Stopped clocks--Card has a point?

[matgb]

My belief in markets isn't really equivocated. Free (and fair) markets require free movement in goods, services, people, whatever. In order for that to happen, border controls are something to be done away with--it's one of the reasons I love the principles behind the EU, if not the bureaucratic monstrosity it's becoming. But today, James linked to an article that I agreed with. Hyberbole, a few missed shots, a little bit of innacuracy, but the point he makes is 100% sound, and applies just as well over here as it does in the US. The problem is the author.

Orson Scott Card, bigot extraordinaire.

A case of stopped clocks, or does his religious fueled fundamentalism have an underlying streak of rationalism in some areas?

Comments

[miss-s-b.livejournal.com]

It's horrible when someone you detest makes a good point, isn't it?

[andrewducker]

He has morals. Sometimes you agree with them, sometimes you don't :->

[ladyegreen.livejournal.com]

I borrowed your link! Very interesting read, it remains to be seen what anyone of my f-list thinks though.

I also love the icon.

[bopeepsheep.livejournal.com]

Nice.

Most people have a politically-mixed bag of opinions and ideas in truth; sometimes the holders of the most abhorrent ideas turn out to have some beliefs one agrees wholeheartedly with. It doesn't devalue the good ideas (or improve the bad ones), although it's tempting to want to avoid any point of agreement with such people. :)

[mooism.livejournal.com]

You can end up in the wide open ocean, whether you start from the Thames or the Danube.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

Or, option three: you have become a religious fundamentalist...*grin*

[fracindy.livejournal.com]

Orson Scott Card is a friend of the family (my family are Mormons, we met when they came over to France for holidays 10 years ago), and my parents being huge fans, I read most of his books at a young age and enjoyed them thoroughly.

Even now, with hindsight, I can't deny that some of his work is truly wonderful: what one is or what one thinks doesn't necessarily take away from what they've created (or, in this post's case, what they've argued).

He offered to read and review some of my written work if I sent him to him. That, on the other hand, I now doubt will ever happen: he probably still thinks of me as a sweet little girl and he doesn't need to know where my sexual orientations lie, because I quite simply don't need the moralising.

[fracindy.livejournal.com]

Game is good. Very very good. And they're making a movie, and David Benioff is writing the script (he's the guy I mentioned when we walked past that DVD rental place -- brilliant author). Tis the Alvin Maker series that had me engrossed, though, possibly because I read them in French, and it was one of the best translations I've ever read, from a French Canadian guy -- I love the Quebec jargon.

I was 11 when I met him, and he left me with a very strong impression. I admired him. And still do, in a certain way. I didn't read about certain of his views until much later. Still, he's only ever been kind to us, and got me into sci-fi which I probably wouldn't have otherwise, so it would be foolish and ungrateful of me to condemn him on all levels.

Tis like one of my favourite French writers from the 19th century: a friend of mine became outraged when she saw me reading his work, claiming he was a child molester and that if I didn't put the book down immediately I could only be supportive of that sort of hideous thing.

Why? Why attempt to ruin the pleasure of reading such beautiful, uplifting, inspirational poetry? Why should everything be black or white? Isn't what we produce just as much of a contender for defining who we are as the ideas we choose or not to expose?