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. 
While true, this ignores the points that she could not.
