"Surely God is mad at America." Ray Nagin

[Disturbed]

Poll question: "Surely God is mad at America." Ray Nagin

Mayor Nagin made this statement. I believe it is absurd to believe that a God would cause any natural disasters to punish any country's people. I am curious as to how many people actually believe that God causes natural disasters as punishment.

[MrModerate]

1. This Nagin guy . . . aieeeyah!

Don't need nonsense like this. Things are tough enough.

[Journeyman]

2. Abraham Lincoln believed God sent the Civil War. . .

to punish both North and South for the sin of human slavery.

Just saying. . .

[funflower]

12. Got some authority for that?

It was my understanding that Lincoln was not much of an orthodox religious type, although he was brought up by Calvinist parents who undoubtedly would have believed such a thing.

[Journeyman]

14. Mr Lincoln's Second Inaugural (for a start). . .

<snip>

If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

<snip>


http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html


When you read Mr Lincoln's work, and study his life in depth, you'll find he's far too complicated a man to be pigeonholed within any set formula.

[funflower]

37. Wow. He's definitely got the Calvinist thing down pat.

I wonder how much of it he really believed...

For some reason, I can't get your link to work.

[Journeyman]

42. LOL. Words meant something to Mr Lincoln. . .

unlike the gibbon in office today, Mr Lincoln always said what he meant and meant what he said. His every public utterance from his election to his death was carefully considered and, in the case of his prepared speeches, carefully crafted for a degree of exactitude in meaning wholly alien to Mr Bush. Said Mr Lincoln at the time he announced the forthcoming Emancipation Proclamation: "I may walk slowly but I never walk back."

[Journeyman]

43. Do a Google search for Lincoln/Second Inaugural. . .

you'll find it posted to many sites across the web.

[ClintonTyree]

3. That wouldn't be any kind of god I'd want to believe in.......

one that arbitrarily dishes out death at his whim killing saint and sinner alike. Nope!

[NoAmericanTaliban]

4. All part of the big design..

Nature has a way of taking care of things on her own....as we dump on her she dumps back on us. Next up is a killer flu or some other virus.

[kwassa]

5. Nagin probably did not literally mean it. Just an expression.

[skooooo]

6. Maybe he shouldn't have repeated it about 4 times then..

Honestly - is it that hard to keep these views to yourself if you're a public official. Very, very stupid comments by someone I otherwise respect(ed).

[trotsky]

7. Full quote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060116/ap_on_re_us/katrina_nagin

"Surely God is mad at America. He sent us hurricane after hurricane after hurricane, and it's destroyed and put stress on this country," Nagin, who is black, said as he and other city leaders marked Martin Luther King Day. "Surely he doesn't approve of us being in Iraq under false pretenses. But surely he is upset at black America also. We're not taking care of ourselves."

Doesn't sound like an expression to me.

[kwassa]

15. Not really a full quote

Because it is not in the context of the larger speech. This snippet is downright bizarre, and makes very little sense. It jumps to three different subjects in five sentences.

Making much out of this is ridiculous.

[trotsky]

16. Seems pretty clear to me.

There is no context that could help those sentences look like anything other than what they are: raw religious insanity.

[kwassa]

17. Neither religious or insane, but a poetic device.

I still think he is using God in more a metaphorical rather than literal sense, more of a cultural thing rather than representitive of any dogmatic belief.

it sounds like a tired stressed out man who was not thinking too clearly.

on edit:

here is the transcript of Nagin's entire speech.

His talk is a riff on an imaginary conversation with Martin Luther King, on the occasion of his birthday. It is a literary device, really.

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/news/t-p/stories/011706_nagin_transcript.html

short quote:

Now, I'm supposed to give some remarks this morning and talk about the great Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. You know when I woke up early this morning, and I was reflecting upon what I could say that could be meaningful for this grand occasion. And then I decided to talk directly to Dr. King.

Now you might think that's one Katrina post-stress disorder. But I was talking to him and I just wanted to know what would he think if he looked down today at this celebration. What would he think about Katrina? What would he think about all the people who were stuck in the Superdome and Convention Center and we couldn't get the state and the federal government to come do something about it? And he said, "I wouldn't like that."

(rest of speech at this link)

[trotsky]

18. As I noted,

that context does nothing to dispel the lunacy of Nagin's remarks.

