Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

sharedvalues

(6,916 posts)
Sun Apr 2, 2017, 04:31 PM Apr 2017

Ha - Right-wing website argues Jesus didn't want to help the poor at all

Last edited Sun Apr 2, 2017, 08:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Fitting the GOP ideology of hurting the poor and helping the very rich, even Christian websites have been bent to this propaganda:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/march-web-only/what-you-probably-dont-know-about-least-of-these.html

"The second possibility is the most common: “the least of these” are the poor and needy. The imagery is straightforward, memorable, and powerful. Who are the most marginalized in society other than the hungry, thirsty, homeless, naked, sick, and imprisoned? This option has some scholarly support and no doubt echoes the consistent biblical call to justice (take Deut. 15, for example). As Mother Teresa said of the poor, “Each one of them is Jesus in disguise.”

It’s easy to see why this passage is so championed by justice-minded Christians. Linking our eternal destiny to caring for the powerless puts the strongest possible motivation behind such a call. Many fundraising campaigns have relied on this powerful image to solicit funds for the poor.


However, this option runs into the same problems that the first one does. For one, it doesn’t adequately account for the meaning of “brothers of mine.” Also, caring for the hungry, thirsty, homeless, naked, sick, and imprisoned isn’t taught elsewhere in the New Testament as the measuring stick for salvation. Can we really affirm that what ultimately matters is caring for the poor? [Ed: No, according to rest of article.]
"

Restating these paragraphs:
"Even though Mother Teresa said Christians should help the poor, dedicated her life to it, and was sainted -- GOP Christians don't have to worry about that! Just be selfish, and I'll reinterpret the NT for you."

64 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ha - Right-wing website argues Jesus didn't want to help the poor at all (Original Post) sharedvalues Apr 2017 OP
And others say he never existed at all. rug Apr 2017 #1
It's easy to make the Bible say anything... forgotmylogin Apr 2017 #53
Organized religion today is obsolete and is often injurious to others often making the haters feel RKP5637 Apr 2017 #2
What about the haters who feel good by hating religion? rug Apr 2017 #4
In the big picture it takes all types. n/t RKP5637 Apr 2017 #23
It's becoming more so all the time. Young people have no use for bronze age belief systems. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #6
Don't get angry at others over religion - just plays into GOP hands sharedvalues Apr 2017 #8
I'll get as angry as I like when it comes to religious oppression. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #14
Democrats believe in inclusiveness and tolerance, which has everything to do with religion. rug Apr 2017 #15
Yes that's ok- I embrace all who care about others and embrace tolerance sharedvalues Apr 2017 #17
We're on the same page then. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #22
Religious "nones", Jews and other non-Christians overwhelmingly voted for Hillary in 2016: beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #16
That's because the GOP voters get votes from some religious people through hate and divisiveness sharedvalues Apr 2017 #18
This is why I said liberal ideology has nothing to do with religion. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #21
Cliches and posturing are really no substitute for data and argument. rug Apr 2017 #11
Well, I don't consider it obsolete Warpy Apr 2017 #28
Agree! More appropriately applied to your second paragraph! n/t RKP5637 Apr 2017 #33
Need to get politics out of religion sharedvalues Apr 2017 #3
Some saints slaughtered thousands Jonny Appleseed Apr 2017 #5
I would call that remark a fail except it never got that far. rug Apr 2017 #12
It is written he that giveth to the poor lendeth to the Lord and the Lord shall pay him again. caroldansen Apr 2017 #7
Teresa was no saint if you were unfortunate enough to be sick and poor in Calcutta. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #9
How interesting. A post simltaneously referencing "the Catholic propanganda machine" and rug Apr 2017 #13
Uncomfortable truths about saints Lordquinton Apr 2017 #24
Well it's not like white Christian males suffered and died or anything. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #25
Knee-jerk defense Lordquinton Apr 2017 #26
Yup. Must defend the church first - to hell with its victims. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #27
Old hat complaints we're still harping about Lordquinton Apr 2017 #31
Oh indeed. Remember when we were attacked for criticizing the nuns at the Tuam orphanage? beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #32
In the past I've been guarded when talking about such things Lordquinton Apr 2017 #34
I also find it odd that people doubt the church uses propaganda. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #35
I remember that Lordquinton Apr 2017 #36
Well when you need to market the same old product as 'New and Improved' you need a marketing expert. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #37
So many emperors are missing clothing Lordquinton Apr 2017 #38
Christopher Hitchens was a poseur. guillaumeb Apr 2017 #41
Ad hom. trotsky Apr 2017 #42
My opinion about Hitchens. Others may differ. guillaumeb Apr 2017 #44
You won't judge Teresa but you'll judge Hitchens. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #47
I am not judging MTs motivation. guillaumeb Apr 2017 #49
"You won't judge Teresa but you'll judge Hitchens." Lordquinton Apr 2017 #55
She denied pain medications to people in pain. trotsky Apr 2017 #56
More deflection and outright denial of facts. Did you even read the study? beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #57
I can see why you'd rather not answer for that hypocritical nun. n/t trotsky Apr 2017 #50
Hitchens was a neoconservative asshat. Act_of_Reparation Apr 2017 #43
Did she accomplish nothing, in your view? eom guillaumeb Apr 2017 #45
Irrelevant. Act_of_Reparation Apr 2017 #54
I'll take logical fallacies for $500, Alex. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #46
An interesting straw construction on your part. guillaumeb Apr 2017 #48
Assume I was referring to the collective 'you' as in the Church and defenders of Teresa in general. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #51
But you actually directed your comment to me, not to these guillaumeb Apr 2017 #58
Hold on - aren't you defending her from her critics? beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #59
These people are suffering because they are treated as worthless guillaumeb Apr 2017 #60
They suffered because Teresa treated them like they were worthless. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #61
Don't forget about the "medical" staff. Act_of_Reparation Apr 2017 #62
It's not like those nasty old atheists are the only ones who criticized Teresa. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #63
Even former members of her order have spoken up about her negligence. Act_of_Reparation Apr 2017 #64
Jesus must be appalled! hrmjustin Apr 2017 #10
ayn rand is their god. prey unto atlas. pansypoo53219 Apr 2017 #19
Ayn Rand is a terrible writer and a feeble-minded philosopher sharedvalues Apr 2017 #20
Seems like the thumpers would go by their own book.. Permanut Apr 2017 #29
I read the whole article.... VMA131Marine Apr 2017 #30
It's really easy if you pay attention world wide wally Apr 2017 #39
Jesus implored his followers to give their possessions away. Act_of_Reparation Apr 2017 #40
imho, the point of any decent religion is to encourage socially helpful behavior unblock Apr 2017 #52

