Quantcast

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

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Feb. 20 2013 6:30 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
A Scientist
Provo, UT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

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

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

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

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

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

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

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments