Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

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". Similarly, when Teresa was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979, she proclaimed in her acceptance speech that abortion was the greatest threat to peace in the world. (Hitchens cuttingly notes that when the award was announced, "few people had the poor taste to ask what she had ever done, or even claimed to do, for the cause of peace"). In 1992, she appeared at an open-air Mass in Ireland and said, "Let us promise Our Lady who loves Ireland so much that we will never allow in this country a single abortion. And no contraceptives." She also campaigned in Ireland to oppose the successful 1995 referendum to legalize divorce in that predominantly Catholic country.

The connection between overpopulation and poverty seemed never to occur to Teresa, who said on another occasion that she was not concerned about it because "God always provides". (The very existence of her mission would seem to cast doubt on that.) In upholding the irrational dogmas of Catholicism, she failed to recognize - or perhaps chose to disregard - the obvious conclusion that inadequate access to family planning services was and is one of the greatest causes of human destitution.

Teresa's free clinics provided care that was at best rudimentary and haphazard and at worst unsanitary and dangerous, despite the enormous amounts of donations she received. Multiple volunteers at Teresa's clinics, such as Mary Loudon and Susan Shields, have testified to the inadequate care provided to the dying. Despite routinely receiving millions of dollars in donations, Teresa deliberately kept her clinics barren and austere, lacking all but the most rudimentary and haphazard care.

Volunteers such as Loudon, and Western doctors such as Robin Fox of the Lancet, wrote with shock of what they found in Teresa's clinics. No tests were performed to determine the patients' ailments. No modern medical equipment was available. Even people dying of cancer, suffering terrible agony, were given no painkillers other than aspirin. Needles were rinsed and reused, without proper sterilization. No one was ever sent to the hospital, even people in clear need of emergency surgery or other treatment.

Again, it is important to note that these conditions were not the unavoidable result of triage. Teresa's organization routinely received multimillion-dollar donations which were squirreled away in bank accounts, while volunteers were told to beg donors for more money and plead extreme poverty and desperate need. The money she received could easily have built half a dozen fully equipped modern hospitals and clinics, but was never used for that purpose. No, this negligent and rudimentary care was deliberate - about which, see the next point. However, despite her praise for poverty, Teresa hypocritically sought out the most advanced care possible in the Western world when she herself was in need of it.

Teresa considered converting the sick and the poor to be a higher priority than providing for their actual needs, and believed that human suffering was beneficial and even "beautiful". The following quote from Teresa says it all:

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."

On another occasion, Teresa told a terminal cancer patient, who was dying in extreme pain, that he should consider himself fortunate: "You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you." (She freely related his reply, which she seemed not to realize was meant as a putdown: "Then please tell him to stop kissing me.")

Despite the widespread perception that Teresa sought to relieve the suffering of the poor, the truth was anything but. As Hitchens documents, she actually considered suffering to be beneficial. This is why she kept her clinics so rudimentary - not so that sick people could be cured, but so they could get closer to God through their suffering. As critics like Michael Hakeem put it: "Mother Teresa is thoroughly saturated with a primitive fundamentalist religious worldview that sees pain, hardship, and suffering as ennobling experiences and a beautiful expression of affiliation with Jesus Christ and his ordeal on the cross." To her mind, they were not evils to be relieved, but blessings to be glorified.

But, of course, suffering like Christ was of no benefit if the sufferer did not actually accept Christ. To this end, Teresa's clinics were run as conversion factories. Ex-volunteers have testified that Teresa taught her followers to secretly baptize the dying - people who could not resist, or were not aware of what was happening to them - without their consent. As ex-volunteer Susan Shields wrote, "Material aid was a means of reaching their souls, of showing the poor that God loved them... Secrecy was important so that it would not come to be known that Mother Teresa's sisters were baptizing Hindus and Moslems".

It seems that Teresa's true ambition was to found a Catholic religious order on a par with the Franciscans and the Benedictines. (Her Nobel prize money was used to this end.) She may well get her wish; her Missionaries of Charity organization numbers as many as 4,000 nuns and 40,000 lay workers. If she wished to create a convent whose mission is to glorify human suffering, then it is for Catholics to decide whether they want to support that mission. Secularists and humanists, however, should rethink whether we want to support an effort that is so manifestly at odds with all that we stand for.

D1B wrote:Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce you to Mother Theresa.....

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". Similarly, when Teresa was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979, she proclaimed in her acceptance speech that abortion was the greatest threat to peace in the world. (Hitchens cuttingly notes that when the award was announced, "few people had the poor taste to ask what she had ever done, or even claimed to do, for the cause of peace"). In 1992, she appeared at an open-air Mass in Ireland and said, "Let us promise Our Lady who loves Ireland so much that we will never allow in this country a single abortion. And no contraceptives." She also campaigned in Ireland to oppose the successful 1995 referendum to legalize divorce in that predominantly Catholic country.

The connection between overpopulation and poverty seemed never to occur to Teresa, who said on another occasion that she was not concerned about it because "God always provides". (The very existence of her mission would seem to cast doubt on that.) In upholding the irrational dogmas of Catholicism, she failed to recognize - or perhaps chose to disregard - the obvious conclusion that inadequate access to family planning services was and is one of the greatest causes of human destitution.

Teresa's free clinics provided care that was at best rudimentary and haphazard and at worst unsanitary and dangerous, despite the enormous amounts of donations she received. Multiple volunteers at Teresa's clinics, such as Mary Loudon and Susan Shields, have testified to the inadequate care provided to the dying. Despite routinely receiving millions of dollars in donations, Teresa deliberately kept her clinics barren and austere, lacking all but the most rudimentary and haphazard care.

Volunteers such as Loudon, and Western doctors such as Robin Fox of the Lancet, wrote with shock of what they found in Teresa's clinics. No tests were performed to determine the patients' ailments. No modern medical equipment was available. Even people dying of cancer, suffering terrible agony, were given no painkillers other than aspirin. Needles were rinsed and reused, without proper sterilization. No one was ever sent to the hospital, even people in clear need of emergency surgery or other treatment.

Again, it is important to note that these conditions were not the unavoidable result of triage. Teresa's organization routinely received multimillion-dollar donations which were squirreled away in bank accounts, while volunteers were told to beg donors for more money and plead extreme poverty and desperate need. The money she received could easily have built half a dozen fully equipped modern hospitals and clinics, but was never used for that purpose. No, this negligent and rudimentary care was deliberate - about which, see the next point. However, despite her praise for poverty, Teresa hypocritically sought out the most advanced care possible in the Western world when she herself was in need of it.

Teresa considered converting the sick and the poor to be a higher priority than providing for their actual needs, and believed that human suffering was beneficial and even "beautiful". The following quote from Teresa says it all:

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."

On another occasion, Teresa told a terminal cancer patient, who was dying in extreme pain, that he should consider himself fortunate: "You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you." (She freely related his reply, which she seemed not to realize was meant as a putdown: "Then please tell him to stop kissing me.")

Despite the widespread perception that Teresa sought to relieve the suffering of the poor, the truth was anything but. As Hitchens documents, she actually considered suffering to be beneficial. This is why she kept her clinics so rudimentary - not so that sick people could be cured, but so they could get closer to God through their suffering. As critics like Michael Hakeem put it: "Mother Teresa is thoroughly saturated with a primitive fundamentalist religious worldview that sees pain, hardship, and suffering as ennobling experiences and a beautiful expression of affiliation with Jesus Christ and his ordeal on the cross." To her mind, they were not evils to be relieved, but blessings to be glorified.

But, of course, suffering like Christ was of no benefit if the sufferer did not actually accept Christ. To this end, Teresa's clinics were run as conversion factories. Ex-volunteers have testified that Teresa taught her followers to secretly baptize the dying - people who could not resist, or were not aware of what was happening to them - without their consent. As ex-volunteer Susan Shields wrote, "Material aid was a means of reaching their souls, of showing the poor that God loved them... Secrecy was important so that it would not come to be known that Mother Teresa's sisters were baptizing Hindus and Moslems".

It seems that Teresa's true ambition was to found a Catholic religious order on a par with the Franciscans and the Benedictines. (Her Nobel prize money was used to this end.) She may well get her wish; her Missionaries of Charity organization numbers as many as 4,000 nuns and 40,000 lay workers. If she wished to create a convent whose mission is to glorify human suffering, then it is for Catholics to decide whether they want to support that mission. Secularists and humanists, however, should rethink whether we want to support an effort that is so manifestly at odds with all that we stand for.

http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/05/ ... eresa.html


This demon who created hell on earth will rot in hell.

Franks Tanks wrote:

D1B wrote:Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce you to Mother Theresa.....



http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/05/ ... eresa.html


This demon who created hell on earth will rot in hell.

She did more than just about anyone to help the poor, but she clearly had no understanding of why the people she helped were in the situation they were, or how to reverse the trend. She wasnt educated and probably wasnt bery smart. She was a simple nun who helped the poor-- going to her for debates on public policy is just plain unessary.

D1B wrote:Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce you to Mother Theresa.....

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". Similarly, when Teresa was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979, she proclaimed in her acceptance speech that abortion was the greatest threat to peace in the world. (Hitchens cuttingly notes that when the award was announced, "few people had the poor taste to ask what she had ever done, or even claimed to do, for the cause of peace"). In 1992, she appeared at an open-air Mass in Ireland and said, "Let us promise Our Lady who loves Ireland so much that we will never allow in this country a single abortion. And no contraceptives." She also campaigned in Ireland to oppose the successful 1995 referendum to legalize divorce in that predominantly Catholic country.

The connection between overpopulation and poverty seemed never to occur to Teresa, who said on another occasion that she was not concerned about it because "God always provides". (The very existence of her mission would seem to cast doubt on that.) In upholding the irrational dogmas of Catholicism, she failed to recognize - or perhaps chose to disregard - the obvious conclusion that inadequate access to family planning services was and is one of the greatest causes of human destitution.

Teresa's free clinics provided care that was at best rudimentary and haphazard and at worst unsanitary and dangerous, despite the enormous amounts of donations she received. Multiple volunteers at Teresa's clinics, such as Mary Loudon and Susan Shields, have testified to the inadequate care provided to the dying. Despite routinely receiving millions of dollars in donations, Teresa deliberately kept her clinics barren and austere, lacking all but the most rudimentary and haphazard care.

Volunteers such as Loudon, and Western doctors such as Robin Fox of the Lancet, wrote with shock of what they found in Teresa's clinics. No tests were performed to determine the patients' ailments. No modern medical equipment was available. Even people dying of cancer, suffering terrible agony, were given no painkillers other than aspirin. Needles were rinsed and reused, without proper sterilization. No one was ever sent to the hospital, even people in clear need of emergency surgery or other treatment.

Again, it is important to note that these conditions were not the unavoidable result of triage. Teresa's organization routinely received multimillion-dollar donations which were squirreled away in bank accounts, while volunteers were told to beg donors for more money and plead extreme poverty and desperate need. The money she received could easily have built half a dozen fully equipped modern hospitals and clinics, but was never used for that purpose. No, this negligent and rudimentary care was deliberate - about which, see the next point. However, despite her praise for poverty, Teresa hypocritically sought out the most advanced care possible in the Western world when she herself was in need of it.

Teresa considered converting the sick and the poor to be a higher priority than providing for their actual needs, and believed that human suffering was beneficial and even "beautiful". The following quote from Teresa says it all:

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."

On another occasion, Teresa told a terminal cancer patient, who was dying in extreme pain, that he should consider himself fortunate: "You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you." (She freely related his reply, which she seemed not to realize was meant as a putdown: "Then please tell him to stop kissing me.")

Despite the widespread perception that Teresa sought to relieve the suffering of the poor, the truth was anything but. As Hitchens documents, she actually considered suffering to be beneficial. This is why she kept her clinics so rudimentary - not so that sick people could be cured, but so they could get closer to God through their suffering. As critics like Michael Hakeem put it: "Mother Teresa is thoroughly saturated with a primitive fundamentalist religious worldview that sees pain, hardship, and suffering as ennobling experiences and a beautiful expression of affiliation with Jesus Christ and his ordeal on the cross." To her mind, they were not evils to be relieved, but blessings to be glorified.

But, of course, suffering like Christ was of no benefit if the sufferer did not actually accept Christ. To this end, Teresa's clinics were run as conversion factories. Ex-volunteers have testified that Teresa taught her followers to secretly baptize the dying - people who could not resist, or were not aware of what was happening to them - without their consent. As ex-volunteer Susan Shields wrote, "Material aid was a means of reaching their souls, of showing the poor that God loved them... Secrecy was important so that it would not come to be known that Mother Teresa's sisters were baptizing Hindus and Moslems".

It seems that Teresa's true ambition was to found a Catholic religious order on a par with the Franciscans and the Benedictines. (Her Nobel prize money was used to this end.) She may well get her wish; her Missionaries of Charity organization numbers as many as 4,000 nuns and 40,000 lay workers. If she wished to create a convent whose mission is to glorify human suffering, then it is for Catholics to decide whether they want to support that mission. Secularists and humanists, however, should rethink whether we want to support an effort that is so manifestly at odds with all that we stand for.

http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/05/ ... eresa.html


This demon who created hell on earth will rot in hell.

D1B wrote:

Franks Tanks wrote:

She did more than just about anyone to help the poor, but she clearly had no understanding of why the people she helped were in the situation they were, or how to reverse the trend. She wasnt educated and probably wasnt bery smart. She was a simple nun who helped the poor-- going to her for debates on public policy is just plain unessary.

Well the point really is she wasn't helping the poor. Like many ascetic catholics, she was a perverted quack who revered poverty and celebrated suffering. She practiced the absolute opposite of palliative care.

Her views on abortion, condoms and contraceptics ensured a stead stream of customers and wealthy donors from all over the world.

Your right, she was a dumbass.

Franks Tanks wrote:

D1B wrote:
Well the point really is she wasn't helping the poor. Like many ascetic catholics, she was a perverted quack who revered poverty and celebrated suffering. She practiced the absolute opposite of palliative care.

Her views on abortion, condoms and contraceptics ensured a stead stream of customers and wealthy donors from all over the world.

Your right, she was a dumbass.

The tragedy is that she though she was doing the right thing.

She was born is some backwoods in Albania. She had no education, then entered the convent and got brainwashed by old school nuns with crazy fundamentalist beliefs. As you say the suffering for christ stuff is absolute garbage, but she really thought it was the way to go it appears. No way I am going to the slums of Calcuta to help the poor and sick-- she did so she deserves credit. Its a shame she wasnt able to have an open mind and help these people in a more effective way.

Franks Tanks wrote:

D1B wrote:
Well the point really is she wasn't helping the poor. Like many ascetic catholics, she was a perverted quack who revered poverty and celebrated suffering. She practiced the absolute opposite of palliative care.

Her views on abortion, condoms and contraceptics ensured a stead stream of customers and wealthy donors from all over the world.

Your right, she was a dumbass.

The tragedy is that she though she was doing the right thing.

She was born is some backwoods in Albania. She had no education, then entered the convent and got brainwashed by old school nuns with crazy fundamentalist beliefs. As you say the suffering for christ stuff is absolute garbage, but she really thought it was the way to go it appears. No way I am going to the slums of Calcuta to help the poor and sick-- she did so she deserves credit. Its a shame she wasnt able to have an open mind and help these people in a more effective way.

D1B wrote:

Franks Tanks wrote:
The tragedy is that she though she was doing the right thing.

She was born is some backwoods in Albania. She had no education, then entered the convent and got brainwashed by old school nuns with crazy fundamentalist beliefs. As you say the suffering for christ stuff is absolute garbage, but she really thought it was the way to go it appears. No way I am going to the slums of Calcuta to help the poor and sick-- she did so she deserves credit. Its a shame she wasnt able to have an open mind and help these people in a more effective way.

Fair enough.

andy7171 wrote:

D1B wrote:Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce you to Mother Theresa.....



http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/05/ ... eresa.html


This demon who created hell on earth will rot in hell.

JFC! Can I get the Cliff Notes?

Cap'n Cat wrote:I just hope it's Jessica Alba who plays her in the biopic.

Franks Tanks wrote:

D1B wrote:
Fair enough.

Readin some of her quotes are quite startling-- very unchristian like in many ways

JMU DJ wrote:

Franks Tanks wrote:

Readin some of her quotes are quite startling-- very unchristian like in many ways

No ISH! I was reading some of those things last night when I found all the pope quotes... all I could say was " "


That's why I laughed when I saw this thread, I figured D was doing the same web search I was.

andy7171 wrote:

D1B wrote:Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce you to Mother Theresa.....



http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/05/ ... eresa.html


This demon who created hell on earth will rot in hell.

JFC! Can I get the Cliff Notes?

JoltinJoe wrote:

JMU DJ wrote:

No ISH! I was reading some of those things last night when I found all the pope quotes... all I could say was " "


That's why I laughed when I saw this thread, I figured D was doing the same web search I was.

Web research.

JMU DJ wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
Web research.

Did I say research? Wow dude, how old are you? The internet does have a bunch of BS on it, but if you are a smart individual, you can find legitimate research articles, sites devoted to research, etc. Back into your closet Joe, tell me the next thing your church fed to you.

kalm wrote:

JMU DJ wrote:
Did I say research? Wow dude, how old are you? The internet does have a bunch of BS on it, but if you are a smart individual, you can find legitimate research articles, sites devoted to research, etc. Back into your closet Joe, tell me the next thing your church fed to you.

It's like saying you should avoid reading the news paper because of the liberal media bias. The skill of reading between the lines combined with a healthy does of skepticism is all you need.

BTW, Christopher Hitchens would have been burned at the stake for his heresy.

D1B wrote:

kalm wrote:
It's like saying you should avoid reading the news paper because of the liberal media bias. The skill of reading between the lines combined with a healthy does of skepticism is all you need.

BTW, Christopher Hitchens would have been burned at the stake for his heresy.

It's all he's got. Joltin Joe

JoltinJoe wrote:

D1B wrote:

It's all he's got. Joltin Joe

You're the guy citing to Christopher Hitchens. If you are citing Hitchens, it's tantamount to admitting that you lack the skill of reading between the lines with a healthy dose of skepticism.

You believe anything you read on the internet. If God ran a website, you would be a believer.

D1B wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
You're the guy citing to Christopher Hitchens. If you are citing Hitchens, it's tantamount to admitting that you lack the skill of reading between the lines with a healthy dose of skepticism.

You believe anything you read on the internet. If God ran a website, you would be a believer.

I'll put Hitchen up against your sorry ass any day. You're getting your ass kicked right now by a biology major and a high school kid.

JoltinJoe wrote:

D1B wrote:
I'll put Hitchen up against your sorry ass any day. You're getting your ass kicked right now by a biology major and a high school kid.

You are so delusional. You have been pwned over and over again. Now you are citing Hitchens, a friggin' idiot with zero credibility.

You could have avoided all this if you paid attention in college. Now all you have is internet research.

JoltinJoe wrote:

D1B wrote:
I'll put Hitchen up against your sorry ass any day. You're getting your ass kicked right now by a biology major and a high school kid.

You are so delusional. You have been pwned over and over again. Now you are citing Hitchens, a friggin' idiot with zero credibility.

You could have avoided all this if you paid attention in college. Now all you have is internet research.

OSBF wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
You are so delusional. You have been pwned over and over again. Now you are citing Hitchens, a friggin' idiot with zero credibility.

You could have avoided all this if you paid attention in college. Now all you have is internet research.

Is your point that the quotes aren't accurate?

If you have some sort of documented source to the contrary, lets see it.

Well, that is provided it isn't an internet source, cuz they ain't credible.