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

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



Message

Mercnbeth -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 11:39:34 AM)

quote:

Where they make charitable donations -then what do you think should be done about that?


It would be easy to eliminate much of the scrutiny and the cynicism. Religions and other 'charity' industries should be subject to the same tax obligations as any other commercial industry. They'll still be able to cheat regarding the cash, but being subject to a tax audit may cause them to keep better records. Also, personal and corporate donations should NOT be tax deductible.

The resulting activity and contributions would be qualify to be called selfless and , charitable. Now - its often only good tax accounting and tax practice.



SusanofO -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 11:46:12 AM)

I hear what you are saying, and you've got a very good point. But - World Vision has an audit right on their website, going back several years. I always investigate places I donate to - I call them on the telephone and speak to the Accounting folks (if they are available) as well. Or at least ask for that info, in writing, up front, to be mailed to my house - before I ever send a cent. 

In any case, I am personally making a decision to take the risk. I take a risk re: Who I choose to go to work for, buy groceries from, etc. If it comes back and bites me in the ass, that's okay with me. If ultra-serious consequences for me personally are ever involved, then maybe I'll consider suing someone (seriously). So far, so good, though. I am sorry for your experience with United Way.  

- Susan



Mercnbeth -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 12:14:23 PM)

quote:

 always investigate places I donate to - I call them on the telephone and speak to the Accounting folks (if they are available) as well. Or at least ask for that info, in writing, up front, to be mailed to my house - before I ever send a cent. In any case, I am personally making a decision to take the risk.


Susan,
GOOD for you! From beth - "GOD bless you!" (It wouldn't mean the same coming from me!)

I don't even believe you are alone in your faith and belief. The slave I live with is strongly committed to her faith. she prays for me that I'm wrong and I hope her prayers are answered and she is right. Together her faith and my cynicism have the makeup of a decent person who won't get taken advantage. However, she'll be the first to tell you that my cynicism is a more accurate predictor of behavior. At least in this plain of existence.

I'll make one more point on the accounting side. I'm  sure the people you speak to are giving you the answers as they've been told to give and perhaps believe; after all its their job on the line. I doubt they know how much of the contribution comes in the form of cash and how that is audited and handed. To illustrate the point I only look toward the palaces, cathedrals, and monuments these organizations build and maintain for themselves. Is the charity of Jesus' be better illustrated by the Crystal Cathedral and their Christmas show production or using the money instead to send food and relief to Darfur? (Note - I didn't pick on the Catholics!) 



SusanofO -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 12:18:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

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.
[;)]



Definitely I agree with the part of your post I bolded.
As for the reference to Charles Keating:
Hard to say. Is there a copy of it available you can post? What exactly is the time line on that letter in reference to his being proven guilty?

But if it's been proven already as existing - it was also mentioned on this thread, that there is absolutely no reason she maybe could have known when she accepted a donation from him, that he was later to be indicted for fraud, much less proven guilty. My position is a bunch of nuns intent on other things altogether, either may not have been able to tell, or felt it important to investigate where many of their donations came from (shocking as that may sound to some), and in some cases, maybe made an ethical judgment call re: Accepting them, given the way they valued  the ends to which those donations were going. This is not a surprise or particular revelation (to me).

Also, IMO given her apparent views on forgiveness and her humility, the fact she forgave him herself, isn't necessarily evidence she was insisting anyone else do the same thing. And it's certainly not a "given" that she had the power to insist the investors be paid back, either.

- Susan



SusanofO -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 12:22:16 PM)

Mercnbeth: I agree with your right to make your own decisions re: Whether to donate money to charity, or who to donate to, or why. I do appreciate your attempt to look out for me re: Accounting practices of some charities, and I hope you don't think I misunderstood your intent.

- Susan 



Mercnbeth -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 12:27:35 PM)

quote:

do appreciate your attempt to look out for me re: Accounting practices of some charities, and I hope you don't think I misunderstood your intent.
Its been a good a civil exchange. No problems, no worries, no blocking.  



SusanofO -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 12:32:23 PM)

Hehe. [:D]I don't block anyone, Ever. I've never blocked anyone - and I certainly would never block you (really). Thanks.
I understand why the option is available though, here at CM.

- Susan



SusanofO -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 1:10:53 PM)

Quote]ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

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?

Susan: I dunno, have you proven it is? I don't think so. Your insta-assessment seems to me to prove you are more than willing to jump to cynical conclusions, sans proof. 

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.

Susan: That may be your opinion, it does not make it a factual statement. Can you say: Not a particularly objective source of evaluation? 
In any case, you already should know that my bottom-line question is: How unproven allegations and cynical opinions would completley devalue the good that was obviously done in an entire life's work? Hope you are judging your own life via the same standards.

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.
 

DomKen: Do you bother to read the other posts on this thread - or do you just skip over the parts you don't appreciate? This was just addressed like 2 posts before these posts you made above. I am not reposting those posts here - because it seems clear to me that you just ignored them.

You need to do your own dirty work. The fact that you can't find any, is just not an area I plan to work myself to death to enable you to prove. You want to prove it? Then I'd say it's completely up to you to do.

- Susan



DomKen -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 1:42:21 PM)

This is getting boring but once again into the breach.

Did you read the paragraph you cut and pasted about the home for lepers? The one where you bolded the fact that the lepers built it? I'll leave alone the fact that by all accounts leprosy is a exceedingly minor problem in Calcutta and that leprosy is neither fatal nor debilitating if properly treated so a clinic to provide adequate treatment seems to be a better way of handling the issue rather than providing housing for a few dozen people with the illness.

As to your other handwaves I'll remind you, I have established that the MoC receive tens of millions of dollars in donations every year. I have presented testimony by a former sister that the donated monies were not being spent. I have asked for some proof that these heaping piles of cash are being spent for the purposes intended. A squalid less than 100 bed hospice where the dieing suffer in agony without proper pain treatment or medical attention is not evidence that tens of millions of dollars are being spent each year. In my opinion since it is the flagship and original part of MT's work it is strong evidence that the money the MoC receives is not being spent for the purposes intended.

The orphange with multiple accounts of children tied to beds and sisters of the MoC instructing volunteers to not pick up or otherwise comfort the children is so outrageous and revolting that I cannot begin to fathom any reason why anyone who had done even cursory investigating on the topic would ever bring it up as a pro MoC argument.



SusanofO -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 1:49:10 PM)

DomKen: You haven't really established anything. If it's "getting boring" than by all means, don't bother responding.

Mother Theresa had over 800 sites in 40 countries, to which this money could very well have been distributed. 800 - that is one hell of a lot of sites. She was sending orphans to college, and providing them with dowries when they got married, too. Has it ever occurred to you that people get tired and worn out? That each and every mission worker, every day, in all her sites, all the time, might not have endless patience? Also, that these instances are:

1) Not proven

2) Personal opinion

3) The motives for these opinions, plus the fact everyone has a right to their own POV is also a factor here?

4) Put forth by people writing books for money in a lot of cases?

Believe what you want. Personally, I find it disturbing you are willing to jump to conclusions without considering these things as well.

***You are using the same kind of reasoning a parent does when they walk into a room and see one kid hitting another kid and then jump to an immediate conclusion about why it all happened, based on an instant, 5 second asessment (or a favorable POV of one child, over another), without any asking further questions, or considering the source. Same exact reasoning (to me).

Bottom-line (to me): It's very frequent, and not fair. Remind me never to apply as a position as your submissive. Hope you are judging your own life by the same oh-so high standards.

You haven't proven how much money we are even discussing, overall, merely provided a snap-shot of a probable account wherein the income could have well fluctuated. The amount of money in my own checking account certainly fluctuates.

Mother Theresa herself objected to people sending in donations, and asked them to stop several times, until what she had was spent. There was a post on that - or did you just conveniently skip reading it? 

You've merely insinuated a lot, with a little evidence provided by authors whose motives could very well be questionable. Where is the money they are making going? My guess is that it sure as hell isn't to help the poor in India.

This idea has been covered again and again and again in this thread. Did you just skip it? Or do you have data on that, too?

- Susan 



Politesub53 -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 2:01:57 PM)

Hi Susan... Here is the wikepedia link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position

It relates the story about the Keating case and mentions a letter sent back to Mother Teresa from DDA Paul Turley. Although the post mentions the info is in Hitchens book, i would think if it were untrue Paul Turley could have sued both Hitchens and the publishers for millions.

I accept she may not have known where the money came from before the trial, although you would think she may just ask about $1.5 million. She new the guy was on trial for fraud, to try and intervene on this guys behalf was just wrong.
Not one web site i found discounts the story, although one did claim the money was already spent so she was unable to return it to the investors. Which is odd considering how much the foundation was making.
I cant comment on the matters concerning India until i have read more about it.



DomKen -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 2:08:16 PM)

I'm going to try explaining this to you again even though I know others have done so already.

If someone with an opposing viewpoint presents evidence or testimony that is contrary to your opinions it is not sufficient to declare the sources are biased or untrustworthy. That is called handwaving and is a serious failing in a debate. I'm surprised a mensa member isn't familiar with this concept.

People, myself included, have presented both first person testimony and other evidence, Stern magazines year long investigation, that indicates that very large sums of money were collected but not spent in the intended fashion. It is now incumbent on MT's supporters to either show where the investigation was flawed or biased and/or prove the former sister lied or present evidence for where the money went. Until you successfully impeach the evidence then thoughtful open minded people will consider it true.

Furthermore "authors whose motives could very well be questionable." isn't just handwaving of the worst sort it is also a use of weasel words as character assasination which is a particular pet peeve of mine. You have attempted to discredit people without actually having any evidence at all. I'm sure you wouldn't care for people doing that to you so don't do it to others.



SusanofO -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 2:16:34 PM)

PoliteSub53: I see where you are coming from. My guess is that may point out she wasn't the PR expert on her own behalf that some seem to want to portray her as being. Anyway, I tend to chalk it up to her personal views on forgiveness. I am sure many will see this as wrong. Oh well. Given her frame of mind, from what I've read, I think I can understand it, whether or not I personally agree with it.

- Susan



SusanofO -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 2:19:44 PM)

DomKen: Don't lecture me. You didn't address the issues I mentioned - not by a long shot. You have not addressed much, in regard to the viability of your own sources of "proof", as far as I can tell. Plenty of people besides me have also questioned the trustworthiness of your so-called unbiased sources.

And you've continually failed to answer: How unproven allegations negate the value of someone's entire life's work, in any case. Which is actually my real question, and has been throughout ths entire thread. 

*I am not the one questioning her reputation - you are. The burden of proof is on you, pal. Not me.

Maybe someone else wants to discuss this with you. I repeat - I hope you are judging your own life by the same standards you seem willing to inflict on other people, sans proof.

- Susan 



DomKen -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 2:46:48 PM)

You're quitting the thread? Again? Sure whatever.

BTW you have not presented anything at all to negate the evidence presented. You have attacked Hitchens for being an atheist. A rather unfortunate tendency amongst a certain sort of christian but being an atheist does not inherently disqualify a person from telling the truth or doing valid research. On a point of personal privilege you've come very close to attacking the character of all atheists on several occasions which is certainly bigoted and uncalled for.

As to negating the value of MT's life, I'm not directly concerned with any such thing. I'm strictly concerned with the facts of her life compared to her claims about her life. I am peripherally concerned that people are being defrauded by the Missionaries of Charity when their charitable donations could be going to charities that would do real good with the money.

I've given evidence that you refuse to examine or respond to. You've yet to provide even a shred of evidence relating to the financial management of the MoC either pre or post 1997. You have however engaged in ad hominen, handwaving, goalpost moving and weasel words. You have also attempted to set yourself up as an authority by making a claim regarding mensa membership. None of that is relevant or useful to establishing your case.



SusanofO -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 3:17:29 PM)

Well I am "concerned with such a thing", and have made it apparent from the start - and if you had paid more attention, you'd probably have known that by now. Religion is not a part of this - you make it such, and then want to "undo" bringing that into your POV when it suits your purpose. I've said all along it doesn't belong in my own evaluation of her- with the exception that she was under the direction of the Pope, which is a fact. So what? 

So why do you seem to be insisting I haven't got a right to believe what I want to believe about Mother Theresa? You seem to believe that you have a right to poke fun at other people's beliefs. If you are going to do that, be prepared for whatever fall-out comes your way. I agree you have a right to your own POV. So do I.

However, I am not particularly obligated to defend mine, in reference to yours. I do think she definitely deserves defending, however.  All I did was try to point out a few missing elements re: Your seeming conclusions. All I am saying is that your allegations are unproven, and I don't consider viewing them as proof to be a particularly fair way to judge people, overall. But of course you will do whatever you please. That is certainly not up to me. But I don't consider allegations as proof. And the reasons why yours remain allegations (to me) have been mentioned in this thread by a few others besides me.

I have my own standards for judging people - and it's not based on what seems to amount to a need some seem to have to vent their hositility via judging the entire personal value of people they don't even know, based on what could well be false allegations - and consider it the better part of fair and good judgment (from my POV) when people judge these situations using the same standards they'd prefer apply to themselves if the shoe was on the other foot.

Yours seem to differ - I could be wrong about that, too. You certainly have a right to your own POV. Nobody can argue with that.

Just don't expect me to change my opinion about this situation, based on your seeming conclusions (you have your own submissive for that kind of thing, don't you - of you really need someone to not evaluate anything you say, and just buy it, lock, stock, and barrel, without disagreeing?)

And like I said, I certainly hope you judge your own life by the same standards by which you seem to be viewing what amounts to a complete stranger.

- Susan     



Alumbrado -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 3:22:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

So why do you seem to be insisting I haven't got a right to believe what I want to believe about Mother Theresa? You seem to believe that you have a right to poke fun at other people's beliefs. If you are going to do that, be prepared for whatever fall-out comes your way. I agree you have a right to your own POV. However, I am not partiuclarly obligated to defend mine. You, on the other hand charged right in insisting yours was right.  All I did was try to point out a few mssing elements re; This conclusion. All I am saying is that your allegations are unproven, and I don't consider it a particularly fair way to judge people, overall. But of course you will do whatever you please. That is certainly not up to me.

