Following to the letter anything that’s been written a few thousand years ago is a tad silly.
It’s true, I disagree with much of his thought, though the quote itself resonates with me.
So, I decided to read the thread (hoping for some laughs) and I see discussions about Mother T being a horrible person and Bill M being bias.
Who has the facts that Mother T was a bad person? I read the article that was linked, and there is no actual evidence just a guy saying, “MT said this and then contradicted herself”. On a personal level, I don’t care if she was good or bad, but now I’m interested in some facts for the sake of knowledge. Though, I want to add that if she opened sub-par orphanages in India, then, with the high rate of child trafficking in some of the poor areas, it is more likely that she was opening a child slave ranch (even if she didn’t mean to). I mean, you gather some underprivileged children that no one will miss and they are bound to get taken for slave labor/sex. Especially when brothels pay police to look the other way. (For more information on the topic of sex slavery in India, I suggest you pick up Half the Sky as there are a few chapters dedicated to it in the book).
Also, Bill M is probably bias…just like EVERYONE else. It’s impossible to be completely objective. I’m sure he didn’t just get on air and ramble about something he didn’t research beforehand.
The only reason I don’t like Bill Maher is that I find it difficult to laugh at his jokes. The kind of comedy he engages in–“Haha, look at the dumb, stupid people”–isn’t the attitude of someone who actually wants to learn something about the world. He’s preaching to the choir and dishing out ridicule to naysayers against his particular worldview on subjects that deserve better reasoning than he’s willing to give (IMO.)
That said, I’ve only seen snippets of his HBO show (back when I had HBO,) one of his stand-up specials, and a few of his clips on youtube (including one where he professes that his ignorance on the topic of flu shots is not going to prevent him from making fun of them and telling people not to take them.) Nevertheless, I think what I’ve seen is enough for me to have an informed opinion on the kind of social commentary he engages in. There are other comedians like John Stewart and Stephen Colbert whose shows I think are funny when I happen to watch them, so it’s not just that I dislike Bill Maher because he holds views I don’t agree with–I just don’t think he’s funny.
As for Mother Teresa’s orphanages, I haven’t heard anything about them being operated as child trafficking centers, and, IMO, unless there’s concrete evidence to support such conjecture, it’s probably nothing more than that–conjecture. Also, I can’t speak for other people in this thread, but I don’t think I ever said that Mother Teresa was “a bad person.” Raising doubts about a nun’s legacy and questioning some of the dubious examples of her moral behavior (especially when she is held out as a role model for moral behavior) is not the same thing as calling her “a bad person.” As for evidence about the living conditions in her orphanages, the wikipedia articles on MT and her foundation all cite articles by Hitchens, so if you don’t find him to be a credible source for information, then I’m not sure how to help.
That said, thank you for the book recommendation.
I wasn’t saying that the orphanages are child trafficking centers, because I don’t know. I was saying that if the people in charge allowed the orphanages to have below standard living conditions (which was suggested by another poster in the thread), then the people in charge would probably allow the orphanages to behave as child trafficking centers. It’s a if/then situation (and totally conjecture).
Also, in my opinion, there are two types of people: “good” and “bad.” I’m not a fan of moderate/shades of gray. In the case of MT, she is a saint and so she must be that much more “good” to be considered a “good” person. A saint shouldn’t have moral ambiguities. And if you are turned from saint to not-saint, then you clearly must be a “bad” person. But that is just my opinion.
Also, the book has more than just sex trafficking in India. It also has the atrocities committed in the DRC for “blood minerals,” honor abuses, as well as a few other subjects. Not only does it look at the problems, but also possible solutions for each problem. Really good read.
bill maher isn’t really a comedian anymore as much as he’s a political commentator that used to be a comedian. colbert is the only one of the “news comedy” shows that still does comedy.
were the living conditions below standard or below standard for india?
That is a question whose answer would depend on what we are talking about. Are we talking about living conditions as it pertains to a choice between sleeping in a bed and sleeping in an alley? Or are we talking about living conditions as it pertains to receiving incompetent medical care, or no medical care at all?
As it was pointed out already, providing shelter for people who have nowhere else to go certainly counts for something. And it’s too much to just completely dismiss her charity organization along with the aid of thousands of charity-based religious organizations around the world that operate out of a genuine desire to change the world for the better. It’s just that some perspective is needed when we are trying to figure out how much good they are actually doing.
When we are evaluating the effectiveness of Mother Teresa’s foundation, I think it’s important to remember that Mother Teresa’s foundation was as much about proselytizing as it was about improving the living conditions of the poor. That’s why the funds that MT’s foundation received were funneled into opening new chapters instead of improving the facilities and the training of the sisters who were running the existing ones. (I’m getting this from the wikipedia article.)
