Race is a Social Construct

Anti-racism is built on the premise that race is a distinction that people make, and that people make meaningful. If there was a scientific basis for races being genetically separate or significantly dissimilar, anti-racism would still be the right, moral, and meaningful thing to do, but it would run into serious problems and have to re-think a lot of it's literature and understanding. Fortunately, race is a social construct.

Let me say that again: Race is a Social Construct.

Here's the science backing that up. Note that the science doesn't itself says that race is a social construct. What it does say, however, is key:

One's ethnicity/race is, at best, a probabilistic guess at one's true genetic makeup.

If genetics doesn't straightforwardly match up with race, what can cause similar medical conditions occurring in people of similar racial identities?

For example, the higher incidence of hypertension in African Americans has been linked to darker skin color, but this may be due instead to socioeconomic status and higher levels of stress rather than to genetics... Knowing that socioeconomic status is related to hypertension allows us to identify individuals at risk regardless of race.

The paper itself doesn't say that race is a social construct, but it does an awful lot to put the idea of race as clear, genetic division to rest. And it shows that social effects of that genetic division can cause health problems in similarly-disenfranchised people. This isn't proof, but it's everything just shy of proof.

Edit 8/26/2008: In the comments, Juxatposer says this:

The American Anthropological Association's 1998 "Statement on 'Race'" says that DNA analysis shows that there is more variation within the groups than between them. This organization has developed a traveling exhibit and associated website called "RACE: Are We So Different?" Both allow the visitor to examine the history of the idea of race in the US, the nature of human variation associated with race, and lived experience of race, and support the idea that race is a social construct.

Firstly, that's a great comment (thanks Juxtaposer!). More relevantly, this is a good point. The statement cited is a decade old, and was made using genetic evidence.

Also relevant is this post found at Strange Maps. The map matches physical location of DNA samples taken with genetic markers, and shows interesting elements of overlap and separation. My favorite piece of it is that the genetic markers for Ireland and the United Kingdom overlap almost completely, making British and Irish an incredibly minimal genetic distinction. Of course, that contrasts with a long history of race distinction having been made important. And that's the point - race is made, not inherent.

Underestimating Voters

Recently I wrote a post where I expressed a rather risky point of view, and a view that deviates from previously expressed ideals of mine. There's some interesting discussion in the comments section, and I'm not entirely convinced I was wrong yet, but the interesting point is my assertion that:

yes, I'm advocating lying to one's constituency, or acting in a way that is tantamount to lying. It's excused here (far as I'm concerned, at least), by the fact that it isn't quite oath-breaking, that it's in the best interest of the nation, and that every other politician (excepting Kucinich) would be doing it too.

Democracy in any form is incredibly challenging, and representative model functions on the basis that citizens can chose lawmakers who will act on behalf of all society. Part of the trust placed in lawmakers is that they will act on our immediate desires, part of the trust is that they will act according to values we share, and part of that trust is that they will act in the absolute best interest of the nation, voter whims and values be damned.

Of course, since no one person has a monopoly on what is best for the nation, it's incredibly hard to figure out how to act in the best interest in a way that isn't opposed to your voter's whims and values. The wrong choice, of course, means a loss of the office, and people get an opportunity to select someone whose sense of national good is more closely aligned with the voters sense of national good. This is good, get-rid-of-the-crook and all that, but it leads to a short-sightedness in government that bothers me, and my love of technocracy. Below, my rough comparison of democracy and technocracy through the lens of the USA:

• In a pure democracy, the citizens vote directly on the issues, write the legislation, and citizens as a whole act as legislators.

• In a technocracy, people who are in positions of power exercise all the functions of state, including the ones the generate, modify, and execute laws, and do so with a mind toward the best interest of the state.

• In representative democracy, technocrats are answerable to citizens at set periods, and technocrats have to act on a version of the national interest that fits in best with voters 2, 4, or 6 year time span.

And this leads in a roundabout way back to underestimating voters. In a pure democracy, the citizens themselves are deemed to be adequately qualified to perform the functions of state. In representative democracy, the citizens are assumed to be unable/unavailable/unnecessary to execute the functions of the state, and so they instead appoint technocrats. From this, it's easy to conclude that we, citizens in a representative democracy, do not deem ourselves fit to rule. But that's a false conclusion, and it's an elitist position.

Yesterday at church the sermon (which will eventually be on the site) concerned the 5th principle agreed to by UU congregations: "The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large". It makes sense in the midst of a list extolling human dignity and justice that democracy would be the only available method of governance. Flawed as it is, it's the only method that repeatedly asks for the consent of the governed in a meaningful way (plebiscites, popular in undemocratic regimes as a way of addressing the consent of the governed, are hardly meaningful). And I'm reminded of a conversation with Terry Arnold why, given the incredible power that facism can concentrate, that a good facists isn't desirable. Any government that derives its power from anything other than continual consent is a false government.

In the post that this is a response to, I left a comment where I said "I'm not sure we have a population that can legitimately offer informed consent on issues like this". That sentence is utterly false; any population can offer consent to government by simple virute of it being a population whose consent is asked for/required. My position on domestic drilling, that it is right to claim to act with the consent of some against the wishes of others, and then to switch it around in the process of drafting legislation, is a false position. It's a betrayal of everyone's trust, and it shows a haughty caluseness that I was hoping I wouldn't get until at least grad school. So, my revised stance:

Domestic drilling isn't worth it. It's one of many options, and while I'm on record in many places for saying that we should keep all options open, we should know when an option just isn't worth it. Domestic drilling has an incredibly small potential yield, and while the absolute supply of oil would increase, the relative supply would be hardly changed. That's at the price of environment we can't get back, of wilderness that can only be despoiled once, and it's an abuse of our government's role as stewards of the environment for present and future generations. Nice as it would be to support it, the only really gain is that it is one less source of flak in a campaign that has innumerable sources of flak. And the whole "hide your real actions in legislative functioning" is a move that helps no one.

The thign to do, and the thign which has been done since I wrote the piece, is to go to the American public and tell them why drilling is a dumb idea. Anything less is patronizing, and is as bad as the "hey, we have oil, but that man wants to keep away the oil so your family can't afford groceries" framing that made this an issue. Fearmongering needs to be consistently countered with reason, and it's to every politicians discredit when they underestimate voters and act without full disclosure.

And, not that my responsibility is huge here, but my previous statement, as wonderfully machiavellian as I wish it was, is a disservice. Here's my apology.

War in Georgia

Right now a war is being waged in Georgia between the nation of Georgia, Ossetian separatists (I think), and Russia. This is the best account I've found so far. More analysis to come at a time that isn't 3 in the morning.

UU Presidential Campaign

While I'm a strong advocate for the separation of church and state, that doesn't mean I feel morality and governance should be exclusive. And like most people, the morality system I am most comfortable with is the one adhered to by my religious denomination (qualifier: these are the principles of UU congregations, not of UUs themselves, though Unitarians tend to agree with them).

That out of the way, here would be the focus of a presidential campaign I would run, with policies sorted by the principle they fall under.

• The inherent worth and dignity of every person;

There would be no barriers for marriage between two consenting adults. Sexual orientation and gender identity would be added to the federal roster of hate crimes.

The drinking age would be lowered to 18 - legal adult status should confer all the benefits of being an adult. I would appoint only justices who would rule laws such as cell phone bans that target only teenagers and curfews as unconsitutional. I would endeavor to end the criminalization of youth.

I would veto any proposed resurrection of the PATRIOT ACT, and I would do my best to end the one already in place. Civil Liberties would be guaranteed and fought for.

• Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;

Justice domestically would be re-thought. 1% of the US adult population is in prison. There is no way to justify this - even dangerous deviancy can't be all that deviant if it affects 1-in-a-100. That makes it almost normal. The big focus in rethinking the US criminal Justice system would be an emphasis away from jail time for victimless crimes (to either fines for committing the act or decriminalization of the act), a lack of disparity between state and federal sentencing laws (an emphasis away from federal drug laws here), and moves towards a system that rehabilitates.

Welfare needs to be moved away from a system of shame, and I think that looking at it as a vital task of the government, of society, to provide for the people most screwed by capitalism. Not that we should do away with capitalism; it's a great system, provided government steps in to pick up where it leaves people destroyed. The changes I'm thinking of are "free health care to everyone on welfare (and eventually universal health care. Hey, if post-WWII Britain can do it, why not the richest country in the world?), government-subsidized child care, etc. And all this could be funded by, get this, a windfall tax on oil revenues". (qaulifier: I'm following the advice of a current Foliage Commandant here)

There would be more tax forgiveness for charitable donations.

