LT
I did address this, when stating that I didn't think it was an accurate comparison. One is a medical intervention,
... that can be used in a variety of situations (not just accident but disease) to prevent a patient's death.
the other is a preventative measure amongst several.
Amongst several forms of contraception but we are talking of it's use not only as a contraceptive (allowing smaller family size and thus better quality of life for a poor family) but as a barrier to STD's (which can kill). The only other dual preventative measure (other than abstiance which is unnatural) are Femidoms, which are just like condoms; a bag a guy comes in, except it's worn by the woman not the man.
So you might seek to say that people had other choices, but in practical terms there is often no alternative to condoms, just as in practical terms there is often no alternative to blood.
I think you feel uneasy criticising religions. JW's are open season; they're a cult etc. The fact that other religions ALSO take away one's own ability to make a choice and exercise one's own conscience and are logically just as open to criticism as JW's is disquieting. You seem to have a big dividing line in your head between the cults it is okay to knock and some mainstream religions which put their believers in more-or-less the same situation as JW's put their believers in.
The line in a case as described here is illusory.
Nonetheless, I do agree with your main objection. In the face of poverty, over-population and rampant disease, I find it hard to condone such a doctrine, too. In fact I don't, but I'm not about to start a war with my Catholic brethren.
No war needed. Just don't defend what you don't feel to be defencable just because you feel they are 'brethren'. This illustrates what I say above; you feel freer to criticise JW's. RC's are your brethren, JW's are obviously less related to you (in your own opinion) as you have no bones about saying what you feel is false or wrong about their beliefs.
Yet the harm beliefs held by RC's and JW's can do is identical. They can kill. The controls used by religous leaders are very similar; even if the 'threat' is different, there is still threat at the base of it all.
Why the double standard? If Rangers employ a sniper to shoot the opposing team's goalie it is as wrong as if Celtic do it - even though there will be those who claim otherwise!
I think there should be greater accountability for all charities, regardless of whether or not they are religiously based.
No argument from me there; my point was that there ISN'T a similar level of treatment in this case.
can you point to a lack of diligence in financial matters
Yup;
- Under Indian law the finances should be disclosed and they haven't ever been disclosed
- Failing to return money donated by a thief from the proceeds of his crime
- Calling themselves 'Missionaries of Charity' and only donating 7% of their income to charitable causes (that means they are 93% a fund raising organsiation for the Catholic Church; nothing wrong with that in itself but do those giving them money realise this?).
Enough? Isn't the fact that the MoC take money from people who think it will help the hungry and poor, and it doesn't help the hungry and poor enough?
Secondly, you are always going to get "doctrinally influenced medical advice" even if it's as simple as saying that everything truly is a conscience matter and leaving it to the individual.
Oh come on. You can try and minimise the difference between saying;
'use condoms and you will be punished' or 'accept blood and you will be punished' (doctrinally inflienced advice)
and
'condom use will protect you from disease' or 'a blood transfusion will probably save your life' (medical advice)
... but as there is a huge difference, you're not going to do very well. Medical advice should be non-doctrinal and can be, as I illustrate above.
As for Robert Maxwell; well, I think he blows this out the water *LOL; mental image - Bob Maxwell; Bobbing all around the Bay of Biscay*;
People get away with it all the time. They are rarely taken to account for it after they have died, though.
And you seem to think that a politician would risk or allow taking her to court! You see the reaction HERE, when someone dares to question the 'blessed teresa'. Can you imagine the effect on political aspirations?
You have yourself asked questions that have been answered in previous parts of this thread. Why? Are you are so unwilling to actually deal with what she allowed to happen under her control that you don't even read the posted evidence and instead have to have it repeated to you? People defending her post material that actualy supports everything being said about her and don't realise, perhaps because they believe the 'mother teresa story' too deeply to question it.
And no one said she was an axe murderer or Robert Maxwell; what has been said is that
- for an organsiation portraying itself as dedicated to the care of the poor and dying, it actually spent very little of its income on them and
- its founder thought poverty was a beneficial experience and
- she mixed with despots and accepted donations from criminals; not that 'dancing with devil' would be a bad thing if the money ended up in the bellies of the poor - I'm all for utilitarianism when it is appropriate and applaud Bob Geldof for dealing with people he despises so that more money would get to the people who needed it. Teresa was hobnobing with scum and didn't have the justification of such hobnobing allowing more money to reach the dying... well, maybe the justification to allow 7% of more money to reach the dying... but that's fairly crap IMFFHO.
Obviously we don't have to agree Ross.
To me all the complaining about MT being critiicised has thus far been bogus and unjustified. No lies have been said about her, it's just the truth ('world famous humanitarian nun wasn't that humanitarian') that the facts presented about her bear out is unpalitable.
As for laser zapping; when I can afford it mate!
Gyles
