Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mashriqi Mercenary · 05-16-2003, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rhea
If hundreds of thousands of dirt poor people showed up at her funeral, why did the papers ask afterwards, "why were there no poor? Aren't the poor grateful?" Why do you suppose the papers would write such a thing? Hmmm. Could be that there were NOT, in fact, hundreds of thousands of dirt poor there after all? Could it have been staged? Well, yes and no. All the people who didn't really know what she did were there, perhaps, due to propaganda.

...

Well perhaps I missed those headlines. It could be you are right, why dont you post some of those headlins here so i may benefit?

brighid · 05-16-2003, 08:33 AM

Quote:

i'll try to find a similar article on Gandhi and his hyppocrisys and the way he used symbolism to further feul the hatred among indian ethnicities and how many prominent scholars from the britsh isles considered his sattyagrah and ahimsa rhetoric as hogwash. Would that convince atleast some of you that he was not what he has been propagated to be? Further is there really any purely altruistic personality out there?

If there is credible evidence of this please open another thread and present your case. What you will find is that the majority of atheists here are open to new evidence that may in fact change their views on any number of things they hold dear - after all, they are atheists who had to come to terms with loss of faith through very similar channels. I think it would be a great discussion and if you are open to Gandhi being a hypocrite surely you can understand the position presented by the majority of posters here. Although, from what I know of Gandhi he seems to have admitted his own human failings and I am not sure if the two cases are entirely comparable. It would be an interesting discussion none the less. But like so many other replies here that really is besides the point and fails to address the substantive questions and arguments thus far posted. I think we should do our best to stay on topic.

I would suggest, that as the person asserting that hundreds of thousands of dirt poor showed up at her funeral that the burden of proof is on you, and therefore courteous to present that evidence.

Brighid

Rhea · 05-16-2003, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mashriqi Mercenary
i'll try to find a similar article on Gandhi and his hyppocrisys and the way he used symbolism to further feul the hatred among indian ethnicities and how many prominent scholars from the britsh isles considered his sattyagrah and ahimsa rhetoric as hogwash. Would that convince atleast some of you that he was not what he has been propagated to be? Further is there really any purely altruistic personality out there?

What bearing does this have on M. Theresa? Is that what it takes to bring M. Theresa up? The destruction of others? Interesting approach.

Debbie T · 05-16-2003, 10:10 AM

The first time I heard anything negative on Mother Teresa was from a former nun and Catholic friend. One night a few years ago while we visitied, I had made a positive comment on MT and my friend told me that MT was not what she appeared to be. I was quite shocked and taken aback by what she had to say and did not want to believe it. I do understand how hard it is to let go of our positive role models. It took me awhile before I was able to come to terms with it. But the evidence against MT was too glaring to ignore and I accepted the new information about her.

It is sad to lose our positive models but it does not serve humanity to keep her as a role model, when clearly she didn't deserve it. I think the Catholic church needs to come to terms with it plus make sure all the money that was donated to help others in their misery should be put to that use so that the suffering of poor people in Calcutta can help ease their pain and suffering.

Some day I hope religious groups will be held accountable. The church can take that money and make them richer with no acountability to anyone. The bible verse, Whatever you do to the least of these... comes to mind here.

Rhea · 05-16-2003, 10:30 AM

To expand on the evidence that what Missionaries of Charity did (or did not do) with money is cosidered wrong by at least most of America - if they thought about it - I present the following:

Quote:

RESPONSE BY CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS TO THE RECENT TERRORIST ATTACKS

HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION

NOVEMBER 8, 2001

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy...07-47final.htm

Quote:

Chairman HOUGHTON. [...]
So although there is a difference of opinion, some people who are interested in the immediate versus those who are interested in the long term replenishment of funds, I would like to believe that if a person gives money to help another through a charitable organization at a particular time in a crisis, that money should end up as quickly as possible in the hands of those people who need it.
Now, charities serve as a vital conduit to make sure that aid comes to the rescue when and where it is needed most during a time of crisis. Today we will hear how the charities responding to recent attacks have provided assistance as well as what procedures are in place to insure that America's confidence in the charitable system will continue. So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the role of charities in providing relief to victims of the recent terrorist attacks, and I am now pleased to yield to our ranging Democrat, my friend, Mr. Coyne.

Quote:

Mr. COYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The American public has donated over $1.4 billion to charities nationwide in response to the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001. This action illustrates our country's commitment to providing relief to the families of those killed or injured in the recent terrorist attacks in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Donations at this level are unprecedented. Recently, legitimate questions have been raised about where the money is going and whether the victims and their families have access to the donated funds in a timely manner. We need to make sure that the money gets to the intended beneficiaries promptly.

Quote:

Mr. HAYWORTH. [...]
Following the September 11th terrorist attacks, Americans lifted their generosity to new heights, contributing over a billion and a half dollars, or close to one and a half billion dollars to relief funds for victims and their families. Yet it soon became clear that there were serious problems with the distribution of these funds. Media reports suggest that of the almost one and a half billion dollars raised by charities, to date, only a small percentage, sadly, some estimate 10 percent or less of these funds have reached intended recipients. While the distribution of these funds is no doubt a complicated problem that defies simplistic solutions, it is equally true that many families are hurting and need help now. And sadly, they are not getting it. Countless Americans are asking why widows should have to beg for money from the charities that are supposed to be helping them. It is a good question, one that I hope we can help answer today.

Quote:

Mr. FOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I welcome the panelists today and thank them for coming to help explain to our community the future of the funds. But I want to read a letter that pretty much sets the tone for what I believe a lot of Americans are feeling. The headline -- it is a letter to the editor of the USA Today: "Red Cross Handling of Funds Disappoints Donors. By selling ribbons, pins and other items, my coworkers and I helped raise 186,000, which we donated to the Red Cross Liberty Disaster Relief Fund. The total was matched by our employer, making our total donation nearly $375,000.
It disturbs me that the Red Cross intends to divert to general usage as much as $80 million of the money raised specifically for the victims of the September 11th terrorist attack. And we strongly urge the Red Cross to reconsider its decision. If the Red Cross cannot be trusted to use donations given to a specific fund for the purposes they were intended, then consider the money I donated to the Liberty Disaster Relief Fund to be the last I ever give to the Red Cross."
Now, that kind of sums up the feeling and attitudes that we have to be very careful about. Your reputations are at stake. You have done phenomenal work in our communities, and I underscore I have contributed personally, been part of benefits for Red Cross, Salvation Army, and you name it in Palm Beach, Florida. But when you start hearing people make that kind of representation that it will be the last dollar they ever give, that is a horrific problem for us as a society, because we know government can't do it all and we know you are there for so many people at desperate times in their life.

Need I go on? Are the parallels obvious enough? Are the differences disturbing enough? Surely the Red Cross has intentions as pure as those of M. Theresa. Surely they meet the standard of "doing something instead of just talking". Yet all of the chraities grilled here to account for not committing fraud with the funds donated to them - including the Salvation Army which made no appeals, yet raised $60million dollars - are accountable to use the funds as the donors expected.

And yet, Missionaries of Charity can't even be DISCUSSED, let alone brought before the congress. They are beyond reproach, aren't they.
It's pretty clear that fraud is taken seriously - for everyone else. That MoC is excluded is wrong and disturbing.

Amazing, isn't it.

Rhea · 05-16-2003, 01:38 PM

Well I do not see any web sources of the newspaper comments (had heard about it on the radio) but I can see the evidence behind the question:
Thousands bid farewell to nun Mother Teresa Laid to Rest as Rich, Poor Mourn

Maybe you're confusing "hundreds" and "thousands" with "hundreds of thousands" of poor. The only mention of the size of the crowd at all was 100,000.
In another piece, Procession fit for a 'living saint' they carefully avoid saying how big (or not) the crowds were.

By contrast, Princess Diana
1997: Diana's funeral watched by millions the press very clearly and repeatedly states the size of the crowds. Not the population, not the poor population, but the size of the actual crowds.

Perhaps the difference is cultural? About whether a web page would actually report the number? Or maybe the number is known, it's just not very flattering? I can't say. Except that all of the web references to MTs funeral are remarkably devoid of photos of crowds and estimates of crowd size, while a similarly famous funeral a week earlier has plenty of both.

This is not to use the funural to make any statement whatsoever about MT's work It is ONLY to rebut your claim that the size of the funeral is meaningful. The judgment of MT's works stands alone, without relying on the size of her mourning party to condemn it, IMO.

hinduwoman · 05-16-2003, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wordfailure
Hello Rhea. Sorry for the slow response. I don't have much time for this.

Rhea:
...Then she went to a bang-up hospital for her own otherwise-fatal condition?

If I see a homeless person standing on a street corner can I give him $5 or must I provide him with a standard of living equivalent to mine? If I am unable to or choose not to provide a standard of living equal to mine must I give up my standard of living and become homeless?

No. But if you take $ 100 from someone saying that you will give it to the homeless beggar, and then don't give it, should you be praised?
In 1984, 8th March, Christies of Armsterdam raised 30000 pounds for the home in Kalighat. What happened to it? Someone forgot to tell Teresa thae parable of the servant who hid his talents.

hinduwoman · 05-16-2003, 06:29 PM

Again, Chatterjee has devoted a whole chapter to her funeral specifically to show that hundreds and thousands of poor did not come to the funeral. He lays out a list of those who came --- politicans, intellectuals, middle class people, and a number of foreign delegates. The dirt poor were conspicious by their absence --- a fact which mightily upset many Western journalists, who thereupon proceeded to ignore the facts and instead launch on how beautiful the funeral is.

hinduwoman · 05-16-2003, 06:41 PM

A few examples of the Mother's compassion:

In 1971 Bangladesh war of Indeopendence saw women raped by Pakistanis. They were used as 'cigarette machines by soliders'; a 8 year old girl was found to be too small and was slit to accommodate them. Mother Teresa never condemned the soldeirs or did anything to help the women, or even show sympathy. Instead all she insisted was that if these women are pregnant they must not have abortions. She told them that they would be given help only if they had children --- nothing was said about helping them after child-birth or raising the children .
Granted she belonged to an orthodox religious tradition, but a saint should surely sympathesize with raped women, instead of being obbsessed with her one point agenda.

In an interview with UPI, 22 October, 1984 she said she wanted to open a special jail for abortion doctors.
But when questioned about paedophile priests she said, "pray, pray and make sacrifices for those who are going through such terrible temptations" --- Sunday Independent, Dublin, 1st Octrober, 1995.
Notice she does not care about the victims, or think that the priests should be punished. But she has enough love and mercy for the offenders.

Incidentally how many Catholics actually defended the Churc's policy towards the molesters?

One of the last sane · 05-16-2003, 08:50 PM

Okay, how about this as a perspective:

MT believed suffering was good, therefore people who sent her money to help her make people more comfortable were making a mistake, because she had no intention of making people more comfortable. That makes her a major-league crank, but explains what seems to most of us to be her breathtaking callousness. Her inability to recognize how cruel she was being was due to a combination of stupidity and zealotry.

When it came to her own suffering, she did not have the courage of her convictions but instead took advantage of the best that modern medicine could offer to reduce her suffering. This makes her a coward. Hypocrite? Depends whether she changed her mind about relieving others' pain and sickness once she had first-hand experience of pain and sickness. Did she? If she didn't, then yes, she was a hypocrite.

Conclusion: Stupid crank, coward and hypocrite, but not intentionally evil.

Anyone want to comment/refute/debate?

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

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

05-16-2003, 10:10 AM	#164
Debbie T Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Washington the state Posts: 406	The first time I heard anything negative on Mother Teresa was from a former nun and Catholic friend. One night a few years ago while we visitied, I had made a positive comment on MT and my friend told me that MT was not what she appeared to be. I was quite shocked and taken aback by what she had to say and did not want to believe it. I do understand how hard it is to let go of our positive role models. It took me awhile before I was able to come to terms with it. But the evidence against MT was too glaring to ignore and I accepted the new information about her. It is sad to lose our positive models but it does not serve humanity to keep her as a role model, when clearly she didn't deserve it. I think the Catholic church needs to come to terms with it plus make sure all the money that was donated to help others in their misery should be put to that use so that the suffering of poor people in Calcutta can help ease their pain and suffering. Some day I hope religious groups will be held accountable. The church can take that money and make them richer with no acountability to anyone. The bible verse, Whatever you do to the least of these... comes to mind here.

05-16-2003, 01:38 PM	#166
Rhea Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Recluse Posts: 9,040	Well I do not see any web sources of the newspaper comments (had heard about it on the radio) but I can see the evidence behind the question: Thousands bid farewell to nun Mother Teresa Laid to Rest as Rich, Poor Mourn Maybe you're confusing "hundreds" and "thousands" with "hundreds of thousands" of poor. The only mention of the size of the crowd at all was 100,000. In another piece, Procession fit for a 'living saint' they carefully avoid saying how big (or not) the crowds were. By contrast, Princess Diana 1997: Diana's funeral watched by millions the press very clearly and repeatedly states the size of the crowds. Not the population, not the poor population, but the size of the actual crowds. Perhaps the difference is cultural? About whether a web page would actually report the number? Or maybe the number is known, it's just not very flattering? I can't say. Except that all of the web references to MTs funeral are remarkably devoid of photos of crowds and estimates of crowd size, while a similarly famous funeral a week earlier has plenty of both. This is not to use the funural to make any statement whatsoever about MT's work It is ONLY to rebut your claim that the size of the funeral is meaningful. The judgment of MT's works stands alone, without relying on the size of her mourning party to condemn it, IMO.

05-16-2003, 06:29 PM	#168
hinduwoman Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: India Posts: 6,977	Again, Chatterjee has devoted a whole chapter to her funeral specifically to show that hundreds and thousands of poor did not come to the funeral. He lays out a list of those who came --- politicans, intellectuals, middle class people, and a number of foreign delegates. The dirt poor were conspicious by their absence --- a fact which mightily upset many Western journalists, who thereupon proceeded to ignore the facts and instead launch on how beautiful the funeral is.

05-16-2003, 06:41 PM	#169
hinduwoman Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: India Posts: 6,977	A few examples of the Mother's compassion: In 1971 Bangladesh war of Indeopendence saw women raped by Pakistanis. They were used as 'cigarette machines by soliders'; a 8 year old girl was found to be too small and was slit to accommodate them. Mother Teresa never condemned the soldeirs or did anything to help the women, or even show sympathy. Instead all she insisted was that if these women are pregnant they must not have abortions. She told them that they would be given help only if they had children --- nothing was said about helping them after child-birth or raising the children . Granted she belonged to an orthodox religious tradition, but a saint should surely sympathesize with raped women, instead of being obbsessed with her one point agenda. In an interview with UPI, 22 October, 1984 she said she wanted to open a special jail for abortion doctors. But when questioned about paedophile priests she said, "pray, pray and make sacrifices for those who are going through such terrible temptations" --- Sunday Independent, Dublin, 1st Octrober, 1995. Notice she does not care about the victims, or think that the priests should be punished. But she has enough love and mercy for the offenders. Incidentally how many Catholics actually defended the Churc's policy towards the molesters?

05-16-2003, 08:50 PM	#170
One of the last sane Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: hereabouts Posts: 734	Okay, how about this as a perspective: MT believed suffering was good, therefore people who sent her money to help her make people more comfortable were making a mistake, because she had no intention of making people more comfortable. That makes her a major-league crank, but explains what seems to most of us to be her breathtaking callousness. Her inability to recognize how cruel she was being was due to a combination of stupidity and zealotry. When it came to her own suffering, she did not have the courage of her convictions but instead took advantage of the best that modern medicine could offer to reduce her suffering. This makes her a coward. Hypocrite? Depends whether she changed her mind about relieving others' pain and sickness once she had first-hand experience of pain and sickness. Did she? If she didn't, then yes, she was a hypocrite. Conclusion: Stupid crank, coward and hypocrite, but not intentionally evil. Anyone want to comment/refute/debate?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.