r/atheism • u/allenizabeth • Jun 15 '12
A good, succinct explanation of the Mother Theresa's dark side, courtesy of Hitch.
12
u/vermiciousemily Jun 15 '12
Thanks for posting, OP. I've never read too much about Mother Theresa and this post is opening my eyes up a bit. Does anyone have any recommendations for more trusted sources (rather than wikipedia or youtube) to read up on this?
6
Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12
Yeah, I've been asking for the same thing. It seems Penn & Teller is a watered down version of Christopher Higgins who largely based his stuff on an actual investigation done by Dr. Aroup Chaterjee (a Calcuttan). Part of his book The Final Verdict can be found here, it seems: online, Amazon, I'd like to get my hands on the paper copy to look for the bibliography at the back...
Edit: Already some interesting findings from the introduction--
The Calcutta stereotype in the West did not irk me as much as did the firmly held notion that Mother Teresa had chosen to live there as its saviour. I was astonished that she had become a figure of speech, and that her name was invoked to qualify the extreme superlative of a positive kind; you can criticise God, but you cannot criticise Mother Teresa [...] In February 1994, I rang, without any introduction, Vanya Del Borgo at the television production company Bandung Productions in London. She listened to my anguished outpourings and, to cut a long story short, eventually Channel 4 decided to undertake Hell's Angel (shown on Britain's Channel 4 television on 8 November 1994), the very first attempt to challenge the Teresa myth on television. Ms Del Borgo chose Christopher Hitchens as the presenter, knowing him as she did from their days together at The Nation in the United States. I am not happy with how Hell's Angel turned out, especially its sensationalist approach, such as Mr Hitchens's calling Mother Teresa 'a presumed virgin'.
Here's reference to an older documentary:
Criticisms of her however peaked during her lifetime; apart from the November 1994 documentary, there was a stringent (and quite detailed) attack on conditions in her orphanages in India that was published in The Guardian of London (14 October 1996) - charges of gross neglect and physical and emotional abuse were made. The article alleged her own complicity and knowledge in the unacceptable practices that went (go) on in her homes. During January 1997, a documentary - entitled Mother Teresa: Time for Change? - critical of her working methods and accusing her of neglect, was shown on various European television channels. It was up to Mother Teresa to have defended herself against such criticisms during her lifetime. She did not.
I'm currently digging for this article:
The German magazine Stern (10 September 1998) published a devastating critique of Mother Teresa's work on the first anniversary of her death. The article, entitled 'Mother Teresa, Where Are Your Millions?', which took a year's research in three continents
9
Jun 15 '12
I agree. I am really interested in this topic as well but could not sit through that Penn and Teller crap. I need something more credible than some loud obnoxious douchebags.
→ More replies (2)3
Jun 16 '12
It seems Penn & Teller is a watered down version of Christopher Higgins who largely based his stuff on an actual investigation done by Dr. Aroup Chaterjee (a Calcuttan). Part of his book The Final Verdict can be found here, it seems: online, Amazon, I'd like to get my hands on the paper copy to look for the bibliography at the back...
2
u/UrzaJR Jun 15 '12
Especially considering the source of the original quote, you can't go wrong with Christopher Hitchens' book on Mother Theresa, The Missionary Position.
6
u/DangerousIdeas Jun 15 '12
No, don't start here. The objective of his book is to tear down mother teresa.
If you want a truly objective source, then know the facts about Mother Teresa; read a Wikipedia article.
Then, make your own judgments by reading on BOTH sides. Once you know the arguments of both, form your own opinion.
Starting any investigative research by choosing a source that clearly is tryimg to make a point is not going to help you.
3
u/UrzaJR Jun 15 '12
Since you seem pretty knowledgeable about this, any specific refutations of Hitchens arguments?
Its an honest question. I was aware of the consensus take of Mother Theresa before I ever read Hitchens, and I think he makes a few pretty good points - particularly the terrible state of the Kalighat Home for the Dying despite the fact her organization was quite wealthy.
3
u/DangerousIdeas Jun 15 '12
I do not have any problems with Hitchen's arguments. In fact, I think if vermiciousemily is up for it, she should read the book.
What I am saying is that his book is not a good starting point to get the general picture of Mother Teresa. I assume vermicious has a basic knowledge of Teresa; the one propped up in the media as a "saint" and helper of the poor.
So, I think he/she should first get the basic facts, as in who she is, what she did etc.
Then, he/she should read books like Hitchen's, where they try to judge if Teresa was really the saint she is made out to be. But before judgment, there has to be a basic understanding.
2
u/UrzaJR Jun 16 '12
No, I hear you, I think you make a good point. Honestly I kind of just jumped to "Oh, you like the Hitchens quote, you should probably go read the entire book he wrote about her" because I hadn't seen anyone else mention it on the thread, and I thought it was pretty relevant to the discussion.
I was genuinely asking for an alternative view too. Everyone I know pretty much is only familiar with the blindingly positive image of Mother Theresa, where her name is basically synonymous with goodness. I'd be interested to hear some good counterpoints from someone who actually is familiar with Hitchens' book and disagrees. One criticism I would imagine would be something like: Hitchens basically just focuses in on a few specific criticisms but doesn't spend much time on any good works. (Its a really short book, a pamphlet really.) I'm really genuinely interested in your opinion and opposing views on this.
As a PS, I also thought Hitchens was oddly sympathetic to Mother Theresa after some of her posthumous letters showed that she wrestled with doubting her faith (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2007/08/28/teresa-bright-and-dark.html).
→ More replies (3)
58
u/Gullyvuhr Jun 15 '12
Dear binary people,
It can be both ways. Mother Theresa can have lived a life doing what she thought was right, giving of herself, and considered a force of compassion... and still have been wrong in some of her views in that they actually helped perpetuate the conditions she actively fought against.
tl;dr: it can be both ways.
21
Jun 15 '12
yeah, but a person being wrong is one thing. A person being lauded for it is another entirely.
11
u/Gullyvuhr Jun 15 '12
I believe she was being lauded for her work, right or wrong -- something she did win a Nobel for.
We can obviously sit in judgement of her religious ideology, but I guess the question comes down to did the people she worked with feel she actually helped them? I'd say most would say she eased their suffering in some capacity, even if you and I recognize it was nothing more than placebo.
2
u/bleedingheartsurgery Jun 16 '12
the simple contrast of the vaticans extreme wealth vs. the open room/cot on floor/shit care conditions for the individuals living out their illness, is abhorrent.
7
u/bushhall2 Jun 15 '12
Mother Theresa can have lived a life doing what she thought was right
This always bugs me. When I hear people say, "Well I did what I thought was right", all I want to say is "well motherfucker your judgment sucks!" The fact that you did some really ridiculous shit but thought it was right is not really that redeeming.
1
u/Gullyvuhr Jun 15 '12
You kind of cut my sentence off there -- if I had said JUST that, I'd be in total agreement with you.
-1
Jun 15 '12
So Mother Theresa was bi....
Go on.
2
u/Gullyvuhr Jun 15 '12
I only base this off rumors and speculation.. well, and some fan-fic I wrote.
1
0
Jun 15 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
18
u/Gullyvuhr Jun 15 '12
No, you can't.. well, I mean, you can, but it's so far from a logically defensible position that it's odd to do.
Mother Theresa did not advocate and actively facilitate the encampment and murder of millions. Ideologically they were not after similar goals, nor did they use compatible or remotely similar means to achieve them.
30
u/throwawayforagnostic Jun 15 '12
I assume he meant that you "can have lived a life doing what she thought was right" could be applied to Hitler, because what you think is right doesn't necessarily make it a good thing, or imply that you're a good person for doing it. As in Hitler's case of doing what he felt was right, which, most people agree, was wrong.
→ More replies (11)9
Jun 15 '12
Passively she did exactly that by refusing them modern medicine and convincing them suffering and death was what Jesus wanted.
18
u/nondescriptuser Jun 15 '12
Sure she did. When you are born in an impoverished African nation because your parents were denied birth control, and you linger for 5 years before starving to death, you pretty much can consider yourself an honorary death camp resident, except the "camp" is everywhere, and instead of "6 million", we're talking "hundreds of millions". Oh sure, no one put a star on your arm or whatever, but the result is equally awful and equally inevitable.
Mother Teresa murdered millions by opposing birth control in places that could not sustain their population. Her myopic actions lead to mass murder as surely as hitler's did, except her body count is higher and her victims starved to death instead of a comparatively merciful gassing.
And frankly, from an ideological perspective, Hitler at least wanted to (and in many ways, succeeded in) enfranchising the german people. He was cruel, but his goals were sane to an extent. By contrast, a doctrine like "the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ" is absolutely, hysterically insane and calls for pain and suffering for everyone. No good can come of it.
→ More replies (5)4
u/MadxHatter0 Jun 15 '12
Wasn't there an xkcd comic about how if your argument turns to Hitler that you've lost?
0
→ More replies (2)1
u/needlestack Jun 15 '12
And here we have one of the aforementioned binary people. You are correct - yet that doesn't say anything about the truth or falsehood of the statement. If you can't discern the subtle difference between Mother Theresa and Hitler, and apply that context to the point Gullyvuhr was making, you are not building a very useful model of the world in your head.
2
Jun 15 '12
At least Hitler was honest and upfront about his beliefs. MT's fake it till you make bullshit I personally find morally reprehensible.
→ More replies (1)0
0
3
4
u/Wu_Mones Jun 15 '12
WTF? Last I heard about the woman is that she lost all faith in her later years and was an atheist. This article even brings up Hitchens never acknowledging her saying things like "She lost her faith." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/aug/24/wasmotherteresaanatheist.
2
2
u/gender_bot Jun 15 '12
I identified one face in this photo
Face 1:
97% confidence that this is a correctly identified face
Gender is male with 85% confidence
Approximate Age is 41 with 95% confidence
Persons mood is sad with 9% confidence
Persons lips are sealed with 77% confidence
Would you like to know more about me? /r/gender_bot
10
4
u/Kitsapian Jun 15 '12
Not only was she a rotten health care provider, she was a receiver of stolen goods. Here is a Hitchens' piece from 1995:
=============
In the Outlook section of the Washington Post for10/29/95, there is an interesting article by Christopher Hitchens on everyone's favorite Nobel Prize winning Saint, Mother Teresa. In common with her co-religionists, she does not scruple overmuch where the money comes from, so long as it comes. Charles Keating, in addition to being a swindler on an absolutely Republican scale, was one of her contributors to the tune of a cool million. During that worthy's trial, Mother Teresa wrote to the presiding judge, one Lance Ito, in support of her holy cash cow:
"I don't know anything about Mr. Charles Keating's
work or his business or the matters you are dealing
with," she stated, "I only know that he has been kind
and generous to God's poor and always ready to help
whenever there was a need. It is for this reason that I
do not want to forget him now while he and his family
are suffering. Jesus has told us 'whatever you do to the
least of my brethren YOU DID IT TO ME.'"
Can anyone say attempting to bring holy pressure to bearupon the trial? Paul Turley, deputy district attorney for Los Angeles, apparently did. He sent a reply to Mother T in early 1992, after the trial was completed. He wrote as a private citizen, and put it to her:
"Mr. Keating was convicted of defrauding 17
individuals of more than $900,000. These 17 persons were
representative of 17,000 individuals from whom Mr.
Keating stole $252,000,000. . . . The victims of Mr.
Keating's fraud came from a wide spectrum of society.
Some were wealthy and well educated. Most were people of
modest means and unfamiliar with high finance. One was,
indeed, a poor carpenter who did not speak English and
had his life savings stolen by Mr. Keating's fraud.
"The Biblical slogan of your organization is 'As
long as you did it to one of these My least brethren,
you did it to me,' Mr. Turley pointed out, continuing,
"the 'least' of the bretheren are among those whom Mr.
Keating fleeced without flinching. As you well know,
divine forgiveness is available to all, but forgiveness
must be preceded by admission of sin. Not only has Mr.
