what Kat said

THE WEEK comes here, an interesting news magazine that subtitles itself "The Best of the U.S. and International Media", and it does seem somewhat free of blatant biases that keep me from bothering with most media outlets, like Fox News. Or it could be that I'm blindly missing subtle biases in my favor, IDK. I really don't know.

In the current issue, THE WEEK, August 11 2023, this essay caught my eye (I have to retype it because our subscription does not include digital where I could simply copy and paste).

+++++++++++

WHEN LIBERALS DISAGREE WITH LIBERAL DOGMA

Kat Rosenfield, The Boston Globe

"If I disagree with my liberal tribe," said Kat Rosenfield, "does that make me a conservative?" I've been wondering about this since looking into the illustrated novel "Gender Queer", which has been described as "the most banned book in the country." The book, written and drawn by nonbinary author Maia Kebab, follows the journey of a trans teen who is disgusted by their girl body, and contains graphic illustrations of oral sex, masturbation, and a strap-on penis. Liberals have praised the book as "groundbreaking and essential," while conservatives have denounced it as pornographic. My own reaction is that the book is "best reserved for adult readers," not middle school libraries. But in our polarized political culture, those who stray from maximally permissive views on any culture war issue "can suddenly find themselves nonconsensually categorized as far-right fascists" of their "dangerous enablers." Maybe that's why nearly 40 percent of Americans now identify themselves as social conservatives - "the strongest showing for conservatives in more than 10 years." If left-leaning voters feel they cannot deviate from "radical" progressive ideas about gender and sexuality, don't be surprised if they defect or don't vote. This is how you lose elections."

++++++++++++

I've confronted this too, wondered about it myself. I'm puzzled by people who are focused on a single issue. I've wondered why respectable people with good sense would vote for a candidate who has no integrity, whose moral fibre is from the sewer, whose ignorance knows no bounds, and who is internationally known as a blowhard fool, just because his party is pro-life. He himself wasn't "pro-life" until he realized he could stir up division by making an issue of it.

Anyway, from my own perspective as a blogger, I question my own integrity when I hesitate to take issue with what I regard as outrageous positions in my "camp" because I know the other campers would convert me to a pariah if I speak out disagreeing on a particular issue.

Yes, I've heard of and read about "Gender Queer" the book and the uproar it has stirred. I'm not for book banning, and I'm not a book burner; and I haven't bought "Gender Queer" or read it or even seen it in bookstore displays; but I've read enough about it, including what Kat Rosenfield says above, to wonder what kind of alphabet moron would want that book in school libraries. I mean, what? I've been a boy, and a teenage boy, and I know that if that book had been in our library at Cove School or Bay High, every boy in the school would be gathered around a table while one of us turned the pages and all the rest of us leaned over and looked bug-eyed and pointed and snickered. What's the point? If it's to read, you can read it looking over Norton's shoulder at his place of work in The Honeymooners, nomesane?

But that's not my issue, I don't really give a damn about the book, it's what Kat said, the principle that Rosenfield raises. I agree: if I disagree with an issue, it's a big risk saying so. My issue is within my own camp, what Rosenfield calls her "tribe". My camp is the Episcopal Church. In my generation, the Episcopal Church has acquired and pursued bizarre social obsessions such that I sometimes wonder "WTFO?" and "AYFSM?" I love Jonathan Daniels and all that the Episcopal Church works for in my Time. We are about our Baptismal Covenant, our promise to, with God's help, live our lives in a certain way because of what we claim to believe about God. Are we really out to shock and appall the society around us - - is that what it's really about, showing the world how outrageous we can be?

I'm a thoroughly reformed Southerner. I'm a progressive enough Christian. Even if I don't necessarily preach it from the pulpit, I'm for the theological freedom that I know in the Episcopal Church because of Seek The Truth, Come Whence It May, Cost What It Will. I'm glad we're not literalist inerrantists. I'm glad we've shed our old patriarchalism binding women. I'm glad we're ridding ourselves of our latent and patent racism. After years of personal struggle letting go of fond old liturgical language, I'm all for the liturgical options and opportunities in the "new prayer book," including as amended on-line to be all-inclusive - - if you want me to officiate your gay wedding, come on, BTDT. I've done it all, including wading out into the Gulf of Mexico to officiate weddings and funerals in chest-high surf, and I'm up for anything except officiating a wedding as we float down under a parachute.

But I'm not for creating a spectacle "just because" or to strut our stuff, or to prove how openminded we are: delegates to General Convention were noted as wearing pink ribbons with signs "elect more female bishops" - - WHY? Why is that a goal?

Elect more female bishops? Elect more gay and lesbian bishops? Why is that a goal? Call more gay and lesbian priests? Why is that a goal? Ordain more Black priests? Why is that a goal? Don't elect anyone who's not all in and signed up for all the camp programs? No, I'm against that one, I'm not for goals and objectives that cancel out some categories of competency.

I'm for electing and choosing the best qualified for the situation. I'm for everybody, against nobody. Black Lives Matter. Every life that's marginalized matters. I'm for no limits, no rules, but I'm not for any kind of selective extremism or being the cutting edge "just because". I'm not for ostracizing anyone. I'm not interested in making ourselves a spectacle.

Okay, yes, so I'm an old man and getting older. Someone said, Tom, we can't believe you'll be 88, you certainly don't look 88, but we remember when you did. So, it's enough being and looking old, I work hard at not becoming a grumpy, grouchy old man. I try to mind my Mind and my Manners. I'm not for goals and objectives that set anyone aside, including competent, qualified white men, which I have been. That's just me. It isn't necessary for anyone else to understand where I'm coming from, it's sufficient that I understand myself, unapologetically.

RSF&PTL