Okay, so the case against Mother Teresa rests solely on Christopher Hitchens, who is one of the world’s most famous liars and hatemongers.
Erm…no. I realise that Hitchens is a problem for some reason which is why linked to another source. But of course there is plenty of other comment out there on the subject who’s source you might find to your liking.
As for your Hitchens links, they are a pretty poor bunch.
None of them rebut the Mother Teresa claims and they seem to be mainly concerned with sloppy journalism on his part and hurt feelings on the part of the religious who, as we know, consider that any criticism is out of bounds.
Now, if what he wrote about Mother Teresa was demonstrably wrong then fine, give us the relevant link. I’ll disregard his evidence and look elsewhere.
If it bothers you so much that he might have written accurately on this subject then again, fine…ignore him and deal with the other sources instead.
ETA - any response on my HIV and condoms comments?
You linked to a summary of another source; the source itself is conveniently unavailable, and it’s also in French. But the summary says “Christopher Hitchens is amply quoted in their analysis”, so it would seem that it all comes back to one source, and that source is a pathological liar.
Bottom line is that if a claim was made about Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the original source for that comment was Bull Connor, I wouldn’t believe the comment; likewise for a comment made about Mother Teresa where the only source is Christopher Hitchens, and for the same reason. Hatemongers are not reliable sources for facts about those they hate.
They examine what Hitchens says and investigate whether or not it’s true. (Needless to say, it always turns out to be a lie.) If you view Hitchens’ lies as a good source and anyone who counters with the truth as “a pretty poor bunch”, that tells us plenty about you.
Who exactly knows this and how do they know it?
You said Catholics “are a huge contributory factor in the spread of aids”. When challenged to provide empirical evidence to support this, you failed to do so. My comment is that your failure doesn’t surprise me.
You challenged the idea that Catholics were more responsible than any other group, which was not the claim that was put forward. You haven’t address what he actually said on the subject.
I’m always amazed by arguments like yours. Apparently, you think the following scenario is common:
Hakeem: "Well, my friend, it’s Friday night in Nairobi, and we just got paid. What are you going to do?
Jomo: “Oh, I think I’ll go engage in hours of sodomy at the gay brothel, and then cure myself of all diseases by raping a virgin.”
Hakeem: “You’re going to use condoms, of course?”
Jomo: “WHAT? Blasphemer! Heretic! I am a devout Catholic! I would NEVER use condoms, as they are strictly forbidden by my Church!”
If people obeyed the teachings of the Catholic Church, the diseases you fear wouldn’t pose much of a threat. It’s preciely because so many alleged Catholics DON’T obey the Church that the disease is a pandemic. Blaming the Church for that is like blaming the American Cancer Society for lung cancer. After all, it’s “unrealistic” to expect people to quit smoking. The Society SHOULD be passing out free e-cigs.
Except that anti-smoking campaigns work, and abstinence campaigns are a miserable failure. Your argument might have made sense in 1950, when we were too squeamish to research this stuff. Not now.
You really have a problem with Hitchens don’t you. Fair enough. try this link.
http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/an-interview-with-mary-johnson-author-of-an-unquenchable-thirst
Then I’m sure the claims he makes about mother Teresa have been easily pulled apart…yes? only not in any of the links you provide.
no they don’t have you even read them?
no they don’t
They don’t though do they? they challenge his views and his opinions and do so by mainly quoting out of context. Typical weak responses.
Actually you are right, I went too far with my comment and it is true to say that the Catholic church has now* stopped* killing those that criticise it. Other religions in other regions are less forgiving.
I stand by my assertion. Condoms prevent HIV transmission (if they are used correctly), abstinence and faithfulness prevent HIV transmission (if they are used correctly…not that this is uniquely Catholic approach).
A group unfettered by ideology would recommend both approaches, A group able to make a divine decree on sexual behaviour that truly changes what people do are responsible for the results of failing to act.
I don’t know where I said I think that scenario is common. More common is the less psychopathic back and forth of human sexual activity and infidelity.
I think the first actions are the ones most difficult to moderate, introducing the use of a condom into any or all of the above scenarios lessens the risk of HIV transmission. That is not in dispute is it?
So you are admitting that their abstinence programs don’t work? Because if that is the case then other approaches can be suggested if the church is wiling to listen.
Smoking is not an infectious disease (technically)but certainly I think any organisation of that type that doesn’t seek to minimise harm is failing. I don’t know what the American Cancer Society stance is on E-cigs. Do they claim they are sinful perhaps? Or are they happy that people reduce their exposure to harm in a variety of ways?
Serious question…I don’t know.
For what? His new actions are still 500 years behind the times. Of course that is much better than the church/cult he represents, which is 5,000 years behind the times…
He would only deserve such a nomination if he were to end the church, give the Vatican’s items away for charity, after defrocking any priest that was suspected of giving more than holy communion.
Do you really need to have it pointed out to you what the problem is with dismissing a claim simply on account of the fact that it was made by a pathological liar?
Is there really any point to defrocking priests in a church that no longer exists?
[QUOTE=Locrian]
He would only deserve such a nomination if he were to end the church, give the Vatican’s items away for charity, after defrocking any priest that was suspected of giving more than holy communion.
[/QUOTE]
First Defrocking, then ending church, then yard sale. 
I invite interested readers, if there are any, to click on the links in post #41 and see for themselves which one of us is characterizing them correctly. The first Hitchens statement that’s put under scrutiny is this from his book God is Not Great: “Orthodox Jews conduct congress by means of a hole in the sheet.” This is a standard bit of anti-semitic pablum that could have been taken from any neo-Nazi or other Jew-hating webpage. But if you want to believe that nothing Hitchens has said has been proven a lie, I guess you’re free to do so.
In any case, this thread seems to have wandered far from its topic, so I’m not too interested in pursuing it further.
Absolutely, let everyone read the links but for consistency you’ll be apply to those links the same standards as you demand of Hitchens? i.e. that they must come from historically truthful and unbiased sources? otherwise we can discount them yes?
I don’t claim that everything Hitchens has said is true, simply not possible for any commentator as prolific as him and he has got things wrong, but I certainly do say that the links you provide don’t show him as a pathological liar and nor do any specifically rebut the Mother Teresa claims.
So what are we left with. I don’t judge the power of the argument by the person making it. Only the facts matter. You seem unable to make the same commitment and probably best that you withdraw.
There is a difference between not researching something fully and lying. When he was researching Teresa, he was probably more thorough
The hole-in-the-sheet urban legend is not intrinsically bigoted, so it is unfair to link him to other groups that have made that mistake.
Which is not a Nobel prize at all.
Exactly, it is a weird thing to claim but not substantially more strange than the Jewish practices surrounding menstruating woman and circumcision, Or mormon underwear, or the catholic concept of a wafer actually being human, well not human exactly…but yes, human. Except not really. But it is…sort of.
In light of all the strange things that the religious really do do, having sex through a hole in sheet is fairly tame and says nothing detrimental other then they have a curious approach to sex.
IIRC, the novel Like Water For Chocolate describes a Mexican (Catholic) woman embroidering a set of such sheets for her sister’s wedding night.
It’s certainly no weirder than bundling.
I had to google it as I’d never heard of it.
absolutely hilarious! I’m going to see if I can convince my young children that this tradition is alive and well , just for a laugh.