Quantcast
Opinion

Matthew Sanders: The Atlantic is super-wrong for using 'fascist' label in Superman story

Comments

Return To Article
  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Feb. 20, 2013 7:02 p.m.

    The LDS approved Bible Dictionary states:

    "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the kingdom of God on the earth, but is at the present limited to an ecclesiastical kingdom. During the millennial era, the kingdom of God will be both political and ecclesiastical, and will have worldwide jurisdiction in political realms when the Lord has made 'a full end of all nations' (D&C 87: 6)."

    Doctrine and Covenants 87:6 says this "end to all nations" will be accomplished through war and bloodshed:

    "And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed...shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations;"

    Doctrine and Covenants 1:14 adds:

    "...the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants (the Mormon leaders), neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles (the Mormon leaders), shall be cut off from among the people;"

    Someone please explain. By anyone's definitions, these seem to be totalitarian and "fascist" ideas, don't they?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 20, 2013 7:59 p.m.

    It is not unreasonable for the homosexual population to expect kind and understanding treatment from christians. However, it is not because christians are taught to tolerate people with 'moral flaws', which they seem to be able to ignore at will anyway, but because homosexuality isn't necessarily morally flawed at all just because christians say it is. Indeed, almost anything one can attribute to being true because it has some basis in any religion should be dismissed as potentially false until proven otherwise, because that's what it is. 'God says so',by the way, is not proof. There's a good chance all religion is partially or totally fabricated, and it in no way deserves to impose itself on the larger society without solid proof.

  • Mom of Six Northern Utah, UT
    Feb. 20, 2013 8:05 p.m.

    I never knew that 5,000 + years of thought that marriage should be between man and woman is fascist and hateful....wow! With this being said, after reading the article I was shocked at just how truly "out to lunch" our society has become. Are we truly going to swing so far the other way that any lifestyle will be ok as long as both parties agree??? sheesh!

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Feb. 20, 2013 9:27 p.m.

    OK, I read both articles and I think both Sanders and Berlatsky are up Rhetoric Creek without a paddle. But Sanders is much farther up that creek. Berlatsky's article makes some odd comparisons and enters a bizarre intellectual wilderness of superhero tropes and KKK-rooted vigilantism that doesn't quite gel for me.

    But Sanders looks like he is trying desperately to be offended at anything so he can spin off into a personal rant that has little to do with Berlatsky's article. Despite the provocative title, Berlatsky's article hardly addresses fascism, never accuses Card of it (he calls Card a bigot, not a fascist), and never brings up Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, et al. He never equates Card with the KKK. Sanders disingenuously leads readers into believing that Berlatsky does.

    Poor, poor form, Mr. Sanders, you should be ashamed of this editorial.

  • Kralon HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA
    Feb. 20, 2013 9:40 p.m.

    At least the majority of people have some common sense, I read the article and about 50 of the almost 400 comments. It was enough to realize that more than 90% of the comments thought the article was ridiculous and/or hateful and that includes many comments by those of the LGBT community.

  • William Gronberg Payson, UT
    Feb. 20, 2013 11:01 p.m.

    According to the article, here is Noah Berlatsky's vision for the future:

    “The gay utopia is an imaginary future in which gender, sexuality, and identity are fluid and in which pleasure is unregulated by either external or internal censors. It's a place where taboos dissolve and sublimation vanishes; every relationship is erotic, every action sensual.”

    Sounds rather close to some of the writings of Herbert Marcuse. In “Eros & Civilization, Boston, Beacon Press, 1966, p 201. This source and the following quote is taken from the book, “The Three Faces of Revolution by Dr. Fred Schwarz, The Capitol Hill Press, Wash D.C. p165

    “The body in its entirety would become an object of cathexis, a thing to be enjoyed—an instrument of pleasure. This change in the value and scope of libidinal relations would lead to a disintegration of the institutions in which the private interpersonal relations have been organized, particularly the monogamic and patriarchal family.”

    In 1966 the Gay Revolution was almost an unknown. But the Jerry Rubins, Abbie Hoffmans and the Yippies were very active on the American scene. Berlatsky's vision has added the Gay folks to the Herbert Marcuse vision.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 12:37 a.m.

