The problem with religion.
As a news columnist, I naturally wanted to cover the devastating Kashmir earthquake, which has dominated headlines since it struck two Saturday’s ago, but I couldn’t think of a particular angle to take. Especially as the world media has been covering the disaster so efficiently.
So I Googled “natural disasters” for inspiration. Unexpectedly, I came across various evangelical websites hailing hurricane Katrina as a punishment from God. Apparently, God has something against homosexuals (New Orleans is the home of the “Gay Mardi Gras”). I wasn’t particularly worried at the time; the Internet is full of transient rubbish. But then, I decided to look at their poll: “Do you think Hurricane Katrina could be God's way of punishing New Orleans for sin?” I clicked “no”, assuming I would conform with the majority. I was slightly wrong. 93% said yes. 93%! Whilst Internet polls aren’t exactly statistically representative, that’s still an awful lot of stupidity.
That gave me the fuel I needed. I Googled further and found all sorts of theological trash claiming Katrina was the “fist of God” (yes, that does sound seedy), the Kashmir earthquake was Pakistan’s punishment for starting Ramadan two days late and the “increasing frequency” of earthquakes is a sign of judgement day. I even found one forum discussing how the tsunami hit the beaches of South Asia because women were prancing around in bikinis. And, of course, God hates naked people. And frolicking. He really hates frolicking.
Is it me, or is this religious mass hysteria somewhat new? Hurricanes, volcanoes, tsunamis and earthquakes have always been an integral part of Earth’s history, so why the sudden “cause and effect” theories?
Whilst I would imagine that it’s naughty to question the nature of God (flashback to my RE lessons where my teacher didn’t believe in dinosaurs and thought God put the fossils there for some unknown, divine purpose), I think it’s important to think about what people perceive God to be. A good God wouldn’t punish the innocent majority for the sins of a handful of people. A decent God probably wouldn’t kill people just for being gay, wearing a bikini or starting a fast a bit late, either. A temperamental, vengeful God probably would. Sounds more like devil-work to me.
The “God’s will” argument falls at the human hurdle. If natural disasters are God’s will, then our sins also God’s will, meaning God is sinful. A bit pointless really. Of course, the loophole here is “free will”. Free will means that God doesn't interfere in our acts. So then, why should God interfere in acts of nature, a nature that we are but a part of?
This all ends up in a circular argument, because people spend too much time trying to understand the mind of God; an intrinsic problem with religion. Humans imagine God is logical; a comfortable, less abstract belief. So, for every action (disaster) there is a cause (sin). This leads people into all sorts of moral equations, where they try and balance out the universe by either blaming God (Abrahamic religions) or karma (Eastern religions). They forget that human logic doesn’t apply to God, and they also fail to realise that they come across as insensitive jerks.
Maybe (and this is a really crazy thought), there is no moral equation at all. Maybe, it really was as simple as two tectonic plates rubbing together. The same forces that created this planet, which is so habitable, happened to be the same forces that killed thousands of people.
I find it shameful, given the massive destruction, loss of innocent life, and ongoing hardships suffered by the hundreds of thousands of victims of natural disasters, that any self-appointed spokesperson for God would have the nerve to suggest that they deserved their fate. By what logic, and by what right, does any human being arbitrarily declare that any natural disaster was a punishment pushed upon sinners by God?