This is exactly why these fuckers should stop listening to the Mean Jesus who says to hate gay people and Democrats and poor people who don’t want your religion and everybody else who isn’t a fundamentalist whack job.

What’s really funny is that Aljazeera was over-the-top nice in their reporting of this story…obviously completely convinced these people are morons.

God is the one who called us to come here, and we just really believed that this was His purpose,” said Carla Thompson, one of the group’s arrested members.  (Reuters)

So.  Mean Jesus tricked ten dumbasses into child trafficking charges.

The ten *Southern Baptist Convention devotees took it upon themselves to fly down to Haiti and save the earthquake orphans.  Who needs papers?  God is the 33 passports and additional paperwork required to transport children from Haiti to the Dominican Republic.

(*The SBC has already said, NOT OUR BAD.  This wasn’t a church sponsored thing.)

Reactions from alleged orphans are fairly alarming, “I”m not an orphan” said one.  And another begged officials to call her parents.


Maybe not–since SBCs are generally into that fancy communist France talk.

Another suspect from the Baptist group, Laura Silsby reassures:

The truth ultimately is that we came here to help the children, and we know that God will reveal truth.” (NPR)

And believe she’s talking about the Mean Jesus that tricked her dumb ass the first time.

FYI, Grand Poobah of Dumb, Laura Silsby, is also a bit of an e-celebrity in online business circles apparently.


37 thoughts on “Mean Imposter Jesus Tricks Idaho Believers in Haiti

  1. Is that the same Jeebus who told Eric Rudolph to bomb abortion clinics, and who told the Kansas Fruitcake Roeder to murder Tiller, and and and… the list is endless.

    Religion, stupidity, arrogance, and ignorance: the handmaidens of dumbassery.

    [If this comment lacks elegance, it’s because my coffee hasn’t kicked in yet, and I deeply apologize for the affront to concinnity.]

    • If someone needs to embrace a particular paradigm to keep themselves morally in check, I think it’s a great idea. It can even ennoble an individual. Plus, religions have been responsible for some of the greatest works of art and the most awesome feats of architecture.

      But why, why, why bind yourself to a mode of thinking that forces you to suspend your intellect and renders your heart hard??

      I’m sure I’ll never understand….no matter what Dostoyevski says through The Grand Inquisitor.

      • As to art and architecture, religion may have been involved, but so might commissions and getting a living when the church was one of the few entities that had money to pay for such things. Chartres may be wondrous, and wouldn’t have been built were there no religion of one sort or another, but other wondrous buildings would have been built and other great works of art created – look in any museum (other than religious ones).

        All religion is subject to moral distortion. How many cults and sects of Christianity are there? All lay claim to true morality, all differ, and all are vulnerable to interpretation. Scott Roeder used his religion to justify murder, a not uncommon justification in the history of the world.

        People ‘bind’ themselves to religion precisely because religion tells them they do not have to think, they do not have to make decisions about how to live their lives, how to act in the world, how to interact with other people. Religion is a rulebook. Actual critical thinking about these matters is hard, and is limited to a tiny percentage of humanity. The other ninety-nine percent are content to do what their priests or shamans or rabbis or witch doctors tell them to do. The Jesus insanity is particularly vile in this regard, because its adherents believe their god will forgive them no matter what they do, thereby freeing them from any moral constraint if they so choose, thus making murderers Roeder and Paul Hill not only possible, but inevitable.

        Religious cults relieve people of using their most important possession, their critical intelligence, of which there is little in religion.

        • Was that a RAWRRRR, I heard? 🙂 I think you’re telling part of the story. But there’s more. I’ll wrestle with it and see if I can fill in what’s missing. There a fine line to walk between credulity and skepticism. Too much credulity makes a fool. Too much skepticism makes a loner. Love and compassion must factor in somewhere with hearts having reasons that reason knows nothing of.

          • Religion thrives on credulity. Since I’m a loner, I must be a skeptic…

            Your last line sounds quite poetic, but hearts do not reason. They simply thump for a while and then stop. I put passions in the brain, and while a passion (of any sort) may overwhelm and drive a person, passion is always susceptible to reason. Rough example: Ever been in a bad romantic relationship? Of course you have, being a human. But I would bet that the beginning of it was full of passion and pheromones and warm fuzzies and felt really good. But at every step of the way you (generically speaking) have the ability to step back, examine the situation rationally, and choose to go on, to give in to the passion, or choose to heed some information that indicates going on is not a good idea.

            Most people don’t do that. They live on hope, they prefer to believe that passion conquers all, be it a relationship, a cathedral, a pyramid (remember the ones that fell?), a universal theory of everything.

            The line I think you’re getting at is moderation and reflection. Skeptics are better at it than the credulous. We humans have the capacity to be rational and to be emotional. Between the two we can live a passionate life. But without awareness, without reflection, we are mere credulous hearts in the wind, to twist your hearty metaphor.

            [Not a RAWRRRR. More of a ROOAAAARRRRR accompanied by some slashing and clawing, gnashing of teeth, and rough tonguing mixed with an occasional snarl. Very Lionesque.]

        • If if were a skiff, we’d all go a-rowing.

          If you want to hold to the notion that religion or an effort to tap into the divine has produced no good and does no good, fine. The Irish gave up human sacrifice because Christians told them that Jesus’ mondo sacrifice covered the demands of the gods. The Irish became literate within a generation and the keepers of the great works in western civilization as the Roman Empire collapsed. Peasants in China became personally empowered against hopelessness, against chiefs and lords because Lao Tsu showed them the way (tao).

          Tangent: Isn’t interesting that Buddhism which teaches people to negate the self, seems to produce less nutjobs than Christianity which glorifies the self

          If all the religions of the world universally disbanded and all the people said, we will only use reason and intellect to make decisions, there would still be treachery. Look at the people of North Korea. Look at the organ harvests on prisoners in China or how long China overlooked it’s poison baby milk a couple of years ago.

          Show me a Rudolph and I’ll show you a Theodore Kaczynski.

          Show me a Stephen Hawking or John Nash and I’ll show you a Mother Teresa or a Martin Luther King, Jr.

          The last stat I saw is that 94% of people believe in some sort of notion of divinity. If I put my self in a place that let’s the coldest, shrewdest part of me make a judgment, I cannot amass the hubris (and I’m pretty fucking cocky) to designate them all as a sphere of idiots. I’ve seen too much good.

          • Ah, but I didn’t hold that no good comes of religion. Obviously people use their religious beliefs to motivate them to do some good. The basic tenet is that you gotta have religion to do good, and the corollary, if you don’t have religion you won’t do good. Obviously, neither is true. And just as obviously religious people have done heinous evil throughout history, motivated by their religion.

            When you depend on an unproven, unprovable supernatural entity for moral guidance, you might just as well make up your own set of moral rules. Every time some fool comes in from the wilderness claiming to have sat down to tea with god, the rules change, for better or for worse, but any claim of absolute moral rules goes out the window. It is idiotic to depend on such a system, and it is vile to claim absolute truth and force it on those who disagree – yet this is exactly what Christians try to do today, as they have throughout their history, and it is what Muslims try to do today, as they have throughout their history. Most religions tend to do this, sooner or later, for some period of time.

            Tangentially, pure Buddhism, the godless variety, practiced in the real world rather than in a cave, does reduce the incidence of nutjobbery, and I think it does so because sincere practitioners engage in reflection and critical reasoning as a matter of course – they don’t rely on the unproven, untestable supernatural for their moral decisions. In fact, I wouldn’t classify pure Buddhism as a religion at all. It has no gods, as opposed to, say, Tibetan Buddhism. But that’s all a tangent (done without italics, I might say proudly and annoyingly). (Yes, that’s irrelevant, but my morality compels me to be irritating.Or maybe it’s my age. Or too much coffee. Bah, who cares!)

            In any event, the point would seem to be that just because some belief in the supernatural motivates a person to do good does not mean the belief is valid or sound. Because the belief is not based in the real world, not based on evidence, on fact, on rational reflection, it is susceptible to distortion. After all, the Nazis were Christians. Gott Mit Uns.

            As for 94% of people believing in a divinity, if every human believed the earth was flat, would the earth be flat? Same argument. And despite all the evidence that the earth is an oblate spheroid, there are still people who believe it is flat. Belief without evidence may motivate good, but it is equally likely to motivate evil. God, Heaven, and Hell may be real in one’s mind, but there is no evidence of them in the real world. To believe in those things, and to act on them, while it may produce good, is nonetheless delusional and does not provide a reliable moral platform.

