by Cindi Dale

And Jerry Falwell of the religious right said: Gays, lesbians and feminists caused the disaster on September 11, 2001.

According to Falwell, these erroneous individuals created "sin patterns" that have undermined American morals. How could God NOT turn his eyes the other way, leaving the wicked Americans unprotected from hijackers, the Taliban and other forces of evil?

That's one side of the great debate around the question: Who's at fault?

On the other side are comments like this one: It must be karma. America drew this to herself because of her greedy and money-driven foreign policies.

The same philosophy permeates both arguments, although offered by highly different -- in fact, warring -- camps. From the fundamentalist Christian point-of-view, the innocent deserves to be punished for the sins of a few. Who decides which groups to scapegoat? Obviously, people who lead more "moral" lives than others.

On the side of the fundamental New Age, consciousness-minded, the whole of America merits reproof because the few have earned "bad karma."

As seemingly opposite the extreme Christian and New Age factions, they both offer up the same justification for terrorism: Somehow, someone has done something to earn abuse.

I can't help but think of Hitler. Wasn't it he who equated justice with violence? His case was clear. The Jews were responsible for the problems in the world. This "bad seed" needed to be uprooted so that "good" could prevail. And he set about ensuring the Aryan aristocracy with such reasoning.

Haven't we yet learned one basic, human lesson: That one group of people is never to blame for the actions of another group? Perhaps certain factions in America don't meet the set of Christian behavior as determined by a select number of Christians. Is this "lower element," according to this highly suspect norm, responsible for the behaviors of people who live half way around the world? If a sect of individuals actually does consider itself more moral and ethical, should IT then not be held more not less accountable for the societal attitudes that might "allow" indecencies like violence and abuse?

Let's take a look at karma, as well. To a layperson, I would describe karma as the law of "like attracting like." If you commit a crime, a crime will be done unto you. If you offer a kindness, the like is returned to you. What a simplistic view of life. If fact, this idea is so difficult to maintain in the light of life's ups and downs, we have to prove it by spreading the concept over several lifetimes. See: you've had such a miserable existence this time around because you were a tyrant in another life!

Perhaps some Americans are greedy. Perhaps some foreign policies have been tainted with selfish, nationalistic desires. Perhaps some of the "peace keeping" forces in Muslim-based countries were rude, crude and rather terrible. Even if karma were a rational, true concept, wouldn't the individuals who acted cruelly been the ones to earn the like in reverse?

Does a child in India really deserve to starve? Even if he or she was mean in another life?

I'm reminded of the source of the word scapegoat. Ancient Israelites, in keeping with their times, believed that they needed to atone for their sins. The idea was blood for blood -- like karma, don't you think? They struck a bargain with their image of God. Every so often, they would select a goat and heap their sins upon its back. Burdened with sticks or rocks, lashes or wounds, this goat -- a substitute for the Hebrews themselves -- would be sacrificed in lieu of the actual "sinners." Atonement thus procured by the "scapegoat," the early Israelites could go on their merry way.

Daily in my spiritual practice, I hear the stories of individuals who were treated brutally as children. To a one, they believed themselves responsible for the dreadful acts done unto them. Whether they were beaten, sexually abused, emotionally starved or verbally accosted, they ended up being blamed -- and feeling shameful -- for the actions of others. The abused almost always end up feeling shame for something they didn't cause and usually couldn't prevent. This shame carries forward and weighs heavy, so heavy that when it's time to either be self-responsible or stop another person from acting irresponsibly, it becomes impossible to do so.

Bin Laden and his followers chose to act as they did. They performed evil acts of violence against inculpable individuals. No matter our religion or our belief system, must we assign blame to the least guilty? As a Christian myself, I would say this to the Jerry Falwells of the world: When Jesus was asked who caused the blindness in a blind man, Jesus said that nobody did. Neither the man himself nor his forebears.

As someone who works in the "consciousness field," I would say this to anyone who needs to assign karma in this situation: Is it not better to exchange bad energy for good? In ascribing blame, we're only creating more bad energy. In seeking solutions, we're offering a new standard to the world.

Cyndi Dale is an author, teacher and spiritual counselor based in Minneapolis, Minn.

Copyright 2002 Cyndi Dale