Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Secular Pinoy · 05-03-2003, 05:32 AM

Sabine Grant · 05-03-2003, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pyrrho
There are a couple of different issues that you raise, and I believe it will be useful to keep them separate.

First, you seem to suggest that one should never judge anyone if one has not personally met that individual. ? Should the candidates ever be criticized by people who have never personally met them? Are you seriously going to tell us that you have no opinion about politicians in your country who you have not personally met?

?

I am actualy suggesting that judgement is not a right we have for none of us has the ability to evaluate the intent of the human mind especialy as we are influenced by heresay. In the case of some the individuals you mention, we have historical facts which confirm horrendous actions. ( interesting that you place Darwin alongside with Hitler) In the case of MT, we have reports written by individuals who favor her and reports of individuals who do not favor her.

However in the space of that thread, MT has been labeled a " bitch" as well as the terms Winstonjen used judging her as a women hater. Well, I have no personal evidence supported by historical facts to establish that MT was consummed by hate for women. It implies that her mind was a hateful mind geered to harm voluntarely other females. I am careful with allowing personal interpretations projected by other individuals to forge my own opinions. I would much rather rely on reports coming from individuals who were personaly involved with MT to forge any opinion.
To my knowledge none of the participants in this thread have had any personal interaction with MT. They also happen to be individuals who despise what MT represents and I aknowledge here the lack of objectivity.
As far as strong emotions are concerned, based on your comments I have to assume that if anyone addresses his or her anger to you relating to your own behavior or actions, you have no problems being insulted. I prefer a constructive critical approach presented with measured terms.
My country is rich in political figures who were highly criticized for their actions. Let us take the example of Petain....the common current of opinions on the Marechal is that he was a treator. However I benefited of the controversial approach from a history teacher who had the amazing ability to research facts and present a more complete portrait of the unfamous Petain. Which allowed me to reach a more balanced and objective opinion of the motivations Petain had in collaborating thru the Vichy government. That " gray" area is important to examine rather than opting for the all " black" or all " white". I believe in researching all facts before giving in the need to label.
It is a more noble task to look for what could be positive in someone's motivations.
At this point, giving the benefit of the doubt to someone such as MT seems IMO to be more reasonable than attributing to her mind thoughts she may not have had.
So I am not joining the bashing ban wagon....and being part of a minority has never been intimidating to me.

Radorth · 05-03-2003, 08:35 AM

I guess one second hand account and personal interpretations of actions count as "proof" enough to slander even MT- here on this bastian of skeptical thought. I think most real skeptics would insist on a lot more evidence of MT's sins before making such judgements- at least I hope so.

Oh wait. It's interesting to note who shows up for such slander-fests and who doesn't.

Rad

Radorth · 05-03-2003, 09:02 AM

Quote:

So, if "Mother" Teresa had been an atheist, and still acted as she did, she would still be evil

But would she be vilified here? That is the question I think.

Rad

mfaber · 05-03-2003, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
I guess one second hand account and personal interpretations of actions count as "proof" enough to slander even MT- here on this bastian of skeptical thought. I think most real skeptics would insist on a lot more evidence of MT's sins before making such judgements- at least I hope so.

Oh wait. Look who's here. Never mind.

Rad

If EVER there was an overrated "heroine", Mother Teresa is it!! She was a small-minded, mean-spirited tightwad who definitely did her part to make Jesus's statement that the "poor will always be with you" a self-fulfilling prophesy (did everything in her power to stop women from getting family planning and even denied help to rape and incest victims!!). Her main aim was to proselytize and she shamelessly used the most helpless and captive audience you could find... the dying poor (she wouldn't even give them pain killers and often refused to feed them, spiritual "comfort" and Jesus were her bag!!).. No I am definitely NOT impressed with this woman and as far as I am concerned, she definitely doesn't deserve the kind of fearful reverence bestowed on her nor sainthood! Read about the REAL Mother Teresa and make up you own mind.

Defending Mother Teresa

Quote:

EXCERPT:The other article was written by me. I compared the late Carl Sagan's genuine, almost immeasurable contributions to humanity with Teresa's contributions. Hers consisted of little more than telling people that suffering was good for them, and prattling on inanely about how God will provide, as starving children dropped like flies all around her. I also pointed to the brazen hypocrisy of Teresa's denying her "patients" the most rudimentary care, including simple comforts and pain killers, while she herself checked into posh hospitals to have a pacemaker implanted and blood vessels cleared. Her own health and comfort were apparently quite important to her.

If Teresa was offering spiritual comfort only, and not trying to "soften the pain of death," (and why on earth not?!) there should have been no drugs dispensed and no drug paraphernalia of any kind on hand at her "clinics." But there were. Her employees and volunteers used and reused un-sterilized syringes to administer ineffective drugs and mild antibiotics to terminally ill people, who suffered the resulting agonies. This is called practicing medicine, and why such malpractice was allowed to go on so long, with no legal challenges, highlights the power, and abuse of power, that is vouchsafed to organized religions. Especially the big ones with a lot of money.

