ON September 11th 2006, there was a brawl at Ground Zero.

Despite the ubiquitous presence of the press, this was

ignored even by the New York newspapers. This fighting, which I personally witnessed, was sparked by a middle-
aged, educated-sounding man standing on a soapbox and arguing that 9/11 was an inside job. There were many
groups surrounding Ground Zero propounding similar interpretations such as '911truth.org', while people carried huge
banners reading, 'The Bush Regime Engineered 9/11'. In contrast, there was one man holding pictures of Osama bin
Laden with the word 'Murderer' printed beneath. But all were distant from the central spot both physically and in terms
of their power. At the centre of Ground Zero--far in the distance behind an enormous fence--bereaved family
members read out names of the dead in front of the President.

As with any shrine, pilgrims were Contesting the Sacred (in the words of a 1991 essay collection on pilgrimage of the
same name). However, only those in charge of the official religious perspective, or related to the victims themselves,
were allowed to be at the central position. As you moved away from the centre, the pilgrims became less and less
powerful and more and more unorthodox in their understanding of the shrine. Just as at the Marian shrine at
Walsingham in England, for example, extreme Catholics and Protestants battled it out on the periphery for the correct
interpretation of the shrine and reality more broadly. And the comparison between Ground Zero and a religious shrine
is not merely superficial. There is a compelling case for the view that, in an increasingly secular environment.
Conspiracy Theories have taken the place of some forms of Folk Religion. They are the religion of the powerless
operating in a very similar way as the more extreme expressions of Medieval Catholicism.

Defining Religion

There is no one accepted understanding of the word 'religion'. For a minority of social scientists, such as the Scottish
sociologist Prof. Steve Bruce in his 2002 book God is Dead, religion is defined in relation to a shopping list of factors:
belief in God or gods, an afterlife and so forth. It is defined in this way because this definition is apparently accepted
by ordinary speakers of English. However, the majority of social scientists accept the kind of definition proposed by
the Belgian anthropologist Prof. Clifford Geertz in his 1968 article 'Religion as a Cultural System'. He argues that
religion is, in essence, an ideology that leads to rituals and numinous experiences. Bruce's style of definition is
regarded as inadequate because it is Protestant-centric (rendering Buddhism essentially a non-religion), it is anti-
intellectual and, most importantly, it makes a distinction between 'religion' and 'ideology' which is unsustainable if one
recalls that in pre-modern societies what we now call 'religion' was the ideology. There is perhaps something relativist
about Geertz. There are, it might be stressed, different kinds of religion and the New Zealand anthropologist, Roger
Sandall has argued in The Culture Cult (2001) that different styles of religious thinking can lead to very different
results in terms of social and economic organisation. Equally, there is a typological difference between believing in
the remnants of a pre-scientific world-view and having Marxism as your world-view, even if this is regarded merely as
'pseudo-science'. But 'religions' broadly appear to have the character that Geertz defines.

Thus, other modern ideologies are generally regarded as replacement religions. Moreover, it makes sense that
aspects of the old ideology would still be accepted--apart from in extreme cases such as Albanian Communism--just
as aspects of Paganism were accepted or reflected when Christianity was the dominant ideology (apart from in
extremist regimes such as Calvin's and even here the re-emphasis on 'blood sacrifice' and a 'chosen people' might
be seen as pagan). These 'old beliefs' were noted, for example, in the prevalence of folklore beliefs in England as
well as the replacement of old gods and ancestor worship with saints. The idea that science and secularism are
replacement religions is taken even further by the radical theologian and Church of England priest, the Rev. Don
Cupitt in his book After God. For Cupitt, the media, rather than priests, provide people now with myths and legends
and celebrities are the new saints to be adored and venerated, as in Medieval Catholicism.

we have in effect a return of the Middle Ages: it used to be the

church that supplied everyone with an imaginary world in his or her
own head; now the media do that job with celebrity as the new
sainthood.
Don Cupitt, After God: The Future of Religion, (1997), p.ix.

Secular Saints and Holy Men

I think that Cupitt's metaphor is slightly strained though not entirely without merit and this can be demonstrated by
pursuing his comparison to Medieval Christianity

Celebrities, I would argue, are not entirely comparable to saints because they are not dead. In Christianity: A Global
History (2000), Dr David Chidester notes that in diverse cultures from the English to the Incas, the Cult of the Saints
ends up replacing ancestor worship and, sometimes, some of the lesser gods. By contrast, God, Jesus and Mary
replace higher gods with the original gods rendered as demons. The saints are by definition dead. There might be an
argument for understanding dead celebrities as saints, evidenced by statues being erected in their honour and their
former homes becoming de facto shrines with blue plaques and more besides. But surely, if this religious comparison
is to work, living celebrities should be compared to Holy Men, the kind of people that might possibly become saints
when they die, rather than saints themselves. As with Shaman-figures, these celebrities make society feel better,
provide society with role models and encapsulate society's values to varying degrees.

In a Christian context, the veneration of these saints and holy men, though it can border on the heretical and
unacceptable, is quite permissible. Young people may have posters of them in their bedrooms, like Orthodox icons,
and attempt to meet them or, if they are dead, visit a place associated with them such as the Princess Diana
Memorial Fountain in the case of one notable modern example.

Religious Radicalism

However, following Cupitt's metaphor, religious organisations must also contend with those who are often relatively
distant from the power centre, worshipping in ways which insiders consider unacceptable and which might even be
seen to question the accepted order. In anthropological terms, this might be known as the 'Central Cult', if it has any
structure or organisation. Indeed, as sociologist Ernst Troeltsch (1865-1923) originally noted, this sect might
eventually become the accepted religion itself. However, in Medieval Christian culture, this unacceptable worship
could be seen in at least two rather contrasting ways. Firstly, there was the maintenance of traditional pagan
practices and ideas especially amongst country-folk. There were folklore beliefs in elves, fairies, night demons,
witches and various superstitions which were later dismissed by the church as congress with devils and diabolic
practices. But these were essentially harmless in relation to the official religion, unless they were taken too far and
became an alternative way of life, such as extreme religious fundamentalism in the modern day. This renders them
distinct from heresy which would have to be within the secular culture. On the other hand, and this was especially
obvious around the time of Geoffrey Chaucer in the fourteenth century, there were cases of generally ordinary people
led by marginalised figures advocating an apparently extreme form of the accepted ideology meaning that they had to
be controlled. This could often take the form of anti-Devil or anti-heretical fervour. This, it might be argued, could be
seen in the Proto-Protestant Lollards on the one hand and in the Flagellants on the other. If Cupitt's celebrity
metaphor is to be accepted, it should be sufficiently trenchant to parallel these kinds of developments.

Certainly, it could be argued that the Cult of Celebrity does indeed have extreme manifestations. There is the
veneration of 'inappropriate' celebrities both dead and alive. This can be seen in secular groups that choose to idolise
figures such as Adolf Hitler and his 'heretical' secular ideology. They are essentially celebrities but they are beyond
the pale and should be abhorred rather than venerated according to the official ideology. At the same time, there are
forms of celebrity-veneration that are too extreme--either in terms of accepting the figure's beliefs or in relation to him
personally--and become problematic for those at the power centre. This can be noted in individuals or groups
becoming obsessed with a particular celebrity, whether dead or alive, such as Elvis Presley or even Princess Diana
such that celebrity gains an unacceptable amount of power or is simply personally threatened. Those who believe the
views of the acceptable ideology with too much fervour might, indeed, be comparable to the Flagellants.

Devil Fervour

Pagan folklore tradition, operating at the same time as Christianity, held that dark forces were effectively in the world
and manipulating events. This paranoid world-view was also held by many Christian-based Gnostic groups, such as
the Cathars in Medieval France, who regarded the entire world as the province of demons that manipulate it.
Chidester points out that in most cultures demons replaced 'the old gods' who were understood to run the world from
behind the scenes and needed to be appeased with sacrifices in order to do this helpfully. Hence, there was a strong
folk-belief in devils and witches especially at times of change when the world seemed out of control, such as during
the Interregnum. Conspiracy Theories can be compared to this form of Folk Religion on a number of levels, though
that is not to say that all Folk Religion is conspiratorial.

Firstly, those who hold to these beliefs are heretics. They dispute the explanations provided by the church and
propounded by acceptable priests. Secondly, they would tend to dispute the integrity--the holiness--of these
celebrities, especially those in the field of power. Moreover, they believe that these priests are not running society in
the interests of the people--or according to God's will--but rather in their own interests. Whereas the official idea is
that society is run by various venerated, famous figures, it is in fact run by a faceless group who operate behind the
scenes and for whom these celebrity politicians are merely pawns. As such, and in a sense, the official priests and
saints are not worthy of worship because they have no real power or insight. A celebrity is worthy of worship if he is
prepared to attempt to combat these satanic-like unknowns and obscurities who are supposedly running the world. Of
course, this is not to say that they might not be right. There are, of course, genuine conspiracy theories.

