Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nemesis6 on March 09, 2010, 05:11:52 pm
-
The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud.
By Christopher Hitchens
I think it was Macaulay who said that the Roman Catholic Church deserved great credit for, and owed its longevity to, its ability to handle and contain fanaticism. This rather oblique compliment belongs to a more serious age. What is so striking about the "beatification" of the woman who styled herself "Mother" Teresa is the abject surrender, on the part of the church, to the forces of showbiz, superstition, and populism.
It's the sheer tawdriness that strikes the eye first of all. It used to be that a person could not even be nominated for "beatification," the first step to "sainthood," until five years after his or her death. This was to guard against local or popular enthusiasm in the promotion of dubious characters. The pope nominated MT a year after her death in 1997. It also used to be that an apparatus of inquiry was set in train, including the scrutiny of an advocatus diaboli or "devil's advocate," to test any extraordinary claims. The pope has abolished this office and has created more instant saints than all his predecessors combined as far back as the 16th century.
As for the "miracle" that had to be attested, what can one say? Surely any respectable Catholic cringes with shame at the obviousness of the fakery. A Bengali woman named Monica Besra claims that a beam of light emerged from a picture of MT, which she happened to have in her home, and relieved her of a cancerous tumor. Her physician, Dr. Ranjan Mustafi, says that she didn't have a cancerous tumor in the first place and that the tubercular cyst she did have was cured by a course of prescription medicine. Was he interviewed by the Vatican's investigators? No. (As it happens, I myself was interviewed by them but only in the most perfunctory way. The procedure still does demand a show of consultation with doubters, and a show of consultation was what, in this case, it got.)
According to an uncontradicted report in the Italian paper L'Eco di Bergamo, the Vatican's secretary of state sent a letter to senior cardinals in June, asking on behalf of the pope whether they favored making MT a saint right away. The pope's clear intention has been to speed the process up in order to perform the ceremony in his own lifetime. The response was in the negative, according to Father Brian Kolodiejchuk, the Canadian priest who has acted as postulator or advocate for the "canonization." But the damage, to such integrity as the process possesses, has already been done.
During the deliberations over the Second Vatican Council, under the stewardship of Pope John XXIII, MT was to the fore in opposing all suggestions of reform. What was needed, she maintained, was more work and more faith, not doctrinal revision. Her position was ultra-reactionary and fundamentalist even in orthodox Catholic terms. Believers are indeed enjoined to abhor and eschew abortion, but they are not required to affirm that abortion is "the greatest destroyer of peace," as MT fantastically asserted to a dumbfounded audience when receiving the Nobel Peace Prize*. Believers are likewise enjoined to abhor and eschew divorce, but they are not required to insist that a ban on divorce and remarriage be a part of the state constitution, as MT demanded in a referendum in Ireland (which her side narrowly lost) in 1996. Later in that same year, she told Ladies Home Journal that she was pleased by the divorce of her friend Princess Diana, because the marriage had so obviously been an unhappy one …
This returns us to the medieval corruption of the church, which sold indulgences to the rich while preaching hellfire and continence to the poor. MT was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction. And she was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan. Where did that money, and all the other donations, go? The primitive hospice in Calcutta was as run down when she died as it always had been—she preferred California clinics when she got sick herself—and her order always refused to publish any audit. But we have her own claim that she opened 500 convents in more than a hundred countries, all bearing the name of her own order. Excuse me, but this is modesty and humility?
The rich world has a poor conscience, and many people liked to alleviate their own unease by sending money to a woman who seemed like an activist for "the poorest of the poor." People do not like to admit that they have been gulled or conned, so a vested interest in the myth was permitted to arise, and a lazy media never bothered to ask any follow-up questions. Many volunteers who went to Calcutta came back abruptly disillusioned by the stern ideology and poverty-loving practice of the "Missionaries of Charity," but they had no audience for their story. George Orwell's admonition in his essay on Gandhi—that saints should always be presumed guilty until proved innocent—was drowned in a Niagara of soft-hearted, soft-headed, and uninquiring propaganda.
One of the curses of India, as of other poor countries, is the quack medicine man, who fleeces the sufferer by promises of miraculous healing. Sunday was a great day for these parasites, who saw their crummy methods endorsed by his holiness and given a more or less free ride in the international press. Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. More than that, we witnessed the elevation and consecration of extreme dogmatism, blinkered faith, and the cult of a mediocre human personality. Many more people are poor and sick because of the life of MT: Even more will be poor and sick if her example is followed. She was a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud, and a church that officially protects those who violate the innocent has given us another clear sign of where it truly stands on moral and ethical questions.
http://www.slate.com/id/2090083
So step 1: Draw in the poor and the needy. Step 2 - ???. Step 3 - PROFIT!
-
Perpetually outraged
-
Perpetually outraged
Dubiously flabbergasted
-
Flagrantly confused
-
Somewhat irritated (at thread title.)
-
Exceptionally bored.
-
Cheif Billow
Big Cloud
-
Noxiously nauseated.
-
Futile wishing (for a moratorium on stir-****-up drive-by quote threads)
-
It's supposed to be an adverb ending in -ly followed by a past tense verb.
Dammit Mongoose you ruined Christmas :(
-
Breathtakingly combo-broken
-
I live to please.
-
FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
-
Not a Catholic, so my vote means bupkis, but where I grew up, one does not run down the reputation of the dead. If she was indeed the evil, corrupt person the individual above made her out to be, then history will record her as such. The vast majority of the population prefer the myth to the reality, "Mother" Teresa was a little old woman who liked to help people.
Sometimes the myth is better for people than the reality.
The modern "reality" that so many intellectuals want everyone to accept is that there is no God, no such thing as Absolute Good or Absolute evil. That there is no existence after this life, this is it, one shot then you are less than dust in the wind.
-
For the most part, I just completely and 100% agreed with Liberator.
Say whatever about Mother Teresa you want; the fact that she made even one person's life on this godforsaken ****hole of a planet better makes her a saint.
-
Lots of people are frauds. I'd really rather not give much attention to the ones where the only thing presently at stake is the social status of a dead person.
-
For the most part, I just completely and 100% agreed with Liberator.
Say whatever about Mother Teresa you want; the fact that she made even one person's life on this godforsaken ****hole of a planet better makes her a saint.
So, by that logic, just about EVERYONE ought to be declared a saint? Regardless of whether or not it's good for morale to not dig up dirt on the recently deceased and shove it in the faces of their biggest fans, it's not good for credibility, keeping sainthood meaningful, to ignore the facts or keep quiet the evidence against her (though not quite silent, obviously, or we wouldn't be here discussing it).
That said, sainthood doesn't mean anything to me anyway. The only thing I'd ever accept as a miracle is when the fanatics, fundamentalists, and evangelists of all the world's religions finally just shut the **** up and stop forcing their beliefs on each other.
-
So, by that logic, just about EVERYONE ought to be declared a saint? Regardless of whether or not it's good for morale to not dig up dirt on the recently deceased and shove it in the faces of their biggest fans, it's not good for credibility, keeping sainthood meaningful, to ignore the facts or keep quiet the evidence against her (though not quite silent, obviously, or we wouldn't be here discussing it).
Sure, everyone ought to be a saint. Unless you enjoy simplifying everyone's life to the net result of their existence.
That said, sainthood doesn't mean anything to me anyway. The only thing I'd ever accept as a miracle is when the fanatics, fundamentalists, and evangelists of all the world's religions finally just shut the **** up and stop forcing their beliefs on each other.
You mean even if you're wrong, it doesn't matter because you don't care and everyone is stupid?
-
For the most part, I just completely and 100% agreed with Liberator.
Say whatever about Mother Teresa you want; the fact that she made even one person's life on this godforsaken ****hole of a planet better makes her a saint.
So, by that logic, just about EVERYONE ought to be declared a saint? Regardless of whether or not it's good for morale to not dig up dirt on the recently deceased and shove it in the faces of their biggest fans, it's not good for credibility, keeping sainthood meaningful, to ignore the facts or keep quiet the evidence against her (though not quite silent, obviously, or we wouldn't be here discussing it).
That said, sainthood doesn't mean anything to me anyway. The only thing I'd ever accept as a miracle is when the fanatics, fundamentalists, and evangelists of all the world's religions finally just shut the **** up and stop forcing their beliefs on each other.
I don't really give a crap about the Catholic version of sainthood. I mean if you spent your entire life with the intention of bettering the lives of others, and you only somehow managed to make one person's life better, then you deserve all the respect in the world.
Whether or not Mother Teresa is a giant piece of propaganda for the Catholic Church, she's been a symbol and an inspiration around the world for people to do good things and help their neighbors. That's not exactly terrible.
Sure, dig up dirt all you want, but fact is Mother Teresa made lives better and her legacy of making lives better is living on through the thousands she inspired to make lives better.
-
Say whatever about Mother Teresa you want; the fact that she made even one person's life on this godforsaken ****hole of a planet better makes her a saint.
Guess I should have read the article. I assumed it was about the allegations that she believed suffering to be a good thing, and her little hospital places ended up being horrid, nasty places.
-
If she was indeed the evil, corrupt person the individual above made her out to be, then history will record her as such.
Not if the people writing said history is too brainwashed to know better. There's more than a few people in Russia who think Stalin was a hero.
I assumed it was about the allegations that she believed suffering to be a good thing, and her little hospital places ended up being horrid, nasty places.
Watch the Penn&Teller episode "Holier than Thou", they have her on tape saying exactly that, plus videos showing the terrible conditions of her "hospitals".
-
Funny, cause when you ask people about Mother Teresa, you don't hear them say "suffering is good" or "treats people like ****". You hear "good humanitarian" and "wonderful human being".
Fine, whatever, I know research is a good thing and sometimes it's good to have dirt on everyone, but when you're trying to tarnish the reputation (true or not) of what has been made out to be one of the greatest humanitarians in history, don't you think there's something wrong? People don't look at her methods, they look at her intentions.
Whatever. Want to piss on Clara Barton or Cesar Chavez while we're at it? Destroy any other sacred symbols of humanitarianism and good will?
-
To expand on what I said above, because no one really seems to have picked up on the point, this is the exact sort of **** that has made General Discussion such a ****ing chore to read recently. Someone saunters in, throws down a thread consisting of little more than a link, a massive quote of some article or other, and a single-sentence snide remark, and then waltzes out again. There's no legitimate starting point for discussion, no measured look at the topic, just the seeming intent to fan the flames by dropping a spark on some tinder-box of a topic. Never mind that the article in question is just one limited viewpoint on a particular topic, and isn't from what one could call an unbiased source, or that there's very little potential for any sort of meaningful conversation. Just throw the match into the puddle of gasoline, and sit back and watch the fun.
I mean seriously, Nemesis, what sort of response were you looking for here? Here's one for you: as a practicing Catholic, I'm not very inclined to put much stock in the words of a militant atheist who has every personal motivation to discredit the Church's decisions, at least not in matters of eligibility for sainthood. Did Mother Teresa have personal flaws? Of course she did. But as Nuclear1 said, her legacy is one that brings about great good in the lives of many, many people. So who is the real villain here: the woman herself, or the people casting mud on her after her death?
-
I'm a ****ing atheist too, and I'm no friend of the Church by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm not for trashing the reputation and the good connotations associated with a person that inspires others to do good works.
That's just plain ****ing detrimental.
-
Fine, whatever, I know research is a good thing and sometimes it's good to have dirt on everyone, but when you're trying to tarnish the reputation (true or not) of what has been made out to be one of the greatest humanitarians in history, don't you think there's something wrong?
I'm not trying to tarnish anyone, I'm going where the evidence is leading me. To do otherwise would be intellectually dishonest. I generally try to avoid having sacred cows.
Funny, cause when you ask people about Mother Teresa,
You hear "good humanitarian" and "wonderful human being".
Appeal to popularity doesn't work with me. I'm sure you could get millions of people in North Korea to say exactly that about Kim Jong Il and genuinely believe it, or millions from anywhere who think space aliens are coming here to abduct people. Just because a bunch of people think of something in a certain way does not mean that is true.
People don't look at her methods, they look at her intentions.
How can anyone who believes suffering is good possibly have good intentions?
Whatever. Want to piss on Clara Barton or Cesar Chavez while we're at it? Destroy any other sacred symbols of humanitarianism and good will?
Nothing is sacred to me.
I'm a ****ing atheist too, and I'm no friend of the Church by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm not for trashing the reputation and the good connotations associated with a person that inspires others to do good works.
That's just plain ****ing detrimental.
Being an Atheist does not automatically make you a skeptic. While there is considerable overlap between them in a lot of cases, there's plenty of atheists who believe all sorts of new age mysticism/space aliens/whatever bunk you can imagine.
-
*sigh*
Maybe I'm just lost here.
Or are you seriously comparing the cult of personality surrounding Kim Jong Il to Mother Teresa? Because Kim Jong Il doesn't inspire charities around the world.
-
*sigh*
Maybe I'm just lost here.
Or are you seriously comparing the cult of personality surrounding Kim Jong Il to Mother Teresa? Because Kim Jong Il doesn't inspire charities around the world.
I'm pointing out the absurdity of saying "lots of people think XXXXX is good so therefore XXXXX must be good", which is also why I included an example of people believing in alien abductions. Cults of personality can take many forms, they are not the exclusive province of dictators.
-
Well yeah, but Mother Teresa is synonymous with "good works" and "humanitarianism" these days. Is that really something worth destroying?
Look, humanitarianism has enough problems these days without one of its key idols being targeted. If you hate the Church, fine, hate the Church, but leave the woman alone.
-
Yes it is if it is not real (http://mostlywater.org/mother_teresa_faithless_fraud_and_hypocrite).
Over the many years that her mission was in Calcutta, there were about a
dozen floods and numerous cholera epidemics in or near the city, with
thousands perishing. Various relief agencies responded to each
disaster, but Teresa and her crew were nowhere in sight, except briefly
on one occasion.[7]
When someone asked Teresa how people without money or power can make the
world a better place, she replied, "They should smile more," a response
that charmed some listeners. During a press conference in Washington
DC, when asked "Do you teach the poor to endure their lot?" she said "I
think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share
it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped
by the suffering of the poor people."[8]
But she herself lived lavishly well, enjoying luxurious accommodations
in her travels abroad. It seems to have gone unnoticed that as a world
celebrity she spent most of her time away from Calcutta, with protracted
stays at opulent residences in Europe and the United States, jetting
from Rome to London to New York in private planes.[9]
This is not about church hating, this is about the truth.
EDIT:
What usually went unreported were the vast sums she received from
wealthy and sometimes tainted sources, including a million dollars from
convicted savings & loan swindler Charles Keating, on whose behalf she
sent a personal plea for clemency to the presiding judge. She was asked
by the prosecutor in that case to return Keating's gift because it was
money he had stolen. She never did.[1] She also accepted substantial
sums given by the brutal Duvalier dictatorship that regularly stole
from the Haitian public treasury.
Mother Teresa's hospitals for the indigent in India and elsewhere turned
out to be hardly more than human warehouses in which seriously ill
persons lay on mats, sometimes fifty to sixty in a room without benefit
of adequate medical attention. Their ailments usually went undiagnosed.
The food was nutritionally lacking and sanitary conditions were
deplorable. There were few medical personnel on the premises, mostly
untrained nuns and brothers.[2]
When tending to her own ailments, however, Teresa checked into some of
the costliest hospitals and recovery care units in the world for
state-of-the-art treatment.[3]
Teresa journeyed the globe to wage campaigns against divorce, abortion,
and birth control. At her Nobel award ceremony, she announced that the
greatest destroyer of peace is abortion. And she once suggested that
AIDS might be a just retribution for improper sexual conduct.[4]
Another juicy bit. These are not the actions or attitudes of a humanist.
EDIT 2: I'd also like to ask why are you defending someone who seriously thinks birth control is bad despite the population explosion in lots of developing countries?
-
...are you seriously looking at the sources you're linking? From the sidebar of that wonderful Mostly Water site: Haiti: A New U.S. Occupation Disguised as Disaster Relief? (http://mostlywater.org/haiti_new_us_occupation_disguised_disaster_relief)
Call me when you find something that isn't pure wank.
-
This to me is akin to someone saying Neil Armstrong was a drunken womanizer who did 3 lines of coke just to get by. No one cares about that, all he will be remembered as is the first human to walk on another world. That's all that matters to most people.
BTW, I am no insinuating the Mr. Armstrong has ever taken an illicit substance, fooled around with anyone other than his wife or drank to excess.
Sometimes, it's not what a person says or even does that matters a fig. Sometimes it's what they represent and inspire people to do.
-
This to me is akin to someone saying Neil Armstrong was a drunken womanizer who did 3 lines of coke just to get by. No one cares about that, all he will be remembered as is the first human to walk on another world. That's all that matters to most people.
BTW, I am no insinuating the Mr. Armstrong has ever taken an illicit substance, fooled around with anyone other than his wife or drank to excess.
Sometimes, it's not what a person says or even does that matters a fig. Sometimes it's what they represent and inspire people to do.
Except that if it turns out that Armstrong was a womanizing cocaine addict, it has no bearing on whether or not he walked on the moon.
If it turns out that Mother Theresa wasn't a good humanitarian, then that directly affects her reputation for being a good humanitarian.
-
ive always considered religion to be a fraud. a machine using the faith of others to gain power and/or profit. especially in the catholic church, which has about as many secrets as most governments, and about the same amount of corruption too.
-
Not a Catholic, so my vote means bupkis, but where I grew up, one does not run down the reputation of the dead.
Actually Hitchins started pointing out what she was like long before she died IIRC. It's just that few people listened to him. I've got no idea how old that quote is.