            A good cup of coffee is much more reliable.

          • Ah, but I didn’t hold that you gotta have religion to do good, and the corollary, if you don’t have religion you won’t do good. In fact I wrote a story about morons for mean Jesus. But I don’t deny religion can be good or produce good. It can. Just as obviously, a cold intellect can do heinous evil motivated by a its own notion of a perfect world and even rational things.

            You completely ignore the fact that many religious people use their religious tradition as a moral code of conduct, and they do it as a matter of pragmatism…the whole lot aren’t walking around hearing voices. Some are nuts. Most aren’t.

            After all, the Nazis were Christians. Gott Mit Uns. Um, Lenin, Stalin, Russian civil war and the red terror. Big serving of intellectual thinking with a side of OMFG (in the secular sense 🙂 ).

            As for 94% of people believing in a divinity, if every human believed the earth was flat, would the earth be flat? Weak analogy. The first has not been disproven or proven. The second has. Go again.

            • On your first paragraph, we’re not in disagreement. The point is that the religionists believe that only religionists are moral. (Tangent: when we get down to this level of replies in this blog theme, the text on the right side of the reply box goes underneath the right hand column of stuff. Can you fix that?) I’m going to write a reply off site and paste it. Be back in a minute.

    • On your first paragraph, we’re not in disagreement. The point is that the religionists believe that only religionists are moral, and that atheists cannot be moral beings. And it’s not just the fundie variety – it’s the everyday variety too.

      I do disagree with your implication that intellect tends towards the cold. Pure intellectual judgment can be, yes, just as religion can promote evil through pure religious passion. But what I mean when I talk about intellectual judgment, or rational thinking, or critical thinking, is not that sort: the best critical thinkers will tell you that intellect in critical thinking needs to be moderated by consideration and empathy and be tested in reality.

      I don’t ignore that religious people can use their religion as a moral code. Obviously they do. What I’m saying is that religion is not reliable in that way. All religions are built on the sand of superstitious belief, faith if you will. And far from being a rock, faith can shift with the wind, faith can twist with the vagaries of the human mind. If religionists believe their morals come from a supernatural being, they can believe anything, do anything. Chartres. Jonestown. Such belief is infinitely malleable (the cream cheese theory of religious faith). Faith in an unproven, unprovable, untestable theory of supernaturalism is delusion, no matter whether the results are good or evil.

      As for the 94% factor, the argument is about belief, not about proof. Belief does not create reality. If I believe two moons circle the earth, my belief does not create that second moon. But that is testable in reality. Look, only one moon. No matter how many people believe in god(s), there is no test in reality because there is no evidence. Belief can motivate, thus changing reality, but only in testable ways. Belief in certain realities put men on the moon in 1969. But belief doesn’t create gods or ghosts; belief without evidence is simply self-referential. Mendel believed in inheritance; he found the evidence and later science confirmed the reality of genetics. Nobody’s done that with gods (or ghosts), despite thousands of years of trying.

      If you’re going to build a bridge between Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard, you get engineers, you study materials and physics, you study the geology of the two places. If you’re going to build a bridge between two peoples, you study their histories, their traditions, their cultures, their social dynamics, their psychologies – if you want to deal with reality. Religion too often says ‘We’ll bring our truth to them and that’ll be the bridge and they’ll respect that.’ Hence, the Idaho believers – no test in reality. Did they even look up the various relevant laws? I doubt it.

      For a better statement of that, look at this post: What Makes The Lion Weep

      Stalin was a seminary student, by the way. Hitler was a Catholic. And intellect can be just as evidence-free as faith, leading to the horrors you mention.

      • Okay. You must mean Christians of every variety…which I only have to point to the numerous individual Unitarian Universalists that believe in a divine Jesus, but also believe (like the Hindus) there are many paths to God….including atheism.

        What I’m saying is that religion is reliable when it’s moral principles are applied pragmatically. Ie. the golden rule works some of the time, but not all of the time. I credit the pragmatic faithful for conducting tests in their own lives and making observations about others pragmatically. I credit many of the faithful for knowing there is more than one method of epistemology (even if the word epistemology never falls from their lips or enters their brains.)