In fact, the context pretty clearly shows that when it comes to the worst stuff, he's no longer having his "literary device" discussion with a deceased person, but speaking on his own, claiming that God sent hurricanes to punish New Orleans for the sins of a nation (going to war with Iraq) and sins of black people.

You're really, REALLY reaching with this one, kwassa. Put the equivalent remarks coming out of Pat Robertson's mouth and think about whether you'd be defending him, too.

[kwassa]

22. It's a cultural thing, and I don't think you get it.

You choose to interpret his remarks literally. That's fine. I'm pretty sure his intended audience doesn't. It's a black church thing, you don't understand. It's also a southern thing.

Comparing it to Robertson's fundamentalism is completely off-base.

[trotsky]

23. I'm not alone in my disappointment.

In fact, many in his "intended audience" complained about his remarks too.

[greyl]

24. Yup, if he would have said Katrina was because of karma,

I would think it was just as stupid.

[carl_pwccaman]

47. Because such ideas are stupid...

IF the assumption is that such a god or karma is entirely good or the patron of the country or out to get us to step in line or be tortured...

Isn't it all about sadistic gameplaying, these ideas about such gods or phenomenon (karma)?

And re: the politians or media folkes to say those kinds of things (Fallwell, the mayor), isn't it simply rhetoric? I.e., an evil misuse of language/marketing/manipulation?

[grumpy old fart]

8. From what I've seen, the guy is an intellectual lightweight....

He's in way over his head. IMHO

[cynatnite]

9. Nagin jumped the shark with that one...

Whether it's Falwell, Robertson or Nagin who says it...they're all effing nuts, IMO.

[roguevalley]

10. I'm going to cut him some slack on this. He's been there everyday

in a place where hardened cops committed suicide. he's entitled to a glitch now and then. Imagine what federal bullshit he is holding at bay with strength of will?

[PaganPreacher]

13. A "glitch"?

The man just parroted Pat Robertson AND Phred Phelps. He also expressed unexcusable racism with his "chocolate city" comment (ask yourself how it would sound if the white mayor of Rapid City said, "We are the vanilla city"- same thing).

It's a hell of a lot more than a glitch.

Also, if you think Ray Nagen has been in New Orleans every day, you should ask yourself why he bought a house in Dallas and moved into it. He is an incompetent, part-time mayor who is in way over his head. He should be replaced with a hard-working, honest, level-headed mayor.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[Zebedeo]

11. I voted yes, but

that does not mean I necessarily believe that Katrina was sent by God punish anyone. It may have been, and it may not.

But the Bible states without any ambiguity that God does indeed "cause natural disasters as punishment." So, as a Bible believer, I voted yes.

[grumpy old fart]

20. You may be possessed, you may not. But since the Bible says people can be

.....I vote you are. Sheesh

[trotsky]

21. So you must think, then,

that any Christian who DOESN'T think that your god "cause(s) natural disasters as punishment" must not believe in the bible, huh? Would you say that they aren't a real Christian, then?

[Zebedeo]

25. I don't get into labeling people

as "a real Christian" or "not a real Christian."

I won't say that someone who doesn't believe that God has caused natural disasters as punishment is "not a real Christian." However, I will disagree with that person, and I will have abundant citations to Scripture to support my position.

I don't think that believers should invent their own God based on what makes them feel comfortable. To me, that is not a sound or reliable way to determine what is true. The way I see it, if you are making it up as you go along, what are the chances that it's true? That's why I believe in studying Scripture, and believing in what it says about God.

There is lots of room for disagreement among Christians about how Scripture should be interpreted. But to say that God has not caused natural disasters as punishment would be at odds with much of the Old Testament, as well as the Book of Revelation, IMHO.

[trotsky]

26. So they're a Christian, but a wrong Christian.

Is that more accurate?

What do you say to people who genuinely disagree with your interpretation?

And do you think that you could ever be wrong on how you interpret the bible? Have you been?

[Zebedeo]

27. As I said above,

I don't get into labeling people as you seem to be urging me to do.

To people who genuinely disagree with my interpretation, I would say that I disagree, and here is why: Then I would discuss the Scriptural support for my belief. The first thing that comes to mind is the Flood described in Genesis. There are lots of others. I would also listen to the other person, and consider her arguments and the Scriptural support for them.

And do you think that you could ever be wrong on how you interpret the bible? Have you been?

Yes, I could be. Yes, I have. That's one reason I am interested in discussing such things, including here on this board. :)

[trotsky]

28. Wow, you believe in a literal worldwide flood, huh?

I may have asked you this before, but are you a biblical inerrantist?

On edit: And, did it ever occur to you, that the people who wrote biblical accounts of natural disasters wiping out innocent people may have been the Robertson equivalents of their day, trying to find some way to divinely justify the destruction by blaming the victims, who can no longer speak for themselves?

[Zebedeo]

29. Yes, I believe in the Flood

And I believe in Scripture. I believe that Scripture is literally true, but not always literalistically true. For example, when Jesus told parables, they were told to illustrate important points. They were not necessarily stories about events that had actually happened (although they may have happened).

Interpretation of Scripture is a field of study to which some people devote their entire lives. There are principles, some of which even you, as an atheist, may have heard of, such as "Scripture interprets Scripture."

Another principle is that Scripture must be read and interpreted with a softened heart. You must let the Holy Spirit lead you into Truth. As I have said in another post, if you read Scripture in a cynical manner, with a hardened heart, you will find instances that seem like inconsistencies, or absurdities, or things that just seem wrong. This will provide you with ample fodder for ridiculing believers and God Himself, among your atheist buddies. You will feel smug and superior, but you will be missing out on the Truth.

Believe me, I know where you are coming from. I have been there.

If you are interested in the interpretation of Scripture, I would suggest that you read about it. But most importantly, put away your skepticism and read the Bible itself, with an open mind and a softened heart, and see if the Spirit guides you to reconciliation with God.

Either way, you have my best wishes for a long, productive and happy life! :)

[trotsky]

30. Did you ever, for a moment, consider the possibility...

that people have rejected your bible for reasons OTHER than "a hardened heart"? I know that's a nice, convenient explanation for a true believer, so that they don't have to think about those hard questions of people who sincerely and honestly reject "the Truth." But really, do you think it's possible to reject Christianity genuinely?

Seriously, the more you talk, the more I am sure I interpreted the bible correctly. You speak like the Robertsons and Falwells of the world, and that really scares me.

Do you think the earth is only about 6000 years old, too?

[Zebedeo]

31. I'm sorry you feel that way.

I think I recall that you were once a Lutheran. Was it LCMS? It's sad to see a person lose their faith.

Do I think it is possible to reject Christianity in earnest? Of course it is. Lots of people do it.

Do you think the earth is only about 6000 years old, too?

No. I think that the "days" of creation in Genesis are a poetic way of describing longer periods of time. I am willing to listen to arguments to the contrary, though, if you have some.

You speak like the Robertsons and Falwells of the world, and that really scares me.

Why should it scare you? I don't agree with those guys on political issues. I do agree with them on many religious beliefs. But that is to be expected, because they are Christian and I am Christian.

There are billions of Christians in the world. To lump all of us into the same category and dismiss us a "fundies" is a mistake, IMHO. As I pointed out in another thread yesterday, virtually all of the great liberals in this nation's history have been outspoken Christian believers.

What if you found out that politically, I work for many of the same things you do? Would you still be "scared" of people like me?

[trotsky]

32. To answer your question, yes, I am still "scared."

Because your views on positions are not determined by reason, they're determined by how you interpreted a book. A book that can be, and has been, interpreted to mean wildly contradictory things throughout its history. You and Pat Robertson used the same book, and the same methodology, to arrive at (supposedly) different conclusions. Neither one of you will convince the other that he's wrong.

I don't lump all Christians into the same category and dismiss them as fundies, only the ones who insist they have interpreted their bible correctly, that everyone else is wrong, as you are doing here. Oh you've learned to be quite diplomatic about it, but that's what it really comes down to. Your answers to many questions give it away.

[Zebedeo]

33. Hmm. Under your own definition, you are a fundie

I don't lump all Christians into the same category and dismiss them as fundies, only the ones who insist they have interpreted their bible correctly, that everyone else is wrong

Seriously, the more you talk, the more I am sure I interpreted the bible correctly. (from your post #30 above)

[trotsky]

34. Dismissal is not a type of interpretation.

I admit, poor choice of words. I was trying to stay within your frame of reference ("interpreting" the bible). I view the bible as no different than other old religious texts - a collection of stories and lessons by early human beings discovering the world and themselves.

I do not believe it holds any divine or supernatural information or authority.

And the more you post, the more you convince me I am correct.

Does that clarify?

[Zebedeo]

36. Yes, that clarifies.

You and I see the world quite differently, theologically speaking.

All people think that their beliefs are true; otherwise, they would not be their beliefs.

This applies to me and to you, and to everyone else.

I think I am right. You think you are right.

But you don't seem to be introspective enough to realize that your point of view is just as "fundamental" as the "fundamentalists" that you oppose.

They (like all people) think they are right. You think you are right.

And yet you put yourself in a different category, a better and more noble category. Even when confronted with your own quotes from a few minutes apart showing that you are as inflexible and set in your ways as the fundamentalists you excoriate, you don't acknowledge the hypocrisy; instead you chalk it up to a mere "poor choice of words."

[grumpy old fart]

39. Sheesh, next thing you're gonna say is atheism is a religion etc......

Won't you guys ever get it?? See below, #35.

[trotsky]

41. How is it fundamentalist to reject a text?

You reject all holy texts other than your own - does your rejection of them constitute a different kind of fundamentalism for each rejection?

I will gladly admit I am set in one way: using reason above religious revelation as a means of determining truth and moral stances. If that makes you think I'm a fundamentalist (M-W definition: follower of a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching :eyes:), have fun with it.

But the fact remains, you and Pat Robertson use the same bible to draw conclusions about life. The thousands, perhaps millions, of other interpretations of the bible disagree with you both. God doesn't come down and straighten it out; we haven't heard from Jesus in 2000 years. You and Pat and the billion other Christians who disagree with you have no way of ultimately resolving your differences.

That's why I fear you and the rest of the ultra-religious.

[grumpy old fart]

35. Basing your reality on an "inerrant" book is scary indeed.

It's a short step from there for a charismatic leader to jerk believers in whatever direction they choose, by simply using that "sacred" book.

Anyone soft headed, er, hearted enough to believe a collection of books written by men, translated and copied variously and repeatedly over centuries by men, is somehow the inerrant word of GOD is living in a demon haunted world. IMHO.

The survival of the Republic depends on our continuation of the founding father's vision of a future based on Enlightenment values. Blind faith does nothing to further that vision or defend those values.

[Strong Atheist]

19. Well, since there are no gods, it follows that they do not

cause natural disasters ...

[bloom]

38. I think it's possible

that Nagin was saying that if people can say that "God is on our side" - like in Iraq and things like that - that if you are going to talk to people who believe that sort of thing (like 80% of Americans or something) - that you have to talk in a language that they can understand.

So maybe there are hurricanes partly because Americans are using up so many resources and are a big factor in global warming. So you could say in a roundabout way that "God is mad at America" (esp. "God" as "nature" as in "payback time" or even "cause& effect") and so now we have more disastrous hurricanes.

I think the substance of what Nagin said made sense - whether you believe in "God" or not.

I don't generally like it when people use "God" as the deliverer of punishment. But then I don't like it when people use "God" as a reason to kill people, either. If people are going to invoke "God" - using him/her/it as a reason to be moral instead of immoral makes more sense than other things I've heard.

[grumpy old fart]

40. This goes back to the Sam Harris point. Let's get over superstition......

and condoning superstitious beliefs, no matter how moderate they seem. This only gives support to those who want to interpret the same "sacred texts" for their own ends. The texts AREN'T GOD'S WORDS!!! THEY'RE JUST BOOKS!!!

[Bill McBlueState]

44. then why not say it?

Why not say "the evidence shows that our lack of concern for the environment may be making hurricanes worse"? Why the need to couch it in religious mumbo-jumbo that nobody can prove?

[bloom]

45. Maybe he was trying to channel

The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. - being MLK day and all.

So he put his ideas in a religious context.

or

Maybe he thought that was the only way some people would hear it. :shrug:

If your audience was biologists - you would want to discuss things in a way that they would understand - with data and such. If your audience is religious people - you may have to say the same thing differently.

When you have so many people using the concept of "God" as if "God" is a bully - if you are going to get through to people who believe in "God" - it seems that you would have more luck saying that "God is NOT a bully" (God wants what is best for the world... or whatever) than you would if you just said that there is no "God" and so of course the non-existent "God" cannot be a bully - because he doesn't exist. The people who believed in "God" would just shut that message out entirely.

[carl_pwccaman]

48. Right...

Better to say god is not a bully.

Funny how clear language, communication, sincerity, is so inconvenient when people want to score dubious rhetorical points.

[shrike]

46. I sure as hell hope he is

I am. Why wouldn't he?