 |
Thoughts
on the Legacy of 9/11
As is our
custom in the United States, national tragedies become the focus of a wide
ranging study. Such was the case with the attacks 20 years ago on 11 September
2001 known now as 9/11.
In this post
I look at the powerful role of religion in framing the transnational narrative
for select Muslims in their war to rid their world of American culture. In the
United States, where there is a shifting and porous wall between Christianity
and governance, we see a visible rise in the influence of fundamentalist
Christian values controlling the narrative of judges and lawmakers. Under threat,
people become conservative and many turn to their faith. This phenomenon is
well-documented in studies of Terror
Management Theory. The attacks of 9/11 and subsequent war on terror triggered
an intensity in faith for many who were not already highly devoted. As long as
people have been spiritual or religious, a subgroup of people with sacred texts would understand portions of those texts in destructive ways.
In my view,
the rise of Christian fundamentalism in the United States during the 2000s was
catalyzed by 9/11 even though the initial modern impetus has its roots in the
rise of secularist triumphs reflected in decisions by the US Supreme Court
(SCOTUS), which ended prayers (1962) and Bible reading (1963) in public schools
(Lawrence, 2013) and the abortion rights movements that culminated in another
SCOTUS decision known as Roe v Wade (1973).
The
9/11 Attack
A
Nation United to Fight Terror
The preface
to The 9/11 Commission Report hints at the role of religion in the massacre
yet reveals a delicate approach as if to avoid looking too closely at the
importance of religion. In this section, I have used a bold font to highlight
the religious language or references to religion in the quotes.
We learned about an enemy who is sophisticated,
patient, disciplined,
and lethal. The enemy rallies broad support in
the Arab and Muslim world
by demanding redress of political grievances,
but its hostility toward us and
our values is limitless. Its purpose is to rid
the world of religious and political
pluralism, the plebiscite, and equal rights for
women. It makes no distinction
between military and civilian targets.
Collateral damage is not in its
lexicon. (p. xv1)
In an ABC
interview, Osama Bin Ladin expressed his beliefs about a future struggle with
the United States.
Citing the Soviet army’s withdrawal from
Afghanistan as proof that a
ragged army of dedicated Muslims could
overcome a superpower, he told the
interviewer: “We are certain that we shall—with
the grace of Allah—prevail
over the Americans.” He went on to warn that
“If the present injustice continues . . . , it will inevitably move the battle
to American soil.”4
Plans to attack the United States were
developed with unwavering singlemindedness throughout the 1990s. Bin Ladin saw
himself as called “to follow in the footsteps of the Messenger and to
communicate his message to all nations,”5 and to serve as the rallying point
and organizer of a new kind of war to destroy America and bring the world to Islam.
(The 9/11 commission report, p. 48)
On 9/11, the
men taking the plane down in Pennsylvania invoked the name of Allah.
The airplane headed down; the control wheel was
turned hard to the right. The airplane rolled onto its back, and one of the
hijackers began shouting “Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.
“With the sounds of the passenger counterattack continuing, the aircraft plowed
into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 580 miles per hour, about
20 minutes’ flying time from Washington. (The 9/11 commission report, p. 14)
 |
| 9/11 Memorial, Pennsylvania |
**********
Recall that George
W. Bush was president at the time of the 9/11 attacks. He was well known for
his evangelical faith and efforts to maintain freedom of religion without
excluding faith-based organizations from public life and service. Like other
evangelicals, Bush considered his career a divine calling.
“I believe that God wants me to be
president.” (Land, beliefnet.com, 2004)
Perhaps the
best example of President Bush’s effort to control the religious-political narrative
is his 20 September 2001 speech. He does not ignore the obvious fact that the
9/11 terrorists identified themselves as Muslims but he is careful to point out
that a “vast majority of Muslim clerics” do not endorse “a fringe movement that
perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam.” (See speech transcript.)
In his
preface to describing the enemy, Bush lays the foundation for how Americans
should treat Arabs and Muslims.
I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims
throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many
millions of Americans and by millions more in countries that America counts as
friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in
the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah.
The terrorists are traitors to their own faith,
trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself.
The enemy of America is not our many Muslim
friends. It is not
our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government
that supports them.
In the next
section, “Why do they hate us?” Bush focuses our attention on freedom. As he
does this, he cannot escape mentioning the religious animosity in the classic “They”
vs. “Us.”
They want to drive Israel out of the Middle
East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and
Africa.
**********
An
Atheist Revival
Following 9/11,
several well-known atheists took on religion with varying
degrees of vigor. It was a time to throw all religion out. The fundamentalists
were easy targets with their resort to violence to achieve their aims. From the
atheists’ perspective, the problem wasn’t just about Islam but included
Christianity too. In an odd sense, for atheists, the enemies of freedom were
both Christians and Muslims. But not all philosophers were on board with the
likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, or Dennett.
