Blaming the Victims: An Ecumenical Disaster - ("Evil" SUV drivers caused the tsunami, I guess)

ACTON.ORG ^ | JANUARY 5, 2005 | JORDAN BALLOR, Associate Editor

[CHARLITE]

While the death tolls are still mounting from last week’s catastrophe in the Indian Ocean, some prominent religious leaders haven’t wasted any time engaging in politicking and opportunism. Last Thursday, Rev. Sam Kobia, general secretary of the World Council of Churches, and Rev. Ishmael Noko, general secretary of the Lutheran World Federation, issued statements rebuking the United States, among other nations, for not signing on to the Kyoto protocol.

Don’t see the link between a massive earthquake and global warming? Kobia and Noko certainly do. The results of the disaster are “a clear warning on what climate change could to do the world,” said Kobia. Noko agrees, finding the earthquake and resulting tsunami to be “a reminder that we would do well to heed, at a time when even the relatively inadequate efforts by the international community to address climate change continue to be subverted and undermined by some of those most responsible.”

If this is what passes for the prophetic witness of the church these days, then the ecumenical movement is in sorry shape indeed. Citing global warming as a cause of the earthquake and tsunami is too far-fetched, even for these religious leaders. But Kobia and Noko are unflinchingly quick to use the scale of this disaster as an excuse to shift focus back to one of their pet ideological topics.

Such opportunism demonstrates a serious and disturbing lapse in leadership. Instead of attempting to honestly assess the problems exposed by the disaster and its aftermath, the ecumenical leaders exploit the tsunami and launch into radical environmentalist talking points reminiscent of the rhetorical tripe that characterized this year’s disaster flick, “The Day after Tomorrow.”

Instead of chiding America (and implicitly the world’s favorite villain, George W. Bush) for global warming and for the tsunami damage, we should focus attention on solving genuine problems that contributed to the disaster. Lack of economic development, infrastructure, and communication systems made Southeast Asia’s experience of the tsunami worse than it had to be.

Developed nations have much greater ability to take concrete actions which save lives, leading up to, in the midst of, and following natural disasters. The infrastructure and systems are in place to get out warnings, to enable evacuations, and to set up emergency medical facilities in the aftermath.

One of the nations affected, India, recognizes this fact. India has wisely resisted signing onto Kyoto, understanding that its people need economic progress more than environmental purity at this point in time.

In light of India’s stand, the statement from Kobia and Noko, whose organizations represent 342 and 138 member churches respectively, reads more like a placement of blame for the disaster on its victims. Is this the kind of message the ecumenical movement really should be sending? In the wake of natural disaster, implying that India would be better served by sacrificing development to environmental orthodoxy resembles Pharisaical arrogance more than the evangelical message of Christianity.

Unfortunately, the radical environmental agenda shared by Kobia and Noko is tied up with flawed economic theories that enslave rather than liberate those in the developing world. The WCC and other ecumenical groups are fond of decrying the global economic “empire” of the West. And in the meantime, the poor in developing nations languish in poverty, ripe targets for enormously destructive natural calamities.

Disasters like those of last week’s earthquake and tsunami cannot be avoided, but their devastating effects can be minimized. And the key to minimizing such damage lies in economic prosperity and development, not in ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

If the ecumenical movement is truly serious about examining the causes and implications of the tsunami’s huge toll of human life, its leaders should begin to reconsider their own role in bringing relief to the world’s afflicted masses.

In doing so, they might discover that their opposition to the free market has helped keep poor nations in the bondage of poverty, making their citizens more vulnerable to the threat of natural catastrophes. And they might also realize the greater relevance of Jesus’ question, “How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?” (Matthew 7:4 NIV)

Jordan J. Ballor is associate editor with the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion & Liberty in Grand Rapids, Mich.

[CHARLITE]

What was I saying about this, a week ago? Sure enough, some air heads are blaming Bush's "failure" to sign Kyoto for the earthquake and resulting tsunami. It was only a matter of time before all of the libs got into line on this condemnation of our president. They just needed a few days to get their scripts assembled and in order, so that they'd all be singing from the same page. Expect more of this. They'll create their own tsunami of anti-Bush, anti-American SUV drivers criticism using the tragedy as their political weapon.

Did you see Marianne Marsh, the liberal ditz, on Hannity & Colmes on Monday night? She was also on Hannity's talk show yesterday PM. She kept trotting out the rehearsed Dem talking-point phrase, "....Bush missed a golden opportunity to show the world the goodness and compassion of the United States . . . by "not acting more quickly."

Hunh?

[Blzbba]

"Bush missed a golden opportunity to show the world the goodness and compassion of the United States . . . by "not acting more quickly."



Yet, no outrage towards Kofi Annan's 3-day vacation in Jackson Hole, WY after the tsunami hit.

[Salamander]

Since they cause tsunamis, should we start calling them TSUVs?

[mike182d]

..a clear warning on what climate change could to do the world

You mean like the Ice Age we had a couple million years ago?

Stupid dinosaurs with their SUVs and their factories...

[CHARLITE]

Great piece in Tech Central Station on this tom foolery on the part of liberals and hysterical environmentalists. http://www.techcentralstation.com/010505D.html

"So after the extent of the tsunami disaster became known, my biggest reaction was, now maybe global warming activists will be silenced for a time by the absurd disparity between what had just happened, and what they are predicting to happen from global warming. After all, if someone living within 30 feet of sea level has to contend with the possibility of a giant wave suddenly destroying his house and drowning his family, how much will he worry about an inch of sea level rise every ten years due to global warming?

