Thats probably why she was educating the children of prostitutes and offering an alternative to poor single mothers in poverty ridden enclaves who did not want to kill their children.
The tunnel vision of some people never fails to fascinate.
Belief or disbelief: What are your reasons?
- Thread starter ggazoo
- Start date
Thats probably why she was educating the children of prostitutes and offering an alternative to poor single mothers in poverty ridden enclaves who did not want to kill their children.
The tunnel vision of some people never fails to fascinate.
For the third time, I'm talking about the nuns.
Indeed.
And? They are volunteers just like the family members of the patients. Are you saying there should be special treatment for them because they are nuns?
:bugeye:And? They are volunteers just like the family members of the patients. Are you saying there should be special treatment for them because they are nuns?
You don't seem to understand how this works.
These women give up their lives to become full-time volunteers for this organization, moved to different places and lived strictly by the rules Mother Teresa laid down. They were allowed no more than 3 sets of clothes, which they could not replace until they had rotted to pieces, no luxuries, etc. As I was saying, apparently healthcare was one of the luxuries they were not allowed. Except, of course, for Mother Theresa. Despite the fact that the organization is phenomenally wealthy.
Do they also have a ball and chain shackled to their ankles?
I've met the nuns and they are content with their chosen life.
See, it would be wonderful if we all lived in a perfect world where everyone had fluffy mattresses and first world healthcare to die on. But Mother Teresas hospice or organisation has never pretended to be other than what it is. A choice for those who would otherwise die neglected and alone. You can volunteer or not, its your choice. You can avail of it or not, also your choice. There are many many other Catholic organisations, the Medical Missionaries of Mary and the Daughters of Charity to name a few who offer the medical services. Whether the nuns choose to join one or the other is purely a matter of choice.
Prem Daan home for the sick and elderly, Calcutta.
Last edited:
That doesn't make it right.Do they also have a ball and chain shackled to their ankles?
I've met the nuns and they are content with their chosen life.
That's fine. I'm simply calling a spade a spade: Mother Teresa's organization was a SHITTY organization, and it was a shitty organization because she placed religion above compassion and care.
Any care is a better alternative. This is my entire point: with the amount of money she pulled in, Mother Teresa could have done extraordinary things for people, but all she did was convert them to Catholicism as they died. Religion is the reason this organization did not do good things for people.
Let me know when the athiests are taking over the hospices.
Be interesting to see atheists dedicating their finite lives to looking after other people.
Let me know when the athiests are taking over the hospices.
Be interesting to see atheists dedicating their finite lives to looking after other people.
Perhaps they see they just integrate themselves into groups that already exist. What need is there for a specifically atheist charity group?
Let me know when the athiests are taking over the hospices.
Be interesting to see atheists dedicating their finite lives to looking after other people.
I think your argument is legitimate but poor, essentially "something is better than nothing." redwards' criticism based on a holistic view of MT which includes the amount of money she brought in versus how much of it was used for actual care isn't one that should be brushed aside out of loyalty and respect for MT's work. After all, wouldn't you criticize a similar policy if it were enacted by the US? "Sure, they do xyz but when they could be doing the much better abc, how much praise does xyz really deserve?" No reason why both criticism and respect for MT and her work need to be mutually exclusive.
Let me know when the athiests are taking over the hospices.
Be interesting to see atheists dedicating their finite lives to looking after other people.
Um... the red cross?
In fact, most charities I see publicized are secular.
She's dead now, isn't she? Any one of her critics is free to take up where she left off and do a better job of it.
Haranguing an aged nun who devoted her entire life to making life and death easier for people that no one cares about, is not worth much to me.
I am.
Secular is not atheist.
Atheists don't have charities. They simply endorse charities without doing so under the name of atheism. What's wrong with that?
Does the idea that she could've done much better with the resources she had available not merit any consideration?
Uninvolved charity? Nothing. Its a service and money is always useful. But if they have opinions about how the money should be spent, they should get their hands dirty.