Joanne Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 LInk to article. The quote I can most relate to, and is my experience here, other places online and in real life: Reading through the responses, a pattern emerges. Most seem to be under the impression that Bell was never a “real†Christian, and therefore just doesn’t “get it.†It’s a convenient assumption because it doesn’t require any reflection on the problems with Christianity, but rather places the shortcomings firmly on Bell’s head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I was unable to pull up the article, so I'm just going by what you quoted. I guess it is uncomfortable to some people when others come to their own conclusions. That's one problem I have with religion. We aren't generally encouraged to think those sorts of uncomfortable thoughts. Ideally we just go along and agree and if we think the correct thoughts we will become enlightened by someone else's version of the truth. Not believing something doesn't make it false necessarily, but believing in something doesn't make it true either. Too bad. I'd believe myself thinner, prettier, and smarter. It's about faith in something that cannot be proven. Some people just don't have faith. You can't force someone to believe something. I can't force myself to believe something. Why that makes people uncomfortable is beyond me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornblower Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I can't get that link to work either but the story is about a pastor - that's why it's more notable, I guess.http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/12/27/a-year-after-giving-atheism-a-try-former-pastor-ryan-bell-admits-i-dont-think-that-god-exists/ & reaction from some http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/12/29/how-christians-reacted-after-ex-pastor-ryan-bell-all-but-confirmed-hes-an-atheist/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 In terms of clergy of any kind, I've come across some where I doubted their sincerity. That doesn't bother me in the least. If they just keep going along because that's a job to them, fine whatever. I'm just saying I don't think it's completely uncommon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrincessMommy Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I saw his story earlier this week... but per your quote: I'm not sure what 7th Day Adventists believe about Calvinist theology of "once saved always saved", but it's sad that most of the responders seemed to think that way. knowing how awful online commenters can be, I'm not sure I'd rely on those as a fair expression of people's responses. The article seems to be talking about responses to articles on other news sites. What other kind of responses were they expecting from open comments on a news site? Don't they remember the horrible things that were said when Rick Warren's son committed suicide or any other famous person had a tragedy in their life? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted January 2, 2015 Author Share Posted January 2, 2015 I was unable to pull up the article, so I'm just going by what you quoted. I guess it is uncomfortable to some people when others come to their own conclusions. That's one problem I have with religion. We aren't generally encouraged to think those sorts of uncomfortable thoughts. Ideally we just go along and agree and if we think the correct thoughts we will become enlightened by someone else's version of the truth. Not believing something doesn't make it false necessarily, but believing in something doesn't make it true either. Too bad. I'd believe myself thinner, prettier, and smarter. It's about faith in something that cannot be proven. Some people just don't have faith. You can't force someone to believe something. I can't force myself to believe something. Why that makes people uncomfortable is beyond me. I think I might have fixed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornblower Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Joanne - I keep getting a blank page, even when I search for it or try to look at it in the google cache. It's odd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I still can't pull it up. I frequently have trouble opening articles here though so it might not be you. I can kind of imagine being disappointed as a parishioner though. If I looked to a person as a sort of leader and ideal, it might be upsetting that they renounce the very thing I was following them for. I once looked up to a neighbor. She was very into healthy eating, etc. Then I found out she did drugs. When I asked her about it she defended it. I was shocked. She wasn't the person I thought she was. People might be uncomfortable with how fragile the whole thing might really be. Like how can this person who taught me about this and lived this ideal now suddenly deny it? Might I do that? And then what? Does it mean so little to them they can completely change their mind in a year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 If the link is very long you might try tinyurl. Sometimes very long links don't work right when you copy and paste them over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraidycat Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 The link works for me. Off to read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 This is so bizarre. I can pull up the addicting info site, but when I went looking for this article and clicked on the headline it brings me to a blank page. I don't know if maybe my filters think there is something not right with it or what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmseB Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 This is so bizarre. I can pull up the addicting info site, but when I went looking for this article and clicked on the headline it brings me to a blank page. I don't know if maybe my filters think there is something not right with it or what. I have the same problem. I can't read the article no matter how I try to access it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I don't see anything newsworthy in it. People make choices like that all the time. Some are pastors. Of course he got fired from his seminary. Of course his congregation isn't happy. He chose to step away from Christianity at first as an experiment and then as a conclusion. Of course he has the right to his own spiritual journey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I can't get that link to work either but the story is about a pastor - that's why it's more notable, I guess. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/12/27/a-year-after-giving-atheism-a-try-former-pastor-ryan-bell-admits-i-dont-think-that-god-exists/ & reaction from some http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/12/29/how-christians-reacted-after-ex-pastor-ryan-bell-all-but-confirmed-hes-an-atheist/ I think this is the same story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 As to the comments - are these comments made by people who personally know him? Are they made by people who matter to him? Are they made by people with any of a reputation that would make us listen to them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornblower Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 yes, that's what I meant, it IS the same story but different site. I can't get Joanne's link to work on firefox but it works in IE fwiw.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I think the comments are mostly just people on the Internet. Just opinions. LOL - yes, I know that. The point is that the comments aren't newsworthy either because there is nothing there to give any weight to them or to make them even representative of anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuga Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 knowing how awful online commenters can be, I'm not sure I'd rely on those as a fair expression of people's responses. I agree. Mother Theresa went through along phase--that lasted until she died for all we know--of not feeling in touch with God. How you interpret that is up to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Yes I don't know if I never believed or at the point I thought I did I just had never really questioned what I was told I was supposed to believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I agree. Mother Theresa went through along phase--that lasted until she died for all we know--of not feeling in touch with God. How you interpret that is up to you. That's interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brit29 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I agree. Mother Theresa went through along phase--that lasted until she died for all we know--of not feeling in touch with God. How you interpret that is up to you. That's really interesting. I will have to read more about that. As for the article, I think many many people begin their spititual journey as the pastor did. They either decide to allow God into their lives or they experiment without one. I do think people have an idea of how the end will be before they start though. I think when a religious person starts to lose faith, they either have to force themselves into believing with the hope it comes back or allow their mind to go into an atheist/agnostic state. My opinion only, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 So it's allowing one's mind to be atheist? Come on now. It's not like that at all. I haven't allowed or disallowed anything. It's just what I think. Nothing magical to it really. Then again I guess that would be how a religious person would explain atheism to themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuga Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 For those interested in Mother Theresa, a link to an article in Time on the subject. You can search more for her letters. What is interesting to me is that her work did not flag. http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1655720,00.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gardenmom5 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 honestly - it doesn't surprise me that he lives as an atheist for a year, and decides he's not religious anymore. what did he think would happen? same concept of "use it or lose it". I'd be interested in an atheist living a sincerely religious lifestyle for a year and seeing what happens. my mother used to be able to play chopin nocturnes as written. but she stopped playing. then she'd sit down, and wanted to play, but couldn't do it anymore. she lost the ability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 For those interested in Mother Theresa, a link to an article in Time on the subject. You can search more for her letters. What is interesting to me is that her work did not flag. http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1655720,00.html Why is that interesting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I don't see anything newsworthy in it. People make choices like that all the time. Some are pastors. Of course he got fired from his seminary. Of course his congregation isn't happy. He chose to step away from Christianity at first as an experiment and then as a conclusion. Of course he has the right to his own spiritual journey. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 honestly - it doesn't surprise me that he lives as an atheist for a year, and decides he's not religious anymore. what did he think would happen? same concept of "use it or lose it". I'd be interested in an atheist living a sincerely religious lifestyle for a year and seeing what happens. my mother used to be able to play chopin nocturnes as written. but she stopped playing. then she'd sit down, and wanted to play, but couldn't do it anymore. she lost the ability. Well in a way I was an atheist living a religious lifestyle for more than a year. I went to religious education classes. I went to extra masses. I volunteered to be a part of them. I read from the Bible. I thought about it a lot. After awhile I realized I really didn't believe any of it and no amount of trying was going to change that. If it's lost in a year, then to me it was never there or never all that true or strong of a belief. I guess I don't see believing in a deity as a sort of ability. Either one does or they do not. Sometimes some people are unsure. But it's not a muscle that gets flabby from lack of use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Why is that interesting? I agree. I assume she questioned her beliefs because of the suffering she saw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Not all of us. I don't think belief or unbelief is a choice - I would say scripture points to it being a divine act. Superstition or habit is one things, it genuine faith? Not a choice. You can't will yourself into it (or out of it). /my .02 Oh that's interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris in VA Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I agree. I assume she questioned her beliefs because of the suffering she saw. She didn't question her beliefs. She still assumed them to be true/Truth. What she lacked was a feeling of closeness to the God she'd previously felt close to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Not all of us. I don't think belief or unbelief is a choice - I would say scripture points to it being a divine act. Superstition or habit is one things, it genuine faith? Not a choice. You can't will yourself into it (or out of it). /my .02 I think that is true for some people but not for me. I'm thinking of it like a soul mate connection. If it happens to you, it's happened to you and it is a thing you feel no matter how inconvenient it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 She didn't question her beliefs. She still assumed them to be true/Truth. What she lacked was a feeling of closeness to the God she'd previously felt close to. Ok. I guess I should have read the article before making shi* up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I think that is true for some people but not for me. I'm thinking of it like a soul mate connection. If it happens to you, it's happened to you and it is a thing you feel no matter how inconvenient it is. Huh..that's interesting too. I don't know which I believe. I don't feel like I've chosen something. It's like being born with brown hair. I could dye my hair blond. I could pretend to believe or "try out" the belief. Ultimately, my real color is brown though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuga Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Why is that interesting? I think it's interesting because she theoretically connected her work to the love she got from Jesus, but then even when she stopped feeling that connection, she continued her dedication to serving god's children as she saw them. Mother Theresa was a great example of faith. What she created from nothing--one of the greatest charitable enterprises for the least fortunate on the earth--from a Catholic church that was not headed in that direction at the time, is shocking. I mean if her work doesn't amaze you (not you, personally, but the "you" thinking about it) I am not sure what would. Besides bringing the plain sari to the Catholic church--I mean nobody did that in 1946, it was truly revolutionary in one of the most counter-authority ways during that time, when England was still in charge of India, independence was a year away, and WWII had just ended, it is difficult to understand just how amazing that move was--not only that, but this was while the Church was ignoring the holocaust (M. Theresa of course being quite far from that). But that was when she decided to live among the poor (though it took time for her to leave--when she did, it was 1948 and India was independent and Pakistan another country, WWII over..) So she really created a revolution in the Catholic church and at that time, and though she was not a liberation theologist, she was one of the movers who helped create that space for them to really grow in. I am not sure if even now there is another Catholic order in a non Euro-Mediterranean country, in which the servants (nuns, monks) wear the local dress. I certainly have not seen it. I know it seem superficial but traditional dress, food, and music mean a lot to people. And then to think that for a great deal of her life, when she was continuing this work, just imagine, to do so out of what I'd call a blind faith, not faith where you hold Jesus' hand but move without feeling the presence of god, but just to continue because you believe that if there is a god this is your calling, and that there must be a god because god is love and you love these people--that to me is mind-blowing. Whatever one thinks of the Catholic church, whatever one thinks of religion, or god, and I'm not the greatest fan of any of those, I think Mother Theresa is one of the greatest figures in the history of the planet. I guess if you believe in god you'd say he worked through her. I don't believe in god, but I believe Mother Theresa took love and truth to another level with what she did. It speaks to the power of the human spirit that she could continue without the feeling that many say makes up their relationship with god. I do not think her effect on the Catholic church, Christianity, or the world can be understated. John Lennon talked about love. Blah blah blah. (I like Lennon. :) ) But she showed the power of love. Pretty incredible. So yeah, to me that absence of feeling is interesting, but probably only because her whole life was so amazing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris in VA Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Ok. I guess I should have read the article before making shi* up. *dying* You consistently crack me up. Hope ya know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I think it's interesting because she theoretically connected her work to the love she got from Jesus, but then even when she stopped feeling that connection, she continued her dedication to serving god's children as she saw them. Thank you for your reply. :) I still don't get it though. :p Of course she continued her work. What else would she do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornblower Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I've never been able to think of Mother Theresa the same way reading Hitchens on her. And mind you, Hitchens fairly regulalry makes me throw things at the wall but on her, I think he nailed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommy22alyns Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 And seriously ? I know all one-starred threads are meant to be 'accidental' but it's funny how these accidents keep happening on certain threads...so childish... Be fair. "Certain threads" are being posted with thinly veiled agendas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommy22alyns Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I am sincerely curious as to other perspectives on Mother Teresa though. Please share. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommy22alyns Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I must have missed where CC labeled threads were posted to actively denigrate non-Christians? If you could show me examples, that would help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornblower Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I am sincerely curious as to other perspectives on Mother Teresa though. Please share. :) There have been some serious questions raised about where a lot of the money has gone. She refused audits.... Also: "MT 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 Academics Suggest Hitchens Called it Right on Mother Theresa http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/iv-drip/academics-suggest-hitch-called-it-right-on-mother-teresa-8521363.html Hitchens in Slate "Mommy Dearest" http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2003/10/mommie_dearest.html & his entire book Missionary Position http://www.amazon.com/Missionary-Position-Mother-Teresa-Practice/dp/1455523003/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420248021&sr=8-1&keywords=missionary+position Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brit29 Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 So it's allowing one's mind to be atheist? Come on now. It's not like that at all. I haven't allowed or disallowed anything. It's just what I think. Nothing magical to it really. Then again I guess that would be how a religious person would explain atheism to themselves. I think for a lot of people it is. If someone who previously has been religious, if the idea that there's not a god crept into their mind, they may have to make a conscience decision to go down that rabbit trail or to push it out. I don't think there is anything "magical" about it either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I feel like Louis CK has the best take on the subject. Linky-loo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraidycat Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Be fair. "Certain threads" are being posted with thinly veiled agendas. Be fair. EVERY thread has an agenda. Information seeking, information sharing, expressing emotions, seeking kudos/hugs/attention/backpats/woe is me, feel sorry. You just don't like some of them. No one likes all of them. Such is life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I am sincerely curious as to other perspectives on Mother Teresa though. Please share. :) She amassed untold wealth and didn't provide the most rudimentary health care besides a place to lay down in and die. No antibiotics. No medicine. Reused needles, latex gloves, washed rags by hand while raking in money from aggressive and violent dictators, was obsessed with suffering, believing it was "beautiful for the poor to accept their lot". Can you imagine if she used that money to install washing machines or purchase sterile equipment? To send someone to medical school to research and/or practice medicine? Teach a man to fish, right? She refused, instead watching people suffer while collecting millions of dollars. Some places to start. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2008/05/mother-teresa/ http://anamericanatheist.org/2011/09/23/mother-teresa-was-a-fraud/ https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/a-new-expose-on-mother-teresa-shows-that-she-and-the-vatican-were-even-worse-than-we-thought/ http://mic.com/articles/28746/mother-teresa-not-a-saint-new-study-suggests-she-was-a-fraud http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/10/forbes-india-mother-teresa-charity-critical-public-review.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2003/10/mommie_dearest.html for photos - https://www.facebook.com/missionariesofcharity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I don't see anything newsworthy in it. People make choices like that all the time. Some are pastors. Of course he got fired from his seminary. Of course his congregation isn't happy. He chose to step away from Christianity at first as an experiment and then as a conclusion. Of course he has the right to his own spiritual journey. It's newsworthy because religion is a subject about which people are interested in purchasing information. It's noteworthy because it puts some major chinks in some major theological arguments, namely the idea that the sheep know the shepherd's voice, and the shepherd won't abandon the sheep. The guy did this in good faith that God would be there when he got back. I suspect the argument that he was never a Real Christian (by virtue of his sect or by virtue of his lack of faith) will be the most popular rationalization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuga Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I read a brief article in Slate. I assume his book is equally vitriolic but better backed-up than that opinion piece. He seems to be opposed to the fact that she was a Christian and imperfect. He claims that because she opposed abortion (i.e. believed that an embryo was a life and therefore sacred) she did not care about fighting poverty. She was working with people who were, up to that point, wandering the streets or lying in the streets until death. I have seen where the MoC work in five countries, worked in two. It's not fraud and they provide services to thousands and thousands of people, whom I have seen with my own eyes. You can take any charity and it will take you 10 seconds to prove that they are all a bunch of insincere hypocrites. It's very easy because everyone is. So then you can say, "Hah, they shouldn't be doing charity." But who will? Will you dedicate your life to helping them, just being with them? Here is an article that more closely resembles my thoughts on this--because I, too, worked with the sisters. http://www.stirjournal.com/2014/07/21/living-and-working-with-the-missionaries-of-charity/ Why do we allow the unwanted, the disenfranchised, and the individuals with the least economic value to be taken care of by institutions, many of which are religious? If we believe institutions are necessary or better than individuals, why do we not have more secular institutions set up that welcome individuals willing to give up their lives to service collectively? Why do we generally see devoting one’s life to serving the poor or needy as a religious calling and not a secular one? Why are not more of us called into a life of service that is about meeting the needs of others rather than our own security? Not just a week or a year, but a lifetime? How can being called into a lifetime of service end poverty and create rights for women, the disabled, and children? These are the questions I ask myself every day. Although I realize I do not have a calling to be a nun, I still feel the pull of a vocation—the vocation of service. Who would be helping these people, if not the Missionaries of Charity? Based on what I have seen in Paris, Liverpool, London, Delhi, Mumbai, Moscow, Seattle, and other smaller cities that would definitely identify me--nobody. That's the thing. Nobody else is there and as much as I don't believe the church is right, it is not as though when they leave, suddenly all these loving, helpful, efficient atheists show up to run the operation. Ya know? Nobody else is there. Every day I drive past at least 20 people who are missing toes and fingers from cold in freaking Seattle. Yes there are people to help them but not enough beds. Paris is better, Moscow is far worse, though they die off every year so that helps keep the population down. And yet, I know people who refuse to give to homeless shelters because they aren't liberal enough, Christian enough, too much overhead, not enough supervision and rehabilitation (i.e. not enough overhead). They give nothing because no charity is good enough for their precious money. Needless to say, as someone who dedicated my entire pre-kids career to charity, I find that kind of attitude really irritating. It is so easy to say, she didn't do a good enough job. It's a scam. She's not a saint! Well, aren't we special for knowing that the saints aren't good enough for the poor. Hitchens appears to think that the governments of the world would somehow take care of these people if only the church wasn't there. That if only Mother Theresa had done abortions instead of made homes for the disabled, there would be fewer disabled. Did he realize, of course, what the government of India was doing at the time she was working, the forced sterilizations and the Crisis and all? Did he care? Really? I'm willing to bet that he made some bullshit claim like, "well of course in India you couldn't argue for birth control like that because of what happened during the emergency but she could have done better--" if only who was in charge? Hitchens? He had never run an operation in his entire piddling life. So he doesn't know what he's talking about. The reason there is suffering in the world is not religion, not the kindness of "saints", but the fact that people are what they are. India is neither a hell nor a heaven. Things could be better for the children, I suppose, but if they could, why aren't they? Why doesn't someone else go in there and do a better job for crying out loud? If he cared so much why didn't he go and do it better? Funny that Hitchens mentions Orwell's essay on Ghandi, which was very much an essay of praise--for George Orwell to praise your consistency and honesty is not a small thing. "And if, as may happen, India and Britain finally settle down into a decent and friendly relationship, will this be partly because Gandhi, by keeping up his struggle obstinately and without hatred, disinfected the political air? That one even thinks of asking such questions indicates his stature. One may feel, as I do, a sort of aesthetic distaste for Gandhi, one may reject the claims of sainthood made on his behalf (he never made any such claim himself, by the way), one may also reject sainthood as an ideal and therefore feel that Gandhi's basic aims were anti-human and reactionary: but regarded simply as a politician, and compared with the other leading political figures of our time, how clean a smell he has managed to leave behind!" (Orwell's essay) Yet, though Orwell admits that Ghandi achieved something monumental in the history of the British empire, Hitchens instead quotes his fellow upper-class atheist Orwell (please note that I do really love Orwell's work) out of context, and does not at all consider Ghandi as someone to compare M. Theresa to. No, they are too dirty--their hands dirty, I suppose, with a lifetime of working in reality, with the poor, in the midst of conflict, war, poverty, and controversy. This is the center of Hitchens: living in the land of words alone, doing nothing but talk for a living, he can only deal with perfection and consistency, and therefore from his throne in heaven, where he is never asked, "What shall I do with my $12, if my dinner costs $2 and to save a life costs $11, and three dying children are right before me?" Which is a question charity workers must face daily. That is not an exaggeration--to eat my own lunch, to save for my own bills, I regularly walked by people whose babies were starving in their arms. But I didn't save them all. You think you'd save them? Every last one? There is no end, you know. No end to the starving babies. No end to the mothers dying in childbirth. The children without limbs, the mentally ill without medication. They pile in, the moment you have a charity in one of these countries, on top of one another, until you are suddenly flea-ridden and overcrowded. Every hospital, every school. Must be nice to have clean hands and criticize those who work in the schools. Must be easy to travel the lecture circuit and claim you could have done it better. How convenient. I have worked in many charities and none of them were perfect. Human imperfection and even scandal was all around, though not much more than in regular life, in which people have a lot more to lose. I have worked with charities in India, the conditions of which some would deplore. Children in supposedly well-funded schools sitting in rags on the floors. But without salaries, how will there be teachers? Without teachers, what do they learn? How do they build buildings? And you need a real building during the monsoon. And then an accountant because if you don't publish an audit, they will not give. And an analyst and social scientist to prove you are making a difference. To count the people. Because if you don't, you're stealing. And then you have too much overhead. Children shivering wet, soaked to the bone because they walk to school without raincoats--and this is in modern, secular charities. Excellent, highly ranked charities. Anyone who thinks they are funding a perfect world while they run their car on petrol to keep warm while waiting outside the supermarket is fooling themselves. This world is so incredibly messed up. Orwell served his country in uniform and then fought fascism with the Marxists in Spain--Hitchens never wandered with the Northern Alliance, for all his blustering on about religious fundamentalism (if he had, he would not have been alone, many men in his generation, much wiser than he, did go serve under the commanders in the north to fight the Taliban, but hey, they probably made mistakes--terrible mistakes--while there). Orwell served the British Empire in good faith to know what he believed--Hitchens just looked down on us all from his ivory tower. He could have served in several wars, for Britain, to fight religious fundamentalism, or even for the Falklands, he could have picked up arms. But he was too weak--too much of a physical coward, or psychologically unprepared for a situation in which he might err or"betray his principles" which changed