But if, as Morphew asserts, Mother Teresa never intended to offer medical care to the ill, feed the poor, or educate the illiterate, but rather planned only to offer spiritual solace to dying people, then at the very least she was a fraud. Those millions of dollars were donated by caring people to offer medical care to the ill, feed the poor, and educate the illiterate-not to sit in bank accounts earning interest for the Roman Catholic Church, which has been a multi-billion dollar enterprise for decades now. And there are laws about raising charitable contributions for one thing and then using the money for another-as Teresa did. Apparently her goal was to hoard the money, like Midas and his gold. To what end, though, is anybody's guess.

There is a disquieting possibility, however, that presents itself in hindsight. She collected her millions "in the name of God." (And then promptly hid them away like a squirrel readying for winter. )

The Real vs the Illusionary Mother Teresa

Quote:

EXCERPT:Practically all her utterances (Hitchens' book gives abundant examples) are religious inanities, vacuous assertions, and ignorant observations. One can only be appalled by the lack of intellectual sophistication of her admirers who hold her in such high esteem and who seize upon her every asinine comment as a sign of her astuteness and philosophical depth. And this includes heads of state and the Nobel Prize committee members.

Hitchens points out, "When Mother Teresa was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979, few people had the poor taste to ask what she had ever done, or even claimed to do, for the cause of peace." In fact, he could have pointed out that, to the extent that those scholars who claim that overpopulation is one of the factors that can lead to war are correct, her opposition to any effective limitation on the growth of population implicates her in war rather than peace. In her lengthy address at the Nobel ceremonies, which took on the cast of a religious sermon, about the only time she mentioned war and peace was in the following: "I think that today peace is threatened by abortion, too, which is a true war, a direct killing of a child by its own mother . . . . Today, abortion is the worst evil, and the greatest enemy of peace . . . . Because if a mother can kill her own child, what will prevent us from killing ourselves, or one another? Nothing." Even after this, the Nobel Committee, apparently no more informed about the issue of war and peace than she, did not rescind her award.

Strewn throughout Hitchens' book are many examples of the worthlessness of her advice and deliberations on the issues of the day: AIDS is a just retribution for improper sexual misconduct. The problems facing Calcutta are due to the fact that it is too distant from Jesus. "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."

The Politics of Mother Teresa

Quote:

EXCERPT: Mother Teresa was instrumental in trivialising the Cairo Population Conference of 1994. As a sovereign state, the Vatican was invited to participate in the conference, although I find it odd that a "state" without any women and children among its population would be invited at all -- but then, who am I to quibble at such matters -- such is the clout of the Vatican.

The Catholic establishment fought tooth and nail to wreck the conference and succeeded to a large extent. Among the ploys it employed was a personally signed sugary letter addressed to the conference by Mother Teresa -- it contained her usual words: "If a mother can kill her own child, what is there to stop you and me from killing each other?" She also made it quite clear that she had the capacity to look after all the millions of unwanted children in the world: "If there is a child that you don't want or can't feed or educate, give that child to me. I will look after that child." No doubt, most of the non Catholic delegates believed her -- Mother Teresa did not tell lies!

After the Conference was over, the Vatican held it to ransom by refusing to sign the common declaration unless the wording was changed
[T]he pope and Mother Teresa refused to accede that artificial contraception should be available to women under any circumstance, including marriage or even after rape

In 1996, the Vatican cancelled their token $2500 annual contribution to UNICEF because it was offering the "morning after pill" to women who had been raped in central African refugee camps.

After the Cairo conference came the 1995 Fourth Conference on Women in Beijing. Here Mother Teresa went one step further. She roped in Mercedes Wilson from the right wing ultra orthodox Family of the Americas Foundation to carry her letter (that she had written unsolicited) and read it to the conference. Mother's letter was trenchant, and attacked the concept of the independent woman:

"No jobs, no plans, no possessions, no idea of 'freedom' can take the place of love. ...Yet we can destroy this gift of motherhood, especially by the evil of abortion, but also by thinking that things like jobs or positions are more important ....."

The letter made headline news around the world -- that the Conference also received a signature and poster campaign from a thousand poor women of Calcutta supporting its work (sent through the Family Planning Association of India) never became known.

BTW, did you know The Vatican (home of the Catholic Pope and headquarters of the Catholic Church) holds a seat and a vote in the United Nations equal and equivalent of countries and governments around the world? No other religions are treated as governments by the U.N. !!!

The Catholic Church, now in league with Religious Right groups like the Christian Coalition and fundamentalist Muslims, uses it's seat in the UN to undercut every move to promote the rights of women, children, stop birth control and sex education programs and the distribution of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV. What a lovely bunch! (NOT!)

