Corgan Sow

She's old, wrinkly and cannot be popular like Princess Diana, she was famous because of what she did. It saddens me atheists insulted her in Freethought jokes forum and one even called her bitch, which was way proposterous than your nearest Hollywood celebrity. Mother Teresa is not some slut doing nude covers of playboy nor taking advantage of her media popularity to sell a photo for 500,000 pounds a plop!

For crack's sakes, she dared to do things very few or none will do; live like a vagrant while caring for scavangers eaten alive by flies. Stop insulting her just because she worshipped Jesus! It's not funny, it's fucking childish, and a deep shame to atheists and freethinkers.

atheist_in_foxhole

<a href="http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/august96/hakeem.html" target="_blank">Read this.</a>

Arrowman

Corgan, hopefully atheist_in_foxhole's link will help you to understand.

I cannot speak for others, but personally my dislike for Mother Teresa lies not in the simple fact that she was a Christian proselytiser, or that she preached to and prayed over the people she "ministered" to, rather than provided practical assistance. That's just religious nuttiness not worthy of deep contempt.

No, the real reason for my dislike of Mother Teresa is that in the process of her "ministering" and proselytising, she used her image to gather tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars from the gullible public and then applied not one cent of that to the plight of the people she purported to "help".

She gathered money under false pretenses and in the process she permanently diverted that money from the causes which it was supposed to help.

Perhaps part of my dislike for MT is a projection of my dislike for the "religion is A Good Thing" mentality in society which allowed her to pursue her fraud for so long without any significant questioning from the mainstream media.

Even now, if you express any doubts about the value of MT's "work", both Catholic and non-Catholic alike look at you as though you've just sprouted horns.

Perhaps this is because people desparately want to believe that MT actually did some good in this world; they need heroes. People who would otherwise see the image of a gibbering old woman crooning Jesus stories to a dying man as being offensive, manage to apply a different standard to MT.

Perhaps the most damning evidence of all about MT is that, in searching the web for more information about her, while I found many MT "fan sites" extolling her virtues, I did not find one serious attempt to rebut the accusations made by Hitchens and others. It seems it is enough for MT fans that she was a "woman of God" or suchlike, that they can overlook the fraud and ineffectiveness that characterise her "work for the needy". She prayed over the dying, and that was enough. Accusations that she didn't actually do anything for the needy, are irrelevant to the MT apologists.

She makes me angry. And the attitude which allowed her to flourish makes me angry.

[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]</p>

Corgan Sow

She was only motivated to do work because of God?

I find it queer that people will oppose an influential moral figure. Of course, if there is truth in those claims, I will be aghasted.

But just because of some atheist propaganda stuff like Hitchen's book? Because people were annoyed she prothelyzed a lot?

Don't get me wrong, I'm personally not a Christian. Even if she was brainwashed by just sole motivation of charity for some mythical figure, I suppose I can't find resources in which MT has a large mansion with many cadillacs, like John Lennon do.

So the question; does Lennon deserve more credit than MT?

Arrowman

I don't know who that question is directed to, but I certainly didn't say that. The relationship of her work to her religious faith, or her motivation, is less important to me than what she actually did [not] do.

Given that her ministration to the sick, needy, poor and dying comprised mainly prayer and religious proselytising, without providing access to any of the fortune her order gathered in her name, I question the appropriateness of the word "moral".

Would you find "moral" a figure who had done the same thing in the name of any other religious or political doctrine?

I was surprised myself. My attitude to MT was essentially neutral until I read the facts.

I say again - what surprises (and convinces) me the most, is the absence of any reasoned rebuttal to the claims Hitchens makes. MT supporters extol the virtues of her religiosity, and ignore the accusations about her lack of practical assistance.

Actually, I'm annoyed that you apparently haven't read [with comprehension] either my post of the link provided. It's not the proselytising which annoys per se - it is pretence [on the part of MT and her nuns] and the delusion [on the part of western society generally] that there was more to MT than mere proselytising.

If she had actually done some practical good, I'd be on her side, no matter how much (well, within reason, I suppose) proselytising, she did.

So she didn't use the wealth of her order for personal comfort. Big deal. If JL gave just one percent of his lifetime earnings to real charitable works, he's ahead of MT.

Fair question. As a "doer of practical good works" I would say Lennon is/was ahead of MT, even if only because he lent his support to practical charities and not religious proselytising. As a philosopher and thinker about life, and a provider of "food for thought" in the form of his lyrics and aphorisms - no contest.

And PS - Lennon didn't set himself up as champion of the downtrodden. He didn't pretend to be doing great good works. MT did.

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]</p>

Ronin

For Corgan Sow~

Mother Teresa and Princess Di are up in heaven. Mother Teresa sees Di and wonders why Di has a huge halo around her head. Mother Teresa asks God why Di has a huge halo for doing some work with the poor and why herself has a small halo for devoting her life to helping people. God says "Mother Teresa don't tell anyone, but that's not a halo". Then he whispers "Its a steering wheel".

Corgan Sow

I don't know who that question is directed to, but I certainly didn't say that. The relationship of her work to her religious faith, or her motivation, is less important to me than what she actually did [not] do.

Okay, now from reading the article for the second time she's a bitch who loves to take credit for what she did? Forgive me if my assumption is wrong again.

Given that her ministration to the sick, needy, poor and dying comprised mainly prayer and religious proselytising, without providing access to any of the fortune her order gathered in her name, I question the appropriateness of the word "moral".

Actually I was shocked because she did administer to non-Christians without much qualms. I meant that I am surprised that such a "humble" figure like her would gain flames compared to Lennon and Diana which Christians would find excuse to say, they're hypocrites. Since these claims came about, there may be truth, but again really, I need to research for conviction.

Would you find "moral" a figure who had done the same thing in the name of any other religious or political doctrine?

Just like I said, "She was only motivated to do work because of God?"

I say again - what surprises (and convinces) me the most, is the absence of any reasoned rebuttal to the claims Hitchens makes. MT supporters extol the virtues of her religiosity, and ignore the accusations about her lack of practical assistance.

I'll ask around and see for myself...

Actually, I'm annoyed that you apparently haven't read [with comprehension] either my post of the link provided. It's not the proselytising which annoys per se - it is pretence [on the part of MT and her nuns] and the delusion [on the part of western society generally] that there was more to MT than mere proselytising.

Forgive me for my ignorance, I did read before replying. What I understand before is she did all the ggody-goody charitable stuff just to gain more Jebus followers. Sorry.

So she didn't use the wealth of her order for personal comfort. Big deal. If JL gave just one percent of his lifetime earnings to real charitable works, he's ahead of MT.

Hhhhmmmmm...a bit difficult here if Christians bring up the JL issue again...

Fair question. As a "doer of practical good works" I would say Lennon is/was ahead of MT, even if only because he lent his support to practical charities and not religious proselytising. As a philosopher and thinker about life, and a provider of "food for thought" in the form of his lyrics and aphorisms - no contest.

And PS - Lennon didn't set himself up as champion of the downtrodden. He didn't pretend to be doing great good works. MT did.

Allright, that enlightens me. Well, back to more reading. Thanks.

Ronin

More for Corgan Sow ~

What was John Lennon's last big hit?

The pavement.

lunachick

Actually, Corgan, I sympathise with your view. Although I'm an atheist, I'm very much a humanist and wondered why people here diss what I thought were noble works of a good woman - even if she did come from a catholic perspective. Hell, I don't care what religious bent (if any at all) people come from as long as they are able to do something positive in the world.
After reading some of the threads regarding MT, I realise I must do some research of the woman - and cross-reference that research to challenge it's value as truth/untruth. I,for one, will be very disappointed if I find she was a complete fraud. I don't mind people 'playing the media' to a good end - hell! that's the name of the game if you really want to accomplish anything at all in most circumstances; but if she was a thieving fraud, then I must know.
We'll see...

Regards,
Moi.

Horia Plugaru

<a href="http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/shields_18_1.html" target="_blank">Read also this.</a>