Profound Pontifications

One of my colleagues posed the question of whether or not the media should have publicized the fact that Army psychiatrist, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan – the culprit in yesterday’s Ft. Hood shootings – was a Muslim. I seems like a valid question. I mean, was his faith really determinative?

According to CNN, Fort Hood’s commanding general (unnamed) relayed that witnesses reported that Hasan yelled “Allahu Akbar,” Arabic for “God is great,” during the shootings. But then they reported that Lieutenant General Robert Cone said investigators had not confirmed that. Why is it that a lieutenant general is referred to by name, but the commanding general isn’t? Is it because the commanding general said, “Don’t quote me on that”? And if he did, why would he have done so? Could it be that he was embellishing – trying to give a religious motivation to an incident that had no clear indications of one?

Oh, I’m not saying that there was no religious motivation – just that it isn’t clear. And my legal background has trained me to give the benefit of the doubt. Too many Muslims in this country have had to live a fragile existence since 9/11. We need to tread lightly in this area.

Like many in this country, my own sixteen-year-old son has an Arabic name, though he – just like the President – is not a Muslim. I named him after Kahlil Gibran, a Lebanese poet who wrote one of my favorite books – The Prophet. So the current environment where Muslims – and those with Arabic names – are viewed with suspicion concerns me. I fear for my son’s safety.

The Christian Science Monitor reported that there were signs that Maj. Hasan was “troubled”. He apparently counseled soldiers who experienced post traumatic stress disorder. And though he was never in a war zone, there is every indication that his treatment of traumatized soldiers coupled with the ominous prospect of deployment to a war zone, was just too stressful for him to handle. He wouldn’t be the first psychiatrist with psychiatric problems of his own.

All I’m talking about is fundamental fairness. We don’t attack or ostracize all Christians – and those with Christian names – when a particular Christian kills people. So what’s good for the goose….

Any thoughts?

Is it just me, or does anyone else see the dichotomy attenuate to the notions that: a) America should escalate her military presence in Afghanistan, but b) her inner city youth need to find nonviolent ways of addressing their differences with others? Both of these scenarios represent subsets of the larger sociological discipline of conflict resolution. And since the methodologies of dealing with the two scenarios are “mutually exclusive”, “contradictory”, and “sharply distinguished or opposed” they undoubtedly fit the definition of a dichotomy. But should they be dichotomous or should we resolve both scenarios similarly?

I believe that principles are principles. If you follow specific ideology in one circumstance, you follow it in another. What’s your take?