![]() Objections to “thoughts and prayers” are not against condolences or against religion, but against treating an event like this as isolated and inevitable. After a mass shooting, however, in a country where 77% of mass shooting perpetrators acquired their guns legally and yet no substantive gun control legislation is being passed, to characterize the shooting as an unpreventable tragedy is deeply deceptive. The language of “thoughts and prayers” is appropriate in the wake of tragic events like these. When an unpreventable tragedy occurs-an avalanche suddenly demolishing a train, for example-then all that most of us can offer are prayers, sympathy, and perhaps aid for the hurt and grieving. The real objection to “thoughts and prayers” is not about thoughts and prayers per se, but about how language characterizes or mischaracterizes an event. As ethicist David Barr observes, “Anger at politicians can be a way of shielding us from confronting the horror of what one human being did to another human being, and that horror isn’t something policies can resolve.” Calls for political action, though necessary, can be as alienating from the realities of suffering as invocations of thoughts and prayers. ![]() There is a more profound danger when the backlash against “thoughts and prayers” becomes routinized. Similarly, in a recent piece for the Wall Street Journal, David Bashevkin writes, “Politicians must present real policy measures that will meaningfully address this crisis, but what’s gained by attacking their use of prayerful language? We don’t need a moratorium on prayer to stop school shootings.” In these “attacks on prayer,” Green writes, “any invocation of faith is taken as implicit advocacy of right-wing beliefs.” The widespread backlash against “thoughts and prayers,” though correct about the need for action, risks ignoring the fact that victims and their families often desire compassion and prayer, not just policy change. ![]() Writing for The Atlantic, Emma Green argues that the criticism of “thoughts and prayers” unfairly associates religious responses to mass shootings with conservative politics. The backlash against “thoughts and prayers” has been met with its own backlash. As Bible scholar Marcus Borg writes, "Compassion without justice can mean caring for victims while quietly acquiescing to a system that creates even more victims." But even among those who are sincere in their gestures of compassion, these gestures are inadequate if not accompanied by efforts to prevent future violence. More, perhaps, are on a sort of autopilot, carrying on the “routine” Obama described. Some political leaders who offer prayers are disingenuous, focusing more on their public persona than on grieving people. Coming from lawmakers whose policies help make school shootings overwhelmingly more common in the United States than in comparable nations, an offer of “thoughts and prayers” is not just hollow but despicable. These statements are ruthlessly mocked and memed, especially when the politician has voted against legislation that would significantly reduce gun violence. ![]() After a mass shooting, elected officials will issue public statements extending prayers and sympathy to those immediately affected. As this all-too-familiar routine plays out in the wake of the shooting in Uvalde, Texas, it is worth taking time to analyze the debate over “thoughts and prayers,” how little this debate has to do with actual thinking and praying, and what it shows us about the nature of moral reflection. Leaders offer their condolences and prayers the families of the victims, critics on social media retort that thoughts and prayers are insufficient or hypocritical when the one offering them opposes policies to address the problem, while others insist that such retorts politicize a tragedy or ignore the human dimension of the suffering. The language of “thoughts and prayers” plays an increasingly contentious role in this morbid routine. My response here at this podium ends up being routine. President Obama bemoaned this reality in 2015, saying, “Somehow this has become routine. Mass shootings should not happen frequently enough for us to have predictable responses. When there is a mass shooting in the United States, public discourse follows a familiar pattern. Martin Marty Center Dropdown for Martin Marty Center.Our Community Dropdown for Our Community.Research & Faculty Dropdown for Research & Faculty.Undergraduate Program in Religious Studies.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |