Published: Wednesday, Feb. 20 2013 6:30 p.m. MST
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,
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Orson Scott Card thinks laws against sodomy should still be on the books. That
level of government intrusion... if the shoe fits...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
How dare he take a page from right wing hate radio, and illustrate it like Glen
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?
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.
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
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.
He's not a fascist: he's a bigot. (He's also a talented author.)
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments