If you read twitter, you’ve likely seen the “prayer shaming” debate over the last couple days. It goes like this: public figures reflexively tweeted, posted on facebook, and (gasp!) verbally said that their “thoughts and prayers” are with the victims of the San Bernardino attack. Then some leftist said, paraphrased, your prayers are worth nothing, only actions — and jumped into demands for more gun control, and everyone else chimed in. See The Atlantic for some details, or Slate.com for some prayer-shaming in action:
And let’s be clear: This week’s prominent “prayer shamers” aren’t really against prayer. They’re against platitudes. The problem is when “thoughts and prayers” are the only response to a public event that calls for political action. It’s hard to imagine that even the most dedicated atheist objects to Ted Cruz kneeling by his bed at night to pray for the victims of yesterday’s shooting. What Cruz chooses to do in his bedroom is his own business. The issue is that politicians like him continue to offer thoughts and prayers and nothing else: no assault weapons ban, no universal background checks, no federal gun registry.
Now, I think the knee-jerk reaction on the part of the Left that the only rightthinking response to this attack is to implement more gun control legislation, without any regard for the details of the situation, is unwarranted, to put it mildly. Closing the “gun show loophole”? Would have had no effect. The attackers had no criminal history anyway, and no mental health issues. There seem to have been “straw purchasers,” if that term means anything in the context of an assault in which unknown others may have been co-conspirators. Assault weapons? California already has tighter laws than in place on the federal level, and the guns, as I understand it, conformed with those laws. Anti-gun folk are becoming more daring about speaking not just in the poll-tested “common sense gun safety legislation,” but openly pointing to Australia and gun confiscation (because, apparently, we can’t deport 12 million illegal immigrants but confiscating 300 million guns will be a cakewalk) or shutting down the manufacture of amunition — which may have an effect on other kinds of gun-related crime, but, let’s face it, the Hebdo and Bataclan attackers didn’t have any trouble getting their weapons despite France’s gun laws.
In reality, what we should be “shaming” is this rush by politicians and pundits, in the hours after the attack took place, to use the attack to further their gun agenda.
(And, yes, to the extent that others jumped onto promoting an anti-immigration of anti-Islam agenda, that’s just as bad.)
What are the right “political action items” in response to this attack? We don’t know. Honestly, we don’t. I would be rather surprised if this were a Colombine-style “we just want to be killers” attack that just happened to be perpetrated by a newly-devout Muslim man and his face-covering wife. From all reports, they clearly planned on more killing, more death, and Ockham’s Razor says this was terrorism. True, he appeared at the party, then left and returned, but it seems more likely that he was there to check for any security measures first (perhaps the presence or absence of some individual in particular?), and then returned in a pre-planned manner, than that he spontaneously decided to abandon a larger plan due to a slight at the party. Other reported actions, such as the destruction of cell phones and computers, also point strongly towards a terror cell with more individuals involved in the planning, if not in the execution. And in what world does a couple leave their child an orphan to settle a “workplace grievance”? Incidentally, it also doesn’t puzzle me that they attacked something as seemly-inconsequential as a Christmas party. It makes a lot of sense, whether ISIS-directed or motivated, to kill in the “hinterland” and take away the feeling of safety that “I’m not in DC or NY, so I’m safe.” I’ve read in various places that ISIS explicitly urges killing wherever you are.
But even so: if you have some concrete idea of “next steps,” you’re ahead of me. So I don’t really see any “action items” that can be meaningfully tweeted in the immediate aftermath of the attack.
What about the “thoughts and prayers”? In one sense, of course it’s silly for public figures to announce this. Nothing to get bent out of shape about, or fly off the handle over, but what meaning is there to Obama or anyone else announcing these words? Sure, yes, we should pray, but, as Lefties are now telling us, even Jesus said prayer should be private, not conspicuous, and not a means of self-glorification.
But at the same time, in real life, or on facebook, anyway, we say these words to each other all the time, to offer support and comfort to others. Sure, if you’ve got an atheist friend or two, they’re more likely to receive expressions that “we’ll think good thoughts for you,” than “we’re praying for you” from their circle of friends, if they write about a health problem or family situation, but the sentiment is still there. Among public figures, speaking these very words has become an expectation: it’s a standardized way of presidents offering condolences and support. Even among those who aren’t really so prominent for their words to bring any comfort to anyone, it’s a way of expressing, “I feel bad about the situation,” when the speaker is really powerless to say anything else, but wants to say something, even if just to make themselves feel better by expressing a sentiment.
Yes, it shouldn’t have become so formulaic. But — let’s face it — as a culture, we thrive on the formulaic. When birthday cards arrive from the in-laws in Germany, they have handwritten sentiments. Here we shop the drugstore for the pre-written sentiment we like best.
And what’s the alternative? Readers, what can you propose?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In