God's Weird and Not-So-Wonderful Ways

[Guest fountainhall]

I have just been watching on CNN the latest episode of the saga of the American church-goers in Haiti who have now been charged with the willful kidnapping of young children. As each day passes, new disturbing and distressing revelations come to light - no paperwork, the kids had to be under 10, they knew most of the kids were not orphans, their Dominican orphanage does not exist, and the leader of this motley group lost her home in December and her business is a failure. It is more than pathetic learning of their shenanigans, yet hearing them talk about doing "God's work", putting their faith in the Lord and singing hymns when interviewers try to talk with them. At its root, this was a money-making enterprise. Plain and simple. (Did I hear someone whisper Jim and Tammy Faye? "Praise the Lord")

 

Ironically, today the North Koreans agreed to release an American "missionary" who illegally entered the country on Christmas Day to publicize human rights abuses and bring a message of peace to the Dear Leader. And it's not so long ago that another idiot illegally swam a lake to bring the word of God to Aung San Suu Kyi in Yangon, thereby increasing her sentence of home confinement (in this context, the fact that it would have been increased anyway is immaterial).

 

How does one make these bigots realise that their expressions of "God's Will" are horribly close to those of Bin Laden and so called radical "believers" in other faiths? Why is it that governments seem so willing to recognise, embrace and give tax relief to many "religious" cults that have precious little to do with religion? Or to turn blind eyes to the sexual molestation of millions of young children by not using the law to indict the Church that permitted such abominations? With such mindsets, I will not be surprised if Jim and Tammy Faye become saints before too long.

 

Glory! Hallelujah!

[Guest]

Wow. I agree. I was surprised at this case and it is one of my I don't get it lists. Why? Why one earth do religious people think it is OK to break the law for what they think is right?

[Gaybutton]

I think the religious fanatics cause more harm and misery in this world than all other causes combined.

[Guest Soi10Tom]

Let's leave god:, ie. the "Cosmic Teddy Bear", out of this conversation and focus on the live's of the kids involved in this sorry mess.

 

I wish I could say that I'm surprised by the response of the Haitian/US/European governments to the thousands of orphans/homeless/family's with no way to care for their kids in Haiti: jumbled paperwork, bureaucratic incompetence, silly rules...and a what can we do attitude. I was just watching Anderson Cooper on CNN and they are rattling on about keeping the orphans safe by not allowing them to be sold as "domestic slaves" or taken to a safer better life. I've seen this whole process up close, and it is sick.

 

I think back to the fall of Saigon when the US government refused to allow the orphans of Vietnam, many of who were US citizens because their dad was a US soldier, to be brought to the US. I clearly remember the bravery of the President and CEO of World Air Ways, who loaded a plane with orphans and injured kids. He personally took the pilots seat and then after being ordered to not fly out of Saigon and having the run way lights turned off took off in defiance of orders and flew nonstop to San Francisco. Where once again he was denied permission to land...and he landed. He was written up for every violation of air law possible, but it opened the flood gates by embarrassing the US government, and the kids started flying out by the plane load. Those kids are now in the 30's and 40's and have contributed greatly to America as they live out their American dream. So, where is today's hero???? No where to be seen!!!

 

So let's follow government's current logic for a minute: The government in order to make sure that none of the kids become "domestic slaves", "stolen from their parents" or worse, will allow 10's of thousands to either die in the streets or spend the rest of their childhood in uneducated grinding poverty. Great thinking!!!!!

 

 

These kids need help NOW. I'm will to bet that if the governments of the US and Europe told everyone who wanted a kid between 25 and 60 and had no criminal record to line up and take a kid home that out of every thousand kids maybe 10 would become victim of some kind of abuse; but I can guarantee that if governments continues their current policy 990 of every thousand will either die on the street or have a life of ignorant grinding poverty including rape and prostitution. Which one make sense to you??

[Guest fountainhall]

let's follow government's current logic for a minute: The government in order to make sure that none of the kids become "domestic slaves", "stolen from their parents" or worse, will allow 10's of thousands to either die in the streets or spend the rest of their childhood in uneducated grinding poverty. Great thinking!!!!!

 

These kids need help NOW. I'm will to bet that if the governments of the US and Europe told everyone who wanted a kid between 25 and 60 and had no criminal record to line up and take a kid home that out of every thousand kids maybe 10 would become victim of some kind of abuse; but I can guarantee that if governments continues their current policy 990 of every thousand will either die on the street or have a life of ignorant grinding poverty including rape and prostitution. Which one make sense to you??

I do think you have skewed the argument more than somewhat. The vast majority will agree with your basic premise - that these kids have to be helped. But can you seriously believe that kidnapping - and that's what was happening, even if it had the blessing of some of the parents - is legitimate because a child will get a better life? How do you know it will be a better life? How do you think a child feels when it is STOLEN from its parents (remember these were not babies - they were much older) and the mental scars it might face for the rest of its life? I know you do not describe it as kidnapping, but face facts - that is what it was!

 

Notwithstanding a few planeloads of kids whisked out of Vietnam by courageous flight crews (see below *), never forget that what you propose has been done before in history, with disastrous results. Look at the Australian policy in the 1950's and 60's of taking tens of thousands of Aboriginal children from their parents and putting them into white homes, changing their identities and permitting no contact whatever with their biological parents - all in an attempt to "civilise" and educate them (in western ways, of course!) One of the first acts of the present Australian government was to formally apologise in Parliament to the Aboriginal peoples for such a disgrace and stain on the country's past.

 

And in a disaster situation like the fall of Saigon or the Haiti earthquake, do you seriously believe it’s a good idea to rob a country of most of its children? All but a tiny fraction of Vietnamese stayed on in Vietnam. The immediate future may have been difficult, but the Vietnamese are a proud people and I do not think you will now find many in that country who wish they had been carried off to the US. Further, if you carry that argument to its conclusion, you take all underprivileged children out of Africa, Asia (what about the ghastly poverty in the so-called "democratic" Philippines which was once an American colony?) and goodness knows where else and house them with better-off, respectable families. How on earth do you make that happen?

 

Personally, my conscience could NEVER accept a policy where even one child might fall victim to rape and a life of prostitution. Governments etc. have a duty to go through all the checks and balances – and this inevitably takes time.

 

As Anderson Cooper has also repeatedly pointed out, there are lots of ways concerned citizens can help these kids – by sending funds to provide the much-needed aid, by rebuilding shattered homes, orphanages and schools etc. With Bill Clinton heading the relief programme, I have more confidence that life for the people of Haiti as a whole will eventually be far better than it ever was under its previous so-called democracy and dictators.

 

* Finally, the airlift of kids out of Saigon (named Operation Babylift) was extremely controversial at the time. Indeed, the first flight crashed leading to the death of 141 of the 149 kids and their assistants who had been packed into the cargo compartment and did not have basic essentials like seat belts. Only 3 of the 152 in the troop compartment perished. There then ensued years of debate as to whether such evacuation was actually in the best interests of the children.

[Guest Soi10Tom]

Kidnapping with the consent/blessing of the parents is not kidnapping, as I am sure any attorney will tell you. In most every country of the world parents can voluntarily surrender children to the state, orphanages, family members, religious orders, or complete strangers. All of these things happen everyday all over the world.

 

"Personally, my conscience could NEVER accept a policy where even one child might fall victim to rape and a life of prostitution. Governments etc. have a duty to go through all the checks and balances

[Bob]

How does one make these bigots realise that their expressions of "God's Will" are horribly close to those of Bin Laden and so called radical "believers" in other faiths?

 

 

For the most part, they're incapable of realizing that for the very reason that they are "believers" in the first place.

 

The concepts of free speech and freedom of religion unfortunately allow the nuts to carry on; however, when/if they cross a line, a criminal charge or jail term can at least express society's general view of their occasional wacky/criminal behavior.

[Guest fountainhall]

The biggest problem I see with your logic is that it is all in the head theory with little or no practical feet on the ground experience. Children are saved one child at a time and they die one child at a time; governments, news organizations, and most NGO's have little or no concern about the singular child

Oh, really? And what about the Australian experience? I note you made no comment on that example. This was a mass state-sponsored removal of young children from families who never saw them again. Sure, I had no personal experience of it, but I watched as many hundreds of thousands wept openly as the government's apology was given. All agree that programme was a total - repeat "total" - disaster for the children. Do you disagree?

 

So let's follow your logic for a minute. In order for your conscience to be clear and save every single child from becoming a victim of rape and prostitution; we should let the government and NGO's handle the problem. The problem with this logic is many children will die on the streets of illness and starvation while governments do their check and balance dance

Twisting the argument again. The fact is it is totally impossible to save more than a tiny fraction of those kids whose lives are blighted by abject poverty. Where I agree is that we should do everything possible to improve their lives - and if all parties agree to adoption as being one course, so be it. But who plays God? Who decides who wins the lottery and who stays stuck in the slums? Under your argument, someone has to. Who? Those idiots now languishing in jail in Haiti - no matter how well-meaning some may have been? Surely not!

 

. . . to your last comment about the kids air lifted out of Vietnam and was doing this in the best interest of the child. I only need to point to my next door neighbor here in the US (who is known to several others on this board). He arrived in the US from Vietnam at 8 years of age having never attended a day of school in his life and not speaking a word of English. He is now 35 with MD and MBA degrees from UCLA and is the youngest senior partner in one on the largest and most famous health organizations in the world. He completely disagrees with your premise. There is a saying here in America, "This is your first time at the Rodeo." Once again I feel that you are talking from your head with zero practical on the ground real world experience at the refugee/orphan/impoverished children Rodeo.

You are correct I have no on the ground experience. But I have travelled all too frequently to far too many countries not to be aware the depth of the problem of world poverty, homelessness, orphans, the abuse of children etc. As to your Vietnamese friend, I am delighted for him. At the time he was airlifted out, Vietnam was a hugely different country. For more than 15 years, it had been deliberately bombed virtually to destruction, first by the French and then by the US and its allies. Of course the infrastructure of the country was in tatters. Of course schools were destroyed and of course most kids probably had little education. But the Vietnamese were not responsible for that! And who played God in his being chosen to go to the US when there must have been possibly more than a million true orphans in the country and only a fraction got out? Inevitably you come back to the question: how do you choose? Arbitrarily?

[Guest xiandarkthorne]

I think the answer to that second last question is you save whichever child you can when you can. You can't save all of them as much as we all wish we could. Sad as it might be, we can only do the best we can to save those we can reach in time. In that sense, at least, we are not playing God because who we manage to save is in God's hands.

[Gaybutton]

who we manage to save is in God's hands.

How do you know?

[Guest fountainhall]

How do you know?

God knows!

[Guest Soi10Tom]

After watching CNN for the last couple of days it seems that god has decided to let them die in Haiti of infection and gangrene, because they lack the paper work to be air lifted to Miami.

[Guest fountainhall]

After watching CNN for the last couple of days it seems that god has decided to let them die in Haiti of infection and gangrene, because they lack the paper work to be air lifted to Miami

That's a helluv' an assumption - and another 'twist'! Why not say God decided to let them die when he allowed the earthquake to happen? As Anderson Cooper said on CNN today, there are better ways of aiding these kids by sending funds NOW to do all the things necessary to enable them to rebuild their lives and homes, and keep them with those relatives and friends who have survived. I wonder how many reading this thread have contributed?