[ExI] Homeless in Hell- A Christmas Story, by Orson Scott Card

[Tomasz Rola]

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011, Ben Zaiboc wrote:

> Tomasz Rola <rtomek at ceti.pl> wrote:
> >
> 
> >And if he really is religious (I'm not sure, don't remember this smell 
> >in few of his stories that I have read)
> 
> 
> Really?
> They reek of religion to me.  I've read the first 3 or 4 'Ender' 
> stories, mainly because of other people's enthusiastic recommendations, 
> but found them rather unsatisfying.  It seems evident that the author is 
> not just writing about people with religious beliefs of one sort or 
> another, but that he has them himself, and that colours the writing, to 
> its detriment, imo.

Interesting. I have read few (probably the same) Enders, but it was many 
years ago - I have paid attention to space tactics thing, the rest was 
mostly a painting on the wall to me and I was still learning things, so I 
might have missed their meaning.

Maybe it's high time to revisit these books.

>  There is the same bad taste in the mouth as I got 
> right at the end of Arthur C. Clarke's 'Rama' books (although not the 
> same sense of surprise and disappointment.  I was SO disappointed at 
> that, it was almost as though he'd lost interest and just wanted to end 
> the story quickly. "Uh, yeah, Goddiddit.  That'll do.")

Pity you don't have access to more Lem in English. He doesn't use God so 
much, does the job mostly with maths and physics. Perhaps this is one of 
the reasons that not all of his books have been translated.

> And yes, OSC is religious (mormon, homophobic: 
> http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html).

Huh, interesting essay.

"I predicted toward the beginning of the preceding essay that those who 
have already accepted the dogmas of the homosexual community as a source 
of truth superior to the words of the prophets would be incapable of 
reading what I had actually written here and would instead interpret my 
words as intolerance, oppression, gay-bashing, or, an epithet used now 
without a shred of its original meaning, "homophobia." My prediction was 
exactly fulfilled, and I have had ample opportunity to observe that some 
supposed proponents of liberty for homosexuals do not believe in freedom 
of speech for anyone who disagrees with them."

I understand that some people don't like homosexualism and I think they 
may create a community whose rules are incompatible with it, yet say 
openly that "every sinner should be kindly treated". I understand that 
"kindness" in this case will not lead to hurting or sinner's death - but 
most likely, a farewell so he can go away from them. As long as they are 
capable of doing this, they may live according to whatever rules they 
agree among themselves. I mean, if you asked me for opinion.

"Sinners" are, in this case, homos. Not murderes nor robbers. For the 
other kind of sinners they might have other set of rules. I would.

Next citation:

"This is true even within the Mormon community. For instance, Signature 
Books responded to publication of "Hypocrites of Homosexuality" by 
suggesting to Sunstone magazine, where the essay appeared, that Signature 
might not be able to continue distributing that magazine if they continued 
to publish essays by me -- a thinly veiled attempt to suppress my ability 
to get my writings published, even while Signature was still profiting 
from publication of my book Saintspeak, which I had sold to them while 
under previous management. When I called Gary Bergera, editor of Signature 
Books, about his letter, he was apparently incapable of seeing that his 
attempt to get Sunstone to cease publishing my writings had anything to do 
with oppression. In his view, the cause of freedom requires Signature to 
make every effort to stop me from having a chance to speak a single word 
that might persuade someone that being a Latter-day Saint means trying to 
live by the gospel as taught by the prophets, while they insist on their 
own freedom to continue with their clear and relentless crusade to 
persuade Mormons to take currently fashionable worldly wisdom as a better 
source of truth than the teachings of the prophets."

Here we have some Mormons trying to censor another one (at least this is 
how he seems it). Strange.

"Oddly enough, even as I am attacked by some as a homophobe, I am attacked 
by others as being too supportive of homosexuality, simply because I 
cannot see individual homosexuals, in or out of my books, as anything 
other than human beings with as complex a combination of good and evil in 
them as I find within myself."

Interesting. He then goes on, discussing how genetic predisposition is not 
equal to having no choice. Like, "schizophrenia genes" do not always 
manifest themselves (and when they do, they may do to some degree only). I 
find his argument about violence very good - indeed we all are inclined 
toward violence and at the same time we are not expected to fall every 
time we'd like to.

"Civilization depends on people being able to master those of their 
predispositions that are regarded as unacceptable by the community they 
live in. 

There are communities within American culture that regard homosexuality as 
just another viable lifestyle, absolutely harmless and therefore no more 
to be shunned or censured than an inability to carry a tune [...]. There 
are other communities within American culture that regard homosexual acts 
as sins, so that good people try to control any such desires and not act 
them out. And there are communities that regard homosexuality as an evil 
which must be violently expunged.

The violent ones are themselves engaging in a far more serious 
anti-civilized pattern of behavior, of course, and I think there is no 
room in America for violence directed against any group (or any 
individual) for any reason short of immediate defense against physical 
attack -- which doesn't often come up with homosexuals.

  [Here, OSC is not politically-correct, because in PC worldview 
homosexuals are only victims of violence, but never originators of it, 
which is, I'm afraid, too idealistic to be true - TR].

But apart from the violent ones, I do think there is room within our 
society for people with many views of homosexuality, as well as of other 
non-majority behaviors. (Race and gender are not behaviors, and so what I 
am saying about attitudes toward homosexual behavior does not necessarily 
extend to attitudes toward race or gender.)

 As long as we can freely leave one community and enter another, either 
geographically or socially, then doesn't reasonable tolerance of others' 
beliefs and practices allow communities that voluntarily agree to regard 
certain behaviors as sins as much right to their beliefs as communities 
that voluntarily agree to regard those same behaviors as acceptable? I 
find that those who plead for tolerance are far too often prone to wanting 
to hunt down and wipe out the last vestige of what they call intolerance 
-- and are incapable of realizing that this behavior is, in itself, 
exactly as intolerant and usually as unjust as the behavior they so 
rigorously oppose."

There is more of this and I admit, when I started reading the essay I was 
opposing to the ideas expressed there but after I finished, I find myself 
sympathetic with the author's words. Even thou I am neither a Mormon nor a 
homosexual and I don't expect to become any of those anytime soon.

I understand you have some problem with this text but I fail to see what 
kind of problem and where it is.

> >Allow me to remark, perphaps you are a bit too afraid of religion
> 
> 
> I don't think that's possible.
> Can you be 'too afraid' of being lobotomised, or tortured or raped, if 
> those things were about to happen to you?

First objective is survival. "Afraid" is not helpful in this. I would do 
my best to suppress it.

>  Religion has been happening 
> all over the world, for a long time, and it has had some very bad 
> consequences.  It remains a serious threat to the physical and mental 
> health of huge numbers of people, and is one of the main things holding 
> back our progress.

Some time ago, it was the only thing on this planet supporting any 
progress at all. The rest of humans were just opportunistic scavangers, 
trying to grab as much as they could bite.

This situation persisted up to about 300 years ago.

In other words, since religion is so long lasting, it would be very 
optimistic to dismiss it as obsolete after just 300 years of bad 
performance.

Wait until alternative proves itself - say, if there is any chance that 
humans can construct sustainable economy without pushing it under the 
guise of religion.

So far, I am in doubt about it.

> > - maybe
> >too many encounters with aggressive preachers. They can be funny when seen
> >from some distance, when one grows enough to recognize this.
> 
> 
> Believe me, I know how funny religion can be.  Funny like clowns.  You 
> know, the ones that scare the crap out of you.
> 
> Seriously, if religion doesn't scare you, you're not thinking about it 
> deeply enough.

Seriously, I try hard to be not much scared of anything. This makes 
learning so difficult.

However, I understand that humans have tendency to irrationality and other 
strange behaviours. This doesn't have much to do with religion, since 
areligious people commit same amount of human stuff. In other words, 
renouncing religion doesn't make one free of being stupid. Adopting 
religion neither.

Consider this anecdote - we observe bunch of cannibals eating heart of 
their victim. You insist that guys are bad because they eat hearts. 
Unfortunately, I have heard stories of same arguments being said by some 
other guys, who somehow failed to observe that while they themselves 
weren't eating hearts, they were eating livers at the same time.

So, for me a cannibal is a cannibal.

For some other guys, a cannibal is he who eats heart but not he who eats a 
liver.

I don't know you, so I cannot tell if you are more like me or more like 
the other guys. So far your talk smells of cannibalish.

> >OTOH, it may be the fact that I have grown in a place where people - 
> >both religious (mostly catholic) and not (mostly atheists) still can 
> >agree on something because it is a bit more constructive to have things 
> >done rather than drooling over issues (and knowing no agreement can be 
> >achieved on them).
> 
> 
> And that's fine.  I don't really care what somebody believes, as long as 
> they don't try to make my actions conform to those beliefs.

Good! You sound like human here!

> Unfortunately, there are very few religious people willing to respect 
> the principle of 'live and let live'.  Let's talk about abortion, shall 
> we? (no, let's not. We all know where that goes).

Where? I am not going to have an abortion but not for religious reasons. I 
am a guy, you know.

But I think it should be up to woman to decide. If someone wants her to 
bear a child, he should also want to raise it by himself.

> Just because nobody burns witches anymore (oh, except for in parts of 
> africa) doesn't mean that there aren't people who hanker after the good 
> old days, and given half a chance, would take us back there.  Even the 
> watered-down english variety of protestantism has a problem with Harry 
> Potter.  It's a demonic influence upon our young people, you see.

Those people are, I believe, idiots. They may be willing to go back in 
time, but hold on to telephones, newspapers, cars, farming machines (horse 
manure is not parfumes, I tell you) maybe even tvs. And medicines. Idiots, 
I believe, tend to eliminate themselves from The Big Equation. They are 
still valuable as voters, though.

How about political forces that are all happy to have idiots voting for 
them?

> Mediaeval superstitious beliefs still have a firm hold on the minds of 
> hundreds of millions of people.  Don't you find that scary?

They are as medieval as antique or contemporary. They may be older than 
you can dream of. They might outlive us all.

This is interesting phenomenon. What does it have to do with religion or 
scare? I already wrote what I think - above.

> > So I perceive one's religion as some kind of mental "facial feature"
> 
> More a kind of mental disease, I think.

The disease is called human mind. You are free to fight it. If you show me 
a good, acceptable plan, maybe I will even help you. Pay attention not to 
eliminating all humans but what to do afterwards and maybe you can make 
it.

> >Anyway, I tend to downplay religious differences, simply because I am not
> >going to allow them to rule my judgement of other people's worthiness.
> >That way of thinking comes from time when I have learned about thing
> >described above (doing things is more important than not doing them and
> >the rest is meaningless long term).
> 
> Yes, and religion leads people to do the most dreadful, evil things.

Yes and other philosophies are no better. Am I expected to criticise only 
religion?

>From time to time, religion also makes people do most human, beautiful 
things I can think of. Sacrificing one's time and other resources to other 
people well being. Learning about Universe.

I think religions (those surviving longer than 1000 years, AFAIK) actually 
insist on their followers doing this, for the grace of God for example. It 
works like it works, but sometimes it does. And there was no danger of 
Digital Rights, because all music and mathematics belonged to God anyway.

I learned a lot of dreadful things done in the name of bigger income. I'm 
afraid I will learn even more.

> Try being a gay woman who's just been raped and wants an abortion.
> In Iran.

I would rather not try this.

Probably not very different to being gay woman, raped etc in Saudi Arabia.

> As an evangelist once shouted at me in a public square after discovering 
> that I didn't believe in his (or any) god: ENJOY THE FLAMES!!1! 
> (accompanied by enough spittle to put the flames out!)

Cool. Evangelists are pitiful but as long as they are willing to wait 
until you are put in hell by God's hand rather than their own... You 
should insist on them to wait.

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **