Debunking the Myth of Mother Teresa [Archive]

Picky Bugger

5th April 2009, 14:18

Very good documentary there, if I remember rightly Christopher Hitchens has also written a book about her.

I recently read his book "God is not great, how religion poisons everything" which looks at such frauds but over a larger religious scale as well as touching on this topic briefly. It's a shame that few religious types will read it due to its provocative title and subject matter.

It's particularly distressing that an untested camera film and an imbeciles interpretation of this started the ball rolling. What a truly horrible woman she was.

Trystan

5th April 2009, 14:46

Mother Teresa - sadistic old cow.

brigadista

5th April 2009, 16:49

that's Nuns for ya

benhur

5th April 2009, 17:00

I've always hated this woman, but I've learned one thing about people, though. Even when you present mountains of arguments and evidence, they say it's all a lie to tarnish her clean image.:rolleyes: I am not even talking about religious people, even others do this by refusing to consider any evidence, they're too blind to see facts. They've already made up their minds, and it's impossible to convince them. I once had a conversation with a Buddhist, who spent all his time and energy defending Teresa simply because he thought she was 'spiritual.':confused:

Bud Struggle

6th April 2009, 17:24

She must have been pretty decent and good to have garnished this much hate.

The problem with Hitchens--it's not politics or business. It's PERSONAL. He's HATES here. It's not him disliking an ideology, the guy hates this woman.

These videos show more of a psychological issue on his part rather than any problem with Mother Teresa. She seems (seemed) to be going about her business, for good or for ill, but Hitchens has got his issues.

The jury's still out on her--I think a fair accounting of her life still needs to be done. On the other hand Hitchens is just a very disturbed man. These videos are BY FAR more about him than her.

One may have problem with Mother Teresa but the rantings of Christopher Hitchens.

Cumannach

6th April 2009, 18:01

Hitchens is a reactionary shithead. Better to read this by Michael Parenti:

http://www.michaelparenti.org/motherteresa.html

Picky Bugger

6th April 2009, 18:04

She must have been pretty decent and good to have garnished this much hate.

Pathetic...

The problem with Hitchens--it's not politics or business. It's PERSONAL. He's HATES here. It's not him disliking an ideology, the guy hates this woman.That really has nothing to do with it. And his hatred stems for his hatred of religion and Christianity in particular so to say it's not him disliking an ideology is wrong.

These videos show more of a psychological issue on his part rather than any problem with Mother Teresa. She seems (seemed) to be going about her business, for good or for ill, but Hitchens has got his issues.To point out any issues that Hitchens has or has not whilst ignoring the clearly wrong ideas that she held such as about contraception or the poor makes me think that you haven't watched all of it and I you did then you clearly didn't understand.

The jury's still out on her--I think a fair accounting of her life still needs to be done. On the other hand Hitchens is just a very disturbed man. These videos are BY FAR more about him than her.Maybe there does need to be a none biased approach to her life and maybe she did do some good things at one time or another. But to ignore the many horrible things that she did intentionally and cast her as a saint is moronic and embarrasses the Catholic church.

Pawn Power

6th April 2009, 18:08

She must have been pretty decent and good to have garnished this much hate.

That is a meaningless argument. Mussolini too you know. :rolleyes:

These videos show more of a psychological issue on his part rather than any problem with Mother Teresa. She seems (seemed) to be going about her business, for good or for ill, but Hitchens has got his issues.

The jury's still out on her--I think a fair accounting of her life still needs to be done. On the other hand Hitchens is just a very disturbed man. These videos are BY FAR more about him than her.

Hitchen's doesn't talk much about himself at all in the video, he is mainly just narrating an untold history of Mother Teresa, with some editorial quips on the side.

As for Teresa "going about her business, for good or ill" that's the whole point. Hitchen's demonstrated that it was mostly "ill" and that she was used as a traveling fundraiser for the Catholic Church with no regard for the actual suffering of people. In fact it was shown that she and the Church increased suffering by levying their power against woman's health messures (abortion and contraceptives).

And the jury is no longer 'out' on the life of Mother Teresa. Indeed, the final verdict arrived a while ago: Mother Teresa The Final Verdict by Aroup Chaterjee (http://www.meteorbooks.com/).

Pawn Power

6th April 2009, 18:10

Hitchens is a reactionary shithead. Better to read this by Michael Parenti:

http://www.michaelparenti.org/motherteresa.html

It's a good article, but your boy Parenti sites Hitchens multiple times in the article. :lol:

Cumannach

6th April 2009, 18:32

true, he cites the same thing twice, but at least you don't have to listen to that pompous poser

Bud Struggle

6th April 2009, 19:58

That really has nothing to do with it. And his hatred stems for his hatred of religion and Christianity in particular so to say it's not him disliking an ideology is wrong. Nope. It's personal. Hate religion fine, say so. He's going after HER not religion. You need to pay attention to what is going on.

To point out any issues that Hitchens has or has not whilst ignoring the clearly wrong ideas that she held such as about contraception or the poor makes me think that you haven't watched all of it and I you did then you clearly didn't understand. The problem with psychopaths is that they sometimes hit on the truth--it doesn't stop them from being psychopaths. Hitchens may have a point of two--but nobody that listens to him for more than a second that isn't a "true believer" is going to pay any attention to him. I would think Communism with it's rampant history of attracting sociopathic individuals as "Glorious Leaders" would be a bit sensitive to the subject.

Maybe there does need to be a none biased approach to her life and maybe she did do some good things at one time or another. But to ignore the many horrible things that she did intentionally and cast her as a saint is moronic and embarrasses the Catholic church.

Lots of organizations do horrible things. But some remain (like the Catholic Church) and some major world powers and theories are flung into the dustbins of history only to be dimly remembered by pimply teengers on ill forgotten websites.

:)

Bud Struggle

6th April 2009, 20:04

Hitchen's doesn't talk much about himself at all in the video, he is mainly just narrating an untold history of Mother Teresa, with some editorial quips on the side. Nonsense. There is no interest in hispart in being fair. He's not fair. Tell me where he treats Communism fairly. What does he think of the Arab-Israeli conflict--is that fair? Agree with hin there?

No there's he's an Imperialist dog!

As for Teresa "going about her business, for good or ill" that's the whole point. Hitchen's demonstrated that it was mostly "ill" and that she was used as a traveling fundraiser for the Catholic Church with no regard for the actual suffering of people. In fact it was shown that she and the Church increased suffering by levying their power against woman's health messures (abortion and contraceptives). Again, he has an agenda. Nothing wrong with that but when it applies to Commmunism of the Socialist agenda--I think you will have a problem with him. He's a lose canon. and it shows.

And the jury is no longer 'out' on the life of Mother Teresa. Indeed, the final verdict arrived a while ago: Mother Teresa The Final Verdict by Aroup Chaterjee (http://www.meteorbooks.com/).

More of the same. Like anyone ever heard of Aroup Chaterjee. He's representing a failed Capitalist country's way of doing business. resentful of an outsider that tried to help. It's not like India is a big bastion of socialism or classless thinking.

brigadista

6th April 2009, 20:13

Hitchens is a reactionary shithead. Better to read this by Michael Parenti:

http://www.michaelparenti.org/motherteresa.html

i certainly agree with you about Hitchens who always makes the mistake of thinking everyone with religious beliefs are fundamentalists which is not always the case

Lord Testicles

6th April 2009, 20:24

Hey TomK, why don't you address some of the critisms raised against Mother Teresa, instead of just side-stepping the point (as usual)?

Penn & Teller also ripped on her pretty good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzFEesUUX0s

Bud Struggle

6th April 2009, 20:37

Hey TomK, why don't you address some of the critisms raised against Mother Teresa, instead of just side-stepping the point (as usual)?

qzFEesUUX0s

Sure--a Noble Prize site in answer to a Youtube.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1979/teresa-bio.html

Lord Testicles

6th April 2009, 20:49

Sure--a Noble Prize site in answer to a Youtube.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1979/teresa-bio.html

Ah, side stepping again I see. How about you address some of these criticisms, a link to a biography of Mother Teresa hardly addresses the actions she is accused of.

Prosecutor - "Hey Skinz, I think you murdered that person!"
Defendant - "Here is my biography, I think you will find no mention of a murder in there!"

People in this thread have happily linked to videos and articles, but all you can muster is some unsubstantial arguments against Hitchens and a biography, I smell a troll.

Bud Struggle

6th April 2009, 20:52

Ah, side stepping again I see. How about you address some of these criticisms, a link to a biography of Mother Teresa hardly addresses the actions she is accused of.

Prosecutor - "Hey Skinz, I think you murdered that person!"
Defendant - "Here is my biography, I think you will find no mention of a murder in there!"

People in this thread have happily linked to videos and articles, but all you can muster is some unsubstantial arguments against Hitchens and a biography, I smell a troll.

Not a troll.

But you can't just give me a Penn and Teller video and say "Refute it."

Give me a detailed set of referenced charges and some time and I'll discuss it. Not some slam piece from a couple of commedians.

Bud Struggle

6th April 2009, 20:55

People in this thread have happily linked to videos and articles, but all you can muster is some unsubstantial arguments against Hitchens and a biography, I smell a troll.

Penn and Teller are pretty far from reputable sources. And Hitchens is a questionable character at best.

TheCagedLion

6th April 2009, 21:09

Penn and Teller are pretty far from reputable sources. And Hitchens is a questionable character at best.

Fail argument is fail

Bud Struggle

6th April 2009, 21:27

Fail argument is fail

NOT FAIL.

Where in the history of Internet forums is someone supposed to refute a couple of professional commedians to remain credable?

Nobody (except you guys here, of course) takes a couple of comics doing a routine as "serious." Really and truly.

TheCagedLion

6th April 2009, 21:53

NOT FAIL.

Where in the history of Internet forums is someone supposed to refute a couple of professional commedians to remain credable?

Nobody (except you guys here, of course) takes a couple of comics doing a routine as "serious." Really and truly.

No actually. Fail argument is fail, because there has in this thread been given ample* evidence against Mother Theresa, and you're argument is in every case, that these people in some way aren't reputable or believable (without giving evidence as to why they shouldn't be reputable) It's a non-argument.

* See:
Post 1[/URL] http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1399453&postcount=1 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1399453&postcount=1)
Post 10 [URL]http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1405378&postcount=10
Post 12 http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1405392&postcount=12
Post 21 http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1405590&postcount=21

Bud Struggle

6th April 2009, 22:03

* See:
Post 1 http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1399453&postcount=1
Post 10 http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1405378&postcount=10
Post 12 http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1405392&postcount=12
Post 21 http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1405590&postcount=21

All those posts above ('cept one) reference this thread. What's that supposed to mean?

TheCagedLion

6th April 2009, 22:07

All those posts above ('cept one) reference this thread. What's that supposed to mean?

I believe I said

there has in this thread

Bud Struggle

6th April 2009, 22:19

I believe I said

Sweet.

Random Precision

6th April 2009, 22:38

I've trashed the off-topic diversions on Tom, the Pope, condoms and Nazis.

Bud Struggle

6th April 2009, 23:01

I've trashed the off-topic diversions on Tom, the Pope, condoms and Nazis.

Thanks, decent of you.

My point is: what if I were to show you the total idiotcy of Communism by quoting the finer comedy routines of Cheech and Chong, Steve Martin or the Saturday Night Live?

There MAY be problems with Mother Teresa--I'm not saying there are not, but I question the creditability of your sources.

Picky Bugger

6th April 2009, 23:02

Nope. It's personal. Hate religion fine, say so. He's going after HER not religion. You need to pay attention to what is going on.

The reason she both acts like this and is allowed to act like this is clearly because of religion which he addresses. Also your point about this being personal is dumbfounded as it doesn't detract from the validity argument.

The problem with psychopaths is that they sometimes hit on the truth--it doesn't stop them from being psychopaths. Hitchens may have a point of two--but nobody that listens to him for more than a second that isn't a "true believer" is going to pay any attention to him. I would think Communism with it's rampant history of attracting sociopathic individuals as "Glorious Leaders" would be a bit sensitive to the subject.Yes and the problem with religious leaders especially Mother Teresa is that they never hit on the truth. At least Hitchens examines how she acted and the reasons behind it, at least he has a sound reason for debunking the myth of Mother Teresa unlike the weak opposition to contraception that she held so dear.

Lots of organizations do horrible things. But some remain (like the Catholic Church) and some major world powers and theories are flung into the dustbins of history only to be dimly remembered by pimply teengers on ill forgotten websites.Very quaint...

Pawn Power

6th April 2009, 23:06

Nonsense. There is no interest in hispart in being fair. He's not fair. Tell me where he treats Communism fairly. What does he think of the Arab-Israeli conflict--is that fair? Agree with hin there?

No there's he's an Imperialist dog!

Again, he has an agenda. Nothing wrong with that but when it applies to Commmunism of the Socialist agenda--I think you will have a problem with him. He's a lose canon. and it shows.

You haven't addressed anything I have said or that he has said. You are just posturing and totally disregarding the actual topic.

More of the same. Like anyone ever heard of Aroup Chaterjee. He's representing a failed Capitalist country's way of doing business. resentful of an outsider that tried to help. It's not like India is a big bastion of socialism or classless thinking.This makes no sense. I see why your locations reads "In La- La Land." Fitting.

Bud Struggle

6th April 2009, 23:12

The reason she both acts like this and is allowed to act like this is clearly because of religion which he addresses. Also your point about this being personal is dumbfounded as it doesn't detract from the validity argument. Of course it does. How much do you (or any other Communist) take a worthwhile the opinions expressed on Stormfront? If Ibrought a bunch of stormfront videos and posts here--would you take the time to refute them? I think not.

Yes and the problem with religious leaders especially Mother Teresa is that they never hit on the truth. A bit of a subjective judgment to be sure! You of course being the arbiter of all truth.

At least Hitchens examines how she acted and the reasons behind it, HIS reasons. Not THE reasons.

at least he has a sound reason for debunking the myth of Mother Teresa unlike the weak opposition to contraception that she held so dear.
What is your point here?

Bud Struggle

6th April 2009, 23:18

You haven't addressed anything I have said or that he has said. You are just posturing and totally disregarding the actual topic.

Granted I'm posturing. By my point is by showing comedy routine and youtubes of some guy that HATES religion you aren't exactly making a case for yourself.

Make a fair case and I'll discuss it. Show me videos of some jugglers that have an attitide against religion--and I'll respond in kind.

I posted the site on the Nobel Prize that she won--like it or not, that's real life.

Respond to what's posed on that site.

synthesis

7th April 2009, 00:22

http://www.newstatesman.com/200508220019

Bud Struggle

7th April 2009, 00:38

http://www.newstatesman.com/200508220019

Leftwing rag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Statesman

SERIOUS journalism please.