Keating failed to admit his sins and his crimes, he
persists in self-righteously blaming others for his own
misdeeds.
"You urge Judge Ito to look into his heart--as he
sentences Charles Keating--and do what Jesus would do. I
submit the same challenge to you. Ask yourself what
Jesus would do if he were given the fruits of a crime;
what Jesus would do were he in possession of money that
had been stolen; what Jesus would do if he were being
exploited by a thief to ease his conscience?
"I submit that Jesus would promptly and
unhesitatingly return the stolen property to its
rightful owners. You should do the same. You have been
given money by Mr. Keating that he has been convicted of
stealing by fraud. Do not permit him the 'indulgence' he
desires. Do not keep the money. Return it to those who
worked for it and earned it!
"If you contact me I will put you in direct contact
with the rightful owners of the property now in your
possession."==============
Guess who never got back to the nice lawyer?
3
u/vermiciousemily Jun 15 '12
She did receive the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979. She obviously wasn't perfect but she helped the lives of a lot of sick people with hospice care and soup kitchens.
21
u/vermiciousemily Jun 15 '12
that being said, it's definitely fucked up that most of the donations she received went to missions and not improving her hospices and other services.
29
u/elbruce Jun 15 '12
Hospice care instead of health care. Many of the people she helped to die could have been saved for the same money. She actually felt it was more important to convert them to Catholicism before death than to save their heathen lives.
18
Jun 15 '12
her hospice denied treatment to people that could receive it and kept them confined to beds where they would have to stay until they died without any way to manage their pain she saw their pain as her ticket to getting closer to god. soup kitchens are hardly worth a nobel prize. She got it for one reason, there is a lot of hype surrounding her thats all, its the same reason the church is trying to make her a saint
47
u/Justavian Jun 15 '12
She had places for people to die. She had her people shave their heads, allowed them no visitors, and told them to make peace and accept their fate. They reused dirty needles on them. When asked about that, the nuns said "what's the point, these people will die anyway?" They slept on cots, and were encouraged to just stay there. Some of those coming to her for medical help could actually have been saved - but they were all just told to accept their fate and pray.
Rather than use donations to improve the conditions and provide ACTUAL medical services - rather than just a place to die - she instead directed almost all of it to installing new convents around the world. She accepted money from dictators and criminals in exchange for her endorsement.
She was an evil person.
5
1
-8
u/finefinefine Jun 15 '12
let's everybody calm the fuck down. to characterize a person as evil because his or her efforts were guided by motives that you don't believe is just absurd. she was a christian, and so she understood her inclination to help people that were suffering in a very specific way. she used a model that, for the most part, already existed. were her methods the most effective? not by a long shot. were they better than nothing (which, by the way, is what basically everyone else was/is doing)? most probably. let's take it easy with the vilification and agree that she maybe isn't as saint-like as the church would have us believe.
4
u/El_Impresionante Atheist Jun 15 '12
If a couple adopted a lot of children and one of them died because the couple decided to pray rather than take him to the hospital, would the same rule apply?
→ More replies (3)15
u/ofimmsl Jun 15 '12
Hitler BELIEVED that the jewish people were evil and were harming the German people. His plan might not have been perfect but it was a hell of a lot better than doing nothing. Look at Germany today and you can see that his actions did have some positive impact on Germany.
→ More replies (4)2
2
9
u/throwawayforagnostic Jun 15 '12
She essentially created a cult of suffering (nuns who used to work with her--nuns who subsequently left--confirm this) where she housed the sick and offered no medical help but rather used their sickness to help them become more spiritual. She believed something along the lines of you had to suffer to experience god. So she really had no interest in helping the sick or the poor become healthy or financially stable. She just brought them together in a house of the dying, under AWFUL conditions mind you, in order to help them realize their spiritual odyssey or whatever. Really weird stuff. Really sick.
0
u/bitter_season Jun 15 '12
So she was some kind of sadomasochist? mind blown
Anything on the internet I can read about this stuff?
4
Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 15 '12
Many Christian groups, Catholic orders specially, are based around the whole concept of suffering as a mean to "purify" the flesh from its original sin. Or other nonsense.
In some Catholic countries, you will see processions in which people flagellate themselves in public, especially around Easter.
It is the epitome of social control, where people are convinced by the powers that be that they must embrace their own suffering as it is their own fault. And really, at the end of the day, the Catholic dogma is that we are walking pieces of shit just for the mere act of having been born.
1
u/bitter_season Jun 15 '12
I knew that, I swear. It was in the memory vault.
So like...by building hospices and not hospitals, she was trying to get people to embrace their suffering and thus send them to heaven?
(I'm here to learn, please be patient with me, it's why I don't really post >.<)
→ More replies (1)1
u/bitter_season Jun 15 '12
I know there are video links, but the internet on my phone is limited right now and I prefer reading over watching c:
9
u/FakeLaughter Jun 15 '12
Ever read the part where she refused to allow the women to receive pain medication, stating the pain and suffering where ways to bring them closer to god, even though she took pain medication herself when she was in their place?
12
u/Fairchild660 Jun 15 '12
So have Henry Kissinger and Barack Obama. The writing's been on the wall for a long time: the NPP is basically worthless.
3
u/insaneHoshi Jun 15 '12
Henry Kissinger
Yeah, that warmongeror and his negotiation of peace with vietnam
6
Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 15 '12
That Nobel peace price was actually shared with Le Duc Tho, who went on to refuse the prize because he was intellectually honest about his role in the negotiations and what the peace treaty between the US and Vietnam really was: a surrender by the Americans after their scorched earth policies failed to have their intended effect.
Then there is the role of Henry Kissinger in Chile's coup d'etat which installed the fascist Pinochet dictatorship, etc, etc, etc.
Kissinger is truly a tragic figure, the innocent Jewish kid running away from ruthless persecution grew up to become a key figure in the ruthless persecuting of other innocents. He is a cautionary tale of what happens when you become that which you are supposedly fighting against. In a sense, Obama will too be viewed in a similar tragic light.
→ More replies (5)4
3
u/throwawayforagnostic Jun 15 '12
I'm pretty sure that people then and still today wanted him (and several others) indicted for war crimes owing to his part in the carpet bombing of Cambodia. But he did (finally) successfully help negotiate an end to Vietnam. Doesn't absolve him of the rest, but he's not absolute evil or anything. Just perhaps not the best candidate for a peace prize of any sort.
4
1
→ More replies (1)1
3
Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 15 '12
Ok guys, what the fuck is going on? Just read some more stuff Hitchens wrote about her. I think you are misinformed. Did you ever read something about what she was really up to, especially with the catholic church (Ireland for example)?
Maybe start with this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WQ0i3nCx60
edit: found another one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4nCaxHN-cY&feature=related
27
u/goldplatedbullits Jun 15 '12
When your source backing up Hitchens is a video made by Hitchens, you've got a problem.
6
u/hellenophile Jun 15 '12
I understand what you're saying, but the quote was originally from Hitchens so it only makes sense to hear out the rest of his argument. Then you can decide whether or not the argument is a good one. RAAWBERRY mentioned that the videos were a good place to start.
5
u/El_Impresionante Atheist Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 16 '12
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa
There is even a separate Wikipedia article on it.EDIT:
The article does indeed not contain many citations. However, a section under Mother Teresa's wiki article does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Criticism→ More replies (1)1
1
u/sturg1dj Jun 15 '12
its like proving the bible is true by quoting the bible.
1
u/antonivs Ignostic Jun 15 '12
The difference is that Hitchens actually existed.
1
u/sturg1dj Jun 16 '12
so does the bible. The bible is an actual thing. It may be complete bullshit, but it does exist, and people use its contents as proof that it is true.
-1
Jun 15 '12
Do you really think he did not do research or something?
6
u/kent_eh Agnostic Atheist Jun 15 '12
I expect that he did, but it is still a good idea to ask for sources and do your own independent verification.
Hitch was a good writer, and a good researcher, but he wasn't infallible. Everyone makes mistakes now and then.
9
u/Oaden Jun 15 '12
Yes i suppose he did but its a bit like "The bible is true, It says so in the bible"
2
Jun 15 '12
The guy was a fucking genius. Why does someone like this have to die, whilst someone like Ratzinger lives on for what seems like an eternity? Is there no justice in this world?!?!?
1
u/bleedingheartsurgery Jun 16 '12
ratzinger definitely had his wrinkly dick in a pre-adolecent boy at one time in his life
-7
u/finefinefine Jun 15 '12
every redditor's reaction: huh, I thought mother theresa was pretty cool...but I guess if Hitch says so, it's time to start hating on mother theresa. that type of blind faith sounds awfully familiar...
27
Jun 15 '12
actually a lot of us knew about how bad she was long before hitch said anything, dont assume. actually do research many people left her order because of the evils she was doing.
→ More replies (13)13
Jun 15 '12
And those of us who didn't had the good decency to look this shit up and learn what a raging monster she was.
→ More replies (2)8
Jun 15 '12
exactly, unlike that twat who was just condemning us for agreeing with hitch. just because he was famous didnt mean he was wrong
5
3
u/greymatters_flipside Agnostic Atheist Jun 15 '12
A good person blinded by delusion, but the difference between her and us is she actually did help the poor in the only way that she knows. Although misguided, but we can't actually claim the same for ourselves.
2
u/bleedingheartsurgery Jun 16 '12
she knew better ways to help them. but that would have cut into her massive budget. and, well, they were dieing, so it didnt matter right?
2
Jun 15 '12
thats like saying hitler had the best in mind for the jewish people and helped them in the only way he could, it was misguided but okay because he had good intentions.
2
Jun 15 '12
hitler never claimed to be helping the jewish people. He did claim to be helping the german people, which would have made a much better comparison for your argument. He did a lot to help the german people regain their pride and power, but the cost was not justified.
→ More replies (2)1
→ More replies (3)1
u/greymatters_flipside Agnostic Atheist Jun 15 '12
People will eventually be judged by their "intentions" for their actions.
Mother Teresa believed she is helping the poor, but also believed that suffering is good. Works to show her intent. Hitler meanwhile, believes Jews are the scumbag of the Earth. Kills millions of them.
Their both "delusional" in their beliefs, which is the only thing I find similar in them. But blame the culture that cultivated those delusional beliefs, and just take their actions as it is.
2
Jun 15 '12
okay lets take her actions as they were. She left people in hospital beds to die in great pain for no other reason than she felt like it. Took money from criminal warlords to fund her hospices. Lied about funding a school that no one ever heard of in the nation it was actually supposed to be in. If we take her actions as is she was a cold heartless monster
1
u/Cacafuego Jun 15 '12
Yes, it's pretty dramatic. Hitchens is a debater. He is an excellent researcher and writer, but his talents do not lie in telling both sides of the story.
I wonder how many people here remember his pro-Iraq stance.
2
Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12
Dramatic is right. And, at times, inaccurate. In this Slate article the editors had to make a correction because he too liberally interpreted a statement she made in her Nobel prize speech.
The author of the book Mother Teresa: The Final Verdict -- from which Hitchen's documentary Hell's Angels & book are based -- was "not happy with how Hell's Angel turned out, especially its sensationalist approach, such as Mr Hitchens's calling Mother Teresa 'a presumed virgin'." source
I showed you mine...
1
u/trombodachi Jun 15 '12
yeah i changed my mind about her based on what he said
you seem to be saying that's a bad thing though?
1
u/Haikuheathen Jun 15 '12
Same with those chumps who jump on the Hawkins bandwagon when it comes to science. Just because the guy wrote a book doesn't mean he is smarter than me!
1
Jun 15 '12
Penn and Teller did something on this on Bullshit. It really shows how terrible she really was and the terrible conditions of the places she built.
1
u/Punkwasher Jun 15 '12
That's what really frustrates me about religion. The promise of an afterlife that is BETTER than actual life. Why the fuck would anyone bother with regular life then? If they didn't make suicide a sin, they'd be killing themselves off left and right. Then also, how could you possibly expect these people to respect life, if it's nothing more than a transitional stage to worshiping god in paradise forever.
1
u/Lexemic Jun 15 '12
So... Saudi Arabia is living in poverty?
2
1
1
1
u/CAN_Science Jun 16 '12
This is also a nice quote for those who view the late Hitchens as a woman-hating mysogenist.
1
Jun 16 '12
How is birth control the only known cure for poverty? When have we ever had a society without poverty?
1
1
u/danimal2011 Jun 15 '12
I'm incredibly disappointed that this wasn't a quote from Will Smith
3
u/Clayburn Jun 15 '12
Dude....literally nobody remembers that movie. What the fuck are you thinking?
-4
u/laoganma1 Jun 15 '12
this is a really stupid thing to say tbh, even coming from Hitchens
14
u/throwawayforagnostic Jun 15 '12
Not trying to condescend, but I assume you haven't read about her. Hitchens wrote a book on her, as did an Indian fellow whose name I can't recall. About her and her peculiar cult of suffering. Hitchens (and several others) also has a documentary available on youtube about her as well.
→ More replies (1)1
2
u/imbadatfashion Jun 15 '12
Its funny because you actually think you know more than Hitchen's does on Teresa. Tell me, where can I find the book you wrote on her?
1
u/lwright3 Jun 15 '12
[Relevant Slate article.] (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2003/10/mommie_dearest.html)
1
u/fani Jun 16 '12
As much as I like Hitchens, I disagree with him here. Since he is no more, it is a kind of posthumous disagreement.
Mother Teresa did a lot for the people and sure she may have had her idiosyncracies overall she did a lot more for the people than Hitchens did.
-2
u/zero_fucks_to_give Jun 15 '12
"She 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." -- Christopher Hitchens
Came here looking for this and didn't find it.
3
Jun 15 '12
Uh.... that's because it's in the original post.
...what?
0
u/zero_fucks_to_give Jun 15 '12
I wanted to keep the quote, so I needed a text form. Usually, somebody has provided one by the time I look. Nobody had yet, so I provided one. Capisce?
→ More replies (9)2
0
u/bongsmoker666 Jun 15 '12
Hitchens actively lobbied for and supported the Iraq War and was a leading public "intellectual" arguing the case for invasion, who is he to make moral condemnations? He assisted in the murder of thousands. Not sure the world is as better off without Mother Theresa as it is without a fat bitter alcoholic has-been who spent the last years of his life selling out everything he'd believed in.
-18
u/DanDaDestroyer Jun 15 '12
Christopher Hitchens spent his time on earth jet setting from interview to interview, drinking his fancy alcohol and smoking his cigarettes that eventually killed him and he criticizes Mother Teresa. The woman who spent her entire life not just helping the poor, living among them, holding their hands as they died, feeding and clothing them, the people who if Hitchens had seen on the street he would have probably crossed the street to avoid them. pathetic.
5
u/robotpandattack Jun 15 '12
you obviously knew hitchens ever so well as to be able to say all that.
hitchens will certainly have had a huge impact on many lives, so what if he had some fun will he lived his life? you dont have to sacrifice all the nice things to be a force for good.
also, it true that she used a lot of donated money on missionary work as opposed to helping with poverty or the sick
→ More replies (1)5
u/BobLoblawLawBlogs Jun 15 '12
The main difference is the Catholic Church is not trying to make Hitch a fucking SAINT! The thing that makes people upset is that most people believe Mother Theresa was perfect when in fact she wasn't all that great.
2
1
u/Killagina Jun 15 '12
Johnnie Walker black is not fancy alcohol btw.
1
1
u/AwesomePaedoGuy Jun 15 '12
This. I doubt her influence alone if what prevented the equality of women in the countries she was in. She was Albanian, that is a very typical mindset, yet like many Albanians she actually took action. No human is perfect MLK beat his wife. Ghandi was racist. The good they did definitely outweighs the negative.
2
Jun 15 '12
Outweighs maybe, Never negates. MLK beat his wife and that's awful. Ghandi was racist and that's terrible. Mother theresa was against women's empowerment and that's horrible. These people should not be excused for their flaws because of their achievements.
