Skip to main content
I was brushing my teeth. 10:15 Central Time. The bathroom closest to the front desk in my university residence hall. Some guy ran in. This is (approximately) what followed:

"Dude, someone attacked the World Trade Center. They think 50,000 people might be dead."

"C'mon, man, that's not funny."

"No, I'm serious. I wouldn't joke about that."

I finished brushing, and went to the desk. We had a whiteboard that had all the day's news, sports, and weather. Understandably on this day, it had only one item. In a big box underneath everything was a message: "In spite of everything that has happened, we are not going to judge anyone by his or her skin color, religion, or national origin." Or something like that. I have never been so glad to see such a statement ever before. I guess I'm supposed to hate such spasms of political correctness. But there is nothing more conservative than holding individuals (and them alone) responsible for their actions.
I didn't have time to watch the news. I was fairly certain I had a class. I saw my friend Liz Stover (now Garber) on the street, and we discussed what we knew. I made it to class. The only thing I remember was a Syrian guy in my politics class say that we had it coming. What a country, I thought, where this jerk can say this out loud in perfect freedom, even as a guest.
I came back home to the hall later, and President Bush was speaking. I can only remember him saying that we're gonna find out who did this. It seemed like he spoke several times that day, and I was glad. I still remember from when I was a kid: "The President is the president of all the people." Frankly, on that day, I only felt two feelings: shock, and pride. We were acting like we were in a war, and rightly so. Sometimes you fight with your siblings, but if somebody messes with your siblings, they'll pay. I actually wondered how soon we'd take military action, in my gut feeling that I'd support whatever our leaders decided. Bin Laden's name came up the next day, and I wondered how they knew it was him. I forgot about the embassy bombings, but the Cole bombing I recalled. And I think I remembered the first attack on the World Trade Center.
I remember being relieved when the projected death toll was far less than 50,000.
I think it was three days later, when President Bush went to Ground Zero. All I remember is this: "In the past few days, we've heard from police, firefighters, and other heroic rescuers...The people who did this will hear from all of us soon." Jeep. Check. Bullhorn. Check. President who was a fighter pilot. Check. I thought, I'm living Independence Day. What followed was the most uncomfortable 2 minutes I've felt in a long time. The workers started chanting "USA! USA! USA!" and I thought, "That went on far too long." Besides, you chant "USA!" at sporting events, not when you've been attacked.
I got choked up several times in the next weeks, watching President Bush's speech to a joint session of Congress, seeing the footage of people jumping out the windows, hearing about Flight 93. I do remember not arguing politics for at least six weeks. And I knew I was living history. We only hope we're worthy of being called Americans, like the generations before us.
Later, I recall being of the opinion that there was no way President Bush would lose the next election. It just seemed like he was so good at being our voice then that he'd earned the extra 4 years right there. I seriously doubted that we'd be so miffed about the economy to forget this. Or the kicking a-- and taking names that was sure to follow. The niceties of diplomacy weren't on my mind, either.
We got back to fighting about politics, but it wasn't the same. It still isn't. One thing about it: we all got in a few shots at President Bush for all sorts of reasons. But it wasn't just a formality to say, "Thanks for what you did after 9/11." I think most people really hated to criticize him later on, and he really didn't lose that benefit of the doubt for about 5 years. That's good and bad, I guess.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un