The irony of Card's views is that he is a Mormon. Mormon's frequently like to recall the time when their's was a young religion severely persecuted by other Americans who saw them as a bunch of immoral heretics.
Sound familiar?
Yet Card takes an odd stance in that he is a frequent proponent of his own right to his religion while, in the case of homosexuality, arguing that people whose behavior goes against the religious beliefs of the majority can and should expect to be treated as criminals. Ironic because that's how the early Mormons were treated and I have never seen any evidence that Card endorses the idea that freedom of (or from) religious belief should be subject to the will of the majority.
"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is what this country is based on. Sometimes that means you have accept that your neighbor is your equal whether you like it or not.
Mormons complaints have always confused the heck out of me, considering they own tumultous history with polygamy. Kinda ruins your nice catch phrase if it really should be "Marriage is between a man and one or many women" if you follow your own religion.
[naturally this "Mariagge is traditionally between a man and a woman" stance has always confused the heck out of me considering how historically marriage as being a man and MANY woman was always rather widespread and is still valid in Islam, one of the major religions. Tradition of marriage my ass]
I greatly reccommend "Under the Banner of Heaven" by author Jon Kraukauer for his workup of some of the shadier aspects of the history of Mormonism (and a rather interesting take on their world view as wittingly or unwittingly dictated by their relgion).
Personally, I have always had the theory that religion influences that world view people have, even if they are not active zealots or even very religious, just as a way that the religious community you live in has shaped the way you perceive your history and the kind of lessons you think you learn from history:
Catholic Doctrine I (3rd World version): The bible is a flawed book, you need authority and the pope to add to it and interpret it.
Resulting Woldview I: Mindless obedience and following of traditions is more important than the bible. You don't need to read the bible, you can just trust other people to narrate it to you.
Catholic Doctrine II (1st Worldversion): The bible is a flawed book and even the papal authority is flawed. We respect that the pope is supposed to be considered infailible during his lifetime, but are all aware that the next equally "infailable" pope and just come and negate what the previous pope said and undo his doctrines.
Resulting Worldview: Relaxed or even laconic world view towards any doctrine. It's nice and all, but one shouldn't take it too serious.
Protestant Doctrine: Popes are evil. Reinterpretation of the Bible is evil. The bible is the word from God. It is infailible and you can base your entire religion and world view on just the bible and nothing else.
Resulting Worldview: Sticking to the letter of the book even at the exclusion of reality (see: evolution vs. creationism). Long convoluted fights to prove the infailability of moronic stances and inability to admit defeat as it would undermine the entire worldview if any part of the worldview was admitted to be failable.
Mormon Doctrine: Both book and church authority are secondary. God talks DIRECTLY to his followers. Prophets can happen and happen all the time.
Resulting Worldview: Sticking to any crackpot worldview at all costs makes sense after all God is talking to you personally, the others don't know what they are talking about and you might be a minor prophet like the long and constant tradition of prophets in the Mormon faith. You do not have to justify your positions because after all God is talking to you directly.
All these streams base their whole faith on a particular pillar and this pillar will be defend to the point of irrationality: Catholicism - (church, papal, but really any) Authority, Protestantism - The Bible, Mormonism - Personal communication with God WHERE GOD ACTUALLY TALKS BACK.
If you believe (as I do) that God is truly universal, then He/She/It is incomprehensible to human minds and thus will always be compressed down into something humans can comprehend. Religion is a human construct, not a divine one, even though it serves the purpose of helping humans focus on the spiritual.
Putting all of that aside however, the thing about Card is that he attempts to couch his arguments against homosexuality in pseudo-logical terms. However, his chosen terms are odd because, as I said before, he belongs to a faith that was onced widely denounced as immoral and criminal by the majority. A Mormon friend of mine frequently likes to cite a reference that it was once legal to kill a Mormon in the state of Missouri.
So I find myself thinking that Card's position is very hypocritical. His religion would have been stamped out utterly years ago if the dominant religious groups in America had had their way.
Card is thus really just adopting an arrogant and superior attitude here. He feels that the key difference is that his religion is "right", whereas homosexuality is "wrong" and thus that is all that really need be said. He hypocritically trots out a notion of majority rule even though not that long ago the majority thought his religion was a cult that needed to be stopped.
Only want to thank the posters on this site for their comments. Your comments about religion & OSC are 'spot on'.
Oddly, I predict that the Mormon religion (or cult) will be one of the first larger religions to accept gays. They are very family-oriented, and after they've dumped a few thousand more gays from their ranks, I would think that someone would 'get it' and realize that gay people are part of their family, too.
I have, in fact, actually seen and touched the sacred underwear. It was very exciting. I was on a lengthy business trip with a Mormon co-worker and we were staying in a very nice suite with it's own washing machine and dryer. When he did his laundry I had my opportunity to get my hands on the sacred underwear. He was less than amused by my hopping up and down with excitement about it however.
Unfortunately, they're not very fetching. The material is rather course and the lines just aren't flattering. The boxer-briefs kind of go all the way to the knee and the shirt was an unappealing cut. My question about whether they came in a jockstrap and tanktop was not well-received.
Clearly we need to bring in a top designer to do some enhancements.
Yeah, something along those lines. Like I said, very coarse. Similar to sack cloth I'd say, but not as wide a weave. Has to be uncomfortable for some activities. But it represents God's protection so maybe isn't.
I would never want to wear it. I'm more of an UnderArmour guy myself.
The great irony of Card is that he's a Mormon
Sound familiar?
