| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Khubla" |
| Date: |
02 Feb 2006 08:28:15 AM |
| Object: |
Debunking Mother Theresa |
That idolized nun who founded the Missionaries of Charity and The Home for
the Dying in Calcutta had a dark side that few knew of. Teresa was born as
Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu in Skopje in 1910. During her lifetime of work with
the poor she maintained many controversial practices such as total control
of her operations without allowing others to make decisions and never
allowed any accounting of the millions in contributions that poured in from
individual, corporate, and government donations. It has been determined
that most of this money went to opening nunneries around the world as
opposed to helping the Calcutta poor. In her Home for the Dying when a
person checked in they were not allowed visitors, even from family members.
Now Mother Teresa had a dysfunctional outlook regarding pain and the poor.
Her strong belief which she apparently held throughout her life was that God
put the poor on this Earth and they should thus remain poor. Furthermore
she allowed no pain medicine to be administered in her "hospital" which
caused much distress with some of the other Nuns, many of whom left for this
reason. Her position again was that this was Gods will, it was the duty of
the poor to suffer and that was that! There were many programs (referred to
as Schemes in India parlance) by local and state government to help raise
the poor, especially the Untouchable class, out of the dire poverty they
suffered for generations. Mother Teresa was strongly opposed to all of
these. She felt that the poor were Gods will and she and her sisters should
have them as such to care for. In other words the poor were property of her
order and the status quo should not change. She was also strongly opposed
to any form of birth control or family planning. This in a country so
desperately in need of birth control.
As her health was declining the Archbishop of Calcutta, Henry Sebastian
D'Souza, says he ordered a priest to perform an exorcism on Mother Teresa
shortly before she died because he thought she was being attacked by the
devil. Catholic experts agree that, while exorcisms remain an important but
rare part of the church's work, the Archbishop may have overreacted in
ordering the ceremony.
In India, among my Hindu business associates and friends Mother Teresa was
regarded as a contradiction in many ways but certainly did not have the
respect shown here in the West. She unfortunately overshadowed many other
individuals and organizations that are at work to educate and raise the poor
out of poverty and debunk the rampant religious myths and superstitions that
plague the country. Currently the church has placed her on the fast track
for sainthood however church doctrine requires a minimum of two "verified"
miracles that can be contributed to Mother Teresa. Since the Catholic
church has never had a problem finding and certifying miracles when needed,
we can assume that she will join that pantheon of saints very soon, perhaps
as the Saint of Medicine.
Khubla
.
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Mother Theresa |
02 Feb 2006 10:37:30 AM |
|
|
"Khubla" <khubla@adelphia.net> writes:
While this is interesting and I agree with the text, why is it
crossposted to talk.orginis?
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Khubla" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Mother Theresa |
02 Feb 2006 11:00:51 AM |
|
|
Only that I originally posted it to both groups that I participate in.
Khubla
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:87hd7h3eet.fsf@drizzle.com...
"Khubla" <khubla@adelphia.net> writes:
While this is interesting and I agree with the text, why is it
crossposted to talk.orginis?
Elf
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Sullivan" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Mother Theresa |
02 Feb 2006 12:13:01 PM |
|
|
Didn't Christopher Hitchens do this mo' better years ago?
--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Mother Theresa |
02 Feb 2006 08:42:01 AM |
|
|
In article <z4adndc40MVoi3_enZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@adelphia.com>,
khubla@adelphia.net says...
Since the Catholic church has never had a problem finding
and certifying miracles when needed, we can assume that
she will join that pantheon of saints very soon, perhaps
as the Saint of Medicine.
It would be far more appropriate to dub her the "Patron Saint of
Sadistic Suffering" unless that position is already occupied by some
other sleazebag. Otherwise, she could also qualify as the "Patron Saint
of Poverty Promotion", though that may already be occupied as well.
Unfortunately for the rest of the world, the profound vices of
Motherfucking Theresa were far from unique.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SRNissen" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Mother Theresa |
16 Feb 2006 03:36:48 AM |
|
|
Khubla wrote:
That idolized nun who founded the Missionaries of Charity and The Home for
the Dying in Calcutta had a dark side that few knew of. Teresa was born as
Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu in Skopje in 1910. During her lifetime of work with
the poor she maintained many controversial practices such as total control
of her operations without allowing others to make decisions and never
allowed any accounting of the millions in contributions that poured in from
individual, corporate, and government donations. It has been determined
that most of this money went to opening nunneries around the world as
opposed to helping the Calcutta poor. In her Home for the Dying when a
person checked in they were not allowed visitors, even from family members.
Now Mother Teresa had a dysfunctional outlook regarding pain and the poor.
Her strong belief which she apparently held throughout her life was that God
put the poor on this Earth and they should thus remain poor. Furthermore
she allowed no pain medicine to be administered in her "hospital" which
caused much distress with some of the other Nuns, many of whom left for this
reason. Her position again was that this was Gods will, it was the duty of
the poor to suffer and that was that! There were many programs (referred to
as Schemes in India parlance) by local and state government to help raise
the poor, especially the Untouchable class, out of the dire poverty they
suffered for generations. Mother Teresa was strongly opposed to all of
these. She felt that the poor were Gods will and she and her sisters should
have them as such to care for. In other words the poor were property of her
order and the status quo should not change. She was also strongly opposed
to any form of birth control or family planning. This in a country so
desperately in need of birth control.
As her health was declining the Archbishop of Calcutta, Henry Sebastian
D'Souza, says he ordered a priest to perform an exorcism on Mother Teresa
shortly before she died because he thought she was being attacked by the
devil. Catholic experts agree that, while exorcisms remain an important but
rare part of the church's work, the Archbishop may have overreacted in
ordering the ceremony.
In India, among my Hindu business associates and friends Mother Teresa was
regarded as a contradiction in many ways but certainly did not have the
respect shown here in the West. She unfortunately overshadowed many other
individuals and organizations that are at work to educate and raise the poor
out of poverty and debunk the rampant religious myths and superstitions that
plague the country. Currently the church has placed her on the fast track
for sainthood however church doctrine requires a minimum of two "verified"
miracles that can be contributed to Mother Teresa. Since the Catholic
church has never had a problem finding and certifying miracles when needed,
we can assume that she will join that pantheon of saints very soon, perhaps
as the Saint of Medicine.
Khubla
Cite?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Mother Theresa |
20 Feb 2006 12:26:13 AM |
|
|
In article <1140082608.574057.109970@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"SRNissen" <soren.nissen@gmail.com> wrote:
Khubla wrote:
That idolized nun who founded the Missionaries of Charity and The Home for
the Dying in Calcutta had a dark side that few knew of. Teresa was born as
Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu in Skopje in 1910. During her lifetime of work with
the poor she maintained many controversial practices such as total control
of her operations without allowing others to make decisions and never
allowed any accounting of the millions in contributions that poured in from
individual, corporate, and government donations. It has been determined
that most of this money went to opening nunneries around the world as
opposed to helping the Calcutta poor. In her Home for the Dying when a
person checked in they were not allowed visitors, even from family members.
Now Mother Teresa had a dysfunctional outlook regarding pain and the poor.
Her strong belief which she apparently held throughout her life was that God
put the poor on this Earth and they should thus remain poor. Furthermore
she allowed no pain medicine to be administered in her "hospital" which
caused much distress with some of the other Nuns, many of whom left for this
reason. Her position again was that this was Gods will, it was the duty of
the poor to suffer and that was that! There were many programs (referred to
as Schemes in India parlance) by local and state government to help raise
the poor, especially the Untouchable class, out of the dire poverty they
suffered for generations. Mother Teresa was strongly opposed to all of
these. She felt that the poor were Gods will and she and her sisters should
have them as such to care for. In other words the poor were property of her
order and the status quo should not change. She was also strongly opposed
to any form of birth control or family planning. This in a country so
desperately in need of birth control.
As her health was declining the Archbishop of Calcutta, Henry Sebastian
D'Souza, says he ordered a priest to perform an exorcism on Mother Teresa
shortly before she died because he thought she was being attacked by the
devil. Catholic experts agree that, while exorcisms remain an important but
rare part of the church's work, the Archbishop may have overreacted in
ordering the ceremony.
In India, among my Hindu business associates and friends Mother Teresa was
regarded as a contradiction in many ways but certainly did not have the
respect shown here in the West. She unfortunately overshadowed many other
individuals and organizations that are at work to educate and raise the poor
out of poverty and debunk the rampant religious myths and superstitions that
plague the country. Currently the church has placed her on the fast track
for sainthood however church doctrine requires a minimum of two "verified"
miracles that can be contributed to Mother Teresa. Since the Catholic
church has never had a problem finding and certifying miracles when needed,
we can assume that she will join that pantheon of saints very soon, perhaps
as the Saint of Medicine.
Cite?
*
I'm not 100% sure, but it sounds like a quote from Christopher Hitchens'
book, "Missionary Position". Hitchens reported that Mother Teresa would
withhold anesthetics from dying patients so that they could "experience
the pain that Jesus did on the cross." She was against "artificial
medicine" and opposed abortion very strongly under any conditions, but
when she had heart problems, she had no compunctions about visiting the
best hospitals in the USA for a bypass operation.
earle
*
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "rev.goetz" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Mother Theresa |
02 Feb 2006 01:12:45 PM |
|
|
Khubla wrote:
That idolized nun who founded the Missionaries of Charity and The Home for
the Dying in Calcutta had a dark side that few knew of. Teresa was born as
Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu in Skopje in 1910. During her lifetime of work with
the poor she maintained many controversial practices such as total control
of her operations without allowing others to make decisions and never
allowed any accounting of the millions in contributions that poured in from
individual, corporate, and government donations. It has been determined
that most of this money went to opening nunneries around the world as
opposed to helping the Calcutta poor. In her Home for the Dying when a
person checked in they were not allowed visitors, even from family members.
Now Mother Teresa had a dysfunctional outlook regarding pain and the poor.
Her strong belief which she apparently held throughout her life was that God
put the poor on this Earth and they should thus remain poor. Furthermore
she allowed no pain medicine to be administered in her "hospital" which
caused much distress with some of the other Nuns, many of whom left for this
reason. Her position again was that this was Gods will, it was the duty of
the poor to suffer and that was that! There were many programs (referred to
as Schemes in India parlance) by local and state government to help raise
the poor, especially the Untouchable class, out of the dire poverty they
suffered for generations. Mother Teresa was strongly opposed to all of
these. She felt that the poor were Gods will and she and her sisters should
have them as such to care for. In other words the poor were property of her
order and the status quo should not change. She was also strongly opposed
to any form of birth control or family planning. This in a country so
desperately in need of birth control.
As her health was declining the Archbishop of Calcutta, Henry Sebastian
D'Souza, says he ordered a priest to perform an exorcism on Mother Teresa
shortly before she died because he thought she was being attacked by the
devil. Catholic experts agree that, while exorcisms remain an important but
rare part of the church's work, the Archbishop may have overreacted in
ordering the ceremony.
In India, among my Hindu business associates and friends Mother Teresa was
regarded as a contradiction in many ways but certainly did not have the
respect shown here in the West. She unfortunately overshadowed many other
individuals and organizations that are at work to educate and raise the poor
out of poverty and debunk the rampant religious myths and superstitions that
plague the country. Currently the church has placed her on the fast track
for sainthood however church doctrine requires a minimum of two "verified"
miracles that can be contributed to Mother Teresa. Since the Catholic
church has never had a problem finding and certifying miracles when needed,
we can assume that she will join that pantheon of saints very soon, perhaps
as the Saint of Medicine.
Khubla
I heard of these accusations in the past. Do you have any mainstream
journalistic references to back up these accusations?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Mother Theresa |
05 Feb 2006 12:09:11 AM |
|
|
"rev.goetz" <jimgoetz316@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138907565.401594.272350@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Khubla wrote:
That idolized nun who founded the Missionaries of Charity and The Home
for
the Dying in Calcutta had a dark side that few knew of. Teresa was born
as
Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu in Skopje in 1910. During her lifetime of work
with
the poor she maintained many controversial practices such as total
control
of her operations without allowing others to make decisions and never
allowed any accounting of the millions in contributions that poured in
from
individual, corporate, and government donations. It has been determined
that most of this money went to opening nunneries around the world as
opposed to helping the Calcutta poor. In her Home for the Dying when a
person checked in they were not allowed visitors, even from family
members.
Now Mother Teresa had a dysfunctional outlook regarding pain and the
poor.
Her strong belief which she apparently held throughout her life was that
God
put the poor on this Earth and they should thus remain poor. Furthermore
she allowed no pain medicine to be administered in her "hospital" which
caused much distress with some of the other Nuns, many of whom left for
this
reason. Her position again was that this was Gods will, it was the duty
of
the poor to suffer and that was that! There were many programs (referred
to
as Schemes in India parlance) by local and state government to help raise
the poor, especially the Untouchable class, out of the dire poverty they
suffered for generations. Mother Teresa was strongly opposed to all of
these. She felt that the poor were Gods will and she and her sisters
should
have them as such to care for. In other words the poor were property of
her
order and the status quo should not change. She was also strongly
opposed
to any form of birth control or family planning. This in a country so
desperately in need of birth control.
As her health was declining the Archbishop of Calcutta, Henry Sebastian
D'Souza, says he ordered a priest to perform an exorcism on Mother Teresa
shortly before she died because he thought she was being attacked by the
devil. Catholic experts agree that, while exorcisms remain an important
but
rare part of the church's work, the Archbishop may have overreacted in
ordering the ceremony.
In India, among my Hindu business associates and friends Mother Teresa
was
regarded as a contradiction in many ways but certainly did not have the
respect shown here in the West. She unfortunately overshadowed many
other
individuals and organizations that are at work to educate and raise the
poor
out of poverty and debunk the rampant religious myths and superstitions
that
plague the country. Currently the church has placed her on the fast
track
for sainthood however church doctrine requires a minimum of two
"verified"
miracles that can be contributed to Mother Teresa. Since the Catholic
church has never had a problem finding and certifying miracles when
needed,
we can assume that she will join that pantheon of saints very soon,
perhaps
as the Saint of Medicine.
Khubla
I heard of these accusations in the past. Do you have any mainstream
journalistic references to back up these accusations?
http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/
http://www.hvk.org/articles/1202/2.html
http://www.deeshaa.org/2005/08/04/abusing-children-teresa-style
http://www.epinions.com/book-review-7D9B-C60EE-38BE001B-prod7
http://www.epinions.com/book-review-7D9B-C60EE-38BE001B-prod7http://www.meteorbooks.com/introduction.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Mother Theresa |
02 Feb 2006 11:08:06 AM |
|
|
Khubla wrote:
That idolized nun who founded the Missionaries of Charity and The Home for
the Dying in Calcutta had a dark side that few knew of. Teresa was born as
Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu in Skopje in 1910. During her lifetime of work with
the poor she maintained many controversial practices such as total control
of her operations without allowing others to make decisions and never
allowed any accounting of the millions in contributions that poured in from
individual, corporate, and government donations. It has been determined
that most of this money went to opening nunneries around the world as
opposed to helping the Calcutta poor. In her Home for the Dying when a
person checked in they were not allowed visitors, even from family members.
Now Mother Teresa had a dysfunctional outlook regarding pain and the poor.
Her strong belief which she apparently held throughout her life was that God
put the poor on this Earth and they should thus remain poor. Furthermore
she allowed no pain medicine to be administered in her "hospital" which
caused much distress with some of the other Nuns, many of whom left for this
reason. Her position again was that this was Gods will, it was the duty of
the poor to suffer and that was that! There were many programs (referred to
as Schemes in India parlance) by local and state government to help raise
the poor, especially the Untouchable class, out of the dire poverty they
suffered for generations. Mother Teresa was strongly opposed to all of
these. She felt that the poor were Gods will and she and her sisters should
have them as such to care for. In other words the poor were property of her
order and the status quo should not change. She was also strongly opposed
to any form of birth control or family planning. This in a country so
desperately in need of birth control.
As her health was declining the Archbishop of Calcutta, Henry Sebastian
D'Souza, says he ordered a priest to perform an exorcism on Mother Teresa
shortly before she died because he thought she was being attacked by the
devil. Catholic experts agree that, while exorcisms remain an important but
rare part of the church's work, the Archbishop may have overreacted in
ordering the ceremony.
In India, among my Hindu business associates and friends Mother Teresa was
regarded as a contradiction in many ways but certainly did not have the
respect shown here in the West. She unfortunately overshadowed many other
individuals and organizations that are at work to educate and raise the poor
out of poverty and debunk the rampant religious myths and superstitions that
plague the country. Currently the church has placed her on the fast track
for sainthood however church doctrine requires a minimum of two "verified"
miracles that can be contributed to Mother Teresa. Since the Catholic
church has never had a problem finding and certifying miracles when needed,
we can assume that she will join that pantheon of saints very soon, perhaps
as the Saint of Medicine.
The accounts for her organization were kept n a penciled notebook. When
it filled up, the early pages were erased and used over. It was
impossible to track where the money flowed, precisely. It is known that
most ot the money given to her went back to the Vatican. The Indian
poor saw damn little of it. The Western donors to her "charity" were
not, of course, told this.
She made a show of giving medical treatment, but she reused hypodermic
syringes, and the vaccines given to children were often past their
expiration date. She was heard more than once telling the sick and
injured that it was good for them to suffer, for then they were closer
to Christ, who suffered for us.
Khubla
Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Mother Theresa |
02 Feb 2006 09:37:22 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 09:28:15 -0500, Khubla wrote:
That idolized nun who founded the Missionaries of Charity and The Home
for
the Dying in Calcutta had a dark side that few knew of. Teresa was born
<snip>
Wasn't the attitude that "the poor are poor because God wants them to be
poor, and we should not go against God's will" one of the factors that set
off the French Revolution? It is a very convenient attitude, as long as
you are not, personally, one of the poor.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Mother Theresa |
15 Feb 2006 08:50:25 PM |
|
|
In article <pan.2006.02.02.15.37.05.39165@stopspam.net>, MarkA
said...
Wasn't the attitude that "the poor are poor because God
wants them to be poor, and we should not go against God's
will" one of the factors that set off the French Revolution?
It is a very convenient attitude, as long as you are not,
personally, one of the poor.
I'm put in mind of Dubya's recent, nonchalant reference to "the
marketplace" as the wellspring of his oil buddies' ludicrous
profits. Regardless of the particular political context,
responsiblity is always attributed to some higher force, never
to the greed and indifference of people who have power enough to
make things better.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matthew Isleb" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Mother Theresa |
02 Feb 2006 09:49:17 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 15:37:22 +0000, MarkA wrote:
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 09:28:15 -0500, Khubla wrote:
That idolized nun who founded the Missionaries of Charity and The Home
for
the Dying in Calcutta had a dark side that few knew of. Teresa was born
<snip>
Wasn't the attitude that "the poor are poor because God wants them to be
poor, and we should not go against God's will" one of the factors that set
off the French Revolution? It is a very convenient attitude, as long as
you are not, personally, one of the poor.
I think another argument for people being poor is that they become a handy
way of being "holy." That is, the poor provide an opportunity to be
charitable. And Jesus was all about charity. The poor are also good
candidates for conversion. How much success is the Catholic church having
in 1st world nations? I, personally, can't see this as anything but sick
and twisted, but I'm sure it doesn't sound nearly so to a Catholic.
-matthew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Khubla" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Mother Theresa |
02 Feb 2006 10:02:34 AM |
|
|
I think another argument for people being poor is that they become a handy
way of being "holy." That is, the poor provide an opportunity to be
charitable. And Jesus was all about charity. The poor are also good
candidates for conversion. How much success is the Catholic church having
in 1st world nations? I, personally, can't see this as anything but sick
and twisted, but I'm sure it doesn't sound nearly so to a Catholic.
-matthew
I think you "hit the nail on the head".
Khubla
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Rice, Esq." |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Mother Theresa |
02 Feb 2006 10:36:28 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 15:37:22 GMT, MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net>
wrote:
Wasn't the attitude that "the poor are poor because God wants them to be
poor, and we should not go against God's will" one of the factors that set
off the French Revolution? It is a very convenient attitude, as long as
you are not, personally, one of the poor.
The book "The Missionary Position" gives a good account of this
evil woman's life.
---
I am L. Ron Hubbard and I approve of this message.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Mother Theresa |
02 Feb 2006 10:10:44 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 09:28:15 -0500, "Khubla" <khubla@adelphia.net>
wrote:
That idolized nun who founded the Missionaries of Charity and The Home for
the Dying in Calcutta had a dark side that few knew of.
christopher hitchens...a man of unsurpassed intelligence...wrote an
article about her which pretty well put her in a similar light. i
suppose she had her purpose...it's hard to imagine the poor of
calcutta having it any worse...but she didnt seem to help much
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Mother Theresa |
03 Feb 2006 11:01:41 AM |
|
|
In article <ggj5u192om4iaga7oibk76qqodjg37ft3j@4ax.com>,
says...
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 09:28:15 -0500, "Khubla" <khubla@adelphia.net>
wrote:
That idolized nun who founded the Missionaries of Charity and The Home for
the Dying in Calcutta had a dark side that few knew of.
christopher hitchens...a man of unsurpassed intelligence.
In his own mind, perhaps. Hitch is right in recognizing the
reasonableness of atheism, and even in some of his critiques of his
former socialist beliefs. But he is far from a towering intellect. Why
would a genius hide at the bottom of a bottle of scotch every night? And
he is utterly out of it with respect to his support of the Iraq war.
Galloway mopped the floor with Hitch in their debate.
When Penn and Teller interviewed him for their "Holier than Thou" episode
they had a hilarious time with Hitchens trying to get him to finish
speaking his piece against Mother T before he fell out of his chair
drunk. Still, he is spot on about motherfucking theresa and his comment
that faith is "the surrender of the intellect" was brilliant. So I
think, at this point I would characterize Hitchens as a fun and sometimes
lucid drunk.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Mother Theresa |
03 Feb 2006 07:29:29 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 10:01:41 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <ggj5u192om4iaga7oibk76qqodjg37ft3j@4ax.com>,
says...
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 09:28:15 -0500, "Khubla" <khubla@adelphia.net>
wrote:
That idolized nun who founded the Missionaries of Charity and The Home for
the Dying in Calcutta had a dark side that few knew of.
christopher hitchens...a man of unsurpassed intelligence.
In his own mind, perhaps.
in my mind too.
Hitch is right in recognizing the
reasonableness of atheism, and even in some of his critiques of his
former socialist beliefs. But he is far from a towering intellect.
i caught him in the 'firing line' debate with w. f. buckley, phillip
johnson, et. al. on creationism a few years ago. he treated WFB like a
puppy treats a chew toy
Why
would a genius hide at the bottom of a bottle of scotch every night?
uh, genius has zip to do with drinking.
And
he is utterly out of it with respect to his support of the Iraq war.
you mean the liberation of iraq
Galloway mopped the floor with Hitch in their debate.
galloway is too busy collecting his millions from the oil for food
program to mop anything with anyone.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Mother Theresa |
03 Feb 2006 08:04:33 PM |
|
|
In article <0n08u1505m6canq08rlcpu0qo7i211u9id@4ax.com>,
says...
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 10:01:41 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <ggj5u192om4iaga7oibk76qqodjg37ft3j@4ax.com>,
says...
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 09:28:15 -0500, "Khubla" <khubla@adelphia.net>
wrote:
That idolized nun who founded the Missionaries of Charity and The Home for
the Dying in Calcutta had a dark side that few knew of.
christopher hitchens...a man of unsurpassed intelligence.
In his own mind, perhaps.
in my mind too.
Unfortunately, that may speak more to the smallness of your own psyche
than the greatness of his.
Hitch is right in recognizing the
reasonableness of atheism, and even in some of his critiques of his
former socialist beliefs. But he is far from a towering intellect.
i caught him in the 'firing line' debate with w. f. buckley, phillip
johnson, et. al. on creationism a few years ago. he treated WFB like a
puppy treats a chew toy
I hope he didn't get indigestion. Bucky has been a bloviated idiot with
no clue for the last several decades. Phillip Johnson is a drooling
retard who is barely able to think or function.
Why
would a genius hide at the bottom of a bottle of scotch every night?
uh, genius has zip to do with drinking.
It can't have helped his brain to pickle it for as long as he has.
And
he is utterly out of it with respect to his support of the Iraq war.
you mean the liberation of iraq
Galloway mopped the floor with Hitch in their debate.
galloway is too busy collecting his millions from the oil for food
program to mop anything with anyone.
As Galloway pointed out, he never even got a penny from Iraq, but he got
millions from the lying British and American tabloids that he
successfully sued for libel when they made these knowingly false claims.
Obviously, the evidence against Galloway was even more phony than the WMD
case against Iraq.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Sullivan" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Mother Theresa |
04 Feb 2006 02:23:40 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <0n08u1505m6canq08rlcpu0qo7i211u9id@4ax.com>,
says...
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 10:01:41 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <ggj5u192om4iaga7oibk76qqodjg37ft3j@4ax.com>,
says...
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 09:28:15 -0500, "Khubla" <khubla@adelphia.net>
wrote:
That idolized nun who founded the Missionaries of Charity and The Home for
the Dying in Calcutta had a dark side that few knew of.
christopher hitchens...a man of unsurpassed intelligence.
In his own mind, perhaps.
in my mind too.
Unfortunately, that may speak more to the smallness of your own psyche
than the greatness of his.
Actually it speaks to the perceptive powers of yours.
--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Mother Theresa |
04 Feb 2006 08:58:39 AM |
|
|
In article <ds1oac$1cf$1@reader2.panix.com>, says...
In talk.origins quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <0n08u1505m6canq08rlcpu0qo7i211u9id@4ax.com>,
says...
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 10:01:41 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <ggj5u192om4iaga7oibk76qqodjg37ft3j@4ax.com>,
says...
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 09:28:15 -0500, "Khubla" <khubla@adelphia.net>
wrote:
That idolized nun who founded the Missionaries of Charity and The Home for
the Dying in Calcutta had a dark side that few knew of.
christopher hitchens...a man of unsurpassed intelligence.
In his own mind, perhaps.
in my mind too.
Unfortunately, that may speak more to the smallness of your own psyche
than the greatness of his.
Actually it speaks to the perceptive powers of yours.
Yes, it speaks to the fact that I am perceptive, while apparently people
like you are not.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Mother Theresa |
03 Feb 2006 08:38:36 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 19:04:33 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <0n08u1505m6canq08rlcpu0qo7i211u9id@4ax.com>,
says...
christopher hitchens...a man of unsurpassed intelligence.
In his own mind, perhaps.
in my mind too.
Unfortunately, that may speak more to the smallness of your own psyche
than the greatness of his.
can't help it you can't recognize talent, sport...
Hitch is right in recognizing the
reasonableness of atheism, and even in some of his critiques of his
former socialist beliefs. But he is far from a towering intellect.
i caught him in the 'firing line' debate with w. f. buckley, phillip
johnson, et. al. on creationism a few years ago. he treated WFB like a
puppy treats a chew toy
I hope he didn't get indigestion. Bucky has been a bloviated idiot with
no clue for the last several decades. Phillip Johnson is a drooling
retard who is barely able to think or function.
and yet they have transformed the american political landscape. say
what you want about them, but they're not idiots.
And
he is utterly out of it with respect to his support of the Iraq war.
you mean the liberation of iraq
Galloway mopped the floor with Hitch in their debate.
galloway is too busy collecting his millions from the oil for food
program to mop anything with anyone.
As Galloway pointed out, he never even got a penny from Iraq, but he got
millions from the lying British and American tabloids that he
ROFLMAO!! the british tabloids? the british libel laws are so loose
you could drive a truck thru them. if that's your proof...
successfully sued for libel when they made these knowingly false claims.
Obviously, the evidence against Galloway was even more phony than the WMD
case against Iraq.
tell it to the french
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Mother Theresa |
04 Feb 2006 09:20:10 AM |
|
|
In article <fp48u1h91odi174ao7ofe46qn55hu2acek@4ax.com>,
says...
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 19:04:33 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <0n08u1505m6canq08rlcpu0qo7i211u9id@4ax.com>,
says...
christopher hitchens...a man of unsurpassed intelligence.
In his own mind, perhaps.
in my mind too.
Unfortunately, that may speak more to the smallness of your own psyche
than the greatness of his.
can't help it you can't recognize talent, sport...
Granted, but the point is moot, since Hitchens is not particularly
talented. The average English major could write and research as well or
better. Certainly his speaking skills are vastly overrated. Take that
away and all you have is his trademarked tangled mop, perpetually
migrating into his eyes, his black lungs and his beer gut.
Hitch is right in recognizing the
reasonableness of atheism, and even in some of his critiques of his
former socialist beliefs. But he is far from a towering intellect.
i caught him in the 'firing line' debate with w. f. buckley, phillip
johnson, et. al. on creationism a few years ago. he treated WFB like a
puppy treats a chew toy
I hope he didn't get indigestion. Bucky has been a bloviated idiot with
no clue for the last several decades. Phillip Johnson is a drooling
retard who is barely able to think or function.
and yet they have transformed the american political landscape.
Hardly. Certainly Phillip Johnson hasn't. He's a fringe crank.
Buckyboy road the coattails of anti-commie hysteria, like his no-talent
actor idol Reagan. Hitchens might be a bit brighter than these dimbulbs,
when he's sober, but so are most house pets.
say
what you want about them, but they're not idiots.
And
he is utterly out of it with respect to his support of the Iraq war.
you mean the liberation of iraq
Galloway mopped the floor with Hitch in their debate.
galloway is too busy collecting his millions from the oil for food
program to mop anything with anyone.
As Galloway pointed out, he never even got a penny from Iraq, but he got
millions from the lying British and American tabloids that he
ROFLMAO!! the british tabloids? the british libel laws are so loose
Wwhere do you expect a British minister of parlaiment to go to redress
greivances with British tabloids, fool.
you could drive a truck thru them. if that's your proof...
If the case is so strong against Galloway then why hasn't he been
prosecuted. Why was he able to rip Norm Coleman a new ***** and dare
anyone to take civil or criminal action.
successfully sued for libel when they made these knowingly false claims.
Obviously, the evidence against Galloway was even more phony than the WMD
case against Iraq.
tell it to the french
The french were right and you were wrong. Get over it, moron. Now if
you are referring to Osirak in 1981 then I'd say that your evidence is a
couple decades out of date. You'll have to do better than that. The US
probably sold more in the way of munitions to Iraq than France anyway.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Mother Theresa |
04 Feb 2006 10:00:50 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 08:20:10 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <fp48u1h91odi174ao7ofe46qn55hu2acek@4ax.com>,
says
can't help it you can't recognize talent, sport...
Granted, but the point is moot, since Hitchens is not particularly
talented.
he's talented enough to challenge the powers that run this country and
to demonstrate their hypocrisy
I hope he didn't get indigestion. Bucky has been a bloviated idiot with
no clue for the last several decades. Phillip Johnson is a drooling
retard who is barely able to think or function.
and yet they have transformed the american political landscape.
Hardly. Certainly Phillip Johnson hasn't. He's a fringe crank.
really? the author of the 'wedge' document and a senior fellow at the
most influential creationist institution in the country is a 'fringe'
crank??
Buckyboy road the coattails of anti-commie hysteria, like his no-talent
actor idol Reagan.
bucky boy started the right wing revolution in this country with his
'god and man at yale', founded 'natiional review' which torpedoed the
harriet mers nomination, and is about as influential a conservative as
there is in the US.
As Galloway pointed out, he never even got a penny from Iraq, but he got
millions from the lying British and American tabloids that he
ROFLMAO!! the british tabloids? the british libel laws are so loose
Wwhere do you expect a British minister of parlaiment to go to redress
greivances with British tabloids, fool.
certainly not with the use of libel laws which are a joke. the british
libel laws bear no similarity to US laws at all.
you could drive a truck thru them. if that's your proof...
If the case is so strong against Galloway then why hasn't he been
prosecuted. Why was he able to rip Norm Coleman a new ***** and dare
anyone to take civil or criminal action.
again, if you're basing your conclusion on the britsh libel laws, then
more power to your vacuous argument. their libel laws automatically
favor the plaintiff over the defendent.
successfully sued for libel when they made these knowingly false claims.
Obviously, the evidence against Galloway was even more phony than the WMD
case against Iraq.
tell it to the french
The french were right and you were wrong.
really? they were right when they said hussein had WMD's??
gee. that's news!
Get over it, moron. Now if
you are referring to Osirak in 1981 then I'd say that your evidence is a
couple decades out of date. You'll have to do better than that. The US
probably sold more in the way of munitions to Iraq than France anyway.
uh, no, actually. it was the russians and the germans.
the basis for your conclusion, based on british libel laws, and the
fact that the french said hussein DID have WMD's is pathetic...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Hayes" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Mother Theresa |
06 Feb 2006 01:40:02 AM |
|
|
wrote in
news:cjj9u1h6hit2k9pih21pekrjgikal3skio@4ax.com:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 08:20:10 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Hardly. Certainly Phillip Johnson hasn't. He's a fringe crank.
really? the author of the 'wedge' document and a senior fellow at the
most influential creationist institution in the country is a 'fringe'
crank??
I really don't want to wade into this silly slugfest, but I have to take
issue with this.
You can't seriously think the DI is the "most influential creationist
institution in [this] country"?
How many people buy into what they say?
How many people buy into what, for example, the Southern Baptist
Convention says?
'Nuff said. The DI is the effete namby-pamby branch of creationism, the
white-shoes division. No creationist speaks of them without a sneer in
his voice. Influence, shminfluence.
certainly not with the use of libel laws which are a joke. the british
libel laws bear no similarity to US laws at all.
And so unfounded allegations are true. *boing* Sorry, that syllogism
does not parse. Please try again -- on second thought, please don't.
again, if you're basing your conclusion on the britsh libel laws, then
more power to your vacuous argument. their libel laws automatically
favor the plaintiff over the defendent.
Yes, they require the "defendent" [sic] to provide proof that what they
say is true. Alas, since there isn't any, they haven't any. In the US,
they could say, "gee, I THOUGHT it was true, even though it's several
sacks of ***** bundled together into one large sack of *****," and get
away with it. All hail the skidmark that is the US press.
you are referring to Osirak in 1981 then I'd say that your evidence is
a couple decades out of date. You'll have to do better than that.
The US probably sold more in the way of munitions to Iraq than France
anyway.
uh, no, actually. it was the russians and the germans.
Who were, of course, relying on US intelligence. Funny how it all spins
round the same drain.
But never mind that: the point is, the DI is at best a stalking horse,
if only they knew it. Poor shlubs, they probably think that wave behind
them is a wave of support.
-JAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Mother Theresa |
06 Feb 2006 05:35:17 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 07:40:02 -0000, Josh Hayes <joshno@spamblarg.net>
wrote:
wf3h@comcast.net wrote in
news:cjj9u1h6hit2k9pih21pekrjgikal3skio@4ax.com:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 08:20:10 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Hardly. Certainly Phillip Johnson hasn't. He's a fringe crank.
really? the author of the 'wedge' document and a senior fellow at the
most influential creationist institution in the country is a 'fringe'
crank??
I really don't want to wade into this silly slugfest, but I have to take
issue with this.
You can't seriously think the DI is the "most influential creationist
institution in [this] country"?
How many people buy into what they say?
well, the president for one. the dover schoolboard for
another...almost every politician pushing creationism uses the
language of 'intelligent design'.
How many people buy into what, for example, the Southern Baptist
Convention says?
the SBC uses the language of ID pushed by the discovery institute.
the SBC did not develop the concept.
certainly not with the use of libel laws which are a joke. the british
libel laws bear no similarity to US laws at all.
And so unfounded allegations are true. *boing* Sorry, that syllogism
does not parse. Please try again -- on second thought, please don't.
standard of proof in the respective countries for libel?
again, if you're basing your conclusion on the britsh libel laws, then
more power to your vacuous argument. their libel laws automatically
favor the plaintiff over the defendent.
Yes, they require the "defendent" [sic] to provide proof that what they
say is true. Alas, since there isn't any, they haven't any. In the US,
they could say, "gee, I THOUGHT it was true, even though it's several
sacks of ***** bundled together into one large sack of *****," and get
away with it. All hail the skidmark that is the US press.
and that's exactly my point. mens rea...
you are referring to Osirak in 1981 then I'd say that your evidence is
a couple decades out of date. You'll have to do better than that.
The US probably sold more in the way of munitions to Iraq than France
anyway.
uh, no, actually. it was the russians and the germans.
Who were, of course, relying on US intelligence. Funny how it all spins
round the same drain.
uh, we were talking about arms sales, not intelligence. arms sales
relies on money, not intelligence
But never mind that: the point is, the DI is at best a stalking horse,
if only they knew it. Poor shlubs, they probably think that wave behind
them is a wave of support.
i agree they're a stalking horse. but they're the loudest voice in the
creationist chorus.
.
|
|
|
| User: "pz" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Mother Theresa |
06 Feb 2006 10:47:35 AM |
|
|
In article <hsceu11n1uvvvfdhdlmtlc0s0s1hug8sgg@4ax.com>,
wrote:
You can't seriously think the DI is the "most influential creationist
institution in [this] country"?
How many people buy into what they say?
well, the president for one. the dover schoolboard for
another...almost every politician pushing creationism uses the
language of 'intelligent design'.
No, not really. The DI is like an ad agency; they've packaged up a
lot of rhetoric specifically designed (hah!), they thought, to
circumvent legal restrictions on the teaching of creationism. The
bulk of creationists see the language of intelligent design as
politically expedient, but don't actually buy into its vagueness --
they've got a more specific Christian creator-god in mind.
The ad agency has flopped mightily. It's not going to change the
position of the majority of creationists, but I think they are going
to be shopping around for a more successful PR firm.
--
pz http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Mother Theresa |
06 Feb 2006 07:29:51 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 10:47:35 -0600, pz <pzmyers@pharyngula.org> wrote:
In article <hsceu11n1uvvvfdhdlmtlc0s0s1hug8sgg@4ax.com>,
wf3h@comcast.net wrote:
You can't seriously think the DI is the "most influential creationist
institution in [this] country"?
How many people buy into what they say?
well, the president for one. the dover schoolboard for
another...almost every politician pushing creationism uses the
language of 'intelligent design'.
No, not really. The DI is like an ad agency;
and that's all ID is: an ad for fundamentalism
The ad agency has flopped mightily. It's not going to change the
position of the majority of creationists, but I think they are going
to be shopping around for a more successful PR firm.
i certainly hope it's flopped. unfortunately, like a vampire,
creationism has a habit of rising from the dead
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Mother Theresa |
05 Feb 2006 07:28:14 AM |
|
|
In message <cjj9u1h6hit2k9pih21pekrjgikal3skio@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 08:20:10 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <fp48u1h91odi174ao7ofe46qn55hu2acek@4ax.com>,
says
ROFLMAO!! the british tabloids? the british libel laws are so
loose
Wwhere do you expect a British minister of parlaiment to go to
redress greivances with British tabloids, fool.
Member, not minister.
certainly not with the use of libel laws which are a joke. the
british libel laws bear no similarity to US laws at all.
In what way a joke?
Ian Hislop didn't find them a joke when Peter Sutcliffe's wife was
awarded more in damages from Private Eye than any of Sutcliffe's
victims' relatives got in compensation.
--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Mother Theresa |
06 Feb 2006 05:31:17 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 13:28:14 GMT, Nick Roberts
<tigger@orpheusinternet.co.uk> wrote:
In message <cjj9u1h6hit2k9pih21pekrjgikal3skio@4ax.com>
wf3h@comcast.net wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 08:20:10 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <fp48u1h91odi174ao7ofe46qn55hu2acek@4ax.com>,
wf3h@comcast.net says
ROFLMAO!! the british tabloids? the british libel laws are so
loose
Wwhere do you expect a British minister of parlaiment to go to
redress greivances with British tabloids, fool.
Member, not minister.
certainly not with the use of libel laws which are a joke. the
british libel laws bear no similarity to US laws at all.
In what way a joke?
because they're so loose and vague it's almost impossible for the
plaintiff to lose.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
