I recently posted a question on facebook that asked, "Why is it that people blame God when tragedy strikes?" It was really a rhetorical comment based on feedback I had read recently referencing the earthquake situation in Haiti. I had read some responses to a news blog surrounding the comments made by Pat Robertson. In those comments he basically said that it was Haiti's own fault that tragedy had befallen them because of a "pact they made with the devil" back in the 1700's. What I find more interesting than Robertson's statement itself, is the variety of responses that come because of it. It's interesting in that, for all the religious apathy that seems to exist across the board, a lot of people have a lot to say about one persons religious opinion.
One person opined that people shake their fist at God when tragedy occurs for much the same reason that they praise Him when fortune falls. Which isn't really an answer as much as an observation. My son reasoned that it was because people tend to shirk responsibility for their own actions, but then he went on to say that no fault for the quake, as well as the ensuing loss of life could be attributed to the people of Haiti. That in any instance, whether we were practicing Christians, or practicing voodoo, we should set aside our beliefs, and that utilizing the "Golden Rule" to effect relief was our responsibility. While I certainly mirror his belief that we, as compassionate individuals with the means, have a responsibility to respond and help all we can with the effects of this "natural disaster", I must also agree that another comment he made..."Ignoring the effects that ones actions have on their own life as well as the lives of others, there are those who put on their blinders and ignore the likely possibility that we are more often than not responsible for the circumstances we find ourselves in, good or bad"...is true, and applicable here as well. He wasn't applying that reasoning to the Haitians, but rather to those who blame God. I think truthfully, we must apply it to the Haitians as well. To do this, however, one must peel the layers of that onion back many levels to understand the "responsibility" that exists. To be sure, the people of Haiti certainly did not cause the natural disaster any more than the people of New Orleans caused Katrina, nor do I believe they deserved it. But, as he also stated, "they were ill prepared for the effects of it". Truly then it must be asked, who/what is responsible for this state of being "ill prepared"? Preparation is affected by a lifestyle as well as a physical act. Being proper (or rather improper) stewards of the resources at hand is often the culprit. So one can't "exclude natural disasters" when you look at the total outcome of a situation referencing blame. Not that assessing blame helps in the situation at hand, but it might possibly avert the magnitude of it from occurring in the future. Again I fall back on the example of the natural disaster that befell the U.S. The leadership of New Orleans had resources allotted to them in prior times that could have been (and were designated to be) used to strengthened known weaknesses in the levies. However, they weren't. So, in that instance, the "uncontrollable" became more devastating because of the "controllable". Who is to blame for that, and what is the fundamental reason for the diversion of funds? Did they utilize the golden rule? I think it is safe to say that the people of Haiti have embraced a religious lifestyle for centuries that is not conducive to progress, and the obvious benefits of that progress. They have but two social/economic classes of people there. Those that "had" and lived in opulence, and those who "had not" and lived in poverty and ignorance. They've had more civil strife there since their "liberation" than virtually any country on the planet. Conversely, why is it that The United States is the most powerful nation in the world? Could it be that our religious and moral background has produced the schools, technology, and social infrastructure necessary to elevate a people to economic prosperity? And the benefit from the effects that prosperity has on things like architectural integrity, building codes, vehicle safety measures, laws, disaster plans, human rights, etc.? All of which are the physical results of a strong moral/social structure as produced by our Judeo/Christian beliefs, (which belief's incidentally, formulated the "golden rule"). While I do not necessarily subscribe to Pat Robertson's "pact with the devil" statement, I sincerely doubt that the comment was made from a state of senility, as my son suggested. But rather Pat's firm belief in the responsibility, or accountability if you will, of the Haitian people for their own predicament, as seen from a different perspective. Embrace the golden calf, and you become God's enemy. Enmity with God may no longer result in judgmental annihilation (as evidenced by the New Testament), but it is separation. God will not protect a people, as a whole, who do not recognize Him. And whether you believe in an unseen force of the universe or not, no matter how you drop the apple, it still falls down. Though my son quotes, "God IS our refuge and strength....and we don't fear though it's waters roar, and foam, and it's mountains quake", I'm not sure he understands it's not because we (Christians) believe it won't/can't happen to us....but rather, because we know that if it does happen we have a better place to go. Those that "believe on Him", possess a peace that promotes sensibility. A sensibility that says that though