philechat

I simply have no respect for the Missionaries, period. It would be fine if the Missionaries were willing to accept that people could continue following their local traditions and coexist with other religions, but no. Missionaries in East Asia and India (and of course, Africa and Polynesia) showed so little respect for the local cultures that they called the local gods "idols" and their religion evil. And then by depriving the locals their cultures (by instilling "fear education" about the afterlife and calling the indigenous gods "demons", or "carrot-and-stick" differential treatments of Christians and non-Christian in the area, etc.) the Missionaries could succeed in coercing the locals into the Christian religion. The Christian God just cannot exist peacefully with other gods, for some reason.

The terrible thing is that the Missionaries might be innocent and "just following orders from God" in destroying indigenous beliefs. Fortunately most East Asians and Indians did not fall into their traps.

Sabine Grant

Again... have you had a personal relationship with MT or anyone whom may be the object of insults? do you have the ability to KNOW the mind of a person you do not interact with or do you allow your opinion of anyone to be forged by what you hear about that person. The principle applies to anyone.... using the failures of others to justify our need to express anger does not settle with me.
There is a choice to make there in the way we express anger... I have no particular like or dislike of MT but I do deplore demeaning others with insults. That is my position in all matters.

christ-on-a-stick

Sabine,

Of course I did not have a personal relationship with her but the same is true of many public figures who by observing their actions I can (and do) form an opinion as to their character.

yguy

I don't know enough about any of it to have a strong opinion. I smell a hatchet job, and thought an opposing voice should be heard.

To call any prize bestowed upon a murderer like Yassir Arafat lousy surely is praise by faint damnation.

I'm not a big fan of MT myself, but I sense that criticism of her on this board will have at least as much to do with her Christianity as with her legitimate faults.

christ-on-a-stick

Her particular brand of (and method of espousing) Christianity *was* her "legitimate fault".

People go on and on about "intent" (as in "oh, but she had the best intentions") but at some point one has to ask, how much does "intent" matter when one is actively doing harm to others? Even the most brutal dictator, in his mind, has the "right" intention, no? Where do we draw the line?

yguy

I don't know what harm you think she did to others. It is my impression that she made people feel OK about being destitute, which was a disservice to them, no matter how well intentioned - but I don't think it makes her a villain any more than her opposition to abortion (a good thing in my view) makes her a saint.

christ-on-a-stick

Your impression, frankly, is wrong.

What harm did she do to others?

By vigorously promoting (under threat of hellfire, no less) the backward, inhumane and absurd Catholic doctrine prohibiting birth control , she used her position of "authority" to ensure that thousands of children would be born into abject poverty and suffering. With all the money that her organization raked in for the corrupt Catholic Church, they could have *provided* free birth control and helped stem the tide of overpopulation.

Because of her own twisted notion that suffering was somehow a good thing, she refused pallitative care to the gravely ill and dying, when again, it would have been well within her ability to actually RELIEVE SUFFERING.

I could go on and on but I doubt that you will listen.. let me know if I'm mistaken and I'd be more than happy to give more examples.

yguy

I find this notion that birth control is a solution to any population problem more than slightly tinged with condescending elitism. Don't these people have brains enough to know that screwing makes babies? If they do, the solution is obvious. No pills needed.

I'm of two minds on the issue of palliative care, as I myself avoid painkillers like the plague. I'm not crazy about the idea of a world where there's an Ethical Suicide Parlor in every city, to illustrate the point by exagerration.

I guess it's up to you to determine whether you think I'm listening, but post some more and I'll tell you what I think of them. So far, it seems to me you're nibbling around the edges, not really getting to the heart of what made MT's actions detrimental to those she thought to help.

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. If that were true, then you should have no opinion of anyone who died before you were born, as you could not possibly have met them. This means, for most people alive today, they should have no opinion about George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Adolf Hitler, Charles Darwin, etc. Now, are you seriously going to tell us that you have no opinion about any of these people?

Furthermore, there are people alive today, such as politicians, about whom one can learn a great deal, without meeting them personally. In countries where voting is permitted, the vast majority of the people are fully expected to form opinions about the candidates without ever meeting them. Do you believe it is wrong of them to do so? Should everyone instead not vote, because they have not personally met all of the candidates? 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?

Second, the use of insulting terms is often done to express strong emotion. For example, many use insulting terms when discussing Hitler, who seems to have been involved in the deaths of millions of people. So people are angry with him, and I think understandably so (though if you are serious about not judging those who one has not met, you must disagree and suppose that they are unjustified in forming an opinion about him). But, of course, in the case of someone like Hitler, he is dead, so we cannot hurt his feelings anyway. But the same can be said of "Mother" Teresa. And obviously, one does not have to do things of the magnitude, or the type, of things done by someone like Hitler in order to get people angry with them. Anyone who commits fraud, for example, is likely to rile someone, and very likely for good reason. In my opinion, a man who commits fraud on a deal for a used toaster deserves to be described in insulting terms.

As for what it may accomplish to discuss the misdeeds of others, do you place no value on the truth? Do you think it is good if people idolize a villain, even if the villain is dead?

Pyrrho

I can certainly understand your concern. However, I have met many Christians whose only great fault was being a Christian. I would never put them in the same category as someone like "Mother" Teresa, who collected money from people who thought she was going to spend it on medical care, but instead made her order of nuns rich, and merely provided a place for people to die, and to die in pain instead of giving them relief with painkilling drugs. I would be very much offended by the suggestion that all Christians were even close to being evil like "Mother" Teresa. I have met many Christians in my life, and some of them are very fine people, though, of course, I have met some who were quite evil, and, if they had more influence, would probably do things as bad as Teresa did. The idea that all Christians are equally good or bad is as absurd as the idea that all atheists are equally good or bad. I have met quite a few atheists who are morally as bad as Teresa. I detest them in much the same way, though they have, so far, had less impact on the world, as they are not in the same kind of position.

I'll go even further, and make this more 'personal' for those who visit this message board. There are obnoxious Christians and obnoxious atheists here, as well as thoughtful people of a variety of opinions (including atheists and Christians). Unfortunately for all concerned (or perhaps fortunately, depending on how one looks at it), the belief in a god and the belief in no god neither make a person good or bad by itself. Cruelty and fraud are wrong, whether it is a Christian or an atheist or anyone else who does it.

So, if "Mother" Teresa had been an atheist, and still acted as she did, she would still be evil. And there are many, many Christians vastly better than her. Many are kind, decent people, who want to help other people, instead of pretending to help people like Teresa. So please don't suppose that everyone here is going to judge all Christians as being bad people.

Let me add that in Teresa's case, since many are worshipful toward her, as they believe she did things other than what she actually did, is like pouring salt into a wound. It is bad enough that she was evil, but what makes it worse is that many believe the opposite of her, as they believe the money they donated to her went for medical care instead of where it really went.