Barbara
Nussbaum (2012) took a careful look at the role of fear and
the lack of respect for the religious values of minorities. Insightfully, she
observes that fear is “more narcissistic than other emotions.” Relevant to this
essay is Nussbaum’s analysis of fear. Religious conflicts are not just about
differences in beliefs and practices—the emotion of fear is critical to
understanding what’s happening. Some called for religious tolerance but that notion doesn’t sit well
with religious fundamentalists who see tolerance as a weakness and a lack of
commitment—a mark of the unfaithful rather than a virtue.
Charles
Kimball offers a more refined view of fundamentalism in presenting five warning
signs in the book, When
Religion Becomes Evil. He’s careful to make sure readers appreciate
the contributions of faith.
**********
Divided
Perspectives on Christianity and Governance
As the
atheist revival subsided, two major movements within Christianity strengthened. On the one hand, the
fundamentalists overtook more and more of the domain previously held by
evangelicals while simultaneously capturing the Republican Party. On the other
hand, progressive Christianity became a movement that blended the emphasis on
love and enthusiasm of the evangelicals with the less literal and rule-bound
beliefs and practices of the mainline traditions.
The rise of
the conservative agenda in Christianity and religion is well-documented by du
Mez in her popular book, Jesus and John Wayne. If one religious leader came to
represent the new fundamentalist perspective, it would surely be Franklin
Graham based on his number of social media followers alone, which stands in
stark contrast to those more moderate voices of classic evangelicalism like Ed Stetzer and his colleagues at Christianity
Today.
In contrast
to Graham, but decidedly less popular, a handful of articulate Christians offered
an alternative to the fundamentalist view of scripture and the faith-politics
connection. These women and men became known as progressive Christians. One
shining star, Rachel Held Evans, was sadly cut down in her prime
although her books continue to inspire. Others also added their voices (e.g.,Bell, Borg, Enns, Wolsey) to help Christians who were becoming more and
more disillusioned with Christian Nationalism.
Nations need
patriots and warriors to defend the values of the nation. And there’s much good
in the way many conservative and progressive Christians practice their faith
with love, kindness, and generosity at home and abroad. For some, their beliefs
about America and Christianity have created a defensive narrative that does not
tolerate diverse views on American history and ideals or what it means to be a
Christian—they are Christian Nationalists to one degree or another.
Christian
Nationalism represents a movement characterized by lack of tolerance for
diverse opinions about what it means to be an American or what it means to be a
Christian. At times it seems being an American means you must be a Christian. Few,
if any, would ever say such a thing but more and more, the power positions
across America and in Washington DC have been occupied by people who control
the narrative of what it means to be an American and a Christian. Both the founding
documents of the US and the Bible are interpreted in rigid ways that preclude
thoughtful discussions of what a text means for life today.
Although
political parties have always fought for control of government, there is an
intensity in the divide between Fundamentalist Christian-Republicans and the
Multireligious-Democrats which will surely persist for years given the strong
positions each major group has within the US. Both fear and anger fuel this
intensity and widen the gap such that some families are driven apart and
friends lost because of the concomitant lack of respect and humility.
A nation is destroyed from the inside when religion and politics
disrupt relationships vital
to the wellbeing of all its citizens.
 |
| Inside the 9/11 Museum |
The
Seeds of Tomorrow
A
Look Ahead
From all appearances,
the United States will continue to have significant influence in the world. The wealth and military might of
the US will not diminish anytime soon despite the economic setback from the
Covid-19 pandemic. And fundamentalist Christianity will continue to influence
the narrative of what counts as Christian and patriotic for large swathes of
mid-America. The Christian-Republican opportunity to pack the US Supreme Court
and maintain half the seats in the US Senate is evidence that they will give
the troubled coalition of religiously tolerant Democrats stiff competition when
it comes to laws that violate conservative views of right and wrong.
The rise
of women is a sign of who is and who is not a fundamentalist because every
woman in a leadership position represents an antifundamentalist influence. Women are everywhere—almost. The
fact that women have made great gains in western cultures and of course
represent half of the electorate means their voices are here to stay. And that
will make a difference in politics and religion. Their absence from influence
in various religious settings draws a visible line between fundamentalism and
progressivism. Christian conservatives find support in their sacred texts and
traditions for the primary roles of men in the life of the church, the
community, and the home. Admittedly, some American evangelicals have increased
their respect for women considerably in the past century but cannot bring
themselves to set aside a few specific verses limiting the role of women in the
home and the church. In short, women of faith have had and will continue to
have a moderating effect on the nature of Christian fundamentalism in America. (Related- Pentecostal Women)
Conservative
Christians’ view of marriage was overturned with the SCOTUS decision of 2015. With general American support for
gay marriage at 70%, including support by a majority of Republicans (Gallup, 2021), the one-man and one-woman
doctrine will likely remain as a marker of who is and who is not a
fundamentalist Christian. As with women, fundamentalists can point to specific
texts that prohibit same-sex sexual activity. Is there a so-called slippery
slope toward plural marriage? I think so but that does not mean even
progressive Christians would support any such cultural change in the near
future.
