Surely God Has Better Aim Than That:

[UPDATE: Here's an item about Mayor Nagin's apology for this statement.]

Rev. Shanks, Pat Robertson (albeit in a different context), and now New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin:

Surely God is mad at America. He's sending hurricane after hurricane after hurricane. Surely he's not approval of us being in Iraq under false pretenses.

But surely he's upset at black America also. We as black people, it's time. It's time for us to come together. It's time for us to rebuild a New Orleans, the one that should be, a chocolate New Orleans. And I don't care what people are saying uptown or wherever they are. This city will be chocolate at the end of the day.

(Source: Transcript of video clip aired on MSNBC's The Situation, Jan. 16, 2006; there might have been some editing, but I presume that it didn't change the substance; CNN and also MSNBC's Scarborough Country reports this as "Surely God is mad at America. He's sending hurricane after hurricane after hurricane. And it's destroying and putting stress on this country. Surely he's not approval of us being in Iraq under false pretenses. But surely he is upset at black America also.")

But if God is mad at America, why exactly did he decide to kill, injure, and make homeless this particular chunk of America? Are poor people, who generally suffer the most from natural disasters, particularly likely to be guilty in God's eyes? (Though the dead in Katrina weren't disproportionately poor by New Orleans standards, the dislocation caused by natural disasters generally disproportionately hurts poor people, who are least likely to have savings to fall back on, least likely to have educations and other credentials that would make it easy to start over, and least likely to be adequately insured. Surely God knows that.)

Were those hurt by Katrina particularly able to control America's Iraq policy? Were they particularly able to prevent whatever problems of black America Mayor Nagin is pointing to? Actually, wouldn't Mayor Nagin and his fellow politicians have had more influence (though of course surely not unlimited influence) that could have helped "black America" "come together"? And, if so, why didn't God target them especially? (Or is it that Mayor Nagin was spared because of his righteousness, and others were punished because they were especially sinful? You can't have it both ways — it's either that, or it's that God was punishing people without regard to their own deserts.)

Of course, one possible response is that God works in mysterious ways, and either chooses not to control natural disasters, or sends them for reasons and in manners that are beyond human understanding. But if that's so, then why is Mayor Nagin so confident that God is mad at America, and that the reason is God's disapproval of America's actions in Iraq, or of the actions of black America? And how, if at all, is Mayor Nagin different from Rev. Shanks and Rev. Robertson in this respect?

Thanks to InstaPundit for the pointer.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Mayor Ray Nagin Apologizes:
  2. Chocolate New Orleans:
  3. Surely God Has Better Aim Than That:
Mystery Meat:
The statements by such as Ray Nagins and Pat Robertson would seem to be an argument against Intelligent Design.
1.17.2006 12:56pm
Bob Flynn (mail):
I would say the number one metaphysical problem in law, science, politics, Hell, even life, is misapplying/misconstruing the concept of "Cause" and "Effect" Working backwards,

Effect: Bad hurricane, damages lives and property in N'Awlins:

Cause: God was mad.

Umm, NO, Mr. Nagin. The probable "cause" was a combination of idiots not maintaining the levee system in proper repair, incompetent local adminstrators, who've been on the take for decades, if not centuries, and a persistent underclass of people, all connected politically to the Democratic Party -- who have lost all self-direction, are completely dependent on a large welfare state, and were unable to properly prepare for the hurricane by simply leaving town.

Also, the City is built below sea level.

Those are the multiple causes, my friend, underlying this terrible, tragic effect.

Flynn
1.17.2006 1:01pm
Teddy_KGB:
Re: Poor people particularly likely to be guilty in God's eyes

Yes, that seems to be the logical conclusion from the statement. Mayor Nagin really needs to go back and read the Sermon on the Mount.
1.17.2006 1:01pm
Senor Chumbawumba (mail):
I think Eugene is right to say that, in the biggest way, God's reasons are beyond human understanding. However, Jesus is confronted with this very same issue in Luke 13. He says that all people are sinners, and all will perish someday. The only way out of that universal, evenhanded, postponed, righteous judgment is true repentance.
1.17.2006 1:04pm
Bob Bobstein (mail):
Well, we should leave open the possibility that maybe Mayor Nagin said something dumb because God told him to. Maybe He wanted to distract us from some scandal about Him that will come out in the NYT in the next few days.

Also, Bob Flynn is onto something-- we shouldn't look to see why God sent these hurricanes, but rather why they were the fault of the Democratic Party.
1.17.2006 1:04pm
ak47pundit (www):
Nagin's statements are even more riddiculous when you consider that in the same speech he states that its God's will that New Orleans be recreated as a "chocolate New Orleans".

One would think that invoking God's will after a veritable "Act of God" hammered the city (including the heavily "chocolate" sections the hardest) is presumptuous as to the true nature of God's will at the very least.
1.17.2006 1:16pm
Huggy (mail):
Some claim that New Orleans was poorly governed. Don't know/never been there. Some may have prayed to God to be rid of that.

Prayers need to be carefully worded since God gives us all free will. I pray New Orleans be a blessing to us all. Especially to those who were stressed.
1.17.2006 1:17pm
Tony (mail):
Perhaps he meant "chocolate" in the literal sense. "Chocolate New Orleans" is a phrase that would fit nicely into a rewrite of "Big Rock Candy Mountain".
1.17.2006 1:33pm
Joel B. (mail):
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23

There is none righteous, no, not one. Romans 8:10

Why do you call me good, for no one is good but God alone. Luke 18:19

Claiming to man's righteousness as a basis for forestalling God's judgment is not something man can do. We all live under God's grace alone. Not, a claim then to our individual righteousness.

Anywho, I strongly recommend Romans to any who'd be interested
1.17.2006 1:36pm
Mr Diablo:
Flynn, you're either crazy and foaming at the mouth or being really funny. I cannot tell.

Blaming one party for the weak levees is really funny, especially when they were designed federally with input from the Army Corps of Engineers, and that Louisiana had a Republican governor eight of the last 10 years, oh, and it was some guy named Bush who signed budgets that lowered funding for upkeep projects. Seriously, Democratic politicians have mismanaged New Orleans into a system of cronyism that makes Mike Brown look remotely qualified, but there's a limit to what a good friend working at the clerk's office can do.

Meanwhile, on topic, Nagin should receive as much scorn as Pat Robertson for suggesting that god caused this destruction. It's ludicrous.
1.17.2006 1:43pm
Public_Defender:
Mayor Nagin is different only in that this is his first offense (that I know of). If he apologizes and retracts the remark, that should be enough.

But Pat Robertson is a repeat offender. Apologies from repeat offenders are never taken as seriously as from first-timers.
1.17.2006 1:45pm
Dylanfa (mail) (www):
Given that a lot more Iraquis have died than New Orleans residents, it seems pretty clear that God is actually angry with the Iraquis and has chosen George Bush as his instrument of punishment. Hurricane Katrina was a warning to the Democrats to quit all their obstruction and whining. It all makes sense now!
1.17.2006 1:59pm
Jeremy Pierce (mail) (www):
As with the last time you went off on this, you're attacking a straw man, at least if you intend this to apply to everyone who thinks natural disasters can be judgments (and your previous posts have made it clear that you do intend it so). Robertson's goofy idea that any bad thing constitutes a judgment might be subject to your argument, but merely thinking natural disasters can be judgments does not. Most theistic religions include views about an afterlife where true justice will be served in whatever fashion justice would best be served, and the specifics vary from religion to religion or even within a religion. But many people think (a) some bad things that happen in this life can serve as part of that judgment, without thereby thinking that (b) every bad thing is a judgment or (c) every deserved judgment will happen in this life. But it's (b) and (c) that you have argued against, not the (a), and your language makes it sound as if you're dismissing (a) because of your argument against the (b) and (c).
1.17.2006 2:00pm
Jeremy Pierce (mail) (www):
Sorry, that was bad editing. In the last sentence, the word 'the' appears twice when I should have deleted it. I think it makes enough sense as it is, but those were supposed to have been deleted when I reformulated it with the letter markers.
1.17.2006 2:02pm
KevinM:
Remember the Cities of the Plain? No, not towns where the unprepossessing live -- I mean Sodom and Gomorrah. After some initial dickering, God more or less committed (this "covenant" stuff can be even trickier than contracts) to sparing the cities if even one righteous resident could be found. Tough luck for them, but doesn't this suggest that God wouldn't wipe out everybody on the Gulf Coast (or for that matter, Dover, PA, before they voted out the old school board) based upon the transgressions of some?
1.17.2006 2:03pm
Jeremy Pierce (mail) (www):
It occurred to me that I should add that I do agree with what I think is the original motivation for the criticism of Nagin. Nagin presumes to know the exact reason why this must be a judgment. It seems pretty arrogant to know that this is a judgment, given that not every bad thing is a judgment (which anyone who believes the Bible should admit, given that it's the point of an entire book of the Bible, i.e. Job). It seems particularly arrogant to think you know the exact reason God is sending the judgment. That presumes a close interaction with God on the level of receiving very particular messages from God. Most Jews, Christians, and Muslims aren't going to rule that out as impossible, given that much of the teaching of these religions results from prophetic revelation, but I don't thing Nagin is even claiming to be a prophet. He seems to think this should be obvious to everyone. How many religions are there that teach that we should know what an omniscient being knows and understand the motivations of a being who is morally perfect but operates on such a higher plane that our resources are inadequate to explain how that being even works, never mind every reason that being acts? I don't suspect whatever religious background Nagin comes from would teach such a thing.
1.17.2006 2:07pm
Jeremy Pierce (mail) (www):
KevinM, the Genesis passage in question doesn't give that as a general moral principle God follows. It's a special request of Abraham that God decides to honor because Abraham requests it. It also has the ironic sense that God is conceding it because he knows Abraham is asking something that won't need to come into effect anyway because there weren't enough righteous people anyway.
1.17.2006 2:11pm
Q the Enchanter (mail) (www):
"Ray Nagins and Pat Robertson...would seem to be an argument against Intelligent Design."

Heck, they're an argument against evolution.
1.17.2006 2:17pm
Thorley Winston (mail) (www):
If the Mayor of New Orleans is correct and God is targeting cities to punish sin, who’s next – Las Vegas or San Francisco?
1.17.2006 2:29pm
NickM (mail) (www):
Thorley - Amsterdam.

Nick
1.17.2006 2:46pm
Joel B. (mail):
Re: Sodom and Gommorah

It was 10...10 was what God and Abraham agreed to, not one.
1.17.2006 3:10pm
KevinM:
Joel B. You're right - I'd misremembered. The haggling only got down to 10, not 1.
1.17.2006 5:51pm
nextright (mail) (www):
diablo
where are you getting the info that 8 of the last 10 years Louisiana has had a Republican Gov??
1.18.2006 2:56pm