Conscience" with the protagonist
being a Jesuit.
--
G. Wolfe Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!wolfe   ...mcnc!wolves!wolfe         [use the maps!]
Domain: wolfe%...@mcnc.mcnc.org    wolfe%...@cs.duke.edu
[The line eater is a boojum snark! ]           <standard disclaimers apply>
Card's Article on Homosexuality R o d Johnson 8/21/91 9:10 PM
djdaneh@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) sez:

>Do you mean that you disapprove of boycotts in general; of all boycotts of
>books; or of this _specific_ boycott?  I warn you:  it's a trick question,
>and you look like an ass no matter _which_ you choose.

Forget to take your anti-smugness pills today, Dan'l?

>If you choose "C" -- you are against _all_ boycotts -- then, of course,
 
(No objections here--at least none that aren't covered in my reaction
to the other "C" below.)

>If you choose "B" -- you are against all boycotts of books -- then
>there are essentially two possibilities:
>        1)  You think people should be forced to purchase things
>            when they feel it would be unethical to do so, or

Nonsense.  To be against boycotts--which are organized campaigns of
non-buying--is not to be against individual decisions of conscience.
If I think it's a bad idea to boycott, say, South African diamonds,
that doesn't mean I want to *force* anyone to purchase diamonds.  Get
a grip.

>        2)  You completely misunderstand the nature of boycott (which
>            I suspect is the case).  Boycott is not about "preventing"
>            something from being sold; it is about choosing not to
>            buy something, and asking -- *N*O*T* demanding -- that
>            others do likewise.

This is so full of silliness I don't know where to start.  The
asking/demanding thing is a total red herring.  The issue here is not
whether people are being coerced not to buy.  A boycott may be polite,
or it may be coercive; it's still a boycott.  As for not "preventing"
something from being sold--you're slithering around the point.  A
boycott is not when a consumer says "gee, I won't buy that".  It's a
*campaign* of non-buying, designed to bring some economic muscle to
bear.  When we were all boycotting grapes back in the 70s, it wasn't
because we had all decided we didn't like grapes--it was because we
wanted to punish grape growers for their labor practices until they
changed them--if need be, by preventing their stuff from being bought
(and thus sold) completely.  A boycott doesn't aim at changing the
buyer's behavior but the sellers; the definition doesn't turn on the
buyer's attitude but on his methods.

>In the first case, you are a fascistic ass; in the second, you are an
>ignorant ass.

Geez, Dan'l, do you ever get tired of knocking other people's
intelligence?  How self-impressed can you get?

>If you choose "C"

What, "C" *again*?

> -- you are against _this_ boycott -- then you are
>supporting OSC's stand, in which case you are a homophobic ass.

*Horseshit*.  You may be against this boycott because
  --you haven't made up your mind yet
  --you feel boycotts are ineffective
  --you feel boycotts are inhumane
  --you prefer other methods of persuasion
  --(fill in any others that occur to you)

This "if you don't do things MY WAY you're against me" crap is really,
really stupid.  There's a lot of room between active pursuit of a
boycott and support for the boycotted.

Now we all realize that you're Mr. Righteous Indignation and you love
to bestow the fruits of your superior intellect on us, and we know you
think this gives you license to write rude, condescending articles,
but in this case, Dan'l, you're full of shit, and hellishly tiresome
as well.  Ego check time, pal.

--
    Rod Johnson  *  rjoh...@vela.acs.oakland.edu  *  (313) 650 2315

               "Ya gotta evolve"   --Muddy Mudskipper

Card's Article on Homosexuality Rob Lester 8/21/91 10:31 PM
In <67...@pbhyc.PacBell.COM> djdaneh@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes:

>In article <1991Aug21....@ac.dal.ca> hob...@ac.dal.ca (C. Roald.) writes:

>>I can't deny the legality of book boycotts, as they are in a sense free
>Ah.

>Do you mean that you disapprove of boycotts in general; of all boycotts of
>books; or of this _specific_ boycott?  I warn you:  it's a trick question,
>and you look like an ass no matter _which_ you choose.

 [Some text deleted}

>If you choose "C" -- you are against _all_ boycotts -- then, of course,
>you are saying that consumers should not have a right to use their
>purchasing power to influence the behavior of corporations.  In which
>case, you are an obvious ass.

  Well, I have to agree on principle... boycotts have their place
  as a form of expression and leverage. The obvious ass part....
  I'll pass on making that sort of judgement.

>If you choose "B" -- you are against all boycotts of books -- then
>there are essentially two possibilities:

>            when they feel it would be unethical to do so, or

   Hmmm, I don't see how you equate not boycotting something or
   not approving of boycotting something as being the same thing
   as forcing consumers to buy things that they don't wish to buy.
   By this logic, if I decide not to buy  X brand of shinbone wax
   for whatever reason, then I am "boycotting" the product.
   I don't buy into this.

>        2)  You completely misunderstand the nature of boycott (which
>            I suspect is the case).  Boycott is not about "preventing"
>            something from being sold; it is about choosing not to
>            buy something, and asking -- *N*O*T* demanding -- that
>            others do likewise.


    Well, isn't it implied that if enough people boycott a product
    then that product will probably not be sold. If I were a corporation            and a product that I was promoting was so unpopular, that it
    caused boycotts then I would cease to produce such a product.
    You seem to agree in your statement about choice A (ban all boycotts)
    where you say that boycotts are a way for consumers to
    influence the behavior of corporations. So in a way it is
    about preventing a product from being sold. Please note
    that I don't necessarily equate this with censorship or think
    that boycotts are necessarily bad.


 
>In the first case, you are a fascistic ass; in the second, you are an
>ignorant ass.
 
  Please read the quote that you attribute to the author of the
  original article. Perhaps the tone of the rest of his article
  was fascistic? You certainly don't gain any points for labeling
  his attributed remarks as such. All the author said was is that
  he did not personally approve of boycotts (in whatever form choice
  A,B or C doesn't matter). He states that he doesn't question their
  legality. If he was saying that all boycotts should be outlawed I
  would allow that "fascist" is appropriate.        
 
  Ignorant? Maybe there is no way to tell really. I doubt it.
  Just because he doesn't think boycotts are appropriate doesn't
  imply ignorance of their form or purported raison d'etre.

>If you choose "C" -- you are against _this_ boycott -- then you are
>supporting OSC's stand, in which case you are a homophobic ass.

   This last little ditty was the last straw for me. Just because
   someone doesn't support your method of achieving your goals
   doesn't mean he is afraid of or hostile to your cause.  

   I don't agree with Card's stand. I am Mormon. I believe that
   homosexuality is a sin. But the Church leadership isn't calling
   for imprisonment of anyone. Card's essay was way off base in    
   a lot of ways. People have a right to take offense at his views.
   They have a right not to read his fiction. They have a right
   to boycott his work. But to call anyone who CHOOSES not to
   participate in such a boycott -homophobic- is ridiculous.


   
>So:  what kind of ass are you:  obvious, fascistic, ignorant, or
>homophobic?

  Maybe he isn't an ass at all. Your penchant for name calling
  really dilutes what little strength your argument has. Maybe
  if you had been a little more thoughtful in thinking over your
  argument rather than your adjectives, you would have been more
  convincing.         

>        "Pedant" is a word some people resort to
>         when they're unable to keep up.
>                                --Mike Godwin

      "Homophobe" seems to be word that you resort to
      when you don't see eye to eye with someone.
             --Me


>Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

Rob Lester

--
#################################  ..The Darkness has a call that is insatiable,
# Rob Lester                    #  The Light, it has a call that's hard to hear.# cca...@prism.gatech.edu      #   "Closer to Fine" - The Indigo Girls
################################

Card's Article on Homosexuality Bob Lodenkamper 8/21/91 3:18 PM
In article <1991Aug20.2...@eff.org> mnem...@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

   I don't think QN actually cares whether anyone reads or has read Card's
   books. The issue is sales.