I'm going to start posting Three Stooges movies and ask you guys to refute them. :D

synthesis

7th April 2009, 01:37

OK, but dude actually went there. The article isn't even all negative, either.

The Missionaries of Charity have said that they welcome constructive criticism, and that the children we saw were tied for their own safety and for "educational purposes". Sister Nirmala even welcomed our film: "Our hopes continue to be simply to provide immediate and effective service to the poorest of the poor as long as they have no one to help them . . . May God bless you and your efforts to promote the dignity of human life, especially for those who are underprivileged."
For too long Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity have been blessing critics, rather than addressing justified and damning condemnations of the serious failings in their care practices.

Also, remember that even ideological journalism still has to worry about factual credibility. She did take donations from Charles Keating and the Duvalier family, and the vast majority of these "contributions" did go to establishing convents in every corner of the earth instead of actually helping people.

Bud Struggle

7th April 2009, 02:55

Also, remember that even ideological journalism still has to worry about factual credibility. She did take donations from Charles Keating and the Duvalier family, and the vast majority of these "contributions" did go to establishing convents in every corner of the earth instead of actually helping people.

Third time I'm writing this--I keep deleting it by mistake.

Anyway. Good points. Sorry I dismissed you, it was the first time someone came up with something interesting to discuss.

Well you are right--she took money forn know "sinners" but that is standard operating proceedure for Christians. We are all sinners and the only difference is by degree. If people are trying to offer "alms" to make their lives better--no one could judge. In truth, could she have been more circumspect about where her donations came from, I guess--but that;s just an after though. he job was to save souls and if the Devil provides the means, so much the better.

As far as establishing convents--are multiple convents better than putting the money in one location--it's not that wasy of a call. You could have made the case either way at the time--later on, maybe it was easier to decide.

But the truth of the matter is that Mother Teresa was out to SAVE SOULS for CHRIST. That was her job and I don't think she would have said anything else to anyone. Helping people's bodies was ALWAYS secondary. That was her ratioale for living.

Now if you want to judge her by Communist materialistic "standards" the body is all that matters, but not for her and lots like her. In her own relm, her logic is quite consistant.

She wasn't a Communist, or a Socialist or even a Capitalist, so making those labels and those ideas apply to her postumously is just rediculuous. What she did was bring the plight of the poor to the forefront of first world nations--not a bad thing and while her means weren't consistant with Communist principals--she did do her job with the poor while others mearly talk about helpinh the third world.

She wasn't a Communist--so it's unfair to judge her as one.

Pawn Power

7th April 2009, 03:28

Granted I'm posturing. By my point is by showing comedy routine and youtubes of some guy that HATES religion you aren't exactly making a case for yourself.

Make a fair case and I'll discuss it. Show me videos of some jugglers that have an attitide against religion--and I'll respond in kind.

I posted the site on the Nobel Prize that she won--like it or not, that's real life.

Respond to what's posed on that site.

Your argument is that since Hitchens is critical of religion then his arguments against Mother Teresa are not valid. I don't accept that as an legitimate argument.

Jazzratt

7th April 2009, 04:27

Granted I'm posturing. By my point is by showing comedy routine and youtubes of some guy that HATES religion you aren't exactly making a case for yourself.

You're raising red herrings you pillock. Your attack on Christopher Hitchens as unable to make a case against Mother Teresa because of his personal dislike of religion is just a fucking shallow ad hominem. Penn and Teller being comedians doesn't immediately invalidate every single thing they say and including factual statements in comedy routines is a basic bloody staple of satire.

Make a fair case and I'll discuss it. Show me videos of some jugglers that have an attitide against religion--and I'll respond in kind.

Again nothing but empty ad hom. bollocks.

I posted the site on the Nobel Prize that she won--like it or not, that's real life.

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1939/1101390102_400.jpg

Awards are the only measure of historical figures?

Bud Struggle

7th April 2009, 12:45

Jazz, I agree that my atacks against Penn and Terrer are ad hominems, but my point is--so are Penn and Tellers against Mother Teresa.

Pogue

7th April 2009, 12:46

Jazz, I agree that my atacks against Penn and Terrer are ad hominems, but my point is--so are Penn and Tellers against Mother Teresa.

But surely when you're criticising a person, its naturally ad hominem? You know ad hominem translates form latin to mean 'to the person'? So its about criticising the person? We're criticising Teresa's ideas, yes, she had shit views, but as a person we're also criticising her for being a bad person.

Jazzratt

7th April 2009, 15:54

Jazz, I agree that my atacks against Penn and Terrer are ad hominems, but my point is--so are Penn and Tellers against Mother Teresa.

Well, not entirely. Mother Teresea is set up both as a symbol of the "good" of catholicism and as an exemplar of "good" behaviour herself. It is natural, then, to question how true this is, the person doing the questioning though is utterly immaterial.

Decolonize The Left

7th April 2009, 22:07

Well you are right--she took money forn know "sinners" but that is standard operating proceedure for Christians. We are all sinners and the only difference is by degree. If people are trying to offer "alms" to make their lives better--no one could judge. In truth, could she have been more circumspect about where her donations came from, I guess--but that;s just an after though. he job was to save souls and if the Devil provides the means, so much the better.

We are simply looking at material reality - at what actually happened in her missionaries. The outlook is grim. I don't care if she thought golden bunnies lived in orphans and wanted to save them too - it's irrelevant to what actually occurred.

But the truth of the matter is that Mother Teresa was out to SAVE SOULS for CHRIST. That was her job and I don't think she would have said anything else to anyone. Helping people's bodies was ALWAYS secondary. That was her ratioale for living.

I don't care, and you shouldn't either. It's irrelevant to the fact that she helped very, very, few people - and most likely made people's lives a lot worse.

You see the difference? You are speculating about her intentions - we are analyzing facts. You don't have an arugment...

Now if you want to judge her by Communist materialistic "standards" the body is all that matters, but not for her and lots like her. In her own relm, her logic is quite consistant.

No one cares about her "relm." That isn't the point of this thread. The point of this thread is what actually happened, and whether or not the hype surrounding this figure is justified.

It obviously isn't.

- August

Louise Michel

7th April 2009, 23:00

Well I'll not bother with obvious trash such as the real role of the Catholic Church and the Pope in the world. I'll just refer you to this description of the Holy Mother's work:

http://www.newstatesman.com/200508220019

It's brief and to the the point, sufficiently I hope, to prevent the 'forum leader' acting to protect an out and out reactionary who can't even bring himself to condemn the Pope's vile attack on Africans.

Bud Struggle

7th April 2009, 23:13

Louise Michel

7th April 2009, 23:17

Already been brought up and answered further up the line.

You didn't answer it. Please do so now. With evidence if you have any.

Bud Struggle

7th April 2009, 23:29

You didn't answer it. Please do so now. With evidence if you have any.

:D

Evidence of what? Listen: state your case. I'm certainly not going to be given some book and be told "refute this." Make a case YOURSELF and I will refute it myself. Show me an article--I'll show you an article.

Louise Michel

7th April 2009, 23:29

I'm also interested to know in general why someone as clearly cynical and consciously reactionary as this Tomk guy is so popular here. I'm just trying to understand the culture and I know it's off topic but it's not as though he even presents an argument.

Please delete this if you wish but I'd appreciate a coupel of PM's on the subject.

Bud Struggle

7th April 2009, 23:33

synthesis

8th April 2009, 06:57

Third time I'm writing this--I keep deleting it by mistake.

Anyway. Good points. Sorry I dismissed you, it was the first time someone came up with something interesting to discuss.

Well you are right--she took money forn know "sinners" but that is standard operating proceedure for Christians. We are all sinners and the only difference is by degree. If people are trying to offer "alms" to make their lives better--no one could judge. In truth, could she have been more circumspect about where her donations came from, I guess--but that;s just an after though. he job was to save souls and if the Devil provides the means, so much the better.

As far as establishing convents--are multiple convents better than putting the money in one location--it's not that wasy of a call. You could have made the case either way at the time--later on, maybe it was easier to decide.

But the truth of the matter is that Mother Teresa was out to SAVE SOULS for CHRIST. That was her job and I don't think she would have said anything else to anyone. Helping people's bodies was ALWAYS secondary. That was her ratioale for living.

Now if you want to judge her by Communist materialistic "standards" the body is all that matters, but not for her and lots like her. In her own relm, her logic is quite consistant.

She wasn't a Communist, or a Socialist or even a Capitalist, so making those labels and those ideas apply to her postumously is just rediculuous. What she did was bring the plight of the poor to the forefront of first world nations--not a bad thing and while her means weren't consistant with Communist principals--she did do her job with the poor while others mearly talk about helpinh the third world.

She wasn't a Communist--so it's unfair to judge her as one.

Yeah, and I wouldn't have a problem with that if people praised her for what she did well - promoting the Christian agenda - instead of what she did poorly: actually helping people. (Okay, I'd still have a problem with that whole taking-money-from-butchers-and-swindlers thing, but still...)

I mean, they gave her the Nobel Peace Prize, but she did little to promote peace in this world - she only worked to persuade desperate people to join in her delusions.

Bud Struggle

8th April 2009, 13:31

Yeah, and I wouldn't have a problem with that if people praised her for what she did well - promoting the Christian agenda - instead of what she did poorly: actually helping people. (Okay, I'd still have a problem with that whole taking-money-from-butchers-and-swindlers thing, but still...)

I mean, they gave her the Nobel Peace Prize, but she did little to promote peace in this world - she only worked to persuade desperate people to join in her delusions.

I see your point, but that's the problem with competing ideologies. Giving money to Mother Teresa and wondering why she used it to support Catholicism is like giving money to Che Guivera and wondering why as a doctor he wasn't building hospitals with it.

As far as the Nobel Peace Prize goes, my favorite one was the one given to Mikail Gorbachev for ending the Cold War by dismantling the Soviet Union.

It takes all kind. :rolleyes:

synthesis

8th April 2009, 22:29

I see your point, but that's the problem with competing ideologies.

This has nothing to do with competing ideologies. Christopher Hitchens is not "one of us."

Giving money to Mother Teresa and wondering why she used it to support Catholicism is like giving money to Che Guivera and wondering why as a doctor he wasn't building hospitals with it.

Nobody's saying Che was a saint. Another non-argument.

As far as the Nobel Peace Prize goes, my favorite one was the one given to Mikail Gorbachev for ending the Cold War by dismantling the Soviet Union.

My favorite Nobel Peace Prize was the one where they completely destroyed their own credibility by giving it to Henry Kissinger, one of the worst people of the 20th century.

brigadista

8th April 2009, 22:39

Random Precision

8th April 2009, 23:07

Tom, what do you think about this?

Mother Teresa went to Albania in 1990, at that time the most oppressive of the Balkan Stalinist states, and laid a wreath on the grave of the dictator, Enver Hoxha, and embraced Hoxha's widow while remaining silent on human rights.

http://www.indiastar.com/DhiruShah.htm

Bud Struggle

8th April 2009, 23:08

This has nothing to do with competing ideologies. Christopher Hitchens is not "one of us." He isn't one of us either. Let's see what he has to see what he has to say on communism and see if you think he's so good with his philosophy.

Nobody's saying Che was a saint. Another non-argument. DAH!!!! "Che Lives!" Che Tee shirts--you can BUY them right here on RevLeft!. Etc. Che's a Commie Saint--you can't deny it.

My favorite Nobel Peace Prize was the one where they completely destroyed their own credibility by giving it to Henry Kissinger, one of the worst people of the 20th century.

Not quite Stalin or Hitler, but bad.

Bud Struggle

8th April 2009, 23:14

Tom, what do you think about this?

http://www.indiastar.com/DhiruShah.htm

Far as meeting Communist leaders: NO PROBLEM. Really before you criticize Catholicism--you have to understand it. All men (and women) are brother (and sisters) in Christ.

We don't judge.

And as far as converting people to Catholicism--I said that was her goal all along. I'm sure if you asked her she would have said that was her goal. That's why she became a nun, not a doctor or a nurse. Mother Teresa and Che were the SAME sort of people--each out to convert the world.

You may not like the point I'm making, but I hope you can see where she was coming from.

Bud Struggle

8th April 2009, 23:27

The allegations are that she denied pain relief treatment to poor terminally ill people as well as poor people who had curable illnesses- the catholic church is one of the richest institutions in the world ,well able to fund that treatment to those in her care - if these allegations are true - her actions were unforgiveable

First of all, I'm sure they are (not positive, of course.) But that the mystical, spiritual edge of Christianity. To suffer here on earth for you sins so that you don't have to suffer greater pains in "other places."

I know, I know, you don't have a clue what I'm talking about. But the pains I go through (as a Catholic) make me a more prepaired, better person to meet Christ in the afterlife.

As a Catholic I take my rewards in life as a punishment and my pains as a blessing. That being said, Mother Teresa should have ALWAYS and I mean ALWAYS given the option to the sufferer on what to do about the pain.

It NEVER should have been her decision.

[All this being said--you must think I'm some sort of lunatic with all of this stuff--that's the feeling I get sometimes when I real the philosophy and learning formus of RevLeft. :D. Really, we come from completely different and opposite world views. When one takes out the spititual demension from life, you have what you do. With the spitual demesion--I and Mother T are rather the norm. Problematicle, I know. :)

You don't have to agree with me, of course--but I'm explaining Mother Teresa's (and my) (and a couple of billion other people's) understanding of the world and reality to you.]

Decolonize The Left

8th April 2009, 23:57

Far as meeting Communist leaders: NO PROBLEM. Really before you criticize Catholicism--you have to understand it. All men (and women) are brother (and sisters) in Christ.

We don't judge.

:lol: Are you sure?

http://www.michiganatheists.org/events/caro/tort17.jpg
http://www.michiganatheists.org/events/caro/tort10.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/faulkekb/webquest/hanging.jpg

Yeah... no judgment in Christianity... none at all. Certainly you must amaze even yourself Tom, Christianity has a looooooooong history of judgment.

- August

brigadista

9th April 2009, 00:06

Far as meeting Communist leaders: NO PROBLEM. Really before you criticize Catholicism--you have to understand it. All men (and women) are brother (and sisters) in Christ.

We don't judge.

And as far as converting people to Catholicism--I said that was her goal all along. I'm sure if you asked her she would have said that was her goal. That's why she became a nun, not a doctor or a nurse. Mother Teresa and Che were the SAME sort of people--each out to convert the world.

You may not like the point I'm making, but I hope you can see where she was coming from.

a book by mother teresa was published after her death where she admits she actually didnt believe....she was an apparatchik of the Catholic church - simple as :)and i do understand I was brought up as a catholic and as i have said before that is why i am now a red... i can only quote Bob marley who says it simply and best:

Most people think,
Great God will come from the skies,
Take away everything
And make everybody feel high.
But if you know what life is worth,
You will look for yours on earth:
And now you see the light,
You stand up for your rights!!!!!!!

that is exactly what the catholic church does NOT want..

Rosa Lichtenstein

9th April 2009, 00:13

In fact, Hitchens criticised 'Mother' T long before he became a right wing idiot.

ÑóẊîöŉ

9th April 2009, 00:31

DAH!!!! "Che Lives!" Che Tee shirts--you can BUY them right here on RevLeft!. Etc. Che's a Commie Saint--you can't deny it.

You appear to be using a definition of "saint" that I am unfamiliar with. You can buy Albert Einstein T-shirts (http://www.allposters.co.uk/-st/Albert-Einstein-T-Shirts-Posters_c93572_.htm). Does that make Einstein a saint?

Bud Struggle

9th April 2009, 00:33

a book by mother teresa was published after her death where she admits she actually didnt believe....

that is exactly what the catholic church does NOT want..

No, it said she had doubts. It's part of what having "faith" is all about. It'sn not certanty--it's faith, a belief.

Faith without a doubt is worthless. Mother Teresa is just fine in her doubts.

Bud Struggle

9th April 2009, 00:36

:lol: Are you sure?

Yeah... no judgment in Christianity... none at all. Certainly you must amaze even yourself Tom, Christianity has a looooooooong history of judgment.

- August

Yea, there are "sinners" on both sides of the isle in Christianity. But I should have said "shouldn't judge" not "don't judge." That's why Mother Teresa's a saint and such as pictured in your post aren't.

Bud Struggle

9th April 2009, 00:38

In fact, Hitchens criticised 'Mother' T long before he became a right wing idiot.

And Hitchens was a media whore long before that. Even you Communist have to see he's that.

Bud Struggle

9th April 2009, 00:44

You appear to be using a definition of "saint" that I am unfamiliar with. You can buy Albert Einstein T-shirts (http://www.allposters.co.uk/-st/Albert-Einstein-T-Shirts-Posters_c93572_.htm). Does that make Einstein a saint?

Well, in the popular venacular all are "saints." All are secular heros of one sort or another. All are raised above their failing to be symbols of something greater than themselves.

Che was just some guy, Einstein a mathematican, Mother Teresa a nun--all were good at what they tried to do, and on their own terms, but for some reason each's work took on a greater signifigance than what the work was all about to millions of people. They MEAN things to people.

They are all in their own way--"saints."

synthesis

9th April 2009, 09:21

Well, in the popular venacular all are "saints." All are secular heros of one sort or another. All are raised above their failing to be symbols of something greater than themselves.

Che was just some guy, Einstein a mathematican, Mother Teresa a nun--all were good at what they tried to do, and on their own terms, but for some reason each's work took on a greater signifigance than what the work was all about to millions of people. They MEAN things to people.

They are all in their own way--"saints."

Uh, I meant "saint", like, literally. Mother Teresa was good at pretending to not enjoy the limelight.

Jazzratt

9th April 2009, 14:36

And Hitchens was a media whore long before that. Even you Communist have to see he's that.

Still on tired old ad hominems?

Well, in the popular venacular all are "saints." All are secular heros of one sort or another. All are raised above their failing to be symbols of something greater than themselves.

Che was just some guy, Einstein a mathematican, Mother Teresa a nun--all were good at what they tried to do, and on their own terms, but for some reason each's work took on a greater signifigance than what the work was all about to millions of people. They MEAN things to people.

They are all in their own way--"saints."

You miss the point. Che's failings as a revolutionary and theorist are noted and recognised even by those who use him as a symbol. Similarly Einstein is not the be all and end all of physics and a number of his theories have been refuted as we learned more. Mother Teresa is the odd one out here because, any time her failings (and utter callous disregard for human life) are pointed out, dipshits like you go nuts and no elench in the world will persuade you she was anything other than a complete fucking paragon of virtue.

Bud Struggle

9th April 2009, 16:22

Still on tired old ad hominems? I do to Hitchens what Communist do to Hitchens when he's discussing politics. :)

You miss the point. Che's failings as a revolutionary and theorist are noted and recognised even by those who use him as a symbol. Similarly Einstein is not the be all and end all of physics and a number of his theories have been refuted as we learned more. Mother Teresa is the odd one out here because, any time her failings (and utter callous disregard for human life) are pointed out, dipshits like you go nuts and no elench in the world will persuade you she was anything other than a complete fucking paragon of virtue.

Hopefully I didn't misrepresent her. She's not a paragon of virtue--I think basically she was a good woman with good intentions but like Che or Einstein or everyone else she was full of human failings.

The point I made above is that like Che or Einstein or even the much beloved Princess Di she trancends her failings and becomes idealized in the human psyche and in mass culture.

It's not just about the woman herself--she had her flaws but for some reason she tacended those flaws. Just like Che. Lots of flaws there--but everytime RevLeft has a "Favorite Commie" poll--he comes up on top or near the top. In the panthion of Communism, he certainly wasn't any sort of a big achiever--but for some reason he inspires people. You can try to cut him down, you can try to cut Mother Teresa down but the fact remains there are some people that trancend their failing and inspire.