Black
Lives Matter to
Southern Baptists too. A little before 9/11, the Southern Baptists apologized
for their old stance on slavery, which split the church in 1845. The 1995 apology was widely publicized. Since then,
American Christians have been divided over issues of racism, racial injustice, and acceptable perspectives
on those parts of American history that do not fit the ideal of liberty and
justice for all. Yesterday, the statue of Robert E. Lee came down in
Richmond Virginia after a prolonged court battle, which indicates the debate is
far from over. Of course, many are upset with a concept called Critical Race
Theory, though I remain unconvinced that many upset about this theory have
studied the academic papers and considered what American children should learn
about our past. Things are truly better than when I was young but that does not
mean progress will be undone. When it comes to Christianity, I am more hopeful
that racial divisions will improve and not worsen even among Christian
fundamentalists. However, I give ground to my Black friends and do not insist
that I have the best view on this subject given my white immigrant male
experience in the US (suggestion, see The Color of Compromise).
Extremist
views for and against abortion will likely remain as extreme voices but
conservative influences will continue to limit the number of abortions in the
US. The Right to
Life movement has won the abortion debate with a combined effort of appealing
to reason and emotion when it comes to respecting unborn lives that are like those
born a few months further along in development. The extreme left are easily
portrayed as monsters in their support for late-term abortions aside from rare
efforts to keep mother alive. Similarly, extreme right no-abortion-ever
positions also portray callous people focused on winning victories but lacking
compassion for those small percentage of girls who are victims of rape and,
under extreme incest/rape policies, must carry their father’s or other rapist’s
child and give birth while attending elementary school.
In my
view, America is poised to move toward a greater perspective on the right of
all creatures to life. By this I mean, a greater respect for the living at all ages, less
involvement in prolonged democracy-exporting wars or war-like troop commitments
(e.g., Afghanistan-see Gallup 2021), and a greater concern for the
wellbeing of all creatures, which can surely be considered a national treasure
by all Americans regardless of faith or lack of faith. The battle over gun
control is not over by any means (Pew Research 2021). I suspect that at some point,
Americans will become fed up with the death of children and find common sense
ways to limit gun ownership to responsible adults—the views about guns and
people with a mental illness are noteworthy (See Pew Research 2021). I sincerely hope we do not have
to experience a massacre to take constructive action. And I am concerned about
the rights of people with a mental disorder.
Science
is a winner and will continue to lead the way to better living. American technology is awesome not
just for what is new but also for the way so many of us can afford to benefit
from life-saving and entertaining devices. The quick development of new
vaccines in 2020 and their widespread distribution suggest a better future for
those who embrace the advice of medical scientists. The recent travels into
space will likely improve global travel and hopefully increase positive relationships
due to the mere contact effect. Regardless of beliefs about climate change,
innovations in energy will likely have a positive effect on wellbeing and a
more attractive environment. As science advances, religious fundamentalists
will increasingly lose their capacity to influence Americans on various aspects
of life when their guidance leads to sickness and death. Even most of those Christians
with strong beliefs in miracles no longer rely solely on God without medical
treatment for healing and recovery. Fortunately, many clergy linked to fundamentalist
sects have joined others in calls to protect their congregants from serious
illness and even death from COVID-19. I take this as a positive sign that evidence
can still inform reason when it comes to nuanced beliefs about divine healing
and protection.
Cite this post
Sutton, G. (2021, September 10). 9/11 and Religious Fundamentalism Thoughts on the Legacy of 9/11, GeoffWSutton. Retrieved from https://geoffwsutton.blogspot.com/2021/09/911-and-religious-fundamentalism.html
Related Posts
Flight 93, 9/11 Memorial Pennsylvania
One World Trade Center, New York City
Reference
The 9/11
commission report: Final report of the national commission on terrorist attacks
upon the United States (2004). U.S. Government Printing Office. 0160723043
Please check out my website www.suttong.com
and see my books on AMAZON or GOOGLE
STORE
Also,
consider connecting with me on FACEBOOK Geoff W. Sutton
TWITTER @Geoff.W.Sutton
You can read many published articles at no charge:
Academia Geoff W Sutton ResearchGate
Geoffrey
W Sutton
Disclosure
My
perspective on the aforementioned issues is undoubtedly influenced by several
factors. I am a white man who was born in London, England, educated in the United
States, and influenced by fundamentalist Christian parents at least until I
left home at age 20. I attended and worked for Christian and secular colleges,
universities, and organizations. By profession, I am a psychological scientist (PhD,
University of Missouri) and licensed psychologist with expertise in clinical
neuropsychology and psychopharmacology. My writings are publicly available in
many library databases. My books are available from a variety of stores
worldwide.
No comments:
Post a Comment