Fort Hood Shootings and the Prophetic 'IF'

Isn't a little early to exploit this story for political purposes?

Rabbi,

Precisely what violence kept the alleged shooter in the Army against his will?

Rabbi,

Precisely what violence kept the alleged shooter in the Army against his will?

Rabbi,

What violence kept the alleged shooter in the Army against his will?

I think I'll print out this article and keep it on file. Whenever someone asks me about Jim Wallis or Sojo I'll pull out this article and say "this is Sojo".

It's a hard balance, isn't it? But I don't think the Rabbi is excusing the shootings or 'exploiting' them by observing that when we train a large body of people to solve problems or resist evil by killing people, and subject them to extreme stress and trauma, sometimes killings we didn't want will result. What else could we expect?

The above comment by Joana CW makes no sense.

I medical doctor is alleged to have done the killing.

The medical doctor was not trained to solve problems or resist evil by killing people.

The alleged shooter was simply a medical doctor in the Army.

I suspect he means to draw on libertarian arguments for social liberty. If that's the case, the violence mentioned is the punishment he would have met had he just left - that is, the threat of violence.

I suspect he means to draw on libertarian arguments for social liberty. If that's the case, the violence mentioned is the punishment he would have met had he just left - that is, the threat of violence.

Aren't future military physicians trained with firearms before being promoted to officers?

Aren't future military physicians trained with firearms before being promoted to officers?

Aren't future military physicians trained with firearms before being promoted to officers?

It seems like my first comment was removed. All I asked was, Isn't too early to exploit this tragedy for political purposes? In the words of Rahm Emmanuel, "Never let a crisis go to waste."

Here's a story I read, which I have been unable to authenticate, but for the sake of this discussion, let's assume that it's true. Some time shortly after the shooting in Fort Hood, a soldier walking on the street near by the base, saw a man dressed in a long black robe, and a high black hat. The man in black approached the soldier. The soldier claims the man in black shouted something that sounded like Allah something or other...and so he attacked this man in black. Who turned out to be an Orthodox priest who was seeking help to find his way to a particular address. Sometimes, such as this illustrates, when we are in a fearful environment, we pick up the fear, it takes over our lives and we can no longer see clearly. You see someone wearing long black robes and suddenly you hear words that were not stated. I don't know whether the soldier in this episode is one of the far-too-many soldiers returning with Post Traumatic Stress but if he were, this response to the man in black would have been appropriate (not to the situation but to the effects of PTSD). You see someone who has one or more elements that are similar to the enemy you've been fighting and....you see him as that enemy.
Because there are so many veterans with untreated PTSD (just ask some of the veterans we find among the homeless on the street) and because there are so many fearful civilians, I think it's really important for us to tread carefully in our responses to such frightening events as the Fort Hood Shootings. And that's why I am so thankful that Rabbi Waskow has used the word IF throughout his essay.

They haul him back to Fort Hood, maybe put him in the cooler. Further resistance results in higher violence.

On the contrary. He puts it in the opening paragraph.

"One reader wrote me to ask: "'What effect will the Fort Hood shootings have on the American public's perception of Islam?'"

Answering this reader's query is the premise of the post, and everything else follows from it, including Rabbi Waskow's application of it to the Afghanistan War. Making such an application is entirely legitimate, given the context in which the shootings took place. Not to address it would suggest a kind of moral isolationism: "OK, it's fine to ask about our perceptions of Islam, but the fact that we have been waging war against manifestations of Islam for the past eight years has absolutely no connection with the fact that violence just erupted on one of our military bases. That eruption is entirely the result of one bad person choosing to do evil."

I realize that many Americans are conditioned to react in something like the way I just outlined every time one of these mass shootings occurs, regardless of the context. Addressing the current situation that way, though - as a question of individual moral failing with no broader context - would be un-Biblical, un-prophetic, and profoundly irresponsible. That's what Rabbi Waskow is saying, and he's making an honest attempt to place the question in a broader context, as Scripture and Jewish (and Christian) tradition command.

I would suggest that, despite our individualistic American ethic, the possibility that Americans will see the shootings not as the act of a single bad person but as a manifestation of Islamic thinking is real and urgent. Hence, the need for the kind of prophetic witness that Rabbi Waskow brings to the issue in this post is real and urgent as well.

Once again, thank you, Rabbi, for writing this, and thank you, Sojourners, for placing it here.

I believe the thesis of the article (clearly stated by the Rabbi) is
"What effect should the Fort Hood shootings have on the American public's perception of the Afghanistan war?" Not as you have stated as "how Americans see Muslims?" Though he does put this in to the concluding paragraph.

So do you think the Rabbi is insincere? As in, he doesn't want to prevent further tragedies? Is prevention of tragedies not a valid reason to mention a recent one?

Is it being exploited for political purposes? Jesdisciple asked a very good question. JoannaCW also made a very good point.

I can understand how you might see it that way, and I admit it seems to have an air of justifying the perpetrator's actions. But I think the intent of the piece is not justification, but to show that we need to understand "why" this happened. It's a very important question to ask because if we understand "why" maybe we prevent it from happening again.

I think we would be very remiss if we did not at least consider that this incident might be evidence of the tremendous stress that our men and women in the military are dealing with, and I also think we would be remiss if that stress were not taken into consideration when making decisions on troop deployment. The question of whether this is a symptom of the stress our military is under and whether they can continue to absorb this stress is incredibly relevant.

I have a student whose husband came home for a two week leave from Iraq. I asked how they were doing, and she said she could already see he had changed, and it was clear the change was not a good thing. I tried to encourage her that he likely will have a hard time decompressing in just two weeks, but I also recognize he might never be the same, as is the case with their relationship. The stress our military families are dealing with is incomprehensible to those who do not have family or friends in the military--and sadly, I think it is often overlooked by those of us not directly affected in that way.

I extend my sincere sympathies to all personally affected by this horror as well as to my fine American friends on GP and at Sojo. A Canadian soldier from our city was brought home from Afghanistan in a box this week so this is a sensitive time for many of us. My daughter, who is a Psych major, volunteers in helping military families cope w/ bereavement so we were riveted to the Fort Hood tragedy last evening.

It would be tactful to wait until the facts come out (you will notice the liberal use of the word "if" in the article) before making assumptions and springing into the war in Afganistan. The Rabbi wants the troups out, I get that. But to pounce this early on a tragedy to make that point is tasteless.

wow that's violent!

This is the kind of unseemly moral equivalence that pacifism unfortunately sometimes sinks into. I would hope that most pacifists wouldn't equate soldiers (and the leaders that order them into battle--including Obama) with serial killers.

Conservatives will try to paint this as an attack by a violent Muslim. In truth, it's really because they don't like people who don't look like them. You see, conservatives need to have an enemy to be successful. It's all about fear and racism.