Orson Scott Card 'updates' Hamlet For Modern Sensibilites, Hilarity Ensues

[Sci-2]

Wasn't there something about black people only allowed into heaven as slaves?

One would think with all the changes to Scripture Card would start to wonder about the validity about his own faith. It seems to me Mormons have an inferiority complex to other Christians, and its public figures want to out-conservative the others at times. Card could leave it at - "my faith prohibits gay marriage" - but he seems to need to go out of his way to make sure no one is questioning the validity of the Mormon faith as a true Christian one.

To do this, it seems he must extra-hate the gay.

[sologdin]

peter--

that's a good list of the doctrinal points, but i'm not seeing anything that is particularly loony, compared with other religions. sure, the dark skin one is politically barbaric, but theologically it's not diffierent than the other ones.

[Jerol]

I feel sorry for Card. I think it is obvious that ever since he became sexually aware he's wanted the cock (not that there's anything wrong with that) and the faith/culture he grew up in told him that it was wrong, wrong, wrong. His entire life has been a reaction to his denial of what he is and self-loathing. Well, I sort of feel sorry for him. A better man would tell his religion to go to hell and just be what he wanted to be. Instead he became a homophobic wretch.

[frodostark]

Hitler only killed 6 million jews, Jesus has/will condemn hundreds of billions to eternal torture.

Or we could go with the actual teaching of the religion, which is that we condemn ourselves by our own sin and rebellion.

The point being Jesus eating with the sinners and tax collectors. The point is 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. The point is Luke 6: 37-42. Yes, Christians believe being gay (well, actively gay) is a sin, but we believe lots of things are a sin. The point is not to go around preaching hellfire and damnation, it's to live life as an example. And at the root, the whole basis of the religion is forgiveness.

And it's not even consistent because only gay people get nearly the controversy and hatred at this point. You don't see many Christians spitting the same kind of venom on someone who cheats on his wife, or whatever.

Semi-agreed...the point is most certainly not to be holier-than-thou; the Bible is very clear that ANY sin is equally bad in the eyes of God. But "the whole basis" is not just forgiveness, it's really more repentance AND forgiveness; the former comes from us, the latter from God. What irks me is when people act like religious people should just ignore their religion's teachings in the name of "tolerance." The overkill on the venom is probably due to the fact that the cheaters aren't really running around proclaiming their lifestyle MUST be accepted and tolerated and celebrated. Again, though, the ideal middle ground would most certainly involve more understanding and sympathy on both sides.

Re: frodostark

I don't know. How would you characterize Card's persistent effort to equate homosexuality and pedophilia? Or about his point that society should not accept homosexuality at all and instead should keep marginalizing gay people in order to protect the rest of society? Those do not come across as hateful to you?

Fair questions, but tough to answer in much detail in this venue...I'll just say that I'm not sure that that is a wholly accurate representation of Card's views. In addition, "marginalize" should probably be carefully defined...if Card's saying gays should be persecuted, discriminated against, etc., then that's not really defensible. If he's saying he doesn't approve of their lifestyle and doesn't wish to be told over and over again that he MUST accept it and approve of it, then what's the problem? I know for a fact that many of the folks on this board think I'm nuts for getting up early every Sunday and going to church, but I figure that's their right. Does that make you hateful for thinking my religion is nuts? I don't think so, but my self-worth isn't tied up in others' validation of my activities.

What he said.

You don't have to approve of an author's political agenda in order to appreciate their literature. Heck, I am certainly not going to waste my time researching each and every author I read just to be sure they're "pure" enough that they deserve to be read. It is only when I get hit over the head with those views in their books that I start getting serious about avoiding them.

Around 20 years ago I heard OSC speak, in person, in Utah. In fact, at the time I was personally living in Salt Lake City. (No, I'm not Mormon.) I was shocked and saddened to hear him talk, because he has been such a favorite author of mine over the years. However, it is the failing literary quality of his work, not his homophobia, that has decelerated the rate at which I read his books.

I think this says it really well...at the end of the day, I think the literary content is more important than the personal opinions, at least in judging the work. PKD thought he saw pink lights, Heinlein presented incest favorably, GRRM likes the NY football teams, etc., etc. Of course, it can be hard to separate the person from the work, but it seems like a good many of the boarders are not even making an effort, they're just throwing Card out, period. I wonder how many would do the same with GRRM if he were to experience a late life conversion to Catholicism or if somehow the "idiocy" and "hatred" of religion might get a pass given how good the work itself is?

[lokisnow]

Or we could go with the actual teaching of the religion, which is that we condemn ourselves by our own sin and rebellion.

Blame the victim, much? Same mindset that women who are raped 'deserve' it, methinks. Telling one white lie is worthy of eternal torture if you don't say, "my bad, Jesus"?

[frodostark]

Blame the victim, much? Same mindset that women who are raped 'deserve' it, methinks. Telling one white lie is worthy of eternal torture if you don't say, "my bad, Jesus"?

No, not really, on the first two...but I think that's where believing in the religious worldview or not makes all the difference in how we see things. On the last one, is there truly anyone whose worst crime is only telling "one white lie"?

[Contrarius]

Sorry, but this post smacks of FARMS. Are you a Mormon apologist? I'm an atheist, so all of it is kooky, LDS is a whole other level of kookiness

I'm neither Mormon nor an apologist -- nor Christian, nor Muslim, nor Hindi. I'm agnostic. They're all crazy to me.

**However**, I did live in Mormon Ground Zero (Salt Lake City) for several years, so I have had more direct experience of Mormons and Mormonism than most of the people who frequent this board.

We've had this discussion (thousands of times before), but just the short list of Mormon insanity:[....]

And most other religions have similar lists of insane things that they expect people to believe. Burning bushes, anyone? Loaves and fishes? Transubstantiation? There is no single religion that can claim to be insanity free.

edited to add -- oh, btw -- what is "FARMS"?

[jagilki]

edited to add -- oh, btw -- what is "FARMS"?

Just using a quick google search I think this maybe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Ancient_Research_and_Mormon_Studies

[Contrarius]

Just using a quick google search I think this maybe?

http://en.wikipedia...._Mormon_Studies

Thanks for the link! That's a new one on me. Wow, a BYU research organization supports Mormonism....what a shocker...... ;)

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

If he's saying he doesn't approve of their lifestyle and doesn't wish to be told over and over again that he MUST accept it and approve of it, then what's the problem?

Since that's not what he's saying, why are you posing this question?

[Sci-2]

"Or we could go with the actual teaching of the religion, which is that we condemn ourselves by our own sin and rebellion."

What exactly is a sin? The problem is even if we go with some kind of accepted definition of sin, we assume a level playing field (if there is a just but unmerciful God). This ignores everything we know about human conditioning, psychology, and neuroscience. There is also the simple fact that there are too many religions for anyone to apply a standard of logic in choosing the right one, though any literal interpretation of scripture shows that almost all religions suffer from human prejudice and fallacies.

One easy example of the fallacy of earned damnation is that of a priest molesting a child, the child hated everything Christian ends up being damned but the priest ends up seeking forgiveness and gets to go to Heaven. Any god willing to condemn the former and allow the latter into everlasting Paradise is on a ego trip and uninterested in any morality we would implement in the mortal realm. It's sick and twisted and I can't fathom any truly divine being allowing such injustice unless it is by nature demonic. (edit: Note that I don't think Jesus damns anyone because I don't believe in Hell while I do think Jesus was a transcendent being)

The problem with Card is that no one is making him accept anything. If he doesn't want a gay marriage, he doesn't have to have one. Card's problem is that he posts a bunch of nonsense on his blog about the end of civilization but seems unwilling to admit that his prime motive for opposing gay marriage is not the presented arguments but his religious faith. He also seems to suggest that there is some massive attack on those who oppose gay marriage, something to do with labeling....to that one might say Matthew Shepard probably wished someone would only label him, given the whole sticks and stones but words never hurt me lines. Or the gays in Uganda, where people break into their homes and beat them with hammers. Card is strangely silent on the real violence.

Card seems happy to pull out nonsense but not debate it or present any credible source on his future predictions of disaster. His arguments are reduced to ad hominems, laughably about the ad hominem attacks he receives, as thought this somehow lends weight to his irrational beliefs on the threat of gay marriage. Card simply wishes gays would be ashamed of themselves - probably in the way that he is ashamed of his own sexuality - and silence themselves.

As someone old enough to remember the ridicule and even disgust with which people viewed interracial marriage, I'm not going to buy arguments that are a poor veil for conditioned belief.

ETA: What the fuck is this talk of the gay "lifestyle"? I know straights and gays who live all kinds of ways, so someone explain what this term means.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

peter--

that's a good list of the doctrinal points, but i'm not seeing anything that is particularly loony, compared with other religions. sure, the dark skin one is politically barbaric, but theologically it's not diffierent than the other ones.

And is pretty much stolen from older versions of Christianity. The Mark of Cain and all that.

