posted
I didn't hear the term until a year ago. And even then it wasn't used as a deragatory word, but in the title of book someone reccomended to me.
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Penn & Teller have a show called "Bulls**t!" On it, they devote each week to debunking something. In the past it's been the purity of bottled water, the effectiveness of alternative medicines, whether or not recycling actually helps the environment, etc. They are sworn enemies of anything that smells like a scam, in the tradition of Uri Gellar and Harry Houdini. I love their show.
I haven't seen any of this season -- don't have Showtime -- but I have the last two on DVD. And the onloy one they've done that's made me uncomfortable is "The Bible: Fact or Fiction." They ripped on Christianity, in such a way that I felt awkward watchng it, and I am in no way a Christian. Had they focused on laws being based solely on dogma, or harm committed under the guise of religion, I'd have had no problem with it, but they seemed intent on disproving the religion itself once and for all.
I have not seen the show referenced here. From what I heard about it, they sought to knock revered religious leaders off their pedestals and show them to be flawed humans. I am willing to bet that there was a mention, possibly more, of the good that each leader did along with the rest. But I'll also bet that they went too far in their own evangelical zeal.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Portabello, because a lot of people are still going on about how she did everythig she could, when in reality she didn't, not even close.
Her foundation raised MILLIONS of dollars a year, but none of that money went to adequate medical care. I think that is something that every person who donated money to her should know and carw about...and that includes me.
I stopped being RC BECAUSE of things like that, that was my point. If she was the ideal RC, someone closest to God, then I have a problem with that.
I think she did an enourmous amount of good as well, but seeing her portrayed as a saint doesn't sit well with me for a number of reasons, that's all.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This sort of language choice and name-calling demonstrates them to be fanatics, on this type of issue, I think. Or at least to have fanatical tendancies.
It's bad when religious people do it, it's bad when anyone does it.
And you have a very curious definition of 'hinder', King of Men. It's technically dictionary-accurate, but somehow I expect you wouldn't be so bothered if someone was trying to 'hinder' a religious person from leaving their church. But people who go to church are brainwashed cows, responsible for most of the bad in the world, I forgot. Hypocrite.
She's allowed to attempt to persuade people to do what she thinks is right, for whatever reason, and she has no moral obligation whatsoever to give her resources, time, and effort to people in a way that conflicts with her most basically held beliefs.
I don't know much about Mother Teresa at all, really, but I think anyone willing to condemn her for not chucking her conscience at the door when she started doing charity work says a lot more about themselves than about her. I also think it's quite possible that she had some unsavory relationships, too. Just because she didn't decide to hook her brain into your own brand of self-righteousness, KoM, does not make her an effing c.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris: Well said. I like their show, and one of the reasons is that, although you have to take what they say with a grain of salt, most of the episodes at least pretend to give you practical information. You watch the show and you'll know better than to waste your money going to psychics, trying to cure your arthritis with magnets, have your house rearranged by fung shuei artists, or donate your money to PETA. That, I think, is why an episode like this seems so incongruous. What do I get in my life from de-bunking the myths of Ghandi and Mother Teresa? This episode, from what I see here, seems to be motivated purely by spite and a percieved sense of superiority. They've had a couple episodes in the past that had a taste of that type of thinking, but this episode seems to have no other motivation or reason for existance.
I'll have to hold judgment until I can see the show for myself, but I'd have thought P&T were above that.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: because a lot of people are still going on about how she did everythig she could, when in reality she didn't, not even close.
Did she ever claim that herself? Why don't you go after the people that claimed that, instead of someone who spent her life in what you consider a less effective type of service?
quote:Her foundation raised MILLIONS of dollars a year, but none of that money went to adequate medical care. I think that is something that every person who donated money to her should know and carw about...and that includes me.
The American Cancer Institute also raises millions each year, and they don't get derided for not giving adequate mecial care to people in India.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Legit, I was wondering if you might consider changing the title? Even with the letters blanked out, every time I read the title my mind fills in the blanks and it feels icky. Very, very icky.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I keep thinking about the Bible story about Mary and Martha. It isn't a perfect comparison, of course. But I keep thinking that maybe she was acting more like Mary and the detractors want her to have acted more like Martha.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the title makes me think about "The Truth" by Terry Pratchet, you know, with the guy who says -----ing every two words. Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, if they were raising money from India, based on the care they claimed to be giving there, then your point would be more relevent, Porter.
I DID blame the people who were claiming that, which is one of many reasons I left the RC church.
I still balme them, which is why I object to them calling her a saint. To the best of my knowledge, she never called herself one... Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kwea, Mother Theresa is not officially a saint. She may be in the process, but she is not a saint. Therefore any people calling Mother Theresa a saint are not official speakers for the Roman Catholic Church. I'm not clear how that can play a role in you leaving the Church.
posted
Well, they certainly might be members of the RCC, but they certainly aren't speaking for the RCC.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The contents of the following have more or less been brought up, but I just wanted to add my two cents:
Don't we want to judge Mother Teresa on her motivations? That is, the state of a person's morality really depends on whether they think their actions are good or bad.
Example: Telling a 14-year-old rape victim to not have an abortion is debatable. But Mother Teresa believed that the girl should have the baby. So when giving that particular advice, Mother Teresa was doing what she(Mother Teresa) believed to be her duty. And more to the point, what she believed was right.
That's why M. Teresa's actions should be considered moral. Whether that was the right advice or not is irrelevant in judging her 'morality'.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I really don't see why people get upset at her for not providing medical care, when there were hundreds of millions of people on earth that also were not providing that care.
The difference is that she had people in her care, had the ability to provide that care, and refused to allow that care, even when nuns in her own order requested to be allowed to give it.
Several nuns that were in her order have come out saying that they asked to be allowed to receive medical training, sometimes at their own expense, and Teresa refused to allow them to get it. In some cases they left the order and got the training elsewhere.
Despite the millions of dollars she raised, her organization always operated on a shoestring budget. She refused to use the money she raised to provide food for the nuns that worked for her, instead requiring them to beg on the street, arguably because it made them more sympathetic to the cause they were working for. But then, where did that money go? When the sisters asked for money for supplies (especially medical supplies) she insisted that the money she had raised didn't belong to them; it was "God's money."
Many of the people she allowed to die could have been treated cheaply with simple antibiotics, but they died not because she failed to treat them, but because she refused to treat them.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: It just seems like getting mad at AA for not doing enough to cure cancer.
No, it's more like getting mad at St. Jude's for raising money to help children with cancer but not actually helping children with cancer.
And I can't believe that anyone who thinks AIDS is a just punishment and sterilization for the poor is a good thing is a potential nominee for sainthood. It's just amazing.
Maybe it's just me.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't agree with the scornful attitude it seems they used, and as I haven't seen it I can't comment on the content of the episode.
I am, however, against the canonization of public figures when it ignores anything negative about their lives or accomplishments. Not because I wish to tear these people down, but because I think that placing them too high on a pedestal makes it that much tougher for others to emulate them. Look, here are the founding fathers. Look, they bickered and fought and argued just as much as our politicians do today. And yet look at what they built, despite that.
I am much more impressed when people with human frailties accomplish great things than when a paragon of virtue and wisdom does so.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this world needs more paragons of virtue and wisdom, and it is often stories of inspiring people that helps us become paragons of virtue and wisdom.
I can't imagine why anyone would purposely seek to soil the image of someone who the world sees as good for spiteful humor. Why on earth should we concern ourselves with digging up dirt on those who inspire and continue to bring good into the world through their legacies? How on earth is that not harmful to humanity?
It's not just a joke. It's degrading. It's insulting the freedom of thought of another human being just because they happened to disagree with you.
What have we learned from the postmodern era? Has highlighting the marginal really brought us any solace? Has rubbing our noses in the excrement of human society inspired any of us to be better? Things do not improve when all you do is publicize the failures and the"dark side" of social efforts. Things improve when people can believe in good and are encouraged by past successes rather than past failures.
Shame on us all for fostering a culture where this kind of "entertainment" is even taken seriously. The fact that we can debate the merits of something that is fundamentally rotten says something about the arena of thoughts that we are willing to entertain. I had hoped that with all that humankind has been through, we could be better than that.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Freedom to disagree is also the freedom to point out flaws of those perceived as saintly. If people can go free of criticism merely because they are seen as good, how shall we have debate?
Moreover, comrade Theresa has become an icon Catholics use for bashing people over the head when the Inquisition is mentioned. "Sure, we burned people alive; but we also had Mother Theresa!" Hence the obvious tactic of pointing out that she wasn't, in fact, very nice.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And you have a very curious definition of 'hinder', King of Men. It's technically dictionary-accurate, but somehow I expect you wouldn't be so bothered if someone was trying to 'hinder' a religious person from leaving their church. But people who go to church are brainwashed cows, responsible for most of the bad in the world, I forgot. Hypocrite.
Denying someone access to medicines causes direct, measurable harm. Denying someone access to a <fill-in-faith> church will actually be good for their souls - ask any <different faith>.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Denying someone access to medicines causes direct, measurable harm.
I hate to be the one saying this, but so can granting access. Think antibiotics, antidepressants, or even (by some viewpoints, even half my own) ADHD medications. That said I do believe in Mother Teresa's case the harm done is much more clear-cut.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Denying someone access to medicines causes direct, measurable harm. Denying someone access to a <fill-in-faith> church will actually be good for their souls - ask any <different faith>.
What if this is specifically not a part of their mission? Also, they are not denying access. They are refusing to pay for it themselves. Quite different, or how much access are you denying the impoverished and ill in your area, KoM?
Once again you demonstrate your own brand of religious thinking.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Annie: I think this world needs more paragons of virtue and wisdom, and it is often stories of inspiring people that helps us become paragons of virtue and wisdom.
This is true, but at the same time, we still should be honest about people's flaws. Perhaps it makes them more, wellrounded. I know I tend to have a thing about characters that are complex and flawed as well as being good.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can't imagine why anyone would purposely seek to soil the image of someone who the world sees as good for spiteful humor. Why on earth should we concern ourselves with digging up dirt on those who inspire and continue to bring good into the world through their legacies? How on earth is that not harmful to humanity?
By letting people see that, yes, you are flawed and imperfect, but so were these people, and look what they accomplished despite it. No, your mistakes and your weaknesses do not mean you are doomed to be less than they, for you can overcome them just as these people did.
Glorifying historical personages into nigh-fictional heroes is a disservice to people living here and now. I have gotten awfully sick of hearing about how divided this country is, how partisan the parties are, and how we need to get back to the way politics used to be. That's because all we have to compare our current leaders to is the bleached and spotless gods in our civics textbooks. Of course we look down on our leaders, they can't match the giants that once walked the earth.
Truth is, there were never giants. There were men and women, and to make them out as paragons does them a disservice by diminishing what they had to overcome, and it does us a disservice by making their accomplishments seem impossible.
I'm not interested in dirtying anyone or hauling out long-dead secrets. But I see no reason to deify humans, either.
(Again, I have not seen the episode in question, I'm speaking generally.)
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
"I can't imagine why anyone would purposely seek to soil the image of someone who the world sees as good for spiteful humor. Why on earth should we concern ourselves with digging up dirt on those who inspire and continue to bring good into the world through their legacies? How on earth is that not harmful to humanity?"
well, our society has a VERY STRONG habit as a whole, as a community of consumers, to build up an d tear down the egos of individuals.
common practice.
some might call it demystification (sp?), which is generally regarded as a "good" thing.
"What have we learned from the postmodern era? Has highlighting the marginal really brought us any solace? Has rubbing our noses in the excrement of human society inspired any of us to be better? Things do not improve when all you do is publicize the failures and the"dark side" of social efforts. Things improve when people can believe in good and are encouraged by past successes rather than past failures."
I think the pomo aspect was a little under-explored, but on the whole, I'm in happy agreement with this statement.
Posts: 551 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I can't imagine why anyone would purposely seek to soil the image of someone who the world sees as good for spiteful humor. Why on earth should we concern ourselves with digging up dirt on those who inspire and continue to bring good into the world through their legacies? How on earth is that not harmful to humanity?
What I can't understand is just what Teresa did that was good. What did she do? She supposedly ministered to the sick. But she didn't treat their sickness. So exactly what did she do?
Somebody answer this please.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glenn, if you don't know, I think no one can explain it to you.
Synesthesia said there's nothing beautiful about being poor... which is a markedly aristocratic statement. Mother Teresa saw the poor as beautiful and helped them as she knew how. She went to war directly against the social order and custom of one of the largest and most prosperous nations on earth, just to show the poor that, to Someone, they *were* beautiful.
Mother Teresa's mission was about the hearts of the poor, not as much their health.
<tom hanks> and that's all I have to say about that... </forrest gump>
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying the poor are not beautiful... But, poverty in itself is an ugly, horrible thing. It's heartbreaking... But, at least she tried to help, which is why she doesn't deserve to be called names.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glen -- A major focus of Mother Theresa’s work was with people who were dying, particularly those who were homeless, and helping them to “die with dignity.” A comparison to the hospice movement in this country would not be inappropriate.
The hospice movement has also been criticized for not providing (and sometimes not allowing) aggressive treatment. Hospice provides excellent care for people who are dying, but makes no effort to delay/prevent death. The controversy comes when there are patients who aren’t necessarily dying, or might not if given different care.
The issue is heightened, in the case of Mother Theresa, by the fact that often there was no other option available. Nobody was providing medical services to the people she worked with, and the services she was providing may not have been the most appropriate services for everyone who came to her, but they were the only services available.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm pretty familiar with the Hospice movement. My mother worked in hospice for quite a while after my father died of cancer.
Hospice in the U.S. coordinates with doctors to make the process of dying as painless and peaceful as possible. A major point of hospice is to put control of decision making in the hands of the patient, so for example, the patient can decide that they don't want to fight the disease anymore, and hospice helps advocate for the patient to prevent doctors from continuing to encourage aggressive treatment. In the meantime, the patient's symptoms (especially pain) are treated in order to make the process as comfortable as possible. In any case, the decision lies with the patient.
The "Jesus is kissing you" quote comes from a situation where a man in Teresa's care was in terrible pain and was screaming for pain medicine. Teresa told him that the pain was "Jesus kissing you," and the man responded "then make him stop." Pain medication was available, and the man knew it, but Teresa refused it to him. This type of situation was apparently fairly common.
I disagree that Teresa was limited by the fact that there was no other option available. Teresa raised literally millions of dollars a year, but refused to use them in her mission. Where that money went can't be documented, but it's assumed that it went to the vatican for other purposes.
I don't disagree that she truly intended to do good things. But I still have not heard an example of what she actually did that I can call good. I think she was a woman with a twisted perspective who basically held the hands of dying hindus and told them that Jesus loved them. I can understand how some people can find that comforting, but it holds no water for me.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
She provided beds and food, as well as holding hands.
I remembered that you were familiar with hospice, which is why I used it as a comparison. I'm not saying that what she was providing was hospice care as we have it, but I do think there is a parallel.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would find Mother Theresa less hypocritical if she had recieved the exact same medical treatment as she offered the people under her care. But, as it happens, she used money given to her for the care of the poor to buy herself the best medical treatment money could buy. She said that money given to her was money given to help the poor, but never mentioned that it not to give food and medicine to the poor. People repeatedly offered to give medical supplies to Mother Theresa at discounted prices or to simply give them to her, but she always turned them down because she didn't believe in giving medicine to the poor. She believed that what was beautiful in poverty was the impoverished person's suffering, which brought them closer to Christ. Relieving a person's suffering or healing them was not a desireable goal from her perspective because it made them more christ-like.
However, she relieved her own suffering promptly no matter how many times she said she envied the poor their suffering.
This is hypocrasy. It is also cruelty.
I don't see anything saintly or beautiful in it. I don't find this belief or behavior praiseworthy.
Posts: 1751 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can shed a little light on penn & teller's swearing and name-calling. I haven't seen this particular episode of BS, and don't have any evidence about Mother Theresa's activities.
On the first episode of BS they explain why they use horrible swearwords to describe people on the show. The gist of it is, if they called someone a "fraud" or a "liar" they could be sued for slander unless they can legally prove the person lied or defrauded something. If they call someone an a__hole or a b___h, that's their opinion and they can't be sued for slander. Or something like that, it was a while ago that I saw it and I'm not a lawyer. This probably has less need when the person in question is deceased, but it's the standard policy for the show. And yes, swearing more adds controversy and ratings.
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: The gist of it is, if they called someone a "fraud" or a "liar" they could be sued for slander unless they can legally prove the person lied or defrauded something.
Perhaps... just perhaps... there are reasons for this?
Personally, I think "hypocrisy" is a bunch of people sitting comfortably in their homes chatting on the internet in judgement of someone who dedicated her entire life to helping a class of people that an entire nation refused to *touch* lest it poison their body and soul. Have you forgotten what the caste system was like? Have you forgotten that these people were lying in the street, dying alone, before then-Sister Teresa came and began offering them food, shelter, and companionship? How many outcasts have *you* rescued from the "Black Hole of Calcutta", KoM? How many people have you found on the street, dying alone and abandoned and offered to hold their hand for the end, Glenn?
I have been a fan of Penn and Teller, but how many Lepers have they embraced?
As you measure it to others, so it shall be measured unto you.
Could she have done more? sure... could you?
She gave herself medical care and didn't give it to them? Don't you give yourself medical care? Do you give it to them?
Would you handle things differently if you were in charge? Then shut up and do it. She was nobody, with no resources, when she went up against the socio-political and religious structure of the third largest nation on earth. Since you know so much about how it should have been done, why don't you do it yourselves? Just leave your life behind, pack up and move to the poorest spot you can find and start helping. I mean it's easy, right?
And we're talking about allegations that didn't even surface until a year after her death as if they are given facts.
Can you people not hear yourselves?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
I donated a LOT of money to her when I was younger, and ran fundraisers for her through the church I was raised in.
I was also a medic who donated his services to the Red Cross, free of charge, on more than one occasion.
I am a Mason, and the Masons raise hundreds of millions of dollars every single year, completely free of government monies and charity, to provide medical services to children worldwide, COMPLETELY FREE OF CHARGE. As a matter of fact they are one of the largest private charities in the world.
So don't stand there and tell me I have no right to question what happened over there. You don't know me, and you have no idea what I have or have no done for others within my own lifetime.
I didn't say she was a bad person . . but if she was a saint, then I am glad I am not. I would not turn down free medical services that would help people under my own care because I thought their suffering brought them closer to god.
quote:And we're talking about allegations that didn't even surface until a year after her death as if they are given facts.
Bullsh*t. I heard about these things 10 years ago.She even admitted some of them in interviews.
quote:She was nobody, with no resources, when she went up against the socio-political and religious structure of the third largest nation on earth.
If you want I can make a link to pages listing how many millions she raised each year, and then we can discuss your definition of "no resources" .
I don't agree that she did NO good, but I think her stance on a lot of things were just plain wrong, and I think that those stances must be considered when evaluating the quality of care she gave these people.
I personally know doctors who offered their help to her organization who were told not to come, as they would not be allowed to care for the poor within their doors. That isn't charity, it is disgusting. I worked with people in the US Army who went over there and worked for other organizations, because those organizations were willing (and desperate for) to allow them to help.
I don't think (perhaps I am wrong here) that I took issue with anything you said. You freely admitted she did a lot of good, and insisted that she could have done more. I don't have a beef with that.
As you say, you never said she was a bad person. There are those on this thread who insist that she *is* a bad person because she didn't do more, that Penn and Teller are only guilty of poor manners in their "expose", and it is to those people that my comments were addressed.
Sorry, if I caught you in the shotgun blast.
edit: about resources, she did not have those millions when she started her crusade. For hearing about it ten years ago... I'll retract my statement-- it was based on the link Kayla put up which identified it's content as coming from an article posted a year after her death.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am sorry if I over reacted as well, I see you points, and even agree with a lot of them.
I understand her mission, as she saw it, was to provide comfort to the dying. My problem is more with the way the church presented it to the parishoners, in order to raise more money. I felt like they had lied to us about what was going on over there . . or at least mislead us about it.
I also think that there are a lot of cultural issues over there that we probably have little or no understand of here in the USA, and that makes it hard for us to understand why these people needed this type of help to die. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would turn down freely offered medical supplies and care if they really cared about their "patients".
I know others here came on strong as well, but I had heard a lot of those points before, usually yelled at me when I began questioning things I had heard, so I probably reacted too strong to your post because of that, rather than your actual points.
Sorry about that.
I know she started off with nothing, which is why I said she DID do a lot of good. She spent her whole life trying to help others, as she saw fit.
I like Penn and Teller, a lot, but this was a bit too far, even for shock humor. Not that they don't have the right to say what they want, or that they didn't raise good points, but still...
Also, she didn't spend any money on herself on medical care, the Vatican ordered her to accept care that they paid for, and as a nun she was bound to obey their order. It wasn't her choice, IIRC.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
