No one should use a natural tragedy to push their religous agenda

[TZ]

or non-religious agenda as the case goes. Look, I'm an atheist (and a pretty damn opinionated one). But I find the arguments that such an awful tragedy proves that there is no god, as repulsive and tacky as Pat Robertson's comments about why Haiti suffers so much misfortune.
A natural disaster happened. A lot of people died and are dying. Thats all we can say about this. Anything else is pointless and in many cases hurtful. I object to people using this opportunity to try to convert people to their particular religion (I'm sure with all the missions that happen in Haiti that's going to be the case). But I also object to people jumping in here to say "LOOK I"M RIGHT...There can't be a god". Not appropriate at all, IMHO. I'm sure there are many Haitians that are going to lean on religion to get through this. I can't object to anyone taking comfort where they can get it, even if I believe in my heart, its useless and pointless. If it brings them solace and comfort who am I to object?
Lets just try to keep some of that in mind when we discuss things here in R/T.

[stray cat]

1. or political agenda

[Zoeisright]

2. Oh, I think it's just fine to push a political agenda

to remind people that repukes don't give a shit about anybody but themselves, and that the world is better off when progressive liberals are in charge. And to point out that if repukes had their way, government wouldn't be able to help anyone because they want to 'make it small enough to drown it in a bathtub', to quote that repulsive shit Grover Norquist.

[TZ]

4. No its not.

We all bash the republicans for using 9/11 to forward their own political agenda. Its not right for us to do the same on the blood of the victims of the earthquake.
Please. Using human death to "score a point" agaisnt the opponent is totally nauseating.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Which leaves the only ones playing those who don't have the moral

guidance to NOT do so - IOW, the republicans.

The republicans used 9/11 to stir up fear of the 'other', while taking no effective action against those who perpetrated the crime. IOW, they used it politically. It was virtually impossible to NOT treat it politically, because it was, after all, a political act in the first place.

An earthquake, or a flood, or a tsunami is NOT a political act. When the insane right uses these tragedies politically we have every right to point out that they are using it politically. What we, on the left side of the spectrum do, is help the victims; what they do is talk shit about the victims. Pointing out that they are talking shit about the victims is not scoring a point on the blood of the dead.

If we don't respond, it leave them the only ones talking. Letting Robertson and Limbo go unanswered, THAT is totally nauseating.

[TZ]

12. Oh I'm not saying not to criticize people like Robertson and dreck like that

But to start playing the blame game FIRST. And look for reasons to blame this on republicans? Not only is that morally repugnant but its also politically destructive. See the reaction of the general public after the Democrats politicized the death of Paul Wellstone...

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about.

I've seen nobody blame the earthquake on the republicans. I've seen plenty of people 1) criticizing certain republicans for their reactions to the quake, and 2) comparing the response of a non-republican administration to this crisis to the response of the prior republican administration to its crises, which I think is perfectly valid as it has quantifiable results - it is not just 'making points'.

As for the politicizing of Wellstone's funeral (nobody politicized his death) he WAS a political figure - I don't know how you could NOT politicize it. And it was not the public that was bitching about it - it was the RW pundits.

[TZ]

15. and then the Democrats lost that seat BIG TIME

It was pretty evident that the whole politicization of his funeral pissed off voters in what had been a democratic stronghold.

As for politicizing it...I already found an idiot in GD blaming the earthquake on both global warming AND BUSH. :puke:

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. It was not the speakers at the funeral that politicized it - it was the

pundits on the right. He was a liberal politician, so those who spoke at the funeral spoke of his liberal politics. When my dad died, everyone who spoke at his funeral talked about his music because he was a musician. What else WOULD they talk about?

[ChadwickHenryWard]

26. Read Al Franken's story of Wellstone's funeral.

Peggy Noonan was the one to politicize it. Wellstone's friends talking, legitimately, about his support for unions and the other issues that he had dedicated his life to is not a politicization. It was the Republicans defining the terms of the debate (again) that lost the Democrats the seat. The GOP politicized it, not Wellstone's friends.

[rocktivity]

3. Last night, Keith took time out from Countdown's Haiti coverage

for some "special comments" about Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh's responses.

x(
rocktivity

[TZ]

5. I saw that.

It was excellently done.

[Deep13]

14. I got the feeling that he was at a loss for words...

...having used up his superlatives on the previous most horrible thing he heard them say.

[Meshuga]

6. I agree with everything you said here

And with all your responses so far. As usual: :yourock:

K&R!!!

[Jim__]

8. I absolutely agree - n/t

[darkstar3]

9. "Shit, piss, cunt, fuck, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits"

Or, to put it another way, telling people what they can and cannot talk about at any given time is more than just counterproductive: It sets up a social taboo that gives more power and visibility to those who break it.

[TZ]

11. There's censorship

and then there is being sensitive to the feelings of others. Is it so wrong to condemn crass, tasteless and insensitive behavior? It also is a poor reflection on atheists when they say this crap as well.

[darkstar3]

17. Isn't "vulgarity" considered

crass, tasteless, and insensitive to some? It seems you agree with me on the censorship idea, but what I'm trying to say is that I don't really see a difference here.

[Meshuga]

20. I think there is a distinct difference

It's one thing to say one of George Carlin's "seven words" in its context. I'm sure some people get offended while others do not. But it is another to conveniently use the suffering of others to push an agenda.

It is one thing to be insensitive to someone's ear as far as what he/she finds to be vulgar (or be "insensitive" enough to say something that will offend the beliefs of a religious person) but it is another to be insensitive when it comes to the suffering of others.

The use of the situation to push an agenda sends a message that the tragedy is an opportunity for the person. I would rather hear my 7-year-old saying something vulgar than being insensitive to the despair of others since, to me, the two are completely different. In fact, I would honestly be extremely worried if the latter was the case.

[darkstar3]

21. The real question is,

when does discussing a tragedy cease to be opportunistic and become "normal, everyday debate"? (Not your quote, just a turn of phrase.)

Let's take 9/11 as an example (I know, I know...): When it first happened, and even shortly thereafter, anyone who used the tragedy as an opportunity to speak about terrorism, safety, Islam, or any number of other topics was labeled an insensitive prick. It's more than 8 years later, and still people use 9/11 as, for lack of a better word, a "teachable moment." Are they all insensitive pricks? Are they all tools?

What about the genocide in Darfur? Many on our side of the isle used that tragedy as a "teachable moment" to try and show others that when we don't intercede on behalf of the downtrodden, sometimes those downtrodden can become the dead. That was, by definition, opportunistic. Were they pricks?

Like or not, tragedy happens everyday somewhere in this world, and if we cannot learn from these tragedies, then we are truly lost as a species. Sometimes, the lessons offered are bitter and harsh, teaching us nothing more than that the world is a cold hard place, but that's no reason to shoot the messenger.

And to get back to the point that I was originally trying to make, social taboos on speech help no one. I'm not talking about censorship, though that topic can be a part of social speech taboos, but rather about more "unwritten rules". An example would be "don't speak ill of the dead." Sure, it may be tasteless to metaphorically or even physically spit on someone's grave, but the fact that we have turned it into such a social taboo has given it more power. It means that when people actually DO speak ill of the dead, those statements will be long remembered and widely spread. The same concept applies here. Applying a social taboo to the idea of using a tragedy as an example of why things should be changed only makes it possible for the more dickish among us to make more powerful, more lasting points with the populace.

Clear as mud?

[mrbarber]

10. Well said TZ.

Well said indeed.

[Silent3]

18. I understand where you're coming from, but...

...it's not like posting opinions in a public forum is the same as making a scene at someone's funeral.

Intentional or not, religious minded people end up invoking religion, God, and prayer in times of tragedy, when it can often have the greatest impact on people. If atheists politely withdraw completely on these occasions, they help support the mystique of religion by their silence -- solemn moments are religious moments is the unchallenged message.

[trotsky]

28. "solemn moments are religious moments is the unchallenged message"

Great point.

[gcomeau]

19. Fine, don;t use it to "push an agenda".

Now differentiate between "pushing an agenda" and simply accepting that what happened constitutes evidence of how the world works and dealing with that evidence isn;t some kind of moral offense just because some people don't like hearing the implications.

Want to say the same thing to people who use Katrina as an example to criticise how FEMA was organized and led? Didn't think so. And dealing with reality is anything but "pointless" and it is completely appropriate.

[TZ]

23. No.

But it was okay for fundies to say that New Orleans got what it deserved because of sin of homosexuality, then?
There's a difference between critiquing behavior and politicizing death and destruction...Seriously to me there is little difference between Pat Robertson blaming this on a pact with the devil...and the loud atheist demand to know where is your god now, huh? Neither is helpful or proves anything. All both do is fuel hatred and resentment.

[gcomeau]

25. No, it wasn't ok.

But it wasn't "not ok" because they were talking about Katrina. It was "not ok" because it was mindnumbingly stupid. Unless a single one of those morons made the argument that the hurricane only killed homosexual people or people who somehow cosmically "aided and abetted" them when it hit the city? Did the tidal surge magically flow AROUND churches? Did homophobes get teleported out of the city by God to make sure people who were behaving properly weren't caught up in the divine punishment? Was there ANY FUCKING EVIDENCE AT ALL that reality matched what these brain dead jackasses were claiming happened?

No. THAT'S what made it a stupid and offensive thing to say. Because the ONLY motivation for the statement was to co-opt the tragedy to spread bigotry without cause or rational support.

There is a world of difference between that and pointing out a simple fucking fact some people happen to not like hearing.

[laconicsax]

22. Yeah!

If only those shrill militant atheists wouldn't voice their opinions push their agenda.

:eyes:

[TZ]

24. I'm sorry but to get in the face of grieving people

Is rude and insensitive and one of the reasons for many years, I avoided calling myself an atheist. One can be an atheist without being an insulting jackass, but behavior like this makes it hard for people to see that.
ZOMG--Religious people have feelings too!!! :eyes:

[Goblinmonger]

27. Far, far, FAR too many people

call atheists rude just for voicing our opinion.

Why would it be OK for someone to say "God Bless You" (because, hey, they just mean well, and they are just trying to be nice) but it is rude and obnoxious to say "Thank you but there is not god."

[laconicsax]

29. Is it rude fo theists to ask the same questions?

I'm just trying to understand your reasoning.

Is it rude and insensitive for a theist to ask 'how could God let this happen' in the wake of a tragedy?
Is it rude and insensitive for a theist to state 'I don't understand how a loving God could allow such devestation' when seeing a catastrophe in which 80% or so of the population is Christian?
Is it rude and insensitive for someone, in their grief, to ask why God took some but not others and what purpose is in their suffering?

[rd_kent]

30. .