Yet Card takes an odd stance in that he is a frequent proponent of his own right to his religion while, in the case of homosexuality, arguing that people whose behavior goes against the religious beliefs of the majority can and should expect to be treated as criminals. Ironic because that's how the early Mormons were treated and I have never seen any evidence that Card endorses the idea that freedom of (or from) religious belief should be subject to the will of the majority.
"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is what this country is based on. Sometimes that means you have accept that your neighbor is your equal whether you like it or not.
Mormons and gay marriage
Mormons complaints have always confused the heck out of me, considering they own tumultous history with polygamy. Kinda ruins your nice catch phrase if it really should be "Marriage is between a man and one or many women" if you follow your own religion.
[naturally this "Mariagge is traditionally between a man and a woman" stance has always confused the heck out of me considering how historically marriage as being a man and MANY woman was always rather widespread and is still valid in Islam, one of the major religions. Tradition of marriage my ass]
I greatly reccommend "Under the Banner of Heaven" by author Jon Kraukauer for his workup of some of the shadier aspects of the history of Mormonism (and a rather interesting take on their world view as wittingly or unwittingly dictated by their relgion).
Personally, I have always had the theory that religion influences that world view people have, even if they are not active zealots or even very religious, just as a way that the religious community you live in has shaped the way you perceive your history and the kind of lessons you think you learn from history:
Catholic Doctrine I (3rd World version): The bible is a flawed book, you need authority and the pope to add to it and interpret it.
Resulting Woldview I: Mindless obedience and following of traditions is more important than the bible. You don't need to read the bible, you can just trust other people to narrate it to you.
Catholic Doctrine II (1st Worldversion): The bible is a flawed book and even the papal authority is flawed. We respect that the pope is supposed to be considered infailible during his lifetime, but are all aware that the next equally "infailable" pope and just come and negate what the previous pope said and undo his doctrines.
Resulting Worldview: Relaxed or even laconic world view towards any doctrine. It's nice and all, but one shouldn't take it too serious.
Protestant Doctrine: Popes are evil. Reinterpretation of the Bible is evil. The bible is the word from God. It is infailible and you can base your entire religion and world view on just the bible and nothing else.
Resulting Worldview: Sticking to the letter of the book even at the exclusion of reality (see: evolution vs. creationism). Long convoluted fights to prove the infailability of moronic stances and inability to admit defeat as it would undermine the entire worldview if any part of the worldview was admitted to be failable.
Mormon Doctrine: Both book and church authority are secondary. God talks DIRECTLY to his followers. Prophets can happen and happen all the time.
Resulting Worldview: Sticking to any crackpot worldview at all costs makes sense after all God is talking to you personally, the others don't know what they are talking about and you might be a minor prophet like the long and constant tradition of prophets in the Mormon faith. You do not have to justify your positions because after all God is talking to you directly.
All these streams base their whole faith on a particular pillar and this pillar will be defend to the point of irrationality: Catholicism - (church, papal, but really any) Authority, Protestantism - The Bible, Mormonism - Personal communication with God WHERE GOD ACTUALLY TALKS BACK.
Religion has always been subject to change
If you believe (as I do) that God is truly universal, then He/She/It is incomprehensible to human minds and thus will always be compressed down into something humans can comprehend. Religion is a human construct, not a divine one, even though it serves the purpose of helping humans focus on the spiritual.
Putting all of that aside however, the thing about Card is that he attempts to couch his arguments against homosexuality in pseudo-logical terms. However, his chosen terms are odd because, as I said before, he belongs to a faith that was onced widely denounced as immoral and criminal by the majority. A Mormon friend of mine frequently likes to cite a reference that it was once legal to kill a Mormon in the state of Missouri.
So I find myself thinking that Card's position is very hypocritical. His religion would have been stamped out utterly years ago if the dominant religious groups in America had had their way.
Card is thus really just adopting an arrogant and superior attitude here. He feels that the key difference is that his religion is "right", whereas homosexuality is "wrong" and thus that is all that really need be said. He hypocritically trots out a notion of majority rule even though not that long ago the majority thought his religion was a cult that needed to be stopped.
OSC speaks with forked tongue
Only want to thank the posters on this site for their comments. Your comments about religion & OSC are 'spot on'.
Oddly, I predict that the Mormon religion (or cult) will be one of the first larger religions to accept gays. They are very family-oriented, and after they've dumped a few thousand more gays from their ranks, I would think that someone would 'get it' and realize that gay people are part of their family, too.
And I think I want some secret underwear, too....
The sacred underwear needs some gaying up
I have, in fact, actually seen and touched the sacred underwear. It was very exciting. I was on a lengthy business trip with a Mormon co-worker and we were staying in a very nice suite with it's own washing machine and dryer. When he did his laundry I had my opportunity to get my hands on the sacred underwear. He was less than amused by my hopping up and down with excitement about it however.
Unfortunately, they're not very fetching. The material is rather course and the lines just aren't flattering. The boxer-briefs kind of go all the way to the knee and the shirt was an unappealing cut. My question about whether they came in a jockstrap and tanktop was not well-received.
Clearly we need to bring in a top designer to do some enhancements.
Project Mormon Runway?
Were the sacred undergarments made from sack cloth or something like that?
Mormons are so stiff because of chafing
Yeah, something along those lines. Like I said, very coarse. Similar to sack cloth I'd say, but not as wide a weave. Has to be uncomfortable for some activities. But it represents God's protection so maybe isn't.
I would never want to wear it. I'm more of an UnderArmour guy myself.