Triangulating Carey and Fraser

My "WWGCD" approach has been blown to pieces by Giles Fraser.

For the Random Hand-Grenade Thrower has spoken on the subject of George Carey. And he has said



Carey in favour if right to die in tomorrow's Mail. It seems there is not a single subject on which I agree with him.
— Giles Fraser (@giles_fraser) July 11, 2014

Well now what am I supposed to do? If Giles Fraser disagrees with George Carey on everything, where can one turn for the wrong answer to every question?

In some cases it's possible to triangulate. For example, Fraser is strongly on favour of same-sex marriage in the church, while Carey is against. I shall therefore be guardedly in favour. They actually agree on the ordination of priests (Giles may have missed this one) so I shall continue to be in favour of the abolition of male ministry.

But there are some questions where it is tricky. "Is there a God?" Or "should Liverpool have sold Suarez." In theory, yes/no questions - although Giles Fraser could probably reduce both to an attack on capitalism. But where such questions leave no options that can disagree with both of them, I shall resort to the time-honoured response that brooks no argument, rejoinder or comeback.

That would be an Ecumenical Matter.