Nail.  Head.  Bang.

- Bob

What are the Boycott Condtions? Re: Card's & Homosexuality Paul Moloney 8/22/91 4:19 AM
In <1991Aug20.172441.1634@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:

>Let's take a successful boycott:  the tuna boycott.  Thousands of people
>boycotted buying tuna, in an effort to save some dolphins from being
>inadvertantly killed.  After a decade or two, several tuna companies
>capitulated, and changed their fishing habits.

This paragraph has got me thinking - does anyone know what are the aims
of the Queer Nation boycott? Sounds a silly question, but I haven't as
yet seen under what conditions will they lift the boycott.

P.
--
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l  M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the  rem
james Trinity College, Dublin mind." PMOLONEY%V...@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien

What are the Boycott Condtions? Re: Card's & Homosexuality Andrew David Weiland 8/22/91 12:16 PM
pmol...@unix1.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes,

>This paragraph has got me thinking - does anyone know what are the
>aims of the Queer Nation boycott? Sounds a silly question, but I
haven't as
>yet seen under what conditions will they lift the boycott.

Apparently to drive O. S. Card out of business, unless perhaps if he
recants his original article.  Which might be nasty if it had any chance
of working.


----------------------------------------------
| Andrew D. M. U. Weiland | aw...@andrew.cmu.edu   |
----------------------------------------------
| "I for one am glad we're not all alike, because then       |
| we'd all like the same things and there wouldn't be     |
| enough haggis to go around"                                          
      |
----------------------------------------------

Card's Article on Homosexuality ho...@aic.nrl.navy.mil 8/22/91 12:47 PM
In article <13698.28b168e7@amherst.bitnet>, nagordon@amherst.bitnet writes:

> OSC advocated laws against, and the jailing of, homosexuals.

I guess enough people--and usually accurate people at that--have said
this that I should remind you that the statement is inaccurate.
Card's essay does advocate enforcing laws against homosexual behavior,
but he DOES NOT ADVOCATE JAIL SENTENCES.  The only time he even
mentions incarceration is to say

> The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail.

It is fallacious to reason that what is not a goal is a side-effect.
The enforcement he advocates is

> to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's
> regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as
> acceptable, equal citizens within that society.

but that ``clear message'' could be as innocuous as a parking ticket
or as dire as execution.  There is no specific penalty proposed, and
people who say he proposes jail are putting words into his mouth.

Nor is there any clarification of how ``flagrant'' he feels a
violation must be to require such a ``message.''  Is coming out of the
closet enough, or do you have to take out full-color ads in the Weekly
Reader?  The closest Card gets to a criterion is to require a degree
of discretion that will not

> ...shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to


> provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family
> relationships.

Any translation of that passage into law is pure speculation.

If this is not vague enough for you, as I mentioned in last year's
Cardaclysm, my dictionaries tell me that the term ``polity'' can be
used to refer to the laws of a church, as well as those of civil
authority.  I think that the latter meaning is intended in this
essay--else the question of jail would not arise--but it is odd to see
this ambiguous and somewhat unusual term used repeatedly without
explicit clarification.

I still disagree with this essay.  I do not believe that civil
government has any business providing sexual-preference-specific rules
by which people may form relationships, or differentially encouraging
heterosexual versus gay sex.  But the argument against Card is not
strengthened by falsely disambiguating his position on the subject.

Dan Hoey
Ho...@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil

Card's Article on Homosexuality Jennifer A. Heise 8/22/91 12:59 PM
I think that asking to borrow a book when your principles forbid you to
buy it may or may not be hypocritical (sorry, my email won't reproduce
the discussion); in a case when you are boycotting the author's
expressed principles it would be; however, if you are objecting to the
book itself, you'd better read it first, hadn't you?

Jennifer Heise
Reference Dept.,                         Bitnet: jahb@lehigh
Fairchild-Martindale Libraries #8A       Internet: ja...@ns.cc.lehigh.edu
Lehigh University                        Phone: (215)758-3072
Bethlehem, PA 18015

My opinions are my own. No one else would HAVE them anyway.

Card's Article on Homosexuality C. Roald. 8/22/91 7:53 PM
djdaneh@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes:
> hob...@ac.dal.ca (C. Roald.) writes:
>
>>I can't deny the legality of book boycotts, as they are in a sense free
>>expression.  But that doesn't mean I have to approve.
>
> Do you mean that you disapprove of boycotts in general; of all boycotts of
> books; or of this _specific_ boycott?  I warn you:  it's a trick question,
> and you look like an ass no matter _which_ you choose.

Sigh.  I already told Mike Godwin be e-mail that I was becoming sorry
I'd chosen to defend this proposition, and that I wanted to drop it. But
of course, I couldn't drop it on that.

> If you choose "C" -- you are against _all_ boycotts -- then, of course,
> you are saying that consumers should not have a right to use their
> purchasing power to influence the behavior of corporations.  In which
> case, you are an obvious ass.

Not guilty.  Boycotts are about the only way consumers can affect the
policies of megacorps, and some of them deserve to be influenced.
However, the discussion is about book boycotts.  Orson Scott Card is not
a multinational, and the proper place to take up a debate about a
"Sunstone" article is in "Sunstone", and not outside a bookstore with
picket signs. IMHO.


 
> If you choose "B" -- you are against all boycotts of books -- then
> there are essentially two possibilities:
>         1)  You think people should be forced to purchase things
>             when they feel it would be unethical to do so, or

This is silly. Nobody said anything about forcing anyone to buy
anything. (Now //that's// an all-inclusive sentence.)

>         2)  You completely misunderstand the nature of boycott (which
>             I suspect is the case).  Boycott is not about "preventing"
>             something from being sold; it is about choosing not to
>             buy something, and asking -- *N*O*T* demanding -- that
>             others do likewise.

Here's where I'll disagree with you. In this particular case, IMHO a
work of fiction ought to stand as a work of fiction. Unless the book in
question is homophobic, the author's politics ought to be irrelevant.
You may disagree, in which case you certainly don't have to buy it.

I was trying to argue a broader point, that attacking an idea by asking
people not to read anything about it is wrong. It's a war of ignorance.
Surely the "correct" means to attack an idea is to learn it, study it,
read its best proponents, and then reveal all its flaws and
contradictions in unimpeachable detail. Well, that's the enlightened ideal,
anyway.

In that light, I see boycotts as a tactic of ignorance, and that's why I
disapprove.

I guess that makes me an idealistic ass.

   Roald

--
Live from Moscow: It's the Coup Klutz Clan!

Card's Article on Homosexuality Nick Nussbaum 8/22/91 11:33 PM

Dan Hoey attempts to hairsplit a defense

=  I guess enough people--and usually accurate people at that--have said
=   this that I should remind you that the statement is inaccurate.
=   Card's essay does advocate enforcing laws against homosexual behavior,
=   but he DOES NOT ADVOCATE JAIL SENTENCES.  The only time he even
=   mentions incarceration is to say
=   > The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail.
=
=   It is fallacious to reason that what is not a goal is a side-effect.
=
    Exactly. His goals are irrelevant; the side effect of jailing homosexuals
   is what is reprehensible.
=   The enforcement he advocates is
=   > to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's
=   > regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as
=   > acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
=
=   but that ``clear message'' could be as innocuous as a parking ticket
=   or as dire as execution.  There is no specific penalty proposed, and
=   people who say he proposes jail are putting words into his mouth.

Card said:        
>Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be
> >indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught
> >violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message

> >that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior

        These laws are clearly the current state antisodomy laws. These laws
all treat sodomy as a felony with long prison sentences. In no state is
there a law which treats sodomy with the mildness of the traffic parking
tickets. What other laws against homosexual behavior could he possibly
be discussing?