[Stego]

Religion is nuts and the more fervently you believe in it the more wacko you are.

Also, water is wet.

[Seli]

...Semi-agreed...the point is most certainly not to be holier-than-thou; the Bible is very clear that ANY sin is equally bad in the eyes of God. But "the whole basis" is not just forgiveness, it's really more repentance AND forgiveness; the former comes from us, the latter from God. What irks me is when people act like religious people should just ignore their religion's teachings in the name of "tolerance." ...

Ideally I'd like religious people to ignore the teachings because they realize it those are based on rules that worked in a bronze-age society, that were propagated by a giant game of chinese whispers, that were edited and written down by people with an agenda (in a language they were intimately familiar with), that were coopted for use in new power structures, that are encapsulated by centuries of interpretation, etc. etc.. But since that is sadly very unlikely I guess I have to settle for "tolerance", that is only fair since I have to tolerate them as well.

[Contrarius]

those are based on rules that worked in a bronze-age society, that were propagated by a giant game of chinese whispers, that were edited and written down by people with an agenda (in a language they were intimately familiar with), that were coopted for use in new power structures, that are encapsulated by centuries of interpretation, etc. etc..

Dingdingdingding! Exactly.

And it's AMAZING how strongly many religious people react when one brings up these issues..... ;)

[Galactus]

"Or we could go with the actual teaching of the religion, which is that we condemn ourselves by our own sin and rebellion."

What exactly is a sin? The problem is even if we go with some kind of accepted definition of sin, we assume a level playing field (if there is a just but unmerciful God). This ignores everything we know about human conditioning, psychology, and neuroscience. There is also the simple fact that there are too many religions for anyone to apply a standard of logic in choosing the right one, though any literal interpretation of scripture shows that almost all religions suffer from human prejudice and fallacies.

One easy example of the fallacy of earned damnation is that of a priest molesting a child, the child hated everything Christian ends up being damned but the priest ends up seeking forgiveness and gets to go to Heaven. Any god willing to condemn the former and allow the latter into everlasting Paradise is on a ego trip and uninterested in any morality we would implement in the mortal realm. It's sick and twisted and I can't fathom any truly divine being allowing such injustice unless it is by nature demonic. (edit: Note that I don't think Jesus damns anyone because I don't believe in Hell while I do think Jesus was a transcendent being)

The problem with Card is that no one is making him accept anything. If he doesn't want a gay marriage, he doesn't have to have one. Card's problem is that he posts a bunch of nonsense on his blog about the end of civilization but seems unwilling to admit that his prime motive for opposing gay marriage is not the presented arguments but his religious faith. He also seems to suggest that there is some massive attack on those who oppose gay marriage, something to do with labeling....to that one might say Matthew Shepard probably wished someone would only label him, given the whole sticks and stones but words never hurt me lines. Or the gays in Uganda, where people break into their homes and beat them with hammers. Card is strangely silent on the real violence.

Card seems happy to pull out nonsense but not debate it or present any credible source on his future predictions of disaster. His arguments are reduced to ad hominems, laughably about the ad hominem attacks he receives, as thought this somehow lends weight to his irrational beliefs on the threat of gay marriage. Card simply wishes gays would be ashamed of themselves - probably in the way that he is ashamed of his own sexuality - and silence themselves.

As someone old enough to remember the ridicule and even disgust with which people viewed interracial marriage, I'm not going to buy arguments that are a poor veil for conditioned belief.

ETA: What the fuck is this talk of the gay "lifestyle"? I know straights and gays who live all kinds of ways, so someone explain what this term means.

Which is actually why predestination is kind of logical. You don't earn *anything*, either damnation or salvation.

[SerFelixCulpa]

You mean Catholic? We have lots of breakaways of them. Some are mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia....tholic_Churches They're interesting. I don't know about them, but according to the article you posted they don't even really accept the Book of Mormon as the divinely inspired word of God, so I'm not sure what to think about em. I may have to read more about them if I get a chance...

Community of Christ actually in some ways has the more "bona fide" claim to being the "true" Mormon church. At least, it split off after the death of Joseph Smith and included Smith's first (and at least from a legal standpoint only) wife as well as his son. It was run for a long time by his sons. And the primary splitting point was plural marriage...for some reason, the original Mrs. Smith was not fond of that doctrine. ;)

And yeah, I know there are plenty of Catholic breakaways...theoretically, all Protestants would technically qualify...but the FLDS church and the LDS church are somewhat more connected and have a more problematic history vis a vis each other than any of the breakaway sects I am familiar with. On these points, I highly recommend Jon Krakauer's book "Under the Banner of Heaven." Actually, I recommend anything written by Krakauer ("Into Thin Air" may be my personal favorite piece of non-fiction) but Under the Banner of Heaven is basically about the relationship and history between the FLDS sects and the mainstream church.

