Mother Teresa was no saint

[ponderingturtle]

It's not. That's my point. Trials are an adversarial process where both sides try to stack the cards in their favor by eliminating unsympathetic jurors.

If trials were like a discussion forum, the defense could focus on offering actual evidence to counter the claims in the OP, rather than complaining about the jurors.

Nonsense they know thet cant win on the evidence and so stacking the jury is the only way they can win.

 

[Darat]

Brainiac2 - which criticisms of Mother Teresa in this thread do you think are not supported by evidence?

 

[Craig B]

Are atheists and agnostics incapable of similar lunacy?

It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God.[1]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder

it is not what people don't believe that predisposes them to mass murder, but what they do believe. Hitler's Nazi beliefs were compatible with belief in God, Who chose the Aryan people and Whose Providence guided Hitler himself. The pre 20th century imperial powers which practiced genocide in conquered lands often used a religious justification, "God gave us this land" - still a big favourite with religious Zionists and their Christian Evangelical supporters, albeit that expulsion rather than genocide is their method of usurping the territories they covet.

Of course there have been atheist mass murderers, and some of them have persecuted and murdered religious believers for ideological motives. Stalin is the prime example of such a criminal. However, he didn't murder peasants because they were Christians. He did it because he wanted the state to take over their land. He killed atheist fellow communists with the same enthusiasm with which he killed Christians, and when it suited him he made alliances with the Orthodox Church, so long as it did nothing to challenge his control of the state.

It is clear to me, that evil people motivated whether by ideology, religious or secular, or by personal failings, are equally capable of the most atrocious crimes, whether or not they have religious beliefs.

 

[catsmate]

What is the point of this thread?

Pointing out that a person the RCC considers to be worthy of respect was in reality a terrible human being.

What do you base that weird conclusion on?

American King James Version<snip>

Still not using a proper catholic bible then?

Are atheists and agnostics incapable of similar lunacy?<snip>
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder

Quoting from conservapedia? Really?

 

[Agatha]

[Running footsteps start in distance and get louder. FOSTER ZYGOTE arrives gasping for breath]

FOSTER ZYGOTE: Sorry. Sorry. [loudly] A newt?

I got better!

Thank you.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming. Ahem.

Brainiac, people are criticising Mother Teresa not for her beliefs, but for her actions. She directly and deliberately increased the suffering of those who she professed to be helping, while collecting millions in donations from people who intended that the money would go towards relieving poverty and pain.

Criticising her actions is not criticising her beliefs, other than to point out the hypocrisy of someone who spoke with compassion and love for the needy, but deliberately engineered that they suffered more greatly than if she had simply ignored them.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I got better!

Thank you.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming. Ahem.

Brainiac, people are criticising Mother Teresa not for her beliefs, but for her actions. She directly and deliberately increased the suffering of those who she professed to be helping, while collecting millions in donations from people who intended that the money would go towards relieving poverty and pain.

Criticising her actions is not criticising her beliefs, other than to point out the hypocrisy of someone who spoke with compassion and love for the needy, but deliberately engineered that they suffered more greatly than if she had simply ignored them.

But she believed suffering was good for them so helping them suffer was the best thing for them.

 

[zooterkin]

I do hope that the general public becomes more aware of the truth about Anjezë Bojaxhiu. She doesn't deserve the reputation or the reverence that her mythologization has granted her.

I like to take any opportunity to quote Hitchens' description of her as a "thieving, fanatical Albanian dwarf", as it may provoke some to find out what it's based on.

 

[Brainache]

I like to take any opportunity to quote Hitchens' description of her as a "thieving, fanatical Albanian dwarf", as it may provoke some to find out what it's based on.

I don't often say this, but I think the dwarf is superfluous.

 

[Brainiac2]

I got better!

Thank you.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming. Ahem.

Brainiac, people are criticising Mother Teresa not for her beliefs, but for her actions. She directly and deliberately increased the suffering of those who she professed to be helping, while collecting millions in donations from people who intended that the money would go towards relieving poverty and pain.

Criticising her actions is not criticising her beliefs, other than to point out the hypocrisy of someone who spoke with compassion and love for the needy, but deliberately engineered that they suffered more greatly than if she had simply ignored them.

What basis do you have for believing that I approve of that modus operand or that I favor her religious Catholic beliefs?

 

[Foster Zygote]

What basis do you have for believing that I approve of that modus operand or that I favor her religious Catholic beliefs?

No one has suggested that you approve of what she did. Most of us, I'm sure, have given you credit for being ignorant of her actual modus operandi.

Now, perhaps you could answer Darat's query: which criticisms of Mother Teresa in this thread do you think are not supported by evidence?

 

[Agatha]

What basis do you have for believing that I approve of that modus operand or that I favor her religious Catholic beliefs?

None, which is why I did not suggest you either approve of MT's actions nor that you favour her beliefs.

To be honest, I'm not really sure what your position is, other than "atheists=bad mass murderers" and you appear to think Conservapedia is a reliable source. However, I am hoping that you will realise your errors once you have done more research, and perhaps spent some time reading what people are saying rather than assuming hostility where none is intended.

 

[zooterkin]

I don't often say this, but I think the dwarf is superfluous.

It does help to distinguish her from any other thieving, fanatical Albanians that Hitchens may have known.

 

[sophia8]

I like to take any opportunity to quote Hitchens' description of her as a "thieving, fanatical Albanian dwarf", as it may provoke some to find out what it's based on.

+1

 

[Brainiac2]

Hey they have to get money to pay their rape victims somehow.

Here is how some persons view the evidence's validity after they evaluate all the pros and cons


The Shadow Saint from the July 11, 1996 issue
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1996/sep/19/in-defense-of-mother-teresa/?pagination=false


Defending Mother Teresa against her bitter critics
Although she is widely venerated, Mother Teresa also has some vociferous critics. This writer speaks out on the various accusations against her.
http://www.ucanews.com/news/defending-mother-teresa-against-her-bitter-critics/67917


A Response To Mother Teresa's Critics
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/celeste-owenjones/mother-theresa-critics_b_2824776.html

In Defense of Mother TeresaJames Martin

In response to:



John Hinshaw says:


Let's be honest here. Hacks like Hitchens first began training their guns on Mother Teresa when she notified the wealthy first world of its greater impoverishment due to its promotion of abortion. This she did when receiving the Nobel Prize. When the rich propose elimination of the poor as a "solution" to their poverty, they do not like to be exposed. What a surprise to find academics of comfortable lifestyles, "researching" from their comfortable lounges repeating lies which only enhance their own comfort level.


don Roberto says:


Hitchens , saint to the pseud-atheists, also believed the universe created itself from nothing. But as with most alleged atheists, he believed X because he wanted to do Y; he did not like to think that his real "god" was pleasure. Mother Teresa's philosophy must have truly galled him, otherwise he would not have let his prejuudice show so clearly (at least to those whose reason is not clouded by lust).


http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/04/mother-teresa-and-her-critics

 

[Cavemonster]

Brainiac,
All of the defenses you have reproduced consist primarily on an attack on the character and motivation of those bringing up her faults. None of them, not a single one address the actual critiques of her behavior.

That's not how the truth works if one is a critical thinker.

All these establish is that the writers have a personal (and sometimes religious) dislike for Hitchens and really nothing else. They attack his tone, they speculate as to his reasons, but do not begin to address his arguments. This is nothing like evaluating all the pros and cons, this is the opposite of critical evaluation.

Your own assertion that a jury should not consist of people with that sort of bias would eliminate them quite quickly from being qualified to judge Hitchens, much less the points he makes.

 

[timhau]

Brainiac2 - which criticisms of Mother Teresa in this thread do you think are not supported by evidence?

*cough*

 

[Craig B]

Here is how some persons view the evidence's validity after they evaluate all the pros and cons ...

Nothing at all of what you cited makes the slightest reference to the evidence. It's like the defenders of Stalin back in the thirties: Only an enemy of the liberated masses and their beloved leader could utter such slanders at the behest of international imperialism.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Here is how some persons view the evidence's validity after they evaluate all the pros and cons


The Shadow Saint from the July 11, 1996 issue
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1996/sep/19/in-defense-of-mother-teresa/?pagination=false


Defending Mother Teresa against her bitter critics
Although she is widely venerated, Mother Teresa also has some vociferous critics. This writer speaks out on the various accusations against her.
http://www.ucanews.com/news/defending-mother-teresa-against-her-bitter-critics/67917


A Response To Mother Teresa's Critics
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/celeste-owenjones/mother-theresa-critics_b_2824776.html

So you have nothing to dispute her actions and are left attacking those who are bothered by the lies spread about her?

 

[Brainiac2]

Brainiac,
All of the defenses you have reproduced consist primarily on an attack on the character and motivation of those bringing up her faults. None of them, not a single one address the actual critiques of her behavior.

That's not how the truth works if one is a critical thinker.

All these establish is that the writers have a personal (and sometimes religious) dislike for Hitchens and really nothing else. They attack his tone, they speculate as to his reasons, but do not begin to address his arguments. This is nothing like evaluating all the pros and cons, this is the opposite of critical evaluation.

Your own assertion that a jury should not consist of people with that sort of bias would eliminate them quite quickly from being qualified to judge Hitchens, much less the points he makes.

I agree. They would be unqualified to serve as a jury in a case involving an atheist if religion is a strong factor.

BTW

The objections found in those articles aren't based on a mere dislike of the criticizers. They provide rebuttals demonstrating exactly how the criticisms are crass misrepresentations. You probably mistook the reader-opinions that I posted as article excerpts. They are not.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I agree. They would be unqualified to serve as a jury in a case involving an atheist if religion is a strong factor.

Then we agree that the real measure of validity is the evidence presented. Have you any evidence that Mother Teresa has been unfairly characterized in this thread?