2 of 3
2
Mother Theresa
Posted: 04 November 2006 02:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2168
Joined  2005-11-15

The facts about Mother Teresa would almost have to prove interesting convo material for any of us talking with believers. How many people, including many of us here, had any idea that she wasn’t the saint she was portrayed to be? Her name has become synonymous with the epitome of charity and love.  And that is completely twisted.

If we place Teresa in the earthly role of a Heavenly Mother-type, as she was clearly promoted to be, then we have to ask ourselves—and most importantly, ask believers—if they think their own mother would treat them this way. . . If your mom was the beneficiary of incredible donations, perhaps in the hundreds of thousands, and yet Mom continued to treat your diseased body with unclean instruments, a bare minimum of meds, never employing modern appliances to clean your clothing and bedding, but forcing the staff to hand-wash them instead; if she insisted that the nursing staff who looks after you live in squalor, rather than allowing them accommodations at least somewhat befitting the income flowing in. . . and if Mom also told friends and family that she thought your misery and suffering were the most beautiful aspects of all this. . . wouldn’t you hope that someone called Child Protective Services to rescue you from Mom?

 Signature 


Welcome to Planet Earth, where Belief masquerades as Knowledge!

This way to the Unasked Questions—->
<—- This way to the Unquestioned Answers

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2006 04:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1243
Joined  2005-11-14
[quote author=“Mia”] . . and if Mom also told friends and family that she thought your misery and suffering were the most beautiful aspects of all this. . . wouldn’t you hope that someone called Child Protective Services to rescue you from Mom?

If she was doing this on USA soil, she’d have been in jail. Yet she is venerated as a Saint.

If that is Sainthood, then I have chosen wisely to depart from the things of god.

Noggin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2006 04:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19
[quote author=“Noggin”][quote author=“Mia”] . . and if Mom also told friends and family that she thought your misery and suffering were the most beautiful aspects of all this. . . wouldn’t you hope that someone called Child Protective Services to rescue you from Mom?

If she was doing this on USA soil, she’d have been in jail. Yet she is venerated as a Saint.

If that is Sainthood, then I have chosen wisely to depart from the things of god.

Noggin

The Missionaries of Charity has hundreds of sisters in the US and they all embrace the lifestyle of their founder, Mother Teresa. They even have a house in San francisco. They run a soup kitchen and an AIDS hospice or at least they used to when I lived there in the late 90s. Why don’t you call up the San Francisco Social Services and tell them about the sadist sisters and their love of the suffering. Record the call, if you could, because I’d like to hear the laughter on the other side of the phone.

Oh those abusive sisters! Evangelizing, comforting and praying instead of giving money to the poor.

This is going to be difficult for you to understand. You cannot live with the poor and claim to be poor if you are rich. See Mother Teresa and her sisters take seriously that vow of poverty they profess.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2006 12:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1243
Joined  2005-11-14
[quote author=“frankr”]Why don’t you call up the San Francisco Social Services and tell them about the sadist sisters and their love of the suffering. Record the call, if you could, because I’d like to hear the laughter on the other side of the phone.

You’re just upset that Dear Mother is getting poked in the eye with a sharp stick posthumously.  And, after all, Mother knows best.

Oh those abusive sisters! Evangelizing, comforting and praying instead of giving money to the poor.

Oh those abusive sisters! Bilking innocent humans out of their hard earned dollars while practically none of the funds coming in en masse actually go to alleviate suffering.  Oh those dishonest, manipulative and yes, sadistic, sisters.

How do they do it?  How do they look into the sufferers’ eyes and, knowin that they have the means to alleviate their suffering, choose to let them writhe?

This is going to be difficult for you to understand. You cannot live with the poor and claim to be poor if you are rich.

Hence, the dishonesty.

Look Thomas Orr said it well a few posts back:

Mr. Orr wrote:
We are disgusted with Mother Theresa for the same reason we were disgusted with United Way officials when they decided to enrich themselves with the donated money. In addition, we are disgusted with the fact that she was no saint to her subordinates and how she treated them can qualify as abuse on par with child molestation by some priests

Noggin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2006 12:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

Where are the rich sisters? Whose living high off the hog?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2006 01:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2168
Joined  2005-11-15

Why would claiming poverty even be  a requirement in caring for the sick, frank, even if the patient is flat-out destitute? By that reasoning, if a rich man stumbled in off the streets, the sisters would need to take a “vow of wealth” in order to care for him properly? How in the world do you support the idea that a vow of poverty improves their ability to care for the sick?

Moreover, it’s a pretense, since they are not in fact impoverished in the least. These women are connected members (or officers, if you will) of a supremely wealthy worldwide organization, so posing as impoverished is just outrageous. Who benefits from such a charade? I would suggest it’s done expressly to play on sympathies, to garner more donations for the church, but certainly not to improve the level of care administered to the individual. . . unless the scandal of Mother Teresa has since caused them to shape up and get proper overseers involved in the distribution of available funds and medical supplies. We can only hope so.

But it still wouldn’t address this fallacy that it’s somehow useful to sink to the depths of those you treat in order to be respectful and empathetic, much less operating at full strength. Once again, we see the religious person’s inability (or unwillingness) to build their own moral/ethical/logical system of premises and behaviors, instead leaning on some authority to lay out something absurd like this, as if it were the ‘ideal’. They have abandoned the search for their own human empathy, which forces them to merely seem empathetic through this show of poverty. If I came into the ER covered in mud, desperate for someone to remove a knife from my chest and sew me back up, would I feel better if the surgeon empathetically smeared himself and his attending nurses with mud and blood, as well? Would that be logical? Or helpful? Would my healing be facilitated by those gestures to sink to my condition?

In my household, my parents had all the money, and I, as a little girl, got a small allowance, maybe a couple bucks a week. I cannot recall being treated with less care because of this woeful imbalance in our paychecks, however. I was not belittled by their being wealthier than me. In fact, if my parents had decided to live off the same allowance they gave us, thus plunging them into poverty, then our healthcare, nutrition and even our emotional nurturing would have suffered, because the caretakers would have stopped using tools they had ready access to. In such a case, I would suggest the parents had gone bonkers, and again we could only hope Child Protective Services were made aware of this situation so that the parents would be compelled by a court system to care for us in relation to the income they had easy access to. If not, we would have been removed from the home. Or, at the very least, a watchdog would have been assigned to our case.

Not so within the untouchable Catholic Church, of course. . . but still. . . why would Teresa see any sense in ignoring her readily available tools? There’s evidence here that she even scoffed at them. Where’s the evil in washing machines, fresh needles, canning excess food, and administering the best meds affordable? In allowing the caretakers the use of such widely available ‘luxuries’, where is the patient suffering? It’s as if you advocate falling into the pit in order to be the most help to one who has himself become trapped in the pit, rather than going off to get some food to toss down, and some rope and some backup, to help drag him out.

But that’s exactly it with you guys, isn’t it. Suffering is the condition that is being promoted here, not reducing suffering. Doing the best job possible is not even the goal.

You are over the edge of sanity on this, and so are those who take this silly, pretentious vow. Being in surroundings that are cleaner and more luxurious than the slums, alleys and gutters a person has been living in is hardly an insult to them —how can that not be absurdly obvious to you? All you’re advocating is a charade that does no one any good. It’s all for show. Evidence of this fact was that the money was there—gobs and gobs of it—and Teresa willfully chose not to use it.

The sisters may ‘embrace’ their lifestyle, frank, but so does the raving drug addict, most the time.

 Signature 


Welcome to Planet Earth, where Belief masquerades as Knowledge!

This way to the Unasked Questions—->
<—- This way to the Unquestioned Answers

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2006 03:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1243
Joined  2005-11-14

[quote author=“frankr”]Where are the rich sisters? Whose living high off the hog?

Frankr, maybe I am way off in left field here but if the donations being extracted from the masses aren’t being used to alleviate suffering, and instead go to the construction of some basilica or lifestyle of some priest, that is downright dishonest.

If I give because Mother Theresa is yanking at my heart strings… and I cough up some coins, but those coins don’t go to alleviate suffering… I would have an awful taste in my mouth re: Mother Theresa.

Frankr, just tell me, show me some link that the donated Mother Theresa money is being used to alleviate suffering and I’ll be okay with it.  I’ll retract my obtuse statements.

Noggin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2006 03:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  101
Joined  2006-10-25

Dawkins in The God Delusion takes aim at Mother Theresa due to her stating that the worst thing threatening mankind—not AIDS or poverty (which was in front of her every single day) or man’s inhumanity to man, wars of religion—no, none of these things.  The very worst possible nightmare facing humankind was abortion.

Dawkins asks, “And they awarded her the Nobel Prize…?”

annalise

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2006 05:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27

Her name for the #1 cause of evil in the world was encoded, because it was no longer fashionable to come right out and say that “failure to submit to the will of God is the ultimate cause of evil in the world”. She did this to curry favor with the Nobel Prize panel.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2006 12:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23

[quote author=“frankr”][quote author=“Noggin”]
If she was doing this on USA soil, she’d have been in jail. Yet she is venerated as a Saint.

The Missionaries of Charity has hundreds of sisters in the US and they all embrace the lifestyle of their founder, Mother Teresa. They even have a house in San francisco. They run a soup kitchen and an AIDS hospice or at least they used to when I lived there in the late 90s. Why don’t you call up the San Francisco Social Services and tell them about the sadist sisters and their love of the suffering.

You’re not refuting Noggins’s point: The order behaves differently on US soil.  Also on British soil.  They have to.

Oh those abusive sisters! Evangelizing, comforting and praying instead of giving money to the poor.

Do the reading.  For instance, the heavily documented 14-chapter book on the mirror site.  A couple of chapters are not archived but you’ll still get more than enough information to get the point.

This is going to be difficult for you to understand. You cannot live with the poor and claim to be poor if you are rich. See Mother Teresa and her sisters take seriously that vow of poverty they profess.

Not as seriously as they profess it onto their Indian co-workers, let alone the recipients of their aid.

Teresa always got the best possible health care, including painkillers, while people died in her hospice-mortuary in Calcutta without even minimum comfort.  Children with treatable illnesses died and suffered.  Slept five to eight to a bed.  Weren’t allowed to play with toys.  Go read the annual UK reports of how much money went to relieve suffering in Calcutta and how much went to “H.Q. (Rome)”. 

Learn how much time “Mother Teresa of Calcutta” spent in Calcutta or among the poor anywhere.

If you still have a heart to be moved, you will be shocked.

 Signature 

“I will tell you with the utmost impudence that I esteem much more his Person, than his Works.”

  (Dryden, St. Euremont’s Essays, 1692.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2006 12:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23

[quote author=“Salt Creek”]Her name for the #1 cause of evil in the world was encoded, because it was no longer fashionable to come right out and say that “failure to submit to the will of God is the ultimate cause of evil in the world”. She did this to curry favor with the Nobel Prize panel.

“Abortion” is almost always code for something else.  Teresa does seem to have been a bit of a wack job on the subject, however.  Aroup Chatterjee makes some interesting points about the sorts of things the Nobel folks look for.

 Signature 

“I will tell you with the utmost impudence that I esteem much more his Person, than his Works.”

  (Dryden, St. Euremont’s Essays, 1692.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 November 2006 04:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  101
Joined  2006-10-25

[quote author=“made_maka”]“Abortion” is almost always code for something else.  Teresa does seem to have been a bit of a wack job on the subject, however.

I went back and read that bit from Dawkins, as I couldn’t do it yesterday, being at work.  Here’s verbatim what he wrote concerning MT:

[quote author=“Dawkins”]The contemplation of embryos really does seem to have the most extraordinary effect upon many people of faith.  Mother Teresa of Calcutta actually said, in her speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, “The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion.”  What?  How can a woman with such cock-eyed judgment be taken seriously on any topic, let alone be thought seriously worthy of a Nobel Prize?  Anybody tempted to be taken in by the sanctimoniously hypocritical Mother Teresa should read Christopher Hitchens’s book The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice.

First off—“sanctimoniously hypocritical”!  Ouch!  I thought MT was untouchable until that point.

Secondly—“The Missionary Position”...**snicker**  Did someone actually dare use that as the title…?  For a book on Mother Teresa??  Isn’t that the definition of “chuzpah”??  :D

annalise

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 November 2006 04:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

We don’t call it chutzpah we call it a cheap shot.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 November 2006 04:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2807
Joined  2005-04-29

Thanks for quoting that title annalise—I’ll be chuckling all morning. If anybody in the world has chutzpah, I’d say Hitchens certainly does.

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 November 2006 05:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  101
Joined  2006-10-25

[quote author=“frankr”]We don’t call it chutzpah we call it a cheap shot.

I’m sorry if you are offended, frank, really I am.  That’s very sincere.  It’s just that…come on…a book about a nun…with “The missionary postion” in the title…isn’t that just a little bit funny…?  I mean, not laughing boisterously funny, maybe, but…corner of your mouth turing up funny?  Isn’t it that…?  No…?

:(

annalise

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed