I don't understand why we can't let organizations do some good in the world, even when they don't align with all of the prevailing beliefs/ideology of the day. If the organization was a Sunni Muslim children's organization instead of a Catholic one, would we be having the same conversation? Would the city of Philadelphia have refused to work with them? (I picked Sunni because the ideological lines on homosexuality are similar.) I am very wary of moving towards a state in which there is no diversity of thought or tolerance of difference of opinion and belief. Forced ideology and/or theology in the name of unity is cultish and tyrannical. It feels like we're living in a cultural moment where it's not enough to be tolerant of another's different beliefs and say "that's not for me, I disagree" - a mere difference of opinion, or lack of personal endorsement, on certain issues is now considered tantamount to phobia/hate speech, and that is extremely concerning. Whatever the issue is, the prevailing message (at least in the loudest quarters) seems to be "if you're not for it, you're against it," which is sets up a false, extremist narrative. We should be able to practice "live and let live" and teach the values of tolerance, which is one of the most important values to practice in the real world where you will frequently interact with people who believe and act differently than you do, but have dignity and inherent worth and a valuable perspective on life to share with you.
For me, I think that's what makes this case so hard. It's that I see the good they are doing, and also see the pain their policies may be causing (or could cause long-term). Ultimately, I'm comfortable with the SCOTUS ruling because there is no real-world impact (i.e., as I said in the piece, nobody is actually losing a home / parents because of this).
Obviously, I also think you're right about this cultural moment more generally (hence me creating Tangle). Most Americans, in my experience, are very complicated with incongruent beliefs on all sorts of issues and -- like you said -- the loudest voices in the room seem to be driving the rage here. In this case in particular, I was reading about the case for 2+ hours before I even found the first mention that no gay couple had ever applied for a foster child there. Pretty wild! I think we need to embrace the nuance of this tension a bit more.
Thanks for responding. Your response sparked something in my brain. You wrote:
"When Philadelphia stopped working with CSS, there was no gap filled. CSS has done incredible work housing children for centuries, and it essentially went empty overnight."
I think we need to call out the fact that Philadelphia was willing to cause actual pain (not theoretical pain) in real time, to these children who were waiting to be placed, in order to pursue this issue.
Contrast that against what you wrote above: "It's that I see the good they are doing, and also see the pain their policies may be causing (or could cause long-term)." There is the topic, which you alluded to in your newsletter, of real pain vs theoretical/potential pain that is intriguing to me.
There is also the pain of forcing someone to do act against their deepest convictions in order to relieve the potential pain of another. Whose pain is more "legitimate" in this scenario? Who gets to win/be placated, when there has to be a clear loser? When it moves out of the realm of causing physical harm (which we can all easily agree on and identify) into the realm of causing emotional harm to another, it gets a lot stickier. I can see how it's a difficult issue to parse out emotionally because of strong ties to both religious liberty and close personal relationships with real people who would potentially feel the effects of these decisions.
When the prevailing ideology of the day gets a refresh in another couple of years (as it always does), who will the winners and losers be in the battle of pain? I am starting to believe that ideological unity is actually less important, and less desirable in some ways, than tolerance, which is not something I would have said a few years ago. There's a lot to think about here. Thanks for provoking some good discussion.
When a trans person cannot buy the blue and pink cake they want from one particular baker, nobody is harmed. There are plenty of other bakers who would love to bake that cake. But when a devoutly religious person is compelled to act against their faith, that person is harmed. It doesn't matter how you feel about their faith. It only matters how they feel.
When a gay couple cannot adopt from one particular agency, no one is harmed. Plenty of other agencies will help them adopt. (No gays have ever even applied to this one particular agency.) But when a religious organization is compelled to act against the tenets of its faith, that faith is harmed. Again, it doesn't matter how we feel. They are harmed regardless.
It was not about protecting the trans person from discrimination, it was about punishing the baker for his politically incorrect beliefs. And it was not about helping gay couples adopt. It was about punishing the agency for its incorrect beliefs. So toe the line, comrade, or else they will be coming for you next.
This doesn't have to do with your main piece today, but I just had this thought about critical race theory given one of your numbers items. I've heard a bunch of people suggest that the theory itself is fine, but it's how it's being used by SOME people that goes a bit overboard. I'm wondering if we should be starting to distinguish between "Critical Race Theory" and "Critical Race Practice"? :)
I am deeply concerned about the "practice" of CRT, which I have become more aware of thanks to the Investigation and Reporting of Christopher F. Rufo. If you visit this following YouTube link you will find the very sentiment you expressed. https://youtu.be/cfmpnGV0IGc
Watching people unfairly label someone as "racist" because they didn't vote for Joe Biden, I was frustrated by the (what I considered) arrogance of those doing the labeling of people they have never met and know nothing about. It was at that point that I began to feel comfortable with using the word "narrative" in a negative vein.
Being raised in a home where kindness and respect for all human beings, regardless of color of skin, country of origin, socio-economics, etc., etc., was not only modeled, but the expectation, I have no intention and embracing reverse racism. That is exactly what I witness with the "Solution" proposed by those touting CRT.
I don't understand why we can't let organizations do some good in the world, even when they don't align with all of the prevailing beliefs/ideology of the day. If the organization was a Sunni Muslim children's organization instead of a Catholic one, would we be having the same conversation? Would the city of Philadelphia have refused to work with them? (I picked Sunni because the ideological lines on homosexuality are similar.) I am very wary of moving towards a state in which there is no diversity of thought or tolerance of difference of opinion and belief. Forced ideology and/or theology in the name of unity is cultish and tyrannical. It feels like we're living in a cultural moment where it's not enough to be tolerant of another's different beliefs and say "that's not for me, I disagree" - a mere difference of opinion, or lack of personal endorsement, on certain issues is now considered tantamount to phobia/hate speech, and that is extremely concerning. Whatever the issue is, the prevailing message (at least in the loudest quarters) seems to be "if you're not for it, you're against it," which is sets up a false, extremist narrative. We should be able to practice "live and let live" and teach the values of tolerance, which is one of the most important values to practice in the real world where you will frequently interact with people who believe and act differently than you do, but have dignity and inherent worth and a valuable perspective on life to share with you.
Sorry, edited this:
For me, I think that's what makes this case so hard. It's that I see the good they are doing, and also see the pain their policies may be causing (or could cause long-term). Ultimately, I'm comfortable with the SCOTUS ruling because there is no real-world impact (i.e., as I said in the piece, nobody is actually losing a home / parents because of this).
Obviously, I also think you're right about this cultural moment more generally (hence me creating Tangle). Most Americans, in my experience, are very complicated with incongruent beliefs on all sorts of issues and -- like you said -- the loudest voices in the room seem to be driving the rage here. In this case in particular, I was reading about the case for 2+ hours before I even found the first mention that no gay couple had ever applied for a foster child there. Pretty wild! I think we need to embrace the nuance of this tension a bit more.
Thanks for responding. Your response sparked something in my brain. You wrote:
"When Philadelphia stopped working with CSS, there was no gap filled. CSS has done incredible work housing children for centuries, and it essentially went empty overnight."
I think we need to call out the fact that Philadelphia was willing to cause actual pain (not theoretical pain) in real time, to these children who were waiting to be placed, in order to pursue this issue.
Contrast that against what you wrote above: "It's that I see the good they are doing, and also see the pain their policies may be causing (or could cause long-term)." There is the topic, which you alluded to in your newsletter, of real pain vs theoretical/potential pain that is intriguing to me.
There is also the pain of forcing someone to do act against their deepest convictions in order to relieve the potential pain of another. Whose pain is more "legitimate" in this scenario? Who gets to win/be placated, when there has to be a clear loser? When it moves out of the realm of causing physical harm (which we can all easily agree on and identify) into the realm of causing emotional harm to another, it gets a lot stickier. I can see how it's a difficult issue to parse out emotionally because of strong ties to both religious liberty and close personal relationships with real people who would potentially feel the effects of these decisions.
When the prevailing ideology of the day gets a refresh in another couple of years (as it always does), who will the winners and losers be in the battle of pain? I am starting to believe that ideological unity is actually less important, and less desirable in some ways, than tolerance, which is not something I would have said a few years ago. There's a lot to think about here. Thanks for provoking some good discussion.
When a trans person cannot buy the blue and pink cake they want from one particular baker, nobody is harmed. There are plenty of other bakers who would love to bake that cake. But when a devoutly religious person is compelled to act against their faith, that person is harmed. It doesn't matter how you feel about their faith. It only matters how they feel.
When a gay couple cannot adopt from one particular agency, no one is harmed. Plenty of other agencies will help them adopt. (No gays have ever even applied to this one particular agency.) But when a religious organization is compelled to act against the tenets of its faith, that faith is harmed. Again, it doesn't matter how we feel. They are harmed regardless.
It was not about protecting the trans person from discrimination, it was about punishing the baker for his politically incorrect beliefs. And it was not about helping gay couples adopt. It was about punishing the agency for its incorrect beliefs. So toe the line, comrade, or else they will be coming for you next.
This doesn't have to do with your main piece today, but I just had this thought about critical race theory given one of your numbers items. I've heard a bunch of people suggest that the theory itself is fine, but it's how it's being used by SOME people that goes a bit overboard. I'm wondering if we should be starting to distinguish between "Critical Race Theory" and "Critical Race Practice"? :)
Thank you for sharing your observations, Levi.
I am deeply concerned about the "practice" of CRT, which I have become more aware of thanks to the Investigation and Reporting of Christopher F. Rufo. If you visit this following YouTube link you will find the very sentiment you expressed. https://youtu.be/cfmpnGV0IGc
Watching people unfairly label someone as "racist" because they didn't vote for Joe Biden, I was frustrated by the (what I considered) arrogance of those doing the labeling of people they have never met and know nothing about. It was at that point that I began to feel comfortable with using the word "narrative" in a negative vein.
Being raised in a home where kindness and respect for all human beings, regardless of color of skin, country of origin, socio-economics, etc., etc., was not only modeled, but the expectation, I have no intention and embracing reverse racism. That is exactly what I witness with the "Solution" proposed by those touting CRT.
HCD I'm sure there is a silent majority that agrees with you and they remain silent for the reasons you have stated.