A lesson of 9/11: Religion matters
Of the many lessons to be drawn on the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attack, here is one: that religion matters. It motivates people, for good and sometimes for evil.
It seems an obvious point, and yet, I don’t think it has been fully accepted in academia, in journalism and among government policymakers even now, 10 years after 9/11. If it were, courses in world religions would be part of core curricula everywhere, religion coverage would not be cut back at major news organizations, and government officials would be less apt to see generous financial aid as the first resort toward resolving intractable conflicts.
This point was made in a more articulate way by speakers at a seminar for journalists, sponsored by the Templeton Foundation, that I attended in the waning days of August at Cambridge University (with two fellow dotCommonwealers, Peg and Peter Steinfels).
R. Scott Appleby of the University of Notre Dame, the opening speaker, said that a “secular myopia” persisted in the decades before 9/11, despite the fact that there had been many significant events with a religious dimension such as the Iranian revolution. After 9/11, he said, religion could no longer be ignored.
Scott Atran, an anthropologist who has interviewed terrorists in many parts of the world, sometimes at considerable risk, expressed a certain frustration at the way diplomats fail to recognize that many conflicts involve values the participants consider to be moral and sacred – that negotiating in a business-like, dollars-and-cents way doesn’t work. Diplomats need to deal with the sacred values first, then the dollars and cents later, he said.
It was interesting that speakers who had direct experience with young people who’d fallen under the wing of terrorists – Pakistani clinical psychologist Feriha Peracha and Russell Razzaque, a psychiatrist from London – both determined that a lack of Islamic religious training made youths more prone to recruitment by extremists. Those well-grounded in Islam would be better able to resist the extremist version of it.
If “secular myopia” persists, we will be slow to realize the lessons of 9/11, no matter how many years pass.
In a secular society, religion is simply a psychological and sociological phenomenon. Religious terrorism would thus be studied as a psychopathology, not as something with an otherworldly dimension. I’m sure intelligence agencies and the academy study religion in great detail – just not with any special reverence.
John Allen remarked recently that Christianity has lately gone in the West from prime social actor to important subculture. That the mayor of New York saw no problem omitting any religious representation from the 9/11 memorial is just the most recent illustration of this.
Organized religions today in the West have to stand in line with all the other “meaning” organizations – political parties, the various -isms, and so forth.
Even better than seminars and courses in world religion and so-called “experts,” more people should consult original source material.
More specifically, it would be fruitful to understanding Islam if more folks read the Koran, cover-to-cover, and read a translation that is favored by and used by actual Muslims, rather than a Western-edited non-Muslim version (although technically any translation from the Arabic at all is considered to be blasphemy under the more fundamentalist view), as well as some of the ahadith.
(Similarly, in reading the Bible, they should find a quality accurate translation, and not some of the more dumbed-down versions that totally miss, if not mistate, some of the nuances of the texts.)
I do not think articulate, academic arguments will utlimately be successful in convicing those in the media, government or academia of the importance (and legitimacy) of relgion in public life. Until religion becomes important at a personal level to these people, I fear nothing will change. And I don’t see that happening.
If “secular myopia” persists, we will be slow to realize the lessons of 9/11, no matter how many years pass.
I wonder if what’s necessary isn’t more emphasis on looking at religion from without rather than from within. Perhaps what we need more of is not the study of religions as religions, but the study of the phenomenon of religion from the viewpoint of psychology, cognitive science, neurobiology, sociology, evolutionary biology, and so on.
How exactly do you study religion when you belong to a religion that you think is the “right one” among an enormous collection of wrong ones? And for Catholics, believers in the “one true Church,” how do they study religion from the vantage point of thinking their religion is the lens though which virtually everything must be seen?
(Similarly, in reading the Bible, they should find a quality accurate translation, and not some of the more dumbed-down versions that totally miss, if not mistate, some of the nuances of the texts.)