But to my astonishment, some environmentalists reacted to the tsunami by claiming that this is the kind of disaster we will have to face with global warming, even hinting that the tsunami was caused by humans! (I will assume that the readership here does not need to be persuaded that mankind has no influence over magnitude 9.0 earthquakes at the bottom of the ocean.)

[Arkie2]

Just finished reading State of Fear by Michael Crichton. Although it's not one of his better books it takes clear aim at the Environmental Movement and their reliance on fear as a motivator, their complete disregard for the science of climate change and their resemblance to a religion more than anything else.

Recommended reading! Crichton will catch holy hell for the book from the greens but he's right on target.

[xjcsa]

Time for another plug for Michael Crichton's new novel State of Fear. This whole thing is bizarrely reminiscent of the novel, including environmentalist wackos blaming a tsunami on global warming as, essentially, the core of the story. Amazing, and a fantastic read; it savagely tears apart the global warming scare machine.

[CHARLITE]

Just posted here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1314636/posts

[RipSawyer]

>>>Citing global warming as a cause of the earthquake and tsunami is too far-fetched, even for these religious leaders.>>>>>>


I don't support the message in any way but this is possibly an illustration of the need for people to learn to communicate. I doubt that they really intend to say that gloal warming is the cause of the earthquake, they probably are trying to say that global warming could raise sea levels and result in a disaster of the same or greater scale but they certainly don't make this clear. I find myself growing more and more frustrated with the inability of most writers to actually say what they mean but I am probably just a grumpy old man : 0 (

[samtheman]

And in the next Presidential campaign, Hitlery and her co-conspirators will routinely refer to the "Bush Tsunami" as if it were an established fact. And that's the way the NY Slimes and its legions of robotic news-manipulators will report the story. Just an offhand remark or phrase, affixing the blame for a 9-scale earthwake on Bush.

It's all Bush's fault. We've all known that. Always.

[Disambiguator]

Sheesh. These idiots would blame Bush and cite the Kyoto protocol if an asteroid crashed into the earth.

[hermgem]

Perhaps the Reverends Kobia and Noko overlooked a major fact.
Isn't there an awful lot of construction, businesses, skyscrapers, or in short a lot of weight building up on one side of the earth, and nothing but plains on the other.
This uneven weight distribution could very well have led to cracking and shifting of the earth's crust with a Tsunami as the end result.
Both could add this crack theory to their Kyoto submission.

[BushisTheMan]

Didn't Brit Hume read a DUer's comment about it being Bush's fault because of the Shock & Awe of things being blown up in Iraq?

[reaganaut]

"Bush missed a golden opportunity to show the world the goodness and compassion of the United States . . . by "not acting more quickly."


And we acted faster and better than anyone else. Sheesh, there is no pleasing some people (not that I think we should).

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[Ginifer]

"Lack of economic development, infrastructure, and communication systems made Southeast Asia’s experience of the tsunami worse than it had to be."

Well, and who's fault was that....of course, it had to have been Pres. Bush's fault. When are countries finally going to accept responsibility to control/fix their own countries and quit waiting around for others to bail them out?

[backhoe]

As I mentioned to a dissenter on Free Dominion, "From my cold, dead hands..."

...but of course, there is a little more to it than that deliberately provacative statement. ( And the dissenter never explained what he meant about "clear-cutting the forests"-- geez, we haven't done that down here for over a hundred years- we practice husbandry. )

An SUV would normally be close to my absolute last choice for a vehicle- don't have a thing against them, but a truck ( for moving objects ) or a van ( for moving people ) would have served my "lifestyle" more handily than the 'Zook ( my "bad day" moniker for the Amigo- on a good day, she's "Suzi..." ).

A year & a half ago I was making 3 or 4 trips a day out into the country to look after things at my MIL's house and old store- she's very old, very heavy, and slowly dying. The car- my wife's hand-me-down-- was almost at the "honk if parts fall off" stage, and one day, her next door neighbor has, Lo! & behold, the 'Suzi, sitting by his borrow pit, for sale.

I look it over- it's cheap, apparently in fine condition, and just tall enough to lever a heavy old lady into a lot easier than the sedan I was driving. And the neighbor offered me $200 to take the old car off my hands.

Aside from easing up the problems associated with hauling my MIL to the Docs and stores, it's nice to drive something with functioning accessories like the CD player and A/C, the milage is not bad- for a 4,000lb. box-- and it's so un-PC.

You can make a theoretical justification for SUV's down here- we have a lot of "county-improved" roads, which means red clay... like driving on talcum powder when it's dry, and a skid pad when it's wet-- but the real reason so many people have them ( all my in-laws have nothing but SUV's! ) is the dam-fool laws and regulations that made station wagons and big sedans hard to come by.

Most families need to move a fair quantity of people and things around, and these little econo-boxes the nanny-staters want to force everyone else to drive just do not cut it.

I suppose I could steal a phrase from the Left and say "it's all about 'choice,'" but what it's really about is people being free- you are free to buy and drive one, if you want to and can afford it-- on the other hand, no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to operate a planet-busting SUV if you do not want to.

[E.G.C.]

BTT!!!!!!