RKP5637

(67,111 posts)
2. Organized religion today is obsolete and is often injurious to others often making the haters feel
Sun Apr 2, 2017, 04:34 PM
Apr 2017

good.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
6. It's becoming more so all the time. Young people have no use for bronze age belief systems.
Sun Apr 2, 2017, 04:47 PM
Apr 2017

Of course this really rankles the 'Get off my Lawn' crowd who bristle at the thought of their beloved church going the way of the dinosaur. They're openly hostile to secularists who have the nerve to voice an opinion about religion that doesn't align with theirs. They even try to label us as intolerant because we're critical of religious misogyny and homophobia.


sharedvalues

(6,916 posts)
8. Don't get angry at others over religion - just plays into GOP hands
Sun Apr 2, 2017, 04:54 PM
Apr 2017

Democrats believe in tolerance and inclusiveness for all, whether religious or not.

(and p.s. religion provides community for many; it may be that some of the problems in America today are due to reduced social communities, partially due to decline of religion. That argument is made in Anatomy of an Epidemic by Whitaker)

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
14. I'll get as angry as I like when it comes to religious oppression.
Sun Apr 2, 2017, 05:23 PM
Apr 2017

Last edited Sun Apr 2, 2017, 06:00 PM - Edit history (1)

and p.s. religion provides community for many; it may be that some of the problems in America today are due to reduced social communities, partially due to decline of religion. That argument is made in Anatomy of an Epidemic by Whitaker


Nonsense. Religion didn't invent morality - it co-opted it. People who need religion to inspire them to care for others are morally bankrupt.

Millions have suffered and died at the hands of religious believers who considered them second class citizens - and we're still fighting religious oppression in this country as conservative Christians continue to try to legislate away the rights of women, lgbt people and Muslims.

Democrats believe in inclusiveness and tolerance but that has nothing to do with religion - that's a liberal trait, not a religious one.

I have no use for empty platitudes about faith and nationalism although I realize politicians have to recite them during election season.

Non-Christians don't need to be pandered to in order to vote for Democrats, we're the most loyal part of the base. I find public political religious displays to be silly - but all of those church appearances, prayer breakfasts and 'God Bless Americas' are necessary to pander to those who still fear secularism. They're part of the base too even if they're more fickle.
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
15. Democrats believe in inclusiveness and tolerance, which has everything to do with religion.
Sun Apr 2, 2017, 05:41 PM
Apr 2017
Respecting Faith and Service

Democrats know that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and
richer by faith in many forms and the countless acts of justice, mercy, and tolerance it inspires.
We believe in lifting up and valuing the good work of people of faith and religious organizations
and finding ways to support that work where possible.

Read the Platform before presuming to speak for it.

sharedvalues

(6,916 posts)
17. Yes that's ok- I embrace all who care about others and embrace tolerance
Sun Apr 2, 2017, 07:27 PM
Apr 2017

That includes people who believe in all different religions, or no religion.

The intolerant and hateful are also seen in all religions or no religion.

I hold in low esteem the intolerant, hateful, and greedy whether they are religious or not.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
16. Religious "nones", Jews and other non-Christians overwhelmingly voted for Hillary in 2016:
Sun Apr 2, 2017, 06:43 PM
Apr 2017
How the faithful voted: A preliminary 2016 analysis

The 2016 presidential exit polling reveals little change in the political alignments of U.S. religious groups. Those who supported Republican candidates in recent elections, such as white born-again or evangelical Christians and white Catholics, strongly supported Donald Trump as well. Groups that traditionally backed Democratic candidates, including religious “nones,” Hispanic Catholics and Jews, were firmly in Hillary Clinton’s corner.

***

White Catholics also supported Trump over Clinton by a wide, 23-point margin (60% to 37%), rivaling Romney’s 19-point victory among those in this group. Trump’s strong support among white Catholics propelled him to a 7-point edge among Catholics overall (52% to 45%) despite the fact that Hispanic Catholics backed Clinton over Trump by a 41-point margin (67% to 26%).

Like Hispanic Catholics, religious “nones” and Jews were strong Clinton supporters. Indeed, nearly seven-in-ten religious “nones” voted for Clinton, as did 71% of Jews. Most people who identify with faiths other than Christianity or Judaism also favored Clinton over Trump, 62% to 29%.

Exit polls also follow another pattern from recent elections: Most weekly churchgoers backed Trump over Clinton, 56% to 40%. Those who said they attend religious services more sporadically (i.e., somewhere between a few times a month and a few times a year) were closely divided. And, those who said they don’t attend religious services at all backed Clinton over Trump by a 31-point margin (62% to 31%).

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/how-the-faithful-voted-a-preliminary-2016-analysis/


In fact most atheists are liberals and Democrats:

Self-identified atheists tend to be aligned with the Democratic Party and with political liberalism. About two-thirds of atheists (69%) identify as Democrats (or lean in that direction), and a majority (56%) call themselves political liberals (compared with just one-in-ten who say they are conservatives). Atheists overwhelmingly favor same-sex marriage (92%) and legal abortion (87%). In addition, three-quarters (74%) say that government aid to the poor does more good than harm.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/01/10-facts-about-atheists/


Some day we may actually have an atheist president but that's a long way off. Right now many Americans still seem convinced that people need religion in order to be good so no politican in their right mind is going to admit faith isn't a necessary component of morality.

I think good people would still be good without religious beliefs.

sharedvalues

(6,916 posts)
18. That's because the GOP voters get votes from some religious people through hate and divisiveness
Sun Apr 2, 2017, 07:29 PM
Apr 2017

Not all religious people, but some, are christofascists like Pence.

Democrats stand for tolerance and aiding the less well off amongst us. Any Christian that believes in that should be a Democrat not a GOPer.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
21. This is why I said liberal ideology has nothing to do with religion.
Sun Apr 2, 2017, 08:12 PM
Apr 2017

Democrats who believe in tolerance and inclusiveness do so because they're liberals, not because they're religious.

Those are universal traits among liberals but not among religious people.

Warpy

(111,270 posts)
28. Well, I don't consider it obsolete
Sun Apr 2, 2017, 09:30 PM
Apr 2017

because I've seen some of the worst ones be a comfort to families in the waiting room outside the ICU. I don't share it, but I don't make the rules for everybody else.

What might be obsolete is treating the aggressive ones trying to insert their dogma into civil law like they're simple country congregations. They are not and they should be taxed accordingly.

sharedvalues

(6,916 posts)
3. Need to get politics out of religion
Sun Apr 2, 2017, 04:35 PM
Apr 2017

My ancestors were coal-mining Catholic Irish laborers and Democrats.

How did abortion become an issue bigger than labor unions? Ah.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
9. Teresa was no saint if you were unfortunate enough to be sick and poor in Calcutta.
Sun Apr 2, 2017, 05:07 PM
Apr 2017
Sadistic Religious Fanatic: Mother Teresa Was No Saint
by: Michael Stone
Mother Teresa was a moral monster, a sadistic religious fanatic guilty of medical malpractice.

This Sunday, Pope Francis will canonize Mother Teresa as a saint, one of the highest honors in the Roman Catholic Church. Tens of thousands of people are expected to fill St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican to honor a woman who supposedly lived her life dedicated to the poorest of the poor.

However, Mother Teresa was no saint, she was instead a moral monster, a sadistic religious fanatic who took pleasure in the suffering of others, and denied appropriate medical care to the sick and dying.

Yet the Catholic propaganda machine, eager for good publicity and the opportunity to hustle the gullible, continues to promote the soon to be saint while ignoring evidence of her moral incompetence.

Teresa was anything but a saint. The nun may have been generous with her prayers, but she was miserly with her foundation’s millions when it came to alleviating the suffering of the sick and the poor.

The celebrated nun had 517 missions in 100 countries at the time of her death. Yet despite plenty of funds, the majority of patients were not cared for properly, many being left to suffer and die without appropriate medical care or pain medication.

Indeed, conditions in the the Missionaries of Charity’s hospices were deplorable. In fact, Teresa refused to introduce the most basic methods of hygiene, even going so far as to reuse needles without sterilization.

According to one study, doctors observed a significant lack of hygiene, even unfit conditions and a shortage of actual care, food and painkillers. They say that the problem was not a lack of funds because the Order of the Missionaries of Charity successfully raised hundreds of millions of dollars.

Perhaps worse that the medical malpractice, was Teresa’s perverse and sadistic ability to take pleasure in the suffering of others. The fact is, Teresa believed that suffering – even when caused by poverty, medical problems, or starvation – was a gift from God.

I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.”

– Mother Teresa


Yet despite serious questions about Teresa’s character, motivation, and methods, the Vatican, enabled by a gullible and willing mainstream media, has engaged in a well orchestrated public relations campaign to manufacture a Catholic hero

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/09/sadistic-religious-fanatic-mother-teresa-was-no-saint/



Christopher Hitchens got it right about Teresa:

MT (Mother Teresa) was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction.

When religious people oppose reproductive rights they're not advocates for the poor.

You cannot claim to care about women and children while cheerfully dooming them to a lifetime of suffering and poverty because you think it's God's will.

If you care more about doctrine than giving women complete bodily autonomy and more about defending religion from critics than you do about its victims you're not my ally.

(not you personally - I'm referring to people who get hyper defensive whenever religion is criticized)
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
13. How interesting. A post simltaneously referencing "the Catholic propanganda machine" and
Sun Apr 2, 2017, 05:20 PM
Apr 2017

the "late great Christopher Hitchens."

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
24. Uncomfortable truths about saints
Sun Apr 2, 2017, 09:18 PM
Apr 2017

Like how they made Serra a saint over the objections of many native americans for his role in the genocide.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
27. Yup. Must defend the church first - to hell with its victims.
Sun Apr 2, 2017, 09:29 PM
Apr 2017

These are the same folks who think it's anti-Catholic bigotry to criticize the Vatican's homophobic and misogynistic policies and sex abuse scandal.

You'll find these right wing types all over the place on social media.

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
31. Old hat complaints we're still harping about
Sun Apr 2, 2017, 09:47 PM
Apr 2017

because every week there's new stories uncovered about the depths, and heights, they reach to.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
32. Oh indeed. Remember when we were attacked for criticizing the nuns at the Tuam orphanage?
Sun Apr 2, 2017, 09:55 PM
Apr 2017

Turns out the reports were accurate and the scope of the neglect was horrific:

Mass grave of babies and children found at Tuam care home in Ireland
Excavations at site of home for unmarried mothers and their children, where it is alleged up to 800 children died, uncover human remains

A mass grave containing the remains of babies and children has been discovered at a former Catholic care home in Ireland where it has been alleged up to 800 died, government-appointed investigators said on Friday.

Excavations at the site of the former Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home in Tuam, County Galway, have uncovered an underground structure divided into 20 chambers containing “significant quantities of human remains”, the judge-led mother and baby homes commission said.

The commission said analysis of selected remains revealed ages of the deceased ranged from 35 weeks to three years old. It found that the dead had been mostly buried in the 1950s, when the facility was one of more than a dozen in Ireland offering shelter to orphans, unmarried mothers and their children. The Tuam home closed in 1961.

The home, run by the Bon Secours Sisters, a Catholic religious order of nuns, received unmarried pregnant women to give birth. The women were separated from their children, who remained elsewhere in the home, raised by nuns, until they could be adopted.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/03/mass-grave-of-babies-and-children-found-at-tuam-orphanage-in-ireland

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
34. In the past I've been guarded when talking about such things
Sun Apr 2, 2017, 11:16 PM
Apr 2017

but it somehow always turns out to be worse than what's reported.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
35. I also find it odd that people doubt the church uses propaganda.
Sun Apr 2, 2017, 11:54 PM
Apr 2017

Did they forget the Vatican hired a Fox News veteran to handle its public relations?

Pope appoints ex-Fox News correspondent as Vatican spokesman

The Vatican has named a former Fox News journalist and member of the controversial Opus Dei group as its chief spokesman, while a Spanish female reporter will serve as his deputy.

The appointment of Greg Burke, 56, was announced following the resignation of Federico Lombardi, a Jesuit priest who has served as spokesman for Pope Francis and his predecessor, Benedict XVI.

Burke spent more than a decade as Fox News’s Rome correspondent before being hired by the Vatican in 2012 as a communications adviser. In December, the American was installed as the press office’s deputy director.

Although Burke does not wear a priest’s collar, the Vatican on Monday stressed the St Louis native is from a traditional Catholic family. As a student at Columbia University in New York he became a member of Opus Dei, a conservative Catholic organisation that has faced criticism for secrecy and its approach to recruitment.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/11/pope-appoints-former-fox-tv-correspondent-greg-burke-vatican-spokesman


A conservative Catholic to promote a conservative organization, how appropriate.

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
36. I remember that
Mon Apr 3, 2017, 12:50 AM
Apr 2017

I also remember they were lauded for hiring a true PR professional, and no one saw any trouble with it.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
37. Well when you need to market the same old product as 'New and Improved' you need a marketing expert.
Mon Apr 3, 2017, 12:57 AM
Apr 2017

And it worked for a while but people are finding out that the Vatican hasn't changed at all - it's just a facade.

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
38. So many emperors are missing clothing
Mon Apr 3, 2017, 01:27 AM
Apr 2017

We're asking the same questions and pointing out the same things because nothing has been answered or changed.

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
41. Christopher Hitchens was a poseur.
Mon Apr 3, 2017, 10:46 AM
Apr 2017

And I realizing that in saying this, I am attacking one of the high prophets of the anti-religion crowd.

Hitchens was a big disciple of war making as a way to peace as well, making him perhaps a Kissinger-ite?

Hitchens posed as an iconoclast, but his embrace of the US military exposed his own soul.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
42. Ad hom.
Mon Apr 3, 2017, 11:51 AM
Apr 2017

Address the point being made.

What do you think of "Mother" Teresa? Isn't it interesting that she got the best medical care the West had to offer, while she denied even basic pain relief to her patients? Why do you suppose she did that?

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
44. My opinion about Hitchens. Others may differ.
Mon Apr 3, 2017, 02:45 PM
Apr 2017

I will not judge Mother Theresa, nor can I answer for what might have been her motivation.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
47. You won't judge Teresa but you'll judge Hitchens.
Mon Apr 3, 2017, 03:08 PM
Apr 2017

One of those two is responsible for the suffering of tens of thousands and the other is Christopher Hitchens.

Yet only one is worthy of condemnation in your opinion.

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
49. I am not judging MTs motivation.
Mon Apr 3, 2017, 03:19 PM
Apr 2017

But I am judging Hitchens to be an apologist for militarism and empire.

Calling Mother Theresa responsible for the suffering is nonsense. Unless of course you are wiling to extend that principle and call all the suffering and destruction in Yemen to be President Obama's responsibility because he armed and aided the Saudis who are attacking Yemen.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
56. She denied pain medications to people in pain.
Mon Apr 3, 2017, 03:56 PM
Apr 2017

She is DIRECTLY responsible for their suffering, when it was in her power to at least TRY to alleviate it.

She did that because she, like many other members of the Catholic Church who still do, had a twisted and sick obsession with suffering, believing that people suffering helps them get closer to Jesus. Of course she must have deemed that she herself suffered in other ways, and thus was owed the finest first class medical care, naturally.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
57. More deflection and outright denial of facts. Did you even read the study?
Mon Apr 3, 2017, 03:59 PM
Apr 2017

Also you can add false equivalence to the list of fallacies.

Obama didn't directly oversee the neglect and mistreatment of tens of thousands of patients in his care - Teresa did.

Obama didn't take millions from donors and refuse to use the money to help those patients - Teresa did.

Obama wasn't a hypocrite of staggering proportions who portrayed himself as an angel of mercy while violating the religious rights of patients who trusted him - again that was Teresa.


Calling Mother Theresa responsible for the suffering is nonsense.


Nonsense?

This isn't a matter of opinion, the horrific conditions in Teresa's facilities and her years of neglect and abuse of patients in her care are well documented.

Why On Earth Is The Catholic Church Making Mother Teresa A Saint?

The New York Times concluded that she was “less interested in helping the poor than in using them as an indefatigable source of wretchedness on which to fuel the expansion of her fundamentalist Roman Catholic beliefs.”

***

The conditions at Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity in Calcutta, India were horrific

Though Mother Theresa’s medical centers were meant to heal people, patients were subjected to conditions that often made them even sicker. In the same documentary, an Indian journalist compared Mother Teresa’s flagship location for “Missionaries of Charity” to photographs he had seen of Nazi Germany’s Bergen-Belsen concentration camp.

“Workers washed needles under tap water and then reused them. Medicine and other vital items were stored for months on end, expiring and still applied sporadically to patients,” said Hemley Gonzalez, a noted humanitarian worker in Indoa, when describing the Missionaries of Charity location he briefly volunteered at.

