Jeremy G. Oh that's a very good resource -- my friend in Japan sent me the same English link.

K D. Stunned and horrified at the damage - summed up by these satellite before and after pix of main towns hit. (Use the slider to compare.) It is difficult to see how anyone could survive if they were in the towns when the tsunami hit.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/13/world/asia/satellite-photos-japan-before-and-after-tsunami.html

Jeremy G. Striking and sad photos. I wonder if those living in those houses in the photos were mostly evacuated?

K D. They only had 20 minutes from the quake before the tsunami struck. Some ran - most probably didn't. Very sad.

T N. Keyth - this is an interesting, though somewhat fatalistic, piece by Alain de Bottom on what the Stoic philosopher Seneca might have said in response to this:

http://theschooloflife.typepad.com/the_school_of_life/2011/03/alain-de-botton-on-tsunamis-and-stoicism.html

K D. How odd - just yesterday I had a conversation about how a Buddhist, stoical or atheist approach to life made a little more sense after disasters than religions which are based on both a beneficent God and one lifetime before a final judgement...

K D. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/82053.html
Ten minutes of aerial footage. Chilling.

T N. my guatemalan friends and i often talk about how profoundly incomprehensible things could result from a loving God. with their being Christians/Catholics, there was always that "darkness is the absence of light" argument, which i don't find compelling. i've watched the TED talk by reverend tom honey about 4 or 5 times...each time i feel a little more comforted by him because i *think* (or want?) the message is (to be) - i have NO IDEA why a loving God would do this.

http://www.ted.com/talks/tom_honey_on_god_and_the_tsunami.html

to be honest i had resisted seeing any video footage until just 30 minutes ago. it's difficult for me to not imagine individual people and families, and my emotional system becomes flooded.

Jeremy G. In thinking about how disasters comport with religion, it reminded me of something that Elizabeth Edwards (former US presidential candidate John Edward's wife), who is a devout Christian, said after her 16 year son died in a seemingly random car accident. She said "I had to think about a God who would not save my son. Wade was—and I have lots of evidence; it's not just his mother saying it—a gentle and good boy. He reached out to people who were misfits and outcasts all the time. He could not stand for people to say nasty things about other people; he just didn't want it. For a 16-year-old boy, he was really extraordinary in this regard. I wish I could take credit for it, but I can't. You'd think that if God was going to protect somebody, he'd protect that boy. But not only did he not protect him, the wind blew him from the road. The hand of God blew him from the road. So I had to think, "What kind of God do I have that doesn't intervene—in fact, may even participate—in the death of this good boy?" I talk about it in the book, that I had to accept that my God was a God who promised enlightenment and salvation. And that's all. Didn't promise us protection. I've had to come to grips with a God that fits my own experience, which is, my God could not be offering protection and not have protected my boy."

K D. Tragic. I do find the whole traditional Christian view of things very hard to comprehend, especially at this time...

Jeremy G. I found this interesting as well: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/14/how-japans-religions-confront-tragedy/

K D. Yup, makes more sense to me... But interesting comment about priests just making money. Same story most places. I wonder what the Vatican is worth?

T N. re: elizabeth edwards...rev. tom honey addresses that in his talk - the idea of an all-powerful God and one who is partial (how vile an idea that a God could be partial). he calls for intelligent Christians to re-evaluate their ideas of who God is...

how convenient it is for us to believe that God only offers us enlightenment and salvation, things which cannot belong to us until we are gone yet we must continue to believe that it will be there for us when we go, or for our loved ones when they go, as a way to gain solace.

Honey also reminds me of what I liked about The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky: "If the sufferings of children go to make up the sum of sufferings which is necessary for the purchase of truth, then I say beforehand that the entire truth is not worth such a price. We cannot afford to pay so much for admission. It is not God that I do not accept. I merely, most respectfully, return Him the ticket."

Jeremy G. I've always found the assets of the Catholic Church to be a fascinating question. This Daily Mail piece suggests the Vatican is the 3rd largest landowner in the world: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1364750/Nicole-Kidmans-family-1-worlds-largest-landowners.html

K D. Interesting list:
1. The Queen
2. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia
3. The Pope
4. King Mohammed of Morocco
5. King Bhumibhol of Thailand
6. Sultan Qaboos of Oman
7. King Gyanendra of Nepal
8. Kidman Holdings
9. King Abdullah of Jordan
10. AA Company of Brisbane


I wonder where the Chinese, Russian, US and Canadian Governments come on the list?