9 ms·

Saw on Twitter that someone called them the "Wahhabi Lobby". But actually, it seems ridiculous to me that this only warranted a $3m settlement. They've (almost

Saw on Twitter that someone called them the "Wahhabi Lobby". But actually, it seems ridiculous to me that this only warranted a $3m settlement. They've (almost certainly) been indirectly funding ISIS by robbing a country of its cultural artifacts. Not cool.

ivl 9y ago
If I recall, they made these purchases in 2010. So just AQ linked Iraqi warlords (who you could probably bet on having joined ISIS). Ironically, if these artifacts were from northern Iraq, where ISIS has had its main destructive presence, there's a good chance they would have been destroyed. Still, gross to see a "Christian" company wanting to get items from the 'holy land' that have been totally plundered to build a bible museum.
- ffxtian 9y ago
  Except that many of the artifacts that ISIS "destroys" are in fact sold: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/islamic-state-isnt-just-destroying-ancient-artifacts--its-selling-them/2015/06/08/ca5ea964-08a2-11e5-951e-8e15090d64ae_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/islamic-sta...
  - bogomipz 9y ago
    I agree but I think this a more recent development. Specifically as ISIS has been driven out of a number of oil fields in the North of Iraq and lost that oil as a source of funding. I think the "idolatry smashing" propaganda videos are more selective now as ISIS needs to rely more on the sales of those artifacts for funding due the loss of the oil.
- DanBC 9y ago
  See also The Museum of Lost Objects which talks about some of the artifacts that have been destroyed. Here's one about Abu al-Alaa al-Maarri. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35745962 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35745962
- masklinn 9y ago
  > Ironically, if these artifacts were from northern Iraq, where ISIS has had its main destructive presence, there's a good chance they would have been destroyed. It's largely understood that ISIS destroys archaeological sites so it's harder to notice that they've looted the artefacts to sell them. It also makes the artefacts harder to track and link to their POI.
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
To me this seems tantamount to funding terrorists and yet no one will spend even 1 hour in jail. From a purely practical perspective, why doesn't the government pursue prison for individuals involved in this?
- gorkonsine 9y ago
  The highest levels of the government now are good buddies with people just like this. I'm surprised they aren't just being let off scot-free to keep their artifacts.
- petraeus 9y ago
  If you think the law has anything to do with justice I've got a bridge to nowhere for sale ...
bogomipz 9y ago
And perhaps equally infuriating and insulting is this Christian company not taking any responsibility for the theft or funding terrorists. From the BBC articles; >'Hobby Lobby said it "did not fully appreciate the complexities" of the import process when it began' and >'The company imprudently relied on dealers and shippers who, in hindsight, did not understand the correct way to document and ship these items," Hobby Lobby said'[1] Its amazing that "committed evangelical Christians" who said religious beliefs barred them from paying for certain kinds of contraception in their employees health care doesn't have the same moral compunction when it comes to stealing or doing business with terrorists.[2] Sources: [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40516932 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40516932 [2] http://www.bbc.com/news/28093756 http://www.bbc.com/news/28093756
- noonespecial 9y ago
  The 3rd (of the 10) commandments should loom large enough in the Evangelical faith that religion should just never be brought into business. No matter how good the intention at the outset, this seems an entirely predictable (and often repeated) result. I think it's great to be a Christian in business and try to live out your faith, but I think it's trouble to try to be a "Christian business" and use it as part of your advertising/PR.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    Yes, according to the Bible, God clearly wants his followers to be closeted.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- knodi123 9y ago
  > who said religious beliefs barred them from paying for certain kinds of contraception in their employees health care And who actually offered that contraception as part of their health care for decades, no problem, until obamacare mandated it, at which point they suddenly realized they had a deep-seated religious conviction against it.
kevmo 9y ago
That's how the "justice" system works in America. Giant crime by a party with a lot of money? DOJ will just slap you with a relatively small fine. Bag of weed? You're going to jail, buddy!
- rayiner 9y ago
  The difference is that in drug cases, there is almost always overwhelming proof that someone committed a crime. Nobody has a kilo of cocaine shoved down their waistband and doesn't know about it. In a case like this, maybe it's a "giant crime," or maybe it's just a customs violation. Unless you have proof of the entity's state of mind, it's impossible to tell the difference.
  - blackguardx 9y ago
    "Intent to distribute" charges get slapped on people an awful lot without much hard proof.
    - rhino369 9y ago
      because the law has defined "intent to distribute" purely by the amount of drugs you have. They don't have to actually prove intention to distribution. Really it should just be called "possession of a lot of drugs." The reason the laws were changed was that it was tough to convict someone if you had to actually show they intended to sell.
  - petraeus 9y ago
    If you think officers need a shred of proof to arrest somebody and judges need a shred of proof to convict, i've got a bridge to nowhere for sale ... the us criminal system is a machine run for profit, not for justice, simply because SOME of the convicts are murderers is simply correlation
    - rayiner 9y ago
      I have a lot of criticism for the U.S. criminal justice system, but I've also got first-hand experience with it and I think your assertion is inaccurate. As a judge's clerk I saw the files of numerous criminal convictions on appeal. I can't think of a single one where there wasn't overwhelming evidence to support the conviction. The felon caught with a gun in his car, or the drug dealer who tried to sell drugs to an undercover cop, or the guy who was arrested after beating his wife bloody. That's the bread and butter of the justice system. You can argue that two of those three things shouldn't be crimes (and I agree--but at least half the country doesn't) but the idea that people are routinely convicted without evidence is a myth.
rayiner 9y ago
> They've (almost certainly) Is that true? More importantly, is there evidence that makes it more likely than not that (1) this is true; and (2) that Hobby Lobby knew about it, or was willfully blind about it? Like, what percentage of unprovenanced antiquities sales are used to support terrorism? It's like saying buying drugs (or diamonds, or products containing certain metals) finances terrorism. Yeah, some does. But the percentage is not such that it would be reasonable to try and pin someone who bought a back of weed as being responsible for funding terrorism.
- ocschwar 9y ago
  Any percentage above 0 makes it true.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    That makes no sense. Say 10% of unprovenanced sales go to funding terrorism. In that case, it's vastly more likely than not that any given sale does not go to fund terrorism. Moreover, you're not willfully blind as to the risk of funding terrorism if you do buy unprovenanced articles, because statistically speaking it's probably not funding terrorism. Willful blindness doesn't just require ignoring a risk, but an unacceptably high risk.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  These are great questions that need to be answered. Nearly all the rest of the comments in this thread are think veiled vitriol for Hobby Lobby and Christianity. I expect more of the HN community. Thanks for trying to improve the level of discourse here.
- lostlogin 9y ago
  That's a good point. One could make a decent argument that by paying taxes in some places you have funded 'terrorism'. Unfortunately terrorism is a word that is polarising and is generally shouted hysterical such that it's devoid of meaning and you can't really use it helpfully.

ivl 9y ago

If I recall, they made these purchases in 2010. So just AQ linked Iraqi warlords (who you could probably bet on having joined ISIS). Ironically, if these artifacts were from northern Iraq, where ISIS has had its main destructive presence, there's a good chance they would have been destroyed. Still, gross to see a "Christian" company wanting to get items from the 'holy land' that have been totally plundered to build a bible museum.

ffxtian 9y ago
Except that many of the artifacts that ISIS "destroys" are in fact sold: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/islamic-state-isnt-just-destroying-ancient-artifacts--its-selling-them/2015/06/08/ca5ea964-08a2-11e5-951e-8e15090d64ae_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/islamic-sta...
- bogomipz 9y ago
  I agree but I think this a more recent development. Specifically as ISIS has been driven out of a number of oil fields in the North of Iraq and lost that oil as a source of funding. I think the "idolatry smashing" propaganda videos are more selective now as ISIS needs to rely more on the sales of those artifacts for funding due the loss of the oil.
DanBC 9y ago
See also The Museum of Lost Objects which talks about some of the artifacts that have been destroyed. Here's one about Abu al-Alaa al-Maarri. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35745962 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35745962
masklinn 9y ago
> Ironically, if these artifacts were from northern Iraq, where ISIS has had its main destructive presence, there's a good chance they would have been destroyed. It's largely understood that ISIS destroys archaeological sites so it's harder to notice that they've looted the artefacts to sell them. It also makes the artefacts harder to track and link to their POI.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

To me this seems tantamount to funding terrorists and yet no one will spend even 1 hour in jail. From a purely practical perspective, why doesn't the government pursue prison for individuals involved in this?

gorkonsine 9y ago
The highest levels of the government now are good buddies with people just like this. I'm surprised they aren't just being let off scot-free to keep their artifacts.
petraeus 9y ago
If you think the law has anything to do with justice I've got a bridge to nowhere for sale ...

