"India has no reason to be grateful to Mother Teresa"

Do you agree or not?
I do agree with the article.

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/mother_teresa/sanal_ed.htm

http://www.democracynow.org/1997/6/6/the_dark_side_mother_teresa

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 1

Lord Hysteria

Absolutely. She is an old fraud (an atheist too) used by the Church as a propaganda tool.

Mother Teresa by Christopher Hitchens

The absolute last thing poor, desperate & uneducated people need is the Catholic Church. It is responsible for more misery & suffering than any other institution on Earth.

Reply 2

User414413

Disagree. I've not read much of the critique of her but just watched some now and they don't seem too convincing e.g. the Duvalier's or Keating incidents.

Reply 3

flembotembo

Original post by Lord Hysteria

How horrendous a man is Christopher Hitchens to write a book attacking a woman who devoted her entire life to serving others? As a Catholic, I am used to the bigotry and prejudice people like you hold against us, but you are highly ignorant of historical facts when you say that the Church has caused suffering on Earth. What about the millions educated by Catholic schools, or given aid and healthcare in Catholic hospitals? No other institution has done as much good, and yet your hatred is so strong that you will lie about this!

Reply 4

KingofSpades

I don't think India as a landmass can reason at all (correct if wrong)
anyway
I think the people aided by mother T are grateful for what she has done, whether they have reason or not

Reply 5

KingofSpades

but I do see where you are coming from. I see no halo courting her head, so therefore, therefrom and therewith, she is no saint. she doesn't emit radiance, either; another minus to the tally I believe

Reply 6

KingofSpades

Original post by Lord Hysteria

That video you posted has no more to do with Mother Teresa than I would have if I were to mention her name offhand, in a general comment about the inefficiencies of the Indian government and their unhelpful health care. One of the criticisms is, "there are no chairs".

Reply 7

Bobifier

Original post by KingofSpades

If you take one criticism out of context and make it sound bad, that means the whole video must be wrong! :awesome:

Actually, the video has everything to do with mother teresa. If you watch it, he keeps talking about things she's done, and showing clips of her, and he has other people talking about her as well. I acknowledged that you were probably biased even before watching it, but it would take tremendous bias to come to your conclusion that it's about the indian government.

Reply 8

KingofSpades

Original post by Bobifier

If you take one criticism out of context and make it sound bad, that means the whole video must be wrong! :awesome:

and if I were to rid myself of this staggering bias, I would observe that the lack needles, funding and public health care is a fault of "the angel from hell"?
I acknowledge that you are not up to date with Indian healthcare and poverty, and that you, as did the woman in the video, probably believe that if the 15 year old were taken to a hospital, and treatment demanded, all would be rivers of happiness- that it was none other than teresa and her ideology that held him back. I wonder who else is putting out for these people. I am always skeptical when violin music is introduced in the effort to induce discomforting undertones, anyway.

Reply 9

rylit91

I stopped reading at 'living saint'. Nonsense.

Reply 10

domino0806

She was a pernicious whore.

Reply 11

KingofSpades

Original post by domino0806

She was a pernicious whore.

that is objectively incorrect, by way of definition

Reply 12

Saichu

Original post by KingofSpades

How you could manage this sort of conclusion, is absolutely beyond me. The chairs comment is, naturally, a comment about her hospice, not about the Indian government.

Edit: The bit about the quality of care only covers about 2 minutes of the 25 minute series anyway. As such, I would success your assessment is highly selective and misleading.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 13

KingofSpades

Original post by Saichu

a comment about her hospice rather than a comment about her character and practices. As of yet, the title is unjustified. about the government: I came to the conclusion that this addressed Indian public health care, government regulated, rather than having anything to do with Mother Teresa. As you saw, the complaint that "there was an untreated 15 year old boy" is one whose subject is sought to be rectified by a "demanding" visit to the hospital. I understand that this ill (none) treatment, when put in a "highly selective" documentary- a fact which is exemplified through its use of but one of thousands of volunteers who go through Calcutta- can be misjudged by some, who immediately associate it with what they surmise the docu to be about.

Reply 14

Saichu

Original post by KingofSpades

a comment about her hospice rather than a comment about her character and practices.

You're right; practically the rest of the 25 minutes was devoted to her character and practices.

The negative evaluation of her hospice (which has little to do with "Indian public health care, government regulated") was really just to show that her organization was not so spectacular in the first place, as to receive the attention it did. In either case, saying the whole thing was about the Indian government was highly disingenuous.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 15

KingofSpades

Original post by Saichu

it was never her organization that received attention. it was devotion. I will watch the rest tonight. the first part is utter bull****, and no amount of drawing my posts into quotes and harping on the string of miscomprehension in the form of "it being beyond you" to figure wherefrom I drew my government comment is apt to change that.

Reply 16

Saichu

Original post by KingofSpades

it was never her organization that received attention. it was devotion.

On the contrary; were you listening to 2:30-4:00 of the first video? :p:

But seriously, it begs the question: how is her popularity justified when, instead of using the vast amounts of donated money to improve the conditions of, say, her first hospice (with, not chairs as you mentioned, but painkillers, medicines, or sterilized needles) she would use it to simply expand her organization around the globe?