we do not fear death, we live our lives in such a fashion that we don't promote it unnecessarily. If you've read previous blogs of mine , you may begin to understand my perspective that, while as Christians we should be tolerant of the ignorance of unbelief, and the obvious social/economic outcome of that ignorance, we also shouldn't allow that tolerance to over shadow the truth of it's effects and our responsibility to combat it. Whether our effort be through religious invocation prior to it's outcome, or humanitarian efforts after it. A solemn fact is, the majority of the relief that will come to the Haitian people will come from organizations sponsored by the Christian Church worldwide,in one fashion or another. This same church has been sending missionaries to Haiti for three hundred years, attempting through religious persuasion, to bring a level of educational progress that might have softened the death toll. Now, there are no coo doe's that should be realized from this, but you can be sure there will be less media play for it than from the sports/media moguls that offer assistance, as well as less negative fallout after it's all said and done. And lastly, what religious state of mind does one suppose better edifies "The Golden Rule"? The blood letting of chickens, and burning of an effigy in ritual sacrifice for protection, or the solemn prayer, and efforts of a christian missionary to educate? My heart grieves for the massive loss of human life, as well as the chronic ignorance that made the majority of it possible. It also grieves for the general lack of understanding of the root foundation of "The Golden Rule". As well as the state of the spiritual (or non-spiritual) system that will exist in this country once we are socialized, and all traces of God removed from our national governing philosophy because believers are brainwashed into believing that to express ourselves "implicitly" is not "politically correct". Thereby dissolving the foundations of the golden rule, as well as the country that used it as its basic principle of inception. Lessons learned are lost if they are not taken into practical consideration. If Haiti can be taken as an example of a nation that has turned its back on the One True God, and has suffered for the ignorance of that position in the manner I've described, we in this country have much to consider about the path we are on. The "half full cup" side of the equation is that, given the total destruction of the infrastructure of Haiti's culture, and the proximity of the U.S. to her, the positive Christian nature of our influence in rebuilding our southern sister may serve as an example for the world to see. Where we failed in expressing our benevolence in waging war on another's behalf, rebuilding a third world country with little to offer in return after a natural disaster may show the world that the United States isn't the monster they perceive us to be, and that the backbone of our efforts truly are altruistic. We care. In any case, one can be sure that the Haiti that rises from the ashes will be better than the one destroyed. And as every good thing comes from God, He will get the Glory.
One person opined that people shake their fist at God when tragedy occurs for much the same reason that they praise Him when fortune falls. Which isn't really an answer as much as an observation. My son reasoned that it was because people tend to shirk responsibility for their own actions, but then he went on to say that no fault for the quake, as well as the ensuing loss of life could be attributed to the people of Haiti. That in any instance, whether we were practicing Christians, or practicing voodoo, we should set aside our beliefs, and that utilizing the "Golden Rule" to effect relief was our responsibility. While I certainly mirror his belief that we, as compassionate individuals with the means, have a responsibility to respond and help all we can with the effects of this "natural disaster", I must also agree that another comment he made..."Ignoring the effects that ones actions have on their own life as well as the lives of others, there are those who put on their blinders and ignore the likely possibility that we are more often than not responsible for the circumstances we find ourselves in, good or bad"...is true, and applicable here as well. He wasn't applying that reasoning to the Haitians, but rather to those who blame God. I think truthfully, we must apply it to the Haitians as well. To do this, however, one must peel the layers of that onion back many levels to understand the "responsibility" that exists. To be sure, the people of Haiti certainly did not cause the natural disaster any more than the people of New Orleans caused Katrina, nor do I believe they deserved it. But, as he also stated, "they were ill prepared for the effects of it". Truly then it must be asked, who/what is responsible for this state of being "ill prepared"? Preparation is affected by a lifestyle as well as a physical act. Being proper (or rather improper) stewards of the resources at hand is often the culprit. So one can't "exclude natural disasters" when you look at the total outcome of a situation referencing blame. Not that assessing blame helps in the situation at hand, but it might possibly avert the magnitude of it from occurring in the future. Again I fall back on the example of the natural disaster that befell the U.S. The leadership of New Orleans had resources allotted to them in prior times that could have been (and were designated to be) used to strengthened known weaknesses in the levies. However, they