Tolerance vs. Empathy

Hence it is, therefore, that a thing is loved more than it is known;

since it can be loved perfectly, even without being perfectly known.

-St. Thomas Aquinas

Lately, I have been thinking a lot about the secular idea of “tolerance” today. It is absolutely mortifying to be labeled as “intolerant” today in fear that you may offend someone. However, what this word does not allow for is true knowledge. People cannot even discuss certain topics because of the intolerance of it all. I think there needs to be a key distinction made between being tolerant of someone and empathizing with someone.

The definition of tolerance at Merriam-Webster Online states:

1: capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance, fortitude, stamina

2 a: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b: the act of allowing something : toleration

3: the allowable deviation from a standard; especially : the range of variation permitted in maintaining a specified dimension in machining a piece

4 a (1): the capacity of the body to endure or become less responsive to a substance (as a drug) or a physiological insult especially with repeated use or exposure tolerance to painkillers>; also : the immunological state marked by unresponsiveness to a specific antigen (2): relative capacity of an organism to grow or thrive when subjected to an unfavorable environmental factor b: the maximum amount of a pesticide residue that may lawfully remain on or in food

Definition #2 is the one most applicable to this discussion. Tolerance is to have sympathy for practices differing from one’s own beliefs. Tolerance could also be the act of allowing something. What does this mean though? Sympathy is to "have common feelings", to share a similar experience. Sympathy is extremely important and is unlikely to breed resentment. Resentment exists only when one subject is made to feel an object. So what of the Christian who has no experience with a Muslim or a Muslim who has no similar experience or common feeling with a Christian? Can one have true sympathy for the other? I would argue no.

The next definition of tolerance is "the act of allowing something". Well, what if something is wrong? What if that something is rooted in error or falsity? Is it ethical to just allow something for the sake of tolerance? Where can the line be drawn?

Fr. Guido, O.P., shared some information regarding tolerance during a class. He basically shared the idea that tolerance has a temptation to minimize real differences. It has a temptation to make the ‘other’ not so other. We have a tendency to confuse the other’s difference with error. We have the temptation to see the other in terms of ourselves.

Let's see what empathy is and compare it to tolerance.

Merriam-Webster Online states:

1: the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it

2: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this

Empathy does not necessarily require common feelings or similar experience. True empathy does not make the other into an object. It does not have narcissistic tendencies and it cannot be faked. It is to acknowledge the other as a true other, but to have an understanding (although perhaps not a complete understanding) of the experience the person is going through.

This in comparison with tolerance is much more beneficial. For people to be able to have true differences is important and in fact real. However, people can still have differences and empathize with one another. We can go even further than just tolerating another. Toleration puts a blind eye to differences and tries to make every difference a union. This just does not make sense and it does not allow for error.

Empathy does not minimize the real difference in the other. Love, rather than tolerance, should exist between two people who are different.

Pope Benedict XVI wrote to the Ambassador to Germany:

The Church, however, does not impose herself. She does not force any one to accept the Gospel message. In fact, the faith in Jesus Christ which the Church proclaims can only exist in freedom, so tolerance and cultural openness must be a feature of the encounter with the other.

Tolerance, however, must never be confused with indifferentism, for any form of indifference is radically opposed to the deep Christian concern for man and for his salvation. Authentic tolerance always also implies respect for the other, for man, the creature of God whose existence God willed.

The tolerance we urgently need, and I also mentioned this in Munich, "includes the fear of God - respect for what others hold sacred. This respect for what others hold sacred demands that we ourselves learn once more the fear of God. But this sense of respect can be reborn in the Western world only if faith in God is reborn" (Homily, 10 September 2006; L'Osservatore Romano English edition, 13 September, p. 7).

Here, it seems like Pope Benedict is arguing for true empathy in the "encounter with the other".

St. Thomas Aquinas said something similar to, “When you know something, you conform the object to yourself. When you love something, you conform yourself in light of the thing you love”.

The Death Penalty

While reading The Law, Old and New by Fr. Richard Murphy, O.P. I came across a small section that struck me. Part of the article talks about the 10 commandments and exactly how we should live them. Within the brief discussion of murder he says (concerning "the death penalty on dangerous criminals"),

This is not murder. Murder is the unwarranted and unjust taking of thelife of
another. But it is not a sin against justice, or something undue,or murder, that
enemies of society should be put to death by the properauthority, especially
when their continued existence may be considered as aserious threat to the
common good.