        Faith can be a source of creativity and inspiration for all of mankind, skeptics and believers alike. I’ll say nothing against faith unless it leads a band of baptists to Haiti to dabble in child trafficking or some other nonsense or worse something evil. I’ll take a Martin Luther King, Jr. and a Gandhi a thousand times over the scientist telling me to eat oat bran then don’t eat oat bran…or the economy will do X when it in reality does Y. Science is as cream cheesy as faith in that science is always subject to new revelations and victimized by the unknown…shifting with the winds of the latest study because new information comes to light.

        As for the 94% factor, the argument for my own purposes is about not cavalierly dismissing the human race save the 6%. Belief does not create reality? Tell that to writer Arther C. Clark who prophesied telecommunications satellites in 1945…a decade before the first rocket was put into orbit. Tell it to the oracle Ursula K. Le Guin who in 1966 in fiction told the world of an ansible that is our internet today. I will not discredit the artists and saints and put all of my faith in the skeptics, scientists, and philosophers.

        I will read your link. Thank you. I’m writing between other tasks. 🙂

        Btw, Stalin was kicked out of seminary for rebellion against church and the imperialists.

        • Clark did not create the reality of satellites through his belief. Scientists and engineers who believed satellites were possible because they knew math and physics and engineering created them. Clark extrapolated what he knew of science and physics to make a prediction. Belief didn’t create anything by itself. Humans understanding and applying the laws of physics and the precepts of engineering created the satellite network. Belief can motivate action, but it can’t create.

          And of course science is always subject to new information. That’s what it’s about. You collect facts. You hypothesize what they mean. You collect more facts. You rework your hypothesis. New facts come to light. More work. And you get closer and closer to the truth that way. That’s not shifting with the winds. That’s the work of the scientific method. That’s reason and logic operating in the real world.

          Religionists pick and choose facts to fit their beliefs, discarding facts that refute their beliefs. You don’t get to truth that way, but you can believe anything you want. BTW I’m talking of religionists of every variety, not just Christians.

          And I’m not asking you to speak against faith. That’s up to you. I’m just saying that religious faith is not a reliable guide to moral behavior. It may inspire creativity, but so does belief in science, so does belief in factual reality, and so does LSD, and so does a good time partying with friends, and so does quiet meditation.

          Are you getting huffy and irritable with me? You shouldn’t, you know. We’re having a good discussion. Just because I’m right shouldn’t put you off… 😀 Have some more coffee.

          Yeah, I knew about Stalin. Still, interesting that he was a seminarian. Could his experience in a formal religious environment been part of what turned him into a monstrous human being? Curious minds want to know. 🙂

            • Oooh! You wound me. I be not muddled. Thou be confused.

              Besides, I’m a sweetheart of a guy and couldn’t possibly be wrong… though there was that one time when I was 27…

              But be-est thou of good cheer. BTW, have you seen my iambs? I’m sure I had them around here somewhere.

  2. What kills me about this — besides the, you know, kidnapping stuff — is that these f*ckers are malapropping all over the word “truth”. The word “truth” is supposed to mean something like “objective reality” but these people don’t *exist* in any sort of objective reality — their reality is all about subjective (and basically incoherent) intent. “Truth” to them means that “real americans” will look into their souls and see that they’re lily-white, whereas “truth” to the rest of us is that a couple of jokers snatched some kids without the kids’ or parents’ or international authorites’ consent.

    “Truth,” my *ss. It really burns my biscuit, everytime some christer trots out that particularly hoary chestnut.

  3. oooh! maybe these jokers will meet up with john travolta’s small army of scientologists whom he flew in, and there can be a religious war! that’ll be fun, won’t it? it’s just what haiti needs right now.

    • There’s nothing a starving man needs more than religious pamphlets, I always say.

      As long as they keep their respective yaps shut and stick to the house-building and food-distributing, more power to them.

      And, of course, no kidnapping the children. (You’d think certain things would be understood.)

      I can understand the impulse to invite folks over. Heck, I gave passing thought to it myself. But there’s a difference between offering and snatching.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s