The following are two Letters to the Editor sent following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 on New York and Washington, D.C.; the first by my brother, Scott, and then my own.
By Scott Rushing, to The Tennesseean:
I am a student at the Vanderbilt Divinity School. We attempt to look at worldwide phenomenon from a theological perspective. For example, in my theology class the day after the attacks, we discussed how to think about these events in view of God and the world. The usual questions were raised: How does a loving God allow evil, why do bad things happen to good people, etc.
But the issue that raised the hair on the back of my neck was in relation to how we as a nation should react. At this point, I was trying very hard to keep this in a theological rather a political perspective. From my faith tradition (Baptist), I believe we should pray for the people who were behind these tragedies. I believe in forgiveness, even for an act as seemingly unforgivable as this one. I also believe we should work for peace whenever possible. But the suggestion was raised that instead of responding with force to these attacks, we should instead stop and listen to the perpetrators, and ask them why they hate us (???), and only then to act.
My sarcasm came out in full bloom then. I imagined Osama bin Laden coming over to the White House, talking over tea about he and President Bush could come to a mutual understanding so that the world could live in harmony. That thought seems ludicrous to me, but apparently not to everyone. Since it seems so obvious to me that we should respond with force, I am left asking myself: How should I make sense of these remarks?
There were other responses than this that I have been attempting to make sense out of since last Tuesday. I saw on the news where Palestinians and Muslims from Egypt to Pakistan came out to the streets in celebration of these attacks on innocent civilians, even while their respective governments condemned the attacks. Again, I was disgusted to see them so cheerful that thousands of innocent people were killed in an instant. So again I have to wonder to myself, why are they so excited? What drives these people to hate us so much? I don't see Americans taking to the streets in celebration when Israeli's or Palestinians bomb each other.
I have been pondering these non-sensical responses over the past week.
Although I have a better understanding of them after a week of reflection, I am no less disappointed. I continue to pray that President Bush has the wisdom to make the right decisions. It seems to me that we cannot just rebuild buildings and communities and then ignore the terrorists who planned and committed these atrocities just to say that we favor "peace". Does the world expect us to forgo a response? From what I have read and heard, the answer is no.
My theological perspective is as follows. This semester I am taking a class on the German pacifist Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer lived in Germany during World War II, and personally opposed the war that was being waged in Europe. But although he was against war and violence, he joined a conspiracy to assassinate Hitler. He saw that Hitler could not be stopped with peace, but only by force. He compared Hitler to a madman who gets behind the wheel of a car, and it was Bonhoeffer's responsibility to stop the madman before he drove into a crowd of people.
Osama bin Laden has already killed thousands of innocent people, and admitted that his goal is to destroy America and American civilization. Are we going to stop the madman behind the wheel, or allow him to continue killing innocent Americans? If we do not respond to this tragedy, then that will ultimately be the most violent response, for it will cost us more innocent lives lost.
By Jeff Rushing, to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
Reading multiple letters in Wednesday’s Constitution regarding the terrorist attacks on America that seemed to insinuate that we had it coming to us disgusted me. Nothing could be more insulting to the victims and their families.
I fail to see how a failed drug war or supporting Israel from similar terrorism should be an excuse for anyone to commit such an atrocity.
Our modern military does everything it can to limit the number of civilians killed in military strikes. On the other hand, terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden do just the opposite, hijacking planes that were on long-distance flights in order to have the most fuel when they crashed into their targets, hoping to kill as many innocent civilians as possible.
That is an act of war against civilization, an act of aggression on all humanity, not because the U.S. government has treaties or trade restrictions as asserted by Bill Holmes, and especially not because Americans are "clueless" about the "furious" world around us, as John A. Delaubenfels would have us believe.
Another reader, Robert Frank, blames "Bushi, Condi, Dicki and Donni," but I wonder if he placed so much weight on Bill Clinton after the Oklahoma City, U.S. embassy and USS Cole bombings.