=   Nor is there any clarification of how ``flagrant'' he feels a
=   violation must be to require such a ``message.''  Is coming out of the
=   closet enough, or do you have to take out full-color ads in the Weekly
=   Reader?  The closest Card gets to a criterion is to require a degree
=  of discretion that will not
        
        And they only lynched uppity negros.. It's completely irrelevant
how gentle his criteria are. Would his position be any less noxious if
he was only proposing enforcing these laws against people who advertised
in print?

=   If this is not vague enough for you, as I mentioned in last year's
=   Cardaclysm, my dictionaries tell me that the term ``polity'' can be
=   used to refer to the laws of a church, as well as those of civil
=   authority.  I think that the latter meaning is intended in this
=   essay--else the question of jail would not arise--but it is odd to see
=   this ambiguous and somewhat unusual term used repeatedly without
=   explicit clarification.

Jail sentences are secular punishment. This context provides the clarification,
apparently even to you. Presumably Card expects his readers
to be able to use a dictionary if they don't understand the words he uses.
If he doesn't attach a special definition, the word stands with the
dictionary meaning. Do you accuse him of writing incompetently?

=   The argument against Card is not
=  strengthened by falsely disambiguating his position on the subject.
=
=   Dan Hoey
=   Ho...@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil

Your defense of Card is pretty pathetic. Whatever his flaws, his writing
is clear. Your attempts falsely ambiguate his message do not provide
a defense.

--
Nick Nussbaum       PO 68 - MIT Branch   (617) 492-2742
n...@ai.mit.edu       Cambridge,MA 02139

Card's Article on Homosexuality Dan'l DanehyOakes 8/23/91 12:17 PM
Don't bother redirecting to alt.flame; I'll never see it, since this
site doesn't take the alt.* hierarchy.  Ditto adding it to the
newsgroups line.  It makes my newsreader throw up.


Rod Johnson writes:
>djdaneh@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) sez:

>Forget to take your anti-smugness pills today, Dan'l?

No.  Neanderthal-like thought processes generally leave me
feeling smug.


>>If you choose "B" -- you are against all boycotts of books -- then
>>there are essentially two possibilities:
>>        1)  You think people should be forced to purchase things
>>            when they feel it would be unethical to do so, or
>
>Nonsense.  To be against boycotts--which are organized campaigns of
>non-buying--is not to be against individual decisions of conscience.

Well, clearly my point (2) applies in your case:

>>        2)  You completely misunderstand the nature of boycott (which
>>            I suspect is the case).  Boycott is not about "preventing"
>>            something from being sold; it is about choosing not to
>>            buy something, and asking -- *N*O*T* demanding -- that
>>            others do likewise.

Since you clearly do not understand that boycotts, while they are
indeed organized, are most definitely based on individual, not
mass, decisions of conscience.  The nature of a boycott is this:

        1.  Some individual or group X has a grievance against
            a supplier Y.
        2.  X stops purchasing from Y until the grievance is
            relieved.
        3.  X makes their grievance public, and requests others
            who agree that their grievance is legitimate also
            do so.
        4.  Some of the people so asked stop purchasing from
            Y until X's grievance is relieved.

Nowhere in there is there any attempt to prevent anything from being
sold.  The only activities are (1) personal decisions of conscience,
and (2) informational activities linked to a request to _make_ a
personal decision of conscience.

Which of these activities do you find objectionable?  


>The issue here is not
>whether people are being coerced not to buy.  

It is for those who whine that they won't have access to the Holy
Writ of Card (which is absolutely silly; see below).


>A boycott may be polite,
>or it may be coercive; it's still a boycott.  

So?  WHAT is the nature of your objection to boycotts?

And while a coercive boycott is _possible_, it is not part of the
basic nature of a boycott; one might as well disdain democracy because
people can be coerced into voting.


>As for not "preventing"
>something from being sold--you're slithering around the point.  

I can only slither around something that has been made.  So far,
the only complaints I have heard have been from asses who think
boycotts against Card will somehow result in his books not being
published.

Imagine, if you will, that 20% of the people who currently buy
Card's books decide not to buy his books because of this boycott.

The result will be this:  there will be higher returns than usual
on his next book or two.  The sales on his books will _still_ be
in the top 10% of science fiction writers.  His publishers may
lose a bit of money on a book or two, until they adjust the print
runs downward, but they will go on publishing his books.  Card
will not lose the ability to feed his children; at most, he might
be prevented from buying a new Beamer next year.  My heart fucking
bleeds for the man.

Which effectively disposes of that.  (Yes, I realize that *YOU* are
not making this complaint:  but enough folks have that I thought
this point should be made clear.)


>A boycott is not when a consumer says "gee, I won't buy that".  

Right.  It's when a _bunch_ of consumers, for a reason other than
the quality of the product itself, decide not to do business with
some supplier, either directly or indirectly.  So?


>It's a
>*campaign* of non-buying, designed to bring some economic muscle to
>bear.  When we were all boycotting grapes back in the 70s, it wasn't
>because we had all decided we didn't like grapes--it was because we
>wanted to punish grape growers for their labor practices until they
>changed them--if need be, by preventing their stuff from being bought
>(and thus sold) completely.  A boycott doesn't aim at changing the
>buyer's behavior but the sellers; the definition doesn't turn on the
>buyer's attitude but on his methods.

That's all very true.  I still don't see what your objection is.


>>If you choose "C"
>
>What, "C" *again*?

What the hell.  It's a nice letter.


>> -- you are against _this_ boycott -- then you are
>>supporting OSC's stand, in which case you are a homophobic ass.
>
>*Horseshit*.  You may be against this boycott because
>  --you haven't made up your mind yet

In which case you aren't _against_ it.

>  --you feel boycotts are ineffective
>  --you feel boycotts are inhumane
>  --you prefer other methods of persuasion

In which case you aren't against _this_ boycott, but against _all_
boycotts.  (Incidentally, the "ineffective" argument is something
that hadn't occurred to me:  it's nice that you managed at least
one valid point in such a long posting.)


>This "if you don't do things MY WAY you're against me" crap is really,
>really stupid.  There's a lot of room between active pursuit of a
>boycott and support for the boycotted.

That's right.

But I didn't say "not supporting" above; I said "against."  I don't
think most peole have trouble making this distinction.  May I
recommend some remedial work in English?


>               "Ya gotta evolve"   --Muddy Mudskipper

Healer, heal thyself.


                        "Pedant" is a word some people resort to
                        when they're unable to keep up.
                                --Mike Godwin

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
Net.Roach

Card's Article on Homosexuality Dan'l DanehyOakes 8/23/91 12:41 PM
Rob Lester hath writ:

>In <67...@pbhyc.PacBell.COM> djdaneh@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes:

>>If you choose "B" -- you are against all boycotts of books -- then
>>there are essentially two possibilities:
>
>>            when they feel it would be unethical to do so, or
>
>   Hmmm, I don't see how you equate not boycotting something or
>   not approving of boycotting something as being the same thing
>   as forcing consumers to buy things that they don't wish to buy.
>   By this logic, if I decide not to buy  X brand of shinbone wax
>   for whatever reason, then I am "boycotting" the product.
>   I don't buy into this.

But it is _not_ for "whatever" reason.  You quoted only one line, but
it was the relevant line -- boycotts are decisions not to buy for
_ethical_ reasons.  (Or political reasons; the line is blurred.)

If you decide not to buy X-brand shinbone wax because it doesn't give
your shinbones that slickery feeling you like, that's not a boycott.
If you decide not to buy X-brand shinbone wax because manufacturer
X gives 10% of the profits to the Church of Satan, USA, that is a
boycott.  Simple distinction, no?


>    Well, isn't it implied that if enough people boycott a product
>    then that product will probably not be sold.

I think you wanted a question mark there, Rob.

Yes, if enough people choose not to purchase X-brand shinbone wax
for _any_ reason, X will stop manufacturing it:  either because
they've turned to more profitable lines, or they've just plain gone
out of business from manufacturing a product that didn't sell.

