RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

camille65 -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 4:37:49 AM)

This took all of one minute to locate. Article titles include 'MT, Where are her millions'?
'The squalid truth behind the legacy of MT'
'Tying up children is educational: Teresas nuns....'


http://www.crusadewatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=8&id=23&Itemid=28



Rule -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 4:46:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO
Anyone who agrees to let a publishing company title their book: "The Final Verdict" should tell you something about how one-sided their POV is going to be (and possibly the size of their ego). And it should also scream: Blatant attempt to sell tons of books. They probably have, too.
Publishing is a business. Publishers are just as greedy as any other business people. An author often has little to say about the title that publishers put on his book. I do not know how often a publisher changes the title that the author had in mind for his book, but I do know that it happens a lot.
 
That is an impressive website, camille. I read the article 'Educating with hot knive'. I quote the successor of the Vulture of Calcutta from that article: ""The poor should remain poor ... Without them, we will lose our jobs."
 
How is that self-less?



farglebargle -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 5:52:02 AM)

I'll stick with my Auditor's Instincts.

No Independent Financial Audit == Not Trustworthy.




KatyLied -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 5:58:05 AM)

I work in the non-profit sector and urge anyone who is contributing their time/money, please do it wisely.  A charity should be transparent and welcome inquiry regarding full disclosure, audits, and 990's.  They should also be up to date on any state requirements.  A helpful website is:  http://www.guidestar.org/

I do not know what requirements religious organizations have regarding disclosure, but personally I do not contribute much to relgious organizations, I feel there are better places to spend my charitable dollars.



e01n -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 6:16:21 AM)

In the United States, the disclosure requirements for religious organizations are very similar to those governing secular non-profits and fraternal organizations. Their tax records are a matter of public record, as are their charter documents.

Even then, is that saying that any of the information in them is accurate?

Outside of the US, I know of no independent auditors for religious organizations. Sorry.



kittinSol -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 6:37:49 AM)

I still wonder if  this thread was posted as a response to a similar debate about Theresa I started earlier on the "eradicating women" thread... it seems too much of a coincidence to be one... Level started this thread knowingly I think. And all the better for him: I don't understand why he would be hurt. He didn't attempt to "redirect" the thread towards his original post (which was, if I remember rightly, that Theresa had 'doubts' and that she questioned her faith ), so I take that as a tacit acceptance of the way things are going. Level, perhaps you'd like to explain... it's up to you.

So Theresa had doubts and questioned her faith: what's the news here? Why does the Vatican suddenly release such a piece of information? What's their goal in doing so, if it's not to drag Agnes back into the public arena? They undug her corpse: I think it's only fair we, vultures that we are, take a bite at it. I think they want some cash and that Agnes was their prized cash cow. I think they have no scrupules whatsoever and that they're quite happy to divulge that she suffered 'torment' (just like Yeshua when he was dying, remember?) and that it makes her all the more human. I think it's a cynical attempt to grab more money in her name.



DomKen -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 6:48:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

Mother Theresa's work includes:
**Note to DomKen: It took me about 2 minutes to find this on the Internet:
The Missionaries of Charity has established several homes and some of them are (Note: although there are more than this, her work includes 800 sites, spread in 40 countries):
     
1. Gandhiji Prem Nivas, Titagarh, Calcutta: To start with, a mobile clinic for leprosy patients under a tree at Titagarh, near Calcutta, was set up.  Today, Gandhiji Prem Nivas is a wonderful centre.  Prem Nivas was built by the leprosy patients themselves and is a place where they can both live and work.

The leper home? The one built and paid for by the lepers themselves? Isn't this a prime example that foreign donations aren't getting spent on these projects?

quote:


2.  Shishu Bhavan, Calcutta: Children's home in Calcutta, is a paradise for sick and poor children who are mostly orphans left to the mercy of God.   Shishu Bhavan looks after about 500 or more malnourished children at one time, as well as takes care of poor unwed mothers.  There is also an outpatient section at which doctors dispense medical attention to perhaps 1,000 to 2,000 patients a week. There is also an adoption centre.

Children who reach the age of ten and are not adopted are sent to boarding schools and then to colleges, or on to do vocational courses.  Once they have settled down in their lives, they are helped in getting married.  **They are also given a dowry to help them make a beginning. On the ground floor of Shishu Bhavan there are cooking facilities to feed over 1,000 hungry people daily.

