On November 10, David Brooks of The New York Times, weighed in on the Fort Hood tragedy with a column entitled “The Rush to Therapy.” As often, Brooks sounded some important themes that resonate with me and then, at the crucial moment, went wildly off track. In this piece, he makes the altogether helpful point that we ought not psychologize away evil. Brooks, like president Obama, is a fan of one of my favorite theologians, Reinhold Niebuhr, who doubtless would be saying the same thing were he alive today. Brooks goes on to note that evil can be transmitted through narratives, including narratives about God.
Where Brooks fails his readers is in his noting just one example of such a malevolent religious story, that of the one growing up on the fringes of the Muslim world, a story about the “conflict between Islam and the West” that has played a role in the rise of suicide bombers and may, in fact, have contributed to the horrible events of last week in Texas.
This morning the Times printed seven letters to the editor responding to Brooks’ column. The one by a rabbi, Sheldon Zimmerman, agreed that the media has been to eager to rush to a judgment of “political correctness” and thus may be missing out on a more serious threat to our country.
What would Reinhold Niebuhr have said?
It is risky to try to predict what someone who died in 1971 would say about an issue that emerged decades later. In the case of Niebuhr, I gather that this has been especially tricky. Both liberals and conservatives in the church claim to be his heirs. Based on what I know of Niebuhr’s fairmindedness , I am guessing that he would have had serious problems with the way Brooks has chosen to apply his teaching to this situation.
Yes, there is evil in human hearts. Yes, religion can be the carrier of malevolent narratives. But it is both historically and ethically flawed to write a whole column devoted to this theme and never once even mention that Islam is not the only tradition that has this problem. Brooks speaks about suicide bombers and terrorists but he does not mention that we have seen these troubled tales of “us and them” played out by many other religious folks.
As a Jew, David Brooks might have had the grace to remind us that in 1994 an orthodox Jew, Baruch Goldstein, killed 29 Muslims and wounded 150 while they prayed in Hebron. Like Dr. Hassan, Dr. Goldstein, also a physician, was both a deeply troubled individual and a product of a deeply problematic version of his faith tradition.
Niebuhr, a practicioner of a self-critical Christianity, would likely have mentioned the word “crusade” in that piece as well. Brooks, however, heedless of the real danger to Muslims in America of Islamophobia, concentrated solely on his message regarding Islam. Niebuhr was right. “Nations, as individuals, who are completely innocent in their own esteem are insufferable in their human contacts.” The more I think about it, the more I am convinced. Niebuhr would have us look at the complexity of the human heart—not just the heart of radical Islam. And he would start with himself.
I look forward to hearing what others think.
[...] and patently offensive at worst. If you’re eager for some intelligent commentary, I recommend this post from my friend Rabbi Nancy Fuchs-Kreimer, who took NY Times columnist David Brooks to task for his recent piece that explored the nature [...]
Thanks, Nancy. I agree with your analysis completely and wish I there was more of it out there. Brooks is just the tip of the iceberg.
Dear Rabbi Fuchs-Kreimer, I really like the way you ended the post with the following statement:
“Niebuhr would have us look at the complexity of the human heart—not just the heart of radical Islam. And he would start with himself.”
I would also suggest that part of the complexity of the human heart is the interaction of complex social/cultural factors and the individual heart. The relationship – going in and going out – of the individual and the world is one that fascinates me.
While we are each responsible for making the world, the world is constantly shaping/making us as well. Making a better world will help make a better me. Making a better me will help make a better world. It is a reciprocal relationship which requires responsibility for both self and world, at the same time. IMO, we are currently thrust into an awareness of interdependency, or a transpersonal reality.
It is no longer sufficient to think about spirituality as being limited to individual growth- not even the complexity of an individual heart. To me, a big part of the complexity of the human heart is that it holds in it the entire world. We are in the image of God – the Creator. Social justice and beyond is required of us, if we are to grow spiritually. All faith traditions are now called to save the world – not with bombs, but with (healing and transpersonal) balms. Sadly, the faith traditions often seem to be sitting idly by, opting to, at times, blame each other, blame the world, or blame the individual for the shape of the world. The spiritual community is compelled to unify. This is a new and exciting aspect of the “complexity of the human heart”.
Keep up the multifaith focus and words! They are a healing balm to me. This blog is (figuratively speaking) “dynamite”. It inspires me to go balm something!
Darrell