Witchcraft and Satan hysteria have been noted at various times of substantial social change and they take hold most
notably amongst the disempowered. This point is demonstrated, for example, in Peter Stanford's The Devil: A
Biography (1996) as well as in numerous other scholarly books and articles. Conspiracy Theories are essentially a
modern form of devil fervour if we are to follow Cupitt's Medieval comparison to its logical conclusion. These theories
operate just about within the broader acceptable societal ideology. Those who accept them venerate celebrities, are
relatively secular and so forth. However, they hold that society is not run by certain 'good' celebrities. Rather these
celebrities are evil and they are controlled by a faceless group of evil people. In Medieval Christian terms, this is
essentially a form of Gnosticism or Catholic theology taken to an extreme. There are devils in the world but these
devils have actually taken-over and are running the world. This is not quite the same as a pagan belief in the old gods
because many conspiracy theories hold the positive belief that these devils can ultimately be combated and removed
from their positions of power such that the world order can be restored. In Medieval and later Christian theology, this
belief in the power of devils was popular and was often used by renegade clergy to mobilise those who were
disempowered. This is obvious in Martin Luther's view that the Pope was the Anti-Christ. The whole world, including
the church, had been taken over by the devil and through belief in Christ he could be fought off. Luther's ideas led to
huge popular uprisings and the desecration of numerous Catholic churches in which thousands were massacred.
Thus, it can be argued that Conspiracy Theories are, in Christian terms, a belief in the power of the devil taken too
far. It is acceptable, indeed compulsory, to believe that there are evil people, both dead and alive, such as Osama bin
Laden and Hitler. Actually venerating them is a kind of paganism, it is devil-worship or heresy depending on the
unorthodoxy of the views that they may advocate. (However, the border between 'heresy' and 'diabolism' would have
been highly subjective and dictated by church authorities.) Conspiracy theories involve, in many cases, broadly
accepting society's norms--though these theories can of course be found amongst subgroups and so on--but
believing that the devil is essentially winning the battle and running the world.

The Theology of 9/11

So let us return to the example of September 11th and examine it in the context of Medieval Christian belief. The
official belief propounded in the media is that--to focus on Ground Zero--New York was attacked by fundamentalist
Muslim terrorists ultimately at the behest of Osama bin Laden. President George W. Bush was a true statesman,
uniting the nation--and the Western world--against this vicious individual and nations that supposedly assisted him.
The idea that Iraq was aiding Al Qaeda was somehow added to this.

So, in religious terms, Bush is a holy man worthy of reverence, because of the office that he holds but also because
of his actions in this context. He is a holy man and he is in charge. Bin Laden is a pagan inspired by the devil. This is
not necessarily because he is a Muslim but because he totally opposes the Western and American way of life, which
is sacrosanct. However, he has little power and will ultimately be defeated even if the devil is not. Interestingly, Bush--
as a Born Again Christian--frequently uses terms such as 'evil' to describe bin Laden and his 'wicked' ideology. There
are many young, Muslim fundamentalists in some northern English cities that support bin Laden and his actions,
rendering him a pagan Holy Man from the broader perspective. But the other reaction, within the West, is that the
Twin Towers were destroyed as part of a government inside job. There are various different theories ranging from the
view that Bush allowed this to happen to the view that the towers were downed by controlled explosions. But the
common idea is that a group of evil people are ultimately running the world and used 911 to further their power. Bush
is either their pawn or simply their face and they caused the September 11th attacks. In religious terms, therefore,
Bush is effectively a Satan figure of some kind, a satanic celebrity in a culture that venerates good celebrities. The
conspirators, as with devils, are behind the scenes and have no real identity, though they might manifest themselves
in certain people. (For example, it has been widely argued that Vice-President Dick Cheney is really running the
USA.) But this Conspiracy Theory is congruous with the practice, deep in Christian culture, of believing, at times of
apparent crisis, that negative events reflect the fact that the world is currently influenced by demons (though
sometimes there is also the belief that it's God's anger).