“Volunteers with little or no training carried out dangerous work on patients with highly contagious cases of tuberculosis and other life-threatening illnesses. The individuals who operated the charity refused to accept and implement medical equipment and machinery that would have safely automated processes and saved lives.”

It wasn’t just a select few cynical journalists who criticized Mother Teresa’s hospice care, either. In her hospice care centers, Mother Teresa practiced her belief that patients only needed to feel wanted and die at peace with God — not receive proper medical care — and medical experts went after her for it. In 1994, the British medical journal The Lancet claimed that medicine was scarce in her hospice centers and that patients received nothing close to what they needed to relieve their pain.

Doctors took to calling her locations “homes for the dying,” and such a name was warranted. Mother Teresa’s Calcutta home for the sick had a mortality rate of more than 40 percent. But in her view, this wasn’t a bad thing, as she believed that the suffering of the poor and sick was more of a glory than a burden.

“There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ’s Passion,” Mother Teresa said. “The world gains much from their suffering.”

When it came to her own suffering, however, Mother Teresa took a different stance. The ailing altruist received care for her failing heart in a modern American hospital.

***

She wasn’t exactly a champion of reproductive rights

Mother Theresa’s goals got in the way of her support for women’s rights.

When Mother Teresa gave her 1979 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, she did so with an agenda. Mother Teresa was a staunch opponent of both abortion and birth control, and she made it clear that she believed “natural family planning” would solve the woes of pregnant women who were not ready for a child.

Mother Teresa held that opinion even for cases of rape. On the subject of Bosnian women who had been raped and impregnated by Serbian militants, Mother Teresa said, “I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a direct war, a direct killing — direct murder by the mother herself.”

What Mother Teresa did promote in the realm of family planning — like abstinence — didn’t help anyone, either. She stuck by her abstinence claims, however, despite preaching about abstinence being proven ineffective again and again.

In hindsight, it’s hard to view the actions of the Catholic Church’s new so-called Saint with anything other than horror. Mother Teresa claimed to help the poor and the sick, but her very beliefs and practices ensured they were mired in poverty and pain till their dying days.

http://all-that-is-interesting.com/mother-teresa-saint


Teresa is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with the Church: she was a greedy fraud who cared more about converting the dying than alleviating their suffering, more about proselytizing to than advocating for women and more about hoarding money than using it to treat and save her patients.

It's funny that you used the term apologist when referring to Hitchens while continuing to defend that morally bankrupt hypocrite from her critics.

Yes, Teresa was directly responsible for the suffering of tens of thousands she could have helped by spending some of her ill gotten gain on medicine and adequate facilities. That is not nonsense - that is a fact.

Act_of_Reparation

(9,116 posts)
43. Hitchens was a neoconservative asshat.
Mon Apr 3, 2017, 01:38 PM
Apr 2017

Now that's out of the way, Mother Theresa was a fucking fraud.

Discuss.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
46. I'll take logical fallacies for $500, Alex.
Mon Apr 3, 2017, 02:46 PM
Apr 2017
straw man

an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.


red herring

something that takes attention away from a more important subject


ad hominem

(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.


No one claimed Hitchens was a nice guy let alone a 'high prophet' of atheism (which as any idiot knows has no prophets). Hitchens was a brilliant but mean drunk who was wrong on Iraq but right about Teresa.

The woman you hold up as a symbol of all that is good and pure was a vile, sadistic fraud who took millions in donations and squirrelled them away while reveling in the suffering and deaths of the poor, forced tens of thousands to convert, and once called Bosnian rape victims murderers because they sought abortions.

So who's the real poseur?

You don't like Hitchens' expose? How about researchers at the Universities of Montreal and Ottowa?:

Mother Teresa: anything but a saint...

The myth of altruism and generosity surrounding Mother Teresa is dispelled in a paper by Serge Larivée and Genevieve Chenard of University of Montreal's Department of Psychoeducation and Carole Sénéchal of the University of Ottawa's Faculty of Education. The paper will be published in the March issue of the journal Studies in Religion/Sciences religieuses and is an analysis of the published writings about Mother Teresa. Like the journalist and author Christopher Hitchens, who is amply quoted in their analysis, the researchers conclude that her hallowed image—which does not stand up to analysis of the facts—was constructed, and that her beatification was orchestrated by an effective media relations campaign.

“While looking for documentation on the phenomenon of altruism for a seminar on ethics, one of us stumbled upon the life and work of one of Catholic Church's most celebrated woman and now part of our collective imagination—Mother Teresa—whose real name was Agnes Gonxha,” says Professor Larivée, who led the research. “The description was so ecstatic that it piqued our curiosity and pushed us to research further."

As a result, the three researchers collected 502 documents on the life and work of Mother Teresa. After eliminating 195 duplicates, they consulted 287 documents to conduct their analysis, representing 96% of the literature on the founder of the Order of the Missionaries of Charity (OMC).



Facts debunk the myth of Mother Teresa

In their article, Serge Larivée and his colleagues also cite a number of problems not take into account by the Vatican in Mother Teresa's beatification process, such as "her rather dubious way of caring for the sick, her questionable political contacts, her suspicious management of the enormous sums of money she received, and her overly dogmatic views regarding, in particular, abortion, contraception, and divorce."



The sick must suffer like Christ on the cross

At the time of her death, Mother Teresa had opened 517 missions welcoming the poor and sick in more than 100 countries. The missions have been described as "homes for the dying" by doctors visiting several of these establishments in Calcutta. Two-thirds of the people coming to these missions hoped to a find a doctor to treat them, while the other third lay dying without receiving appropriate care. The doctors observed a significant lack of hygiene, even unfit conditions, as well as a shortage of actual care, inadequate food, and no painkillers. The problem is not a lack of money—the Foundation created by Mother Teresa has raised hundreds of millions of dollars—but rather a particular conception of suffering and death: “There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ's Passion. The world gains much from their suffering," was her reply to criticism, cites the journalist Christopher Hitchens. Nevertheless, when Mother Teresa required palliative care, she received it in a modern American hospital.



Questionable politics and shadowy accounting

Mother Teresa was generous with her prayers but rather miserly with her foundation's millions when it came to humanity's suffering. During numerous floods in India or following the explosion of a pesticide plant in Bhopal, she offered numerous prayers and medallions of the Virgin Mary but no direct or monetary aid. On the other hand, she had no qualms about accepting the Legion of Honour and a grant from the Duvalier dictatorship in Haiti. Millions of dollars were transferred to the MCO's various bank accounts, but most of the accounts were kept secret, Larivée says. “Given the parsimonious management of Mother Theresa's works, one may ask where the millions of dollars for the poorest of the poor have gone?”



The grand media plan for holiness

Despite these disturbing facts, how did Mother Teresa succeed in building an image of holiness and infinite goodness? According to the three researchers, her meeting in London in 1968 with the BBC's Malcom Muggeridge, an anti-abortion journalist who shared her right-wing Catholic values, was crucial. Muggeridge decided to promote Teresa, who consequently discovered the power of mass media. In 1969, he made a eulogistic film of the missionary, promoting her by attributing to her the “first photographic miracle," when it should have been attributed to the new film stock being marketed by Kodak. Afterwards, Mother Teresa travelled throughout the world and received numerous awards, including the Nobel Peace Prize. In her acceptance speech, on the subject of Bosnian women who were raped by Serbs and now sought abortion, she said: “I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a direct war, a direct killing—direct murder by the mother herself.”

Following her death, the Vatican decided to waive the usual five-year waiting period to open the beatification process. The miracle attributed to Mother Theresa was the healing of a woman, Monica Besra, who had been suffering from intense abdominal pain. The woman testified that she was cured after a medallion blessed by Mother Theresa was placed on her abdomen. Her doctors thought otherwise: the ovarian cyst and the tuberculosis from which she suffered were healed by the drugs they had given her. The Vatican, nevertheless, concluded that it was a miracle. Mother Teresa's popularity was such that she had become untouchable for the population, which had already declared her a saint. “What could be better than beatification followed by canonization of this model to revitalize the Church and inspire the faithful especially at a time when churches are empty and the Roman authority is in decline?” Larivée and his colleagues ask.

http://nouvelles.umontreal.ca/en/article/2013/03/01/mother-teresa-anything-but-a-saint/


What a despicable human being.

And your church made her a saint.

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
48. An interesting straw construction on your part.
Mon Apr 3, 2017, 03:16 PM
Apr 2017

What you created as my argument:

The woman you hold up as a symbol of all that is good and pure was a vile, sadistic fraud who took millions in donations and squirrelled them away while reveling in the suffering and deaths of the poor, forced tens of thousands to convert, and once called Bosnian rape victims murderers because they sought abortions.


I said nothing like that. Anyone who is following this thread can see that I said nothing like that.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
51. Assume I was referring to the collective 'you' as in the Church and defenders of Teresa in general.
Mon Apr 3, 2017, 03:23 PM
Apr 2017

Last edited Mon Apr 3, 2017, 04:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Anything to say now about 'saint' Teresa or are you going to continue to deflect?

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
58. But you actually directed your comment to me, not to these
Mon Apr 3, 2017, 05:51 PM
Apr 2017

defenders of Teresa or the RCC. So who exactly is deflecting here?

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
59. Hold on - aren't you defending her from her critics?
Mon Apr 3, 2017, 06:21 PM
Apr 2017

Who posted this after reading more than one article documenting Teresa's neglect and abuse?:

Calling Mother Theresa responsible for the suffering is nonsense.


***


So who exactly is deflecting here?


That would be you, I've stayed on point in every post while you were busy deploying bat squirrels to distract people from scathing reports about Teresa.

Are you done yet?

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
60. These people are suffering because they are treated as worthless
Mon Apr 3, 2017, 08:30 PM
Apr 2017

by society. Mother Theresa did not cause the suffering, she did not set up a social order that causes some people to be seen as worthless. Could she have done more? Yes.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
61. They suffered because Teresa treated them like they were worthless.
Mon Apr 3, 2017, 09:00 PM
Apr 2017

She CAUSED their suffering by withholding medical treatment, by hoarding millions donated for their care, by forcibly converting them and by using them to further her own agenda.

When you further victimize women who were raped by calling them murderers you're causing suffering.

When you have access to clean needles and use dirty ones you're causing suffering.

When you have millions and don't use it to properly care for your patients you're causing suffering.

When you violate vulnerable people's religious rights you're causing suffering.

When you withhold pain medicine from dying patients who are begging you for help you're causing suffering.

If she neglected and abused American patients the way she neglected and abused poor Indians she would have been imprisoned, not declared a saint and held up as a symbol of mercy.

Act_of_Reparation

(9,116 posts)
62. Don't forget about the "medical" staff.
Mon Apr 3, 2017, 10:19 PM
Apr 2017

There were no doctors, and the nuns were hardly trained in medicine. They were so ill equipped they could not distinguish potentially survivable conditions from the fatal. How many people who might otherwise have recovered if given access to actual doctors received the same regimen as the dying? It turns my stomach.

And yet some will insist this hospice -- one that if operating in the United States would be shut down in a heartbeat -- is "better than nothing". Which is a load of bullshit, because it practically is nothing. One could actually make the case that Mother Teresa, through careful cultivation of a patently dishonest popular image, monopolized donations that would have been better spent on medical charities with the foresight to, you know, hire some fucking doctors.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
63. It's not like those nasty old atheists are the only ones who criticized Teresa.
Mon Apr 3, 2017, 10:29 PM
Apr 2017

Doctors, journalists, aid workers, Indian authorities - they all decried the horrific conditions and treatment of patients in her facilities.

And yet Teresa - a woman guilty of criminal neglect is somehow the victim in all of this?

What about her victims?

This reminds me of the debate about the nuns at Tuam all over again. Some people will defend any kind of morally reprehensible behaviour because hey, no one else wanted those poor wretches. They should be grateful anyone bothered to pay attention to them at all. So what if they died from neglect and the Church profited?

Act_of_Reparation

(9,116 posts)
64. Even former members of her order have spoken up about her negligence.
Mon Apr 3, 2017, 10:37 PM
Apr 2017

Not just negligence of her "patients", but negligence of the order's treatment of its nuns.

sharedvalues

(6,916 posts)
20. Ayn Rand is a terrible writer and a feeble-minded philosopher
Sun Apr 2, 2017, 08:10 PM
Apr 2017

Someone should give all of Ryan's staff a copy of Piketty.

Permanut

(5,610 posts)
29. Seems like the thumpers would go by their own book..
Sun Apr 2, 2017, 09:39 PM
Apr 2017

Like, say, the parable of the good Samaritan, which considers the question "Who is my neighbor?".

VMA131Marine

(4,139 posts)
30. I read the whole article....
Sun Apr 2, 2017, 09:40 PM
Apr 2017

your post is a complete mischaraterisation of the author's message.

The author specifically argues that the term 'the least of these' refers to Jesus' disciples, not the poor and sick. But that the New Testament is rife with other examples calling Christians to care for the poor so that one quote is not an 'out' to ignore them.

Act_of_Reparation

(9,116 posts)
40. Jesus implored his followers to give their possessions away.
Mon Apr 3, 2017, 09:18 AM
Apr 2017

Not because other people needed this shit more, but because one could not wholly devote themselves to gawd while pursuing material comforts.

But really, now. Liberal Christians and conservative Christians arguing about their respective imaginary friends... why split hairs?

unblock

(52,250 posts)
52. imho, the point of any decent religion is to encourage socially helpful behavior
Mon Apr 3, 2017, 03:31 PM
Apr 2017

most obviously, "caring for the hungry, thirsty, homeless, naked, sick, and imprisoned".

abandon societal obligations, or preach that somehow societal obligations are best met by acting selfishly, and you've lost whatever respect your religious views might have earned.


i'll respect other people's religious views if that's how they find their way to ethical behavior.
i don't see the point in respecting religious views that lead people to unethical behavior.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Ha - Right-wing website a...