We have a "Theology on Tap" group at First Christian Church in Eugene, Oregon.  Last night we discussed the comments Pat Robinson made regarding how Haitians are "cursed by one thing and another" because they made a pact with the devil to get away from French Rule.

The group discussion centered on how to respond from our own theological perspective to comments of this nature.  The group discussed the theological "underpinnings" of Pat Robinson's comments--and the differences between our conceptions of God and God's actions.  We also discussed the "fundamental attribution error" and how it affects what we believe about other groups and other individuals.  This refers to how we tend to blame what happens to us on the situation, and how we tend to blame what happens to other individuals on some inherent flaw in that person or group.   The discussion moved to how we perceived the homeless, and those addicted to drugs.  Pastor Dan Bryant responded with a story about young girls addicted to drugs.  He stated that about 80% of these girls were abused by their parents, and many had been given the drugs by their parents.  It's common to attribute drug addiction to an inherent flaw in the individual without taking the larger cause into account.

One idea I had was to take apart the assumptions Pat Robinson made about Haitians in order to better focus our own responses (this could be a good writing project for this discussion).  To me such comments are unacceptable since we do not understand their culture and religion, and since it's very hard to understand it from the outside.  The Catholic Church did not reject the Haitians because of their religion; even though this was done in some measure to make it easier to convert Haitians to Catholicism and not in most cases as an effort toward genuine inclusion it is a much better response than Pat Robinson's.

What do you think?

The societal moral infrastructure of the Haitians affected by this horrendous disaster appears to be unusually strong, with a strong bona fide Christian influence. Amidst all the rubble and the stench of death, church services and prayer vigils are still held. Ironically, Haiti's situation is the inverse of (much of) the United States: Weak physical infrastructure, but strong moral infrastructure. In a disaster of this magnitude, there is inevitably a race against time for help from outside to arrive before the societal moral infrastructure inevitably collapses into total chaos of "every person for himself." Sheer desperation from thirst, hunger, shock, and grief will break down any societal moral infrastructure sooner or later, if  outside help arrives too little and too late.

The stronger the moral infrastructure is initially, the longer it takes for this breakdown process to occur. (Other factors also play a role, such as disaster intensity and reach, population density, and weather. If the same intensity earthquake had hit Los Angeles, would its moral infrastructure have survived without collapse for as long as the Haitians endured before outside help arrived in force? Or would gangs and organized criminals have collapsed society within a day or two?

The bottom line is that Pat Robertson's comments have absolutely NO merit.

Disclaimer: My opinions are based on hearsay evidence from news reports, as I have not been there.