Conspiracy Theories and the Disempowered

And this leaves us with the question of why people should wish to believe such unpleasant ideas, whether it is that
the world is taken over by the devil or shadowy, malicious figures. Broadly, it makes the world make sense even if it
makes sense in a very unpleasant manner. This is comforting according to psychologist and Conspiracy Theory
expert Dr Patrick Leman in the BBC Website article 'The Psychology of Conspiracy' (14th February 2007). To accept
the official explanation means accepting that the venerated celebrity figure is all-too-human and incompetent. He
made a mistake and the Twin Tower attacks were the consequence. The world becomes an unpredictable and
unsafe place. Hence, in a sense it is reassuring to believe that, in the absence of an all-powerful God, somebody is
actually in charge and controlling events. In this regard, French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan (1901-81) argued that
all knowledge was 'conspiratorial'.

It appears that those who accept these theories apply rigorous logic to official explanations but not necessarily to the
alternative explanation which would point to them wanting to believe these unorthodox ideas. Equally, in a Medieval
Catholic context, it is frightening to believe that ordinary people are in charge of the church and can make mistakes. It
is more reassuring to believe that either God is running it or the Devil is running it or a combination of the two. Leman
also finds that believers are generally sceptical of facts from the authorities. Thus, there is an implicit belief in
metaphorical devils, in evil forces running the world. As an aside, American Studies lecturer Dr Peter Knight argues in
Conspiracy Culture (2000) that conspiracy theories are part of American popular culture in a way that is less true
elsewhere. This, he argues, developed from America's 'Puritanical' and devil-haunted beginnings and has particularly
taken off since the JFK assassination.

Secondly, belief in these Conspiracy Theories is a means of asserting power. It has been noted again and again that
it tends to be people of low status, in some respect, who accept Conspiracy Theories. Leman points out that belief in
conspiracy theories is particularly high amongst ethnic minority groups in America and, in general, amongst people
who feel 'disenfranchised'. This could have a number of explanations. Firstly, if you are 'disenfranchised' the world is
more likely to seem like a dark and unpleasant place controlled by malevolent forces. But, secondly, openly doubting
the 'official' viewpoint--or cult if you will--is a way of asserting power. It is a symbolic means of refusing to accept the
authority of society and, indeed, refusing to venerate the appropriate holy men and saints. In this regard, as has been
discussed, it is noteworthy that strong beliefs in the devil and in the view that the devil is controlling the world and
needs to be defeated were popular at times of change amongst the disempowered. In England, they were noted
during the Black Death, during the Reformation, during the Interregnum ... and were found most notably amongst the
disempowered within society, though they may have been led by radicals of a higher status such as John Knox in
Scotland. As literal belief in the devil declines, it might be argued that paranoid societies begin to find a human
malevolent controlling force or threat such as Catholics and even, amongst far right groups representing the
disempowered in modern Britain, Muslims and Crypto-Marxists. This paranoia may be held by those in positions of
power, but to a much lesser extent. (Whether this paranoia is objectively justified is not really a question for this
article though it may well be in some cases).

Indeed, it could be argued that Nazism follows precisely this pattern. It was popular amongst the dispossessed at a
time of change, distrusted the government and advocated the view that Germany was controlled by self-interested
Jews, a race who historically were understood to be fairly close to the Devil anyway because they were supposed to
have collectively committed deicide. These kinds of views were held, but much less fervently, by many conservative
Germans.

Contesting the Sacred

Understanding September 11th in religious terms perhaps helps us to realise why there was violence at Ground
Zero on 11th September 2006.

At the centre was the official cult, venerating the appropriate celebrities and Holy Men and believing in the official
theology which they propound. President George W. Bush himself was there, as were the families of the 'martyrs' or
'heroes'. On the borders, by the fence, were those who genuinely believed, in religious terms, that society had been
taken over by demons and that this tragedy was caused by those at the centre. Also present were those who
believed in the 'official view' with an unacceptable fervour, variously having massive tattoos of the Twin Towers on
their bodies, reading from the official 'Book of the Dead' or defacing pictures of or shouting about Osama bin Laden.
Taking all of this into account, it was amazing that all that happened was a playground style fight with a few people
grabbing each other by the throats as the police tried to move on those with the most provocative banners.

There could have been a full-scale religious riot.

Dr Edward Dutton has a BA in Theology from Durham University (2002) and a PhD in Religious Studies from
Aberdeen University (2006).

Source Citation:
Dutton, Edward. "Devil fervour: conspiracy theories, Ground Zero and the religion of the dispossessed."
Contemporary Review. 290. 1688 (Spring 2008): 52(8). Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Pine Bush
High School. 15 Oct. 2009 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-
Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=OVRC&docId=A178442225&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGro
upName=pine72933&version=1.0>.