Hope, Faith and Charity
Jan. 5th, 2005 11:11 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
So there's going to be a three-minute silence for the tsunami victims throughout the UK and EU. I'm sorry if I sound blasphemous, but why? Usually the moment of silence is all to do with reflecting on why such a thing happened -- in the case of the 11th September attacks and Rememberance, Memorial and/or Veteran's Day, it's also to reflect on how we can and should keep such a thing from happening again. The thing is, what's to reflect on in this case? It is a shame that so many people died, yes, but for three minutes, what exactly are you going to reflect on? It's a natural disaster; these things happen, and even if you could have minimised the casualties, there's no way to stop it as there is terrorism and war. If you're religious, it's an act of God, but at least you can pray for the victims. If you're a hard-core atheist, what exactly are you going to be thinking about, aside from the poor bastard at the Met Office who got sacked for not telling people it was coming? I know that one of the things that'll be going through my mind is the fact that some complete wanksticks have been going around e-mailing families of the missing and telling them their loved ones were dead. Finger-pointing, cruelty and outright stupidity comes up even in the worst tragedies.
Of course, I could be a lot more charitable about this than I am being. People are trying to help the victims. The problem is that people even bitch about that in the stupid letters pages, talking about how footballers etc should be obliged to give the equivalent of their daily salaries to the cause. What's the point of charity if you're forced into it? Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose? Charity is a doubly-beneficial thing; it helps the people who need it, and it makes you feel good about yourself. Coercing people into doing so takes that away from them, and then it becomes another form of taxation, one enforced by guilt instead of law.
I must sound terrible, bitching about things that are being done to commemorate the dead and help the living. I have nothing against that. What I have something against is the enforcement, the coersion, the unwillingness to let people deal with tragedy in their own way. I also have something against the way it takes up so much media attention that other things are being ignored. I notice no one's talking about what's going on in Iraq anymore. I notice that the man who sexually abused what appear to be thousands of girls and photographed the nightmare using his foster daughters as bait got shunted onto page 5. Things that could have been prevented -- could still be prevented -- are playing second fiddle to an act of God. Is it just that people don't want to have to do anything more challenging than give money? Or maybe it's easier not having to face up to the fact that something that killed and scarred so many could have been prevented so you turn to the tragedy that no one could have done anything about.
I'll keep my silence. I'll do what passes for praying in my philosophy for the souls of the dead (who are really beyond worrying about now) and for those who have lost loved ones (who so much aren't). I just wish I saw why it has to be forced upon us, and why they make such a big deal about it being longer than the ones for 11th September and Memorial Day. Of course, that might be because after this year, we'll never have this rememberance of them again, which in a way is even sadder.
Of course, I could be a lot more charitable about this than I am being. People are trying to help the victims. The problem is that people even bitch about that in the stupid letters pages, talking about how footballers etc should be obliged to give the equivalent of their daily salaries to the cause. What's the point of charity if you're forced into it? Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose? Charity is a doubly-beneficial thing; it helps the people who need it, and it makes you feel good about yourself. Coercing people into doing so takes that away from them, and then it becomes another form of taxation, one enforced by guilt instead of law.
I must sound terrible, bitching about things that are being done to commemorate the dead and help the living. I have nothing against that. What I have something against is the enforcement, the coersion, the unwillingness to let people deal with tragedy in their own way. I also have something against the way it takes up so much media attention that other things are being ignored. I notice no one's talking about what's going on in Iraq anymore. I notice that the man who sexually abused what appear to be thousands of girls and photographed the nightmare using his foster daughters as bait got shunted onto page 5. Things that could have been prevented -- could still be prevented -- are playing second fiddle to an act of God. Is it just that people don't want to have to do anything more challenging than give money? Or maybe it's easier not having to face up to the fact that something that killed and scarred so many could have been prevented so you turn to the tragedy that no one could have done anything about.
I'll keep my silence. I'll do what passes for praying in my philosophy for the souls of the dead (who are really beyond worrying about now) and for those who have lost loved ones (who so much aren't). I just wish I saw why it has to be forced upon us, and why they make such a big deal about it being longer than the ones for 11th September and Memorial Day. Of course, that might be because after this year, we'll never have this rememberance of them again, which in a way is even sadder.
I think I know a bit of how you feel
Date: 2005-01-05 10:48 pm (UTC)I feel very badly for the tsunami victims, especially since I believe there should have been an early warning system in place. But I don't understand why some desperate people are given a tremendous amount of compassion and others none at all.