While speaking to a group of high school students last month after the Ft. Hood shooting, our discussion touched on the volunteer nature of American armed forces.  When someone mentioned how much soldiers have to sacrifice in order to join up, I brought up the professional sacrifice of Pat Tillman.  To my shock and amazement, none of the students had ever heard of him.

While sharing Pat’s story with this group, my own personal emotions regarding Pat’s decision and death came surging back to me.  While I’m definitely more of a pacifist now than at any other time in my life, I can still draw strength and inspiration from his decision to give up his high paying and high profile position as an NFL player.  The act of temporary sacrifice for the sake of a greater good has not been exactly been a hallmark of my own life.

Trying to find a balance between striving for what I want, and denying myself those same desires has been the unresolved theme of my life.  In an effort to “die to self” in an aim toward virtue, I often times sabotaged myself (and my family, as a result) as I came too close to reaching my desires.  I began to expect failure like a musical virtuoso expects applause. I couldn’t believe Gene Wilder’s Willy Wonka when he remarked that the man who suddenly got all that he wanted, lived happily ever after.

I’m not sure that I can say that I completely understand Pat’s decision, but recently, it has taken on new meaning for me.  From everything that Pat accomplished (3.84 GPA in 3 1/2 years at Arizona State University, while being named Pac-10 Player of the Year, as a 5 foot 11 inch linebacker) to what those close to him said about his drive, it seems clear that he didn’t do very many things half-assed.  So how does someone with that kind of focus and resolve just change his path so drastically mid-course?

What if he didn’t change his mind?  What if his decision to enlist was completely in line with his personal goals and desires?  If becoming a successful professional athlete was Pat’s supreme goal, then yes, he did make a wholesale change to his values and desires.  But if his desire was to be a great man, then it was just his definition of what makes a man great that changed.

It’s another variation of the discussion on life as more of a journey than a destination.

I now understand desire as a virtue.  As long as that desire aligns with the ultimate principles that govern life. A desire that leads to a full stomach, an escape from reality, or an orgasm is not one to embrace as life-giving or virtuous.  But a desire that leads to a peaceful resolution, a restored relationship, or the benefit of others may be.

Desires and choices come from our goals.  When we are immature, we can only see a short distance into the future.  As we grow, we can see farther and our goals reflect longer term aims.

Pat’s goal was to be a great man.  My goal is the same.  But how I’m defining great has changed.  A great man doesn’t deny fulfilling his desires for the virtue of denial itself.  A great man aligns his goals with the most virtuous truths on the highest level of abstraction that he can reasonably comprehend.  Now, if I miss a meal, miss a nap, or avoid romance with other women, it may seem seem like some sort of denial of desire, but it is what I want.  And I’m finally OK with getting what I want.

A fact that did not get as much attention as his religious affiliation, but may be equally connected to his behavior, is Hasan’s role as a psychiatrist for soldiers returning from tours in the Middle East.  If you believe that we move toward, and become like, that which we think about, then his violent behavior may be slightly more understandable.  Hour after hour, day after day, of hearing and processing accounts of death and carnage in a messy war would take a toll on even the healthiest of doctors.  But the attack earlier this month may have been the price for this exposure to vicarious violence for this psychiatrist.

Most psychiatrists will help patients to filter through their thoughts and behaviors, classifying some as normal and healthy, and other as disruptive or negative.  For soldiers preparing to return to civilian life, the rules of war that have become second nature to many of them, are not the same rules of life in America, and the psychiatrist helps the soldier to come to terms with that.  The psychiatrist helps the patient to build new thoughts and plans for action in a future of non-violence and a stable civil and judicial structure.  For Hasan, this breakdown of normal thoughts and actions for the future of a civilian must have been truly dissonant in his mind, knowing that his future was likely to include the violence of these soldiers’ pasts.

Even though he was born in Virginia, there have been reports that Hasan felt more of a connection to his Middle Eastern heritage than the Red, White, and Blue of his true homeland.  Perhaps in his personal thoughts of the war battles, he put himself in the shoes of the local Iraqi or Afghan fighters.  The best memory training techniques and methods for developing your subconscious hard drive include visualizing yourself doing something in first person perspective.  If Hasan’s thoughts drifted from: “How terrible it must be to kill someone!” to “How terrible it must be to be attacked on your own soil?” perhaps he did imagine himself as a local fighter of the Americans from the homeland.

Of course, the connection to his religion is still key, as many people see themselves as a Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. first, and an American, Iraqi, Afghan, etc. second.  With the declaration of jihad from many terrorist groups, a holy war would trump any connection to his profession, his country of birth, and even his connection with mankind, as God’s will is supreme.  Devotion to Islam coupled with regular exposure to the love and charity of fellow Muslims and those outside of the faith should not result in violence.  But any religious beliefs that are combined with images of repression, invasion, or a divine mandate for murder often times will.

Perhaps the saying “Violence begets more violence.” is proven true once again.  Even if the original violence is just in one’s mind.

The incident itself may be newsworthy due to the unprecedented number of casualties, but two big wrinkles have given this story pretty long legs to run on.  As the story continues to unfold, we now know a few details from the assailant.  First, he was a licensed Army psychiatrist, someone professionally trained to help soldiers readjust to life after a tour in Afghanistan or Iraq.  Second, according to eyewitness accounts, he shouted “Allahu akbar” just before opening fire.  As you may know, this is an Aramaic phrase loosely translated as “God is great”.  It’s become a calling card of sorts for Muslim terrorists who believe they are acting on God’s behalf.  Let’s start with the latter.

Every major American Islamic organization publicly condemned the attack as immoral and anti-Islam.  A few angry members of the community in Ft. Hood took it upon themselves to call in death threats to area mosques, as if that would change the past or help the future in some way.  I agree with the sentiment of Arsalan Iftikhar, who wrote a fine editorial on the double standard of Muslim ties to terrorism and hate crimes compared to those who commit similar acts from a Christian upbringing.

Is religion the cause of this act?  It’s a fair question to ask, and it seems to come up every time there is a notable incident of murder in the name of God, be it Allah or Elohim.  But with the histories of nearly all major religious traditions involving some sort of divinely sanctioned homicide, should we be surprised when modern day believers act in such a way?  If it was ok to commit genocide on the Philistines, the Nephites, the infidels, or some other group in the past, because of the greater good that God had planned, is it so difficult to comprehend the state of mind of today’s “holy warrior”?

One of my favorite quotes from Lou Tice, Chairman of The Pacific Institute, is:

We act not according to the truth, but the truth as we believe it to be.

If someone believes that God is speaking to them, and that God has a plan much larger than current circumstances, then ANY moral beliefs can be compromised to achieve obedience to that plan, including the value of human life.  Our internal beliefs about something’s legitimacy have much more to do with our corresponding actions than any sort of external “proof”.  Unfortunately for those closest to the Ft. Hood community, Major Hasan believed that he was doing God’s will at the time of his attack, despite “proof” of the evils of murder that many in society simply take for common sense.

This is a pretty volatile topic, so let’s see if anyone is interested in discussing it further, here.  Just leave a comment and let’s talk about it!