I was rather shocked when I read this because I did not think that this was the view that the Catholic Church teaches. I thought, and have always been taught, that it did not matter what the situation was, we, as human beings, do have the power to place a death sentence because in doing that we are acting as God. Is this view that Fr. Murphy has really the correct teach of the Catholic Church? As an active member of the pro-life movement in the United States I was unaware of this.

I understand that the "dangerous criminals" "continued existence" may be a threat but is killing them really the only way to deal with it? And if the answer is yes, is it correct to say that this is not murder?

I think, whether it is the right or wrong thing to do (kill the criminal, that is) it is still murder and it is just another example of people trying to take the blame off themselves.

The China Complex

As China gears up for Summer Olympics 2008, Darfurian activists gear up for a protest. This year’s summer Olympics are becoming known as “The Genocide Olympics” as China continues to supply the Sudanese government with artillery –the artillery that kills Darfurians. The supply perpetuates a mass murder in the name of bigotry, discrimination and hate, a contradiction in terms for the Olympics, a game played to unite the globe. As the New York Times puts it “ …those of us who admire China’s accomplishments find it difficult to give credit when Beijing simultaneously underwrites the ultimate crime of genocide.”
China’s power in the Sudan cannot be underestimated, according to Nicholas Kristof:
Other countries also must do much more, but China is crucial. If Beijing were to suspend all transfers of arms and spare parts to Sudan until a peace deal is reached in Darfur, then that would change the dynamic. President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan would be terrified — especially since he is now preparing to resume war with South Sudan — and would realize that China is no longer willing to let its Olympics be stained by Darfuri blood.

Kristof brings to light our global responsibility. Should we boycott? But beyond China’s sinful hand in the Darfur Genoicide, don’t the Chinese people themselves need rescuing? Having a mother who frequents the country and having traveled to China myself, I recall the Chinese country-side as a devastatingly impoverished place begging for economic stimulation. Wouldn’t the Olympics give it that? But at what cost?

Language and Identity

I caught a CNN segment called "Conversations with Black America" today. During a series of interviews with and about Black Americans, the reporter interviewed a student at a historically black college in Greensboro, NC. She stated that she identifies first and foremost as a Black American, not just an American. The reporter mentioned that this kind of statement could be off-putting to other Americans. He insinuated that some would feel as though we need to all identify as Americans first, and that to do otherwise would be an act of disunity. She disagreed, saying that it's important to identify as Black in order to show others that African Americans are not the stereotypes that they have been made out to be.

This quickly got me thinking about language and the way it reveals meaning. In a similar way, what does it mean to identify as an American Catholic rather than a Catholic American? Is it about loyalty, or preference, or responsibility to identify first as one rather than the other? Does it matter?

Pope Benedict's Arrival and the Unity of Catholic Americans

With Pope Benedict’s near arrival, every news agency is doing its equivalent of the “state of the Catholic Church in America” coverage. Though most of what is said should be taken with a few grains of salt, their sociological research was extremely interesting. According to the Center for Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University, of the 64 million Catholics in the U.S., roughly 1/3 of them never attend Mass and ¼ only a few times a year. This article in particular noticed a generational gap amongst Catholic Americans – the older being more inclined to attend and the younger to not associate as fervently. For Catholics born before 1960, about half say they attend weekly, and only 10% of those born from the 1980s on.

However, in conjunction with this, the survey research also noticed a prevalent trend of change in the demography of the church. As the traditional Irish, polish and Italian heritage Catholics are dwindling in numbers, there is an incredible surge amongst Latino, Vietnamese and Africans. The article even notes that many Dioceses, due to the shortage in priests, are even going across seas to recruit priests for parish work. As a young university student, I see this demography change as not only welcome, but as an incredible opportunity to witness to the love of Christ. We live in the midst of a globalizing world that is searching for a common unity, for a common respect of the equality of all men and women in the world. We can see this clearly in international human rights law and the incredible surge in international governmental organizations. The world desperately wants to unite, but, at every attempt seems to be met with the insurmountable barriers of relativism.

Yet, there is hope; our hope is the body of Christ to witness to the unifying love of our Lord. If there is anything that can unite people across superfluous and superficial social barriers, it is truly the love of Christ. In this “American Experiment”, truly, the church can witness to its truly universal nature. By uniting the rich and the poor, those of differing ethnic and linguistic backgrounds, and those of diverse cultures, the Church can truly show the world that universality does not have to come at the expense of the richness of each of these cultures – globalization does not necessarily have to mean homogenization. As the Benedict preaches to Catholic Americans, it is my hope that he reveals to us the true unity of the church in America, a unity that is grounded in the unending and unconditional love of Christ - agape. The American church is in desperate need to be reminded that faith is life, not merely a part of it, and that truly, the love of Christ is what unites us all, whatever our position in this world. We will only be one if our faith and the sum of our lives are one – any compartmentalization will ultimately retain the distinctions amongst us, causing division in the Body of Christ.

Love and Politics

Benedict's first papal encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, amazes me with its emphasis, and its reminder to us all, that love is our calling as Christians, and that it applies to every facet of our lives. We are called to live like Christ-- and that includes our vote: Christ is active in our political world as well as every part of our lives, and it is, perhaps, the link that brings together our faith and our politics.

For example, love calls us to fight for justice:

One does not make the world more human by refusing to act humanely here and now. We contribute to a better world only by personally doing good now, with full commitment and wherever we have the opportunity, independently of partisan strategies and programmes. The Christian's programme —the programme of the Good Samaritan, the programme of Jesus—is “a heart which sees”. This heart sees where love is needed and acts accordingly. Obviously when charitable activity is carried out by the Church as a communitarian initiative, the spontaneity of individuals must be combined with planning, foresight and cooperation with other similar institutions. (31b)

Also, love opens our hearts to the beliefs of others in our own lives, as well as in other countries, like Iraq for example, where we need to address people's religious differences as Christ would: with love. We are called to an openness and a patient understanding, to treat people in a "Christian" way, whether or not they are are Christian themselves:

Those who practice charity in the Church's name will never seek to impose the Church's faith upon others. They realize that a pure and generous love is the best witness to the God in whom we believe and by whom we are driven to love. A Christian knows when it is time to speak of God and when it is better to say nothing and to let love alone speak. He knows that God is love (cf. 1 Jn 4:8) and that God's presence is felt at the very time when the only thing we do is to love. (31c)

Lastly, not only are we to embrace people with love, but we are called to note the difference between faithfulness and effectiveness, and the clear emphasis of the Church on our first and foremost calling to be faithful. However, Deus Caritas Est does not say that one cannot achieve both of these aims at once:

Practical activity will always be insufficient, unless it visibly expresses a love for man, a love nourished by an encounter with Christ. (34)

Thus, if one is working toward peace and justice with a "love for man" that has been "nourished by an encounter with Christ," he may be able to achieve both these ends: effectiveness with the love and faithfulness we are called to live out.

With regard to the personnel who carry out the Church's charitable activity on the practical level, the essential has already been said: they must not be inspired by ideologies aimed at improving the world, but should rather be guided by the faith which works through love (cf. Gal 5:6). Consequently, more than anything, they must be persons moved by Christ's love, persons whose hearts Christ has conquered with his love, awakening within them a love of neighbour. The criterion inspiring their activity should be Saint Paul's statement in the Second Letter to the Corinthians: “the love of Christ urges us on” (5:14). (33)

As Christ's love "urges us on," we can place His love at the center of our politics in an attempt to faithfully improve our world.

Conscientous Obejction: The Camilo Story

Two weeks ago I went to see the new movie "Stop-Loss" starring Ryan Phillippe and Channing Tatum. The movie tells the story of a soldier who served his tours in Iraq and whose contract ran up with the army until he was stop-lossed and told to go back to Iraq. I knew little about the stop-loss policy in the army, and learned that it is one of those "small print" things on the contract that allows the army to send you back to duty even when your contract is up. I found the movie really upsetting, but very, very well done. It reminded me very much of a song by my favorite band State Radio called Camilo. Camilo tells the story of a soldier who went AWOL due to objections with the war and subsequently spent a year in prison. It is an incredibly moving song and I will include the lyrics and the video below.

Before I get into that story I would like to define the term conscientious objectior in order to better understand what it really means. We read several pieces for our discussion of war that included the concept of conscientious objectors, but just to refresh everyone's memory. A conscientious objector is "an individual who, on religious, moral or ethical grounds, refuses to participate as a combatant in war or, in some cases, to take any role that would support a combatant organization armed forces. In the first case, conscientious objectors may be willing to accept non-combatant roles during conscription or military service. In the second case, the CO objects to any role within armed forces and results in complete rejection of conscription or military service and, in some countries, assignment to an alternative civilian service as a substitute for conscription or military service." It is also important to note that in some cases, like Camilo's, a person may initially agree with the war and begin fighting but later realize that the war is unjust and decide on conscientious objection, a decision that is not easily accepted or granted by the military.

Camilo Mejia is a former staff sergeant who spent six months in Iraq and returned home for a 2 week furlough and decided not to return. He had served his eight years of service, and like the movie portrays, was stop-lossed. Camilo went AWOL and was charged with disertion and sent to prison for one year. He turned himself in and filed for conscientious objection status. He claimed that he had to stop fighting based on war crimes, particularly the torture of prisoners. During his time in jail he was recognized by Amnesty International as a prisoner of conscience. He was released from prison in 2005 and wrote a book about his experiences entitled, "Road from Ar Ramadi: The private rebellion of staff sergeant Mejia."

In an article from 2004 entitled AWOL From Iraq, Camilo states,
“When you look at the war, and you look at the reasons that took us to war, and you don’t find that any of the things that we were told that we’re going to war for turned out to be true, when you don’t find there are weapons of mass destruction, and when you don’t find that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, and you see that you’re not helping the people and the people don’t want you there,” says Mejia. “To me, there’s no military contract and no military duty that’s going to justify being a part of that war.”

This is a powerful statement and I think it speaks to a sentiment that is becoming more common among soldiers feeling like they have lost the reasons that they are fighting. The reasons that George Bush outlined for us were lies, this war was waged on deception, not democracy. For Camilo, when these reasons for war turned out to be false, he was not able to continue the torture and crimes against humanity. However, his fellow soldiers were less than sympathetic.

“His duty’s not to question myself or anybody higher than me,” says Warfel. “His duty is to carry out the orders that I give him or his platoon leader gives him. We’re not paid in the military to form personal opinions or to doubt what our leaders say.”

Although I understand that the army is a job and that it must be looked at this way, not all job descriptions require you to sacrifice innate instincts against killing an innocent person. Camilo realized that his duty to his morality and to his faith was more important than his duty to the army. In his book he writes,

"I say without any pride that I did my job as a soldier. I commanded an infantry squad in combat and we never failed to accomplish our mission. But those who called me a coward, without knowing it, are also right. I was a coward not for leaving the war, but for having been a part of it in the first place. Refusing and resisting this war was my moral duty, a moral duty that called me to take a principled action. I failed to fulfill my moral duty as a human being and instead I chose to fulfill my duty as a soldier. All because I was afraid. I was terrified, I did not want to stand up to the government and the army, I was afraid of punishment and humiliation. I went to war because at the moment I was a coward, and for that I apologize to my soldiers for not being the type of leader I should have been."

The article continues,

"Mejia says there’s no doubt in his mind that he broke the law. However, he says he doesn’t consider himself a criminal. “To break the law, the law has to be upheld,” he says.

By that, Mejia says he means the war in Iraq should be considered illegal. He also says he signed a contract to serve eight years with the Army and the National Guard. And he served those eight years.

Then, he says, the Army did what it’s done to thousands of soldiers, and ordered him to serve more time because of the war."

Perhaps what I found most upsetting about the movie Stop-Loss was the fact that the men did return for two weeks and spent time with their families and friends thinking that they would be there for good, that they were done. And then having to find out that this was just a tease, that they were going back to Iraq was devastating to watch. During the interview Camilo was asked if he regreted his decision, he writes,

"But Mejia says he has never regretted his decision to go AWOL, especially, he says, when he starts thinking about the 12 or 13 Iraqis he and his men killed in Ramadi. All of them, he says, were civilians simply caught in the crossfire -- except for one 10-year-old boy with an AK-47, and one adult with a grenade.

