5 ms·

Yeah, no kidding. Feeding and providing medical care for the Untouchables in India? She should have made an iPhone app to help find friends in restaurants nea

by cgore 13y ago

Yeah, no kidding. Feeding and providing medical care for the Untouchables in India? She should have made an iPhone app to help find friends in restaurants nearby, that would have made he a real selfless altriust.

gcb1 13y ago
in her letters she said she was forbiden to provide actual health care. all they gave was a place for the sick to convalesce. also, she and most othe rreligious still advocate over population and against several sane health treatments. not to mention education. no little good religion does compensate for the long term damage.
- cgore 13y ago
  They were given medicine, not just a place to convelesce, but even just providing a place to convalesce is a great mercy to people who were (and often still are) dying on the sides of the street, thrown away by their society as if they were nothing more than trash. But then, what do I know, I am sure that you must know vastly more than I do, seeing as to how as a Christian I must advocate against education now. I should write letters to all of the universities I have attended, asking them to please revoke my diplomas on the basis of my religious freedom.
- lessnonymous 13y ago
  > she and most othe rreligious still advocate over population and against several sane health treatments. not to mention education What you talkin' 'bout Willis?
icebraining 13y ago
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2003/10/mommie_dearest.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_wor... http://m.timesofindia.com/world/uk/Mother-Teresa-saint-of-the-media-controversial-study-says/articleshow/18760028.cms http://m.timesofindia.com/world/uk/Mother-Teresa-saint-of-th...
- cgore 13y ago
  Hitchens is not an unbiased citation, not even close. He routinely engaged in character denigration of several religious individuals, most notably Mother Teresa. The main argument he seems to have had with her is that he didn't think religious people should be allowed to have political opinions, and she did. Here is a thorough review of his vitriol against her: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/04/mother-teresa-and-her-critics http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/04/mother-teresa... What is the most telling is the response to Hitchens from the order she founded, on hearing about his death. Despite Hitchens' vicious attacks on Mother Teresa over the years, the saint's order in India, Missionaries of Charity, said that it would offer prayers for the renowned atheist upon hearing of his passing late Thursday night at the age of 62, after a battle with cancer. “We will pray for him and for his family,” spokeswoman for the order Sister Christie told Agence France-Presse. http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-atheist-vs-the-saint-why-christopher-hitchens-hated-mother-teresa-65071/ http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-atheist-vs-the-saint-w...
  - icebraining 13y ago
    That review doesn't refute a any of Hiutchens' points. In the question of association with unsavory characters, the reply is to accuse him of having done the same, which might have made him an hypocrite but doesn't refute his claim. On the matter of convincing the victims to forgive their aggressor, they confirm what he says. As for the Albania issue, they cling to an incorrect but completely irrelevant historical fact he gets wrong, avoiding having to deal with the actual point, which is whether Mother Teresa actually supported it or not. I don't know if Hitchens was right, but if the best her supporters can come up with is a reply filled with deceit and red herrings, I'm starting to think maybe he was on to something. What is the most telling is the response to Hitchens from the order she founded, on hearing about his death. That's the same reply any Catholic organization gives whenever someone dies, except maybe for cruel dictators. I'm not criticizing it, but it tells us absolutely nothing.
    - cgore 13y ago
      A lot of people involved with politics are unsavory characters. How is turning down their money going to help the dying in India? All it does is puff up someone's self-righteousness.
freshhawk 13y ago
This is exactly what I was talking about. When asked "Do you teach the poor to endure their lot?" Mother Teresa replied "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." She was, until the end of her life anyway, a very devout Christian but her order was a bit fringe. She didn't really provide medical care, she referred to her facilities as "houses of the dying" and their suffering was a good thing as it brought them closer to God so pain management was basically non existent. There are reams of statements from medical professionals, Indian and Western, that visited her facilities and the general consensus was that they were "horrifying" and lacked even the most basic attention to cleanliness. She did feed a lot of people, but not many compared to other charities operating in the same places that had smaller budgets. I also can't dismiss the fact that she used her reputation to support war criminals like the Duvalier family, although in other comments you do dismiss this so ... sure, I'll just concentrate on the rest. If you do believe in the christian afterlife then perhaps she is a great person as she probably did convert a lot of sick people in India as they suffered and became more likely to accept Jesus as their saviour. If you don't then she let poor people die unnecessarily and intentionally heaped unnecessary suffering on the poor. So like I said, definitely, unequivocally, based on her own statements alone, she is not a good canonical example of selfless altruism since a good canonical example would not be judged only by a fringe sect of Christianity that looks to enhance the suffering of the poor.

by cgore 13y ago

gcb1 13y ago

in her letters she said she was forbiden to provide actual health care. all they gave was a place for the sick to convalesce. also, she and most othe rreligious still advocate over population and against several sane health treatments. not to mention education. no little good religion does compensate for the long term damage.

cgore 13y ago
They were given medicine, not just a place to convelesce, but even just providing a place to convalesce is a great mercy to people who were (and often still are) dying on the sides of the street, thrown away by their society as if they were nothing more than trash. But then, what do I know, I am sure that you must know vastly more than I do, seeing as to how as a Christian I must advocate against education now. I should write letters to all of the universities I have attended, asking them to please revoke my diplomas on the basis of my religious freedom.
lessnonymous 13y ago
> she and most othe rreligious still advocate over population and against several sane health treatments. not to mention education What you talkin' 'bout Willis?

icebraining 13y ago

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2003/10/mommie_dearest.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_wor... http://m.timesofindia.com/world/uk/Mother-Teresa-saint-of-the-media-controversial-study-says/articleshow/18760028.cms http://m.timesofindia.com/world/uk/Mother-Teresa-saint-of-th...

cgore 13y ago
Hitchens is not an unbiased citation, not even close. He routinely engaged in character denigration of several religious individuals, most notably Mother Teresa. The main argument he seems to have had with her is that he didn't think religious people should be allowed to have political opinions, and she did. Here is a thorough review of his vitriol against her: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/04/mother-teresa-and-her-critics http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/04/mother-teresa... What is the most telling is the response to Hitchens from the order she founded, on hearing about his death. Despite Hitchens' vicious attacks on Mother Teresa over the years, the saint's order in India, Missionaries of Charity, said that it would offer prayers for the renowned atheist upon hearing of his passing late Thursday night at the age of 62, after a battle with cancer. “We will pray for him and for his family,” spokeswoman for the order Sister Christie told Agence France-Presse. http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-atheist-vs-the-saint-why-christopher-hitchens-hated-mother-teresa-65071/ http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-atheist-vs-the-saint-w...
- icebraining 13y ago
  That review doesn't refute a any of Hiutchens' points. In the question of association with unsavory characters, the reply is to accuse him of having done the same, which might have made him an hypocrite but doesn't refute his claim. On the matter of convincing the victims to forgive their aggressor, they confirm what he says. As for the Albania issue, they cling to an incorrect but completely irrelevant historical fact he gets wrong, avoiding having to deal with the actual point, which is whether Mother Teresa actually supported it or not. I don't know if Hitchens was right, but if the best her supporters can come up with is a reply filled with deceit and red herrings, I'm starting to think maybe he was on to something. What is the most telling is the response to Hitchens from the order she founded, on hearing about his death. That's the same reply any Catholic organization gives whenever someone dies, except maybe for cruel dictators. I'm not criticizing it, but it tells us absolutely nothing.
  - cgore 13y ago
    A lot of people involved with politics are unsavory characters. How is turning down their money going to help the dying in India? All it does is puff up someone's self-righteousness.

freshhawk 13y ago

This is exactly what I was talking about. When asked "Do you teach the poor to endure their lot?" Mother Teresa replied "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." She was, until the end of her life anyway, a very devout Christian but her order was a bit fringe. She didn't really provide medical care, she referred to her facilities as "houses of the dying" and their suffering was a good thing as it brought them closer to God so pain management was basically non existent. There are reams of statements from medical professionals, Indian and Western, that visited her facilities and the general consensus was that they were "horrifying" and lacked even the most basic attention to cleanliness. She did feed a lot of people, but not many compared to other charities operating in the same places that had smaller budgets. I also can't dismiss the fact that she used her reputation to support war criminals like the Duvalier family, although in other comments you do dismiss this so ... sure, I'll just concentrate on the rest. If you do believe in the christian afterlife then perhaps she is a great person as she probably did convert a lot of sick people in India as they suffered and became more likely to accept Jesus as their saviour. If you don't then she let poor people die unnecessarily and intentionally heaped unnecessary suffering on the poor. So like I said, definitely, unequivocally, based on her own statements alone, she is not a good canonical example of selfless altruism since a good canonical example would not be judged only by a fringe sect of Christianity that looks to enhance the suffering of the poor.