Somehow I’m rather unmoved by Hitchens criticizing Theresa, since what she did was so harmful, and not especially in the service of peace or freedom.
I’m actually more annoyed by his comments on Bob Hope, as quoted somewhere around here.
What exactly did she do that was harmful.
And if we’re going to be criticizing Mr. Hitchens (I don’t think he’d mind it, he certainly wouldn’t have wanted people worshipping him as the Prophet of New Atheism):
Why not just say he hopes they’ll get crushed in the next election or be mocked and discredited forever?
She ended up greatly aggravating the problem she was ostensibly there to alleviate - the suffering of Calcutta’s poor.
Now that this is in great debates I want to directly address your points here.
She WAS a fraud, she collected millions from people who thought their money was going to help the poor, she redirected all of it to the church.
Of the main “charities” in Calcutta at the time her order spent the least even though it sucked in millions from around the globe.
Worse, she didn’t believe in improving their lives, even if they had a curable illness that could be cheaply treated she wouldn’t spend the money.
In fact she didn’t spend hardly any of the millions people donated to her, she gave it all to the church and continued a willful denial of pain medication to people who were terminally ill.
She re-used needles, wouldn’t pay for hot water or soap…really anyone who was not a part of her order left in horror.
The Mother’s theology glorifies suffering and in her eyes suffering (of others) is good. It is the kiss of Christ and helps the world. So in her mind it was gods work to HELP them suffer.
She knowingly took money from people like Keating when she knew that money was taken from others in a fraudulent way.
So he may have been harsh and I surely didn’t agree with him on many subjects but yes she was a fraud and evil.
Since this thread is now in Gread Debates:
That you would make this comment suggests that you have a very misinformed view of what Christianity is. Christianity is built on the concept that belief or non-belief in God and Jesus is at the root of the nature of evil, and that there are very real consequences to a person for their decision. There is also embedded in christianity an obligation to proselytize. They believe they are charged by God through Jesus to tell others about the nature of that decision and to encourage people to change their beliefs to fit. For a christian to state they hoped an atheist reconsidered before dying, the very essense of that statement is a belief that the atheist could change their future path from torment/suffering/horror to one of love and peace.
Now I, personally, find it just as distasteful as anyone else, and it does speak of a lack of understanding of atheism and being an atheist, but I understand the motivation behind such a comment and that it comes from that person’s sense of caring for the individual.
Also, it completely makes sense that an atheist wouldn’t make the equalent statement in the reverse case. For an atheist, there is no future path, no next stage of being, so there is no real value to a christian losing faith on his death bed, because there is no future for that decision to mean anything. The best that could be said at that point is “Well, at least he left the world at peace with reality” or some such.
My thoughts on Christopher Hitchens, I often didn’t agree with him, but I respect his willingness to take on the sacred cows and expose the truth. And I was unaware of his cancer battle, so this does come as a surprise to me.
Do you have reliable cites for these claims? I’ve heard these claims several times on this board (and other places online) and I’d like the straight dope on this.
It occurs to me that while she’s frequently described as a humanitarian and such, I’m unclear on what Teresa actually did.
Don’t move the goalposts. This is not about that, and acknowledgement of such crimes should have been implicit when I said “Saddam was an utter bastard”.
The statement was about the rise of Islamicism in Iraq. You expressed skepticism via rolleyes that it was anything to do with the US-led invasion. You were wrong: it was indeed as a direct result of removing the oppressive Ba’athist regime by the coalition. I am glad you have acknowledged that, though you would look like a better person if you admitted you made a mistake.
Mubarak wasn’t mentioned because we weren’t talking about Mubarak. (Though incidentally, mentioning the crimes of Mubarak is even less helpful to your assertion in another thread about the US always promoting freedom, since the Mubarak regime was explicitly propped up by the US for decades, for good or ill.)
She (or more accurately, the religious order she established, the Sisters of Charity), set up hospices and orphanages, first throughout India, and then the rest of the world.
Well, orphanages are okay, but there seems to be some controversy about the effectiveness of her hospices.
And it’s Missionaries of Charity, actually.
The orphanages apparently weren’t any good either. Put someone who fetishises suffering in charge of taking care of the weak and they’re going to screw things up, no matter whether they’re leaving curable patients to die or they’re neglecting and abusing orphans.
It would have happened if Saddam’s regime had fallen in anyway. I was more annoyed at those who poo-poo the rise in Islamism in Egypt but not in Iraq after the fall of their respective dictatorships.
I hope the same about you.
“Sins of the Missions.”. The Guardian. 14 October 1996.
Byfield, Ted (20 October 1997). “If the real world knew the real Mother Teresa there would be a lot less adulation”. Alberta Report/Newsmagazine
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/mother_teresa/sanal_ed.htm
http://www.newstatesman.com/200508220019
There are a few for you.
In addition to Hitchen’s (in)famous “Mommie Dearest” article (linked about six times already in this thread, and now seven), I urge you to read this Hitch-worthy diatribe found, in of all places, an Amazon book review comments thread.
Kevin Drum has a useful corrective to the inevitable Hitchens hagiography going around after his death.
That is pretty much my opinion of him as a political commentator. He had terrible judgement and was at best an intermittently amusing ranter.
I was referring to your ridiculous attempt to make “she was a fraud” equivalent to “she committed fraud.”
I didn’t deny that. I was responding specifically to what you said about his claims regarding Mother Teresa:
I see you did manage to cite the “cult leader” and theft things, which is an improvement. But it still comes nowhere close to citing this particular gem. The best you can do with regard to the ‘hate’ thing is this:
Which is nonsense.
I guess I made the mistake of taking this as a serious allegation when it was just a dodge. Expressing hatred for Catholic is wrong and it has a long and ugly history. Criticizing the Church and Catholic teaching isn’t Catholic-bashing and there’s nothing wrong with it.
No, I have a fairly well informed view. But I don’t care much about what Christians are compelled to do. I want them to do the decent thing and keep their religion to themselves.
And indeed, Mother Teresa was a fraud, as revealed by the publication of her personal letters.
Interestingly, Hitchens has said that his opinion of MT improved when these letters came to light–more like a tragic figure than a malevolent one.
Those outcomes do not negate for an instant the fact that Saddam Hussein was a brutal psychopathic dictator who slaughtered minority groups of his own people, and had many of his citizens tortured and brutally murdered at a whim. So none of those outcomes changes Hitchens’ motivation for supporting the war. He thinks taking Saddam Hussein and his family from power was a moral act, and just because there were undesireable outcomes does not change the balance sheet on Saddam.
Bob Hope was a civil rights leader? (Oh, I see what you said. That sentence reads funny.)
Wow, he had the audacity to state that Bob Hope wasn’t funny gasp. Burn the heretic!
Most people are pretty unclear, that’s why she has a reputation as a humanitarian. If people actually knew what she did and how, they wouldn’t think nearly as much of her.
She built hospices to “care for” the poorest of the poor an sickest of the sick. She built orphanages to care for the poorest orphans. In themselves, those are laudable goals, and so if that’s what you know, it is easy to praise her. But her idea of “caring for” is not anywhere near the levels of decency or hygiene of a moral society. It would be one thing to get by with the absolute minimum when you have no funds, or stretching what funds you have as far as they can go. It’s quite another to receive millions of dollars in funds and refuse to spend it. Warehousing the sick, allowing them to suffer with no effort made to alleviate their pain - indeed rejoicing in their pain - deliberately disregarding medical knowledge of basic hygiene.
Yeah, well even Hitler had his good points.
You said you had no idea why someone would wish something like that. It’s pretty easily understood, from their vantage point. Doesn’t mean I agree with them.