Sometimes I do book, movie, and T.V. reviews, and sometimes I get theological and political. Today it is time for the later. In light of the events in Paris last month, and those in San Bernadino yesterday, I wanted to comment on some of the responses I have seen to these tragedies. As always, I welcome disagreement. If you think I have said something wrong, or would like a position clarified, feel free to comment or message me. Ultimately, I see my position as that of an intermediary, as someone who tries to think very carefully about where she stands, so she can explain her position to those who cannot comprehend why someone would believe as she does.
“Prayers aren’t working.”
This hook line from The New York Daily News, in the wake of the San Bernadino shooting sums up
several of the responses I have seen to both this shooting, and that in Paris
two weeks ago. As these horrific
and violent events have occurred, thousands have responded on social media to
say that their thoughts and prayers are with the victims of these
tragedies. Yet some question this
response. The piece from The
New York Daily News questions the efficacy
of prayer, and the response of GOP presidential candidates to new of the
shooting, asserting that the candidates should use the tragedy to speak out on
gun regulation, instead of merely offering condolences and prayers. The writer, Rich Schapiro, then goes on
to praise Democratic candidates for their responses, which use the tragedy as a
platform to push for greater gun control and regulation. But does Mr. Shapiro’s article miss the
point both of prayer and of the GOP candidates’ position? How should individuals, how should
politicians, and how should a nation respond to these terrible events?
After the attacks in Paris, two weeks ago, President Obama
called for a cool headed response to the attack, requesting that we, as a
nation, not allow the horror of the event to color our judgment or cause us to
respond reflexively with actions we might later regret. It is exactly this kind of
over-reaction, however, that the San Bernadino shooting has elicited from the
Democratic candidates. Instead of
waiting for the investigation to uncover how this atrocity occurred and what
steps could potentially have been taken to avoid it, these politicians have
responded reflexively in blaming guns for the problem and advocating
prescriptive measures. At best,
this is an emotional reaction of the sort that the President wisely
condemned. At worst, these
candidates are using the emotional fallout of the tragedy to push their
political agenda, a shameful attempt to manipulate people into agreeing with a
particular policy. I abhor
politicians who use tragedy as fuel to galvanize their political agenda. I was appalled when Donald Trump made
his tasteless comments after the Paris attacks, and I am sickened by the
Democratic candidates use of the strategy now.
This begs the question, what is a politician’s proper
response to tragedy? I believe
that in times of crisis, it is in the best interest of the nation for its
leaders to promote unity. Events
like Paris, like the San Bernadino shooting, like the Boston bombings, like
9/11 should bring people together, should help politicians to forget, if only
for a little while, their political party and policy agendas and instead focus
on rebuilding, response, and eventually, prevention of further incidents. Should the gun control debate be a part
of that? Potentially, but such a
discussion in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy does not promote
unity. Gun control is a hugely
divisive conversation in the USA, and advocating such a response immediately,
while the investigation is ongoing, is not conducive to producing a climate of
unity and effective response (I hope in a later post to speak more deeply on
gun control, because the situation in the USA is much more complicated than I
believe many people realize).
Instead of focusing on an issue that will divide people, politicians
should instead craft responses to tragedy that demonstrate their concern about
the victims of the event, and help bring people together in a spirit of
solidarity. The “tired script” Schapiro
condemns of “thoughts and prayers with the victims” does this. It expresses the unity of thought, in
hoping the best for those involved, and it includes a promise of action. At its worst, a politician praying for
victims of a tragedy demonstrates an emotional response to and concern for those
victims. At its best, the promise
of prayer is the greatest action that such a person can take.
This brings me to the national response to tragedy. The open condemnation of prayer after
both Paris and the San Bernadino attacks fails to recognize what
prayer is to people who genuinely believe.
When a person of faith says that they will pray, they are not just
expressing a hopeful sentiment, or wishing another well. Prayer, for the believer, is an
invitation to an all powerful, all good God to act within a circumstance. There is no greater step toward change
that one can take. Because God is
not only powerful, but good, such an invitation cannot be argued against on
moral grounds. The person who
prays for Paris, or for San Bernadino is not forcing their religion on anyone
else, but instead, is appealing to a power that has both the ability and the
desire to create a perfect change for the better. Thus, when an individual says he or she is praying for the
victims of a tragedy, that person is taking the strongest action they can,
inviting the most powerful person in the universe to act in the situation.
Does this mean that there should not be discussion on how
changes can effectively be made to prevent the situation from occurring again,
or action taken to support those who suffered through these tragedies? Of course not! God often acts through people, through
the decisions that are made. Those
decisions, however, should not be made in the haste and emotional backlash of
the tragedy, nor should these horrendous events be used as fuel for a political
agenda.
Some people do not believe in the efficacy of prayer. So be it. They should not, however, immediately dismiss the actions of
those who do believe. I am a
Christian. You may not believe
there is a God. I believe there
is. I have been convinced of God’s
existence by the evidence of my reason, my experience, and what I view as the
evidence of history. Ultimately,
only death will tell who is correct.
In the meantime, my actions are consistent with what I believe, and
saying that I am praying for someone is the greatest form of love and support
that I can give to that person. It
is the most powerful action I can take, and I do not have to worry about
negative repercussions when inviting the Goodly-Wise God to act.
Just because you do not agree with me does not give you the
right to condemn either my motives, or, if no one is hurt by them, my
methods. This is what Mr. Schapiro
failed to recognize in his opinion piece.
Candidates on both sides took action after this shooting. One side responded by politicizing a
tragedy and manipulating the emotional current of the nation for political
gain. The other took the most
powerful step they could to unify, express solidarity, and open the door for
further action. If one considers
merely the motives of those who spoke, which side expressed their beliefs with
the greatest integrity and showed the greatest support of the victims of this
latest atrocity?
Well, back to reality.
