Rained-On Ground Hardens: Part VI
Studies looking at massive disasters often overlook areligious people and may infer that these people are not adjusting well to loss and trauma due to their nonreligious nature. After disasters, there is often discussion of how people need to develop their spirituality, but does this help in a major disaster? Literature shows that religion can both help and hinder during a disaster response based on how people approach and absorb their own spirituality.
Louisiana and Japan have great disparities when it comes to the percentage of people who are religious. Louisiana is considered one of the most religious states – 84 percent of people are Christian with only 4 percent considered areligious. In comparison, only 13 percent of Japanese consider themselves to be religious, and only 1 to 2 percent of people in the country are Christian.
There have been a number of studies of religiosity following Katrina due to the most affected demographic being low-income Black Christians, a group highly devoted to worshiping God and with tight church communities. People see churches and God as founts of hope, and they ground following trauma. Six months after the hurricane, 68 percent of Katrina survivors said they thought God was still a haven. For the Japanese, they were found to be very resilient despite their low level of religiosity.
People who are religious have the benefit of a relationship with God as a haven, secure base, and higher power which can bring them comfort via an attachment relationship. It can provide a great scaffold for adherents but nonsensical to the areligious. What is truly important is that the world remain coherent to the person involved – faith is not a necessity for good health. When disaster strikes, religious people are unlikely to have their spiritual beliefs affected but may grow closer to God for security – being part of a religious community offers positive communal aspects. Social support and feeling as though one is part of a community is most important, and both religious and areligious people can tap into supportive communities with or without church attendance or belief in God.
It is more likely that nonreligious people who experience poor recovery do so because of dysfunctional coping strategies rather than the absence of religion, as both religious and nonreligious people engaged in adaptive coping strategies had equal outcomes. Religious coping is not required to properly process tragedy. If survivors engage in healthy coping strategies, particularly with a supportive community, they have a great chance of recovery from traumatic events.