If she was indeed the evil, corrupt person the individual above made her out to be, then history will record her as such.
But how will it do that if no one actually points out what she was like?
The modern "reality" that so many intellectuals want everyone to accept is that there is no God, no such thing as Absolute Good or Absolute evil. That there is no existence after this life, this is it, one shot then you are less than dust in the wind.
Okay, let's assume there is a God. How is making MT a saint based on false miracles a good thing? Doesn't that cheapen real saints? Hell I don't believe in God or saints so I don't give a damn what you call her. But those of you who are Catholics probably should be annoyed that she was made a saint in defiance of the rules surrounding that sort of thing.
See, it has nothing to do with militant atheism or whatever bogeyman you want to come up with.
Say whatever about Mother Teresa you want; the fact that she made even one person's life on this godforsaken ****hole of a planet better makes her a saint.
But if she made one person's life better while simultaneously tricking lots of people into dying of preventable causes is she still a saint?
To be honest I don't particularly care about MT either way, she's dead now. What I care about is the legacy she set up. The money donated to MT might have done more good if it was given to The Red Cross or some other similar organisation. The homes for the dying were squalid, awful places where people actually died of illnesses that might have been preventable in homes run by other organisations. Are they still? No idea.
Whether or not MT was a good humanitarian isn't as important as whether the work still going on in her name actually is humanitarian. If it's not, if more people are still dying because of those places than would without them, then pulling down her entire reputation would actually be a good thing.
-
So a person's legacy doesn't account for anything?
Whether her methods were 100% praiseworthy, she founded an organization that cares for the sick, poor, AIDS-afflicted, and hopeless. She saved several dozen children in 1982 from Beirut during the siege.
All this smells of is a horse**** political attack on the church. Mother Teresa's dead--whatever methods she used have gone with her. The MC is a modern charity operating in most countries around the world doing good work for the poor.
Oh, **** it. I would've thought we've got bigger problems in the world than tackling whether Mother Teresa was perfect, but apparently this somehow takes priority. :rolleyes:
EDIT: Exactly what Kara said in his last paragraph.
-
The article was so obviously biased that I'm not going to waste my time checking the facts to see if its claims are anywhere near correct or not. If the author wanted the article to be taken seriously, then presumably he wouldn't have tried to make himself sound like an arse.
-
The last sentance in that guys article is all I need to know.
He's a church hater.
-
Whether her methods were 100% praiseworthy, she founded an organization that cares for the sick, poor, AIDS-afflicted, and hopeless. She saved several dozen children in 1982 from Beirut during the siege.
The important question is whether Mother Teresa's charities saved more than they killed. There have been some serious complaints about that. One that I find especially important is that money donated to her charities was rarely used to improve the quality of hospices back in India but instead went on opening more convents across the world. Given that the majority of the money was being given to help the lot of people in India it is rather troubling that it ended up elsewhere.
All this smells of is a horse**** political attack on the church. Mother Teresa's dead--whatever methods she used have gone with her. The MC is a modern charity operating in most countries around the world doing good work for the poor.
The Red Cross is also a (at least partly) religious organisation and I'd have serious problems with anyone who made an attack on them based on that fact alone.
That said it is worth pointing out that this article is nearly 7 years old. So there may have been a legitimate reason for writing it in 2003 which no longer exists now.
-
...are you seriously looking at the sources you're linking? From the sidebar of that wonderful Mostly Water site: Haiti: A New U.S. Occupation Disguised as Disaster Relief? (http://mostlywater.org/haiti_new_us_occupation_disguised_disaster_relief)
Call me when you find something that isn't pure wank.
I cited that because they cited their sources, half of which was from Hitchens.
She saved several dozen children in 1982 from Beirut during the siege.
Kara already addressed points like this. A few here and there is meaningless when the whole is allowed to suffer.
All this smells of is a horse**** political attack on the church.
Kara also addressed this point. You're allowing your emotions to cloud your reason.
Oh, **** it. I would've thought we've got bigger problems in the world than tackling whether Mother Teresa was perfect, but apparently this somehow takes priority.
It isn't about whether or not she was perfect, no one is, it's about whehter or not what she did actually was good. Herding sick, poor people into squalid "hospitals" staffed by only a few minimally trained "doctors" so they can suffer horrible, preventable deaths while simultaneously checking yourself into real hospitals (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=894&dat=19960906&id=ahsOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=in0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6426,710045) is not humanitarianism, it's a crime against humanity. Funny how we (rightfully) criticize Kim Jong Il for doing this while giving MT a free pass. She has blood on her hands, a lot of it.
That said it is worth pointing out that this article is nearly 7 years old. So there may have been a legitimate reason for writing it in 2003 which no longer exists now.
There's always a legitimate reason to take out a facade, to lift the curtain and find out that the Wizard of Oz is not who he says he is.
EDIT: My biggest problem with MT is not just that she did so many bad things, but the cult of personality she has prevents people from seeing the reality.
-
Kara also addressed this point. You're allowing your emotions to cloud your reason.
Back at you. I'm no friend of the Roman Catholic Church. I'm the one over in the corner waving the "Pantheocide Is The Only Way" flag. But this, and your sources, and your reasoning, smell like dead fish.
It isn't about whether or not she was perfect, no one is, it's about whehter or not what she did actually was good. Herding sick, poor people into squalid "hospitals" staffed by only a few minimally trained "doctors" so they can suffer horrible, preventable deaths while simultaneously checking yourself into real hospitals (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=894&dat=19960906&id=ahsOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=in0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6426,710045) is not humanitarianism, it's a crime against humanity.
I have yet to see any evidence that these sick poor people would have had access to any other kind of facility. Or did you and everyone else forget that point of how charities work? Hope to the hopeless and all that? Do what you can with limited resources?
Funny how we (rightfully) criticize Kim Jong Il for doing this while giving MT a free pass. She has blood on her hands, a lot of it.
The mere fact you just compared Kim Jong Il to Mother Teresa, the mere fact you're implying that they were even remotely capable of inflicting the same degree of human suffering, much less that they actually did, betrays a dangerous lack of perspective. You are one step from a Godwin here. I think you might even have originally taken that step, what with your alleging "crimes against humanity" earlier, and then changed it before you posted because you knew it was ridiculous.
Well, it's still ridiculous.
There's always a legitimate reason to take out a facade, to lift the curtain and find out that the Wizard of Oz is not who he says he is.
And you shall know the truth, but it shall not set you free. Nor shall it heal the sick, comfort the dying, elevate the oppressed, offer hope to the hopeless, right a wrong, or triumph over any sort of evil.
Instead, it will do the exact opposite of all these things.
No. That's not legitimate in any way, shape, or form. That is as illegitimate as it gets. This is beyond the road to hell being paved with good intentions, because I don't think you can even justify your intentions as good. They're not doing any good. You've not said it in so many words but it's nearly impossible to read your last line without concluding you're doing this out of a personal frustration, not any grand moral crusade.
-
...are you seriously looking at the sources you're linking? From the sidebar of that wonderful Mostly Water site: Haiti: A New U.S. Occupation Disguised as Disaster Relief? (http://mostlywater.org/haiti_new_us_occupation_disguised_disaster_relief)
Call me when you find something that isn't pure wank.
I cited that because they cited their sources, half of which was from Hitchens.
Yes, and I've already stated why Hitchens can't be viewed as anything resembling a neutral source. "Militant atheist and close friend of Richard Dawkins" isn't the first person I think of when I'm looking for an unbiased examination of a religious figure.
-
I have yet to see any evidence that these sick poor people would have had access to any other kind of facility. Or did you and everyone else forget that point of how charities work? Hope to the hopeless and all that? Do what you can with limited resources?
Which brings me back to the point I'm making. Instead of giving the money to Mother Teresa's charities would the poor of India (and other countries) have been better off if a different charity had been given the money?
This is something that is very important if those charities are still soliciting donations in MT's name. Especially given that IIRC her charity does not publish financial records showing where that money is being spent.
-
I have yet to see any evidence that these sick poor people would have had access to any other kind of facility. Or did you and everyone else forget that point of how charities work? Hope to the hopeless and all that? Do what you can with limited resources?
Her resources were not limited, she had tens of millions of dollars in donations pouring in from all over the world. With so much of it wasted entirely on opening new convents, spending it on the Red Cross or some other such organization would have been much better, not only a better utilization of resources but also it would have guinely benefitted more people.
The mere fact you just compared Kim Jong Il to Mother Teresa, the mere fact you're implying that they were even remotely capable of inflicting the same degree of human suffering, much less that they actually did, betrays a dangerous lack of perspective. You are one step from a Godwin here. I think you might even have originally taken that step, what with your alleging "crimes against humanity" earlier, and then changed it before you posted because you knew it was ridiculous.
Well, it's still ridiculous.
So causing the deaths of thousands and thousands and thousands of people is somehow not a crime against humanity anymore? Kim Jong Il was certainly able to do more not because he was any less of a humanist than she, but because he has total political power. Given that she has stated, on record, that she thinks suffering is good and poor people should just accept being poor, can we really be so sure she wouldn't cause the mass humanitarian disaster if she had the same level of political power kim jong il has, or any other dictator for that matter?
No. That's not legitimate in any way, shape, or form. That is as illegitimate as it gets.
So, we should instead live the lie?
You've not said it in so many words but it's nearly impossible to read your last line without concluding you're doing this out of a personal frustration, not any grand moral crusade.
I will admit it is frustrating to see people close their eyes to reality when the truth leads to their sacred cows. But really I don't have a personal stake in the issue.
And you shall know the truth, but it shall not set you free. Nor shall it heal the sick, comfort the dying, elevate the oppressed, offer hope to the hopeless, right a wrong, or triumph over any sort of evil.
In this case it would have because all that donated money would have been much better spent if donated to other organizations.
That is as illegitimate as it gets. This is beyond the road to hell being paved with good intentions, because I don't think you can even justify your intentions as good.
So what do you think my intentions are?
-
Given that she has stated, on record, that she thinks suffering is good and poor people should just accept being poor, can we really be so sure she wouldn't cause the mass humanitarian disaster if she had the same level of political power kim jong il has, or any other dictator for that matter?
:rolleyes:
I've tried to think up something to say to that for several minutes now, and I can't come up with anything which couldn't be labeled as an ad hominem, so I'll just leave it at the rolling eyes.
-
Many people talk about how she's a symbol for good and helping other people. I understand where they're coming from, but there's one thing I don't get - Politicians who support dictatorships lose their careers(sometimes :)), are hated, etc, no matter how much they've helped on the side. The fact that they support oppression takes precedence, as it should. Mother Theresa has supported several of them, mismanaged her charity. As the documentary mentions, she could make a big, big, REAL hospital that HELPS people, and still she insisted on spreading her convents, not actually helping, but keeping the status quo as is also mentioned. Personally, I would rather have a charity have a real, palpable effect in the form of a hospital where it's needed, rather than these nasty convents that do not actually help people, but only reflect a desire to do so. In that case, why even bother? Mother Theresa is far from a saint, even if that word had meaning, because remember: The Russians actually canonized a soldier who had died in Chechnya. That is how vague and ambiguous that title is.
On another subject: Hitchens as a reliable source. Personally, when viewing religion, religious subjects and so on, I would indeed prefer someone who's NOT religious, because as Hitchens himself puts it: Religion poisons everything. Historical revisionism within Christianity is very real, and continues to this day in many forms, like the whole 6000-year-old Earth. It's not really that surprising that the actions of a character like Mother Theresa would be obscured, considering how much she's been politicized. My biggest beef with her is how she's mismanaged one of the world's biggest charities, and how she's supported dictatorships.
By the way, I found a documentary where Hitchens elaborates on the issue of Mother Theresa:
Part 1, 2, and 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WQ0i3nCx60
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKkcDgeYBdk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGuzFUeDDgY
-
Do you really think helping the poor and unfortunate is that easy.
Do you realise 10 million dollars is pocket change in that regard? Don't various charities around the world get a lot of money every year...for years? And we still have poverty in africa! Shock.
You can't just fix some problems by throwing money at them, and some problems are bigger than people realize.
So you can't just claim that becaue you don't see no changes, all that money went to waste.
I was personally never smitten with MT, but comparisons to Kim Jong Li are distastefull to say the least.
-
On another subject: Hitchens as a reliable source. Personally, when viewing religion, religious subjects and so on, I would indeed prefer someone who's NOT religious, because as Hitchens himself puts it: Religion poisons everything. Historical revisionism within Christianity is very real, and continues to this day in many forms, like the whole 6000-year-old Earth. It's not really that surprising that the actions of a character like Mother Theresa would be obscured, considering how much she's been politicized. My biggest beef with her is how she's mismanaged one of the world's biggest charities, and how she's supported dictatorships.
There's a massive difference between "not being religious" and "vehemently disparaging and attacking religion as a concept." I view characters like Hitchens and Dawkins as nothing but foul-mouthed, vitriolic absurdities, and the only way I could possibly take them even remotely seriously is if they donned clown suits and started flinging pies. I fail to see what crazy Young-Earthers have to do with this debate, either.
-
Religion poisons everything.
It's morons like Hitchens that poison everything.
-
Raw chicken is delicious.
-
Her resources were not limited, she had tens of millions of dollars in donations pouring in from all over the world. With so much of it wasted entirely on opening new convents, spending it on the Red Cross or some other such organization would have been much better, not only a better utilization of resources but also it would have guinely benefitted more people.
Because of course you have any conception of how far tens of millions of dollars will go in this situation. And the answer is not very far. Let us be honest: after transportation, maintaince, upkeep, etc. how much is left? I assume your answer will remain "tens of millions". Let us compare the operating budgets of modern hospitals; 100 million plus. King in LA had trouble keeping its doors open because it can't meet its operating costs; it was in the red by several hundred million and had to close its burn unit and other services totalling over 100 million in costs a year because it couldn't find the money to run them through charitable donations, payment for services rendered, and government grants.
Even ignoring your "wastage" comment, which refuses to acknowledge the nature of the beast or for that matter that such convents might just a little have any sort positive effect (religious orders typically do in poor areas because the rank and file of a religion typically buys into the basic propganda about tolerance and helping the needy), it's clear you have no conception of what it takes to run a hospital. That Mother Teresa accomplished anything at all in those terms with only tens of millions of dollars is impressive.
So causing the deaths of thousands and thousands and thousands of people is somehow not a crime against humanity anymore?
That's not what I said and you know it. Cease the strawmanning.
Kim Jong Il was certainly able to do more not because he was any less of a humanist than she, but because he has total political power.
Then why did you make such an inflammatory comparison when you knew it was fundementally invalid? Are you delibrately trying to drag the level of the argument down or what?
Given that she has stated, on record, that she thinks suffering is good and poor people should just accept being poor, can we really be so sure she wouldn't cause the mass humanitarian disaster if she had the same level of political power kim jong il has, or any other dictator for that matter?
You actually did Godwin. (Unless Hitler is not a dictator, now?) Jesus Christ on a pogo stick.
Your quotemining ignores the context, but then, that's what quotemining does. Christian and indeed Western philosophical thought has often lighted on the nature of suffering. I don't doubt your parents told you that it "builds character". If you truly wish to argue that overcoming suffering does not at all strengthen a person, then I fear we are actually speaking different langauges here and a dialogue between us, and perhaps between you and the majority of people who visit this board, is impossible.
As for poor people accepting being poor, in the environment Mother Teresa worked in, what other choices were there? We all want to lift them up but the truth is charitable works cannot do that. She was reacting to an objective reality; that those she helped have no other recourse but to be destitute and downtrodden. That is why she helped them, because no one else would, but at the same time she was deeply aware that her help alone would never accomplish the ultimate goal, nor could the ultimate goal be accomplished within her or their lifetimes. To accept the unpleasant is to gain strength. Turn it not to altering your reality but that of your children, or your children's children. It took 40 years for the US civil rights movement to bring Obama to office. Most people Mother Teresa worked with won't live that long.
So, we should instead live the lie?
Why not? Is not what the lie has accomplished preferable to destroying the legacy of a woman long-dead that stands for something completely different from what you're complaining about, by your own admission?
Or are you so desperate to see Mother Teresa wrongly vilified that you would damage the good works done by those who followed in her wake to get at her?
I will admit it is frustrating to see people close their eyes to reality when the truth leads to their sacred cows. But really I don't have a personal stake in the issue.
So what do you think my intentions are?
I already stated that. You already answered it. But given your continued pursuit of this matter, your willingness to compare Mother Teresa to Stalin/Hitler et. al., I don't believe your answer is convincing. It is impossible not to have a personal stake in such an argument, unless you are devoid of empathy.
-
On another subject: Hitchens as a reliable source. Personally, when viewing religion, religious subjects and so on, I would indeed prefer someone who's NOT religious, because as Hitchens himself puts it: Religion poisons everything. Historical revisionism within Christianity is very real, and continues to this day in many forms, like the whole 6000-year-old Earth. It's not really that surprising that the actions of a character like Mother Theresa would be obscured, considering how much she's been politicized. My biggest beef with her is how she's mismanaged one of the world's biggest charities, and how she's supported dictatorships.
No, no, no.
Again, this coming from a bona fide atheist: religion doesn't poison everything. Demagogues routinely abuse religion to achieve their own selfish and hateful ends. Most religions at their very core aim to ease the suffering of the poor and downtrodden around the world.
Lutheran World Relief donated damn near $25 million to Haiti relief and has been present there as a relief force since 1997. Islamic Relief USA and the Mormon church coordinated to deliver 160,000 pounds of relief supplies to the same island. World Vision's 24/30/40 Hour Famines generate millions every year to deliver food to the starving. Hell, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent at their very core are religious organizations that are among the most trusted charitable organizations in history.