    Here is the quote from Card that led the author to label him a fascist:

    "How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage."

    People can decide for themselves.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 1:39 a.m.

    Orson Scott Card thinks laws against sodomy should still be on the books. That level of government intrusion... if the shoe fits...

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 2:05 a.m.

    Just another in a long, LONG series of liberal rants, in which the "loving," "caring," "sensitive" liberal shows his true self, demonizing a perceived enemy and accusing him of some of the more vile of common liberal traits.

  • Timj South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 4:31 a.m.

    If only we became just as distraught at wrongful uses of the word "socialism" as we do with wrongful uses of the word "fascism."

    If you call President Obama a socialist, you really shouldn't get offended when someone calls you a fascist.

    That being said, Orson Scott Card is no more a fascist than President Obama is a socialist, and labeling them, falsely, as extremists, doesn't help anything.

  • ChuckGG Gaithersburg, MD
    Feb. 21, 2013 5:46 a.m.

    No one appreciates or needs name calling. However, there is a fine line between believing something and taking action against others. In this case, Mr. Sanders may hold his beliefs about denying civil marriage to others. That is his belief, probably from a religious perspective, but religious marriage has nothing to do with civil marriage. That is quite evident as two straight atheists can be legally married by a Justice of the Peace and every State and Country recognizes their civil marriage. It is also the right of those opposed to Mr. Sanders views to exercise their rights and not purchase his products. The majority of Americans approve of civil same-sex marriage, especially young people. Therefore, it will become the law of the land soon enough. It is merely extending civil rights to all. Churches may continue to support, or not, but this is not their call. This is civil marriage, not religious. If Mr. Sanders chooses to actively promote his anti-SSM agenda and deny others civil rights, then it certainly is the right of others to boycott his work.

  • raybies Layton, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 6:13 a.m.

    This is an example of the gay agenda's attempt to marginalize any person even weakly associated with a political agenda differen than their own. It harkens back to the physical threats made by such undisciplined zealots of gaydom who faked terror attacks (remember the white powder mailed in envelopes?), and went after the donors jobs, and against the mormons for their work on Prop 8 in California.

    I've read quite a few of OSC's articles on this topic. What he advocates is more freedom for gays, not less. He believes that those who don't wish to follow their inclinations toward homosexuality should be free to choose a different path that is not advocated by the gay-politicos.

    His viewpoint is important, and well-reasoned despite the diatribes leveled at him personally.

    Finally, I believe it's foolish to attack comic authors because they hold viewpoints different than you do. All the classics have long had authors who hold views that no longer hold water. HP Lovecraft was racist. Heinlein a misogynist. Huxley, a reclusive luddite. Wilde was gay. Still their works are intriguing and valuable and we should examine their works.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:12 a.m.

    Seriously, Mr. Sanders..you get all twisted up when christianity is labeled facist (at least in your opinion)..yet you let that phrase and many more like it on to this thread almost daily in reference to our President, and progressive politics?

    Now that we know who you are, and how you feel, I presume you won't object if we fill up your email inbox with complaints the next time a good christian labels liberals or the President with the heinious label of facist.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:13 a.m.

    How dare he take a page from right wing hate radio, and illustrate it like Glen Beck.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:16 a.m.

    Mom of Six is right.

    Was the US a fascist society just 20 years ago when very few would have welcomed same sex marriage?

    Was the US in the WWII era fascist? What about the 1800s?

  • William Gronberg Payson, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:19 a.m.

    According to the article, here is Noah Berlatsky's vision for the future:

    “The gay utopia is an imaginary future in which gender, sexuality, and identity are fluid and in which pleasure is unregulated by either external or internal censors. It's a place where taboos dissolve and sublimation vanishes; every relationship is erotic, every action sensual.”

    Sounds rather close to some of the writings of Herbert Marcuse. In “Eros & Civilization, Boston, Beacon Press, 1966, p 201. This source and the following quote is taken from the book, “The Three Faces of Revolution by Dr. Fred Schwarz, The Capitol Hill Press, Wash D.C. p165

    “The body in its entirety would become an object of cathexis, a thing to be enjoyed—an instrument of pleasure. This change in the value and scope of libidinal relations would lead to a disintegration of the institutions in which the private interpersonal relations have been organized, particularly the monogamic and patriarchal family.”

    In 1966 the Gay Revolution was almost an unknown. But the Jerry Rubins, Abbie Hoffmans and the Yippies were very active on the American scene. Berlatsky's vision has added the Gay folks to the Herbert Marcuse vision.

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:34 a.m.

    As long as individual people insist that their vision of marriage is the only correct vision and advocate that governments regulate marriage to enforce their vision of marriage, we will have arguments about marriage. I look forward to the time when governments will focus on civil rights and stop regulating marriage and social groups are free to have the type of marriage they want. Yes, social groups may still argue among themselves about the type of marriage, but, at least, governments won't be involved, and terms like "fascist" won't be rationally used.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:46 a.m.

    Hitler was not the only fascist in Nazi Germany. Millions of ordinary Germans were complicit in not speaking out against the Nazi's. Calling on the overthrow of the government for allowing all citizens to marry whom they choose comes right out of the Nazi play book. Orson Scott Card really needs to get his head out in the open. Even Glenn Beck has not called for the destruction of the government.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:50 a.m.

    The underlying conflict here is the conflation of civil marriage and religious marriage. Civil marriage, recognized by the State, provides legal entitlements and protections, but is entirely separate from religious marriage. Churches are free to marry or not marry people, depending on their particular beliefs and doctrines. Churches are also free to not recognize some marriages as valid, for religious reasons. Orthodox Judaism doesn't recognize marriage between a Jew and a gentile. Catholicism doesn't recognize marriage between Catholic and non-catholic. No one is requiring churches to recognize or perform marriages between gays. By the same token, churches shouldn't be demanding that the State only allow marriages that they will consider valid according to their doctrines and beliefs. Everyone would be outraged if we Jews demanded that the government not allow Jews to marry gentiles, as it's not the government's role to enforce religious proscriptions. Similarly, there's no good basis for insisting that the government prohibit gays from marrying just because the religious beliefs of some citizens don't allow it. Civil marriage laws shouldn't be based on religious laws and doctrines.

  • bblackmoor Troy, VA
    Feb. 21, 2013 9:24 a.m.

    He's not a fascist: he's a bigot. (He's also a talented author.)

  • William Gronberg Payson, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 9:30 a.m.

    I seriously doubt that Mr. Berlatsky's “gay utopia” vision is supported by most Gay marriage advocates. I would suggest Berlatsky is applying some of Marcuse's ideas.

    Herbert Marcuse's book, Eros and Civilization, preface to the 1966 edition includes this:

    “It was the thesis of Eros and Civilization, more fully developed in my One-Dimensional Man, that man could avoid the fate of Welfare-Through-Warfare State only by achieving a new starting point where he could reconstruct the productive apparatus without that 'innerworldly asceticism' which provided the mental basis for domination and exploration. This image of man was the determinate negation of Nietzche's superman: man intelligent enough and healthy enough to dispense with all heros and heroic virtues, man without the impulse to live dangerously, to meet the challenge; man with the good conscience to make life and end-in-itself, to live in joy in life without fear. 'Polymorphous sexuality' was the term which I used to indicate that the new direction of progress would depend completely on the opportunity to activate repressed or arrested organic, biological needs: to make the human body an instrument of pleasure rather than labor”

    Note “superman” above.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 9:34 a.m.

    If I'm labeled a Fascist or Homophobic for believing that marriage should be between one man and one woman, then fine. I can live with it. That said, what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business.

  • PolishBear Charleston, WV
    Feb. 21, 2013 9:36 a.m.

    It was only AFTER buying a lot of Orson Scott Card's books that I found out what a strident homophobe he was. And trust me, I did my research into some of the vitriolic things he has written about Gay people. And now I feel sorry that I spent so much time and money on his books. It's like finding out that an artist whose work you admire is secretly a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

    And this isn't just about Mr. Card expressing his opinion. It's one thing to say you support "traditional marriage." After all, who DOESN'T? I have lots of Straight (i.e. heterosexual) friends, some married and some single, and if any of the singles finds a compatible person of the opposite sex to marry and make a solemn commitment to, no one will be happier than me.

    But it is quite another thing to sit on the board of directors of the National Organization for Marriage, a group that works specifically to deny law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits and protections that Straight couples have always taken for granted.

    He doesn't need MY money.

  • eastcoastcoug Danbury, CT
    Feb. 21, 2013 9:51 a.m.

    I fail to see the brouhaha over a cartoonist's political views. Unless he is drawing Doonesbury, who cares what Card does in his spare time?

    I'm sure if Card's politics come out too far on one end, that cartoon consumers and others will revolt. Until then, are we saying we support reverse discrimination and silencing of someone who doesn't who doesn't support a certain agenda? If we're really practicing what we preach about non discrimination, we let people do and say what they want so long as it doesn't hurt us.

    Ironic how one side often wants to express their views and lifestyle without infringement, but won't allow that right to anyone who disagrees with their POV.

  • Emajor_ Ogden, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 10:01 a.m.

    I've read both articles, and Matthew Sanders is grossly distorting Berlatsky's editorial. Berlatsky calls Orson Scott Card a bigot, but never a fascist. He does not label gay marriage opposition as fascism. Berlatsky hardly even discusses fascism, despite the provocative title of his editorial. His premise is that superheroes like Superman originate in a desire for vigilante justice that may have been inspired by the KKK's use of vigilantism. It's an odd premise, but not one that Berlatsky himself came up with and he in no way compares Card to the KKK.

    If Mr. Sanders wants to write an opinion piece on the misuse of the label "fascist" in our political discussions, I'm all for it. Go ahead and include Communism in there, too. But he shouldn't intentionally take an article so far out of context in order to do so. It is intellectually dishonest and very much disingenuous.

  • justamacguy Manti, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 10:09 a.m.

    Interesting. From the 60's through the 90's every liberated liberal preached of "free love" and that marriage was an out dated institution. Now every liberal want's in on it. Go figure.

  • William Gronberg Payson, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 10:20 a.m.

    I would like to re-state the following:

    I seriously doubt that Mr. Berlatsky's “gay utopia” ( see the article in the DN ) vision is supported by most Gay marriage advocates. I would suggest Berlatsky is applying some of Marcuse's ideas.

    “...at the University of California at San Diego, a woman accused Marcuse of demoralizing the youth by advocating sexual license. Marcuse replied: “Madam, you don't understand. You misrepresent me. That is not what I teach at all. What I teach is much worse. I'm teaching the political consequences of the sexual revolution”

    “The books of Marcuse are not light reading. They are written for the serious and informed student. They abound with technical terminology and esoteric quotations. However, once his code has been broken, his message is comprehensible.

    Marcuse claims to be a critical philosopher whose purpose is to structure the world, not merely to describe it. For this reason, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish the border between the philosopher's description of what is and what is desired. In general it may be assumed that favorable description implies prescription.”

    The above is from “The Three Faces Of Revolution”, page 154

  • Third try screen name Mapleton, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 10:26 a.m.

    So much for the left being tolerant of the beliefs of others.

  • Healthy Skeptic Saratoga Springs, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 10:32 a.m.

    A GOVERNMENT attempting to define a religious term such as MARRIAGE is as absurd as a GOVERNMENT trying to define BAPTISM. The fact is, "marriage" is a religious term and should never have been introduced into civil law. The only way to solve this debate is to strike all reference to "marriage" in civil law and replace it with "partnership of two consenting persons" or something like that.

  • Emajor_ Ogden, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 10:40 a.m.

    Mom of Six,
    "I never knew that 5,000 + years of thought that marriage should be between man and woman is fascist and hateful....wow!"

    Well, it's taken about 5000 years for much of humanity to figure out that 5000 years of thought on racial prejudice was hateful.

  • oldcougar Orem, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 11:00 a.m.

    Scott Card is not a cartoonist and he's not a fascist. He's a creative writer. He advocates for his POV. In my mind, the vitriol and inciviility is not one-directional. I support marriage between a man and a woman, but I am not a hate monger nor a homophobe. Perhaps we can all tone down the anger and hatred a notch.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 11:08 a.m.

    Socialism: N. A political and economic theory advocating collective ownership of the means of production and control of distribution... Words have meaning. The word is aptly applied to Obama without rancor, and without calling him bigoted, racist, or whatever. However, by action, if not by word, he is a socialist. If you are a socialist, then be proud of it. Don't hide behind socialist policies and then act like being called a socialist is 'hate' speech. Advocating your belief that marraige is between a man and a women is Christian teaching. If gays have a problem with that, then go after God, but don't call a Christian follower fascist or bigoted for their belief system.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 1:24 p.m.

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Orson Scott Card may be LDS, but he is a bleeding heart liberal in good standing [much like myself].

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 1:31 p.m.

    The original "Superman" was based on ancient Jewish mysticism

    Why no hatred toward the Jews then, but open season on the Mormon now?

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 1:57 p.m.

    To banderson: Socialism: N. A political and economic theory advocating collective ownership of the means of production and control of distribution...

    Please explain how President Obama's policies have promoted the collective ownership of the means of production? If he was a socialist, he would have nationalized the banking system along with GM and Chrysler at the beginning of his first term. They were in major crisis and there were people calling for just that. That's not what he did though. He gave them loans and allowed them to pay the loans back, thereby remaining in private hands.

    There is not one thing he has done that has resulted in collective ownership. Therefore, by your definition, President Obama is no socialist.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Feb. 21, 2013 2:33 p.m.

    Scott Card is not a fascist by any definition. I know the guy, and my impression is that he is over the top in his disapproval of homosexuals; in that respect, his writings are sometimes annoying. But that doesn't make him Mussolini.

  • 1covey Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 4:33 p.m.

    Mr Kayser - "here is the quote..." Frankly,where is the connection? As this article explains, fascists, communists and anybody else that tries to deny free expression where there the subject has more than one side. this aggressively suppressive attitude is disturbing

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    Feb. 21, 2013 5:31 p.m.

    @A Scientist:

    In the hypothetical scenario where the all-wise, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe chooses to establish and rule His kingdom on the earth, you can take His methods up with Him.

    In the meantime, your tiresome efforts to cast members of a religion you despise in the worst possible light has little to do with the topic.

    To address the subject, I think many of OSC's statements on gays are extreme, not to mention discordant coming from someone who has written beautifully elsewhere about the need to love others despite their flaws, to be aware of those who are marginalized, and to overcome prejudices.

    But fascism is far, far too serious a thing to throw at someone just because you disagree with his views.

  • NeilT Clearfield, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 6:36 p.m.

    Roland Kayser: I completely agree. Good comment. I am not an Obama supporter. I do believe labeling Obama a socialist is just a scare tactic by the far right. We need more civil dialogue in poltics. A true socialist would consider Obama a failure at implementing socialist policies.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 7:22 p.m.

    to 1covey: Where is the connection? The part where he says he will work to destroy any government that supports marriage equality unless they do things the way he wants them done.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Feb. 21, 2013 7:23 p.m.

    Roland Kayser,

    Thank you. Some sanity in a sea of misinformation.

    Neil T,

    Agree completely.

    Res Novae,

    Well said. Thank you.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:41 p.m.

    Roland Kayser: How naive do you think people are to believe that this country has not been on a march toward socialism for many years? If you don't see the Nationalization of Health care as a socialism, then I doubt there is anything I could say to persuade you otherwise. The government dictates almost everything to its citizens, including what GM must do to sell cars, etc. It doesn't matter whether its minimum wage laws,'loaning' government (the people's money) money to companies, or controlling their health care choices by taking citizen's money to pay for it, to deny that Obama's actions are socialist is ludicrous. The earth is flat! Do we really have to wait until the government owns all guns, all business', or 'rights' before we can claim that someone is a socialist? Hasn't that been tried before without much success in reversing the horror that followed?

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:51 p.m.

    I don't see superman mistreating gay people. I don't
    see superman involving himself with sexuality. That
    is not what superman is about.

  • WestGranger West Valley City, Utah
    Feb. 21, 2013 10:01 p.m.

    So Orson Scott Card expresses a commonly held traditional belief and because it is not politically correct he is labeled a fascist by some and a bigot by others. Mr. Card is not a Fascist While his crtics are using the very tools of fascism in their criticism of him. labeling. demonization and intolerance toward differing opinions.
    Merriam Webster Definition of FASCISM
    1
    often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
    2
    : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 11:16 p.m.

    @banderson -- What nationalization of health care are you talking about. Remember, the reason you righties all hate "Obamacare" so much is BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO BUY INSURANCE -- from a private company. You're not buying it from the government, the government isn't giving it to you. YOU are buying it from a private insurance company. If you think that's socialism, you are ignorant of what the word means.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 11:38 p.m.

    'Fascist' is a very insulting name, and so is 'homophobic' insulting, as much so as the worst racial slur I have even heard. When people use those labels I refuse to listen further. If you want my respect and time to make your point, you have to grant me the same respect in return.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    Feb. 22, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    I am neither gay, nor an activist. However, I have read many of OSC's writings (both fiction and non-fiction); and while I was living in SLC, I also heard him speak in person.

    It is debatable whether or not the man is a fascist, but clearly the original article from The Atlantic did not actually call him one. However, this quote of his needs to be repeated over and over, until everyone is admits that OSC is **advocating insurrection against the federal government**:

    ""How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage.""

    Notice that he doesn't say "vote the bums out of office" or "become a political activist to support your cause". No, he is actively exhorting people to DESTROY the government. Is that fascism? Terrorism? Treason? Whatever it is, it's waaaaaay beyond the limits of rational political discourse.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 11:48 a.m.

    Wonder: Compulsion: a feeling of being compelled to some irrational action which is always unneccessary and often repetitive. Choice: the act of choosing or selecting, to make a choice. What part of Obamacare falls under Webster's definition of Choice? Compulsion? Perhaps, further study of a dictionary would be helpful.

  • rnoble Pendleton, OR
    Feb. 23, 2013 3:55 p.m.

    to A Scientist:

    Actually they are not "facist" ideas but theocratic declarations. God is declaring that HE will be in charge and HE will defend HIS against all comers.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Feb. 26, 2013 9:36 a.m.

    rnoble,

    No, "God" is saying nothing, declaring nothing -- MEN are alleging that "god" is speaking and that they are god's only spokespersons.

    How convenient for them.

    How inconvenient for the rest of us.

    But they are still fascist, totalitarian ideologies, just as all the fascist, totalitarian ideologies have been. And the fascist totalitarian MEN who declare them seem to always claim that it is not them but "god" who is doing the talking.

    God is the ultimate ventriloquist!

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    March 8, 2013 2:40 p.m.

    Its time for everyone to tone down the rhetoric.

    I've been in favor of Gay Marriage for years and have been subjected to many unsavory epithets for my support of the LGBT community. Nonetheless replying in kind is not justified. We need to police our own causes.

    I recently witnessed the LDS Church do a remarkable job of distancing itself from the harsh rhetoric that some have used against homosexuals. Those who favor Gay Marriage must do the same. Its time for those on the other side of this debate to tell the editors of The Atlantic that they are betraying the cause they espouse by letting their authors use terms like "fascist" to describe those who disagree with them.

    Its time to give Orson Scott Card his job back, and for both sides to drop the scare tactics and demeaning language. Screaming at each other doesn't solve our difference.

  • coltakashi Richland, WA
    March 11, 2013 12:08 p.m.

    Card has been portraying gay characters in his fiction in a positive light for decades. He has made it clear in his non-fiction writings that several of his close friends in college at BYU were homosexuals. He has not campaigned to punish gays for living as gays. His opposition to same sex marriage is simply defense of the classic definition of marriage that has prevailed through most of history, even in pre-Christian societies like ancient Greece and Rome where homosexual behavior was accepted. The fact is that most people who self-identify as homosexual do not plan on entering a "marriage", and even those who do are seldom talking about an exclusive union that is monogamous. The purpose of same sex marriage is not to enable homosexuals to share their lives and property, which they can do under "civil union" laws and with legal instruments like wills, deeds, contracts, and powers of attorney. The purpose of making same sex marriage into a status that is legally endorsed is to enable gays to use the power of government to punish people who rwefuse to endorse homosexual behavior.