I haven't read Ender's Game, and I don't even know what it's about, but reading the Wikipedia article I've found something ironic:
Radford's criticisms are echoed in John Kessel's essay "Creating the Innocent Killer: Ender's Game, Intention, and Morality." Kessel reasons that Card justifies Ender's righteous rage and violence: "Ender gets to strike out at his enemies and still remain morally clean. Nothing is his fault."
It looks like (according to this criticism) that the author embodies the very viewpoint I pointed at. Namely that as long as your intentions are pure -- or, more precisely, innocent -- you are not responsible for your actions.
I haven't read the essay, and its been decades since I read any of Card's books. But IIRC, the ending of the first book did not excuse him at all, it wrapped up abruptly and left the reader (me at least) reeling as to the full consequences of Ender's actions. A (the?) primary theme of the sequels was Ender trying to atone for his actions.
The lesson I took from the first book was that blind faith in leaders is terribly destructive -- that a moral person can never hand over the responsibility for their morality to anyone else. I was a teenager when I read it and I'd put that down as one of the formative lessons of my teen years.
You've not answered why his views mean that I cannot enjoy his work. If I'm served a sandwich by a racist, does this mean that I shouldn't eat it? I just don't see why I should care what every person who creates a product or body of work should think.
Of course you can enjoy his work, but that is a political statement, like almost everything else you do. If you think his views are abhorrent and unwelcome in the society you wish to build, you may have the moral obligation to make a statement to that effect by boycotting his work.
If a racist serves you a sandwich and you find racism unacceptable in society, then rejecting the sandwich is a political action saying that such views are so unacceptable that you're unwilling to put them aside even for the sake of a meal. Of course, this is a strong political expression, and perhaps not the right one for any view you don't like.
Mr. Card in his response basically says, yeah, I know my views aren't popular, but it's not a big deal. You should "tolerate" them. Now, that is the question you should ask yourself: should you argue with Mr. Card's but tolerate his views, or do you think such views should not be tolerated in society. If it's the latter, then you have an obligation not to let him, or others who work with him, define his or their beliefs as personal and unrelated to their work.
Why is it a political statement, and why should this affect how I enjoy his work? As I mentioned above, it doesn't stop people enjoying Roald Dahl's work, either because they don't know of his views or feel that his views are irrelevant to one of the countless millions of replica products they own that is attributed to his work.
I'm not trying to be purposely argumentative. I just cannot see why I should view it as a political statement, rather than a "I just want to see an awesome movie" statement. Also, why should people care that others should not see this movie?
Almost everything you do is a political statement. If you don't accept that, that's a political statement in itself. Feeling that someone's beliefs are irrelevant to their work is certainly a political statement. I mean, let's take it to the extreme: suppose an artist brutally murdered your entire family. Would you still be able to enjoy his work? Would you think that his actions are irrelevant? If you think that someone's beliefs and political views are irrelevant to their work, it simply means that they simply don't mean so much to you. That is a political statement.
Also, Roald Dahl is dead, and was, in his life, a quirky writer. Card, according to Wikipedia, is a political activist. An action against him would be quite effective, and meaningful.
I haven't read Ender's Game, and I don't even know what it's about, but reading the Wikipedia article I've found something ironic:
Radford's criticisms are echoed in John Kessel's essay "Creating the Innocent Killer: Ender's Game, Intention, and Morality." Kessel reasons that Card justifies Ender's righteous rage and violence: "Ender gets to strike out at his enemies and still remain morally clean. Nothing is his fault."
It looks like (according to this criticism) that the author embodies the very viewpoint I pointed at. Namely that as long as your intentions are pure -- or, more precisely, innocent -- you are not responsible for your actions.