But this almost never actually happens with a boycott.  Profitability
is usually lowered, yes, but rarely eliminated.  The two usual results:
        1.  The supplier decides that the profits lost are
            hurting them enough that they'll change the
            objected-to behavior (in this case, that would amount
            to Scott retracting the "polity" segment of that
            most heinous article).
        2.  A new level of manufacture is established at which
            profits are maximized.  For example, Nestle corporation
            manufactured slightly less of their product when the
            boycott against them continued.  While the net profits
            were less than they'd been before the boycott, they
            were higher than they'd been when the boycott began:
            that is, they were manufacturing the right amount of
            product for the available market.


>    You seem to agree in your statement about choice A (ban all boycotts)
>    where you say that boycotts are a way for consumers to
>    influence the behavior of corporations. So in a way it is
>    about preventing a product from being sold.

You've missed the point.  The purpose of a boycott is _not_ to prevent a
product from being sold.  It is an indirect method of influencing some
_other_ behavior of the supplier:  for example, the purpose of the Nestle
boycott was _not_ to stop Quik from being sold, but to influence Nestle
to stop their "aggressive marketing" of baby formula in "third world
countries."  (Note that I am not taking a position on that boycott; I am
using it as an example and quoting the boycott's official rhetoric.)


>>If you choose "C" -- you are against _this_ boycott -- then you are


>>supporting OSC's stand, in which case you are a homophobic ass.
>
>   This last little ditty was the last straw for me. Just because
>   someone doesn't support your method of achieving your goals
>   doesn't mean he is afraid of or hostile to your cause.  

Please read the quoted text more carefully.

It doesn't say "If...you do not support _this_ boycott..."  It says "If
...you are AGAINST _this_ boycott..."  (Emphasis by caps added.)  The
distinction is important, and I think it's fairly clear.

I was addressing persons who -- by choosing this option -- have
implicitly stated that they believe that boycotts in general are
an acceptable means of addressing grievances.  Given that, to be
_against_ (rather than merely not supporting, as for example because
they believed some other tactic would be more appropriate) this
boycott would be to support Card's stance.


>   I don't agree with Card's stand. I am Mormon. I believe that
>   homosexuality is a sin.

All within your rights and I'll "defend to the death" your right
to believe, and to state, those things.


>   But the Church leadership isn't calling
>   for imprisonment of anyone.

I am aware of this.  My objection is to Card's statement, not to
the CoLDS, an organization I respect highly (though I disagree
vehemently with some of their beliefs).  If I said "some of my
best friends are Mormons," I'd be exaggerating slightly; I have
had good friends in the Church -- as well as Scientologists,
Catholics, and what-have-you.  For the record, I'm not a religious
bigot.


>   People have a right to take offense at his views.
>   They have a right not to read his fiction. They have a right
>   to boycott his work. But to call anyone who CHOOSES not to
>   participate in such a boycott -homophobic- is ridiculous.

You've said not a thing here I disagree with.

But I didn't "call anyone who CHOOSES not to participate in such
a boycott -homophobic-."  

I called anyone who is _against_ -- that is, who actively opposes --
such a boycott, and _not_ on general grounds of opposition to boycotts
(which grounds are infantile for other reasons I have already described),
can only be against what it stands for:  that is, they approve of Card's
stand.  To approve of that stand is a de-facto confession of homophobia.

                        "Pedant" is a word some people resort to
                        when they're unable to keep up.
                                --Mike Godwin

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
Net.Roach

Nazis (was Re: Card's Article on Homosexuality Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 8/24/91 1:05 AM
sksi...@stroke.Princeton.EDU (Subrata Sircar) writes:

>mnem...@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies: As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the
>>probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

>Sircar's Corollary:  If the Usenet discussion touches on homosexuality or
>Heinlein, Nazis or Hitler are mentioned within three days.  [Your propagation
>may vary.]

>                                Another one for the History of the USENET,


Don't I get even half a point for being compared to Pol Pot? Please?
 
;-) ;-)


--
        "The Man In Blue"           //    ***That's it!***
                                   //  (Merlin, in Excalibur (Sword of Power)
=============================================================================
j...@clinet.fi  //  Jussi-Ville "J-V" Heiskanen  A.K.A. Sokrates jr.

Card's Article on Homosexuality Glenn A Reinhardt 8/25/91 1:30 AM
In article <67...@pbhyc.PacBell.COM> djdaneh@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes:

>If you choose "C" -- you are against _this_ boycott -- then you are
>supporting OSC's stand, in which case you are a homophobic ass.

Do you honestly believe that because you purchase a book by an author you
automatically espouse his beliefs?  Perhaps you don't actively support the
causes he offends but I think you are creating a false dichotomy.

I think this has been covered (in general) before but I thought I'd ask anyway.
--
--
====================================================================
Glenn Reinhardt          |  Purdue doesn't listen to me,
gle...@ecn.purdue.edu    |  Why should you?

Card's Article on Homosexuality Subrata Sircar 8/24/91 7:21 PM
djdaneh@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes:
>I called anyone who is _against_ -- that is, who actively opposes --
>such a boycott, and _not_ on general grounds of opposition to boycotts
>(which grounds are infantile for other reasons I have already described),
>can only be against what it stands for:  that is, they approve of Card's
>stand.  To approve of that stand is a de-facto confession of homophobia.

Really?  Take out the bit where OSC describes what the polity should do,
rather than what his Church should do.  This new article, I would respect,
if not agree with, and I could argue that boycotting Card for writing that
is religious bigotry, and hence be against it.  That would make me
homophobic?

I don't think it's as black and white as that, Dan'l.

--
Subrata Sircar | sksi...@phoenix.princeton.edu |Prophet& SPAMIT Charter Member
        I don't speak for Princeton, and they don't speak for me.
        "Everyone is *NOT* entitled to his or her opinion.
         Everyone is entitled to an *INFORMED* opinion." -- Harlan Ellison

Card's Article on Homosexuality John Higdon 8/24/91 8:20 PM
In article <JPT.91Au...@godot.think.com> j...@godot.think.com (James P. Taylor) writes:
>   Utah has never had
>   a diverse population, it has always been dominated by the Mormon church,
>   with the vast majority of citizens belonging to it. In any case it certainly
>   looks like  the kind of thing we don't want to see spreading outside its
>   small area of infection.

One of the reasons we do not want the "Mormon way of thinking" to
spread is because the LDS is "The Master of Mediocrity". While members
profess to "strive for excellence", in fact the church society is such
a morass of sameness that anyone who really begins to excel in any
field is reminded by his local church authorities that perhaps he is
spending a little too much time with his secular endeavors and not
enough time "serving the lord".

I would challenge any member of the church to give me a list longer
than the fingers of one hand of faithful, full-fellowshiped, temple
recommend holding church members who are recognized as leaders of any
scientific, artistic, or business endeavor. Please do not mention
political hacks such as Ezra Taft Benson--that is not excellence. While
you are naming these people, bear in mind that the LDS church is
becoming one of the largest (other than the Catholic church) religious
institutions in the country. Its representation in these areas should
be very significant.

One other thing: how many on your list are people other than white
males?

>Given the Mormon's historical legal persecution it is disturbing that Card
>wants to use the law as a moral weapon.  But ...

Just remember: God's punishment for having heterosexual relations is
the birth of a child. If you don't believe that, just ask any
anti-abortionist. If a young woman is going to have sex, she must face
the punishment and bear that child. Aborting it is subverting God's
will!
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 723 1395
    jo...@zygot.ati.com      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

Card's Article on Homosexuality Michael L. Kaufman 8/25/91 11:33 AM
In article <34...@zygot.ati.com> jo...@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:
>Just remember: God's punishment for having heterosexual relations is
>the birth of a child. If you don't believe that, just ask any
>anti-abortionist. If a young woman is going to have sex, she must face
>the punishment and bear that child. Aborting it is subverting God's will!

