Still Angry About 9/11

David C. Stolinsky, MD
Sept. 10, 2009

http://www.beyondrobson.com/archives/upload/2007/06/National_Park_Service_9-11_Statue_of_Liberty_and_WTC_fire.jpg

Eight years later, I am still angry about 9/11. Many people are not. In fact, many people barely remember 9/11. We have resumed our usual activities. This is good – it shows the terrorists they haven’t won. But we may also have resumed our usual patterns of thought. This is not good. The problem with 9/10 thinking is that it leads to 9/11.

Are we in a war, or aren’t we? One reason for our confusion is that we get conflicting advice on what to do with our anger.

Many “experts” tell us that anger is a negative emotion – one to be avoided. Assorted gurus teach us to “put anger aside” and “get on with our lives.” Liberal clergy often give similar advice. Friends may say, “Just get over it.”

But is this good advice? Is it good psychologically? Is it good morally? Even if we can “just get over it,” should we?

Often people quote Jesus’ admonition that if someone strikes you on one cheek, you should turn the other. This teaching contains two key points.

The first is the word “you.” This means that you are taught to forgive injuries done to you, not to someone else. There is no statement that you ought to forgive wrongs done to others, or that you have any right to do so.

And there is certainly no suggestion that if someone is hit in the face, you should invite the assailant to hit him again. The teaching is meant to reduce violence, not increase it.

The second point is that being struck on the cheek probably refers to the minor injuries or insults we encounter in daily life. But what about more serious violations? Does my being struck on the cheek equate to you being murdered? How incredibly self-centered.

We are directed to calm our anger over minor injuries done to us. Nowhere are we told to forgive those who do not ask forgiveness. Nowhere are we told to forgive those who inflict horrible suffering on others. To forgive such people isn't kindness – it’s cruelty to all those who will be hurt by the evil that we didn’t stop.

The only aspect of 9/11 that I have a right to forgive is the emotional distress I felt watching it on TV – a trifling part of that event.

If you are beaten up, I have no right to forgive the mugger. But at least I have some understanding of what it means to be beaten up. What can I grasp about 9/11?

·         I have no conception of what it felt like to be faced with the choice of burning to death in a 2000-degree inferno, or jumping out of a 110-story building.

·         I have no notion of what went through the jumpers’ minds during the 10 seconds it took to hit the pavement at 120 miles per hour. Did that seem like a very short time, or a very long one?

·         I have no idea of the incredible pain the relatives and friends of the victims felt, as they waited for the bodies (or parts of bodies) to be found. Many are still waiting.

·         I have no understanding of the additional pain felt by victims’ families when they learned that supporters of terrorism danced in the streets to celebrate 9/11.

For me to usurp the right to forgive the terrorists would be arrogant and egotistical. Only the victims have the right to forgive. And they aren’t here.

Ethical principles tell me to give to charity rather than buy a new digital camera. They tell me to run into traffic to save a wandering child. They tell me to do difficult things for others, not easy things for myself.

We should be suspicious of a principle that tells us to do nothing when others are in peril. It is unlikely to be an ethical principle, and more likely to be a rationalization for our own selfishness and cowardice. On the contrary, the Bible forbids us to stand by idly while our neighbor’s life is at stake (Leviticus 19:16).

Doing nothing after 3,000 of our fellow citizens were horribly murdered – that’s ethical? No, it’s cowardly.

Having more sympathy for terrorists who were killed in a war that they started than for our own people – that’s ethical? No, it’s an excuse for cowardice.

Emphasizing our defects rather than our enemies’ atrocities – that’s ethical? No, it’s an excuse for inaction.

Clearly, the relatives and friends of the victims of 9/11 should do whatever helps to allay their pain. If forgiving the terrorists serves to mitigate the suffering, let them do so. But what about the rest of us, who didn’t lose anyone we knew on 9/11? Should we “get on with our lives” and “let go of our anger”?

We have confused the proper response of relatives and friends with what everyone else should do. We have confused what is psychologically best for the relatives with what is morally best for all the rest of us.

Psychology tells us what we should do to relieve emotional pain. It tells us nothing about what we should do to fulfill our obligations to others. This used to be taught by parents, who now work two jobs and have little time to teach anything. It used to be taught by teachers, who now can barely teach English and mathematics. It used to be taught by clergy, many of whom now preach how to feel good, not how to do good.

Psychology is the study of how people behave. It tells us nothing about how people should behave. We have confused psychology (or rather pop psychology) with ethics. We have confused feeling good with doing good.

True, doing good often makes us feel good. But sometimes doing good is difficult, or even painful and dangerous.

·         Sometimes doing good requires us to recognize evil, despite the ugliness.

·         Sometimes doing good requires us to fight evil, despite the danger.

·         Sometimes doing good is the opposite of feeling good. This is a lesson you will rarely hear from New Age gurus or liberal clergy.

Rather than babbling about “getting rid of anger,” competent psychologists help us to find the real source of our anger. Then we can attempt to remedy the situation, rather than bottling up our anger – only to have it burst out unexpectedly.

If we are inhibited from expressing anger at those who deserve it, we may express it at those who don’t. Perhaps this is one reason for domestic violence, workplace violence and road rage. Perhaps if we expressed more anger at criminals, we would express less anger at spouses, children, coworkers or motorists.

Instead we are told, “Have sympathy for all humanity.” Sympathy can be beautiful, but if misdirected it can turn ugly. Sympathy for criminals can lead to more criminals going free, and therefore more crime. Sympathy for terrorists can induce us to “see their point of view,” which hampers efforts to combat terrorism. If we waste our sympathy on criminals, we have none left for victims.

We are told, “It is our duty to forgive.” It is our duty to forgive those who injured us and who ask forgiveness. It is not our duty, or our right, to forgive those who injured others and who do not repent. This type of forgiveness is so cheap as to be worthless.

And we are told that anger is always destructive. Of course anger can be destructive, but if properly directed it can also be constructive.

·         Anger at child molesters can lead to stronger laws, and fewer children kidnapped from their bedrooms or dragged from their front yards.

·         Anger at criminals can lead to more criminals living behind prison bars, and fewer law-abiding citizens living behind window bars.

·         Anger at terrorists can lead to dismantling their network and preventing another 9/11.

Anger at the perpetrators of 9/11 may have been part of the motivation for waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. As a result of information he revealed, a plot to crash a plane into the Los Angeles Library Tower was broken up, saving thousands of lives.

Those who reject this report should realize that the only way to prove it conclusively would have been to let the plot go forward and let the people die. Concern for the temporary discomfort of terrorists, but lack of concern for the lives of future victims, is a striking illustration of the proverb, “He who is kind to the cruel will in the end be cruel to the kind.”

Saints may be able to rid themselves of all anger, but most of us are very far from being saints. For us, the realistic goal is not to eliminate our anger, but to control it and direct it properly. For us, 9/11 was not only a sin and a crime – it was also a horribly costly lesson.

Let us not waste it. Let us use it to relearn what we used to know – the difference between petty anger and righteous indignation.

Yes, eight years later I am still angry about 9/11, and I will be until the terrorist network has been rooted out. Only then can I allow myself to “just get over it.”

But if I am tempted to forget about 9/11, I remind myself of the scenes that caused our enemies to dance in the streets.

WARNING! Graphic Images

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. He can be contacted at dstol@prodigy.net.

www.stolinsky.com