No doubt the atrocity committed at Virginia Tech today will haunt many people, those both directly involved and those of us on the periphery, for quite some time. The major thing we should not do is begin huddling in circles and praying, for if a supposedly "loving" and "benevolent" god could reap such calamity on such pious people, Virginia is deep in the Bible-belt, then indeed he either doesn't exist or those certain of his "magnificence" have a few canons of his existence devastatingly wrong.
We shouldn't be asking (a) god "what went wrong," or "why my loved one," nor should we take the dastardly step in assuming religion to even hold some kind of answer or explanation. On the other hand, we should be asking ourselves what motivated this person to this action and if these particularly egregious circumstances could have been prevented. Indeed, I feel a personal sadness and anger that because this action took place in the most pious of places that those most concerned won't be able to move past the "leave it up to god," "he's/she's in a better place now" stage to actually find out what happened, learn from it, and attempt to prevent such situations from occurring again. Chances are likely that we'll find out the young man responsible was emotionally disturbed or had a brewing history of tumultuous relationships. No matter, retribution, not rehabilitation, the priests proclaim, as they push their vile and hate onto vote-seeking conservatives and timid, scared of the religious-zealot liberal, with an air of contemptuous arrogance; retribution is how the god-blessed nation of America deals with its sinners; rehabilitation is for the "liberals, the feminists, and most damningly, most exceedingly, the most evil group of people who ever lived, those responsible for 9-11, Hurricane Katrina, and now Virginia Tech, the homosexuals."
But so goes American society, steeped in the Holiest of emotional ignorance, lives cut short and torn viciously apart; "god has a plan," "leave it up to god," "god will take care of things."
Yes, too bad god didn't take care of things before they became things that needed taking care of. God dropped the ball, again. Anyone out there credulously nescient enough to come to his indefensible defense?
3 comments:
I think you're focusing a pretty extreme view of how religious (christian) people react to situations such as this. I've never been to the so called 'bible belt' myself for any longer than the time it takes to pass through, but I have never heard a priest say that retaliation is a maxim to live by. Also, I would agree that people who say "leave it up to God" or "God has a plan" are making excuses for things that happen and neglect taking the responsibility or the initiative to make things happen or prevent things such as the shooting at Va Tech from happening. You can say "God has a plan" all you want, but if you don't do anything then how can you ever hope to live up to it? Anyway, my point is, not all Christians (namely me) think that retaliation is a proper reaction, and that depending on God to make things happen in life is a stupid way to live. In fact, if I'm not mistaken Jesus taught that you should love your enemies, so it would seem retaliation is a sin even if it is seemingly justified.
Alex,
Interesting, I thought I was presenting the typical “let’s huddle together and pray to our god” mentality of the Christian. You claim that you’ve never been to the Bible-belt except when “pass[ing] through”; Alex, baby, darling, we’re knee-deep in the Bible-belt, all you need to do is walk outside, or stay inside, as you probably own a Bible, and take a look around. Granted there’s a continuum of lunacy to which Bible-beltees rest, with Louisianans, Texans, and Virginians occupying the more eccentric level, but it’s hardly a stretch to claim that the Midwest isn’t racing to catch up in theocratic tendencies.
I would also agree that it’s the rare priest I’ve heard espouse the doctrine of “retaliation,” but it’s not retaliation to which my diatribe focused, rather, it is “retribution” of which I discuss. Now, sometimes one can synonymously refer to “retribution,” equivocally, as “retaliation,” this was not my intention, hence the use of different words. “Retaliation,” in the American Heritage Dictionary’s sense, refers to the “return [of] like for like, especially evil for evil” and “[t]o pay back (an injury) in kind,” while retribution, in the same dictionary’s sense, refers to “[s]omething given or demanded in repayment, especially punishment” along with the theological definition of a “[p]unishment or reward distributed in a future life based on performance in this one.” In light of those findings, my “essay” should make rather perfect sense, for it is the Holy parasite, to drop a little of our friend Nietzsche, whom my writing critiques.
I’m not sure how much deference we should give (a) Jesus for the basis of the doctrine of non-violence/“love your enemies” anyway when he was the, as Dawkins wrote, incarnate “jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully” par excellence. Of course, that’s only if we accept the absurdity of the Trinity, a marvelous piece of sophistic “reasoning,” and hold the Christian responsible for the Old Testament god they adopted and gave a makeover to; indeed, making him a father, son, and a ghost(!). But I guess once you start discussing things that aren’t definable, that are so absurd we dare not mention them in learned circles, that defy even a child’s common sense, that it’s only a few steps more until we claim that these impossibilities are where we derive our moral sense.
I appreciate the comment.
Seems to be a sleight against Christians there at the end, no offense taken though as I'm sure it wasn't intended, but anyway.
The confusion between retribution and retaliation arose out of the context in which it was used. You said "retribution...the priests proclaim, as they push their vile and hate..." leading me to believe you meant in some sense a form of retaliation or retribution in the sense that the ones who are at fault receive the same fate or equal suffering. Don't that to mean that I side with those people, I think they are just as ignorant as you do, thinking that there is someone or group who must "pay" whatever that may mean for causing suffering in the world. Granted there are readily apparent causes of suffering which could easily be remedied by people simply giving a fuck, but that's a bit off topic and perhaps something for another post.
Post a Comment