Christopher Hitchens: Mother Teresa of Calcutta

[Cryptic]

If you are too damned lazy to read the thread, that is your choice.

I did not see a reference to Mother Theresa's medical care in your link. Though I never thought I would use inter net slang, the best answer to your claim is.... LOL.

 

[Realitywins]

I did not see a reference to Mother Theresa's medical care in your link. Though I never thought I would use inter net slang, the best answer to your claim is.... LOL.

Sigh...https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/mother-teresa-was-kind-of-a-heartless-bitch

 

[Cryptic]

Sigh...https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/mother-teresa-was-kind-of-a-heartless-bitch

Thanks. Got to love the title "Heartless bitch?- no chance of an objectivity issue there- right? Even still, biased (and rantingly so) does not always mean "in accurate".

Some clarification for the Scripps visit. Unlike Slate's rant, Mother Theresa did not "flee to California" for medical treatment.

- Mother Theresa was in Tijuana, Mexico when at the age of 81, she suffered a heart condition.
- She apparently had been willing to die in Tijuana, but changed her mind regarding treatment.
- Her volunteer doctor that accompanied her was from Coronado, California and when not accompanying MT, was a doctor at Scripps.
- It was then arranged for MT to be brought to Scripps and treated.

So, while Mother Theresa was, in fact, treated at Scripps (on one occasion at the age of 81), Slate forgot some of the facts. Imagine that.

 

[Realitywins]

Thanks. Got to love the title "Heartless bitch?- no chance of an objectivity issue there- right? Even still, biased (and rantingly so) does not always mean "in accurate".

Some clarification for the Scripps visit. Unlike Slate's rant, Mother Theresa did not "flee to California" for medical treatment.

- Mother Theresa was in Tijuana, Mexico when at the age of 81, she suffered a heart condition.
- She apparently had been willing to die in Tijuana, but changed her mind regarding treatment.
- Her volunteer doctor that accompanied her was from Coronado, California and when not accompanying MT, was a doctor at Scripps.
- It was then arranged for MT to be brought to Scripps and treated.

So, while Mother Theresa was, in fact, treated at Scripps (on one occasion at the age of 81), Slate forgot some of the facts. Imagine that.

Uh huh. So she had her personal doc who traveled with her eh? I am sure she got much better treatment in much better facilities than anyone in any of her "care centres" and I bet she didn't have to re-use needles either. Bitch is likely too kind an epithet.

 

[Cryptic]

Uh huh. So she had her personal doc who traveled with her eh? I am sure she got much better treatment in much better facilities than anyone in any of her "care centres" and I bet she didn't have to re-use needles either. Bitch is likely too kind an epithet.

I have a preference that Mother Teresa would have been treated 20 miles south in Tijuana. Her being accompanied by a volunteer doctor does not bother me. I also have preferences that:

- Thomas Jefferson and George Washington not owned slaves.
- Gandhi not of been racist

All three of these men, and Mother Theresa had short coming. All four of them accomplished far more than me in service to their fellow humans. The Indians gave Mother Theresa a state funeral. My guess is that they knew mor about her activities in India than Slate does. I"ll defer to the Indians.

 

[Celebrity]

I have a preference that Mother Teresa would have been treated 20 miles south in Tijuana. Her being accompanied by a volunteer doctor does not bother me. I also have preferences that:

- Thomas Jefferson and George Washington not owned slaves.
- Gandhi not of been racist

All three of these men, and Mother Theresa had short coming. All four of them accomplished far more than me in service to their fellow humans. The Indians gave Mother Theresa a state funeral. My guess is that they knew mor about her activities in India than Slate does. I"ll defer to the Indians.

Gandhi also allegedly molested children. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington owned slaves because it was custom.

 

[Cryptic]

Gandhi also allegedly molested children. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington owned slaves because it was custom.

I disagree about Jefferson and Washington. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington owned slaves because they wanted to. Both men actively purchased slaves. They were not say, inherited. Likewise, it was never customary in regards to the social norms of most of the population to own slaves.

I had heard of Gandhi's molestation accusations, but was hesitant to add them as I don't think these accusations have been established. His racism has been.

 

[Realitywins]

I have a preference that Mother Teresa would have been treated 20 miles south in Tijuana. Her being accompanied by a volunteer doctor does not bother me. I also have preferences that:

- Thomas Jefferson and George Washington not owned slaves.
- Gandhi not of been racist

All three of these men, and Mother Theresa had short coming. All four of them accomplished far more than me in service to their fellow humans. The Indians gave Mother Theresa a state funeral. My guess is that they knew mor about her activities in India than Slate does. I"ll defer to the Indians.

For all it's squalor and corruption, Mexico has excellent medical facilities, for those who can afford them. Clearly she could because she spent damn little on her "charities". I fail to see how the foibles of the other folks have any bearing on the Bitch of Calcutta. The fact the Indian Government treated with her merely emphasizes the corruption if that government.

 

[Celebrity]

I disagree about Jefferson and Washington. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington owned slaves because they wanted to. Both men actively purchased slaves. They were not say, inherited. Likewise, it was never customary in regards to the social norms of most of the population to own slaves.

I had heard of Gandhi's molestation accusations, but was hesitant to add them as I don't think these accusations have been established. His racism has been.

I know that, and I'm sure they thought they were being economical and/or "one of the good old guys." The economic and political culture was tolerant enough of slavery such that the emancipation proclamation was necessary. I think it may have been the first of its kind.
Instead of taking people into bondage and caring for them (as some slave owners ostensibly did), Mother Teresa gave her patients the bare minimum of care and released them into the world. At face value, it seems like that's better than nothing, and I guess we're just going to go with that now that she's been canonized.

 

[Cryptic]

The fact the Indian Government treated with her merely emphasizes the corruption if that government.

Sure, corruption exists in India. They have also been a functioning democracy for several generations now. The fact that corruption exists in India did not lead the Indian government to give an immigrant woman from a very small religous minority group a state funeral. Rather, the Indians are simply more familiar with things pertaining to Indian than the Slaters are.

For all it's squalor and corruption, Mexico has excellent medical facilities,

You are not that familiar with developing countries are you? I have travelled through and worked in a few. Yes, poverty exists in Mexico. By developing country standards, Mexico is wealthy. "All its squalor" is no more an accurate description of Mexico than the contention that "corruption" led the Indians to give a state funeral to Mother Theresa.

 

[Cryptic]

Instead of taking people into bondage and caring for them (as some slave owners ostensibly did), Mother Teresa gave her patients the bare minimum of care and released them into the world.

Commericial slave trading is now described as "taking people into bondage and caring for them"?

Although I am sympathetic to the Confederate political position myself, no, that is not a good way to describe slavery. By extension, being "cared for" did not make the slaves "happy".

So far, we have seen one argument that the democratic Indian government is so corrupt that it gives state funerals out of corruption and another argument that slavery is a form of "caring for people". Both these arguments are made in connection to Mother Theresa. That tells a lot.

 

[SMTA]

I think it's a tragedy to misuse resources to fight against family planning. Most of this was before my time.

Then why are you posting his worthless crap here?

 

[Celebrity]

Commericial slave trading is now described as "taking people into bondage and caring for them"?

Although I am sympathetic to the Confederate political position myself, no, that is not a good way to describe slavery. By extension, being "cared for" did not make the slaves "happy".

So far, we have seen one argument that the democratic Indian government is so corrupt that it gives state funerals out of corruption and another argument that slavery is a form of "caring for people". Both these arguments are made in connection to Mother Theresa. That tells a lot.

No, I didn't say that it made the slaves happy. I compared a long term arrangement with some synergy to a short term arrangement with an ideologue who was not qualified to medically treat some of her patients.

 

[Realitywins]

Sure, corruption exists in India. They have also been a functioning democracy for several generations now. The fact that corruption exists in India did not lead the Indian government to give an immigrant woman from a very small religous minority group a state funeral. Rather, the Indians are simply more familiar with things pertaining to Indian than the Slaters are.

You are not that familiar with developing countries are you? I have travelled through and worked in a few. Yes, poverty exists in Mexico. By developing country standards, Mexico is wealthy. "All its squalor" is no more an accurate description of Mexico than the contention that "corruption" led the Indians to give a state funeral to Mother Theresa.

Hav it your way. :roll:

 

[Cryptic]

No, I didn't say that it made the slaves happy. I compared a long term arrangement with some synergy to a short term arrangement with an ideologue who was not qualified to medically treat some of her patients.

I added the "happy slaves" point by extension of your argument. Face it, commercial slave ownership was not a means of "caring for people". Rather, it was a means of economic enrichment.

I agree, she was not. A certain number of people in Calcutta were not getting any kind of treatment whether it was from a qualified person or an non qualified person. As Theresa was not say, performing cardiac surgeries without a license, most of her what, "victims" were probably not that harmed by the fact that she was not medically trained.

Sure, Mother Theresa could have done better in the areas of efficiency, cost benefit analysis, and financial transparency (unsolicited donations that she did not have the infrastructure to use were passed on to the Vatican). Even despite all these shortcomings, she accomplished far more in the service of humanity than I have, or intend to.

 

[Realitywins]

I added the "happy slaves" point by extension of your argument. Face it, commercial slave ownership was not a means of "caring for people". Rather, it was a means of economic enrichment.

I agree, she was not. A certain number of people in Calcutta were not getting any kind of treatment whether it was from a qualified person or an non qualified person. As Theresa was not say, performing cardiac surgeries without a license, most of her what, "victims" were probably not that harmed by the fact that she was not medically trained.

Sure, Mother Theresa could have done better in the areas of efficiency, cost benefit analysis, and financial transparency (unsolicited donations that she did not have the infrastructure to use were passed on to the Vatican). Even despite all these shortcomings, she accomplished far more in the service of humanity than I have, or intend to.

She also caused more pain an suffering than you or I have...well, than I have at least.

 

[Celebrity]

I added the "happy slaves" point by extension of your argument. Face it, commercial slave ownership was not a means of "caring for people". Rather, it was a means of economic enrichment.

I agree, she was not. A certain number of people in Calcutta were not getting any kind of treatment whether it was from a qualified person or an non qualified person. As Theresa was not say, performing cardiac surgeries without a license, most of her what, "victims" were probably not that harmed by the fact that she was not medically trained.

Sure, Mother Theresa could have done better in the areas of efficiency, cost benefit analysis, and financial transparency (unsolicited donations that she did not have the infrastructure to use were passed on to the Vatican). Even despite all these shortcomings, she accomplished far more in the service of humanity than I have, or intend to.

Ok, but that's not an extension of my argument. Room and board constitute care, even if abuses exist. Prior to the 13th amendment and the emancipation proclamation, slavery was seen as a legitimate business endeavor.

I would argue that the abuses of slavers continued over a longer period of time than the health risks which existed at clinics run by Mother Theresa. The abuses of slavers were more frequent, yet also more local to certain regions. If you audit Mother Theresa for long enough, you're bound to find something objectionable, and slave owners are not saints. I would prefer that the poor be treated by doctors without borders, or something of that nature. Given the current political climate, demagogues are endangering those programs. Why aren't doctors without borders canonized, if they are Catholic? Mother Theresa did it big, and it's no surprise that there is some criticism of her methodology. I know she's not a slave owner.

 

[jmotivator]

When people ask me why I stopped being a progressive in the mid 90s I can say that one of the first realizations of the inhumanity of the progressive movement was the simultaneous deifying of Margaret Sanger and the demonization of Mother Theresa. Any movement that does that is morally broken.

As for Hitchens, I would no more cheer the man than I would cheer for the flu. Both have, on occasion, made people I don't like miserable... but that doesn't erase the harm to everyone else.

 

[Realitywins]

When people ask me why I stopped being a progressive in the mid 90s I can say that one of the first realizations of the inhumanity of the progressive movement was the simultaneous deifying of Margaret Sanger and the demonization of Mother Theresa. Any movement that does that is morally broken.

