So I was sitting around contemplating which pair of Trump sneakers would be best for a MAGA person I know. I realized it wouldn’t matter because any of them would keep him mired in the same bull dung he’s been standing in since 2016.

But I digress. My aim this month is not on presidential politics but on another topic sure to tickle the innards of reds and blues and even purples: book banning.

Let me start by saying, as would any Democrat and retired journalist, that no book worthy of being published should be banned for any reason. Whether a child reads a book about being gay or has rough language or tells the truth about racism is up to the parents, not the government.

Ever.

Look, when my kids were little, I would not have wanted them to read “Catcher in the Rye” or “Grapes of Wrath” or, Heaven forbid, “To Kill A Mockingbird.” But when they were old enough to understand the subject matter and ask intelligent questions and comprehend the answers, I would buy the book for them. (Actually, had those in my own bookcase, but I’d rather they had their own.)

What is old enough? That depends on the maturity of the child, of course. For example, I have a pair of grandchildren who just turned 8. They are naturally inquisitive and intelligent, but perhaps not mature enough yet to handle a book about same-sex relationships or a book riddled with violence about teen sexuality, such as “Catcher In the Rye.” But are they able to handle learning that slavery existed and that it sucked? I think so, but then it isn’t up to me. It’s up to their parents.

One of their parents, my stepdaughter Jessica, happens to teach first grade at one of the nation’s highest rated elementary schools in West Lafayette, Ind. She has a master’s degree in reading and a career goal of helping to establish curriculum for all schools. When I asked her if she believed the twins are mature enough yet to handle any book or subject, her reply was, “Not even close.” She will, I know, closely monitor her kids’ reading material.

“I mean, I’m never for book banning. At all,” Jessica told me. “I think there needs to be a better practice for judging appropriateness based on development and age. But some people are trying to censor everything and only feed kids the version of life they want them to know. Then they should homeschool their kids.”

Jessica is quick to acknowledge there should be parental guidance on reading material, again based on age appropriateness. “Just because a child can read a book doesn’t mean they should before their brains are mature enough to handle its complexities,” she said.

“Now at the middle and high school level, I think it’s grossly inappropriate to ban books because 1) they already know about that stuff and 2) they’re probably going through something of their own; by banning books of the same nature as their thoughts teaches kids their thoughts are bad and unnatural and then we have a slippery slope into mental illness, suicide, depression, etc.”

Deep stuff. Too deep, I guess, for banners.

Regarding teaching about racism and slavery, the former of which still exists in this country regardless of claims by Republicans, there is the truth and then there are half-truths. The latter is what local prosecuting attorney Aleisha Graves refers to as “sanitized” and “sugarcoated.”

I asked Graves, who is Black, if she believes it important that the words and teachings of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcom X be available to today’s youth.

Of course, she said, “Especially those that show in actions and language how Blacks were and are treated. Especially those that show accurately the teachings of Dr. King and Malcolm X. We have too long sanitized Black history. We have too long sanitized American history. Sugarcoating our history is part of the reason why we have such a racial divide.”

I asked her what she meant by sugarcoating. “There are people that believe that enslaved people were treated well. As a result, they believe that slavery as an institution wasn’t that bad. There are people that don’t know that many Black Americans were and have been terrorized for generations after the Emancipation Proclamation. There are people that don’t know that slave owners were paid reparations after they lost their chattel. There were people that don’t know that enslaved people never had fathers. That’s sanitized,” she said.

Graves finds such books repugnant but does not believe in banning books. “I fully understand people’s concerns about the content of books, particularly for children, but I think that’s a conversation that belongs inside their family. If you don’t want to read a book, don’t read it. I don’t think it’s appropriate to ban a book because you don’t want others to read it.

“Banning books, or censorship, is intended to limit knowledge and I simply cannot agree with limiting knowledge.”

Nor can Joel Shoemaker. He’s a local librarian and author. A gay man, he has written two books about the LGBTQ community, one a coming-of-age novel about two young men, called “bacon grief,” the other an anthology about his own experiences, “Teeth and Crumpets.”

His third book is also about the gay community, but is a picture book because it is centered on a “gender nonconforming child” and is about “finding a place where they can worship their creator as they are.” Due out soon, Shoemaker expects “Silas on Sundays” to get pushback because its target audience is 6 to 10 years old. In fact, he said, he has already received negative feedback in some of the early reviews. But, he added, “that’s totally fine. It’s part of the territory and I can live with people having different belief systems.”

However, Shoemaker believes people should form their opinions about books on more than just a title. Any book, he said, “should be reviewed on its own merits and utilizing review journals and other guidelines. When in doubt, the book should be read. As always, parents can and should decide what their children can and cannot read.”