[Mongoose]

...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?

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[Kosh]

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?

[zookeeper]

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?

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.

[Nemesis6]

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

[TrashMan]

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.

[Mongoose]

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.

[TrashMan]

Religion poisons everything.

It's morons like Hitchens that poison everything.

[Snail]

Raw chicken is delicious.

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[Nuclear1]

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.

[iamzack]

I prefer not to give money to faith-based charities. Just feels icky. "We'll give you help.... if you attend our religious service."

[Bob-san]

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.

[Mongoose]

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.

[iamzack]

Salvation Army?

I guess I'm just generally against faith-based initiatives because of all the horrors they've caused in sub-saharan Africa.

[Mongoose]

...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?

[karajorma]

...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.

[iamzack]

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!

[Mongoose]

...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.)

[iamzack]

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.