Haiti & the Baptists - their story

homer911

Remember the arrested baptists in Haiti arrested for allegedly abducting children?

I cant find the original thread on this, but this is the story (recently published) from the Baptist side from the Baptist press:

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=32953

wolfsbane

homer911 wrote: »

Remember the arrested baptists in Haiti arrested for allegedly abducting children?

I cant find the original thread on this, but this is the story (recently published) from the Baptist side from the Baptist press:

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=32953

Thanks for the update.

I know there are some strange types under the name Baptist in America, but these seemed pretty mainstream, so the idea they were a bunch of kidnappers did not ring true to me. Corruption and power-struggle seem a likelier explanation for the treatment these folks got.

_________________________________________________________________
Matthew 5:11 “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

johnfás

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thanks for the update.

I know there are some strange types under the name Baptist in America, but these seemed pretty mainstream, so the idea they were a bunch of kidnappers did not ring true to me. Corruption and power-struggle seem a likelier explanation for the treatment these folks got.

They may not be a bunch of kidnappers, but their conduct was incredibly naive, borderline reckless. To think that one can swan into a jurisdiction, at a time of crisis, and remove children to another jurisdiction, without adequate paperwork, is gross misconduct - irrespective of whether it is well motivated or not.

One must of course not accept the story in the Baptist Press at face value either. One must examine the "two stories" which have come out and take a balanced approach to both.

It does not seem that this group of people had any experience in dealing with the sort of situation that they put themselves into. That was, as I said, incredibly naive and reckless, irrespective of motivation.

JimiTime

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thanks for the update.

I know there are some strange types under the name Baptist in America, but these seemed pretty mainstream, so the idea they were a bunch of kidnappers did not ring true to me. Corruption and power-struggle seem a likelier explanation for the treatment these folks got.

Yeah, from the off I thought this was just politics being played.

Zombrex

johnfás wrote: »

They may not be a bunch of kidnappers, but their conduct was incredibly naive, borderline reckless.

Agreed, they seemed to have zero experience with regard to what they were attempting. To be honest they come off really bad in that piece and that is supposed to be their side of the story.

Even by their own accounts they went down to a country in the middle of a disaster and started asking how do they move kids from one country to another with little to no experience of the system they were operating in. You really don't need to be a rocket scientist to see the problems with that. They were obviously going to get conflicting answers as the infrastructure of the country was in bits. The excuse that they were just following what they were told and the fault lies with the Haiti system is grossly naive, they were in the middle of an earthquake for crying out loud

The governments position all along has been that they were attempting to stop child trafficking and you can see their point. In a time of chaos it would be far too easy for people to claim they were moving children out of the country and have these children never seen of again.

JimiTime

johnfás wrote: »

They may not be a bunch of kidnappers, but their conduct was incredibly naive, borderline reckless. To think that one can swan into a jurisdiction, at a time of crisis, and remove children to another jurisdiction, without adequate paperwork, is gross misconduct - irrespective of whether it is well motivated or not.

One must of course not accept the story in the Baptist Press at face value either. One must examine the "two stories" which have come out and take a balanced approach to both.

It does not seem that this group of people had any experience in dealing with the sort of situation that they put themselves into. That was, as I said, incredibly naive and reckless, irrespective of motivation.

At least they cared enough to go to a disaster zone and do something good. We can 'tut, tut' all we want, but most of us are just keyboard warriors. that one act that you are criticising, has probably touched more lives than all of us here in this thread will touch in all our combined lives.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

At least they cared enough to go to a disaster zone and do something good. We can 'tut, tut' all we want, but most of us are just keyboard warriors. that one act that you are criticising, has probably touched more lives than all of us here in this thread will touch in all our combined lives.

True, they were clearly motivated by a genuine desire to help people. But the phrase "more harm than good" keeps popping up in my head over this story.

If someone not trained in say search and rescue went down to Haiti and just started helping out the emergency crews would probably ask him to leave, even if he was genuinely interested in doing some good. Not because they didn't want help but because good intentions are not always enough. Knowledge and training is important too.

The same principle seems to apply here. They didn't know what they were doing and simply ended up causing more confusion in an already chaotic environment.

johnfás

JimiTime wrote: »

At least they cared enough to go to a disaster zone and do something good. We can 'tut, tut' all we want, but most of us are just keyboard warriors. that one act that you are criticising, has probably touched more lives than all of us here in this thread will touch in all our combined lives.

Part of doing good also requires one to know their limitations.

God Grant Me The Serenity
To Accept The Things I Cannot Change
Courage To Change The Things I Can
And The Wisdom To Know The Difference

They were quite able to support a charity which was providing relief work in Haiti, rather than turning up themselves. Or, if they were to travel to Haiti, to help by doing something which they had the skills to provide. It seems they had no experience of providing an adoption service, nor certainly doing so in Haiti, a French speaking country with a different legal system.

As I said, I do not doubt their motivation or their sincerity, but sincerity does not equate to a good deed.

JimiTime

johnfás wrote: »

Part of doing good also requires one to know their limitations.

God Grant Me The Serenity
To Accept The Things I Cannot Change
Courage To Change The Things I Can
And The Wisdom To Know The Difference

They were quite able to support a charity which was providing relief work in Haiti, rather than turning up themselves. Or, if they were to travel to Haiti, to help by doing something which they had the skills to provide. It seems they had no experience of providing an adoption service, nor certainly doing so in Haiti, a French speaking country with a different legal system.

As I said, I do not doubt their motivation or their sincerity, but sincerity does not equate to a good deed.

They DONE something, thats what counts IMO. While people over here went to fundraising events, alot of which went hand in hand with getting P!ssed, these people gave of themselves, not of their excess. We can go on about them not crossing t's and dotting i's, but I personally am in no position to criticise them.

As far as I'm concerned it was a good deed. Screw the paperwork.

johnfás

JimiTime wrote: »

They DONE something, thats what counts IMO. While people over here went to fundraising events, alot of which went hand in hand with getting P!ssed, these people gave of themselves, not of their excess. We can go on about them not crossing t's and dotting i's, but I personally am in no position to criticise them.

As far as I'm concerned it was a good deed. Screw the paperwork.

With respect, issues like paperwork are not things simply to be "screwed". Perhaps you might lay aside a simple thought for what happens the day after. It may seem like a good idea the day of to nip across to another jurisdiction and remove children permanently. However, without any experience or expertise on the part of these people, aside from the danger of taking children who are not orphaned, it is also very likely that the children who are removed from the jurisdiction will suffer consequences in later life. That is not of course to say that it is not right to bring orphaned children to another jurisdiction for a better life - it is simply to say that in doing so it should be done right.

I would strongly disagree with you and say that the keyboard warrior who knows his or her limitations and chooses to support an organisation which does have an expertise for the task, is providing a greater good than the person who jumps in without any expertise and can, in certain circumstances, cause a great deal of damage. There is a place for people to volunteer in a disaster zone, but they should do so within their limitations, or they should support those who have a knowledge and expertise in the task at hand.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

They DONE something, thats what counts IMO. While people over here went to fundraising events, alot of which went hand in hand with getting P!ssed, these people gave of themselves, not of their excess. We can go on about them not crossing t's and dotting i's, but I personally am in no position to criticise them.

As far as I'm concerned it was a good deed. Screw the paperwork.

Sorry I can't agree with that.

If I knew of a child at risk in an Irish household I would call the police or the HSE, ie the people trained to handle the situation.

I wouldn't simply walk into the house, pick the child up, and walk out again under the excuse that I was doing something about it.

Paperwork exists for a reason, as does training. Often the best thing you can give is money to fund trained emergency services because people simply turning up to these types of disasters simply add to the chaos, as this group did.

If people genuinely have a calling to help people then they can genuinely take the time to get trained up so they know what they are doing. I don't know much about this group but it smacks of a knee jerk reactionary response. I commend them for wanting to do something but they should have had a bit more of a think of what would be the best thing to do.

JimiTime

johnfás wrote: »

With respect, issues like paperwork are not things simply to be "screwed". Perhaps you might lay aside a simple thought for what happens the day after. It may seem like a good idea the day of to nip across to another jurisdiction and remove children permanently. However, without any experience or expertise on the part of these people, aside from the danger of taking children who are not orphaned, it is also very likely that the children who are removed from the jurisdiction will suffer consequences in later life. That is not of course to say that it is not right to bring orphaned children to another jurisdiction for a better life - it is simply to say that in doing so it should be done right.

I would strongly disagree with you and say that the keyboard warrior who knows his or her limitations and chooses to support an organisation which does have an expertise for the task, is providing a greater good than the person who jumps in without any expertise and can, in certain circumstances, cause a great deal of damage. There is a place for people to volunteer in a disaster zone, but they should do so within their limitations, or they should support those who have a knowledge and expertise in the task at hand.

TBH, i understand your position. However, I get really p!ssed off when people do good things only to have lazy feckers who'd never dream of lifting a finger (not saying thats you)in such a cause pick them apart on technicalities. I'll wait for the UNICEF response, and decide where my opinion lies. You get the same stuff with people criticising Catholic charities in Africa about the condom issue from the comfort of their lofty keyboard. The fact is, they're there, and making a difference.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH, i understand your position. However, I get really p!ssed off when people do good things only to have lazy feckers who'd never dream of lifting a finger in such a cause pick them apart on technicalities.

Can we have a discussion without you insulting us please.

Zombrex

The leader of the group Laura Silsby seems to have a long history of financial mismanagement, so it is not really surprising in hind sight that the group ended up in such a organizational mess.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/02/04/1067267/haiti-missionary-left-trail-of.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/05/world/main6178794.shtml