Debbie T

There was a thread about Cardinal Law here that shows exactly that. It was quite an eye opener for me to see this there and now here.

BTW I voted no as I don't think calling MT a bitch serves any purpose. I would like to see the truth come out about her and embraced by the world and that we learn something from her actions. The problem is that no matter what the world thinks about the ethics of this situation there is nothing anyone can do to make the church accountable. Nor can they be made to spend the donated money on hospitals and care for those suffering.

There ought to be a law.

Radorth

I'm no worshiper of MT and I have serious doubts about some missionaries' motives, but ironically there is a law against slander being violated here over and over IMO. These laws require the defense in a suit for slander to prove their slanders are true. That is not the case here I'm afraid, although it would be interesting to certain cases taken to court though.

Rad

Calzaer

Yeah, Rad, because all those atheist organizations with child sex scandals they'd known about for 20 years just kept moving the offenders around and never said anything...

Oh, wait, that never happened.

hezekiah jones

It's "libel," for the last time, and it's damn near impossible to libel a public figure, especially a dead one.

Sabine Grant

Ronin.. bonjour.. I am not going to debate the values of balancing a debate to where both sides are represented. Again, I am not a defender of MT nor am I an admirer. What I deplore is how the criticisms are expressed in this thread. Attempts have been made to justify inflammatory terms etc...the attribution of an intent that MT was undoubtly a " women hater" is not a comment I regard as valid.
Psychedelia's approach is what I consider to be balanced and objective as she presents based on her personal observation facts which support both sides allowing us to consider both sides.
Her approach will leave a print in my thoughts whereas the " bitch" and " c.... hater" have in no way influenced my thoughts.
I personaly find it fulfilling to encounter non extreme statements.

Sabine Grant

Rhea... the assumptions you are making on my account because I dared to challenge Winstonjen's comments are quite ridiculous.
I come from a culture where people can discuss differences without a need to attribute negative thoughts to the other person.
Attributing an ideology of " women hating" to MT means that there is direct evidence that Mt set out, intentionaly, to render evil to women. I cannot support such extreme analysis.

brighid

Excuse me? You do not have a clue as to what anyone else does regarding the poor and suffering in any part of the world. Furthermore no one need do anything in order to validate the position that this woman could have done more and willing chose NOT TO! There is an enormous difference that should be as plain as the nose on your face. I don't claim to have my life's work being the care of the poor, sick and dieing nor to I accept or solicity funds for something I do not actually do. That is the point.

Part of my job is to work with the poor and abused in this country and I do what I can with the little amount of money I can to helps outside of the borders of my country. IF I had the resources and the cult following that MT did I sure as shit would be able to do much more for those people in Calcutta then she ever did. Do the math! A hundred million dollars a year for decades would go a long way to helping LOTS of people. The Ramakrishna Mission doesn't have a glimmer of her wealth and seems to be able to do so much more for the people they do serve.

Brighid

"What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core." - Hannah Arendt

Jacey

What a great dodge ball player you must have been in grade school.

Are you actually going to acknowledge or respond to anything Rhea said?

Jacey

*sigh*

Not especially relevant. The difference is motive, an atheist can't commit a crime in the "name of atheism." Atheism has no worldview, rules to follow to be a good atheist, etc. Catholicism does, however.

Everything Mother Teresa did, she claimed God/Jesus wanted her to do, that's why she's held accountable here.

Ronin

Uh, but that is your whole position, as seen in the rest of your disingenuous explanation ~

These, more emotionally descriptive, terms most certainly have directly influenced your thoughts, Sabine.

For you are so enamoured with them that you have dismissed or completely ignored the remaining substance of the posts defending that position.

I could sell you a cup of turd should I do it with a smile and a bonjour, dear lovely.

Basing your position on issues simply on how nice someone dresses is no way to assess evidence for an accurate opinion.

~ bonjour, dear lovely.