The orphange?
http://www.newstatesman.com/200508220019
If that place is where the MoC is spending the millions in donations they are more corrupt than Falwell and Robertson.


quote:

3. Nirmal Hriday, Calcutta: The home for the dying destitutes in Calcutta was once a place for pilgrims to rest after travelling to the Kali temple.  Deep in the busy heart of the Kalighat area of the city, this building is actually joined to the temple itself.  They have more than 100 beds for men and women.  The number of beds can be increased according to the need.  When people come to the home, they are not in a state to speak.  But after a little care and food, they are placed in the register as 'unknown'.  After death they are cremated according to their religious beliefs.

I'll let Mr. Chatterjee deal with some of these claims:
http://website.lineone.net/~bajuu/chatlet.htm
As to the rest this is the hospice the British Medical Association complained about that I referenced earlier in the thread. I see no evidence of millions being spent here either.

As to claims about the sending of orphans to boarding school and providing dowries for the girls, Shishu Bhavan is widely reported as being an orphange for the mentally and physically hadicapped and I've been unable to find any numbers indicating how many orphans the place actually sends on to school or marriage. Also I would suspect based on other evidence that any boarding school tuitions are donated by the school as this is what the MoC does in other places.



KatyLied -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 6:51:19 AM)

quote:

He didn't attempt to "redirect" the thread towards his original post


I've noticed (on this message board especially) that (some) posters tend to get their panties in a twist when there are threadjacks.    There is one poster who has blocked people who go off-topic.  I consider threadjacks part of message boards, and some times entertaining and interesting.  When I start a thread I don't care if it goes off topic.  I guess I don't feel that I have a lot invested in it and it's interesting to see the twists and turns on a message board, and in life as well.



LaTigresse -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 7:06:52 AM)

Katy, I agree. I have actually seen threads turn into something alot more interesting and informative than I would have imagined initially.

This is one subject (the person of topic) that I just honestly knew nothing at all about. I have learned alot from this thread and all of the links.

Kittin, you brought up something I was considering this morning. Just as in Hollywood, the theory of all publicity is good publicity. I am sure the church loved the money she brought it. They never had to be held accountable with what they did with it. It would not surprise me if she, herself, was just another pawn in the catholic money factory and too stupid to realize how they used her. Toss little old lady out into the poor, convince her she is doing god's work. All those sweet little ladies in Cedar Rapids Iowa seeing her on TV and going "Awwwww, isn't that special? Look at her devotion and suffering. Let's send a little of our pension money in to help her precious cause" They are happy because their concious is eased. The church is happy because they get to rake in the millions. And the little old lady is happy because she is fulfilling whatever drove her. She dies and the church's donation bin is not what is used to be so lets drag the little old lady out and parade her around again.



kittinSol -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 7:14:47 AM)

I have an idea of  who you're thinking of, Katy. I agree with you that there is an organic quality to conversations: they tend to grow, sometimes seemingly out of their own accord, they take turns and tangents. It's the nature of the beast.

I think this thread has stayed remarkably on topic, considering the incendiary nature of the subject at hand, and the hot tempers of some of the posters :-)

Considering all this, I would say this thread's a shining example of how well people can behave.

Now, let's talk about the perversity inherent to encouraging pain in others in order for them to gain salvation.

PS: Tigresse, your post was spot on. That's exactly how it works.



Politesub53 -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 7:45:54 AM)

No one has mentioned the letter she sent to the judge, trying to get clemency for Keating ? I wonder what her vies were on the poor investors who were fleeced.

The whole problem with any debate such as this, as well as people holding very strong and fixed ideas,is that most books and web sites are slanted one way or the other. If books were not controversial they would not sell so well.

Threads on any Forum take a life of their own and wander off track, then get back on course, but then again so do conversations in real life. This forum is no different from others i use in that respect.
[;)]



SugarMyChurro -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 8:28:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
No one has mentioned the letter she sent to the judge, trying to get clemency for Keating?


It was mentioned by reference, the "journalist-that-cannot-be-named-because-he-sucks" gets into it. He also gets into Teresa and Irish divorce law and the statements against abortion in her Nobel speech (because overpopulation is a beautiful thing - it increases the suffering that proves god's love!).

She was a saint alright - right up there with Saint Masoch and Le Divin Marquis...



e01n -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 8:31:56 AM)

I'll quote myself: Mother Teresa, then Himmler, The G-d...

One of the things that I find that most people miss about De Sade was that he wasn't trying to write erotica - what he was writing was political... and that's the main reason why his relatively tame RL exploits kept him in prison most of his life.

Compared to the suffering caused by that trio, De Sade was an amateur...



SusanofO -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 9:04:50 AM)

 camille65: I've been donating to World Vision for years. They help millions every year. I've personally investigated their finances and found nothing amiss. In fact, 15-27% of their funds go to admin. costs - a phenomenal figure for a charity.

I noticed no credentials listed (beyond taking their word for it) whatsoever re: CrusadeWatch's supposed ability to recognize when anything might be amiss, or their ability to judge the value of a particular charity. *Where is that information located on their website? Can you point it out?

I did, however - notice several references to the "Jihad plan of Christians", "Heathen Encounters" - this seems like strong langauge.***I also noticed they are hawking books and videos for profit. Hmmm

I smell a political and financial motive defaming charities, from people who don't examine those running this  website's possible motives very closely.

How noble of them...*but perhaps that was your point? Seems like maybe the perfect spot for some commentators on this thread to donate money, however.

general comments: Ah well, based on all of this convincing hearsay evidence, compared with a life-time of living in poverty, tending to the sick, poor and dying, and based on the pervasiveness of her efforts world-wide, and the numerous awards she received that she did not believe she deserved, that charity is a definitely ignoble goal to begin with, plus the fact she has been Beatified by the Pope, and the fact human beings live imperfect lives, and especially that since she helped millions in her lifetime - that - I am completely convinced that-

compared to the allegations of a few authors with pure-as-the-driven snow motives (who still manage somehow to shamelessly promote themselves for rpofit in most cases), and a couple of possibly dis-sasitisfied former employees of hers, and the suspect nature of internet sourcing generally that -**her seemingly apparent accomplishments fade to nothing, are clearly a sham  - and her life was a complete waste of time.

Because everyone else is definitely in a position to judge her inhernet value as a person, too. Let's not forget that part.

Even though any of this was never the the topic  intended by the OP

The verdict in undoubtedly In on the value of Mother Theresa's life. How could it not be?

- Susan



Rule -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 9:51:56 AM)

More sub talk. You apparently consider the popes to be above suspicion. Unfortunately they are. Now if a truly, utterly evil person wanted to be above all suspicion and to have immense power, what function would he want to acquire?
 
My dear, if you had any conception of the evil that dwells and rules in the Vatican, your body would be wracked with sorrow and you would cry bitter tears in disillusionment and perhaps in impotent rage until your very last breath.
 
The popes are as spiritually abandoned and unaware as the Vulture of Calcutta was. They are not christians and they are without the guidance of the true Creator.
 
The catholic church has been corrupted for centuries.
 
This has nothing to do with the religious hang-ups you accuse me of. It is verily the truth.



farglebargle -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 9:58:50 AM)

Well, right now, a Hitler Youth is sitting in Rome...




popeye1250 -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 10:00:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KatyLied

quote:

He didn't attempt to "redirect" the thread towards his original post


I've noticed (on this message board especially) that (some) posters tend to get their panties in a twist when there are threadjacks.    There is one poster who has blocked people who go off-topic.  I consider threadjacks part of message boards, and some times entertaining and interesting.  When I start a thread I don't care if it goes off topic.  I guess I don't feel that I have a lot invested in it and it's interesting to see the twists and turns on a message board, and in life as well.



Katy, I agree with that as well.
When I start threads it's to get people thinking and I don't care which way they go with it or which direction the thread takes.
I like to provoke as well.
And the occaisional cranial-anal inversion is always entertaining too.[:D]



SusanofO -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 10:01:05 AM)

Rule: I am not particulary prone to side-track further in that direction. I read history too. This is not a new argument - I've heard it. I agree re: the actions of some Pope's - where is your proof re: immediate past or current ones? I thought this thread was about one person: Mother Theresa.

To sum up: So what? You go ahead, though, if 'ya want. That ground has been covered to death on this thread.

I simply don't consider it relevant to attempting evaluating the inhernet value of her life. I'd give you some points for more objectivity. overall - than some on this thread, though. Not that my opinion counts for much. I am just one person. And I am certainly not God, who is really only in a position to judge. I am just saying it looks like she did much more good stuff, compared with evidence (to me) re: The contrary.  

- Susan



Mercnbeth -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 10:26:29 AM)

quote:

I've personally investigated their finances and found nothing amiss. In fact, 15-27% of their funds go to admin. costs - a phenomenal figure for a charity.


A "Mom T" neutral post...

Susan,
I don't know if you've ever worked as a waitress or in any service oriented position where a considerable portion of your income was cash, but I'll bet you a $100 donation to World Vision that if you did you, the honorable person that you are, didn't report 100% of the cash compensation you received. Its estimated that the current government dictum of the employer reporting tips as a fixed percentage captures less than 60% of the actual dollars.

Although World Vision receives a large portion of their dollars from large contributors in the form of checks there is still a LOT of cash coming into the coffers. Consider the cash coming in from collection plates at churches throughout the world. Consider the "mission money" drives at parochial schools. This is untraceable and impossible to audit.

Reporting 15-27% of the income to administrative expense is a function of determining what number looks good and backing into it.

I stopped giving cash to charities back in the 1993 when, after sponsoring a fund raising drive after the "Great St. Louis Flood of '93" it was determined that more than 50% of the funds collected by the United Way went toward "administration". The Red Cross is not much better and their advertisement soliciting funds after every major disaster caused them to come under scrutiny because the funds weren't going to the advertised disaster. It resulted in them changing their policy and now you can earmark donations.

The point is this - charity is a business. Whether its Mom T or the United Way. They exist because people of low to middle income are sold a product that either triggers their guilt or earns an entertainment fee. For the upper ends of the economic level, charities serve as tax dodges, on advise from their tax accountants.

On the administration side, there can be no success. In that consideration its the same as any government tax absorbing 'black hole' project. The "war on poverty" has gone on since the '60's. Billions of dollars have been spent giving people fish instead of fishing poles. If the war was "won" the bureaucrats put themselves in the unemployment line. Similar to multi-national charity organizations the bureaucrats and administrations have no incentive to solve the problem. They are better served by exploiting it.

Whether Mom T was an exploiter, exploited, or both she stands in crowded company. The Vatican may be the oldest charity industry, but their example is used as a business plan for many others; from the Crystal Cathedral to the 'Moonies'. Their 'bottom line' is the bottom line. Individual exceptions?- Sure. They all need a Mom T, a Sally Struthers, a Jimmy Swagart, a Billy Graham as a front person. I'll stipulate that they and other individuals all have great intentions. The organizations though illustrate their integrity by their rationalization of hypocrisy.

The US provides a great sanctuary by providing a tax haven, similar to an off-shore bank account in the Caymans. No tax, no tax return - no scrutiny. It's "gods will". One of the major hurdles regarding changing the US tax structure, moving to a consumption tax or flat tax; is the lobbying being done by charities. Without 100% deductible donations, they are concerned that the big bucks will stop.

I wouldn't doubt that suffering was encouraged. Its the depiction of suffering that brings in the bucks. The biggest suffering equals the biggest bucks. More donations come in from pictures depicting flies feeding on people than showing clean happy people eating.

By the way, my $100 donation will be in the form of $25 of fly paper, $25 of water purifier and a $50 bag of rice - no cash.



SusanofO -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 11:30:06 AM)

Okay, but people are reporting this kind of thing as if it should come as a surprise. I feel for you, and sometimes organizations have administrators that are making the mega-bucks at the expense of the public. I remember the United Way scandal. My position is that doesn't necessarily negate the good charity can, and does, do.

KatyLied: Nice reference re: Evaluating non-profits. Good to know.

I guess my whole point in posting on this at all on thread is that - I tend to agree with what caitlyn stated (and that I cited a source on as well) that even though there was a "spin machine" surrounding Mother Thersa - she wasn't particularly personally responsible for it, and is not personally responsible for the light anyone else wanted to either portray her in, or IMO, that they choose to subject themselves to and view her in.

She herself objected to all the fuss about her, and even requested people halt their donations to her organiaztion, several times, because she was afraid it meant that other charities in India were missing out on dollars that could have been sent in their direction instead. She was under the direction of the Pope, and some on this thread apparently didn't know enough about her life to bother to find that out, yet insist on debating her inhernet value, as if this somehow negates the entire value of her life. 

Despite all of that - and all that's been done by her that's been good, if some people here want to view her with hatred and unflinching suspicion, then I see that as pure cynicism (ICK!), which certainly doesn't (to me) devalue the noble intent or value, overall, of her entire life's work. And actually, wealthy people donate to charity too - it's all pretty relative (to me), even if some people might get "fleeced" along the way. The fact remains, charity manages to help many people as well. It's not a perfect world.

With all due respect -We are all responsible for our own decisions, and sometimes _hit happens. If people choose not to investigate (for whatever reason): Where they make charitable donations, or if there are some rotten apples in the barrel - then what do you think should be done about that? No organized effort for to help less fortunate people, just let them starve to death and fend for themselves? Back to the Stone Age, each man or woman for himself? In  kind donations are not convenient, or practical, for a number of people to make.

- Susan



Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625