As for medical care in India, even there, you would get what you pay for–there are doctors there who have degrees from European and American universities, so it’s not fair to caricature the only form of medical treatment I could get in Calcutta as being stabbed with hypodermic needles by an illiterate Catholic nun. But I think it’s fair to say that, when the choice is between no care and dangerously incompetent care, the former seems to me unambiguously more favorable.
I tried using Google Scholar to look up the article cited in wikipedia called Calcutta Perspective, by Robin Fox, that appears in The Lancet, but it looks like I need a university affiliation to read the article, or else pony up some cash. I think without reading this article, it’s impossible to say whether the efforts of MT’s foundation were “dangerously incompetent” or not.
I really don’t think it’s possible to divide the world into two categories: good and bad people. What kind of criteria are you using here for saying people are good or bad?
Edit: At least I don’t think such an objective criteria is possible. Such a subjective categorization is certainly possible, but will have to defend itself from accusations of arbitrariness.
I guess that’s why no Street Fighter stage has ever taken place in the middle east… Cammy wouldn’t even get a chance to fight her opponent, she’d be stoned to death by the clerics.
No…
They’d all get stoned to death for being infidels.
Cept for Hakan and his harem, maybe.
I find that I dislike his commentating for the same reason I dislike his comedy–it strikes me as shallow. That said, to be fair, I think most political commentating that happens on television is either shallow or boring. The only exceptions to this rule are shows that try to turn everything into an excuse to engage in polemics, in which case I’m not terribly interested either, since all of these shows are either predictable or nausea-inducing, if occasionally entertaining.
i’ve always thought the knock on mother theresa was that she sacrificed actual humanitarian work to open convents and missions.
bill definitely isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but i’ve liked him since the politically incorrect days when he was a republican (although everyone seems to forget this these days). i mainly watch his show over other shows bcuz he actually has diverse panels on and he lets his guest speak and make their points rather than dominate the conversations himself (unless he’s talking about a health issue).
The kof crew can do it, though…cuz they just badass.
So good people never do bad things and bad people never do good things amirite?
You’re living in a fairy tale, comic book world. Get real.
Also lol@ “good” and “bad”.
The world is white, black, and all shades of gray, Spoot-miester. Nobody is purely one thing or another. Good and evil aren’t static and immutable. Bad guys don’t always wear black and good guys don’t always wear white. Not every “good” person is a total saint, and not every “bad” person is a bloody bastard. Wake up, dude. That’s some cartoon logic you’re living with…and not even MODERN cartoons. That’s some hyper-idealistic 1984 Get-Along Gang shit right there. If you really have that mindset, I’m afraid the world just might show you some shit you’ll never mentally recover from, especially with the way things are going these days.
One impulse from a vernal wood may teach you more of man
Of moral evil, and of good, than all the sages can
That’s why i enjoy his show. Even if he disagrees with the guest and his crowd in studio is being rude he will quiet them down so that the person can make their point. Which is quite rare in a show that discusses politics and faith. There is no doubt that he has a bias and it’s usually 2 from the side he’s on and one from the opposite but the guy on the opposite can at least get a word in /shrug.
lol wow…
Yes, I thought about that argument, but to be fair, I can think of two of my personal acquaintances that would rather donate to a religious organization because that’s who they trust to deliver the aid. So in a sense, the money would have never been collected anyway without Mother Teresa and her traveling PR circus; since MT and her organization were the ones that raised the money, it’s debatable as to whether that money can be said to have been used “for anything else.” Nevertheless, by Mother Teresa’s own history of misrepresenting what her organization actually did, and thereby invalidating the trust that people like my personal acquaintances would have given a religious organization, your point has nevertheless been made.
I just found out that Chatterjee’s book (recommended upthread) has the first three chapters free for download online, and it has some good examples of Mother Teresa telling bald-face lies–for example, claiming that her foundation had a hospital in Calcutta, when in fact there was none, or claiming that her foundation provided systematic relief for people who were hurt by natural disasters, when in fact she and her organization did nothing of the sort. I imagine that the reason she liked taking care of dying as much as she did was because they were low maintenance and the most bang for the buck as far as public relations were concerned. Or maybe it just turned out to be as convenient as it was due to some happy coincidences in the compatibility of her “suffering = good” ideology and what makes sense as good PR for her and her church.
No, I didn’t know he used to be Republican.
I always found the discussion panels irritating because Maher likes to leverage his appeal with the audience when making his points. True, he lets the other guy say something back, but that’s not much of a thing to say in favor of Maher when he already has the deck stacked in his favor. To his credit though, there have been some memorable clips on youtube I’ve seen where a guest on the show tore Maher a new asshole over something he said, and that was only possible because Maher was honest enough with himself to recognize that the other person had made a good point. (Instead of, say, talking over the other guy like a dick so he wouldn’t have to admit he was just owned on his own show.)