Affirmative action would be changed so that race or life below a certain economic threshold allowed eligibility.

While it wouldn't be possible in the space of even a couple of presidencies, a shift of the justice system away from one that punishes for the benefit of the state to one that facilitates recompense so that parties in conflict end in right relation would be pursued.

• Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;

This one, good though it is, is denomination-specific. It would just affirm Supreme Court Justice appointments to those who respect a diversity of religious opinion.

• A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;

No Child Left Behind: Local 'burque blogger and perennial favorite of Duke City cynics, Scot Key has a good run-down of why the law has failed everyone. Under the UU-informed administration, this law would be done away with.

A free and responsible search for truth and meaning is impossible without qualified teachers. I think a national initiative to make public school teaching positions both high-paying and prestigious would create greater demand for teachers, and supply would adjust accordingly. Debt forgiveness programs for commitments to teach for 2-5 years in inner-city schools would be extended. The "responsible" search would be accommodated by a change to longitudinal testing, where each grade would be tested against their performance from the previous year; the tests would be a valuable metric to see what teachers were successful, what students were independently failing and in need of different practices, and this metric would be used to create a more reliable way for performance based hirings and firings. It's a hint of the free market, but that brings freedom and the potential for systems to self-perfect.

• The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;

I'm an ardent supporter of Lessig and his Change Congress initiative. I realize that elected officials can take the pledge and act accordingly, but that this reform focuses on citizens being able to take public information, call politicians on it, and hold them accountable. As such, measures to ensure and create greater, moire useful transparency would be proposed, as would laws protecting citizen activists who hold politicians accountable.

Internet freedoms fall as easily under here as they do anywhere else, so I here is where I say support Net Neutrality, where I believe that individual freedom and privacy are fundamentals that most be adhered to at all costs online, and that warrants are needed for the government to access information online. While telecom immunity was recently passed, I believe that there shall be no protection for companies who act against their great moral and constitutional obligations to protect citizens privacy; acting under orders is not a sound defense, especially when the orders come from government but contradict founding tenets of government.

• The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;

We need a new foreign policy. One that respects the rule of law, one that respects international standards, and one that treats terrorists as enemy nationals and not as stateless actors; the risk and the damage caused to innocents outweighs all the benefit done by the detention of terrorists, and has long since eroded any ideas of the United States as a moral bastion and an exemplar of conduct.

The US would negotiate a withdraw from Iraq at the UN, with elected Iraqi leaders taking part and with an eye towards stability in the region as paramount. Under UN authorization the US would be allowed to continue its efforts to stabilize Afghanistan.

Th US, under a UU-informed administration, would support multinationalism, and would abide by international restrictions when it comes to the unilateral use of force. But the US would also use soft power to advocate for freedoms abroad, freedoms that it would no longer be denying to citizens, or to foreign nationals detained within the US. The US would go back to being a signatory and supporter for the International Criminal Court, and would allow for the trials of US leaders accused of war crimes.

• Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

The federal government is the trustee of public lands, and no land that is currently held in common would be privatized. That said, I believe it would be worthwhile to explore the possibility of minimum-impact domestic drilling, but that would be only supplemental to the development of green energy sources, and the smart development of modern nuclear reactors 9which would borrow technology and inspiration from France, who is 30 years ahead of us at this). We have a right and a duty to protect the environment, but it is politically impossible to at every turn chose the environment over people. This is about interdependence, and the best way to be a good steward is to see to it that meeting the needs of humans is met in a way that best protects the environment. Treating people and nature as oppositional hurts people, weakens the causes of the environmentalists, and makes green-friendly politicians vulnerable in elections to those who would despoil the earth.

~

I know, this is a lot. And yeah, it's mostly moot because I'm unelectable anyway. Still, I think this is a good idea of what a president informed by my take on UU values would espouse. If you have any other ideas of UU presidential aspirations, or re-thinking of how I see the principles applied to governance, feel free to leave a comment.

Guilt and the Flaw of Anti-Racism

Anti-racism is work that I believe to be incredibly important and almost vital for our society. That said, it's a confusing pile of uncomfortable, guilt, accusations, blame, and competing political philosophies. And the biggest flaw of all is uncertainty in action, which leads to "awareness-raising" and very, very little else.

Awareness by itself does nothing, and awareness that self-propagates is a vicious little thing. And that's how AR work functions when used among those who clearly benefit from privilege. Telling a white person who makes 100k or greater a year that they benefit from an unfair privilege because of their race doesn't go over well, and it only gets harder the more distant a person becomes from obvious signs of wealth and privilege. The resistance that has built around Affirmative Action for decades has a lot to do with those on the low socio-economic end being really upset that another group of low socio-economic folk get an advantage they don't. As they see it, poor's poor, and race doesn't appear to be a big enough factor to warrant special treatment. (As an aside, this is part of why the individualistic and self-made impulses are so strong among the people who would most benefit from welfare state policies - aid has historically been seen as unfair, so it makes more sense to do away with unfair aid instead of expanding aid to everyone).

So awareness by itself is flawed, and leaves either guilt or resistance. Awareness is supposed to be uncomfortable, and guilt/resistance are both reactions to uncomfortableness that cannot be processed. But there's a point to awareness, or it wouldn't be a consistent agent of change. Awareness, if done properly, changes behavior. So then awareness has done a good job changing language, changing some behaviors, and getting rid of the most overt signs of racism. But Anti-Racist activism focuses a lot on institutional racism, which isn't something that can be changed except by either institutional reform or widespread changes public opinion. Institutions are incredibly hard to change by guilting individual members, and structural factors that hinge on race are easily dismissed because they are obscured by the many factors that correlate with race (wealth, education level) and which can be explained as a lack of drive or initiative. Racism, without overt signs, is really hard to change on an individual basis, and almost impossible on an institutional basis.

AR work is incredibly tricky, and when it fails, it fails big. "Whiteness" is not a comfortable topic, not a casual state, and it is such a weird mixing of legacy (early New Englanders, slave importers) and assimilation (Swedes, Irish, Italians et al becoming white after a generation of immigrant experience) that "whiteness" has a wide range of internal interpretations. The "assimilated into privilege" makes the formula much more complicated than "our ancestors are guilt for your suffering", and it's the assimilation that makes all races in the US White versus (racename).

So what's to be done? This dichotomy of white vs other leads to notions like colorblindness, where everyone just doesn't have race be a part of their identity, or at least not an obvious huge defining part of their identity, like it has for many white Americans. Sure, when asked I'll say my race is Welsh, British, and Scottish, but those terms are almost meaningless for me in the US because the unstated "white" identity is so overriding. The classic line goes "much like fish in water, white people in American society are oblivious to the privilege they exist in all the time". The problem with the colorblind solution is that it assumes everyone else will assimilate into that same privilege, and that the only thing stopping them is a race that is part of their identity. Here Anti-Racism doesn't offer a solution so much as destroy a flawed one.

Another common approach is to look at the flawed socio-economics in this nation, and assume that, given the strong correlation of race to class, the problems can all be dealt with by programs that ignore race and just look at economic status. I'm somewhat partial to this plan, and it's informed my attitudes towards changing affirmative action (go meritocracy! don't make the law vulnerable to angry white men!), but that's not a perfect solution. This, too, ignores race and legacies of racial injustice for a classist slant - it would rob affirmative action of the notion that it corrects past wrongs and make it about more equal distribution of wealth, which changes the whole thing. And it treats race as class, which it isn't; it correlates, but that is all. Dynamics of race are different than dynamics of wealth, and while both are unjust and need to be changed, it ignores race to treat it as class, and it confounds things because in the US notions of class are linked to personal performance, and poverty is often seen as an individual failing. While it may address similar ends, race as class isn't the way to go.

Now we're back at square zero, it seems. To affect change in people, AR work has to make them uncomfortable enough to want to radically change their behavior for good. When that fails, people become reactionaries and resistant and are less open to notions of racism as endemic of systems; they'll abstain from meaningful work against organizations with flawed practices because they don't want to confront the guilt of being racist, or of being blind to a system that is racist. But that's if being made uncomfortable fails; should being uncomfortable work, people will now find themselves with a drive to change things (I know I did!), and with very few means of driving that change. If you spread awareness, you risk making a whole bunch of people guilty and resistant or guilty and agitated by how little there is that they can do. Or people could try and engineer individual ways out like colorblindness, which doesn't work and is offensive (in that whole "denying an aspect of humanity" sort of way). People may turn to class politics and understandings, but that is only part of the racial dynamic. When it fails, Anti-Racism work leaves a lot of people bitter and uncomfortable. When it succeeds, it can turn people into agents of change but it doesn't provide many valuable outlets for that energy, and it may burn people out before critical mass to change institutions (by having anti-racists in sufficient number running them) can work. The picture, as it can undoubtedly be painted, is bleak.

There's hope and there's some solace in all of this, though. Firstly, Anti-Racism is a young discipline and movement, which traces its origins back to the early 1990s (as far as I can tell). One of the benefits of spreading awareness rapidly since then is that, while total numbers are small, there are plenty of anti-racist activists working to figure out what to do with the knowledge that anti-racism has given them. This allows anti-racism to be a tool used in other debates, adding it to the side of human dignity. An example: knowledge of drug usage trends + knowledge of disparity in drug sentencing (500x the penalty for black drug crack versus the penalty for white drug cocaine) allows one to look at a flawed system and say, in addition to previous flaws, that it is racist in execution and should be changed. That's a powerful asset. The solace in all of this is that anti-racist work is moral work, it's valuable work, and it wouldn't be done if there weren't a pressing need for it. It's a flawed system currently, but as a moral imperative it is solid. It's why I keep up with AR work despite the criticisms. We'll hit upon the right solution eventually, and until then we can be gadflies who add minds to the collective brainpower trying to engineer a solution. To those skeptical, you have every right to be so, but take solace in the fact that we'll get their. The drive is too strong and the stakes are too high for us to not make it work.

Domestic Drilling

Obama is almost certain to come under fire for a shift in his position on drilling in areas of the United States where drilling has previously been prohibited. The anger makes sense, as he had previously expressed a different opinion (and how dare politicians act differently under different circumstances!), and more importantly as the left are often the stewards and protectors of wilderness (it's creatures, delicate climates, etc.). And don't get me wrong, I am right up there with "Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part". The environment is hugely important, and the cynic in me says that the best thing humans can do for much of nature is stay far, far away. So I understand where the anger at Obama is coming from.

But I disagree with it completely.

Let me clarify: protecting wilderness is good, and is one of the fundamental roles of humans and of government as stewards of this planet. But government, and especially democratic government, has a priority which overrides most other sacred tasks: a government has to provide for the dignity of its people. This is part of my new running theme about "human dignity = justice", and this works especially well with the debate over drilling.

The debate is framed in two ways, and the framings are:
"Times are harsh, and we need to do everything we can to make the people have an easier time economically, even if it means letting a few animals perish" (This is on the right, courtesy of McCain)
"No matter how dire the circumstances, we need to preserve our wilderness, and maybe limiting the domestic production of oil is a good thing, as it will force people to be better gas consumers and yay happy alternative energy whoo!" (The left, courtesy of the left)

McCain's approach is the one that will stick. It will stick because it addresses the hardship of voters, and portrays the government as moving to restore their dignity in the face of hardship, instead of being heavy-handed and imposing a set of values from above. For this reason alone, the left (and specifically Obama) needs to embrace domestic drilling. The framing of the issue is too strong, and the left will be unable to portray themselves as sympathetic to the working class if they cannot let the immediate crisis of human dignity take precedence.

This is not to say that drilling will actually work. Odds are it will take many years to yield anything, and that the production will be really very small. There are valid reasons such as "useless" to think domestic drilling is bad, and those reasons are pretty solid. But this only helps with a democrat deciding to support drilling. It's much easier to affect how the bill will play out when in support of it, and it is much easier to mitigate fears when actually doing the legislating.

The bill can be changed and crippled in committee, or it can be amended to the point of minimal environmental impact. It's known that the results will not be great; what people want is to know that government is doing everything they can do to help make things easier for them, and people would be upset if, after hearing about drilling as an option, it wasn't pursued. That's why expressed vocal support of drilling is important. But it also allows for elected officials to make the drilling happen in the least harmful way possible, even perhaps authorizing it and forestalling it.

Sure, it's Machiavellian, but it is also politics.

Edit 8/7/2008: Thanks to some question from handy gadfly Evan, I realize my intended point here does not come across as strong as I would like it to come across.