“Whether you want to admit it or not to yourself, this is a human being,” says Mejia. “And I saw this man go down and I saw him being dragged through a pool of his own blood and that shocked me.”


And when you ask yourself, which you’re bound to have, for what? Why? What did you answer? Rather asks Mejia.

“That’s the problem. I don’t have an answer, I don’t have a good answer. I cannot say I did it to help the Iraqi people. I cannot say that it was to make America and the world safer. I cannot say that it was for democracy,” Mejia replies. “I cannot say that it was to prevent terrorism. I cannot find a single good reason for having been there and having shot at people and having been shot at.”

This I think is the most telling of the quotes. For this soldier, he could not justify that war that he was fighting, he could not justify killing 12 civilians. And that should not be justified, not in the name of democracy or of keeping America safe. No concrete positive changes have come about from this war, only the psychological scaring of our young people and 90,000 Iraqi civilians dead. That is truly a crime. In the Camilo video below there is a quote from George Bush that states, "I want you to know that when we talk about war, we are really talking about peace." This war is NOT peace. Camilo says,

“I would say this war is not about America. This war is not about safety. This war is not about freedom. This war should not be paid with the blood of American soldiers,” says Mejia. “And if I do end up paying with jail, then at least I’ll know that it was for the right decision.”

Please watch State Radio's Camilo Video below and Read the lyrics. It is a true testimony to someone who I think exemplifies true heroicism and bravery.


Camilo Lyrics- State Radio
Woke him up with a barrel to his head
His eyes shut tight bracing for the blow
Resigning his life to the metal held
In another man's hand

Twenty days in a concrete fallout
What life have I to take your own
Oh my country won't you call out
Doorbells are ringing with boxes of bones
And from another land's war torn corners
To a prison cell in my own
Punish me for not taking your orders
But don't lock me up for not leavin' my home

Your words just a bloody fallacy
A house of cards you painted white
You tried to recreate Normandy
But you made up the reason to fight
And now red oil is spillin' down on the street
And your eyes too big for the belly is weak
Will you not refuse this currency
Or is blood money just money to you
Is blood money just money to you

Twenty days in a concrete fallout
What life have to take your own
Oh my country won't you call out
Doorbells are ringing with boxes of bones
From another land's war torn corners
To a prison cell in my own
Punish me for not taking your orders
But don't lock me up for not leavin' my home

Camilo
Camilo
Leave him alone
Camilo

Food

An Op-Ed piece in the NY Times and another article about food riots this week highlight the major food crisis around the globe. Thirty-seven countries are facing food crises, and this has resulted in a number of riots, and consequently, some deaths. People are trying to get the attention of their government, of the world...and if they don't die in riots, they just may die of starvation. There are many reasons why food prices have risen, partially because of new biofuel technology, influencing corn and soybean costs.

This reminded me of an email that I received a few months ago with photos of families from around the world. The photos are set in the "dining" area of that family's home, with all the food that they eat in a week surrounding them. The photo at the top of this post is an Italian family. At the time of these photos, their weekly cost of food is 214.36 Euros or $260.11.


Above, a family from the US, their total is $341.98.


The photos also show a family from Mexico, totaling 1,862.78 Mexican pesos or $189.00 dollars,

an Ecuadoran family, spending the equivalent of $31.55

and finally, a family in Chad, with their week's worth of food, totaling the equivalent of $1.23.

What is our responsibility as Christians? As citizens? What is our government's responsibility? From the Op-Ed piece, we learn that international aid has decreased significantly over the last year. I'm reminded of the old lecture..."Eat your vegetables, there are starving children in Africa!" How about in addition to clearing our plates and not wasting food, we consider what it means to try to live in solidarity, the Christian call to love our neighbor, to feed the hungry, to understand that we are our brothers' and sisters' keepers. This has to mean becoming politically engaged, advocating for more a just global economy, fighting things like huge budget cuts to social programs right here in our own backyard.

The Answer we have Been Looking For!

This past week, former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, presented a speech on the topic of faith and globalization. After reading through his comments, I have come to realize that the goals of his speech and his personal connection to the actions he wants to take, are what is needed to make a sustainable change and open up honest dialogue between religions. Here is the Prime Minister's presentation:




Blair reaches throughout times of terror in history and proves how it was the faithful men and women who brought peace back to the world. He does not see a divide between faith and politics but an undeniable relation. Faith, according to Blair, must not be means of exclusion. Yes, we must wholeheartedly dedicate ourselves to our beliefs and sharing these with others. However, faith becomes a weapon when we lose respect for other beliefs and begin to see those with differing views a subhuman.

"Let me be clear. I am not saying that it is extreme to believe your religious faith is the only true faith. Most people of faith do that. It doesn't stop them respecting those of a different faith or indeed of no faith. We should respect humanists too and celebrate the good actions they do.

Faith is problematic when it becomes a way of denigrating those who do not share it, as somehow lesser human beings. Faith as a means of exclusion. God in this connection becomes not universal but partisan, faith not a means of reaching out in friendship but a means of creating or defining enemies. Miroslav Volf in his book ‘Exclusion and Embrace’ describes the difference brilliantly."

Faith is a transformative power in the global world. However, people must learn to embrace it as something that is positive and not something to be afraid of. Interfaith dialogue is essential for peace to prevail and Blair beautifully portrays that necessity in this speech.

Blair brings in the role of faith and globalization in relation to the current elections in the US. There are issues that cross political lines and it is no longer "left v. right" but "open v. closed". We are afraid of becoming a global community because of the lack of understanding and sensitivity to different cultures. However, through faith, and constant interfaith dialogue, the community of the world can become united.

Reading through Blair's article is inspiring and offers so much hope and expectation for the role of faith in the future political sphere. Let's pray that these messages are heard and we begin to dialogue and learn to love each other out of respect for the individual dignity of each person.

open eyes

With all the negativity flying around, here is a rather tender article about the less-discussed John McCain:

The Great McCain Story You've Probably Forgotten

just because I love it, and it defines all we do...

This proper way of serving others also leads to humility. The one who serves does not consider himself superior to the one served, however miserable his situation at the moment may be. Christ took the lowest place in the world—the Cross—and by this radical humility he redeemed us and constantly comes to our aid. Those who are in a position to help others will realize that in doing so they themselves receive help; being able to help others is no merit or achievement of their own. This duty is a grace. The more we do for others, the more we understand and can appropriate the words of Christ: “We are useless servants” (Lk 17:10). We recognize that we are not acting on the basis of any superiority or greater personal efficiency, but because the Lord has graciously enabled us to do so. There are times when the burden of need and our own limitations might tempt us to become discouraged. But precisely then we are helped by the knowledge that, in the end, we are only instruments in the Lord's hands; and this knowledge frees us from the presumption of thinking that we alone are personally responsible for building a better world. In all humility we will do what we can, and in all humility we will entrust the rest to the Lord. It is God who governs the world, not we. We offer him our service only to the extent that we can, and for as long as he grants us the strength. To do all we can with what strength we have, however, is the task which keeps the good servant of Jesus Christ always at work: “The love of Christ urges us on” (2 Cor 5:14).

- Deus Caritas Est, parag. 35

More on Race

The National Catholic Reporter carried an article by Fr. Bryan Massingale, an African American Catholic priest who teaches a Racial Justice course in the Theology department at Marquette University. Well worth the read, the article speaks mostly of the gut feelings that come up for us when we hear or talk about race in America: "fear, anger, confusion, resentment, guilt, helplessness, shame, outrage, despair, resignation." But he also speaks, with candor, about the reality of what we hear preached from our churches and temples:

For what religious person hasn’t heard a priest, minister or rabbi utter from the pulpit boneheaded, ill-advised, insensitive, embarrassing or even stupid statements that offended common sense and even one’s religious convictions? And yet decided that because the church’s merits outweighed the minister’s shortcomings, one could remain a member of the congregation? Who among us would want to be held responsible for every pronouncement made by our faith’s leaders?

This statement is made, of course, in light of Rev. Wright's controversial statements. I think the importance of this comment, coming from a diocesan priest, is that it reminds us that clergy and ordained religious are not perfect, nor do they always preach the Good News in the ways we're most comfortable, or those most appropriate. But if we have these gut reactions to race and racism (or any other -ism), and those feelings shape our dialogue, then the same is true for our religious leaders. It is important to recognize that as people with stories, we each bring that story into the "public sphere," either as elected officials, community leaders, or religious leaders. And those stories continue to shape us and our leadership.