Mother Teresa made a saint

[Angry Floof]

Saw the best headline about this, but as soon as I shared it on facebook, the article link disappeared from its site. The headline was "Quackpot fundamentalist and friend of dictators finally canonized by paedophiles."

Perfect.

 

[DBT]

How so? The reports I've seen suggest that she filled a gap. Taking in those who would otherwise have been left in the gutter.

What? The gap that needed filling of "taking in huge donation but not using for what it was donated"? (Most of the money went directly into the catolic church, not into her projects). The gap that needed filling of letting poor people die in pain? (She refused them pain killers because dying in pain was the highest of good in her twisted mind)

I'm not defending the woman's religion, beliefs or methodology. I'm pointing out that not everything is always black and white. If you've been to India, seen the conditions that some of poorest are living under, you'd realize that even offering shelter and a bed is a net gain in comfort.

I spent some time in India during the mid 80's and people spoke well of her then in spite of her many failings. Just for the reason that she took in people that, apparently, nobody else would touch at that time and place.

 

[Juma]

What? The gap that needed filling of "taking in huge donation but not using for what it was donated"? (Most of the money went directly into the catolic church, not into her projects). The gap that needed filling of letting poor people die in pain? (She refused them pain killers because dying in pain was the highest of good in her twisted mind)

I'm not defending the woman's religion, beliefs or methodology. I'm pointing out that not everything is always black and white. If you've been to India, seen the conditions that some of poorest are living under, you'd realize that even offering shelter and a bed is a net gain in comfort.

I spent some time in India during the mid 80's and people spoke well of her then in spite of her many failings. Just for the reason that she took in people that, apparently, nobody else would touch at that time and place.

she did not take care of them. She forced them to suffer for the christian god. She didnt heal the those that could be healed.

A sane person could have done a lot of good for that enormous resources she was given.

 

[Juma]

<tapatalk bug/>

 

[DBT]

I'm not defending the woman's religion, beliefs or methodology. I'm pointing out that not everything is always black and white. If you've been to India, seen the conditions that some of poorest are living under, you'd realize that even offering shelter and a bed is a net gain in comfort.

I spent some time in India during the mid 80's and people spoke well of her then in spite of her many failings. Just for the reason that she took in people that, apparently, nobody else would touch at that time and place.

she did not take care of them. She forced them to suffer for the christian god. She didnt heal the those that could be healed.

A sane person could have done a lot of good for that enormous resources she was given.

That's still not the same as 'she did no good whatsoever' 'she was completely and utterly bad' - which is what's being implied. Nobody is absolutely evil, twisted or bad.

There are shades of grey. This doesn't excuse her failure to do best she possibly could have for the people under her care.

It doesn't her failure, her duty of care, but at the same time it can't be said that she literally did no good whatsoever.

 

[DrZoidberg]

she did not take care of them. She forced them to suffer for the christian god. She didnt heal the those that could be healed.

A sane person could have done a lot of good for that enormous resources she was given.

That's still not the same as 'she did no good whatsoever' 'she was completely and utterly bad' - which is what's being implied. Nobody is absolutely evil, twisted or bad.

There are shades of grey. This doesn't excuse her failure to do best she possibly could have for the people under her care.

It doesn't her failure, her duty of care, but at the same time it can't be said that she literally did no good whatsoever.

Right now I'm worrying about your moral compass.

 

[fast]

That's still not the same as 'she did no good whatsoever' 'she was completely and utterly bad' - which is what's being implied. Nobody is absolutely evil, twisted or bad.

There are shades of grey. This doesn't excuse her failure to do best she possibly could have for the people under her care.

It doesn't her failure, her duty of care, but at the same time it can't be said that she literally did no good whatsoever.

Right now I'm worrying about your moral compass.

Hey, if a serial killer cuts the lights off before he leaves, we should be able to compartmentalize and recognize his electricity saving endeavors.

 

[whichphilosophy]

What? The gap that needed filling of "taking in huge donation but not using for what it was donated"? (Most of the money went directly into the catolic church, not into her projects). The gap that needed filling of letting poor people die in pain? (She refused them pain killers because dying in pain was the highest of good in her twisted mind)

I'm not defending the woman's religion, beliefs or methodology. I'm pointing out that not everything is always black and white. If you've been to India, seen the conditions that some of poorest are living under, you'd realize that even offering shelter and a bed is a net gain in comfort.

I spent some time in India during the mid 80's and people spoke well of her then in spite of her many failings. Just for the reason that she took in people that, apparently, nobody else would touch at that time and place.

During my last visits to India about 5 years ago, I only saw evidence of one development which was in Noida close to Delhi but that was for those who could afford new housing. Much of it including the capital is still a dump. I thought Caloocan City in the Philippines was a dump but when I saw Delhi, it seem like comparing Beverly Hills to a plain township. Any help in India is better than nothing A bare floor under a roof is paradise for some of the poor, some of whom were sleeping in disused large sewage pipes (not yet installed standing on the ground).

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm not defending the woman's religion, beliefs or methodology. I'm pointing out that not everything is always black and white. If you've been to India, seen the conditions that some of poorest are living under, you'd realize that even offering shelter and a bed is a net gain in comfort.

I spent some time in India during the mid 80's and people spoke well of her then in spite of her many failings. Just for the reason that she took in people that, apparently, nobody else would touch at that time and place.

During my last visits to India about 5 years ago, I only saw evidence of one development which was in Noida close to Delhi but that was for those who could afford new housing. Much of it including the capital is still a dump. I thought Caloocan City in the Philippines was a dump but when I saw Delhi, it seem like comparing Beverly Hills to a plain township. Any help in India is better than nothing A bare floor under a roof is paradise for some of the poor, some of whom were sleeping in disused large sewage pipes (not yet installed standing on the ground).

India has a lot of inequality, ie most land somewhere in the middle of the graph and are doing just fine. There's also lots and lots and lots of Indians. The poorest congregate in urban slums. So by visiting their major cities it's easy to get a skewed impression. Bangalore, for instance, looks and works just like any European city. India's economy is expanding extremely quickly and has been since the 80'ies.

We often have an image of India that hasn't been updated since the 60'ies.

 

[DBT]

That's still not the same as 'she did no good whatsoever' 'she was completely and utterly bad' - which is what's being implied. Nobody is absolutely evil, twisted or bad.

There are shades of grey. This doesn't excuse her failure to do best she possibly could have for the people under her care.

It doesn't her failure, her duty of care, but at the same time it can't be said that she literally did no good whatsoever.

Right now I'm worrying about your moral compass.

Don't worry about me, I try not to oversimplify complex issues. There are shades and degrees. I've already said, I'm not trying to defend her numerous failings, but that doesn't mean that she did absolutely no good whatsoever. That being the point....and that she appears to be being portrayed as worse than Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini rolled into one.

She probably meant well in her own delusional way. That doesn't make her evil, just incompetent to take on the task assigned to her. Which should have been picked up through checks and balances early in her career.

She is not the only one to blame in this sad saga.

 

[DBT]

I'm not defending the woman's religion, beliefs or methodology. I'm pointing out that not everything is always black and white. If you've been to India, seen the conditions that some of poorest are living under, you'd realize that even offering shelter and a bed is a net gain in comfort.

I spent some time in India during the mid 80's and people spoke well of her then in spite of her many failings. Just for the reason that she took in people that, apparently, nobody else would touch at that time and place.

During my last visits to India about 5 years ago, I only saw evidence of one development which was in Noida close to Delhi but that was for those who could afford new housing. Much of it including the capital is still a dump. I thought Caloocan City in the Philippines was a dump but when I saw Delhi, it seem like comparing Beverly Hills to a plain township. Any help in India is better than nothing A bare floor under a roof is paradise for some of the poor, some of whom were sleeping in disused large sewage pipes (not yet installed standing on the ground).

Yes. That's what many people don't realize. The sheer horror of poverty in India, especially what you see in the cities. It's a whole different standard and level of disregard for human misery and suffering.

 

[Juma]

Right now I'm worrying about your moral compass.

Don't worry about me, I try not to oversimplify complex issues. There are shades and degrees. I've already said, I'm not trying to defend her numerous failings, but that doesn't mean that she did absolutely no good whatsoever. That being the point....and that she appears to be being portrayed as worse than Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini rolled into one.

She probably meant well in her own delusional way. That doesn't make her evil, just incompetent to take on the task assigned to her. Which should have been picked up through checks and balances early in her career.

She is not the only one to blame in this sad saga.

If there is anything that is "evil" then delusions and incompetence is its marks.

What made Theresa evil is not so hard to figure out: religion.

 

[Juma]

During my last visits to India about 5 years ago, I only saw evidence of one development which was in Noida close to Delhi but that was for those who could afford new housing. Much of it including the capital is still a dump. I thought Caloocan City in the Philippines was a dump but when I saw Delhi, it seem like comparing Beverly Hills to a plain township. Any help in India is better than nothing A bare floor under a roof is paradise for some of the poor, some of whom were sleeping in disused large sewage pipes (not yet installed standing on the ground).

Yes. That's what many people don't realize. The sheer horror of poverty in India, especially what you see in the cities. It's a whole different standard and level of disregard for human misery and suffering.

That is in no way an excuse for not giving the help she certainly had the means to give.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Right now I'm worrying about your moral compass.

Don't worry about me, I try not to oversimplify complex issues. There are shades and degrees. I've already said, I'm not trying to defend her numerous failings, but that doesn't mean that she did absolutely no good whatsoever. That being the point....and that she appears to be being portrayed as worse than Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini rolled into one.

She probably meant well in her own delusional way. That doesn't make her evil, just incompetent to take on the task assigned to her. Which should have been picked up through checks and balances early in her career.

She is not the only one to blame in this sad saga.

Not impressed by this line of reasoning. Stalin really was a communist. In his own head he was the savior of humanity. Hitler sacrificed all manner of comforts due to his "service" to the German people. He worked his ass off, and saw himself as sacrificing himself. Louis Antoine de Saint-Just really wanted the French people to be free, so much that he came up with the famous quote "we must force the people to be free". Result; total carnage in the "Reign of Terror".

Look.... evil isn't an attitude or an end goal. Evil is always the result of stupid goodness. Evil people is people with good intentions without the required self doubt. Don't know about Idi Amin or Mao. But most notoriously evil people in history have had good intentions.

The thing about power is that with it comes responsibility. Mother Theresa didn't take hers. Therefore evil.

 

[DBT]

Yes. That's what many people don't realize. The sheer horror of poverty in India, especially what you see in the cities. It's a whole different standard and level of disregard for human misery and suffering.

That is in no way an excuse for not giving the help she certainly had the means to give.

No excuse, of course there isn't.....but also, nothing is quite as simple as some would like to think when they point the finger of blame.

Nor is she the only one to blame, the sacrificial goat, she should have been removed very quickly when her way of running the clinics and homes became clear. But the Church was probably quite happy to have the charity money for their coffers, and even now deems her to be a Saint.

 

[DBT]

Don't worry about me, I try not to oversimplify complex issues. There are shades and degrees. I've already said, I'm not trying to defend her numerous failings, but that doesn't mean that she did absolutely no good whatsoever. That being the point....and that she appears to be being portrayed as worse than Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini rolled into one.

She probably meant well in her own delusional way. That doesn't make her evil, just incompetent to take on the task assigned to her. Which should have been picked up through checks and balances early in her career.

She is not the only one to blame in this sad saga.

Not impressed by this line of reasoning. Stalin really was a communist. In his own head he was the savior of humanity. Hitler sacrificed all manner of comforts due to his "service" to the German people. He worked his ass off, and saw himself as sacrificing himself. Louis Antoine de Saint-Just really wanted the French people to be free, so much that he came up with the famous quote "we must force the people to be free". Result; total carnage in the "Reign of Terror".

Look.... evil isn't an attitude or an end goal. Evil is always the result of stupid goodness. Evil people is people with good intentions without the required self doubt. Don't know about Idi Amin or Mao. But most notoriously evil people in history have had good intentions.

The thing about power is that with it comes responsibility. Mother Theresa didn't take hers. Therefore evil.

It was rhetoric in relation to the level of criticism aimed at her, but not so much at the Church that supported her and readily accepted whatever they could from donations. With no apparent complaints in regard to what she was doing wrong

She didn't actually set out to kill anyone, and yes it is an example of stupid goodness, delusion and negligence, but that's long way from the acts Stalin, et al, or even the attitude of some of our current and potential leaders, Trump comes to mind.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Not impressed by this line of reasoning. Stalin really was a communist. In his own head he was the savior of humanity. Hitler sacrificed all manner of comforts due to his "service" to the German people. He worked his ass off, and saw himself as sacrificing himself. Louis Antoine de Saint-Just really wanted the French people to be free, so much that he came up with the famous quote "we must force the people to be free". Result; total carnage in the "Reign of Terror".

