How about even if medical care isn't something you provide in the first place, you send the person who needs it to someone who does? To me, it's irrevalent that she was a catholic, that sort of behaviour isn't acceptable from anyone... period. What would the reaction be if an atheist behaved in a similar way to this? Would criticising their behaviour be seen as hateful?
Mother Teresa attacked by Atheist/Anostic group -
by james_woods 205 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
Satanus
I have read the posts since i was last here. They have changed my view of mt teresa. Rather than easing peoples' suffering, she seems to have glorified in it, to an extent. That goes counter to my instincts, and my experience. I know personally, the difference between someone having and administering pain killers and witholding them form a sufferer. It would seem that mt would refuse, rather than give those. Not cool.
S
-
Band on the Run
I don't think the college group is using the best strategy. They are college students!
MT may be studied for a long time b/c of the contradictions. I read in Vanity Fair that the pope gave her limos as gifts. Weird.
It seems she believed in a type of Christianity that has almost disappeared. I met with a former nun in her order. She told me about many shocking things. The order raises them and refutes them. The whole idea of a missionary is suspect today.
The pr about her made her sound messianic. You don't need to be an atheist to realize that fraud and inhumane conditions existed. The sister said we can not judge by western standards. In other words, Indians are not entitled to pain killers and a comfy room.
Doctors without Borders prob. would have a done a much better job. The West wanted to believe in a heroic MT. I don't see her as evil but captive to her form of Catholicism.
-
glenster
I read the recommended article. Again, this is something I've only done a
little research about, so I'm learning as I go along.Daya Dan, the care center that the article says is getting some overdue im-
provements for challenged children, was founded in 1998, a year after Theresa
died, so that's doesn't pertain to Theresa or earlier policies. The article
reaffirms one thing I thought was probably true:"'We should remember that Mother Teresa was clear that Missionaries of Charity
was not operating a hospital. The homes are to serve the poor and give them the
basic needs,' says Sunita Kumar, wife of former India Davis Cup coach Naresh
Kumar and one who has been working with Missionaries’ sisters for over four
decades."
http://forbesindia.com/article/on-assignment/mother-teresas-legacy-is-under-a-cloud/15932/0?id=15932&pg=0That sounds like a Salvation Army post to me.
I'm still not clear what the obligation is for the group to have been more
than that--a place for temp. shelter, bath, and food. So I can imagine the
haphazard efforts of those not trained in medical care, or not giving it, if en-
countering something drastic, same as at a Salvation Army post, or such efforts
in a transition period if they've tried to become more since Theresa's time.“What stops them from starting a hospital? Surely, money is not a problem,”
asks Aroup Chatterjee, a London-based critic of Missionaries of Charity.Isn't that like asking why a Salvation Army post doesn't become a hospital?
We generally don't hear complaints that they aren't.The same Catholics already have missionaries trained for medical work (see the
links in an earlier post). What I'd still like to see these articles explain is
the policy of relationship between the simpler outposts and the Catholic groups
with missionaries trained as doctors to diagnose and treat patients. -
NewChapter
That still doesn't address the issue that she discouraged, or prevented, people that could be saved from getting medical care. She seems to have taught them to just accept their lot in life and die. The Salvation Army doesn't do this.
-
brinjen
It's getting harder and harder to stay sitting on my hands about what should be an obvious point that none of MT's defenders seem to have noticed yet.
-
NewChapter
It's getting harder and harder to stay sitting on my hands about what should be an obvious point that none of MT's defenders seem to have noticed yet.
Don't keep me in suspense!
-
brinjen
OK then, if the atheists on this thread are so hateful towards Mother Theresa because of her religious roots... why no criticism for the Salvation Army? Or Red Cross for that matter? Last I heard they were both religious organisations. Red Cross (I know they haven't rated much of a mention on this thread) in particular... I honestly cannot re-call one atheist here critical of them in any way. Religious org, and one that we were all once taught to hate (kinda in response to the insinuations we're critical of MT because she was catholic).
Why must criticism of a particular person always be taken as religious assault?
-
NewChapter
I thought a little bit about that when I commented on what the Salvation Army did in comparison to MT. BOTR is not an atheist, and she actually talked to people that knew MT. But that's how it goes. When painting a militant atheist narrative, people look to confirm it at every turn, which means we cannot criticize religious leaders. Well we can, as long as they are not Christian leaders---or leaders they don't feel protective over. There are posters that put down Dawkins a lot, and we may argue his ideas and technique, but we never accuse them of having bad hearts that don't want truth for not caring for Dawkins. That's why I said these conversations are always raised to biblical proportions.
So far, only Jesus has been defended as vehemently. Weird.
-
still thinking
I am not personally criticising catholicism at all with me disgust at mother Teresa.
I have already pointed out that I was very impressed with the catholic hospice that my mother went to. Because of the treatment they gave her for the nausea and pain and they were very respectful towards the family wishes.
They are vastly different to what MT administered to her patients. MT just let people die. Even people that could have been helped.
Most of the money that was donated to HER charities was certainly never spent on the dying she tended to.
I agree that the people who want to support the way MT 'helped' the dying need to ask themselves the question. If this was an atheist treating the dying this way, would they be defending that person? Honestly ask yourself that question. The ask yourself, if an athiest ran a charity and millions of dollars was donated to that charity and you discovered that the BULK of that money went somewhere else and had nothing to do with what you donated it for. Would you still defend that person? Would you respect that person?