Political Correctness, Religion and Free Speech

Got a question? We may have some answers!
Forum rules

1) This is a Christian site, respect our beliefs and we will respect yours.

2) This is a family friendly site, no swearing or posting offensive links, pictures, or signatures.

3) Please be respectful of others.

4) Trolls are not welcome and will be dealt with accordingly.

5) No racial comments, jokes or images

6) If you see a dead thread over 6 months old, let it rest in peace

7) No Duplicate posts
User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
http://www.ldsmag.com/article/1/13486

This article is about the backlash against Orson Scott Card for his moral views, stirred up by the imminent release of Ender's Game: The Movie.

So what to do? Speak out or Shut up? Allow those with differing opinions to be bullied for their beliefs or jump on the bandwagon to silence dissent?

What will you do?
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3539
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:00 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:
So, if speaking out about your beliefs is okay, what's the problem with the backlash?
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim
User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
The mentality that says people need to be punished for expressing different beliefs.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3539
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:00 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:
People have to the right to act on their convictions, including boycotting a movie or an author. Calling it punishment is a bit of a misnomer; the "bullying" that's going around is from people's opposition to his stances and not legal repercussions. Like, actual punishment. Interestingly enough, Card is in favor of legal repercussions for homosexuality. It's more than a bit ironic to defend a man from being "punished" for stating his beliefs, of which he thinks that homosexuality should actually be punished.

While the right to hold and express beliefs should be universal, they aren't neutral in value. They will be judged on their own merits and certain beliefs can and should be shunned. While I wouldn't censor a neo-nazi, I would dissociate myself with him. This may or may not include boycotting and/or petitioning to not have them at certain events.

Card's outspoken beliefs are not just unpopular with certain crowds, but outright wrong for many of us, and worse, in many cases, dangerous. I and others hold that his stance quite literally makes the world a worse place, and it's our moral obligation to oppose it. These people aren't in uproar because his favorite color is different from ours, but that the content of the statement he make is reprehensible.

If someone goes around saying that Mormons are genetic mixups, self-loathing victims of child abuse, that if we allow them to consider themselves as Christians, we'd see the end of the church, and if the government ever recognized it as a religion, he'd consider that government his mortal enemy and would work to it's overthrow, I'd be in opposition to him. And if you chose not to go see any movie based off of his writing, well, that'd be fine with me. If you signed a petition that maybe he shouldn't be a speaker at the next CGDC, I'd be okay with that too.
I wouldn't consider that punishing him simply because he's of a different belief than you, but taking a stand against an idea that has many negative impacts. Being open for discussion is important, but at some point, you just have to make a stand for what you think is right.

In the spirit of concession, I will say a couple things so it's clear of what I'm saying and what I'm not saying. It is a mistake to immediately label someone as a homophobe because they think homosexuality is wrong. It can be used as a strong arm method rather than actually discuss the issues. Now, homophobia is a real thing, but it's a mistake on several levels to blindly label people as such. Some are, but some aren't.
For example, I wouldn't label you as a homophobe, but I think I'd label Card as one.

Sources for some of Card's stances:
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/07/sci_fi_ ... a_partner/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim
User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
Here's the problem; I'm not talking about people who simply want to express an opinion through protest, boycott or whatever.

Do you think it's reasonable for someone to be fired from a job because of their religious beliefs, like Craig James? What about Scott Eckern? If it's one's moral duty to oppose Card's views, where does that morality fall in movie studios who are perfectly happy to rake in cash from Card's work but then decide they're too good to have his name displayed in ads?

Sorry, but I just don't see the nobility in that kind of behavior, and that isn't a question of free speech.

Either you believe in free speech or you don't. What we're seeing here is the result of people who only want freedom of speech for themselves, and to silence, through intimidation, those who disagree with them. I have a problem with that.

I reiterate the quote from, of all entities, the New York Times: "If Mr. Card belongs in quarantine, who's next?"
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3539
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:00 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:
This is a bit of a complex issue, and it's not as cut and dry as I'd like.

At one hand, there should be a degree of tolerance for differing ideas and the marketplace of ideas must be kept open for all.

But, at the same time, public facing and high-end creative positions do set themselves up for a bit scrutiny. An organization does have a right to not associate themselves with particular ideologies. To refrain from overusing naziism, if an anchor for a news broadcasting company came out and said his personal belief is that rape is not only okay, but it's the natural way to have sex and women secretly like, you bet that guys going to get fired. It's a maliciously evil point of view and it's blatantly clear nobody would want to associate with that.
Man, I'm already mad at that guy. What a jerk.

Who'd want to associate anything with him? I wouldn't. Shoot, you say that in any job and you'd probably lose it. But, as long as he's not inciting anybody to action, that is protected under free speech. It isn't about trying to silence someone by bullying them. It's disassociating, and perhaps, not giving them the limelight. Not the same as silencing.

Is it hypocritical that the studios will use his novels to make money, but try to hide him away? Yeah. It would not be a problem if the public didn't care deeply about gay rights. It's all in the money.

The point I'm making is that it's not some grand conspiracy to silence opposing points of view, it's a combination of public moral repugnance with the content of his views and studios and companies complying with that for marketing and PR.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim
User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
People are facing the loss of their job because they donate money to a political cause. That's waaaaay different from a news anchor promoting Naziism (Godwin FTW). I make it no secret here at work that I'm a Mormon. Should I be looking for my pink slip?

See, people are being punished for supporting causes that others don't like. If I ran a business and I fired an employee because she donated money to Planned Parenthood, people would be up in arms. (And rightly so.) Apparently, it's perfectly okay to fire someone for donating money to Prop 8.

Is it a conspiracy? No. It's a social trend. A very dangerous one.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3539
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:00 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:
Godwin! That's the name I was looking for. I was looking up Goddard's Law and it didn't make sense. What's with penguins? We're talking about Nazis here.

There is a delicate balance here. If that news anchor donated money for a Neo-Nazi political cause, that would be incredibly damaging to be associated with. But just because they are for Prop 8, well, I do find that too benign to fire someone. Unless, they are a spokesperson for the LGBT board. That'd just be a conflict of interest. Like a jewish representive of the Neo Nazis, or a black Ku Klux Klan grand dragon or something. Actually, that's a hilarious Dave Chappelle sketch.

Movements do have a tendency to overswing when in response to an action. It's too easy to victimize oneself, respond over-zealously, and then rationalize your cause. Do proponents of gay rights step to far at times? Yes. Do opponents of homosexuality step to far at times? Yes.
People never seem to realize how much power they have behind them, and what sort of heavy-handedness they wield. I developed a gut reaction towards political victimization because it seems to always be behind that sort of headstrong political rhetoric. That's the biggest reason why we're arguing now. It's dangerous to characterize oneself as a victim. Victims, at least in our cultural perspective, are almost always rationalized in what they do. That's not an objective nor tactical way of approaching these issues. I guarantee you, the other side holds themselves as victims. Who actually is the bigger victim is debatable, but it's a far less interesting or important topic as what rights should be.

I apologize for the tangent. Getting back to your point. Yes, it is a dangerous trend that can get out of hand. But, at the same time, treating all ideas as neutered in content and potency is both impractical and undesirable.
The right for people to speak out is fine, but I have the right also to speak out against and if I find the idea dangerous or harmful, this right can escalate and become a responsibility. There is a balance in between, characterized both by freedom of expression and convictions of those vested in the conflicts of ideals. For the edge cases that straddle this, we probably should analyze this on a case by case basis.
So, I don't think society says it's "perfectly okay to fire someone for donating money to Prop 8," but if bring up specific cases, we can take a deeper look into it. Maybe we can settle on certain principles to guideline these.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim
User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
It has a chilling effect on people's willingness to speak up about what they believe. That is NEVER a good thing.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3539
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:00 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:
No, that's true.
Conversely, people shouldn't feel like they can't stand up against ideas they find wrong or harmful.

It's unfortunate how divisive some ideas can become, but then, if they weren't, they'd be impotent.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim
brandon1984
Gamer
Gamer
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:53 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Galveston, TX
Contact:
This has been an great conversation, and I can't add anything significant. I just wanted to drop a few thoughts. When I was first reading it I was thinking OSC's public statements have been polarizing, and he should have expected to be put in this position. Of course he's free to say whatever he wants, but freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of the consequences from speech.

Also, if Lionsgate wants to distance themselves from OSC they will probably do so for the sake of PR and in the financial interest of the film (as AA said). Should we expect a Hollywood company with literally tens of millions of dollars at stake to do anything else? It's not as if the company has no corporate conscience, it's that as a corporation they don't value preventing gay marriage above generating profit.
User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3539
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:00 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:
This just came out and thought it had some pertitance for this discussion:
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim
brandon1984
Gamer
Gamer
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:53 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Galveston, TX
Contact:
That was a good video, it presented a relatively balanced viewpoint. I think it comes down to is, what does the individual's conscience permit? If one feels compelled to boycott the movie despite the consequences to the cast and crew, then one has the freedom to follow their conscience and in some sense a responsibility to follow one's conscience. The individual even has the freedom to promote this boycott through ethical arguments. It's not a black and white issue and there are conscientious people who will see the movie even though they vehemently disagree with OSC's political and ethical stances.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests