Sure would't mind having that body style, far as I can tell from here.
Nevertheless and beautiful bodies notwithstanding, the hub bub about Ms. Stone's statement got my attention and got me remembering ....... remembering how the blame for Hurricane Katrina and 9/11 belongs squarely on the backs of gay people. Oh you didn't know that? Well, Pat Robertson considers it so ...... what more do you need to know?
So anyhoo ..... what occurred to me is that this "karma game" is the new millennium, finger pointing version of the old "blame game". We just feel infinitely more enlightened when we're calling it "karma" instead of "blame".
In other words, we can blame those with whom we have issues for anything that goes wrong in their lives by calling it their "bad karma". So NYA NYA NYA ..... SEE, TOLD YOU you were wrong. Nanny nanny poo poo I KNEW IT was all your fault, see what happened to YOU - now you have your BAD KARMA!!
Problem with this is, who do we blame for our own foibles and tragedies? We all have them. Is Sharon Stone (who has had a severe stroke to deal with - maybe it was the fault of "Basic Instinct 2"?) REALLY blaming thousands of innocent people in China for their karma causing a horrendous earthquake? No, I don't really think so. I want to assume that she was just venting her distaste for the Chinese government and their mistreatment of Tibet. Politics is one thing, however, making karma assumptions where thousands, perhaps millions, of innocent people is concerned, is fully another.
This reminds me of another commonly used statement which I've often wondered about: "There but for the grace of God go I." I've heard many utilize this statement, often in a reverent manner, but always meaning something like, "whew, if I didn't have the grace of God on my shoulders, I may have ended up the same way THAT poor person did!" I've heard Oprah use this phrase, among many others who say it as though they are praising God. To me it wreaks the reverse. To me it sounds as though they praise themselves for owning the grace of God. I could be wrong ....... but to quote Charles Barkley, I doubt it.
So I've wondered ..... does this mean that the "poor person" did not receive God's grace? Does that mean that whatever the "poor person" did was warranted, because for some reason that "poor person" has fallen from "God's grace?"
Makes you wonder about God and love, doesn't it? Isn't God supposed to be about love? Isn't karma supposed to be about our own personal, private (PRIVATE) lessons? How dare we make the assumptions that we may know the reason for the tragedies in strangers' lives.
I'm riled this morning. Just a little bit. Because this has made me look at my own desire to judge those around me ...... albeit that quality occurs far less often than it used to, I still find it a difficult and nasty quality to wholeheartedly shake from my being. As I envision my painting of the world and the people in it without the constant cursory, instant and superficial judgment of others, I envision the world which I think God intended, whoever your personal "God" may be. It's not one with a holy finger pointed this direction, throwing earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes and toenail fungus at us when someone finds our choices distasteful, in their self-qualified opinions.
Why can't we all just get along. Hmph.
No comments:
Post a Comment