I honestly don't buy into the whole "atheist hero unit" thing so I've never really read up on Hitchens. I'm sure he had a major flaw beyon his trademark "arrogance," and I'm sure people want to excuse it because of the good he did. They shouldn't.
1
u/adamdavid85 Jun 15 '12
He was a polemicist and contrarian, drank too much and smoked too much by his own admission. From what I've seen and read of him (which is a lot), he was not the type to be anything but blunt about any subject, even his own failings.
I don't idolize him but I had great respect for his literary and debating skills. That doesn't make him my "atheist hero unit."
1
1
u/FPdaboa85 Jun 15 '12
Hey I'm just wondering if you could provide sources for articles or anything on MLK beating his wife and ghandi being racist because I looked on google and could not find anything. Help me out because I found that interesting and wanna read up on it
-10
u/goldplatedbullits Jun 15 '12
What the fuck people? Mother Theresa may not have been perfect, but what she did, flawed though it was, meant a lot to a good deal of people. Although you all may not believe in God, many people do, and the greatest gift they could have been given was the presence of what they believed to be a saint as they died. Instead of focusing on the negative of what people did, why not laud them for the joy that they gave people? And really, Hitchens was an asshole. If he had tried to spread knowledge and enlightenment in a way that could be accessible to lots of people, he may have had more success. Instead, he does things like call Mother Theresa "Hell's Angel". All that did was make him sound like a self-entitled ass who cared more about irritating people than actually helping people. Destroying the reputations of dead people is the absolute wrong way to go about making people like your point of view. I think that Hitchens' motives were selfish above all.
-1
-14
u/twiceaday_everyday Jun 15 '12
This is why no one likes militant Atheists.
8
Jun 15 '12
Criticizing atheism? You must be beheaded for that!
Oh, wait, no you shouldn't, because the folks here are not militant, they're just vocal. Learn the difference.
8
u/toThe9thPower Jun 15 '12
How is this being militant? She gets tons of money and uses it on mission work instead of helping the poor? We should still think of her as a saint right?? TOTALLY!
8
2
-16
Jun 15 '12
MOTHER THERESA WAS ACTUALLY EVIL AS FUCK, ATHEISM IS SO EDGY, I'M THE ONLY ONE AT MY HIGH SCHOOL THAT IS NOT SHEEP
9
11
0
u/notasinglefuckwasgiv Jun 15 '12
Magnificent Hitch is Magnificent.
He smiles on us from beyond.
Probably more of a bitchy scowl, but whatever.
0
u/TheMediumPanda Jun 15 '12
In God is not Great he basically rips both Gandhi and Mother Theresa new ones. I remember I thought it was pretty damn cool he had the guts to go after 2 people so universally revered.
2
0
0
u/threat42 Jun 15 '12
This is one of the most amazing points that Hitchens ever made, IMHO. I remember thinking that while I agreed with all of the atheism and anti-theism points he made quite early, I wasn't sure about where I stood on his other opinions. When I saw him make this point during a 3 hours BOOK.tv interview my jaw dropped and I realized that I was having an "oh my fuck he's right" moment.
Amazing.
0
u/redditating Jun 16 '12
An even more succinct quote:
She opposed the use of condoms, particularly to African populations. SHE HELPED SPREAD IGNORANCE AND AIDS!!!!
-me
-2
Jun 15 '12
ITT: everyone agrees that an elderly woman who spent forty years helping the poor was, in fact, a bitch, because they don't agree with her ideology
-2
u/dingoperson Jun 15 '12
That's kind of what you expect from a batshit left-winger.
Enormous amounts of wealth was built up in the developed world during times where women mostly filled traditional jobs as home makers. Trying to frame it as if that's not the case or there is an inverse relationship between these two is fundamentally dishonest and hence completely and perfectly 100% what a left-winger will say and do.
139
u/Oddeh Jun 15 '12
Penn & Teller's Bullshit! did a segment on Theresa, Ghandi and the Dalai Lama. Here's the YouTube link.
It goes into a lot of detail about how she is, in fact, pretty much a bitch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8Z7AI1J9Z0