Please. There are enough distortion in this thread already.  Most anti-abortion
people think that abortion is murder.  What John types here is just inflamatory
hogwash.

Michael


--
Michael Kaufman | I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on
 kaufman        | fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in
  @eecs.nwu.edu | the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be
                | lost in time - like tears in rain. Time to die.     Roy Batty

Card's Article on Homosexuality George Dalton Madison 8/25/91 7:40 PM
Michael Kaufman:

>In article <34...@zygot.ati.com> jo...@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:
>>Just remember: God's punishment for having heterosexual relations is
>>the birth of a child. If you don't believe that, just ask any
>>anti-abortionist. If a young woman is going to have sex, she must face
>>the punishment and bear that child. Aborting it is subverting God's will!
>
>Please. There are enough distortion in this thread already.  Most anti-abortion
>people think that abortion is murder.  What John types here is just inflamatory
>hogwash.

No, it isn't.  The vast majority of the anti-abortion people I
have heard have incredibly Neanderthal ideas about sex.  While
they don't make a lot of noise about it, a fair number of these
groups have birth control as #2 on their hit list if they manage
to get rid of abortion.

() Mon hydroglisseur est plein d'anguilles.
()      -- Joe Chapman
-----
[George D. Madison, a/k/a Furr | 8-{)##] | NBCS:B8f+t+w-e+s+k+a!cv PIG 8/7]
[> fu...@cup.portal.com <#> It's a BEAR thing -- you wouldn't understand. <]

Card's Article on Homosexuality James Davis Nicoll 8/26/91 8:22 AM
In article <1991Aug25.0...@en.ecn.purdue.edu> gle...@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Glenn A Reinhardt) writes:
>In article <67...@pbhyc.PacBell.COM> djdaneh@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes:
>
>>If you choose "C" -- you are against _this_ boycott -- then you are
>>supporting OSC's stand, in which case you are a homophobic ass.
>
>Do you honestly believe that because you purchase a book by an author you
>automatically espouse his beliefs?  Perhaps you don't actively support the
>causes he offends but I think you are creating a false dichotomy.
>
>I think this has been covered (in general) before but I thought I'd ask anyway.

        Heh. Look, you're replying to a work of rhetoric. Rhetoric != logical
argument, but it sways crowds better.I forget the name of the 'There are
only 'n' choices you can make, and the ones different from mine are obviously
non-viable' tool of rhetorical argument.

                                                                James Nicoll

Card's Article on Homosexuality gordon e. banks 8/26/91 9:12 AM
In article <34...@zygot.ati.com> jo...@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:

>One of the reasons we do not want the "Mormon way of thinking" to
>spread is because the LDS is "The Master of Mediocrity". While members
>profess to "strive for excellence", in fact the church society is such
>a morass of sameness that anyone who really begins to excel in any
>field is reminded by his local church authorities that perhaps he is
>spending a little too much time with his secular endeavors and not
>enough time "serving the lord".
>
>I would challenge any member of the church to give me a list longer
>than the fingers of one hand of faithful, full-fellowshiped, temple
>recommend holding church members who are recognized as leaders of any
>scientific, artistic, or business endeavor. Please do not mention
>political hacks such as Ezra Taft Benson--that is not excellence. While
>you are naming these people, bear in mind that the LDS church is
>becoming one of the largest (other than the Catholic church) religious
>institutions in the country. Its representation in these areas should
>be very significant.
>

I was wondering how long this discussion would take before it flushed
scum like this creep out of the woodwork.  Could I interest you in a copy
of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion?"

>
>Just remember: God's punishment for having heterosexual relations is
>the birth of a child. If you don't believe that, just ask any
>anti-abortionist. If a young woman is going to have sex, she must face
>the punishment and bear that child. Aborting it is subverting God's
>will!

What a perverted way to look at the birth of a child!  You must
really have been a disappointment to your mother.

>        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 723 1395
>    jo...@zygot.ati.com      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP        | "It ain't what you don't know.
g...@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu     |  It's what you know that ain't so"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Card's Article on Homosexuality Steve Dyer 8/26/91 9:41 AM
In article <11619@pitt.UUCP> g...@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes:
>>Just remember: God's punishment for having heterosexual relations is
>>the birth of a child. If you don't believe that, just ask any
>>anti-abortionist. If a young woman is going to have sex, she must face
>>the punishment and bear that child. Aborting it is subverting God's will!
>What a perverted way to look at the birth of a child!  You must
>really have been a disappointment to your mother.

Er, Gordon, that was sarcasm and he was putting words in the mouth of
a purported LDS/antiabortion member.  Rather distasteful, but ypu'd be
making a mistake if you thought these were Higdon's own thoughts, and
they are no more hateful than Card's original sentiments about gay people.
Whether mudslinging is an effective response to mudslinging is another
issue.

--
Steve Dyer
dy...@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
"Proletarii vcex stran, izvinite!" -- Anon.

Card's Article on Homosexuality John Higdon 8/26/91 2:40 AM
In article <1991Aug25.1...@eecs.nwu.edu> kau...@eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) writes:

>Please. There are enough distortion in this thread already.  Most anti-abortion
>people think that abortion is murder.  What John types here is just inflamatory
>hogwash.

Inflamatory, maybe. Hogwash? Maybe you ought to listen harder to the
fundies around you. Only some anti-abortionists consider abortion
murder. Mormons, for instance, consider abortion to be a subversion of
God's will, in that it prevents a life from coming down from the
pre-existence. Most also will readily tell you that the prospect of
having a child out of wedlock is a great deterrant to pre-marital sex.

Which brings us to birth control. In this instance Mormons again
consider this to interfere with the flow of spirits from the
pre-existence coming to earth. Other fundamentalists consider birth
control to be a nullification of that "birth" deterrant.

So do not be so quick to dismiss the concept of birth as punishment or
at least a deterrant. Perhaps I struck a nerve?
--

        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 723 1395
    jo...@zygot.ati.com      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

Card's Article on Homosexuality Lawrence C. Foard 8/26/91 3:17 PM
In article <34...@zygot.ati.com> jo...@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:
>In article <1991Aug25.1...@eecs.nwu.edu> kau...@eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) writes:
>
>>Please. There are enough distortion in this thread already.  Most anti-abortion
>>people think that abortion is murder.  What John types here is just inflamatory
>>hogwash.
>
>Inflamatory, maybe. Hogwash? Maybe you ought to listen harder to the
>fundies around you. Only some anti-abortionists consider abortion
>murder.

I think the vast majority do, there really isn't any other >>reasonable<<
argument against it.

>Mormons, for instance, consider abortion to be a subversion of
>God's will, in that it prevents a life from coming down from the
>pre-existence.

I assume they also are against birth control of all forms then?

>Most also will readily tell you that the prospect of
>having a child out of wedlock is a great deterrant to pre-marital sex.

So whats wrong with pre-marital sex? The only problem with it is that it can
cause child birth (in women) and disease, both of these can be corrected with
proper precautions.

>Which brings us to birth control. In this instance Mormons again
>consider this to interfere with the flow of spirits from the
>pre-existence coming to earth. Other fundamentalists consider birth
>control to be a nullification of that "birth" deterrant.

Both of these seem irrational. If borth control interferes with the flow
of spirits, why isn't it a sin for women to spend any time idle when they
should be pumping out babys.
The second case is fundys trying to cram there messed up morals down other
people throats in a round about way.

>So do not be so quick to dismiss the concept of birth as punishment or
>at least a deterrant. Perhaps I struck a nerve?

Why shouldn't I be quick to dismiss it? After all I don't have to worry
about getting most of my dates pregnant....
--
Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are 99.44% true.            ------  0<p<1  
Hackers do it for fun.  |  Being Bisexual squares your         \    / therefore
"Profesionals" do it for money. |  probability of not getting   \  / p^2<p and
Managers have others do it for them. |  laid on a saturday night.\/ 1-p^2>1-p

Card's Article on Homosexuality gordon e. banks 8/27/91 8:06 AM
In article <34...@zygot.ati.com> jo...@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:
>murder. Mormons, for instance, consider abortion to be a subversion of
>God's will, in that it prevents a life from coming down from the
>pre-existence. Most also will readily tell you that the prospect of
>having a child out of wedlock is a great deterrant to pre-marital sex.
>
Having a child out of wedlock *is* a deterrant to pre-marital sex,
but that's a far cry from your statement that it is a curse from
God, which is something I had never heard said before!  I find
it offensive to have someone tell me what most Mormons (or Jews,
or blacks, or gays) believe.  Why don't you stick to telling
us what you believe, and argue for that position.  Let Mormons
speak for themselves.  If you have so much dislike for the religion,
you can probably find people to sympathize with you on one of
the born-again net groups, but what does this have to do with
science fiction?
Card's Article on Homosexuality G. Wolfe Woodbury 8/27/91 3:20 PM
In article <11619@pitt.UUCP> g...@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes:
>In article <34...@zygot.ati.com> jo...@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:
>
>>I would challenge any member of the church to give me a list longer
>>than the fingers of one hand of faithful, full-fellowshiped, temple
>>recommend holding church members who are recognized as leaders of any
>>scientific, artistic, or business endeavor. Please do not mention
>>political hacks such as Ezra Taft Benson--that is not excellence. While
>>you are naming these people, bear in mind that the LDS church is
>>becoming one of the largest (other than the Catholic church) religious
>>institutions in the country. Its representation in these areas should
>>be very significant.
>>
>
>I was wondering how long this discussion would take before it flushed
>scum like this creep out of the woodwork.  Could I interest you in a copy
>of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion?"

This is getting a bit too much to take.  The extremes of cross-posting
that this thread has taken have got people who don't usually get exposed
to each other flaming away needlessly.

Mr. Higdon seems a decent fellow and not particularly bigotted.  His
commentary on Mormon "mediocrity" is based on his perceptions of having
observed Utah for a while.   There is no need to get totally bent out of
shape if someone points out that a group does, in fact, have
characteristics like Mr. Higdon notes.  The LDS church itself, is quite
proud (in some ways) of its "white-bread" mediocrity.

Gordon, there is no need to start flinging accusations of anti-semitism
simply because John has a poor opinion of Mormons.  My own roots are
deep in southern utah and I don't particularly care for the Mormons
either.

>>Just remember: God's punishment for having heterosexual relations is
>>the birth of a child. If you don't believe that, just ask any
>>anti-abortionist. If a young woman is going to have sex, she must face
>>the punishment and bear that child. Aborting it is subverting God's
>>will!
>
>What a perverted way to look at the birth of a child!  You must
>really have been a disappointment to your mother.

Read it carefully.  John is not claiming this as his point of view!
This IS the way that some fundamentalists and conservatives view the act
of procreation!

The net needs a special symbol to use for expressions of HEAVY SARCASM
when the "smiley" is just not appropriate.  I suspect John would have
heavily salted this section with such a symbol if it existed.


--
G. Wolfe Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!wolfe   ...mcnc!wolves!wolfe         [use the maps!]
Domain: wolfe%...@mcnc.mcnc.org    wolfe%...@cs.duke.edu
[The line eater is a boojum snark! ]           <standard disclaimers apply>

Against homophobia (was Card's Article on Homosexuality) Kathryn Huxtable 8/27/91 12:44 PM
In article <1991Aug25.1...@eecs.nwu.edu> kau...@eecs.nwu.edu
    (Michael L. Kaufman) writes:
> Please. There are enough distortion in this thread already.
> Most anti-abortion people think that abortion is murder.

In article <34...@zygot.ati.com> jo...@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:
> Inflamatory, maybe. Hogwash? Maybe you ought to listen harder to the
> fundies around you. Only some anti-abortionists consider abortion
> murder.

In article <1991Aug26.2...@wpi.WPI.EDU>, ent...@wintermute.WPI.EDU


    (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
> I think the vast majority do, there really isn't any other >>reasonable<<
> argument against it.

I think the vast majority of anti-abortionists consider it
murder, but that's only part of the reason for the intensity
of the objections.  And I think you're misusing the term
"reasonable".  If you'd said IMHO, I wouldn't complain.  See
my discussion below.

John:


> Mormons, for instance, consider abortion to be a subversion of
> God's will, in that it prevents a life from coming down from the
> pre-existence.

Lawrence:


> I assume they also are against birth control of all forms then?

Yes, they are.

John:


> Most also will readily tell you that the prospect of
> having a child out of wedlock is a great deterrant to pre-marital sex.

Lawrence:


> So whats wrong with pre-marital sex? The only problem with it is that it can
> cause child birth (in women) and disease, both of these can be corrected with
> proper precautions.

See the above.  Most of the anti-abortionists *are* in fact
also anti-birth control.  More below.

John:


> Which brings us to birth control. In this instance Mormons again
> consider this to interfere with the flow of spirits from the
> pre-existence coming to earth. Other fundamentalists consider birth
> control to be a nullification of that "birth" deterrant.

Lawrence:


> Both of these seem irrational. If borth control interferes with the flow
> of spirits, why isn't it a sin for women to spend any time idle when they
> should be pumping out babys.
> The second case is fundys trying to cram there messed up morals down other
> people throats in a round about way.

And, of course, according to these folks women *should* be
pumping out babies.  More on messed up morals below.

John:


>>So do not be so quick to dismiss the concept of birth as punishment or
>>at least a deterrant. Perhaps I struck a nerve?

Lawrence:


> Why shouldn't I be quick to dismiss it? After all I don't have to worry
> about getting most of my dates pregnant....

Perhaps John didn't make his point as well as he could have.

I *strongly* recommend a book _Abortion and the Politics of
Motherhood_, by Kristin Luker.  It's an extremely
even-handed analysis of the mind-sets of the activists on
both sides of the question and where they're coming from.

Just because someone's arguments don't seem logical to you
doesn't mean you can just dismiss them.  They may be coming
to compeletly logical conclusions based on radically
different postulates.  And we all have postulates.

One of the basic postulates of the anti-abortionists is that
sex was given by god, that sex has a *purpose*, and that
that purpose is procreation.  By simple deduction from this
we see that all non-procreative sex, whether lesbian or gay
male sex, or heterosex with birth control is sinful since it
controverts the basic *purpose* of sex.

I don't share this postulate (obviously, since I'm a
lesbian).  But I can't just dismiss someone as a raving
lunatic when they want to make my expression of love illegal
(which it is in Kansas anyway) because they are in fact
dangerous to me.  And it does no good to call them crazy
either.  They aren't crazy.  They just have a different
world view.  It used to be a bit more common.  Just because
we consider it a wrong world view shouldn't make them crazy
in our view, just wrong.

It is so wrong that I think we must fight it as hard as we
can, but we should not blind ourselves to our opponents'
true nature.  We can't afford to waste our strength this way.

--
Kathryn Huxtable              \   "Women who laugh too much, and the women
huxt...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu   /\   who love them." --- Jamie Anderson

Card's Article on Homosexuality Jennifer A. Heise 8/27/91 4:53 PM
I'm a moderate pro-lifer.  I resent being stereotyped by bigots like
you who don't know what you are talking about.  Some pro-lifers oppose
contraception,-- some don't.  (and some blacks like watermelon too.)
Card's Article on Homosexuality gordon e. banks 8/28/91 7:45 AM
In article <1991Aug27.222057.22013@wolves.uucp> wolfe@wolves.uucp (G. Wolfe Woodbury) writes:
>
>Gordon, there is no need to start flinging accusations of anti-semitism
>simply because John has a poor opinion of Mormons.  My own roots are
>deep in southern utah and I don't particularly care for the Mormons
>either.
>

In order to see my point, let's use the word processor to switch
"Mormons" for "Jews" in your paragraph.


>
>Gordon, there is no need to start flinging accusations of anti-semitism
>simply because John has a poor opinion of Jews.  My own roots are
>deep in southern utah and I don't particularly care for the Jews
>either.
>

Or blacks:

>
>Gordon, there is no need to start flinging accusations of anti-semitism
>simply because John has a poor opinion of blacks.  My own roots are
>deep in the south and I don't particularly care for the blacks
>either.
>

Try it with gays, Chinese, Polish, whatever.

See what I mean?  Why does the first paragraph seem so inoffensive,
to you while the last two seem totally inappropriate?  Simply because of
the cultural convention that it is OK to target one group, but not others.
In pre-war Europe, no one would have thought anything about targeting
the Jews in such a way.  Or is it that Mormons are not perceived as
being a separate people, sort of like Republicans or Masons or something?
Let me tell you, this is not the way they feel.  Card's fiction does
convey the feeling of paranoia that a persecuted group experiences,
regardless of what else people think of it.

What's more John's statement was wrong.  In a sociologic survey I
remember reading, there were more US scientists per
capita that identified themselves as Mormons than any other
of the larger denominations
except Jewish.  Who knows how orthodox Mormons they are?  (Are Jewish
scientists particularly orthodox?)  When was the last time you
met a protestant believer who was prominent in science?  Quite rarer
than Mormons, I would guess.  Most scientists are agnostic, in my
experience.  Anyhow, in my own field (Medical Informatics) there are
several Mormons at the very top.  But I have no intention of making
lists and arguing whether people are orthodox or not.  It's a stupid
game.

>>>Just remember: God's punishment for having heterosexual relations is
>>>the birth of a child. If you don't believe that, just ask any
>>>anti-abortionist. If a young woman is going to have sex, she must face
>>>the punishment and bear that child. Aborting it is subverting God's
>>>will!
>>
>>What a perverted way to look at the birth of a child!  You must
>>really have been a disappointment to your mother.
>
>Read it carefully.  John is not claiming this as his point of view!
>This IS the way that some fundamentalists and conservatives view the act
>of procreation!
>
Well, it certainly isn't a characteristically Mormon view, so what did
he mean by it?  I had never heard such a thing
before, and had assumed that John was some born-again anti-Mormon,
since the born-again "Christians" are usually the ones that lead the attack.
So maybe he's a liberal anti-Mormon, or even an ex-Mormon anti-Mormon.  
Bigotry is still bigotry, and if the shoe fits, wear it.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP        | "It ain't what you don't know.
g...@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu     |  It's what you know that ain't so"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Card's Article on Homosexuality Max Rochlin 8/28/91 8:10 AM
In article <1991Aug27.222057.22013@wolves.uucp> wolfe@wolves.uucp (G. Wolfe Woodbury) writes:
>
>The net needs a special symbol to use for expressions of HEAVY SARCASM
>when the "smiley" is just not appropriate.  I suspect John would have
>heavily salted this section with such a symbol if it existed.

What the net needs is people that can think for themselves.  This ain't
a game show, kids.  There isn't an "Applause"  "Sarcasm" "Boo, Hiss"
sign to tell you how to react/think/feel here on the net.  That's what TV
is for.

--

  +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  |     m...@gupta.com      |     Max J. Rochlin     |   m...@queernet.org   |
  +------------------------+------------------------+----------------------+

Card's Article on Homosexuality Mike Van Pelt 8/28/91 11:40 AM
In article <27089118.53.56JAHB@lehigh.bitnet> JA...@NS.CC.LEHIGH.EDU (Jennifer A. Heise) writes:
>I'm a moderate pro-lifer.  I resent being stereotyped by bigots like
>you who don't know what you are talking about.  Some pro-lifers oppose
>contraception,-- some don't.  (and some blacks like watermelon too.)

      *applause!!*

(Today's .signature file seems especially appropriate to the
whole attempt to turn sf-lovers into a subset of alt.flame.)
--
Mike Van Pelt                     Will your long-winded speeches never
Headland Technology/Video 7       end?  What ails you that you keep on
...ames!vsi1!hsv3!mvp            arguing?    --    Job 16:3
m...@hsv3.lsil.com

Card's Article on Homosexuality Michael 8/28/91 1:28 PM

Disclaimers first:
1) I am heterosexual
2) I find OSC's views on homosexuality rubbish (note: this is an
opinion, not the ultimate truth)
3) I don't read OSC anyway

follow my 0.02

If you don't read/buy OSC books for his views, that's a boycott.
You may also try to persuade others not to buy/read OSC. Fine with me.

If you try to make/force/coerce bookstores take OSC from their sheelves,
this is censorship. Not fine with me. I want to make my own choice in a
bookstore. I'd rather you'd emigarte to Iran and ask an ayatollah
to rushdie OSC.

Michael Maisack
George Mason U
Fairfax VA 22030
USA

Card's Article on Homosexuality Clayton Cramer 8/28/91 1:53 PM
In article <11626@pitt.UUCP>, g...@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes:
> In article <34...@zygot.ati.com> jo...@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:
# #murder. Mormons, for instance, consider abortion to be a subversion of
# #God's will, in that it prevents a life from coming down from the
# #pre-existence. Most also will readily tell you that the prospect of
# #having a child out of wedlock is a great deterrant to pre-marital sex.
# #
# Having a child out of wedlock *is* a deterrant to pre-marital sex,
# but that's a far cry from your statement that it is a curse from
# God, which is something I had never heard said before!  I find
# it offensive to have someone tell me what most Mormons (or Jews,
# or blacks, or gays) believe.  Why don't you stick to telling
# us what you believe, and argue for that position.  Let Mormons
# speak for themselves.  If you have so much dislike for the religion,
# you can probably find people to sympathize with you on one of
# the born-again net groups, but what does this have to do with
# science fiction?
#
# Gordon Banks  N3JXP        | "It ain't what you don't know.
# g...@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu     |  It's what you know that ain't so"

You're arguing with soc.motss.  Reason and facts have nothing to
do with it.

I also have NEVER heard children, in or out of wedlock, called
a "curse from God", in any church I've ever attended.

--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among
these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." -- a Dead White Male

Card's Article on Homosexuality Michael L. Kaufman 8/28/91 9:46 PM
In article <1991Aug28.2...@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> mmai...@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Michael) writes:
>If you try to make/force/coerce bookstores take OSC from their sheelves, this
>is censorship. Not fine with me. I want to make my own choice in a bookstore.
>I'd rather you'd emigarte to Iran and ask an ayatollah to rushdie OSC.

Does it matter what methods I use to try to m/f/c the bookstores to take OSC
from their shelves?  I mean, I can certainly agree that it would be wrong for
me to blow the store up or threaten the workers or something like that, but if
I decide not to shop in stores that carry material that I do not aprove of,
that is certainly my right.  And if I try to convince - through verbal
discussions - others to follow my example, that is my right as well.

Michael

--
Michael Kaufman | I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on
 kaufman        | fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in
  @eecs.nwu.edu | the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be
                | lost in time - like tears in rain. Time to die.     Roy Batty

Card's Article on Homosexuality Iain McVey 8/29/91 1:30 PM

I don't mean to be facetious, but perhaps you could all use the same
subject line for your posts so that my kill file can catch them all?


Thanks.  =8^)
--
Iain McVey - ia...@ucs.sfu.ca                 | "...pioneers end up with
Advisor, Distributed Computing Support Group | arrows in their backs.  It's
Computer Services, Simon Fraser University   | the settlers who reap the
Burnaby, BC, Canada  V5A 1S6                 | benefits." John Perry Barlow

Card's Article on Homosexuality Tane' Tachyon 8/30/91 6:27 AM

In article <1991Aug25.1...@eecs.nwu.edu> kau...@eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) writes:
>In article <34...@zygot.ati.com> jo...@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:
>>Just remember: God's punishment for having heterosexual relations is
>>the birth of a child. If you don't believe that, just ask any
>>anti-abortionist. If a young woman is going to have sex, she must face
>>the punishment and bear that child. Aborting it is subverting God's will!
>
>Please. There are enough distortion in this thread already.  Most anti-abortion
>people think that abortion is murder.  What John types here is just inflamatory
>hogwash.

That is the way that Operation Rescue always comes across in the
media, at least.  From a 8/27/91 Village Voice article by Alisa
Solomon on the OR protests in Wichita:

"Over and over women explained their 'prolife' position to me in this
way, depicting pregnancy not as the God-given glory they insist
it is, but as punishment.  (A position many underscore by making
exceptions in cases of rape or incest.)  'If a girl wants to have
sex outside the sacred bond of marriage, and outside its purpose
-- procreation, not recreation -- then she has to pay for the
consequences,' Linda explained.  Is this a good reason to bring
a child into the world?  'She should have thought about that
before,' Linda said."

--
=============================================================================
tac...@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us           I'm supposed to be working right now.
tac...@ucscb.ucsc.edu                    I only like sigs on *other* people.
=============================================================================

Against homophobia (was Card's Article on Homosexuality) Anne T. Pfohl 8/30/91 7:39 AM
In article <1991Aug27.1...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, huxt...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Kathryn Huxtable) writes...

>
>I *strongly* recommend a book _Abortion and the Politics of
>Motherhood_, by Kristin Luker.  It's an extremely
>even-handed analysis of the mind-sets of the activists on
>both sides of the question and where they're coming from.
>
>Just because someone's arguments don't seem logical to you
>doesn't mean you can just dismiss them.  They may be coming
>to compeletly logical conclusions based on radically
>different postulates.  And we all have postulates.

(Insanity follows:)

I never have, but I've always wanted to... they look so cute in those little
wimples.  I want to run up to them and shout "No!  Wait!  There's a better
way to reach heaven, let me show you!"  But I...

Oh!  You meant "postulates" not "postulants"!

Never mind...

>
>One of the basic postulates of the anti-abortionists is that
>sex was given by god, that sex has a *purpose*, and that
>that purpose is procreation.  By simple deduction from this
>we see that all non-procreative sex, whether lesbian or gay
>male sex, or heterosex with birth control is sinful since it
>controverts the basic *purpose* of sex.
>
>I don't share this postulate (obviously, since I'm a
>lesbian).  But I can't just dismiss someone as a raving
>lunatic when they want to make my expression of love illegal
>(which it is in Kansas anyway) because they are in fact
>dangerous to me.  And it does no good to call them crazy
>either.  They aren't crazy.  They just have a different
>world view.  It used to be a bit more common.  Just because
>we consider it a wrong world view shouldn't make them crazy
>in our view, just wrong.

In all seriousness, I wanted to respond to this because I saw something today
that scared me - actually, two things have happened recently...

This morning, as I was pulling away from my house (where I live with my
lover) I saw on a bumper sticker on a car that read "Abortion Kills
Children".  This car belongs to one of the sons in the family next door.  I
have become friendly with them - we always talk, the parents, the sons and me
- the young men are very attractive, personable and intelligent.  But I guess
that's what scares me the most - these are people I like.  I can't and won't
dismiss them out of hand as crazy or bad or evil.  In a way, though, I felt
betrayed - ach, I take it too personally perhaps.  I felt angry, and thought
about plastering my car with ProChoice stickers...

More often than not the people we are dealing with in terms of those who
would legislate with whom we may make love and how our bodies will be used
are people not too much unlike ourselves in many respects.  This has been my
experience.

A woman who is a very dear friend of mine, with whom I sing frequently, is,
in her own words, ProLife.  I felt myself hesitate within - I recoiled.  But,
knowing her as I do - a devout Catholic, raised in straight, upper middle
class white America, it made just as much sense as not.  She knows me, knows
my lover and has never changed her behavior towards me in any way, and I
didn't expect her to.  But, knowing what I do now, do I then change my
behavior towards her?  Is she now somehow "bad, sick, crazy, evil"?

I think anyone who wants to force another by law to bear an unwanted child is
wrong.  I think anyone who wants to condemn or punish me for loving another
woman is wrong.  But they think I am wrong too, and they have as many reasons
from their perspective as I have from mine.  If I begin saying they should
shut up, they are sick and shouldn't be listened too, they are corrupt - am I
not saying of them what they say of me?

soc.motss is not about justifying our existence or explaining our rights to
the straight world, but I struggle with the moral dilemmas I see here.  Maybe
I am the only one who sees them.  Perhaps the best approach is to simply say
"I have been hurt enough by the ignorance of people like this.  My way is
infinately more inclusive and fair, so I'll just blow these myopic,
hate-mongerers away..."  Otherwise, I find myself back where I started - in a
quandry.

>
>It is so wrong that I think we must fight it as hard as we
>can, but we should not blind ourselves to our opponents'
>true nature.  We can't afford to waste our strength this way.

Some of my direct experience says that some of the antiabortionists lean
pretty close to the loony side of things.  A good deal of my personal
experience shows me they are every day people who feel very strongly about
what they are doing.  But what they want to do is take away my right to
choose, and that is the most horrible thing I can think of.  I don't want to
impinge on their right to believe what they believe, love whomever they wish,
bear children or not as they wish.  They do want to impinge on these rights
as far as they relate to me, and that is something I will fight.

>
>--
>Kathryn Huxtable              \   "Women who laugh too much, and the women
>huxt...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu   /\   who love them." --- Jamie Anderson

Sorry if my joke was out of place - it's been a long week and I'm seeing
humor in a lot of things lately... :)

Anne
University at Buffalo Medical School  -  Office of Information Systems
======================================================================
*** Disclaimer...
*** These thoughts belong to         -mi
                                  -mi   -mi
                               -mi         -mi
                             mi               -mi.  Ahem.  La la la...
*** Sounds like a personal problem to me... ***
======================================================================
ois...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu     |  One more false move and I'll... I'll...
oisanne@mednet.bitnet            |     sing a high C!
pf...@eng.buffalo.edu            |                     - Dangerous Diva

Card's Article on Homosexuality Nick Szabo 9/1/91 12:42 AM
>>>Just remember: God's punishment for having heterosexual relations is
>>>the birth of a child....
>
>...'If a girl wants to have

>sex outside the sacred bond of marriage, and outside its purpose
>-- procreation, not recreation -- then she has to pay for the
>consequences,' Linda explained.

So much for "maternal instinct".

Has anybody stopped to consider that, regardless of how wealthy our
species may become, no matter how well we protect ourselves from
weapons of mass destruction, our species is doomed to self-genocide?


--
szabo@techbook.COM  ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}techbook!szabo
Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) Voice: +1 503 646-8257
Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks

Card's Article on Homosexuality DCW...@psuvm.psu.edu 9/2/91 11:14 PM
>
>Has anybody stopped to consider that, regardless of how wealthy our
>species may become, no matter how well we protect ourselves from
>weapons of mass destruction, our species is doomed to self-genocide?
>
     Jeez, talk about your serious pessimist.

     Maybe I'm a little too optimistic, I think (or at least HOPE) that our spe
     cies will survive.  Civilizations, including our own, may collapse, but
     mankind has always found away to survive and always will.  Even if we drop
     the bomb or <shudder> George burns all of our oil in his speedboat.


"Everybody's got someting to hide, cept for me and my monkey" The Beatles
"Sometimes words have two meanings" Led Zepellin
"Don't take life too seriously, because there's no warranty" me
Dan "the man from the far reaches of the unknown" W.

More topics »