I'm bored by the fights over Pride month. I feel that the community (not going to use the absurd, never-ending acronym for the moment) has achieved a level of acceptance that is approaching complete equality, even if it's not entirely there yet. I'm not sure compelling public displays of pride move the ball.
The main sticking point today is a new issue: not just transgenderism, but youth transgenderism. It seems absurd to me that we are being told that underage children, who are not to be sexualized for any other purpose, must be urged to identify with alternative sexual or genders, with drugs and surgery if prescribed.
I think reasonable people harbor doubts about this issue, and about teaching children that the new dogmas of the left are somehow immutable truths. It is wrong and divisive to describe opposition to this indoctrination, or to trans women (biological men) competing with women in sports, as being "hateful."
Americans are not, in general, hateful people. Even institutionalized racism, when and where it existed in law and custom, was kept in place more by inertia and mistaken beliefs than by active hatred. It's just not who we are. So I'd like the White House in particular to stop making that incendiary accusation.
Other than that: I really don't care much about which brands are identifying with which gay or trans people; I don't care about public displays of bondage in West Hollywood Pride parades (you know what you're getting if you go there, though the city should't advertise the events as somehow "family-friendly" ).
I'm just too busy with my own life to care much about who is doing what with whom. Have fun -- it's what the "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration is all about, in my view. I just don't like the relentless indoctrination of children by joyless people who don't know how to savor the freedoms they have won.
This week’s portion launches the great story of Abraham, who is told to leave everything of his life behind — except his immediate family — and to leave for “the Land that I shall show you.”
There’s something interesting in the fact that Abraham is told to leave his father’s house, as if breaking away from his father’s life — but his father, in fact, began the journey, moving from Ur to Haran (in last week’s portion). His father set a positive example — why should Abraham leave him?
Some obvious answers suggest themselves — adulthood, needing to make one’s own choices, his father not going far enough, etc.
But I think there is another answer. Abraham (known for the moment as Abram) needs to establish his own household. This is not just about making one’s own choice, but really about choosing one’s own starting point. It’s starting over.
Sometimes we start over in fundamental ways even if much that surrounds us remains the same. Sometimes the journey we have to ...
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