Someone who says religion poisons everything is sadly turning a blind eye to the immense human compassion it can inspire, instead focusing on the negative. Albeit, there is a lot of negative to organized religion...but that's a human flaw.
-
I prefer not to give money to faith-based charities. Just feels icky. "We'll give you help.... if you attend our religious service."
-
I prefer not to give money to faith-based charities. Just feels icky. "We'll give you help.... if you attend our religious service."
*raises eyebrow* I've never ONCE seen or even HEARD anything like that from a reputable charity.
-
I prefer not to give money to faith-based charities. Just feels icky. "We'll give you help.... if you attend our religious service."
*raises eyebrow* I've never ONCE seen or even HEARD anything like that from a reputable charity.
This. No reputable faith-based charity will ever distribute aid under the condition of conversion or worship. Any which did would be worthy of as much derision and scorn as possible.
-
Salvation Army?
I guess I'm just generally against faith-based initiatives because of all the horrors they've caused in sub-saharan Africa.
-
...wanna source me there, chief? Or are you just assuming that their status as an evangelical organization means that they're "converting the heathens" before handing out food and water?
-
...wanna source me there, chief? Or are you just assuming that their status as an evangelical organization means that they're "converting the heathens" before handing out food and water?
Iamzack is probably referring to the fact that the Vatican's refusal to hand out condoms in Africa as well as flat out lying about them (claiming they don't help prevent the spread of AIDS and are thus useless) has made the situation worse than if the same money had been given to non-religious organisations who would have acted differently.
That said plenty of religious workers in affected areas simply thought "**** what the pope says, I'm handing out condoms."
And there is no reason to believe ideological beliefs resulting in a charity mismanaging their donations is a purely religious thing. You only need to look at PETA for proof of that.
-
Well, considering the damage religion-freaks have done in the US (lying about condom failure rates, denial of education about sexuality beyond "don't do it," demonization of gays, transpeople, etc) I can't help but assume that the problems they cause are even worse in areas with very little education.
And then of course.. Why are you starving? Well, it's god's will!
-
...wanna source me there, chief? Or are you just assuming that their status as an evangelical organization means that they're "converting the heathens" before handing out food and water?
Iamzack is probably referring to the fact that the Vatican's refusal to hand out condoms in Africa as well as flat out lying about them (claiming they don't help prevent the spread of AIDS and are thus useless) has made the situation worse than if the same money had been given to non-religious organisations who would have acted differently.
But iamzack mentioned the Salvation Army, not the Vatican, didn't she? I assumed that she must have some specific anecdote damning that particular organization.
Well, considering the damage religion-freaks have done in the US (lying about condom failure rates, denial of education about sexuality beyond "don't do it," demonization of gays, transpeople, etc) I can't help but assume that the problems they cause are even worse in areas with very little education.
And then of course.. Why are you starving? Well, it's god's will!
...and apparently, she didn't. Simply more of the same tired spiel.
(Oh, and here's a fun new study (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020102628.html).)
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army#Controversy
i'm just lazy... no investment in this argument, because i will never donate to a religious charity, pretty much on principle.
-
Yeah...notice how nothing mentioned in that section has anything at all to do with religious coercion as a condition for distribution of aid? Which was what you were talking about in the first place?
-
I guess I can only speak from my own experiences. My old church would help homeless and hungry... but they had to come to services first.
-
(Oh, and here's a fun new study (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020102628.html).)
I actually don't mean this offensively, Mongoose, but you should learn to read studies (everyone should, it's a great skill.)
This study found no significant difference in sex rates between those who received abstinence-only and those who received a comprehensive program that encouraged safe sex and delayed sex.
So in spite of the crappy reporting it doesn't actually show any benefit to abstinence-only programs.
-
I guess I can only speak from my own experiences. My old church would help homeless and hungry... but they had to come to services first.
Well, as I said, I'd consider them worthy of derision for doing so. As I read them, the Corporal Works of Mercy don't start out, "Feed the hungry...after they've sat in church for an hour." :p
And yes, Battuta, I realize that one study is hardly completely-definitive evidence, and that there are ancillary issues involved, but it does provide an interesting counter-point to those who would say, "This can never work!" At least if I'm reading the details right, a properly-planned and comprehensive abstinence-only program can potentially produce effective results. In any case, seeing as how there are enough debates piling up in this thread as-is, I don't feel like we need to throw another one into the mix.
-
I think it all comes down to this:
We may not be happier, but things are certainly better when we live lives that are firmly grounded in reality.
-
Edited my post, check it out.
And edit to this one: I don't mean to say it's Mongoose's fault, the reporting on this study was seriously crap. Highly sensationalized.
Oh my god, seriously, this makes me lol:
Similarly, in this trial the abstinence-only intervention participants did not differ in self-reported consistent condom use compared with the control group.
The study is saying that the abstinence-only intervention failed to increase condom usage rates above the control. That means 'useless'. Their claim that 'abstinence-only doesn't hurt condom use rates' is a bald-faced lie; it causes them to use condoms no more than they would if they'd received no intervention at all.
-
I'm...not really understanding your point here. There are significant percentage differences listed between the abstinence-only and control group participants in the "Results" section of the linked article. And even people who were general opponents of abstinence-only education are quoted in the article stating that the study represents a "new tool" and could hold potential if implemented properly. Did I miss something critical?
(Oh, and the day I enjoy reading scientific studies is the day I lie in a box in the ground. I utterly abhor the style they're written in, which seems more designed to obfuscate comprehension than anything else. :p)
-
Abstinence-only is damaging for a lot of reasons.
Personal anecdote: I started having sex at 14. I and everyone I knew at the time thought that you had to be 18 to buy condoms, because the abstinence-only ed program at our school wasn't even allowed to mention condoms except to say that they pretty much don't work anyway.
Abstinence-only sex ed is a load of bull****. It's completely sexist and totally insane. Why shouldn't girls have sex? Because then they will be worthless! Girls are only valuable if they are virgins! And you know what else? Since gays can't get married, they'll never have sex, so we don't need to mention them at all! And what about people who don't see the point of marriage, because they aren't religious, or whatever else? No sex! Ever!
Who needs to know how to put on a condom, where to find one, what different sizes mean? Why should girls know about different forms of birth control? They're never having sex, ever, until they're married, and then they will WANT babies!
-
I'm...not really understanding your point here. There are significant percentage differences listed between the abstinence-only and control group participants in the "Results" section of the linked article. And even people who were general opponents of abstinence-only education are quoted in the article stating that the study represents a "new tool" and could hold potential if implemented properly. Did I miss something critical?
Yes - you're comparing to the control instead of the comprehensive intervention program. The abstinence-only programs don't differ significantly from the comprehensive programs in terms of delaying sex. They also don't do anything to promote condom use.
This means they're no better than a comprehensive program at delaying sex and significantly worse at promoting safe sex.
In short, they do nothing a comprehensive program can't, and fail to do many things a comprehensive program can.
(Oh, and the day I enjoy reading scientific studies is the day I lie in a box in the ground. I utterly abhor the style they're written in, which seems more designed to obfuscate comprehension than anything else. :p)
That's why practice is necessary. Unfortunately until science reporting gets a lot better the actual studies are the only trustworthy source.
Fortunately this study is quite careful to say that abstinence-only programs should only be used in places where people refuse to accept real sexual health programs. And it also points out that it differs from 'actual' abstinence only programs:
This trial tested a theory-based abstinence-only intervention that would not meet federal criteria for abstinence programs and that is not vulnerable to many criticisms that have been leveled against interventions that meet federal criteria.19-20,36 It was not moralistic and did not criticize the use of condoms. Moreover, it had several characteristics associated with effective sexual risk-reduction interventions. It was theory-based and tailored to the target population based on qualitative data and included skill-building activities. It addressed the context of sexual activity and beliefs about the consequences of sexual involvement derived from the target population.
-
Yes - you're comparing to the control instead of the comprehensive intervention program. The abstinence-only programs don't differ significantly from the comprehensive programs in terms of delaying sex. They also don't do anything to promote condom use.
But...isn't that kind of the point? These programs, by their very nature, cannot actively promote condom use; as you yourself noted, that would be considered unacceptable in the environments where such programs would be implemented. The fact that they are just as effective as programs which take the more comprehensive approach, and also manage to not lower the rates of condom use among those who do have sex, is noteworthy in and of itself.
And iamzack, just for once, could you can the ridiculous hyperbole? The specific virginity of women and sexual orientation have literally nothing to do with this particular topic. Do you know how immensely frustrating it is to try to have a reasonable discussion and then have someone chime in with a post-load of sensationalistic statements?
You know what? **** this. I didn't want to discuss this particular subject in the least. The only reason I threw that ****ing link at the end of my post was in response to iamzack's little "religious-freaks" flamebait...and hey, look, it evolved into its own full-blown argument, because that's apparently how things have to work in this godforsaken hellhole of a folder.
Seriously, **** General Discussion. This is ridiculous.
-
Heh, I know the feeling. Though I do think iamzack makes some fair points. Not teaching those vital skills is a problem. And virginity is considered far more valuable in women than in men - men are encouraged to lose it as rapidly as possible.
And yes, as long as you understand that this study only shows that these programs should be used where more effective problems absolutely cannot be used, then yes, that's good. But any place like that...really needs fixing.
The reporting on the study was criminally awful, though.
-
I'm just really getting tired of blanket statements.
That's the only reason I went off on the religious charities tangent in the first place...I honestly don't care about religion one way or the other, as long they just stay out of other people's business.
-
Well they really can't, can they. Most of them revolve around getting new converts.
-
Yeah, just like anything else. Ever wonder why companies have commercials?
-
Yeah, but companies are trying to sell something real. A product which exists without a doubt.
Religion is trying to sell something they can't prove to exist. And they don't just want money (though they generally want plenty of money), they want to curtail your freedom with silly rules they pulled from some incredibly ancient culture.
-
(Oh, and here's a fun new study (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020102628.html).)
Several critics of an abstinence-only approach said that the curriculum tested did not represent most abstinence programs. It did not take a moralistic tone, as many abstinence programs do. Most notably, the sessions encouraged children to delay sex until they are ready, not necessarily until married; did not portray sex outside marriage as never appropriate; and did not disparage condoms.
Bear in mind that they only studied the effects two years later. Pretty much most studies I've read state that Abstinence Only programs have a good short-term effect but long term they don't work and actually have a detrimental effect on teenage pregnancies because the children now having sex have no other education about the issue other than "Don't do it"
-
How much of abstinence-only education is actually religiously-grounded? When they don't work in the long run, wouldn't it make sense to teach or encourage masturbation? That's where I've seen some nasty ideology pop up - Apparently, spilling your seed is not allowed. I can't see any secular, rational person teaching abstinence only. Am I off base when I get the distinct feeling that abstinence only is, generally, a religious idea?
-
Yeah, but companies are trying to sell something real. A product which exists without a doubt.
Religion is trying to sell something they can't prove to exist. And they don't just want money (though they generally want plenty of money), they want to curtail your freedom with silly rules they pulled from some incredibly ancient culture.
Ignoring the first bit for a moment: Explain to me why an insurance company is any different from what you just described.
-
How much of abstinence-only education is actually religiously-grounded? When they don't work in the long run, wouldn't it make sense to teach or encourage masturbation? That's where I've seen some nasty ideology pop up - Apparently, spilling your seed is not allowed. I can't see any secular, rational person teaching abstinence only. Am I off base when I get the distinct feeling that abstinence only is, generally, a religious idea?
The save-sex-for-marriage-only is generally religiously-motivated, but you honestly can't see a legitimate motivation for a somewhat-different course? How about teaching kids to save intercourse until they're in a healthy, committed relationship where both parties are mature enough to handle both the action and the consequences? At least in my mind, that's a far more sensible approach than, "Go **** like rabbits, but make sure your dick's wrapped up first!"
And the exact tenets of my own faith aside, I've always been confused about the masturbation issue myself. I mean...the entire problem of teens having sex centers around raging hormones, right? Well, then just take matters into your own hands (so to speak), blow off some steam, get your endorphin rush, and completely avoid any of the potential issues that intercourse presents. After all, who knows what turns you on better than you yourself?
-
Pretty much any sensibly taught sex ed course teaches the value of abstinence. The problem comes when that's ALL the course teaches. As I've pointed out in the past, sex ed is about more than stopping kids ****ing. It's meant to teach you stuff you need even in married life.
-
Yeah. And that's especially for women, who are just as horny as men but don't often receive the same degree of cultural information either on masturbation or on how to achieve sexual satisfaction once in a committed relationship.
-
Yeah, but companies are trying to sell something real. A product which exists without a doubt.
Religion is trying to sell something they can't prove to exist. And they don't just want money (though they generally want plenty of money), they want to curtail your freedom with silly rules they pulled from some incredibly ancient culture.
Ignoring the first bit for a moment: Explain to me why an insurance company is any different from what you just described.
Insurance, first of all, is a real product. You pay them money for a while, and then if you need a **** ton of money for an unexpected reason, they pay it. It's kind of retarded, but whatever.
Insurance companies don't care if you have gay sex, masturbate, use condoms, etc. They don't attempt to convince me I'm better off subservient to some guy for the rest of my life. Et cetera.
-
I think your mistake here is arguing in favour of insurance companies not being tools of Satan. :p
-
theory and practice are pretty far apart in this case. maybe religion and insurance are more similar than i thought...
-
Doesn't make religion look more reasonable, it makes insurance look more retarded. :P
-
/me starts health insurance debate
All threads lead to it :p
-
*sigh*
I'll do it.
Against: NAZIS were socialists!!!!!!11
For: FRUTOPIA!
-
Before we totally leave orbit on the topic of false heroes I'd just like to say...
JAYNE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8omJvCrwRdY), the man they call Jayne
He robbed from the rich
And he gave to the poor
Stood up to the man
And gave him what for
Our love for him now
Ain't hard to explain
The hero of Canton
The man they call Jayne
Our Jayne saw the mudders' backs breakin'
He saw the mudders' lament
And he saw the magistrate takin'
Every dollar and leavin' five cents
So he said "you can't do that to my people"
He said "you can't crush them under your heel"
So Jayne strapped on his hat
And in 5 seconds flat
Stole everythin' Boss Higgins had to steal
He robbed from the rich
And he gave to the poor
Stood up to the man
And gave him what for
Our love for him now
Ain't hard to explain
The hero of Canton
The man they call Jayne
Now here is what separates heroes
From common folk like you and I
The man they call Jayne
He turned 'round his plane
And let that money hit sky
He dropped it onto our houses
He dropped it into our yards
The man they called Jayne
He stole away our pain
And headed out for the stars
He robbed from the rich
And he gave to the poor
Stood up to the man
And gave him what for
Our love for him now
Ain't hard to explain
The hero of Canton
The man they call Jayne.
-
That's not what I said and you know it. Cease the strawmanning.
You said I alleged she committed a crime against humanity, meaning you dont consider what she did to be bad. At least that's what I took from what you said.
for that matter that such convents might just a little have any sort positive effect (religious orders typically do in poor areas because the rank and file of a religion typically buys into the basic propganda about tolerance and helping the needy)
It's fraud because people donating to her organization are not doing so in order to build convents to convert people, they are doing so to fund her hospitals.
Because of course you have any conception of how far tens of millions of dollars will go in this situation. And the answer is not very far. Let us be honest: after transportation, maintaince, upkeep, etc. how much is left?
Stuff is cheap in the third world, and it is possible to find qualified doctors (which she didn't do) and decent medicines (which she also didn't do) for only a fraction of what it would have cost in the US. It's not like we expected her to build a world class hospital, of course not but she certainly could have done a lot better with what she had. Instead that money sat in the organizations bank accounts.
Let us compare the operating budgets of modern hospitals; 100 million plus. King in LA had trouble keeping its doors open because it can't meet its operating costs; it was in the red by several hundred million and had to close its burn unit and other services totalling over 100 million in costs a year because it couldn't find the money to run them through charitable donations, payment for services rendered, and government grants.
LA is not a third world city, making your comparison completely irrelevant.
Then why did you make such an inflammatory comparison when you knew it was fundementally invalid? Are you delibrately trying to drag the level of the argument down or what?
I'm point out that their basic view of humanity and human suffering is really not that different.
Why not? Is not what the lie has accomplished preferable to destroying the legacy of a woman long-dead that stands for something completely different from what you're complaining about, by your own admission?
Or are you so desperate to see Mother Teresa wrongly vilified that you would damage the good works done by those who followed in her wake to get at her?
Let me get this straight, you are seriously suggesting we let people's cults of personality and media hype determine what is true and what isn't? That's incredibly dangerous. I'm not desperate to see anyone wrongfully villified, and I don't appreciate the accusation.
As for poor people accepting being poor, in the environment Mother Teresa worked in, what other choices were there? We all want to lift them up but the truth is charitable works cannot do that
So poor people should never bother trying to work to make their lives better and instead just "accept" that they are perpetually on the bottom of society? How unamerican of you. No one is saying that charities should uplift everyone, but to say there is never any hope or potential is....I can't even ind words for it its so disgusting. Totally the opposite of the American Dream.
Turn it not to altering your reality but that of your children, or your children's children.
But that wasn't what she said. I've never read a single quote from her saying work to make your future generations lives better or anything like that.
Most people Mother Teresa worked with won't live that long.
Because she didn't give them the treatments they needed. :p
-
Stuff is cheap in the third world, and it is possible to find qualified doctors (which she didn't do) and decent medicines (which she also didn't do) for only a fraction of what it would have cost in the US. It's not like we expected her to build a world class hospital, of course not but she certainly could have done a lot better with what she had. Instead that money sat in the organizations bank accounts.
