Many people here have stox on ignore for that very reason. He will yell, scream and cry about stuff - talking as if he was an authority, but easily debunked because he hasn't taken time to do any research.
Sounds to me stox has an extreme prejudice against religion and god and anyone who has done anything in gods name. Im sure he totally misunderstood and took out of context many of mother theresa's words, and i can find many many quotes where she does proclaim her faith. This guy is really losing it every minute lololol
you should do research beyond the conveniently complimentary sound bites and blind willingness to accept only the social consensus, This information is out there, She was a grotesque purveyor of suffering and death. Her "hospice" was an absolute disgrace. Doctors regularly made trips there pleading with the ragged old women who run it to allow them to take children to the hospital because their condition was curable or because they actually had treatment to ease suffering beyond her course of prayers, stained mattresses, overcrowded rat infested wards and the occasional damp rag to the forehead before inevitable death. But then, What good is a comfortable child in a hospital to mother teresa when she made her name of the back of the sick dying ones in her "hospice". Her promotional tool was the prolonging of suffering in children. I mean, The woman opened convents in over 100 countries. So a good question to start with would be: if she can produce that kind of turn over why is her Calcutta hospice as primitive and rudimentary as it was before she became a celebrity? With the money she attracted - money which was banked in new york as India requires complete transparency regarding foreign donations - She could have built a brand new, fully equipped teaching hospital in calcutta. Read "the missionary position" by christopher hitchens.
This author is a devout atheist, what a hypocrite you are buddy. I have gone through many sites and his data is very unsubstantiated (he cant prove diddly-squat). Another example of Stox's extreme bias to further his cause for atheism . Buddy, it seems like you have turned into the sort of conspiracy theorist that you dont agree with.You got any more pro atheist unbiased books to share with us PS: if you want another unbiased book from this author try:God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens. Stox , this is too easy buddy. Looks like stox loves to read unbiased books hehehehehe Imagine if all of these atheist who spent so much time critisizing poor mother theresa who left her upper middle ground upbringing to help the poor and ill spent their energy to also help the poor and ill? We would have a much more caring earth. Talk about throwing stones in a glass house loooooooooool. I gotta borrow debunked screenname here and say that STOX HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY EXPOSED AND DEBUNKED!! Here's [an] example of how Hitchens proceeds. He begins one chapter quoting Mother Teresa on why her congregation has taken a special vow to work for the poor. "This vow," she exclaimed, "means that we cannot work for the rich; neither can we accept money for the work we do. Ours has to be a free service, and to the poor." A few pages later, after citing numerous cash awards that her order has received, Hitchens writes "if she is claiming that the order does not solicit money from the rich and powerful, or accept it from them, this is easily shown to be false." Hitchens isn't being sloppy here, just dishonest. He knows full well that there is a world of difference between soliciting money from the rich and working for them. Furthermore, he knows full well that Mother Teresa never even implied that she wouldn't accept money from the rich. And precisely whom should she--or anyone else--accept money from, if not the rich? Would it make Hitchens feel better if the middle class were tapped and the rich got off scot free? Would it make any sense to take from the poor and then give it back to them? Who's left? Hitchens smells politics whenever Mother Teresa supports moral causes he objects to. For example, in 1988, while in London tending to the homeless, Mother Teresa was asked to meet with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. She did. She also met a pro-life legislator. So? For Hitchens, this shows the political side of Mother Teresa. Forget for a moment that Mother Teresa is perhaps the most noted pro-life advocate alive, and that abortion is first and foremost a moral issue. And does anyone doubt that had she met with a politician interested in socialized medicine, Hitchens would be citing her humanity, not her politics? Mother Teresa has tended to the sick and poor all over the world. She doesn't pick and choose which countries to go to on the basis of internal politics, and this explains why she has visited both right-wing repressive nations like Haiti and left-wing repressive nations like Albania. Hitchens can't stomach this and indicts Mother Teresa for servicing dictatorships. Now if his logic is to be followed here, then most Peace Corps workers and Red Cross personnel are guilty of courting despots. This may make sense to those who write for the Nation, but no one else can be expected to believe it. In exemplary Catholic fashion, Mother Teresa comes to the poor not out of sentimentality, but out of love. No matter how impoverished and debased the poor are, they are still God's children, all of whom possess human dignity. This is not something Hitchens can accept. An unrelenting secularist, he cannot comprehend how Mother Teresa can console the terminally ill by saying, "You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you." Hitchens is so far gone that he cannot make sense of Christ's admonition that "The poor will always be with you." Not surprisingly, Hitchens says "I remember as a child finding this famous crack rather unsatisfactory. Either one eschews luxury and serves the poor or one does not." But he just doesn't get it: Mother Teresa eschews luxury and serves the poor, yet not for a moment does she believe that she is conquering poverty in the meantime. Only someone hopelessly wedded to a materialist vision of the world would think otherwise. Hitchens also objects to Mother Teresa's asceticism (if she lived the Life of Riley he would condemn her for that). He charges that her operation in Bengal is "a haphazard and cranky institution which would expose itself to litigation and protest were it run by any branch of the medical profession." Hitchens would prefer that the Bengalis force Mother Teresa to follow regulations established by the Department of Health and Human Services before attending to her work. It does not matter to him that Mother Teresa and her loyal sisters have managed to do what his saintly bureaucrats have never done--namely to comfort the ill and indigent. It is jealously, not ideology, that propels Hitchens to criticize Mother Teresa for receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. He wonders "what she had ever done, or even claimed to do, for the cause of peace." (His accent.) This is a strange comment coming as it does from one of those "If You Want Peace, Work For Justice" types. And it apparently never occurred to Hitchens that it is precisely Mother Teresa's humility that disallows her to grandstand before the world trumpeting her own work. A true crusader for the underclass, Mother Teresa is not in the habit of claiming to do anything. She is too busy practicing what others are content to preach. If receiving the Nobel Peace Prize angered Hitchens, it is safe to say he suffered from apoplexy when he read Mother Teresa's acceptance speech. In it, she took the occasion to say that "Today, abortion is the worst evil, and the greatest enemy of peace." Hitchens labels her speech a "diatribe" that is riddled with "fallacies and distortions," none of which he identifies, preferring instead to say that there "is not much necessity for identifying" them. Not, it should be added, if your goal is a smear campaign. It is ironic that after hurling one unsubstantiated charge after another that Hitchens ends his little book by saying, "It is past time she [Mother Teresa] was subjected to the rational critique that she has evaded so arrogantly and for so long." It would be more accurate to say that it is one more source of her greatness that Mother Teresa never evades anything, including irrational tracts written by vindictive authors. The arrogance is all his, because in the end, Hitchens hasn't even laid a glove on her
You really need to find the ignore button. Many here ignore him with the function and the rest ignore him anyways. He will come back with more of the same and you will only end up frustrated. He isn't interested in the facts or truth, he is only interested in furthering the goal of his religion. Stox is extremely religious and if you don't convert he will continue to ridicule you even if it means he pulls out all the guns. Like I said it isn't about facts or truth, but his feelings and guilt. So, try the ignore button.
Good point Debunked, just had to debunk the guy one last time before i now officially have him on iggy.
That was the longest ad hominem fallacy i have ever seen pingpong. You do realise that an attack on hitchens isn't an adequate replacement for a defence of the retched old hag teresa, right? And what's more, The theft of enormous chunks of text from the catholic league (of all people) which you pass off as your own, without crediting the source, Is not an adequate replacement for thinking for yourself. explain why she raised enough money to open convents in over 100 countries but still "treated" people in a grotty, rat infested hospice with no real medical equipment or treatments? In your own words using your own brain this time.