Haitian Earthquake Caused By Angry Earth, Climate Change

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='16 January 2010 - 09:32 AM' timestamp='1263652363' post='2038431']
... I prefer to not attach an agenda to a natural occurance and just blame earthquakes on plate tectonics, but hey, that's just me. ...[/quote]

Here here!!!

These people that believe that it's a just world, and people only get what they "deserve" really struggle when cra'ap just happenes. But you don't have to reach to far to make sense of things. Do you hear me Danny Glover? Pat Robertson? * shakes his fist* It's called science. You should look it up sometime.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' date='16 January 2010 - 11:05 AM' timestamp='1263657946' post='2038460']
Oh whatever. In that case, the digging of more graves for those killed by the earthquake will cause more death, leading to more graves, leading to more earthquakes. If the geologists that think this are right ... Mother Earth is pretty dumb.
[/quote]

I assume he was joking. As it is, most Haitian graveyards are above ground.


~Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='16 January 2010 - 11:09 AM' timestamp='1263658152' post='2038462']
Your rejection of the legitimacy of a just State, such as Free Republics is also a reject of the authority of God. But you can't see that... I understand.
[/quote]

I don't reject the legitimacy of any just State. I've just never seen one. I've never seen a unicorn, either.

You still haven't given me the Church's magisterial definition of a State, Knight. (This "State" is an entity without any apparent Church definition. An undefined entity which you indirectly say we must acknowledge in order to be saved, because any other understanding of this non-existent definition is "heresy!")

Knight, a lack of a definition really doesn't reflect well on your argument. You might as well say I'm "bound to accept the Kornstadt Transistor as legitimate."

Now, no more document dumping "responses," please, unless you've found a succinct magisterial definition of "the State." I'm quite tired of reading your vague copy-and-paste documents that could be used to uphold [i]anything[/i].

The Catholic Church (to which we both claim adherence) does not say that anyone has to approve or embrace any particular type of governing system. It only says we have to believe that order in society is to be maintained by people with the authority to do so. I'm there. "Authority" does not equal "the right to aggress."

If a "State" can be defined as a system whereby order is maintained in society, I'll take one that operates without the injustice of aggression. (Which is redundant. Anything that uses aggression is, by definition, not [i]maintaining[/i] order, but creating [i]disorder.[/i]) The good end of order does not justify the evil means of aggression.

But "a system whereby order is maintained in society" is not a "State" in the modern understanding of the word. It could be the Church's understanding, however.

~Sternhauser

Edited January 16, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Era Might]

It is unfortunate for Haiti that this earthquake will force them to accept the "charity" of foreign states, particularly the United States. I heard Bill O'Reilly say on his show the other night that the US government should take control of Haiti if that's necessary for properly administering aid. That's just the problem with American do-goodism throughout history. As the saying goes, the path to hell is paved with good intentions. What price will Haiti have to pay for the United State's assistance?

Part of the problem is that the United States has formed this ideal of modernization: superhighways, private cars to drive on the superhighways, skyscrapers, hospitals, schools. Countries like Haiti seek after this "modernization," and they aren't able to attain it. But they try, and in the process they get mired in modernized poverty. For example, institutionalized schooling claims to offer education to everyone, but it really creates a new aristocracy based on how many years of institutionalized schooling you have received. Those who have not passed through enough institutionalized schooling are left on the margins of society; so society builds more schools to reach those people, and it only worsens the problem, because it further entrenches the system of institutionalized schooling, and it condemns to poverty those who do not receive the certification of an institution. Countries like Haiti repeat such errors of the United States, because institutionalization is part of the ideal of "modernization."

The American creation of the private car is seen as part of American capitalistic genius. But it's really part of the trap of modernization that other countries fall into. Americans create "needs" that aren't really needs. We built highways, and by building highways, we created a "need" for private cars, which in turn created the lucrative business of private cars. Countries like Haiti, in order to be "modernized," have to follow this error of American consumerism. They have to create "needs" for things that they don't really need, and by creating the need, you create the market for the product, and thereby generate wealth. But that leads you to a culture of endless consumerism which, as we see in the United States, is killing people's souls.

[Ed Normile]

Era, the highways were actually built to drive commerce and enable security in this country, we have had roads since the settlers beat paths out west to grab land, the difference with the highway system is the ability to move goods safely, limiting the traffic in rural areas, and be able to provide assistance either disaster or military quickly and more efficiently. the safety the highways has brought to small town america is a blessing, large trucks rolling through little towns create the occasion for serious accidents and congestion. Of course the advent of the automobile has driven the country economically, why do you think china is now the largest auto producing country in the world, the freedom the auto provides for the average person enables them to expand their horizons. If your daily commute to work was on a bicycle it would be hard to hold down a job outside your community.

If Haiti had benefitted from modernization I would wager the death toll from this earthquake would be greatly diminished, with a vibrant economy and machines they could have helped themselves more during the initial event and the cleanup and rescue would be far easier. The modernization of their buildings would have greatly reduced the destruction and collapse of their antiquated unstable buildings which failed and caused so much of the death and burials of the population.

ed

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='16 January 2010 - 12:51 PM' timestamp='1263664275' post='2038532']
Era, the highways were actually built to drive commerce and enable security in this country, we have had roads since the settlers beat paths out west to grab land, the difference with the highway system is the ability to move goods safely, limiting the traffic in rural areas, and be able to provide assistance either disaster or military quickly and more efficiently. the safety the highways has brought to small town america is a blessing, large trucks rolling through little towns create the occasion for serious accidents and congestion. Of course the advent of the automobile has driven the country economically, why do you think china is now the largest auto producing country in the world, the freedom the auto provides for the average person enables them to expand their horizons. If your daily commute to work was on a bicycle it would be hard to hold down a job outside your community.

If Haiti had benefitted from modernization I would wager the death toll from this earthquake would be greatly diminished, with a vibrant economy and machines they could have helped themselves more during the initial event and the cleanup and rescue would be far easier. The modernization of their buildings would have greatly reduced the destruction and collapse of their antiquated unstable buildings which failed and caused so much of the death and burials of the population.

ed
[/quote]

Another thought , back when commerce was run by those who could afford a horse or camel as a tool for transportation, I would assume those who were afoot suffered in many ways too.

ed

[Era Might]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='16 January 2010 - 12:51 PM' timestamp='1263664275' post='2038532']
Era, the highways were actually built to drive commerce and enable security in this country, we have had roads since the settlers beat paths out west to grab land, the difference with the highway system is the ability to move goods safely, limiting the traffic in rural areas, and be able to provide assistance either disaster or military quickly and more efficiently.[/quote]
No doubt, all that was part of the motivation in building the highways. But my point is that building highways created a supposed "need" for private cars, even though cars are not really a "need" for human existence. The private car is not just about transportation, it is also about speed and luxury. Once we had highways, then there was suddenly a "need" for the private car, a "need" which is now part of our culture of endless consumerism.

My point was not so much about the United States, but about countries like Haiti trying to imitate the United States. The "first world" (I deliberately use quotation marks) seeks to "develop" the "third world" (again, I deliberately use quotation marks) by creating things like highways. But the "third world" doesn't have the personal wealth that makes possible our culture of endless consumerism, so there is not the same wealth generated by something like the private car industry. But the "third world" country is convinced that it needs things like highways (and schools, hospitals, etc.) to become "modernized," so rather than creating transportation systems that are appropriate to their country, they want a transportation system like the United States has, a system which requires a desire for private cars which provide speed and luxury. In other words, "development" involves building "modernized" infrastructure modeled after the infrastructure of the "first world." In the process, however, we create a form of poverty that is a consequence of the "modernization" of the "third world," and we erode the culture of independent subsistence that existed in these countries (and in our own country) before "modernization."

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='16 January 2010 - 11:31 AM' timestamp='1263659479' post='2038476']
I assume he was joking. As it is, most Haitian graveyards are above ground.


~Sternhauser
[/quote]

that's a good point.

[add]

george bush caused it, and global warming and bad hair days and and and and...

[Selah]

It was an EARTHQUAKE people. God didn't do it, Gaea doesn't have emotions (which means she doesn't care if she has a cute, happy ecosystem or if she's gaseous or unihabitable like Jupiter), okay? It was a natural disaster. Help out. Don't blame. Blame games do nothing.

(this is a general rant, by the way, and not directed at anyone in particular...well, maybe Pat Robertson and this bozo, but still...)

Edited January 16, 2010 by Selah

[Ash Wednesday]

Era, I always find your posts insightful but I'm having a hard time understanding your last ones. Maybe Haiti doesn't need to subscribe to consumerism, and I do agree that there are flaws in foreign aid. But that many people dying in a 7.0 quake is unacceptable. And at this point there was such a lack of preparedness that their port infrastructure can't even accept private aid let alone foreign aid. What kind of preparedness and self-sufficiency do you propose? (And don't take this as an attack or a challenge, I'm just genuinely trying to understand it is all)

Edited January 16, 2010 by Ash Wednesday

[Era Might]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='16 January 2010 - 01:41 PM' timestamp='1263667296' post='2038575']
Era, I always find your posts insightful but I'm having a hard time understanding your last ones. Maybe Haiti doesn't need to subscribe to consumerism, but that many people dying in a 7.0 quake is unacceptable. And at this point there was such a lack of preparedness that their port infrastructure can't even accept private aid let alone foreign aid. What kind of preparedness and self-sufficiency do you propose? (And don't take this as an attack or a challenge, I'm just genuinely trying to understand it is all)
[/quote]
Sorry, my posts were not meant to address the earthquake. I was just responding to the tangent discussion between Sternhauser and KOC, on the socio-economic situation of Haiti. I'm just concerned about the long-term social consequences that Haiti is going to have to deal with after the aid it receives from foreign nations. It's not like Haiti is in any position to refuse the aid, which unfortunately means that much of their fate is in in the hands of so-called "first world" nations, nations which have a philosophy of "development" that historically has had a number of negative effects.

[Ed Normile]

Stern you wrote "You still haven't given me the Church's magisterial definition of a State, Knight. (This "State" is an entity without any apparent Church definition. An undefined entity which you indirectly say we must acknowledge in order to be saved, because any other understanding of this non-existent definition is "heresy!")"

The Catechism has much about the definition of state, [color="#ff0000"]C.C.C[/color] 1897 through 1917 deals with the absolute need for a governing authority to work for the good of the people and the need for the people to recognize that authority.

For example [color="#ff0000"]C.C.C [/color]1899 The authority required by the moral order derives from God; "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement" footnote added ROM 13:1-2; cf. 1 PET 2:13-17
C.C.C 1900 The duty of obedience requires all to give due honor to authority and to treat those who are charged exercise it with respect, and, insofar as it is deserved, with gratitude and good-will.
Its exhaustive, yet the gist of the whole section Titled Article 2 Participation In Social Life deals with the absolute need for peoples to both respect and recognize authority and the need for proper establishment and rule of a state to administer to the needs of society.

ed

Edited January 16, 2010 by Ed Normile

[Ed Normile]

Oh yeah my post about the geoligist was purely whimsical.

ed

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='16 January 2010 - 02:16 PM' timestamp='1263669381' post='2038617']
Stern you wrote "You still haven't given me the Church's magisterial definition of a State, Knight. (This "State" is an entity without any apparent Church definition. An undefined entity which you indirectly say we must acknowledge in order to be saved, because any other understanding of this non-existent definition is "heresy!")"

The Catechism has much about the definition of state, [color="#ff0000"]C.C.C[/color] 1897 through 1917 deals with the absolute need for a governing authority to work for the good of the people and the need for the people to recognize that authority.

