I don’t know how you can ride a motorcycle with a dress. That seems really dangerous.
considering bill maher is a former catholic it’s pretty obvious that he did a lot of thinking before reaching his current conclusions about religion. if you want to talk about things that bill maher pulls out of his ass we can talk about his opinions on health, religion? not so much.
bill maher didn’t just pull dislike for mother theresa out of his ass, there’s a considerable body of work done refuting the popular saintly image others gave her
QFT. Theresa was a sadistic bitch.
You didn’t understand my last post.
And what, pray tell, is this offense she committed that couldn’t even make it onto wikipedia?
Christopher Hitchens wrote a book about it (which I haven’t read.)
Googling “christopher hitchens mother teresa” came up with this link.
So Bill Maher bases his nonsensical opinions on the nonsensical writings of others?
I mean…come on. The only real argument that even relates to Mother Theresa is that they are calling bullshit on the Church’s haste to make her a Saint…which…you know…she was dead for.
hitchens doesn’t write nonsense. given your forum rep i’m not inclined to take your opinion seriously at all
i wouldn’t say she was a sadistic wretch but she was in no way someone we should emulate or sympathize with.
Well, a full reading of the article indicates that Hitchens did not think MT was actually helping the poor, which is her greatest claim to fame, and he felt that her religious fundamentalism itself was contributing to the problem, not helping it.
So Bill Maher bases his opinions on hating religious figures on the works of people who hate religion?
Huh…that really changes what I think of him.
unless you can provide a substantive refutation of the claims of Hitchens then you’re just using character assassination to try and deflect the issue. that’s an intellectually dishonest debate tactic i’m sure you think you’re above.
an indian dr also wrote a book decrying mother theresa and it was a pretty good read. i’ll try to find it
Instead of dismissing the claims based on the mouths from which they are delivered, why don’t you try actually thinking about the claims and see if they have merit? (I mean, is it really too much to ask for you even to finish reading the article?)
Even if you don’t see any contradiction between the Catholic proscription on condoms and a stated goal of helping the poor and dispossessed, surely Hitchen’s point about the squalor of MT’s orphanages deserves some consideration?
Edit: Okay, the point about MT’s orphanages comes from another website I was reading, but the point still stands. How much was she really helping the poor?
That’s like…my point. Anything Bill Maher says on religion, regardless of how accurate he is, should be taken with a couple of these. For lack of a more concise, yet equally accurate, way to say it…haters gonna hate. Klansmen are going to hate on Obama for anything they can find, and Christopher Hitchens is going to hate on Mother Theresa for opening up subpar orphanages, and apparently Indonesian Muslims are going to hate on people for wearing tight pants.
Yes, but a natural question to ask is–if the orphanages were subpar, why did she get a Nobel Peace Prize? Because she wrapped herself in her religion? Doesn’t that seem, well, sanctimonious to you? And you’re still not responding to my question about why you aren’t willing to find out more about the subject. Does the prospect of seeing an old lie for what it is hurt so much? And fuck Bill Maher. If he’s the assquack you think he is, (I don’t think much of him myself) how does that have to do with MT not being who we think she is?
Because she opened orphanages in India, giving the parent-less, at the very least, somewhere to go. That’s still more than the 6,999,999,999 people in the world did for them, isn’t it?
That’s beside the fact that she could build one orphanage and have done more than half the Nobel Prize winners of recent years.
She WAS a nun, you know.
Mostly because I’m not all that interested. The remainder because I sincerely doubt there’s anybody writing these books that aren’t just haters hating. That’s why I’m not reading Ron Paul supporters’ ramblings on how Abraham Lincoln was the worst president ever, Ron Paul’s rants on why MLK sucked, and Ron Paul’s staff hating on Gandhi. Haters gonna hate. How much time would I be spending reading about why people hate any given humanitarian and civil rights figure?
racism against non-whites for illogical reasons isn’t really analogous to being distrustful of religious institutions and teachings.
I think this is the source of our disagreement right here. You think that because she is a nun, all of her cynical public relations maneuvers can be forgiven since, “Hey, she was just playing the game. And look! She built orphanages in India!”
Okay, yes, I’ve never built an orphanage in India. But I also would never have the chutzpah to tell starving orphans that, “Our Father in heaven thinks that your suffering is beautiful. So suffer more, while I look on with soulful indifference. Here’s a bed for you while you ponder the cosmic injustice that was dealt you when you were born into this world, poor, orphaned, probably destined to starve to death.” Progress happens because people refuse to accept the misery around them and want to do something about it. Contrast this with MT’s Stone Age values, telling us to accept our lot and be pious, forgiving souls. (Admirable advice, if she was in any position to give it! Again, Hitchens’s comments hit the mark with respect to her “piety.”)
I’m willing to say MT at least gave these children a bed if you’ll admit that she was still a hypocrite. Deal?
Actually, I read Hitchens’s stuff because he is not just another nutjob. He’s honest with himself and to the world, and if you don’t like how he’s ripping into MT here, maybe you’d like to hear what he has to say about Bill Clinton? (His criticisms about political opportunism are applicable to both–whatever you want to say about him, at least he’s consistent.) And yes, even if Hitchens is a radical, the man writes brilliant prose and makes good points, which means if you find good reasons to disagree with him, you might actually be on to something instead just being a contrarian dickwad. Go read his stuff so you can prove him wrong (if you can!) instead of just sticking your head in the sand.
Incorrect. I think that, because she is a nun, she is a lightning rod for criticism from the Bill Mahers and other random people who hate religion.
And I’m not sticking my head in the sand. I’m basically just going “yeah, sure buddy”.
“Yeah, sure buddy.” A call to arms for indifference and apathy. An apology for ignorance, stasis, and complacency. Good job. If this isn’t sticking your head in the sand, I don’t know what is.
And if you did you research, you’d know that Hitchens has been critical of her even when her public image was spotless in the public eye. Your comment is as ahistorical as it is baseless.
And you are being a bitchass for ignoring arguments you can’t counter. This has nothing to do with your religious or political views and is something that says something about you and you alone.
Edit: I retract what I said about associating your comments with SRK. Most SRKers dislike you and my associating their occasional unreason with yours does a disservice to SRK.