bogomipz 9y ago

And perhaps equally infuriating and insulting is this Christian company not taking any responsibility for the theft or funding terrorists. From the BBC articles; >'Hobby Lobby said it "did not fully appreciate the complexities" of the import process when it began' and >'The company imprudently relied on dealers and shippers who, in hindsight, did not understand the correct way to document and ship these items," Hobby Lobby said'[1] Its amazing that "committed evangelical Christians" who said religious beliefs barred them from paying for certain kinds of contraception in their employees health care doesn't have the same moral compunction when it comes to stealing or doing business with terrorists.[2] Sources: [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40516932 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40516932 [2] http://www.bbc.com/news/28093756 http://www.bbc.com/news/28093756

noonespecial 9y ago
The 3rd (of the 10) commandments should loom large enough in the Evangelical faith that religion should just never be brought into business. No matter how good the intention at the outset, this seems an entirely predictable (and often repeated) result. I think it's great to be a Christian in business and try to live out your faith, but I think it's trouble to try to be a "Christian business" and use it as part of your advertising/PR.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  Yes, according to the Bible, God clearly wants his followers to be closeted.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
knodi123 9y ago
> who said religious beliefs barred them from paying for certain kinds of contraception in their employees health care And who actually offered that contraception as part of their health care for decades, no problem, until obamacare mandated it, at which point they suddenly realized they had a deep-seated religious conviction against it.

kevmo 9y ago

That's how the "justice" system works in America. Giant crime by a party with a lot of money? DOJ will just slap you with a relatively small fine. Bag of weed? You're going to jail, buddy!

rayiner 9y ago
The difference is that in drug cases, there is almost always overwhelming proof that someone committed a crime. Nobody has a kilo of cocaine shoved down their waistband and doesn't know about it. In a case like this, maybe it's a "giant crime," or maybe it's just a customs violation. Unless you have proof of the entity's state of mind, it's impossible to tell the difference.
- blackguardx 9y ago
  "Intent to distribute" charges get slapped on people an awful lot without much hard proof.
  - rhino369 9y ago
    because the law has defined "intent to distribute" purely by the amount of drugs you have. They don't have to actually prove intention to distribution. Really it should just be called "possession of a lot of drugs." The reason the laws were changed was that it was tough to convict someone if you had to actually show they intended to sell.
- petraeus 9y ago
  If you think officers need a shred of proof to arrest somebody and judges need a shred of proof to convict, i've got a bridge to nowhere for sale ... the us criminal system is a machine run for profit, not for justice, simply because SOME of the convicts are murderers is simply correlation
  - rayiner 9y ago
    I have a lot of criticism for the U.S. criminal justice system, but I've also got first-hand experience with it and I think your assertion is inaccurate. As a judge's clerk I saw the files of numerous criminal convictions on appeal. I can't think of a single one where there wasn't overwhelming evidence to support the conviction. The felon caught with a gun in his car, or the drug dealer who tried to sell drugs to an undercover cop, or the guy who was arrested after beating his wife bloody. That's the bread and butter of the justice system. You can argue that two of those three things shouldn't be crimes (and I agree--but at least half the country doesn't) but the idea that people are routinely convicted without evidence is a myth.

rayiner 9y ago

> They've (almost certainly) Is that true? More importantly, is there evidence that makes it more likely than not that (1) this is true; and (2) that Hobby Lobby knew about it, or was willfully blind about it? Like, what percentage of unprovenanced antiquities sales are used to support terrorism? It's like saying buying drugs (or diamonds, or products containing certain metals) finances terrorism. Yeah, some does. But the percentage is not such that it would be reasonable to try and pin someone who bought a back of weed as being responsible for funding terrorism.

ocschwar 9y ago
Any percentage above 0 makes it true.
- rayiner 9y ago
  That makes no sense. Say 10% of unprovenanced sales go to funding terrorism. In that case, it's vastly more likely than not that any given sale does not go to fund terrorism. Moreover, you're not willfully blind as to the risk of funding terrorism if you do buy unprovenanced articles, because statistically speaking it's probably not funding terrorism. Willful blindness doesn't just require ignoring a risk, but an unacceptably high risk.
humanrebar 9y ago
These are great questions that need to be answered. Nearly all the rest of the comments in this thread are think veiled vitriol for Hobby Lobby and Christianity. I expect more of the HN community. Thanks for trying to improve the level of discourse here.
lostlogin 9y ago
That's a good point. One could make a decent argument that by paying taxes in some places you have funded 'terrorism'. Unfortunately terrorism is a word that is polarising and is generally shouted hysterical such that it's devoid of meaning and you can't really use it helpfully.