over his lifetime? Just as he promoted war without ever having donned a uniform for his country, but exhorted others to go to war, he never worked in charity, never spent weeks getting his hands dirty, never wiped the asses of teenager after teenager after teenager, abandoned by the world, but exhorted others to do this work, and do it without mistake, and where he could examine all of the finances. Mother Theresa, for all her faults, tried. She said here are these people and nobody is helping--something is better than nothing. Hitchens' career was from cradle to grave that of an upper class twit. But he felt qualified to tell the rest of us we were doing a poor job of it. I wrote this because first of all, I do not believe that Hitchens did hit it on the head with M. Theresa. His slavish literary imitation of Orwell, without ever having made the personal sacrifices or moral choices Orwell, or Mother Theresa, or Ghandi, or even silly little me, a girl who just wanted to do something good, made, is just plain sad. But that is not why he is wrong. It just highlights the fact that he was unable to understand the reality in which she and many other charities (and soldiers, and governments, and police, and poor people, and revolutionaries, and everyone who did anything other than chit-chat for a living) face. And that failure to understand just how bad it is, and how hard it is--that is why he is wrong. And finally, I would like to clarify--I do not think the Missionaries of Charity are perfect, nor Mother Theresa. I simply think they did and do far, far more than pretty much anyone else at that place and time, and I dare anyone who says that is not true to go out and do more themselves. This is not a two-week trip to Mexico or $1,000 to the Red Cross (provided we have forgiven them for having found and disciplined a wayward office), peeps. We're talking serious, give it all away and spend the rest of your life helping the most helpless by doing anything possible, even if it is only food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommy22alyns Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Be fair. EVERY thread has an agenda. Information seeking, information sharing, expressing emotions, seeking kudos/hugs/attention/backpats/woe is me, feel sorry. You just don't like some of them. No one likes all of them. Such is life. Fine. But my response was to someone who didn't like the opinions of others who rated this thread. Not everyone will like this thread, and some will choose to express that by rating it poorly. Such is life. Thank you to the posters who pointed me to more reading on MT. I will read tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I read a brief article in Slate. I assume his book is equally vitriolic but better backed-up than that opinion piece.... Your summary of his writings are not accurate reflections of his articles and books. They're simplified straw men. He didn't claim that because she opposed abortion (i.e. believed that an embryo was a life and therefore sacred) she did not care about fighting poverty. That's too simple (and doesn't make sense). Instead he claimed that because she opposed policies known to reduce poverty (ie, birth control), her focus was not on addressing poverty. I agree. She cared about promoting a particular theological concept concerning mortification, suffering, and its understood correlation with justification. Poverty plays into this concept. According to her, it's "beautiful." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuga Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 And how many people did you teach to fish? Have you seen India, and where people are dying when not cared for? Regarding the "Where are her millions" article-- All I can say is, do some work yourself. I have encountered many, many people who think that the charity which they receive from is the only charity which exists. "She amassed untold wealth" She, or the Vatican? She's dead now. It is estimated that worldwide they collected at least $100 million per year — and that has been going on for many many years. That--that is honestly not as much as I would have thought. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_charitable_foundations http://www.forbes.com/top-charities/list/ And yet, I can find you people in every slum of the United States--much smaller than India--who will say they received nothing from any of those charities. Saint? I don't believe in saints. But I'm also not going to sit on the sidelines and try to tear down everyone who doesn't match my desire for a perfect world (while I do nothing). It's not criticism I'm opposed to, it's the fact that people who do the least criticize charity the most. It is extremely hard to be an atheist humanitarian because nearly all the large charities are religious. And don't tell me you'd give to one if it were humanist. If this were the case, if we atheists gave what Christians and Muslims gave, the humanist charities would soon easily outsize the religious ones. Even if we gave in taxes. The fact is, we lack the trust to do it--to invest in government, in our institutions, we demand principle over community and hope and we get principle over community and hope. Anyway, that's what it looks like. This is why, for all the crap he gets, I do admire Bill Gates. He put his money where his mouth is, he went out there. But everyone wants to tear him down. He's done more than I'll ever do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.