Why Haiti keeps getting hammered by disasters

Associated Press ^ | Thursday, January 24, 2010 | SETH BORENSTEIN

[presidio9]

When it comes to natural disasters, Haiti seems to have a bull's-eye on it. That's because of a killer combination of geography, poverty, social problems, slipshod building standards and bad luck, experts say.

The list of catastrophes is mind-numbing: This week's devastating earthquake. Four tropical storms or hurricanes that killed about 800 people in 2008. Killer storms in 2005 and 2004. Floods in 2007, 2006, 2003 (twice) and 2002. And that's just the 21st Century run-down.

"If you want to put the worst case scenario together in the Western hemisphere (for disasters), it's Haiti," said Richard Olson, a professor at Florida International University who directs the Disaster Risk Reduction in the Americas project.

"There's a whole bunch of things working against Haiti. One is the hurricane track. The second is tectonics. Then you have the environmental degradation and the poverty," he said.

This is the 15th disaster since 2001 in which the U.S. Agency for International Development has sent money and help to Haiti. Some 3,000 people have been killed and millions of people displaced in the disasters that preceded this week's earthquake. Since the turn of this century the U.S. has sent more than $16 million in disaster aid to Haiti.

While the causes of individual disasters are natural, more than anything what makes Haiti a constant site of catastrophe is its heart-tugging social ills, disaster experts say. It starts with poverty, includes deforestation, unstable governments, poor building standards, low literacy rates and then comes back to poverty.

This week's devastating quake comes as Haiti is still trying to recover from 2008, when it was hit four times by tropical storms and hurricanes, said Kathleen Tierney, director of the University of Colorado's Natural Hazard Center.

And while there is bad luck involved, former top FEMA official Mark Merritt,

[backwoods-engineer]

Didn't see anybody else do this, so I will:

When it comes to natural disasters, Haiti seems to have a bull's-eye on it. That's because of a killer combination of geography, poverty, social problems, slipshod building standards and bad luck...

What was NOT mentioned was Haiti's history of COMMUNISTS and DICTATORS controlling the country, and taking tons of US aid to build the palacial mansion bigger than the White House.

[presidio9]

You want to know a little bit more about what you are talking about before you do a Google search and then cut and paste directly from Wikipedia. While it is true that most or all of these countries made Catholicism the official "State Religion" in their Constitutions, they did so (for the most part) when every single white man living there was Catholic. All of them have subsequently ammended those Constitutions to guarantee 100% freedom of religion. Keep researching, and you will see that for yourself. Tiny Lichtenstein's Constitution was re-written in 2003, replacing the one from 1921. Do you think John Paul II let them make Catholicism the state Religion, or perhaps the goofball who wrote the Wikipedia article got it wrong?

None of these counries have an "Official State Religion" any more that Anglicanism is the "Official State Religion" of all the countries in the British Commonwealth.

[Sherman Logan]

It is entirely possible for a country to have an “Official State Religion” and still have freedom of religious expression.

For instance, the Church of England is established. The Queen is its head and Defender of the Faith. Yet Catholics aren’t being executed for practicing their religion at the moment.

I believe the majority of states had established religions when the US was founded. It doesn’t mean other religions were not free to practice.

[presidio9]

You are missing the point:

A “state religion” is about as significant as a “state bird” after the constitution has been ammended to guarantee freedom of religion. When the “state religion status” was written into the consitution, it meant something very different. Now, it typically signifies that an overwhelming percentage of the population practices one religion. Compare that to what goes on in places like Iran. Yes, the US was somewhat unique in stating specifically that we would never have a state religion. Regargless, there are no countries other than the Holy See and perhaps Monaco (I didn’t bother to check because its a monarchy and its irrelevant) where Catholicism is still the official state religion in practice.

[POWERSBOOTHEFAN]

I’m not.I’m just stating that there are those who are ignorant enough to think that Pat Robertson represents all Christians,even though he does not.Al Sharpton isn’t the representative of all blacks,either. He seems to stir up more trouble for the blacks,as does Jesse “Hymietown” Jackson. Another anology is that Bernie Madoff does not represent all Jews,though there are those who think so.

[Sherman Logan]

You seem to believe a “state religion” or “official religion” by definition means persecution or illegality of all other religions.

I disagree. It means there is an established religion, that a particular religion is supported and recognized by the state, but does not necessarily mean other religions are persecuted.

In any case, there are a great many countries where practices that Americans would view as a violation of the “separation of church and state” are commonplace.

[presidio9]

This conversation is tiresome, because you are ignoring the context of the original question: "Isn't Hati still officially a Roman Catholic country?" Given Hati's history with Voo-Doo, and given the profile that the questioner had provided for himself, I could have interpreted this question any number of ways (the question was not a follow-up to any other post). I chose to answer the question neutrally. Your literal answer to the question would have been that Hati does not, in fact have an official state religion. I said that there are no more countries where Roman Catholicism is the "Official State Religion" any more than Anglicanism is still the "Official State Religion" of England. You are correct that England and a handful of countries with overwhelming Catholic majorities have chosen to ammend their constitutions, rather than remove the original wording. And, in every case, the original wording WAS delibrately suppressive. After the ammendments, the wording was and is as symbolic as the state bird. I agree that Americans might view some of the practices in these places (such as funding schools) that "Americans would view as a violation of the “separation of church and state,” but they would be wrong, because that's not even the way our own Constitution spells it out. Back then, ALL schools were religious schools by today's standards. Argentina has a larger Jewish minority than we have here. I doubt very much that they would put up with it today.

In case you were wondering, while Hati does not have an "Official State Religion," it does have an official state bird: The Hispaniolan Trogon. Males grow to about 12," females have less elaborate plumage. It feeds maily on insects, but also small lizards and fruits. It's favorite nesting place is the abandoned nest of an Hispaniolan Woodpecker. I sure hope these little guys are doing ok right now. At least they have freedom of religion.