:che: Che LIVES! :che: Jazzratt, :che: Che Lives! :che:

Jazzratt

9th April 2009, 17:13

I do to Hitchens what Communist do to Hitchens when he's discussing politics. :)

This would be why you've refuted what he's said rather than played silly buggers bringing up irrelevant points. No wait...

Hopefully I didn't misrepresent her. She's not a paragon of virtue--I think basically she was a good woman with good intentions but like Che or Einstein or everyone else she was full of human failings.

She let people die and suffer to make her point. There was no good in her. Her "human failing" was her sadomasochistic cause. As for her not being a "paragon of virtue" would that be why she's fucking canonised?

The point I made above is that like Che or Einstein or even the much beloved Princess Di she trancends her failings and becomes idealized in the human psyche and in mass culture.

Yes but your point is utterly ridiculous. Mother Teresa is a fucking byword for what she was meant to represent, the only other person in your spurious little list that is that is Einstein. But everyone knows Einstein got things wrong but at least he advanced physics, everyone knows that Che Guevera failed in Bolivia but at least he improved Cuba, no one who doesn't write for the Express gives a fuck about lady Di. No one feels comfortable discussing the fallibility of Teresa because when they do they will see that her llitany of failure and hypocrisy leaves absolutely nothing nice to say about her.

It's not just about the woman herself--she had her flaws but for some reason she tacended those flaws.

Read the thread, click the links watch the videos. Be zetetic for fuck's sake. The point isn't that she had flaws that she transcended the point is that everything she did was part of her one enormous flaw of being a twisted, sadistic and hypocritical old harpy. She spent more time spreading religion and suffering than she ever spent healing.

Just like Che. Lots of flaws there--but everytime RevLeft has a "Favorite Commie" poll--he comes up on top or near the top. In the panthion of Communism, he certainly wasn't any sort of a big achiever--but for some reason he inspires people.

Stop with this boriong strawman. We get it. You think we worship Che Guevara either because a) you're illiterate or b) you're a troll. Che is not at issue here and you know it. You're bringing up these red herrings to dodge the real issue of having to defend the actions of mother T.

You can try to cut him down, you can try to cut Mother Teresa down but the fact remains there are some people that trancend their failing and inspire.

Empty rhetoric. You're a fucking joke.

:che: Che LIVES! :che: Jazzratt, :che: Che Lives! :che:

Stop being a ****.

Bud Struggle

9th April 2009, 22:42

You're a fucking joke.

Who do some Communists find the need to become insulting when the conversation doesn't go their way? :(

Jazzratt

10th April 2009, 01:08

Who do some Communists find the need to become insulting when the conversation doesn't go their way? :(

Face it, you are a joke and the conversation was going against you from the start. That's why you had to resort to ridiculous strawmen and empty rhetoric and now you've seen a simple get-out in highlighting the fact I insulted you. It's pathetic, but you're not the first person to do it.

Bud Struggle

10th April 2009, 03:09

Face it, you are a joke and the conversation was going against you from the start. That's why you had to resort to ridiculous strawmen and empty rhetoric and now you've seen a simple get-out in highlighting the fact I insulted you. It's pathetic, but you're not the first person to do it.

Think whatever you want, it's no concern of mine. But I was answering questions and having a nice discussion till you got into your name calling hissyfit. I'm just not interested in being a part of it.

Decolonize The Left

10th April 2009, 05:28

Think whatever you want, it's no concern of mine. But I was answering questions and having a nice discussion till you got into your name calling hissyfit. I'm just not interested in being a part of it.

No, actually, you weren't. I just read the thread and you constantly dodged criticism, avoided arguments, threw up straw-men/red herrings in defense, or simply resorted to patronizing and demeaning your opponents.

Did you get called names? Yeah, you did.

I'm sorry if this caused you to stop reading, you're quite sensitive it seems. Either way, you're simply lying in your attempt to portray yourself as dignified and responsible - but anyone who reads the thread can see that for themselves.

- August

TheCultofAbeLincoln

10th April 2009, 06:08

Anyway, on the side, I like Christopher Hitchens for what he is. I wish we had, like, one conservative commentator on his level. But no, we got boatloads of 'em exposing the gay agenda...And charles krauthammer can jump off a bridge. He makes fucking bill kristol look good. When Buckley died he took intelligent American conservatism down with him.

And as far as the Nobel prize goes it's pretty obvious that it's much easier to get if you're white. This might help explain why Mother Teresa got one for all the hard work she did in India while that slacker Gandhi did not. Also Rudyard Kipling, author of White Mans Burden has one too :lol:

People really care way too much about that award, but there is one omission I have always felt a little more than others. There wasn't an award for lit given to a black man until the late '80s, and I wouldn't point this out if it weren't for the fact that arguably the best piece of American literature (ever) was done by a black man well before that mark.

Invisible Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Man_%28novel%29). Ralph Ellison. Read It.