Bender,
In discussing Christianity over in the First Thoughts blog on First Things, I am struck by how value an excellent translation of the Bible would be. I have come to the conclusion that the words the Bible says should be used only to introduce direct quotations from the Bible. The “Bible says” what people of various denominations claim it says. I suspect this is true of the Koran and various subgroups within Islam.
A great many Christians see the “Old Testament” as all about Jesus, chock full of predictions and prophecies beginning with Genesis 3:15. Jews reading largely the same texts see nothing of the kind.
Correction:
In discussing Christianity over in the First Thoughts blog on First Things, I am struck by how valueless an excellent translation of the Bible would be.
I think David raises a valid point. How can we as Catholics, for example, view all the various strains of Islamic thought and then be so presumptuous as to judge which is the true Islam and which is the false and corrupted view? Who are we to say that the Sunnis are right, but the Shia are wrong, or that the Shia are right, but the Wahhabi are wrong?
If some notorious Muslim declares that Islam requires that Muslims do this or that thing which we do not like, who are we to say that he is wrong? Who are we to tell the Islamic world who is a good Muslim and who is a bad Muslim?
Years ago, I attended a class in American history in which the prof, with his PHD and years of teaching announced a startiling discovery: You cannot understand American history if you do not appreciate the religious currents at its beginning and on through the succeeding centuries! The amazing thing was that for him, it was an amazing thing. Academia has a willful blindside about religion that gets passed on.
Saturday night sermon on 9/11: first part excellent on the need to fotgive as in the Gospel.
Second part on the horrible mayor of New York who doesn’t allow a religious ceremony today at Ground Zero, who wil let a mosque be built but not the rebuilding of a Catholic Orthodox church.
The problem of polutical coorrectness.
By the secular world.
I think there should hav ebeen a religious component, but…
It struck me as i woke up to Diane Sawyer on the Good Morning America special, saying that unity was the theeme of looking back, how much harder that is today than 10 years ago.
As Friedman said in the NYT op ed, what we’ve got is lots more venom.
Easy to see politically where the Starbucls chief’s cry for bipartisanship is cited.
But we’ve also gone backward ecumenically -and I posit that’s hurt the role of the Church in the public square.
We are busy pushing our brand as distinctive, better than. Poltical correctness is cited as the problem -and there are problems with political correctnes -but it’s often used as a way of not only saying we’re better but of putting down gays who want gay marriage as a right.
I thought about Fr, Judge and the wonderful NPR piece on him.
A true pastor but probably gay, buty ou can’t mention that because that’s part of the”gay agenda.”
I think a lot of young people are moving away from institutionalized religion because they see the poltical agenda as being out of touch
In short, we need to ask if , in these times when venom has increased (and I think it has) how will the message of religion in the public square be perceived if seen as divisive and not unitive?
As the events of 9/11 are memorialized at the WTC site and elsewhere there are many prayerful faces and gestures on display coming from ordinary people, some who lost loved ones, some who share their grief and the grief of all the men and women who have died in the response to 9/11. Their prayers are more than good enough.
David S: Did we really need a panopley of clergy to pray for us? It seems to me that Bloomberg did the smart thing–and Archbishop Dolan and Rabbi Joseph Potasnik agreed. Had an imam been invited, as one should have been if every other religious groups had a representative, there would have been an uproar by the same people who are objecting to the absence of clergy. Another media circus we don’t need.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/nyregion/omitting-clergy-from-911-ceremony-prompts-protest.html?pagewanted=2&sq=Clergy%20at%209/11%20ceremony&st=cse&scp=1
Margaret, I’m sure you’re right, though in a sane and sensible world, Muslim clergy would simply stay away out of respect for most people’s feelings. That wouldn’t happen here, though, of course. Equality trumps everything, including good manners.
That’s part of the problem our society has with “coming together”. When people are forced to be tolerant, intolerance will burst forth unbidden.
Bob Nunz:
“Second part on the horrible mayor of New York who doesn’t allow a religious ceremony today at Ground Zero, who will let a mosque be built but not the rebuilding of a Catholic Orthodox church.”
That priest has no idea how inappropriate and counter-productive his rant is. It is hardly an appropriate way to provide a religious context to this horror event. I am sorry to say there are a lot of Catholics out there who would agree and approve of his words. Not me! I would be sorely tempted to excuse myself and make my way to the rest room during this homily.
Having watched the entire program on C-SPAN (the only station which has no commentary) this morning, I have come to this conclusion: No cleric or religious leader could ever deliver a message or prayer of love, hope and consolation as powerful as the readers of the names at Ground Zero today.
Don’t get me started!
Here the homily started by saying that it was no coincidence that the 10th anniversary fell on a Sunday and that the theme was forgiveness. Then, mentions of MLK, Gandhi, and Pope John Paul II (against communism). Concluding by saying that this was a day for reflections on forgiveness.
The music: Eagles’ wings, Faith of our fathers (which I am not sure was 100 percent appropriate: “Faith of our fathers, we will strive to win all nations unto thee”…), Sing with all the saints in glory (which seemed way too joyful for the day).
Religion in the Public Square has always been stranger because Jesus was reviled, humiliated and crucified in the public square. The followers of Jesus attracted people by example not legislation or government order. Until the emperor found attractiveness in a brand he could shape with bishops who could be bought. So now the law favors that religion. As if legislation brings the gospel to life. Medieval life was not necessarily Christian life. Religion in word only is not religion. A couple of posters here well note that what is spontaneous and heartfelt is more effective than those who are more spokesman than followers.
The Master is crucified and many who purport to be his followers want to be on a pedestal and favored by fiat. I guess the slave is better than the master. Christians are known by imitating the Good Samaritan. Not by bragging about how better they are.
Master is crucified
David Nichol: It was, and is, only normal that Christians, who believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah of Israel, would find him in passages of the Old Testament in which those who do not believe he was that Messiah are unable to find him. This disagreement is older even than the earliest book of the New Testament and goes back to the earliest preaching of the Gospel.
David, I’m sure you know that Muslims were among the people who died when the Twin Towers collapsed. If Christian and Jewish clergy had been at this morning’s observances, why wouldn’t a representative of Islam been part of the contingent? Ditto representative of Hindus, Sikhs, etc. Not a matter of equality, but of respect for the dead. But as I said above, it’s appropriate that the Mayor didn’t go down that path at all.
It was, and is, only normal that Christians, who believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah of Israel, would find him in passages of the Old Testament in which those who do not believe he was that Messiah are unable to find him.
Fr. Komonchak,
I basically agree with that you say, but my point is that it’s not a matter of what the Old Testament “says,” but rather a matter of who is interpreting it. Often when someone asserts that the Bible “says” something, it is not particularly controversial. But suppose someone claims that the Bible predicts the pope, or the papacy, will be the antichrist. Or that the Bible predicts the world will end May 21, 2011. Or, for that matter, that the Bible says Jesus named Peter the first pope.
Christians who believe quite different things will tell you to read the Bible, convinced that it confirms their own point of view.
I had a disagreement with Joe Carter—an Evangelical Christian who oversees the First Thoughts blog on First Things—about Christian sexual morality. He said that to get an idea of Christian sexual morality, one should consult the Bible. I said that someone who wanted to know about Christian sexual morality should consult a good contemporary book on Christian sexual morality. I simply don’t think you can skip backward over people like Aquinas and Augustine, read the Bible, and arrive at what we today consider to be Christian sexual morality. In trying to arrive at a meeting of the minds with Evangelicals, there are two things that get in my way. First is a certain skepticism regarding religious assertions in general. But second is my Catholic education, in which it was never taught that everything of importance regarding Christianity was to be found in the Bible.
In short, the Bible doesn’t “say” a great deal of what people claim in statements that begin, “The Bible says . . . ” However, people do find ways to use the Bible to support their own views of Christian doctrine and morality, and they are convinced that the Bible actually “says” what they claim it says. And they are further convinced, I think, that if you just read the Bible with an open mind, you would agree that they are correct in their statements about what the Bible “says.”
This is a bit off the subject but I do not know where to post this:
I am editing letters sent by my uncle, a priest, who studied in Rome at the Lateran from 1938 to 1940 when the American seminarians were brought home. (He finished his studies at Catholic University.) I am most interested in his comments about the situation in Europe at that time. As an additional bonus, I am finding out what seminary life was like at the time. I am getting the impression that the Lateran was very strict and that his classmates who were at the Gregorian had more privileges. (They could smoke.)
I came across this part of a letter sent to one of his fellow seminarians back home. It may be interesting to Commonweal readers and editors. Apparently, his friends would send him issues of Catholic periodicals, in particular Sign magazine. Here is what he wrote to one such friend:
“I don’t intend to ask, for I think that one of the Americans asked last year about Commonweal and it wasn’t so well received, not because they didn’t like Commonweal, because they most likely never heard of it, but because I suppose they don’t like to give permission for a magazine that they know nothing about and which they themselves can’t read for the purpose of censuring.”
Fr. Komonchak,
One further thought. It is understandable that Christians who view Jesus as the Messiah would interpret Old Testament passages that arguable point to a Messiah as pointing to Jesus, and Jews would interpret them as pointing to someone that has not come, or perhaps something that has not happened. But that is different from Christians seeing Jesus (or Mary) in Genesis 3:15, where Jews see no hint of a promised Messiah at all. The NAB has an interesting footnote to the verse:
What I find interesting is that the note acknowledges traditional Christian interpretations of the passage without really endorsing them. I have had Catholics in other forums, when I have used notes in the New American Bible to support one of my arguments, assert that they are filled with heresies.
Ms. Steinfels – thanks and just to add to and reinforce your earlier comment – not only do we NOT need clergy there but also note that the reality of the initial response to this horrible event was led by common people – not the military. Police and Fire wear uniforms but are not military. The initial response came from the bottom up – every day citizens helping each other; fire/police helping every day citizens and vice versa.
It was an impromptu, unplanned, spontaneous demonstration of “citizenship” and the “common good”. No one ordered or commanded the response – it came from the hearts of ordinary citizens and went well beyond just words. It thus became sacred, holy, and blessed by the actions and commitment of the people of God, Allah, Yahweh, etc. on that day.
“It thus became sacred, holy, and blessed by the actions and commitment of the people of God, Allah, Yahweh, etc. on that day.”
Of course, why don’t some religious people, namely some Catholics, see that?
“If ‘secular myopia’ persists, we will be slow to realize the lessons of 9/11, no matter how many years pass.”
Certainly, Americans are not very well informed about religion, though I’m not sure this is a fault of education. My kid’s textbook last year included a wealth of information about major world religions, their various sects, as well as an overview of major religious movements in the United States. When I tried to discuss some of these issues with my son, he said, “All religion does is start wars over stuff nobody can prove.” Clearly, we’ve tried to open up more dialogue about this at home …
The notion of treating with people on the basis of values and sense of the sacred brings up this memory. Years ago, when I was a beat reporter, I remember talking with several people about a fishing rights treaty that was in dispute. The state of Michigan sent in an African-American negotiator to deal with Native American officials. I believe at that point, the state was prepared to pay tribal members not to fish in certain areas or something of that nature.
Anyhow, the lawyer asked the tribal officials if they didn’t want to wear expensive suits, drive good cars, and get a piece of the pie the white man had been hogging all those years. The tribal officials responded quite drily that, no, they didn’t care for pie, and that suits were not very practical attire for fishing, which was the issue at hand.
The session lasted about 15 minutes, and it was apparently quite embarrassing for all concerned..
Margaret Steinfels 09/11/2011 – 3:57 pm :
Sure. But not so very long ago, not having clergy there would have been unthinkable. Organized religion has come down a great deal in the West in fifty years. Now, it’s just one more pressure group.
in a sane and sensible world, Muslim clergy would simply stay away out of respect for most people’s feelings.
I think it likely that Mayor Bloomberg decided not to have a religious presence because, in a sane and sensible move, Christian clergy simply said they would stay away out of respect for most people’s feelings.