Stuff is cheap in the third world? Some stuff, maybe.
But medical equipment and medicine? Definately not.
-
India has more than a few companies that specialize in making generic copies of medicine, greatly reduing the price (so does the US). As for medical equipment, basic stuff really would not be that expensive (hypodermic needles, gloves, cleaning stuff, etc). I don't know about higher end devices though (yet), although you could likely convince some western hospitals to donate some of their previous generation stuff when they go through upgrades.
-
This whole thread is a load of balls.
She was a woman who tried her best to help people in a poverty stricken situation.
None of us can claim to have tried anything on that scale before.
She deserves all the credit for her hard work.
-
The argument is about whether she did actually try to help people, so...
-
threads like this make me want to stop reading offtopic.
-
You said I alleged she committed a crime against humanity, meaning you dont consider what she did to be bad. At least that's what I took from what you said.
So you're incapable of evaluating context of the remark. I don't believe that's true, but either way rather than choose the most rational meaning you went for the most inflammatory one. This is either a sign that you are, in fact, emotionally involved, or you're arguing in bad faith.
In fact, let's back off from the individual arguments for a moment and examine your argumentive style as a whole. I do you the courtesy of engaging with your complete arguments as much as possible, addressing all points you raise. You, on the other hand, cherrypick the points you're going to respond to. It's like a form of selective blindness, one you engage in quite often. Aldo once expressed his frustration with this method of argument to you. Allow me to do the same. The only conclusion I can draw is that you're ignoring the points you can't fight rather than surrender that you can't fight them.
It's fraud because people donating to her organization are not doing so in order to build convents to convert people, they are doing so to fund her hospitals.
I notice you're not actually engaging with my argument on this point at all. It's almost like you can't.
You're now also arguing that people who donated to her organization had no concept they might just be donating to a Christian charity! Instead of accusing Mother Teresa, you have devolved to accusing those who supported her work.
Stuff is cheap in the third world, and it is possible to find qualified doctors (which she didn't do) and decent medicines (which she also didn't do) for only a fraction of what it would have cost in the US. It's not like we expected her to build a world class hospital, of course not but she certainly could have done a lot better with what she had. Instead that money sat in the organizations bank accounts.
You again demonstrate your ignorance of attempting to construct hospitals in rural India where things like modern transportation and sanitation do not exist.
You also now introduce an entirely new charge, that the organization did not use the money it was given. This is a switch from your previous charge that the organization misused the money it was given. Which is it, Kosh? You can't have it both ways.
LA is not a third world city, making your comparison completely irrelevant.
No, it's not in a third-world city.
And that's exactly the point. Los Angeles is not a third-world city. A for-profit hospital, in Los Angeles, could not keep itself afloat on a budget many times what you're alotting to Mother Teresa's works. Yet you demand she do better than she did when King proved that's an impossiblity.
Thus you missed the crux of the argument once more. I doubt you and I think that differently; the suspicion really does grow it's delibrate.
I'm point out that their basic view of humanity and human suffering is really not that different.
And you're failing badly. You're comparing sociopathic and dissassociative tendancies to Mother Teresa. Are you now really insisting that she views some people as subhuman? Where is your evidence?
Let me get this straight, you are seriously suggesting we let people's cults of personality and media hype determine what is true and what isn't? That's incredibly dangerous. I'm not desperate to see anyone wrongfully villified, and I don't appreciate the accusation.
Much as the rest of us don't appreciate yours. If you didn't want to play rough, you shouldn't have been comparing Mother Teresa to Stalin/Hitler/Kim-Jong Il.
However, that aside: You are posisting the existence of universal truth in a matter that, as this argument demonstrates, is inherently subjective. The mere fact we're arguing this demonstrates the folly of your assertions.
Furthermore, since we're arguing over the existence of the cult of personality and media hype you posist, attempting to make that point is invalid unless you can first sustain the existence of the other points on which they're based. As you have failed to do that, this point, too, is invalid.
So poor people should never bother trying to work to make their lives better and instead just "accept" that they are perpetually on the bottom of society?
Again, you appear to have selectively responded to my argument. I'll make you a deal: every time you fail to read through to the end (you know, the part about accepting the now to change the future, children's children, stuff like that?), I'll call you a liar.
Liar.
How unamerican of you.
"If you don't like monkeys, you are Un-American and have allowed the terrorists to win."
If that mockery sounds familar, it's because it used to be in your signature, Kosh.
No one is saying that charities should uplift everyone, but to say there is never any hope or potential is....I can't even ind words for it its so disgusting. Totally the opposite of the American Dream.
See above.
Aside from that point, the American Dream stresses the importance of hard work to accomplish what you do. Charitable assistence is welcome, but hardly integral and possibly even dangerous to the ultimate goal of self-reliance that the dream espouses. It appears my assertion that charity can never truly uplift the downtrodden is very American after all.
But that wasn't what she said. I've never read a single quote from her saying work to make your future generations lives better or anything like that.
But then, she doesn't need to say such things to make it true, does she? We've completely digressed from the topic of what Mother Teresa said to why she said it and since you're failing to offer any evidence I stepped up with conjecture backed by historical evidence.
If you have evidence I'm wrong, produce it. If you don't, produce better conjecture. If you can't do either, you've lost the argument.
Because she didn't give them the treatments they needed. :p
While true, this ignores the points that she could not.
-
NGTM-1R have you actually got any evidence she could not or are you just assuming this?
Oh and while I'm at it. This is pretty good (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzFEesUUX0s). Biased as hell but definitely worth watching.
You're now also arguing that people who donated to her organization had no concept they might just be donating to a Christian charity! Instead of accusing Mother Teresa, you have devolved to accusing those who supported her work.
He's arguing that MT and her charity knowingly misled people into thinking that money was being spent on the poor when it was actually being spent on MT's religious order. It's the same as if a church was taking money out of the poor box to fix the roof. While the money might have been collected in a church that doesn't mean that those who donated it shouldn't have a reasonable expectation that the money would be spent on the poor.
Bear in mind that MT's charities do not publish financial records so there is no way for a donor to know what their money will be spent on. If you are claiming that the act of donating money to a Christian charity means you should expect that the money might not end up being spent on charity and will instead be spent on religion you are doing a lot of Christian charities a great disservice.
-
NGTM-1R have you actually got any evidence she could not or are you just assuming this?
It's there in the posts if you read them. (You did read them?) Admittedly circumstantial, but it's more than Kosh is offering.
He's arguing that MT and her charity knowingly misled people into thinking that money was being spent on the poor when it was actually being spent on MT's religious order. It's the same as if a church was taking money out of the poor box to fix the roof. While the money might have been collected in a church that doesn't mean that those who donated it shouldn't have a reasonable expectation that the money would be spent on the poor.
Which is patently ridiculous. First, Kosh has only asserted willful fraud after he was called to the carpet for asserting that the money should be better spent.
Second, he has provided no evidence whatsoever to back his new claim. He has simply made a bald assertion. If I respond in kind, is this surprising?
Third, the nature of Mother Teresa's work in both spheres was and is easily known. I knew it when the woman was still alive and I was a minor who didn't have much interest in world news, much less news about charity in India. If you need more proof, I present this very thread. Kosh's argument is self-refuting.
Bear in mind that MT's charities do not publish financial records so there is no way for a donor to know what their money will be spent on. If you are claiming that the act of donating money to a Christian charity means you should expect that the money might not end up being spent on charity and will instead be spent on religion you are doing a lot of Christian charities a great disservice.
Not at all. A Christian charity would hardly be Christian if it didn't at least try to preach. Furthermore, by adopting a Christian identity, the money will go to religion in the form of simple upkeep of the organization. This is where Kosh and I differ; the convents he views as abominations are, bluntly, simple upkeep, infrastructure for the continuation of the organization.
-
Doesn't make religion look more reasonable, it makes insurance look more retarded. :P
Insurance is a necessary evil. I invite you to visit an American hospital without decent health insurance.
-
Try visiting a Swedish one without it. :p
It's there in the posts if you read them. (You did read them?) Admittedly circumstantial, but it's more than Kosh is offering.
Well if circumstantial evidence is enough I can point to several charities in Calcutta that did manage to provide medical staff at the same time as MT was running her charity (at least towards the end of the time she was alive). If she couldn't do it, it must be because she wanted to open lots of convents instead of improving facilities at the ones that already existed.
So the question becomes "Did she actually do more good that way?" Is it better to open lots of convents that can't help very much or fewer ones that can help a lot?
Third, the nature of Mother Teresa's work in both spheres was and is easily known. I knew it when the woman was still alive and I was a minor who didn't have much interest in world news, much less news about charity in India. If you need more proof, I present this very thread. Kosh's argument is self-refuting.
How is a thread that only appeared several years after the woman's death proof of anything that was going on during her life?
