I hate race.

No really. I wish such things didn't matter. I've often said that I think the sexuality of other people ought not to matter to anyone (except potential partners of a given individual). So, if the sexual interests of others ought not to matter, then why should race matter?

Unfortunately for me, that's a hollow rhetorical question, because even though these things make no sense to me and I'll never understand the need people have to make them matter, to many people they do matter, and they matter dramatically.

Attempting to come to terms with this argument is like trying to mix tar and water.
My argument that sexuality and race do not matter is grounded in individualism (tar) and the argument that they do matter is grounded in communitarianism (water).

My genitals and my skin color are seen as not my own business, but as the collective business of other people in various identity groups.

As is the case with many communitarian arguments, religion often factors in, and the latest race argument is that "we" need to have a "sacred conversation" about race. To do that, we must turn down the volume:

If America is ever going to have a healthy conversation on race, it must first turn down the volume, a black Philadelphia preacher told a largely white congregation in Wayne yesterday.

The Rev. Derick B. Wilson, pastor of a poor, multiracial Kensington congregation, told several dozen congregants of United Church of Christ at Valley Forge in Wayne that empathy for the struggles of others would help to dismantle distrust.

Far from it. Rev. Wilson is a devotee of Wright who adheres to the same religious philosophy, and he is outspoken in the man's defense.

Wilson, pastor of Healing Stream United Church of Christ in Kensington, staunchly defended Wright in a May 6 Philadelphia Daily News column, and he offered a similar justification with the Wayne congregation during coffee hour yesterday.

But in yesterday's Inquirer, he stays with an apparently safer talking point -- government-sponsored AIDS, which is really about slavery:

He asserted that, like Wright, some African Americans believe the U.S. government is responsible for instigating the AIDS epidemic, even though there is no evidence to support that view. He said many blacks feel that way because of the nation's history of slavery and oppression of minorities.

"For 400 years, we were slaves in this country, we were ripped from our homeland," Wilson said. "So as black people we have lived in situations where you might well say, 'Well, that never happened.'

First of all, the term "we" is inappropriate in the context of long deceased people. But tar and water, there I go. To communitarians "we" means all members of a group at all points in time. Well, at selected points in time. The "we" doesn't include the conquering African tribes who sold their captives, and how could it? No one wants to say that "we" played a role in doing something to our own selves.

And of course, there's an awfully big stretch included within the "400 years" of slavery "in this country." I have to assume that by "this country," Rev. Wilson means the United States of America, for what else could he mean? The United States was founded in 1776, and the Thirteenth Amendment formally abolished all slavery in 1865.

Subtracting 1776 from 1865, I get 89 years. What happened to the other 311 years? I'm not sure, but subtracting 311 from 1776, I got 1465.

[Just corrected my math there; I was off by two years.]

Now that made me feel like a real ignoramus, because even though I consider myself familiar with history, for the life of me, I cannot figure out -- even hypothetically -- what the year 1465 might have to do with the United States. Or England. Or even Spanish colonialism in the New World.

Can someone enlighten me about the 309 year gap in this country's history? I can't figure it out.

Returning to the sacred dialogue, as presented in the Inquirer, Rev. Wilson continues with the AIDS theory:

"Do I believe that the U.S. government put AIDS in our communities? I don't know," Wilson went on. "I wish that I could say no, but I know the government has done other things in the past."

Some members of the congregation gently pushed back.

Phil Clark, a scientist who works in the pharmaceutical industry, said that there was no evidence that the government had anything to do with starting the AIDS epidemic and that it did not have the technology at the onset of AIDS to create the virus.

Another member asked Wilson how whites and blacks could move beyond feelings of distrust if Wright's views held such wide currency.

For Wilson, the best approach is to recognize that each person suffers, and that empathy can bridge wide gaps.

"All of us in this room have been in situations where we have been counted out," he said. "If we can get in touch with that sameness" there would be more of a basis for understanding.

Wilson is known as an eloquent preacher among United Church of Christ leaders in Southeastern Pennsylvania, and it was on that basis that he was invited to give Sunday's sermon, said the Rev. Frank Pennington, pastor of United Church of Christ at Valley Forge.

"We are trying to create a safe environment for people to disagree agreeably," Pennington said. "That is the kind of discourse that is lacking in our culture."

Let me start by saying that I disagree agreeably with the idea that the U.S. government spread AIDS in the black community. I suppose "disagreeing agreeably" over such things is a nice thing to do, but I just have a little bit of trouble following why debating a fringe theory like that constitutes having a "sacred conversation about race."

What is sacred about it?

And is it really a "conversation"?

Sigh.

I'd hate to think that by posing such questions I might be seen as a race-hating atheist.

I still agree that we should all try to turn down the volume. I try to be tolerant of the views of others, but if someone opines that 400 years of slavery in this country validates the view that the government spread AIDS in the black community, I don't really know what to say. Is this a conversation, or am I just supposed to shut up and take my scolding from someone's pulpit?

If so, then monologue is being confused with dialogue.

UPDATE: Math error corrected.