[After the Fort Hood shooting eruption] a shroud of political correctness settled over the conversation. Hasan was portrayed as a victim of society, a poor soul who was pushed over the edge by prejudice and unhappiness.
There was a national rush to therapy. Hasan was a loner who had trouble finding a wife and socializing with his neighbors.
This response was understandable. It’s important to tamp down vengeful hatreds in moments of passion. But it was also patronizing. Public commentators assumed the air of kindergarten teachers who had to protect their children from thinking certain impermissible and intolerant thoughts. If public commentary wasn’t carefully policed, the assumption seemed to be, then the great mass of unwashed yahoos in Middle America would go off on a racist rampage.
Worse, it absolved Hasan ”” before the real evidence was in ”” of his responsibility. He didn’t have the choice to be lonely or unhappy. But he did have a choice over what story to build out of those circumstances. And evidence is now mounting to suggest he chose the extremist War on Islam narrative that so often leads to murderous results.
Brooks’ piece is quite good. I also commend a couple of blog postings by “The Reformed Pastor”:
(1) Islam, Fort Hood, and Truth
(2) Why Not Just Round ‘Em All Up?
What is truly disturbing to me about this story is that the Army allowed this man to counsel soldiers returning from war! — It is mind-boggling to think of what damage he was able to inflict upon them.
Not only is this a “rush to therapy” it also betrays a naive belief, that many Americans have, that therapy can replace the sustenance that our Christian religion has provided for us with throughout the ages.