I have my own standards for judging people - and it's not based on what seems to amount to a need some seem to have to vent their hositility via judging the entire personal value of people they don't even know, based on what could well be fals allegations - and consider it the better part of ood judgment (from my POV) when people judge these situations using the same standards they'd prefer apply to themselves if the shoe was on the other foot. Yours seem to differ - I could be wrong about that, too. You certainly have a right to yor own POV. Noboday can argue with that.

Just don't expect me to change my opinion about this situation, based on your conclusions (you have your own submissive for that kind of thing, don't you)?

- Susan     



WTF?



SusanofO -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 3:37:47 PM)

He's lecturing and insisting he's right. I dont think he is. We disagree. He keeps bringing religion into it like it's a necessary part of the discussion. .I've said all along it's not. He also hasn't proven anything he's said - and insists that because he wants to smear her name, that I have some reason to prove him incorrect. I don't see it that way at all. And it's pretty clear he's not changing his mind.

It's also pretty clear he can jump to conclusions, and judge someone's overall value, based on flimsy evidence. That kind of evidence just isn't good enough for me to use when evaluating the value of an entire life's work. I evaluate what I read based on a value system. His and mine may seriously differ, in that regard. I don't just believe, without thinking about, things like: How I'd appreciate it if someone used those tactics on me, or how they might fit into the overall judging of the value of someone's existence, if there also seems to be much evidence the person also did much good in he world.

He brought these allegations up, and nows wants to claim he wasn't going to do anything with them. Really? If he wasn't, then why was he so ready to believe them to begin with? I know BS when  see it. Questions are fine. But assumptions based on what amounts to spotty, questionable  evidence that attempt to negate the value of an entire person, or their life's work, are not (not to me). 

- Susan 



Rule -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 3:43:43 PM)

Fast reply:
 
This thread is moving too quickly for me. I do note that the sub has been wrong throughout. She does require a handler.
 
As for the amount of money that the MoC received, there are two methods that will give a rough indication.
 
First of all we may assume that they received at least fifty thousand dollars per day. In a year that would come to somewhat more than eighteen million dollars. This is a lower estimate. The amount may very well have been fifty times (nearly one billion dollars) or possibly one hundred times higher (nearly two billion dollars) per year.
 
The second method is the Fermi method. This method involves making reasonable guesses. Those guesses may be way off, but that does not matter: the method will yield a fairly accurate answer.
We assume that there are 750 million catholics. We assume that one per cent of them donate ten dollars each year to the MoC. That makes total donations per year to the amount of seventy-five million dollars. Again this is a lower estimate. If we assume that two percent of catholics donated fifty dollars per year to the MoC, the amount rises to  750 million dollars.
 
So that is the range of yearly donations in currency received by the MoC: somewhere between at least eighteen million dollars and 1.8 billion dollars. (Never mind what they scrounged in food, services and goods besides, because that in proportion was peanuts.)
That is why the Vulture of Calcutta got a NPP and was beatified by the pope and is on the nomination of being declared a saint.
 
A bank can easily handle eighteen million dollars per year on an account. But we may assume that when the amount is nearer to two billion dollars per year, that the bank manager will start to beg that no more money be deposited - and of course the Vulture of Calcutta at his request would repeat that to the gullible people that she scammed.
 
She was at least willingly used by the popes. She may have regarded herself as a christian, but then her sadistic personality disorder resulted in a perverted, evil perception of the catholic faith. On the other hand she may also have willingly and knowingly cooperated with the evil purposes of the popes.



SusanofO -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/28/2007 3:49:56 PM)

Who is "the sub"? I am a Switch.

And on what basis are we assuming this, may I ask - re: Money? Please let's emphasize that all of your above post
is a  guess, if seemingly under some cloak of reason, at that. It still isn't proof. It is an assumption.

And how does anything you've mentioned negate the good she did manage to do in the world? If she had never existed, how many people might have died, or been orphaned forever, or not recieved adequate medical care, food, shelter, or schooling? (forget dirty needles for just one second, please). 

Would you care to put some montery value on a human life, the same way you just evaluated how much money she might have been dealing with, or mis-handled somehow?

Because -in any case, I think it is likewise fair to assume, that with 800 sites in 40 countries, whose stated goal was helping, rather than hurting people, that quite a few more lives were enriched, vs. ruined by her existence. They came to her door, overall, so to speak. Voluntarily.

And that is indeed the bottom-line (for me).

Another bottom-line: Care to place a monetary value on a human life?

- Susan



Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875