Look.... evil isn't an attitude or an end goal. Evil is always the result of stupid goodness. Evil people is people with good intentions without the required self doubt. Don't know about Idi Amin or Mao. But most notoriously evil people in history have had good intentions.

The thing about power is that with it comes responsibility. Mother Theresa didn't take hers. Therefore evil.

It was rhetoric in relation to the level of criticism aimed at her, but not so much at the Church that supported her and readily accepted whatever they could from donations. With no apparent complaints in regard to what she was doing wrong

She didn't actually set out to kill anyone, and yes it is an example of stupid goodness, delusion and negligence, but that's long way from the acts Stalin, et al, or even the attitude of some of our current and potential leaders, Trump comes to mind.

What she set out to do was to make people who came to her suffer so much that they would repent and convert on their deathbed. She had zero intention of saving their lives. Her only goal was to save their souls. Which to an atheist is nothing more than plain murder for no benefit.

The crime is double of course because people gave her money to help her save lives. So it's firstly a crime of murder and secondly one of fraud. And it was fraud. She did not do what she said she would, ie help people.

No, it's not a long way off from the acts of Stalin. It's the same thing. The difference lies in the amount of power. God help us all if Mother Theresa had had the clout of Stalin.

Trump is comparable to people like Pol Pot. A man lacking the brains and education to run a country. It's hard to put people as clueless as this on the evil vs good scale. If you put a child in charge of anything it'll fuck it up. Whose fault is that? The parents/voters?

 

[Juma]

Not impressed by this line of reasoning. Stalin really was a communist. In his own head he was the savior of humanity. Hitler sacrificed all manner of comforts due to his "service" to the German people. He worked his ass off, and saw himself as sacrificing himself. Louis Antoine de Saint-Just really wanted the French people to be free, so much that he came up with the famous quote "we must force the people to be free". Result; total carnage in the "Reign of Terror".

Look.... evil isn't an attitude or an end goal. Evil is always the result of stupid goodness. Evil people is people with good intentions without the required self doubt. Don't know about Idi Amin or Mao. But most notoriously evil people in history have had good intentions.

The thing about power is that with it comes responsibility. Mother Theresa didn't take hers. Therefore evil.

It was rhetoric in relation to the level of criticism aimed at her, but not so much at the Church that supported her and readily accepted whatever they could from donations. With no apparent complaints in regard to what she was doing wrong

She didn't actually set out to kill anyone, and yes it is an example of stupid goodness, delusion and negligence, but that's long way from the acts Stalin, et al, or even the attitude of some of our current and potential leaders, Trump comes to mind.

Actually she did kill people by not helping those that could be saved.

She had no respect for the life of people. She only wanted to save their souls.

 

[Juma]

That is in no way an excuse for not giving the help she certainly had the means to give.

No excuse, of course there isn't.....but also, nothing is quite as simple as some would like to think when they point the finger of blame.

Nor is she the only one to blame, the sacrificial goat, she should have been removed very quickly when her way of running the clinics and homes became clear. But the Church was probably quite happy to have the charity money for their coffers, and even now deems her to be a Saint.

Who is blaming her only? All criticism I've seen has been directed to the role of the religion and the catholic church. That doesn not releave her of her personal responsibility though.

 

[DBT]

No excuse, of course there isn't.....but also, nothing is quite as simple as some would like to think when they point the finger of blame.

Nor is she the only one to blame, the sacrificial goat, she should have been removed very quickly when her way of running the clinics and homes became clear. But the Church was probably quite happy to have the charity money for their coffers, and even now deems her to be a Saint.

Who is blaming her only? All criticism I've seen has been directed to the role of the religion and the catholic church. That doesn not releave her of her personal responsibility though.

There appears to be a lot of vitriol aimed at her rather the Church. Of course they are both being criticized, and otherwise quite fairly...the rational criticism falling on both, which is fair enough, but not necessarily the vitriol.

Which seems odd because I would place far more blame and vitriol at the feet of the Church hierarchy than a poor deluded servant of the Church who was being sanctioned by the Church. The Church hierarchy have far more to answer for than she.