For example [color="#ff0000"]C.C.C [/color]1899 The authority required by the moral order derives from God; "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement" footnote added ROM 13:1-2; cf. 1 PET 2:13-17
C.C.C 1900 The duty of obedience requires all to give due honor to authority and to treat those who are charged exercise it with respect, and, insofar as it is deserved, with gratitude and good-will.
Its exhaustive, yet the gist of the whole section Titled Article 2 Participation In Social Life deals with the absolute need for peoples to both respect and recognize authority and the need for proper establishment and rule of a state to administer to the needs of society.

ed
[/quote]

A definition, Ed. A concise definition. It's [i]not[/i] [i]there[/i]. It talks a lot about what the "State" has the right to do, it talks about authority, and powers. But it does not define what the [i]"State" [/i]actually[i] is. [/i]Is it an institution? Is it a system? Is it an environment? Is it a person? A group of people? All of the above? There was no definition.[i] [/i]And certainly nothing that would preclude the voluntaryist understanding of an ordered society [i]without [/i]a perceived "right"[i] [/i]to[i] [/i]aggression[i] [/i]on the part of a select few.


It did not say "those that exist" in the original Greek. It said "whatever powers [i]might [/i]be." It is an important distinction. God institutes whatever powers might be as He institutes [i]any[/i] punishment for sin: either directly or indirectly. To say that God instituted something is not to say that it is a good thing, or that He approves of it. He instituted the plague of locusts that consumed the livelihood of the people, due to their sins. Were the plague and the ensuing suffering of the people "good things" in and of themselves? Repentance is a good thing, clearly, but should we not try to [i]avoid[/i] plagues, by not sinning in the first place?

God did not [i]will[/i] for the Hebrews to have a king, in 1 Samuel 8. But He let them. He instituted the king [i]indirectly, [/i]by allowing the people to be stupid. But only after giving them a grave lesson on what terrestrial rulers are all about. Read the chapter. It's an eye-opener.

Now, if God directly instituted only the [i]good[/i] aspect of "whatever power might be" (after all, under Hitler, at least the trains ran on time), I'd agree with that. But if you're saying that God directly willed Hitler into power, and Hitler had the God given-moral right to do what he did, then it's nonsense. Authority does not turn an evil, namely, aggression, (whether it takes the form of slavery/conscription, robbery, or assault) into a moral good. It would be a contradiction of what the word means.

So what is an "authority?" Does it mean "anyone who happens to have the most coercive power?" Not to be flippant, but truly, does God suddenly tap someone on the shoulder and say, "You have authority, and that means that you can do things that would be immoral for any others to do?" No. Authority is either divinely given, or [i]wholly voluntarily[/i] given. Examples of the former would include authority (the moral power of command) as possessed by priests over the faithful, or by parents over their children. However, [i]neither [/i]set of people may use [i]aggression[/i] against [i]anyone[/i]. An example of wholly voluntary authority would be marriage, the first and most natural institution. The husband has authority over the wife, and this authority is [i]voluntarily given[/i] by the wife. If the husband got drunk and beat her up, she would not be required to "submit" to it, as that is not a part of what it means to have [i]authority,[/i] it is a part merely of [i]power.[/i] We are called to submit to [i]authority. No one has the authority to aggress against anyone.[/i] The aggression inflicted by States (the real definition) would not have existed without the fall. That is [i]not[/i] to say that [i]because[/i] we are fallen, we should embrace the State and its aggression which, by its nature [i]as[/i] a State, it inflicts. There would have been authority, order, and society before the fall, but there would have been no aggression. [b]Aggression is an evil, and is therefore not a licit remedy to any problem, either as an end or a means. [/b] And as always, "aggression" is [i]not[/i] a synonym for "violence."
[i]
[/i]Another example: when a man and a woman get married, they confer upon each other, ultimately, through God, the authority, or moral right, over the use of their bodies for the purposes of marriage. Without voluntarily conferring this authority, this [i]moral[/i] power, the sexual act would be fornication at best. Without wholly voluntary consent, it's called [i]rape[/i].

As a wise man once said, "So get out there and vote. Because it's not rape if you give your consent."

~Sternhauser

Edited January 16, 2010 by Sternhauser