weren't. So, in that instance, the "uncontrollable" became more devastating because of the "controllable". Who is to blame for that, and what is the fundamental reason for the diversion of funds? Did they utilize the golden rule? I think it is safe to say that the people of Haiti have embraced a religious lifestyle for centuries that is not conducive to progress, and the obvious benefits of that progress. They have but two social/economic classes of people there. Those that "had" and lived in opulence, and those who "had not" and lived in poverty and ignorance. They've had more civil strife there since their "liberation" than virtually any country on the planet. Conversely, why is it that The United States is the most powerful nation in the world? Could it be that our religious and moral background has produced the schools, technology, and social infrastructure necessary to elevate a people to economic prosperity? And the benefit from the effects that prosperity has on things like architectural integrity, building codes, vehicle safety measures, laws, disaster plans, human rights, etc.? All of which are the physical results of a strong moral/social structure as produced by our Judeo/Christian beliefs, (which belief's incidentally, formulated the "golden rule"). While I do not necessarily subscribe to Pat Robertson's "pact with the devil" statement, I sincerely doubt that the comment was made from a state of senility, as my son suggested. But rather Pat's firm belief in the responsibility, or accountability if you will, of the Haitian people for their own predicament, as seen from a different perspective. Embrace the golden calf, and you become God's enemy. Enmity with God may no longer result in judgmental annihilation (as evidenced by the New Testament), but it is separation. God will not protect a people, as a whole, who do not recognize Him. And whether you believe in an unseen force of the universe or not, no matter how you drop the apple, it still falls down. Though my son quotes, "God IS our refuge and strength....and we don't fear though it's waters roar, and foam, and it's mountains quake", I'm not sure he understands it's not because we (Christians) believe it won't/can't happen to us....but rather, because we know that if it does happen we have a better place to go. Those that "believe on Him", possess a peace that promotes sensibility. A sensibility that says that though we do not fear death, we live our lives in such a fashion that we don't promote it unnecessarily. If you've read previous blogs of mine , you may begin to understand my perspective that, while as Christians we should be tolerant of the ignorance of unbelief, and the obvious social/economic outcome of that ignorance, we also shouldn't allow that tolerance to over shadow the truth of it's effects and our responsibility to combat it. Whether our effort be through religious invocation prior to it's outcome, or humanitarian efforts after it. A solemn fact is, the majority of the relief that will come to the Haitian people will come from organizations sponsored by the Christian Church worldwide,in one fashion or another. This same church has been sending missionaries to Haiti for three hundred years, attempting through religious persuasion, to bring a level of educational progress that might have softened the death toll. Now, there are no coo doe's that should be realized from this, but you can be sure there will be less media play for it than from the sports/media moguls that offer assistance, as well as less negative fallout after it's all said and done. And lastly, what religious state of mind does one suppose better edifies "The Golden Rule"? The blood letting of chickens, and burning of an effigy in ritual sacrifice for protection, or the solemn prayer, and efforts of a christian missionary to educate? My heart grieves for the massive loss of human life, as well as the chronic ignorance that made the majority of it possible. It also grieves for the general lack of understanding of the root foundation of "The Golden Rule". As well as the state of the spiritual (or non-spiritual) system that will exist in this country once we are socialized, and all traces of God removed from our national governing philosophy because believers are brainwashed into believing that to express ourselves "implicitly" is not "politically correct". Thereby dissolving the foundations of the golden rule, as well as the country that used it as its basic principle of inception. Lessons learned are lost if they are not taken into practical consideration. If Haiti can be taken as an example of a nation that has turned its back on the One True God, and has suffered for the ignorance of that position in the manner I've described, we in this country have much to consider about the path we are on. The "half full cup" side of the equation is that, given the total destruction of the infrastructure of Haiti's culture, and the proximity of the U.S. to her, the positive Christian nature of our influence in rebuilding our southern sister may serve as an example for the world to see. Where we failed in expressing our benevolence in waging war on another's behalf, rebuilding a third world country with little to offer in return after a natural disaster may show the world that the United States isn't the monster they perceive us to be, and that the backbone of our efforts truly are altruistic. We care. In any case, one can be sure that the Haiti that rises from the ashes will be better than the one destroyed. And as every good thing comes from God, He will get the Glory.
No comments:
Post a Comment