The Population Debate Heats Up or sex-hating religious fanatics of many stripes ban together to submarine family planning and population control world-wide under the disguise of being "pro-life"

Catholic church Opposing Condom Distribution in Africa that would Prevent the Spread of AIDS

Machinations of the RC In Opposing Birth Control

I can see why the Vatican is so fond of Mother Teresa, she was a great "front man" for spreading their poisonous anti-life, anti-Earth agenda, just to protect the power of what amounts to the oldest "Boys Only Club" in history!!!

PPFFFFFTTTTT!!!

Sabine Grant · 05-03-2003, 12:14 PM

MFABER : salut! I think your comments and inserts would have impressed me more if you had demonstrated the objectivity to compare MT with another theist....your post seems to point to the impression I have that the main grief about MT is the religion she represents rather than her personal character. As Rad pointed, " if she were an atheist... would she be vilified here?".
Let me test that a little... any " vilain atheist" who could be the recipient of insults on the part of the participants of this thread who have indulged in insulting MT ? or there are none...? no " women haters" among atheists? no " bitches" ?....

Yellum Notnef · 05-03-2003, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sabine Grant
no " bitches" ?....

There certainly are atheist bitches. No doubt about it.

Gemma Therese · 05-03-2003, 12:48 PM

On Amazon.com, the following was written about the book The Missionary Position:

"Mother Teresa was not a Nation reader. If she were, she might have known that the proper etiquette for an enlightened, socially conscious secularist would be to disregard the sufferings of any actual people and instead go the the local Starbucks or grad school seminar (or Amazon review sheet) and pontificate to the other documentary film-makers what she could do for the poor. Perhaps she could have gotten a degree in social work or health management and written articles to the Nation about the wonders of universal healthcare and population control. Perhaps she could have joined her local board of skeptics and freed people from the silly illusions of life actually having some sort of purpose.

Obviously, she didn't.

What she did was gather people into her own arms and carry them into her home. She cared for real, dying people with real blood and stench, real life and death. This makes her a natural enemy to the left who love humans in the abstract but maintain nothing but contempt for real people."

Gemma Therese

christ-on-a-stick · 05-03-2003, 12:58 PM

Quote:

She cared for real, dying people with real blood and stench, real life and death.

I wouldn't call it "caring" for them when she had the opportunity and ABILITY to help them and relieve their suffering (and *save* some of them) and refused to do so.

When SHE became ill, there was no "blood" or "stench" though, was there? Only the best hospitals and treatment.

I think "hypocritical bitch" is apt.

Sabine Grant · 05-03-2003, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fenton Mulley
There certainly are atheist bitches. No doubt about it.

Who.. when.. where...

View Poll Results: Mother Teresa should be called bitch
Yes	74	84.09%
No	10	11.36%
There are explanations.	7	7.95%
The author is evil	5	5.68%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 88. You may not vote on this poll

05-03-2003, 05:32 AM	#21
Secular Pinoy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Quezon City, Philippines Posts: 1,994	Mother Teresa's House of Illusions

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-03-2003, 08:35 AM	#23
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	I guess one second hand account and personal interpretations of actions count as "proof" enough to slander even MT- here on this bastian of skeptical thought. I think most real skeptics would insist on a lot more evidence of MT's sins before making such judgements- at least I hope so. Oh wait. It's interesting to note who shows up for such slander-fests and who doesn't. Rad

05-03-2003, 12:14 PM	#26
Sabine Grant Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 32,364	MFABER : salut! I think your comments and inserts would have impressed me more if you had demonstrated the objectivity to compare MT with another theist....your post seems to point to the impression I have that the main grief about MT is the religion she represents rather than her personal character. As Rad pointed, " if she were an atheist... would she be vilified here?". Let me test that a little... any " vilain atheist" who could be the recipient of insults on the part of the participants of this thread who have indulged in insulting MT ? or there are none...? no " women haters" among atheists? no " bitches" ?....

05-03-2003, 12:48 PM	#28
Gemma Therese Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: new york Posts: 608	On Amazon.com, the following was written about the book The Missionary Position: "Mother Teresa was not a Nation reader. If she were, she might have known that the proper etiquette for an enlightened, socially conscious secularist would be to disregard the sufferings of any actual people and instead go the the local Starbucks or grad school seminar (or Amazon review sheet) and pontificate to the other documentary film-makers what she could do for the poor. Perhaps she could have gotten a degree in social work or health management and written articles to the Nation about the wonders of universal healthcare and population control. Perhaps she could have joined her local board of skeptics and freed people from the silly illusions of life actually having some sort of purpose. Obviously, she didn't. What she did was gather people into her own arms and carry them into her home. She cared for real, dying people with real blood and stench, real life and death. This makes her a natural enemy to the left who love humans in the abstract but maintain nothing but contempt for real people." Gemma Therese

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.