As for Hitchens, I would no more cheer the man than I would cheer for the flu. Both have, on occasion, made people I don't like miserable... but that doesn't erase the harm to everyone else.

Margaret Sanger saved many lives and made many lives easier and even happier. MT was a first class sadist who got her goodies watching and making people suffer. That such a person should be celebrated by the RCC merely extends the universal hatred that church has demonstrated it's entire existence for people overall.

 

[Realitywins]

The evidence continues to mount:

"Bottom line: Mother Teresa was no saint, instead she was a moral monster, and a sadistic religious fanatic."

Sadistic Religious Fanatic: Mother Teresa Was No Saint

"When the International Health Organization honored Teresa in 1989, she spoke at length against abortion and contraception and called AIDS a “just retribution for improper sexual conduct”.

Shattering the Myth of Mother Teresa ? Daylight Atheism

Yes, a fine and thoughtful woman, dedicated to promoting ignorance, hatred and pain.

 

[Harshaw]

The evidence continues to mount:

"Bottom line: Mother Teresa was no saint, instead she was a moral monster, and a sadistic religious fanatic."

Sadistic Religious Fanatic: Mother Teresa Was No Saint

"When the International Health Organization honored Teresa in 1989, she spoke at length against abortion and contraception and called AIDS a “just retribution for improper sexual conduct”.

Shattering the Myth of Mother Teresa ? Daylight Atheism

Yes, a fine and thoughtful woman, dedicated to promoting ignorance, hatred and pain.

Why do some people have a congenital need to absolutely and thoroughly savage anyone who has a distinctly different point of view from theirs?

It's not enough for them to say "I disagree with X on points 1, 2, and 3, and think they're wrong." No, they have to be THE EPITOME OF ALL THAT IS EVIL. They have to be A TERRIBLE ROTTEN PERSON WHO KICKS PUPPIES AND EATS BABIES. And NOTHING they do can possibly be seen as virtuous in any respect. No. TOTAL EVIL. Their clothes are ugly. Their children are ugly. Any work product of theirs is terrible, even if it's completely unrelated to what you disagree with them about. (Examples: Chick-Fil-A's chicken; Papa John's pizza.)

YOU call religion the "worst scourge, the foulest plague to ever beset mankind." Seriously, with this need of yours to hate the religious, to destroy and disparage them in any way you can -- and it's pretty plain that's what motivating you here -- what makes YOU any better?

 

[Realitywins]

Why do some people have a congenital need to absolutely and thoroughly savage anyone who has a distinctly different point of view from theirs?

It's not enough for them to say "I disagree with X on points 1, 2, and 3, and think they're wrong." No, they have to be THE EPITOME OF ALL THAT IS EVIL. They have to be A TERRIBLE ROTTEN PERSON WHO KICKS PUPPIES AND EATS BABIES. And NOTHING they do can possibly be seen as virtuous in any respect. No. TOTAL EVIL. Their clothes are ugly. Their children are ugly. Any work product of theirs is terrible, even if it's completely unrelated to what you disagree with them about. (Examples: Chick-Fil-A's chicken; Papa John's pizza.)

YOU call religion the "worst scourge, the foulest plague to ever beset mankind." Seriously, with this need of yours to hate the religious, to destroy and disparage them in any way you can -- and it's pretty plain that's what motivating you here -- what makes YOU any better?

Oh thanks for that. I was unaware MT kicked puppies and ate babies, but I can believe it. Got a link for that?

 

[Tigerace117]

Oh thanks for that. I was unaware MT kicked puppies and ate babies, but I can believe it. Got a link for that?

Unsuprisingly, you completely and totally miss the point.

 

[Harshaw]

Oh thanks for that. I was unaware MT kicked puppies and ate babies, but I can believe it. Got a link for that?

If I did, it would be about as legit as the links you've been posting.

But then, I don't have any need to make people I disagree with into absolute monsters.

 

[Harshaw]

Unsuprisingly, you completely and totally miss the point.

Willfully so, unquestionably.