I am not in favor of domestic drilling. I am in favor of saying one is in favor of domestic drilling. I think that the effects of drilling, were it to happen, would be negligible to the point of being indistinguishable from how things are currently. But I'm not most people, and I think that when told more oil is available at home, it's a pretty easy connection to make that "letting us get our own oil = electable", while "keeping us from a resource we need = crazy lefty fringe". So I think that the politician that wants to get elected should say they are in favor of drilling.

But I really like the muddled processes of congress here, and the whole "sausage factory" aspect. It's easy to write a bill that addresses an issue in name and origin but in fact does nothing of the sort. This is where the bold environmental stand can be made. A bill authorizing domestic drilling could add so many conditions, regulations, considerations, and oversights to any new ventures that it isn't simply profitable, and no self-respecting capitalist would try. Or it could only allow exploration for a few years, and require that a ludicrously high predicted yield be discovered before another bill is written to authorize actual drilling for production.

Should a crippled bill like that get passed, it'd be much harder for the advocates of drilling now to say "we passed a bill to drill now but them libruls dun killed it", because a bill would have been passed. People would realize that latter, if they were still paying attention, but by then November would have come and gone. And both houses are in Democratic hands right now. It wouldn't be hard to pass a bill like that, especially because everyone would still look good by election time.

Qualifier: yes, I'm advocating lying to one's constituency, or acting in a way that is tantamount to lying. It's excused here (far as I'm concerned, at least), by the fact that it isn't quite oath-breaking, that it's in the best interest of the nation, and that every other politician (excepting Kucinich) would be doing it too.

Edit 2, 8/11/2008: My further thinking on this issue, revised thoughts and retracted statements, can be found in this post. They're companion pieces, so I encourage you to read both or neither, but don't just read one.

Knoxville

While I was out of town at UU Church Camp, I had a few quick thoughts about a few things.

There was a shooting at a UU church. I'm late to the blogosphere for this, so I'll leave the guttural reaction to webcomicer Jeffry Rowland. Also, he provides this handy link. There's a lot to read through (and in a dark humor sort of way, the "fanny pack around his waist that contained extra shells for his shotgun" is kind of priceless), but the major point is that violence is unacceptable. Just last week I said that all ideas and opinions should be allowed on the table, and I stand by that. But that only goes so far as ideas - murder because of ideological disagreement is always the step too far. Disagreement polarizes, but the fastest way to lose support for a cause is to make your own side appear crazy, disconnected, unreasonable, and dangerous.

Assuming the man had just been discontent, unemployed, and angry at liberalism (and not violent) the appropriate response would be to try and find what is so threatening about the church, and why he felt it was so dangerous. The church's affirming stance towards homosexuality was known, and the article quotes a gem of a phrase from the church website:

The church's Web site states that it has worked for "desegregation, racial harmony, fair wages, women's rights and gay rights" since the 1950s. Current ministries involve emergency aid for the needy, school tutoring and support for the homeless, as well as a cafe that provides a gathering place for gay and lesbian high-schoolers.

In affirming the diversity and the strength of the churches mission, they hit upon an interesting conundrum. They speak to the disenfranchised, the multitude of those who are not historically well-off or empowered in this nation. There is nothing there which reads as sympathetic to the unemployed, angry, down-and-out white male, and that's a shame, because he needs (or needed, before his actions invalidated all hopes of sympathy) a chance at some human dignity, like everyone else the church is adamant about advocating for and helping. The fundamental role of a UU church is, as I see it, to work for human dignity, and we are really good about the historically disenfranchised. We've just got a bit of a problem where it comes to the poor white male, who is angry because talk of privilege is meaningless for him, and there is no way for him to understand how power in his favor could leave him in the state he's in. It's a confusing thing, a frustrating thing, and it is a serious issue that needs re-examination.

But not because the church did anything wrong. We do not need to scour our souls with victims guilt, and we do not need to stumble about deadened by the unfairness of it all. The positive action that can be taken is to see where we can better serve the cause of human dignity. After all, the shooter went after the church not because we had done anything to demean him, but because we have such a strong and visible legacy of advocacy for others. I think we, as a denomination, have the power to take this on as well.

I'll end the blog post unusually, with a reading from a worship at camp:

"Courage, it would seem, is nothing less than the power to overcome danger, misfortune, fear, injustice, while continuing to affirm inwardly that life with all its sorrows is good; that everything is meaningful even if in a sense beyond our understanding; and that there is always tomorrow."
-Dorothy Thompson