Not so great views of the future: UPDATED
Or, if you want a really scary vision, here’s science fiction writer John C. Wright’s view of a horrible future of moral decay because of homosexuality actually being tolerated by people.
Remember, kids: even if it’s your name, you’re not always (W)right.
UPDATE 4:30 PM: Mike Weber notes below that the original link above no longer works. It seems that a lot of people took him to task, but what apparently shamed him into changing was someone pointing out what his recently adopted Catholic Church has to say on the matter:
“It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object
of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves
condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a
kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental
principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person
must always be respected in word, in action and in law.”
– “On The Pastoral Care Of Homosexual Persons”, by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Accordingly, Wright has taken down the original post, and I feel no further need to shame him about it, preferring to believe that he’s going to try and reconcile the matter in his heart and with his God.
The link to the Wright piece comes up "No such page".Love the third spot.
Yes, I see he took it down. I've updated the article.
One hopes that, indeed, he has taken the the comment to heart, if only for his own peace of mind.
Having not had a chance to read the post (tho thanks to the internet I'm sure there's a copy of it somewhere if I was so inclined to read it) I can't say if I agreed with it or not, but based on the reaction, I'll lay odds I woudn't. So I can't honestly speak on the comments themselves. I can, however, comment on the reaction and reprecussions.The part that I always find amazing is that when one posts anything about a touchy subject, news of said post tends to get to the ears people who have GREAT interest in the topic about which you posted, though likely none in you yourself or anything you have ever done. The comment count SKYROCKETS for the post in question, especially if you've taken a position counter to that of the majority, and you end up with a staggering number of vitriolic posts, some going so far as to be legally actionable. And news of the offensive post (as opposed to the offensive replies) gets mentioned on sights that have no connection to the poster's field or interests. In the interests of due dilligence, I checked, and John has indeed been mentioned several times on this site over the years, but I'll bet if I checked the other places it's been mentioned, chances are it'll be mentioned a lot more on GLBT websites than science fiction and comics ones.On woefully underappreciated columnist Amy Alkon's site (http://www.advicegoddess.com/ ), her comment count triples or quadruples when she posts stories about hot-button topics like the healthcare plan, gender roles, and circumcision. (I swear, the number of posts from people who view circumcision as child abuse is staggering). And it's all from people who just joined, obviously JUST to get their comment in about this topic they were told about.It's amazing how the internet has changed the way we share ideas, and try to crush the ideas of those we don't agree with. Whether the person deserves it or not, we've become educated to the idea that's it's perfectly acceptable to shout the idea down with vituperatives and them run away, safe in the satisfaction of a job well done. It's the same tactic being used in the town halls as well, but those are being done in person, likely because it's older folks less versed in the internet.And when, say, the White House attempts to combat an internet campaign with their OWN internet campaign, they're accused of Big Brother tactics, trying to attack our freedoms by…sending us an email, apparently.Interesting. That's all, just…interesting.
The part that I always find amazing is that when one posts anything about a touchy subject, news of said post tends to get to the ears people who have GREAT interest in the topic about which you posted, though likely none in you yourself or anything you have ever done.See any comment about sparkly vampires.The flip side of that reaction, though, is that you can also get a clash of levels of education about a particular point. Often times, the original poster has said something that display a shocking amount of ignorance (Wright's original comments on homosexuality, Sarah Palin's comments on "death panels", almost anything having to do with creation science, what have you) and the sudden descent of people who are much better educated on the topic.But sadly, you occasionally get the converse, where somebody says something knowledgable or reaches a new conclusion based on available evidence, or even just asking "Do you believe everything has a scientific explanation?" and hordes descend to try and shout it down because it doesn't mesh with their previously held beliefs.Incidentally, I was tempted to repost his piece when I saw he had taken it down. However, when I saw why he had done so, I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. Rest assured, if it was just "Oh, this post could cause me trouble, or has caused more trouble than it's worth" I would have reposted it and hung it around his neck. But I'd like to think there's a, shall we say, road to Damascus moment here. Let's hope so.
The alleged event on the road to Damascus was possibly the worst thing that has ever happened to the world, resulting as it did in the Pauline Heresy that took the relatively gentle cult that followed the Carpenter Rabbi and converted it to the Church Militant.