Secondly, just because you know something doesn't automatically make it common knowledge. She was known as Mother Teresa of Calcutta. I suspect a great many people thought that the majority of their money was going to Calcutta. Especially as it was pictures of Calcutta that featured very heavily in any donation drives her organisation made.
Similarly I suspect that a lot of her donations came from non-Christians who believed the bulk of their money was going to the poor.
A Christian charity would hardly be Christian if it didn't at least try to preach. Furthermore, by adopting a Christian identity, the money will go to religion in the form of simple upkeep of the organization. This is where Kosh and I differ; the convents he views as abominations are, bluntly, simple upkeep, infrastructure for the continuation of the organization.
Which again brings us back to the issue that the charity doesn't publish financial records so there is no way to check how much is actually being spent on the infrastructure directly related to helping the poor and how much is being spent on maintaining the organisation as a religious entity.
-
So the question becomes "Did she actually do more good that way?" Is it better to open lots of convents that can't help very much or fewer ones that can help a lot?
Isn't the original question more like: would it have been better if she never existed?
The title of this thread suggests it would, which is the disagreement here?
-
Well if circumstantial evidence is enough I can point to several charities in Calcutta that did manage to provide medical staff at the same time as MT was running her charity (at least towards the end of the time she was alive). If she couldn't do it, it must be because she wanted to open lots of convents instead of improving facilities at the ones that already existed.
You yourself pointed out we don't know her budgets, now you're trying to conclude motivations based on arguments that might be related to problems with cashflow.
It's also quite arguable that her efforts were focused on being where other people were not/could not offer services, which necessitates a sacrifice of quality just to get there. Once other people had moved in, offering better help, then it was time to move on.
So the question becomes "Did she actually do more good that way?" Is it better to open lots of convents that can't help very much or fewer ones that can help a lot?
If you're going to reduce it to a standpoint like that, then it's pretty clear; a lot of basic care is going to save more lives then a little advanced care.
Secondly, just because you know something doesn't automatically make it common knowledge. She was known as Mother Teresa of Calcutta. I suspect a great many people thought that the majority of their money was going to Calcutta. Especially as it was pictures of Calcutta that featured very heavily in any donation drives her organisation made.
It also doesn't make it uncommon knowledge. I was there for the newspaper articles and the TV news and documentaries and the donation drives in Catholic churches. I remember what was said for them. It was never unclear.
Similarly I suspect that a lot of her donations came from non-Christians who believed the bulk of their money was going to the poor.
Your suspicions are not proof. Do you have evidence?
Which again brings us back to the issue that the charity doesn't publish financial records so there is no way to check how much is actually being spent on the infrastructure directly related to helping the poor and how much is being spent on maintaining the organisation as a religious entity.
Or that those goals are not mutually exclusive.
-
NGTM-1R makes sense :nod: I like him! :D
-
You yourself pointed out we don't know her budgets, now you're trying to conclude motivations based on arguments that might be related to problems with cashflow.
As I pointed out your argument was made based on circumstantial evidence. I was simply pointing out that circumstantial evidence can just as easily point in the other direction.
Remember I posted that after asking you if you had any proof that Mother Teresa couldn't have done things differently.
It's also quite arguable that her efforts were focused on being where other people were not/could not offer services, which necessitates a sacrifice of quality just to get there. Once other people had moved in, offering better help, then it was time to move on.
Okay, I'm going to request clarification on this point cause I can read it several ways. Exactly what are you arguing here?
If you're going to reduce it to a standpoint like that, then it's pretty clear; a lot of basic care is going to save more lives then a little advanced care.
As I pointed out earlier the basic care was very, very basic and was provided by almost completely untrained individuals. It is quite possible that the spread of communicable diseases wiped out any actual benefits of the care that was given. Bear in mind that there are medical journals who have been heavily critical of the way care was given in those places.
So no, it isn't as simple as you want to claim it is. I've pointed out the possibility that MT's Home for the Dying did more harm than good. I haven't said it did, I've raised the possibility. If you want to prove me wrong feel free to point out mortality figures or some actual evidence of that fact. Otherwise you're simply making assertions you can't actually prove and expecting me to take them at face value.
It also doesn't make it uncommon knowledge. I was there for the newspaper articles and the TV news and documentaries and the donation drives in Catholic churches. I remember what was said for them. It was never unclear.
Again, you're trying to claim something without any evidence. I've at least used words like suspicion and probably. You're flat out claiming that you know that everyone who ever donated to MT knew about where the money would end up.
How much money do you think was raised by people simply jangling a bucket on a street corner and saying "Give to MT's charity"? Are you seriously claiming that everyone giving money that way knew where the money would go? How much was given in similar ways that didn't involve a long presentation before hand explaining where the money would be spent?
Your suspicions are not proof. Do you have evidence?
Do you? You're flat out claiming you are right. The onus is on you to prove that. Especially when you're doing something as odd as claiming that you're certain no Indian Muslims or Hindus gave money to MT thinking that it would get spent in their country.
Or that those goals are not mutually exclusive.
Maybe not but that is the problem with not releasing financial records, there is no accountability. We have no idea if MT's charities spent more money on things like prayer candles and rosary beads for her 514 convents than they spent on the poor in Calcutta.
I'm not saying MT did but there is suspicion. That suspicion was raised over 10 years ago and yet we still have no data on which to base a conclusion. Under those circumstances I'm left having to declare that I certainly wouldn't feel certain that if I donated money to MT's charities that it would end up where I wish it would. Doubts like that shouldn't be swept under the rug simply because people like the think highly of MT.
Isn't the original question more like: would it have been better if she never existed?
I tend to disagree with that comment. Whatever else she did MT was the inspiration for a lot of charities and may have indirectly done a lot of good. My issue is whether that should be her only legacy rather than the charity that currently bears her name and is still operating. Undoubtedly MT did some questionable things in her life. I'm not about to vilify her for that, she's not a saint!.....
oh wait. :D
But regardless of what she did in her life her charity is still operating. I'm all for charities, but we must always be careful when giving to charity to make sure that the money is actually spent on what people giving the money away believe it is being spent on. If people believe that the money is going to poor in Calcutta then it is on the charity to make certain that they don't mislead people if they are spending the majority of the money elsewhere.
-
Yep, this is sensible talk and easy to agree with, unlike that Slate artice. It was intended to make a lot of noise, and it succeeded, but I don't personally like that kind of journalism even when it works.
-
Hrm. After reviewing the evidence I must say that Mother Theresa is significantly less impressive than I'd believed. I wouldn't go so far as to say 'fraud', but I certainly wouldn't have supported her work.
I'm not sure morality is a vector sum. You don't need to add up the good and the bad and get a single outcome. She could have done things right and also done a lot of things wrong.
-
Exactly. The same Penn & Teller episode also pointed out that Ghandi was shockingly racist towards black people. But that doesn't mean he wasn't a great guy who did a hell of a lot for his country.
Humans are flawed. We all make mistakes. But if you put someone on a pedestal and claim they are perfect you only make it easier for them and others to keep making that same mistake.
-
Humans are flawed. We all make mistakes. But if you put someone on a pedestal and claim they are perfect you only make it easier for them and others to keep making that same mistake.
The fun thing is, though, no one in the Church claims that saints were perfect people. Hell, many of the saints themselves wrote at length about their many flaws. Peter, revered by the Catholic Church as the first Pope, flat-out denied that he knew Christ on the night before his crucifixion. Paul actively worked to persecute the Church and execute early Christians before his conversion. Augustine, one of the greatest theological minds of the early Church, essentially lived like a frat-boy for most of his early life. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Saints aren't extraordinary people meant to be hoisted on a pedestal above the rest of us. They're ordinary human beings who did extraordinary things in their lives. Was Mother Teresa flawed? Undoubtedly, just as you and I are. But she cared deeply about the desperately poor around her, a group that almost no one else in the world would give the time of day before she began her work. She lived among them and worked with them, giving them that most basic and fundamental dignity of recognition as fellow human beings. Could she have done more than she did, or implemented what she did better? Probably. But at least in my mind, what she did accomplish more than qualifies her for sainthood.
-
I'm not referring to her sainthood actually. I'm actually on about the troubling notion people tend to have that MT couldn't possibly have spent the money she was given poorly simply because she was a great person.
This thread has been one long example of people denying that possibility. And that's obviously nothing to do with sainthood cause at least a couple of the people doing it have been atheists. :p
-
Yeah, I'm about as concerned with her sainthood as with her standings in the South Dakota state bowling league - it's important enough to some people to serve as a behavioral modifier, but it's still basically important only to ingroup members. The "Mother Teresa" rep exists independent of whether or not she's a saint.
Her actual humanitarian record is what I'm interested in examining.
-
Yeah, I'm about as concerned with her sainthood as with her standings in the South Dakota state bowling league
Quoted for emphasis :)
-
Well, to clarify, I'm certainly interested in what she did, the actions she took.
The sainthood is just a post-hoc medal that they give her for it, and kind of arbitrary.
In case that wasn't clear.