Have you see these comments from Orson Scott Card?

[_EAllusion]

It's a promise of attempted destruction of the sovereign power of the US government and/or sedition.

I think DCP is either going to

1) Argue that OSC could've meant a Ghandi-like attempt to bring down a government

2) Argue that the rhetorical set-up, "How long before married people answer the dictators thus," means that OSC wasn't necessarily endorsing destroying the government

or

3) Continue to stay vague and accuse others of attacking strawmen, being zealots, etc.

I'm wouldn't be shocked by any of the above. The most sensible reading still remains that OSC was advocating revolution.

[_beastie]

Based on my experiences, I vote for door number 3.

3) Continue to stay vague and accuse others of attacking strawmen, being zealots, etc.

[_EAllusion]

Based on my experiences, I vote for door number 3.

In my experience, those who respond to DCP aren't addressing his actual comments. I get a whiff of apologetic zeal as ideological homosexualists defend their agenda. Beastie's oversenstive hyperventilating only demonstrates this.

I'm not impressed. And I will have you know that Doctor Dr. Jeffery Satinover, Ed.M., M.S., M.D., A.B.P.N.. who has obtained a degree from MIT, graduate degrees from Harvard and Yale, a M.D. from the University of Texas, and is working on a Ph.D in physics at the University of Nice would agree by and large agree with Card here. He practiced clinical psychiatry for almost 20 years, including being a fellowshipped child psychiatrist at Yale.

You can read his work:

(1996) Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Grand Rapids: Baker

It was written in crayon and no doubt is wall-to-wall mendacity of the sort that makes Charles Manson look like a prissy kitten.

[_The Dude]

Again, you have to take into account the fact that OSC makes a secular case for those views and seems to believe it. He wants the government to enforce his secular views that - in all likelihood - he has attached himself to in large part because of his religious background.

It is possible that someone else could make a compelling "secular case" but the stuff coming from OSC is a laughable sham by any measure of rational discourse. I can't take it seriously at all. The possibility that he takes himself seriously in making these "secular cases" only deepens my doubts regarding his stability. He may be a homophobe for real -- literally fearful and insane.

[_The Dude]

Did you read the opening post? Did you read the link I posted to the article that provides context for the quote? Really?

I did. That's why I reject your summary of it.

Summary? I simply quoted him. He says "destroy that government and bring it down". Are you saying that's not the same as "overthrow"?

He doesn't call for the overthrow of the government and/or the establishment of a theocracy.

What he said definitely ammounts to overthrow. As for "...or the establishment of a theocracy." Okay, maybe that part is open to interpretation. He says "so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage." I guess there's more than one way to "respect and support marriage" + "criminalize homosexual activity" besides theocracy. Nazi germany comes to mind.

OSC's views on "respect and support marriage" are religious. So the government he wants is one that enforces his religious views (on this issue at least).

That's dubious.

Not really.

But surely you're not calliing for a government based solely and entirely on, say, empirically demonstrably science as opposed to moral intuitions. Are you?

I will probably vote for Barak Obama. Is that a problem for you?

[_EAllusion]

It is possible that someone else could make a compelling "secular case" but the stuff coming from OSC is a laughable sham by any measure of rational discourse.

I agree. He makes people like Maggie Gallagher seem sharp by comparison.

I can't take it seriously at all.

You shouldn't.

It's just that I think it puts a kink in declaring that he seeks to enforce his religion on others. I think we are dealing with sham rationalizations for views he holds due to religion/prejudice too. I just don't think these are intentional sham arguments. A suggestion of theocracy based on that strikes me as dubious.

[_Bond...James Bond]

I'm not impressed. And I will have you know that Doctor Dr. Jeffery Satinover, Ed.M., M.S., M.D., A.B.P.N.. who has obtained a degree from MIT, graduate degrees from Harvard and Yale, a M.D. from the University of Texas, and is working on a Ph.D in physics at the University of Nice would agree by and large agree with Card here. He practiced clinical psychiatry for almost 20 years, including being a fellowshipped child psychiatrist at Yale.

You can read his work:

(1996) Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Grand Rapids: Baker

It was written in crayon and no doubt is wall-to-wall mendacity of the sort that makes Charles Manson look like a prissy kitten.

[Bond's left boot suddenly doubles as a urinal]

WTF is a ABPN? And I notice a dropoff...Harvard > U of Texas > U. of Nice? [is that a charm school? Sounds like one...it's called "Nice" after all] :P

[_The Dude]

I just don't think these are intentional sham arguments.

Can you imagine if these arguments were intentional sham arguments? Maybe for comedy on the Daily Show. He compared the courts' decisions to "what if" the courts tried to say, contra biology, that two males could have reproductive intercourse.

There is no natural method by which two males or two females can create offspring in which both partners contribute genetically. This is not subject to legislation, let alone fashionable opinion.

To go there is either satire or idiocy. I don't think he meant it as satire.

A suggestion of theocracy based on that strikes me as dubious.

Okay, I was reading between the lines. What do you think he has in mind, once he destroys and brings down the government?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Good grief. This is all really (and I'm entirely serious) disappointing.

But extremely instructive.

Thanks!

[_The Dude]

Disappointing? Well, Phillip K Dick had some of the most novel ideas but he couldn't write worth sh!t in my opinion, and he wasn't much a philosopher. Am I right about that? You can't expect OSC to shine too brightly outside his niche even if he is Mormon. If it helps any, let me say with sincerity that I don't put you in the same category as OSC and his homophobic rants. Really, I was kidding you about that, Dan.