[TerraPrime]

Re: frodostark

Or we could go with the actual teaching of the religion, which is that we condemn ourselves by our own sin and rebellion.

Again, you speak as if there's a unified vision of Christianity.

There is no such thing.

Fred Phelps is as entitled to his interpretation of Christianity as the Quakers are to theirs. I personally value the Quakers' interpretation more and I detest Phelps' interpretation, but my personal liking does not invalidate their religious conviction. I can only approve or disapprove of what they produce, but I cannot argue that their way of approaching Christianity is invalid.

Fair questions, but tough to answer in much detail in this venue...I'll just say that I'm not sure that that is a wholly accurate representation of Card's views.

Okay, which part is inaccurate?

In addition, "marginalize" should probably be carefully defined...if Card's saying gays should be persecuted, discriminated against, etc., then that's not really defensible.

Have you actually read anything from Card on the topic? At all? I typically dislike doing other people's Google work for them, but here it is:

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.

Source

This applies also to the polity, the 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 whoflagrantly 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.

ibid

Here's a blog that quoted an article from Card. http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/05/orson_scott_card_goes_off_the.php I tried to find the original article but the newspaper that published it doesn't seem to have it available in the archive.

If you just Google "Orson Scott Card Homosexuality" you will get plenty of links to look into.

Does that make you hateful for thinking my religion is nuts? I don't think so, but my self-worth isn't tied up in others' validation of my activities.

It is not clear to me whether you are minimizing the extent of Card's anti-gay opinions out of a position of ignorance, i.e. you simply have not read them, or out of a position of apologetics, i.e., trying to make his view sound less detestable by comparing it to something less vile, like an atheist's lack of understanding about the need of Christians to go to Church on Sundays. Maybe you can clarify this confusion?

I think this says it really well...at the end of the day, I think the literary content is more important than the personal opinions, at least in judging the work. PKD thought he saw pink lights, Heinlein presented incest favorably, GRRM likes the NY football teams, etc., etc. Of course, it can be hard to separate the person from the work, but it seems like a good many of the boarders are not even making an effort, they're just throwing Card out, period. I wonder how many would do the same with GRRM if he were to experience a late life conversion to Catholicism or if somehow the "idiocy" and "hatred" of religion might get a pass given how good the work itself is?

Again, you are attempting to whitewash the situation. People are not reacting to Card's mormonism. People are reacting to his virulent and invective description of gay people and our lives in his letters and opinion pieces. I abhor Catholicism, but I wouldn't boycott all Catholic SF/F writers based on these author's Catholicism. However, if a hypothetical Catholic SF/F author speaks out against legalizing gay marriage and is known to donate substantially to organizations that oppose legalizing gay marriage, and if this author often spews wildly inaccurate and frequently insulting stereotypes about LBGT people, then yes, I will stop buying his/her work and tell others to do the same.

Re: sciborg2

ETA: What the fuck is this talk of the gay "lifestyle"? I know straights and gays who live all kinds of ways, so someone explain what this term means.

It's conservative codeword for "guys who suck cocks or like to be fucked by other guys" as well as "women who like to have sex with other women but who would not let a man watch."

Re: manhole

And we're back to the fictional genocide versus the historical genocide. The Holocaust still wins. It's not a fairy tale. Sadly.

Win what, exactly. Whatever it is, it's a competition that only exists in your head, I fear.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Re: manhole

Win what, exactly. Whatever it is, it's a competition that only exists in your head, I fear.

Earlier in the thread Sologdin posited that Ender's Xenocide was worse than the Holocaust. Lockesnow compared Hitler killing 6 million victims favorably to Jesus condemning billions of unbelievers to eternal damnation.

My only point was to question the validity of both comparisons. The Holocaust is infinitely worse, as it actually occured.

[SerFelixCulpa]

Earlier in the thread Sologdin posited that Ender's Xenocide was worse than the Holocaust. Lockesnow compared Hitler killing 6 million victims favorably to Jesus condemning billions of unbelievers to eternal damnation. My only point was to question the validity of both comparisons. The Holocaust is infinitely worse, as it actually occured.

Or to put it somewhat tautologically, reality has a well-known bias toward the real. ;)