For a part of the picture of religion and 9/11, a crude estimate of the religions represented in the WTC victims can be made from the Pew Survey (2007), assuming the tower populations were distributed as the largest adult groups in the US are. Among 3000 dead, roughly: 480 Unaffiliated (16% – Atheist, Agnostic, Nothing in particular), 720 Catholic (24%), and 1330 Protestant (44%). The Unaffiliated (16%) exceed the total of the more than ten other world religions in the survey.
http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations
Margaret S. is right. The memorial today honored every single one as an individual without reference to religion or lack of it or to any other distinction except rank for those who had worn it. The nature of some recent rhetoric from Catholic leaders in the area might cause second thoughts about them speaking on a day focussed on nobility, self-sacrifice, and commitment to others, no matter who they were.
The tone of that remark kind of points out – unintentionally, I think – where we are with religion today: it’s just another identity group, subdivided into sects. In the past, it would have represented something totally different, and much more: clergy would have been there to symbolize and articulate people’s unspoken spirituality, the sense that God directs our lives and watches over our world. Now, they’re just Catholics, Buddhists, Mormons, Unitarians, etc. – each with his or her own narrow constituency. And if that’s truly all they are – just groupie leaders – they certainly don’t belong there.
clergy would have been there
David Smith,
Don’t confuse the absence of clergy with the absence of religion.
“But not so very long ago, not having clergy there would have been unthinkable. Organized religion has come down a great deal in the West in fifty years. Now, it’s just one more pressure group.”
Once upon a time they would have been Protestant clergy only (probably Congregationalist, Episcopal, or if in the South, Baptist). More recently more Protestant groups would have been added with a sprinkling of Catholic priests and Jewish rabbis. And more recently in some places, imams.
If this looks like disorganized religion, I’m all for it!
This thread and the threads about 8/11 above make me wonder if “secular myopia” is frequently a bypriduct of Catholic myopia speciffically and a lot of religious myopia in general.
I note BTW, Molie’s post below on wo fine articles in the NYT,
They focused on a Church (member or members) serving.
I still have this strange idea that religious values are heard when seen in the behavior of its mmebers and particulalry leaders.
How do you think many in the public square see that??
I find this “religion matters!” point a bit depressing because, in this context, it matters like smallpox mattered; it got a lot of people killed.
The reactionary hysteria over “man centered religion” (whatever exactly that is) is totally blind to the what is an obviously spiritual phenomenon. In the previous decade, organizers would have paraded out a clerical line-up of minister, priest, rabbi, iman, etc. I guess people now realize that’s redundant if we gather in the same spirit.
What Brian said! I was thinking along the lines of “Religion as Public Safety Threat” that needs to be studied sort of like hurricane reporting — that way you’ll know what precautions to take in order to avoid the disaster of someone’s “religiously tinged” madness.
I also found the following statement to by utterly mystifying:
“Diplomats need to deal with the sacred values first, then the dollars and cents later, he said.”
So what does that mean when, for instance, you meet with Hindu extremists who are absolutely determined to reclaim the ground on which now rests the holiest Muslim site in all of India? What exactly are you going to negotiate over in terms of their “sacred values”?
I don’t want to put too fine a point on it, but this is one reason why you don’t negotiate with terrorists. Because one defining characteristic of many if not all terrorists is the non-negotiability of their demands.
If you talk to “peace studies” types they often state that if you start with the extremists in any group you will never make progress. If people exist on a scale of 1-7 your best bet is to try to turn 5 into 4, 4 into 3, and so on. Indeed, when you look at extreme societies, think Afghanistan, you can look back 20, 30 or 50 years and find that they were nearly as extreme as they are now. This is DEFINITELY the case with Iran. They didn’t get that way overnight, they won’t go back overnight, and religion is often an excuse, more than it is an actual cause.
Barbara –
Very interesting about not starting with the extremes. Could you tell us more?
I wonder how that can be applied when larges segments of a populists are extremists or are easily led by extremists (e.g., Tea Partiers).