[Developer]

Originally posted by iWrite:
So, if someone wants to criticize Mother Theresa being sainted then they are really criticizing the Catholic Church and the billion followers of Catholicism, and that is an entirely different matter.

That's nonsense.
If someone who believes Mother Theresa's work was questionable criticizes her, then he is criticizing her not any other catholic. And if he's right than I - and I say that as a catholic - would like to know about it before she's sainted myself. Some of it is easy to disproof. Like the accusation that needles had been washed in cold water.

She is, by the way, now beautificated, so the title is actually correct. She is no saint.

[iWrite]

Developer said
She is, by the way, now beautificated, so the title is actually correct. She is no saint.

Uh, don't you mean BEATIFIED?



About criticizing Mother Theresa's beatification, NO, they are NOT criticizing HER...they're criticizing the Catholic Church's decision to elevate her status, not her work as you said.

[Developer]

Oh, you speak better English than I do. Great of you, Kelly.

That Hitchen guy that was linked to criticized her work. He did not criticize her beautification because the linked to interview was made while she was still living.

[iWrite]

No, I don't speak better than you, I spell better than you!

[MacGorilla]

I am not Catholic or even Christain but I respect the title and honor that sainthood brings. Mother Teresa should have been made a saint a week after her death.

[korn]

Who cares the make her a Saint. it's only one of the over 250 people this Pope beatified. It has completely lost it's meaning, if it had any at all to the vast majority of the world population.
Catholisism is, like any other religion, a beautiful way to help people through life without having to think to much, and saints are a part of that. Nothing more.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by iWrite:
Also, as far as Chatterjee or anyone else demonizing Mother Theresa, I just read that drivel written and laughed my *ss off.

Mother Theresa was not capable of manipulating people the way he states. Did you know that many of her "speeches" were not even written by herself? In fact, she wanted to refuse the Nobel award and had to be convinced that her acceptance of the award was inspirational and for a greater good.

As far as Mother Theresa protesting abortion, who cares? She loved children. She believed that children were Godly. In her mind, abortions were the same as killing children and killing Christ.

The truth is that if anyone were to spend some time with Mother Theresa they would see a tiny little woman who was very childlike except for her desire to work very hard and do as much as possible to help others. She always felt her clock was running low and that time was short for helping others. She knew that the clock stops and that we, each of us, have only a certain amount of time to use our lives to help our fellow human beings.

If someone wants to expend their energy hating and misunderstanding someone who only wanted everyone to be at peace, healthy, and whole, then fine. Personally, I feel sorry for people who feel the desire and need to diminish other human beings.

They must lead very sad and little lives if they do not have any respect for goodness and good people and people who inspire others to goodness.

And I would say that that's all very nice, but it still doesn't render her immune from scrutiny. When experienced physicians who have been there suggest that she was more interested in proselytizing than in rendering sound medical treatment, I have reason to wonder. She might have believed that she was doing the right thing, and she might have been a truly modest and kind person, but that doesn't mean that the rest of us should suspend judgment.

[iWrite]

Did it ever occur to you that PERHAPS, just perhaps, that what I said about her being uneducated MIGHT be true?

She truly believed that faith fixed problems.

What you're relaying is that she believed that faith could fix medical (and other) problems...which may or may not be true (scientists would say no and certain religious persons would say yes)...but it fits right in with the type of person that she was: SIMPLE.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by iWrite:
No, I don't speak better than you, I spell better than you!

Has it occurred to you that English might not be Developer's first language?

[iWrite]

Of course.

BUT, if you LOOK at the link that HE posted where he said "Beautified" it clearly said "Beatified." It was the link that HE provided and had the correct spelling.

But, aside from all of that, Developer knows that I like what he says.

I have no problems with Developer.

[ASIMO]

It appears that some among us do not wish to open M. Teresa's closet for fear of skeletons. And it also appears that some among us have already found the skeletons and are dancing with them.

The skeletons apparently exist, but must we dance and prance with them? The matrix must not be disturbed.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by iWrite:
Did it ever occur to you that PERHAPS, just perhaps, that what I said about her being uneducated MIGHT be true?

She truly believed that faith fixed problems.

What you're relaying is that she believed that faith could fix medical (and other) problems...which may or may not be true (scientists would say no and certain religious persons would say yes)...but it fits right in with the type of person that she was: SIMPLE.

So (and I'm not saying this is actually the way it was) it would be ok for her to be superficially helpful to people even though she wasn't doing what they actually needed to get better or be happier or whatever because she didn't know about the things she could be doing?

I'm reminded of an episode of Law & Order where a child died because the parents refused to have her seen by a doctor because of their religion. A lot of people argued that by treating them as criminals and persuing a conviction (I think of negligent homicide, I don't remember the actual charger) they were denying people's right to worship freely and believe whatever religion they wanted. In the end they were found guilty because it was decided that the child's right to live was more important than the parents' right to let it die for religious reasons.

Even if she truely believed that what she was doing was going to help the people and that it was the best thing that could be done for them, if she didn't really address their needs and her methods didn't actually alleviate their suffering or cure their diseases, then what did she really do? I'm not saying that she would be guilty of doing any wrong, just that, if that is truely the case, she didn't deserve as much credit as she got for helping people.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by iWrite:
Did it ever occur to you that PERHAPS, just perhaps, that what I said about her being uneducated MIGHT be true?

She truly believed that faith fixed problems.

What you're relaying is that she believed that faith could fix medical (and other) problems...which may or may not be true (scientists would say no and certain religious persons would say yes)...but it fits right in with the type of person that she was: SIMPLE.

She received tens of millions of dollars, much of which did not go to getting proper medical care for the people she was supposed to be helping.

Smiling beatifically at a ill person and washing their wounds isn't very impressive given all the money she received.

She could've built a teaching hospital, but never did. But she probably used a lot of that money to build convents around the world. However, an audit needs to be done to determine where all the money went.

There are many aid organizations that do a much better job of caring for the ill and dying than Mother Teresa did. Unlike her, they don't believe that poverty is a beautiful thing.

From Hitchens:

Well, I have the testimony of a former very active member of her Order who worked for her for many years and ended up in the office Mother Teresa maintains in New York City. She was in charge of taking the money to the bank. She estimates that there must be $50 million in that bank account alone. She said that one of the things that began to raise doubts in her mind was that the Sisters always had to go around pretending that they were very poor and they couldn't use the money for anything in the neighborhood that required alleviation. Under the cloak of avowed poverty they were still soliciting donations, labor, food, and so on from local merchants. This she found as a matter of conscience to be offensive.

Whatever you believe Mother Teresa is, she definitely isn't the amazing miracle worker that the western media and the catholic church makes her out to be.

In fact, she should be regarded as a failure because she never utilized all the donations she received to help the most people. If she were a politician, we would accuse her of squandering taxpayers' money.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by iWrite:
Did it ever occur to you that PERHAPS, just perhaps, that what I said about her being uneducated MIGHT be true?

She truly believed that faith fixed problems.

What you're relaying is that she believed that faith could fix medical (and other) problems...which may or may not be true (scientists would say no and certain religious persons would say yes)...but it fits right in with the type of person that she was: SIMPLE.

Yes, in fact I said as much. I've said that she might have been a truly kind, modest, devout, apolitical person. That still doesn't make her immune from criticism, especially if her beliefs impeded, rather than advanced, the treatment of illness.

I'm sure that Christian Scientists are sincere in their beliefs, but I still question the withholding of medical treatment from children in the name of "faith."

I agree that if the Catholic Church wants to call her a saint, that's their business. But I don't suspend judgment just because she's a nice lady or because she's associated with a church. Missionaries are a mixed bag, IMO, I don't care how pious they appear to be.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Yes, in fact I said as much. I've said that she might have been a truly kind, modest, devout, apolitical person. That still doesn't make her immune from criticism, especially if her beliefs impeded, rather than advanced, the treatment of illness.

I'm sure that Christian Scientists are sincere in their beliefs, but I still question the withholding of medical treatment from children in the name of "faith."

I agree that if the Catholic Church wants to call her a saint, that's their business. But I don't suspend judgment just because she's a nice lady or because she's associated with a church. Missionaries are a mixed bag, IMO, I don't care how pious they appear to be.

This is what I meant to say in my last post, but stated about a million times better than I did.

[RooneyX]

The Saint

[iWrite]

I know a number of "Christian Scientists" and they're all hypocrites because they do not seem to practice what they preach. (I'm talking about the teachings of Mary Baker Eddy specifically.)

As far as this comment, Spliff:

She received tens of millions of dollars, much of which did not go to getting proper medical care for the people she was supposed to be helping.

That had me laughing pretty hard.

Mother Theresa NEVER was given "tens of millions of dollars."

The Catholic Church might have received that money, but Mother Theresa did not, personally.

As I've mentioned many times, you're talking about a woman with a peasant mentality, almost a simpleton, a woman who needed assistance with virtually all tasks involving travel, public speaking, and being presented with any awards.

You're making her out to be some manipulating, conniving, sophisticated soliciter with evil intentions and that has just got to be one of the funniest and most ignorant -- and memorable -- things I've ever read.

If you want to go that route in your persecution you'd be better off concentrating on Hillary Clinton or Martha Stewart!

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by iWrite:

That had me laughing pretty hard.

Mother Theresa NEVER was given "tens of millions of dollars."

The Catholic Church might have received that money, but Mother Theresa did not, personally.

Here's another example of her defenders picking and choosing what to read and not to read, but always wearing blindfolds.

The links have been provided in this thread to articles written by Teresa's bagwomen who handled the cash for her. In case you decide to divert away from that and pretend it isn't there, here it is again:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/libra...elds_18_1.html

'As a Missionary of Charity, I was assigned to record donations and write the thank-you letters. The money arrived at a frantic rate. The mail carrier often delivered the letters in sacks. We wrote receipts for checks of $50,000 and more on a regular basis. Sometimes a donor would call up and ask if we had received his check, expecting us to remember it readily because it was so large. How could we say that we could not recall it because we had received so many that were even larger?'

[Spliff]

Originally posted by iWrite:
As far as this comment, Spliff:

That had me laughing pretty hard.

As I've mentioned many times, you're talking about a woman with a peasant mentality, almost a simpleton, a woman who needed assistance with virtually all tasks involving travel, public speaking, and being presented with any awards.

You're making her out to be some manipulating, conniving, sophisticated soliciter with evil intentions and that has just got to be one of the funniest and most ignorant -- and memorable -- things I've ever read.

Even the simplest peasant can be good at extracting money. And look, she intervenes in legal proceedings:

Teresa also accepted a donation of over one million dollars from convicted Savings and Loan swindler Charles Keating, and later sent a plea for clemency to Keating's trial judge. In response, the Deputy District Attorney Paul Turley, responsible for Keating's case, wrote a letter as a private citizen back to Mrs. Bojaxhiu, stating that the money was stolen from hundreds of people, many of them "people of modest means and unfamiliar with high finance" who had their life savings stolen by Keating. He asked Mother Teresa to return the money, to no avail.

I guess being simple-minded is a defense against these accusations. I guess she doesn't understand why she shouldn't return stolen money.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Spliff:
She received tens of millions of dollars, much of which did not go to getting proper medical care for the people she was supposed to be helping.

Smiling beatifically at a ill person and washing their wounds isn't very impressive given all the money she received.

She could've built a teaching hospital, but never did. But she probably used a lot of that money to build convents around the world. However, an audit needs to be done to determine where all the money went.

There are many aid organizations that do a much better job of caring for the ill and dying than Mother Teresa did. Unlike her, they don't believe that poverty is a beautiful thing.

From Hitchens:



Whatever you believe Mother Teresa is, she definitely isn't the amazing miracle worker that the western media and the catholic church makes her out to be.

In fact, she should be regarded as a failure because she never utilized all the donations she received to help the most people. If she were a politician, we would accuse her of squandering taxpayers' money.

Ummm... MILLIONS? To do what would be neccessary regarding the BILLIONS of people in that area of the world would require BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars, more than even Gates could come up with. If you spread a $100 million over Calcutta alone (estimated to be between 13-16 million) you'd be able to do... almost nothing. The FACT that she tried, and invested her life into it, speaks volumes about her and her persecuters.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by iWrite:
If you want to go that route in your persecution you'd be better off concentrating on Hillary Clinton or Martha Stewart!

See the bit about Hilary Clinton at the end of this quote:

Mother's special relationship with Charles Keating, one of history's biggest swindlers, and the biggest thief in the history of the United States, is well known. It is not known how much Mother really got from Keating - although she did not deny that she received at least $1,250,000 - but it is known that he stole (at least) $253 million, which were the moneys of small investors. Keating also gave Mother the free use of his personal jet and in return he received her blessings and a personalised crucifix, which he carries everywhere.

In January 1992, when Keating's fraud trial was still going on in a Los Angeles court, he got more back from his special friend. She wrote a letter to the trial judge Lance Ito (who later became a household name for sitting at the O.J. Simpson trial):

Dear Honorable Lance Ito,
We do not mix up in Business or Politics or courts...I do not know anything about Mr Charles Keating's work or his business or the matters you are dealing with. ...

I only know that he has always been kind and generous to God's poor, and always ready to help whenever there was a need. Whenever someone asks me to speak to a trial judge, I always tell them the same thing. I ask them to pray, to look into their heart, and to do what Jesus would do in that circumstance. And that is what is I am asking of you, your Honor.

My gratitude to you is my prayer for you, and your work, your family and the people you are dealing with. God Bless You
M. Teresa, M.C.5


After Keating's conviction and imprisonment, Paul W Turley, the then Deputy District Attorney of Los Angeles County wrote the following letter to Mother Teresa:

Dear Mother Teresa
...The victims of Mr Keating's fraud come from a wide spectrum of society. Some were wealthy and well educated. Most were people of modest means and unfamiliar with high finance. One was, indeed a poor carpenter who did not speak English and had his life's savings stolen by Mr Keating's fraud.

The Biblical slogan of your organisation is 'As long as you did it to one of My least brethren. You did it to Me.' The 'least' of the brethren are among those whom Mr Keating fleeced without flinching... It is not uncommon for 'con' men to be generous with family, friends and charities...No church, no charity, no organisation should allow itself to be used as salve for the conscience of the criminal.

You urge Judge Ito to look into his heart - as he sentences Charles Keating - and do what Jesus would do. I submit the same challenge to you. Ask yourself what Jesus would do if given the fruits of a crime; what Jesus would do if he were in possession of money that had been stolen;...

I submit that Jesus would promptly and unhesitatingly return the stolen property to its rightful owners. You should do the same. You have been given money by Mr Keating that he has been convicted of stealing by fraud. Do not permit him the 'indulgence' he desires. Do not keep the money. Return it to those who worked for it and earned it!

If you contact me I will put you in direct contact with the rightful owners of the property now in your possession.

Sincerely
Paul W. Turley6


Interestingly, this is the only occasion that Mother Teresa ever wrote to a trial judge. She was urged many times to use her influence in human rights violation cases, but she always maintained that she steered clear of politics and matters not directly connected with Jesus.

Needless to say, Mr Turley never received a reply to his letter. Giving back even part of the stolen money was beyond the wildest dream of the living saint.

Even much-maligned politicians like Hillary Clinton returned $22,000 (in April 2000) that her campaign had received from a drug trafficker when the drug link was exposed.

Source: http://www.meteorbooks.com/chap9.html

[KeyLimePi]

Oh jeez, not this thread again. Mother Teresa spent 80 years serving others and died owning just a dress, a pair of sandals and a rosary.

You don't even have to believe in God to be able to appreciate that.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by KeyLimePi:
Oh jeez, not this thread again. Mother Teresa spent 80 years serving others and died owning just a dress, a pair of sandals and a rosary.

You don't even have to believe in God to be able to appreciate that.

Pfffttt... that's not good enough for some people.

[Commodus]

Spliff:

I find that quote from a member of the order regarding its money in the bank to be questionable. After all, he doesn't name the source; he just says that he associated with someone in that "friend of a friend" sort of way. We're all assuming that the allegations that there was tens of millions of dollars collected that wasn't going towards charity.

Besides, what were they collecting the money for if they weren't spending it on the charity or on themselves? Does the book say where the money went? Mother Teresa wasn't exactly driving a fresh Bentley or carrying a solid-gold walking stick, and we know that there were witnesses to that. Either they were being miserly (money for its own sake) or Hitchens' accusations are faulty.

By the way: has anyone else noticed that the people most eager to support Hitchens' claims and bring Mother Teresa down a notch, whether on this forum or in publications, are atheists? Don't get me wrong: I know full well that zealot-like Christians are going to defend Mother Teresa at all costs, but I can't help but think that atheists are very much an "interested" party in a debate like this.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by KeyLimePi:
Oh jeez, not this thread again. Mother Teresa spent 80 years serving others and died owning just a dress, a pair of sandals and a rosary.

You don't even have to believe in God to be able to appreciate that.

Same could be said about every working person in the world who has held a job and paid taxes. But at least most people don't make false promises to the poor and take money from dictators and thieves.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by Commodus:
Spliff:

I find that quote from a member of the order regarding its money in the bank to be questionable. After all, he doesn't name the source

I'll have to have a look at the book and see if he lists his sources.

Besides, what were they collecting the money for if they weren't spending it on the charity or on themselves? Does the book say where the money went?

Well, for one, she has a awful lot of convents for her order. Part of the problem is that no one really knows where the money went. They want an audit. Here are some details about financial donations to M. Teresa:

Mother Teresa's Accounts

By the way: has anyone else noticed that the people most eager to support Hitchens' claims and bring Mother Teresa down a notch, whether on this forum or in publications, are atheists?

Well, Hitchens has written books on Princess Di and Bill Clinton. Does his being an atheist have anything to do with that? As an atheist, he's unlikely to pull his punches when writing about Mother Teresa. But then again, Hitchens never pulls his punches. He's pretty damn fearless.

Here are his motivations, according to him, for writing examining the myth of Mother Teresa:

Christopher Hitchens: Partly because that impression is so widespread. But also because the sheer fact that this is considered unquestionable is a sign of what we are up against, namely the problem of credulity. One of the most salient examples of people's willingness to believe anything if it is garbed in the appearance of holiness is the uncritical acceptance of the idea of Mother Teresa as a saint by people who would normally be thinking - however lazily - in a secular or rational manner. In other words, in every sense it is an unexamined claim.

It's unexamined journalistically - no one really takes a look at what she does. And it is unexamined as to why it should be she who is spotlighted as opposed to many very selfless people who devote their lives to the relief of suffering in what we used to call the "Third World." Why is it never mentioned that her stated motive for the work is that of proselytization for religious fundamentalism, for the most extreme interpretation of Catholic doctrine? If you ask most people if they agree with the pope's views on population, for example, they say they think they are rather extreme. Well here's someone whose life's work is the propagation of the most extreme version of that.

That's the first motive. The second was a sort of journalistic curiosity as to why it was that no one had asked any serious questions about Mother Teresa's theory or practice. Regarding her practice, I couldn't help but notice that she had rallied to the side of the Duvalier family in Haiti, for instance, that she had taken money - over a million dollars - from Charles Keating, the Lincoln Savings and Loans swindler, even though it had been shown to her that the money was stolen; that she has been an ally of the most reactionary forces in India and in many other countries; that she has campaigned recently to prevent Ireland from ceasing to be the only country in Europe with a constitutional ban on divorce, that her interventions are always timed to assist the most conservative and obscurantist forces.

Sounds fair to me. At least some journalists have the guts to tackle controversial subjects.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by iWrite:
As I've mentioned many times, you're talking about a woman with a peasant mentality, almost a simpleton, a woman who needed assistance with virtually all tasks involving travel, public speaking, and being presented with any awards.

You're making her out to be some manipulating, conniving, sophisticated soliciter with evil intentions and that has just got to be one of the funniest and most ignorant -- and memorable -- things I've ever read.

Hitchens' response to this:

FI: Do you think this is because she is a shrewd political operator or that she is just na�ve and used as a tool by others?

HITCHENS: I've often been asked that. And I couldn't say from real acquaintance with her which view is correct, because I've only met her once. But from observing her I don't think that she's na�ve. I don't think she is particularly intelligent or that she has a complex mind, but I think she has a certain cunning.

Her instincts are very good: she seems to know when and where she might be needed and to turn up, still looking very simple. But it's a long way from Calcutta to Port au Prince airport in Haiti, and it's a long way from the airport to the presidential palace. And one can't just, in your humble way and dressed in a simple sari, turn up there. Quite a lot of things have to be arranged and thought about and allowed for in advance. You don't end up suddenly out of sheer simple na�vet� giving a speech saying that the Duvalier family love the poor. All of that involves quite a high level of planning and calculation. But I think the genius of it is to make it look simple.

One of Mother Teresa's biographers - almost all the books written about her are by completely uncritical devotees - says, with a sense of absolute wonderment, that when Mother Teresa first met the pope in the Vatican, she arrived by bus dressed only in a sari that cost one rupee. Now that would be my definition of behaving ostentatiously. A normal person would put on at least her best scarf and take a taxi. To do it in the way that she did is the reverse of the simple path. It's obviously theatrical and calculated. And yet it is immediately written down as a sign of her utter holiness and devotion. Well, one doesn't have to be too cynical to see through that.

Some speculation here, but it's still a valid interpretation. No way of knowing for sure, of course.

[ironknee]

to echo something posted above, it's our third world guilt that mother teresa fills. It's a comforting feeling that "someone" is dealing with the poor in india. That way, we first world people don't have to think about it too much.

to look at mt as a real person, warts and all, "may" make us all feel slighted...

[Andrew 8808]

I just find it amusing how people immediately go on the offense at the mention of this whole thing. If you're going to shoot down, and dismiss these facts, at least provide some to back you up.

[Developer]

Originally posted by iWrite:
Did it ever occur to you that PERHAPS, just perhaps, that what I said about her being uneducated MIGHT be true?

She truly believed that faith fixed problems.

What you're relaying is that she believed that faith could fix medical (and other) problems...which may or may not be true (scientists would say no and certain religious persons would say yes)...but it fits right in with the type of person that she was: SIMPLE.

There is a saying here that says (translated to English, sorry if it sounds crappy there)

"The opposite of 'good' is 'meant good'."

So even if everything she ever did in her life was meant good (which I will easily believe), that still means that one can look at what she did and see if it actually was good.

See, if she really asked a judge to forgive a fraudster, then that was not the right thing to do. Maybe if she was really naive, she thought he was a good men who donated a lot of money for a good cause. I give her that. But don't tell me that someone can be that naive to believe that washing needles in cold water is sufficient. If that is true, this might well have caused the death of people. There is no excuse for that.

I'm not saying any of the accusations brought up here are true or false. I don't know. But I do think that these accusations need to be countered with something more substantial than insulting the accuser.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Commodus:
Besides, what were they collecting the money for if they weren't spending it on the charity or on themselves? Does the book say where the money went? Mother Teresa wasn't exactly driving a fresh Bentley or carrying a solid-gold walking stick, and we know that there were witnesses to that. Either they were being miserly (money for its own sake) or Hitchens' accusations are faulty.

The Catholic Church is famous for its money-collecting abilities, including from people who can least afford it. If money was siphoned off, it wouldn't surprise me if the church got it.

By the way: has anyone else noticed that the people most eager to support Hitchens' claims and bring Mother Teresa down a notch, whether on this forum or in publications, are atheists? Don't get me wrong: I know full well that zealot-like Christians are going to defend Mother Teresa at all costs, but I can't help but think that atheists are very much an "interested" party in a debate like this.

You're probably right, and I don't mind saying that I've never been fond of the Catholic Church or any other church. But that doesn't change the facts. If what Hitchens says is true, it raises legitimate questions, IMO, and reflects a dangerous willingness on the part of many to accept anything wrapped in the cloak of holiness at face value. Just my opinion.

I'm no fount of virtue myself. Mother Theresa probably helped a lot more people than I have. But I don't collect donations, and it's possible that there's more to her than meets the eye. If so, I'd rather know about it than not know about it.

[iWrite]

Before you assassinate Mother Teresa, why don't you check to see how credible your Hitchens guy is?

I mean, what else has he done with his life?

How do we know he isn't just another Jayson Blair, eh?

Next time people start spouting off about "this person said this and that and the other thing," give us some starting point as to why we should believe your "source" other than you want to believe him yourself.

Answer that and this thread will gain credibility. Right now it's just...

out there.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by iWrite:
Before you assassinate Mother Teresa, why don't you check to see how credible your Hitchens guy is?

I mean, what else has he done with his life?

How do we know he isn't just another Jayson Blair, eh?

Next time people start spouting off about "this person said this and that and the other thing," give us some starting point as to why we should believe your "source" other than you want to believe him yourself.

Answer that and this thread will gain credibility. Right now it's just...

out there.

Hitchens is an Oxford-educated journalist and author of books on Orwell, Kissinger, Iraq, etc. He has an international reputation and is no Jayson Blair. He's very opinionated and one might disagree with his politics, but I doubt you'd get very far challenging his credentials. I have yet to see anyone challenge his facts.

There's no question that Mother Theresa symbolizes something very noble, and that's what people seem to latch onto, which is understandable. I'm inclined to look behind the symbolism, however.

[ASIMO]

After 10 rounds,

MT Supporters: -1

MT Detractors: +1

It is declared that the detractors have won this session of Debates 2003.

Up next: Is Britney fat and untalented or just untalented?

[Commodus]

zigzag:

The Catholic Church is famous for its money-collecting abilities, including from people who can least afford it. If money was siphoned off, it wouldn't surprise me if the church got it.

I wouldn't put it past them either, but their reputation was largely earned in preceeding centuries. One of the Lutheran arguments was that Church money from donations and pardons wasn't used to help people in need, and Verga's Little Novels of Sicily isn't particularly flattering (check out "His Reverence" in particular).

My opinion on Mother Teresa: she may not have always been dealing with the best of people, but the effect she had on the public can't be underestimated.

[ASIMO]

Originally posted by Commodus:
zigzag:
...

My opinion on Mother Teresa: she may not have always been dealing with the best of people, but the effect she had on the public can't be underestimated.

But it can be overestimated. No one at the altar because there is no altar.

Let us move on to Britney before that debate becomes frigid.

Edit: First line did not make sense.

[teszeract]

Now i ain't Christian, but I just got nothin' bad to say about MotherT. She was righteous.

You other dudes, man, you're plain wrongteous.

[anarkisst]

"He's been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful."

- Senator Patty (crackpot) Murray

Guess who? "philanthropist" Osama Bin Laden.

One person's saint is another person's satan. Get over it.

Heh. My first post here in MONTHS. Good to be back.

[talisker]

I've heard plenty of allegations about Mother Teresa, but haven't yet had the chance to look into it further, so I've had a fairly open mind on the subject until now. However the flat responses given by many people in this thread, along the lines of "How dare you criticise her, she is a saint and a wonderful human being, and a much better person than we will ever be...", when faced with genuine questions about her work, have changed my mind. If these people are so unwilling to enter into a rational debate and refuse to question her in any way, then quite simply she can't be everything she's cracked up to be. So I'll go and check out this book I think.

[Superchicken]

Bigoted Post About Religion 10

[iWrite]

The people criticizing Mother Teresa and others like her are mostly likely just selfish bastards who don't do a damn thing positive for others anyway. Like to see when the last time they've tended the sick, fed the poor, or prayed was...

Probably quite a while ago...like never, in some cases.

The truth is that the people criticizing Mother Teresa are probably criticizing her out of self-loathing and jealousy.

Anyway, she has the last laugh, I daresay: She never feared death and died in peace -- which is more than most of us can claim.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by iWrite:
The people criticizing Mother Teresa and others like her are mostly likely just selfish bastards who don't do a damn thing positive for others anyway. Like to see when the last time they've tended the sick, fed the poor, or prayed was...

People do a lot for the public by working and paying taxes. Neither of which Teresa did. Money laundering and other questionable things she did lots of.

[scoxx]

Originally posted by talisker:
I've heard plenty of allegations about Mother Teresa, but haven't yet had the chance to look into it further, so I've had a fairly open mind on the subject until now. However the flat responses given by many people in this thread, along the lines of "How dare you criticise her, she is a saint and a wonderful human being, and a much better person than we will ever be...", when faced with genuine questions about her work, have changed my mind. If these people are so unwilling to enter into a rational debate and refuse to question her in any way, then quite simply she can't be everything she's cracked up to be. So I'll go and check out this book I think.

[ebuddy]

Zig, I'm curious;

[b]Hitchens is an Oxford-educated journalist and author of books on Orwell, Kissinger, Iraq, etc.[b/]

Does this mean you believe what Bill O'Reilly has to say? How 'bout Glenn Beck, Michael Reagan, etc... I kinda doubt it. These are not credentials.

First it was Christians flying around in black helicopters trying to lobby war in Iraq, now it's Mother Theresa and money laundering. It just never ends. Learn the real story of Mother Theresa and how she refused furniture. She didn't stay in the friggin' Waldorf Astoria my friends. She would've have had to be the absolute stupidest criminal that ever lived. That said; I was an alter boy for 4 years and attended 8 years of Confronternity of Catholic Doctrine and received the Serra Award for service from the then Arch Bishop Daniel Sheehan, yet now I attend a Pentacostal Church. I oppose much of the "symbolism" found in Catholicism as I believe it distracts the complacent masses from salvation. It's past and some aspects of it currently are frequently and rightly under investigation, but it cannot be refuted that all criteria authored for sainthood by the Catholic Church have been satisfied by this small woman. Mother Theresa is not a criminal. The Church she devoted her life to has and will always be under suspicion. Good or bad.

What about your own political party? Do you know what money your mayor is laundering? How about getting involved in something you are much closer to? Many of the folks here admittedly aren't Christian let alone Catholic. What on earth compells you to engage these subjects?

I find the overall tone of these threads to be anti in nature. period. If Mother Theresa was a master financier at least her agenda was more cleverly hidden.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Prior to reading this thread, I had never heard a single bad thing about Mother Theresa. ...

Understandably a lot of people are going to be upset by this, and they should be. But that doesn't mean they should dismiss it as rubbish. Rather, it should motivate them to prove it wrong, and if it turns out that it is right, then they should accept it. Life is what it is, humanity is what it is, to believe otherwise is only damaging to oneself.

[edit]Reading through my post I think there are a few things that could probably make more sense. But I'm drunk and just broke up with my girlfriend so I really don't care.[/edit]

You post better drunk and miserable than most people here do sober and happy. Cheers

(Oh, and sucks about your girl friend )

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Does this mean you believe what Bill O'Reilly has to say? How 'bout Glenn Beck, Michael Reagan, etc... I kinda doubt it. These are not credentials.

Get real.

It was a reply to the blatant and obvious attempts at assassinating Hitchens' character, merely stating that the man has enough credibility not to simply be dismissed outright.

Which is what nearly all responses have done in the plumpest way possible.

What is wrong with saying that the man has enough background to at least be considered? You're still free to decide or believe otherwise, but just putting Hitchens off as a crackpot is doing your own intellect injustice, not to mention his.

Learn the real story of Mother Theresa and how she refused furniture. She didn't stay in the friggin' Waldorf Astoria my friends. She would've have had to be the absolute stupidest criminal that ever lived.

[...]

I oppose much of the "symbolism" found in Catholicism as I believe it distracts the complacent masses from salvation. It's past and some aspects of it currently are frequently and rightly under investigation, but it cannot be refuted that all criteria authored for sainthood by the Catholic Church have been satisfied by this small woman. Mother Theresa is not a criminal. The Church she devoted her life to has and will always be under suspicion. Good or bad.

[...]

I find the overall tone of these threads to be anti in nature. period. If Mother Theresa was a master financier at least her agenda was more cleverly hidden.

As I understand it, nobody is accusing her of being a "criminal".

And I believe that she always acted sincerely and truly believed she was doing the best she could to help people.
THAT is her achievement, THAT is what she deserves our respect for, and I doubt anything will ever change that.

However: It must be allowed to point out that EVERYTHING has its downsides, and that while she was doing all she could from her perspective, there might possibly be aspects that *could* have been handled better, or resulted in unfortunate consequences. Such as accepting money from dubious sources. I don't think she ever gave it much thought, seeing simply what she could do with the money, but denying that she thus inadvertently associated herself with people of questionable character, possibly to their advantage, is flat-out denying reality.

At least, that's /my/ take on the matter.

Originally posted by iWrite:
The people criticizing Mother Teresa and others like her are mostly likely just selfish bastards who don't do a damn thing positive for others anyway. Like to see when the last time they've tended the sick, fed the poor, or prayed was...

Probably quite a while ago...like never, in some cases.

The truth is that the people criticizing Mother Teresa are probably criticizing her out of self-loathing and jealousy.

iWrite, no offense intended - you've made it clear that it's a very personal thing for you. But that post is ad hominem, and frankly just out of line, IMO.

I believe that there is a very justifiable interest in setting the record straight. I don't believe that it justifies vilifying Mother Teresa, but there are apparently unpleasant aspects of her work that she chose not to have control over, or that simply had no place in her spiritual view of the world. Saying so is not necessarily an attack on her character.

It should be possible to discuss these aspects without stupid (IMO) ad hominems like your post above.

Again, no offense intended.

There are ALWAYS several dimensions. No light without shadow. And despite appearances and many people's apparent reluctance to do so, humans are perfectly capable of reconciling these dimensions into a halfways-realistic view of the world.

My take on the matter.

-s*

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
*snip*

As I understand it, nobody is accusing her of being a "criminal".

And I believe that she always acted sincerely and truly believed she was doing the best she could to help people.
THAT is her achievement, THAT is what she deserves our respect for, and I doubt anything will ever change that.

However: It must be allowed to point out that EVERYTHING has its downsides, and that while she was doing all she could from her perspective, there might possibly be aspects that *could* have been handled better, or resulted in unfortunate consequences. Such as accepting money from dubious sources. I don't think she ever gave it much thought, seeing simply what she could do with the money, but denying that she thus inadvertently associated herself with people of questionable character, possibly to their advantage, is flat-out denying reality.

At least, that's /my/ take on the matter.

*snip*

Very fair post SH, I can agree with that completely. She wasn't perfect, but she did try to do what she thought was best.

I do think that others, including the person who started this thread, are trying to vilify her and make her out to be some kind of crook. The whole point of this thread, from my perspective, is character assassination. I'll agree that her methods were at times questionable, but her intentions were good. This doesn't expunge all of her misdeeds, but it does show that her heart was in the right place.

[iWrite]

You guys just DO NOT "get it," do you?

Mother Teresa did not have the CAPACITY to commit duplicity, do you understand?

This is a woman who could care less about where she stayed, what she ate, etc. All she cared about was praying, going where the church asked her to, reading the speeches that she was given (some of which were not even authored by herself -- like the fundraising speeches), and she preferred to be in the most simple of places where she felt closer to God.

I don't think you understand what motivated her. Simple meals, a lot of prayer, tending to children and the sick, and PRAYING...a LOT.

Seriously, she could have cared less about trying to take advantage of anyone.

Now, if the church USED Mother Teresa, I do not know, but Mother Teresa was a very simple person -- childlike.

If it makes you feel better, continue to lambast her, but you're really wrong.

About defending her, I feel the same way about others who are similar. The world is full of takers -- not givers -- and the takers are usually able-bodied people who are selfish.

Like I said, when was the last time any of YOU did something charitable for a stranger?

She devoted her LIFE to helping OTHERS -- it wasn't a random act of kindness.

[ebuddy]

She was accused of money-laundering Zig. I believe money laundering is a crime. I could be wrong? To say one committed a crime is to say that one is a criminal.

I never claimed "whats his face" was a crackpot. I just don't care to see a list of credentials including Oxford and Journalism. Does the make him more credible than Ben and Jerry? Yes, but they still don't mean a whole heck of a lot to me. The folx that would like to see her attain Sainthood are not only very educated on Catholic Doctrine, but are very much in touch with the Catholic Church, it's missions abroad and Mother Theresa's contribution to it. So the Folks that offer the Nobel Peace Prize are all crackpots? Oops, actually some of them are. I gotta remember they gave one to Jimmy Carter. AHEM! NEXT POINT...

There is a movement to criminalize and slander all kinds of good people lately and they are starting to come out of the woodwork like cockroaches. The funny thing is, we're still 12 months from the election. It's going to get much worse than this. When they can't find solid evidence to support their claim, they begin to fabricate it and with blatent disregard for truth and integrity. (i.e. Reagan documentary coming up on CBS). BTW, yes. Barbara Streisand is a bonified crackpot. Those issues and threads like these are designed with "anti" intentions period. Even folks who disagree with the Catholic Faith believe this to be true.

I gotta ask, what's eating at these people? What are they afraid of that they oppose and attack at every opportunity? I say to you that little voice inside their mind will lead to one thing; conversion to Christianity. THE SEED HAS BEEN PLANTED. Ur soul R mine! MOOHOOHAHAHAAAA

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by iWrite:
You guys just DO NOT "get it," do you?

Mother Teresa did not have the CAPACITY to commit duplicity, do you understand?

And yet, even her actions had unintended - by her - consequences. As every action.

Read my post again.

-s*