RE: What would Mother Teresa say? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


tazzygirl -> RE: What would Mother Teresa say? (4/21/2012 2:43:42 PM)

quote:

I've read a lot of Christopher Hitchens's articles over the years and enjoyed them, though I disagreed with him on the Iraq war (which he favored). Haven't tried his books. He did rather enjoy feasting on sacred hamburgers, so I understand the reluctance to take him as a sole source on Mother Teresa. The need for a correction to the Slate article is unfortunate, but mistakes happen--to writers along with everyone else. I've made my own errors in print, so I understand how, despite one's best efforts, it can happen. I'm not sure I'd take a single correction in a single article as invalidating Hitchens's entire work on the subject.


Again, I never said his information was invalid.

quote:

I don't know Chatterjee or his book. I'm not sure of the relevance of his taking ten years to produce it. Research and writing are slow work, and I don't know if he was working on the book full-time or in addition to a day job. It can also take years to find a publisher. Waiting till after the subject's death is not uncommon for a biographical work. It's hard to get a complete perspective while someone is still alive. And, of course, it wasn't till after Teresa's death that the process for sainthood began; I don't know if that was a spur for either the author or the publisher.


We have three sources. Hitchens, Chatterjee and the nun. I am more inclined to believe the nun over the other two.

Chatterjee worked with MT, so he had first hand knowledge. If he waited until after her death and the talk of sainthood, then I would question his motives. To me that would indicate he was more concerned about the sainthood than the poor people he stated were abused. But, that fact is not in evidence that I know about.

quote:

In my own experience, repeatedly finding fault with sources on a given subject often means I'm trying to shield myself from something I don't want to hear. I can't read minds, obviously, so I don't know if that's what we've seen in this thread. But the possibility did occur to me.


I am not repeatedly finding fault. I asked for other sources,

quote:

Got something beyond Hitchens to back up your assertion?


and the complaining began that the Hitchens source should have been enough.

quote:

I am surprised that the well researched reasoning by Hitchens, who did not accept MT's sainthood at face value, is not good enough Tazzy.


Im sorry.. why should one source be enough for anyone? And why should I have to accept that one source based upon the assertion of another? Not something I will ever feel comfortable with.

I then repeated my request for something other than atheist or religious sources..

quote:

I never said I believed she was not what he claimed. I asked for more proof than just one person. And, as a devout atheist, I would prefer more than just his.

Im curious, why would I want more proof from the same person who would clearly have ulterior motives for producing such?


and so far, that is all I have been given. To me, all but the nun could very well have ulterior motives in discrediting someone slated for sainthood.

quote:

often means I'm trying to shield myself from something I don't want to hear.


And since my opinion of MT was never asked for, you know I would be shielding myself how? Please, dont make assumptions. Instead... ask.. as I have done.




dcnovice -> RE: What would Mother Teresa say? (4/21/2012 2:59:33 PM)

quote:

I am more inclined to believe the nun over the other two.


Why?

quote:

I am not repeatedly finding fault.


Honestly, you are. You dismissed Hitchens because he was an atheist, then pounced on the correction of a relatively minor error in the Slate piece. You ruled out Chatterjee initally by tying him to Hitchens, who apparently made a movie of his book. Then you came up with the completely irrelevant ten-years objection.

quote:

Im sorry.. why should one source be enough for anyone? And why should I have to accept that one source based upon the assertion of another? Not something I will ever feel comfortable with.


I never said you should accept a single source. Indeed, I explicitly said I understood not taking Hitchens as a sole source.

That raises an issue about your post. It's in reply to me, but it contains a number of quote boxes with words that are not mine.

quote:

you know I would be shielding myself how? Please, dont make assumptions.


I made no assumptions; indeed, I point-blank said I can't read minds. I simply pointed out a dynamic I've seen in my own mind and wondered if it might be at work here.







tazzygirl -> RE: What would Mother Teresa say? (4/21/2012 3:10:44 PM)

quote:

Why?


Balance gain against loss.

quote:

Honestly, you are. You dismissed Hitchens because he was an atheist, then pounced on the correction of a relatively minor error in the Slate piece. You ruled out Chatterjee initally by tying him to Hitchens, who apparently made a movie of his book. Then you came up with the completely irrelevant ten-years objection.


Honestly, no I am not. I ask for things here, just like I have on other threads. Just like I have seen kalkishama do on many threads. The minute I asked for another source, I got landblasted. I am so sorry I dont agree with everything atheist, everything Penn and Teller spout, or everything someone writes.

quote:

I never said you should accept a single source. Indeed, I explicitly said I understood not taking Hitchens as a sole source.

That raises an issue about your post. It's in reply to me, but it contains a number of quote boxes with words that are not mine


You may want to try reading it again... each post not made by you were made by me or someone else and provided merely as a way to show what I am talking about


I am not repeatedly finding fault. I asked for other sources,

quote:

quote: me

Got something beyond Hitchens to back up your assertion?



and the complaining began that the Hitchens source should have been enough.

quote:

quote: Iamsemisweet

I am surprised that the well researched reasoning by Hitchens, who did not accept MT's sainthood at face value, is not good enough Tazzy.



Im sorry.. why should one source be enough for anyone? And why should I have to accept that one source based upon the assertion of another? Not something I will ever feel comfortable with.

I then repeated my request for something other than atheist or religious sources..

quote:

quote: me

I never said I believed she was not what he claimed. I asked for more proof than just one person. And, as a devout atheist, I would prefer more than just his.

Im curious, why would I want more proof from the same person who would clearly have ulterior motives for producing such?


and so far, that is all I have been given. To me, all but the nun could very well have ulterior motives in discrediting someone slated for sainthood.


Does that clear it up for you?

quote:

I made no assumptions; indeed, I point-blank said I can't read minds. I simply pointed out a dynamic I've seen in my own mind and wondered if it might be at work here.


You are assuming by offering it up as a possible explanation when the best way to determine what is in someone's mind is to simply ask.




dcnovice -> RE: What would Mother Teresa say? (4/21/2012 3:31:35 PM)

We may just have to agree to disagree on this one.




tazzygirl -> RE: What would Mother Teresa say? (4/21/2012 4:47:49 PM)

I truly think that is best.

But, it is truly amazing that so many assumptions have been made.. and no one has had the balls to ask.

Such is the way of these threads.

[;)]




dcnovice -> RE: What would Mother Teresa say? (4/21/2012 5:11:47 PM)

quote:

But, it is truly amazing that so many assumptions have been made.. and no one has had the balls to ask.

Such is the way of these threads.


Well, threadgoers focus on what interests them. In my case, that was the always-tricky business of how people regard sources of information.

Perhaps folks found they could live relatively complete lives without knowing your opinion of Mother Teresa? [:)]




tazzygirl -> RE: What would Mother Teresa say? (4/21/2012 5:28:38 PM)

Perhaps so.. It is always better to assume things, isnt it [;)]




dcnovice -> RE: What would Mother Teresa say? (4/21/2012 6:04:36 PM)

That wasn't an assumption; it was a playful conjecture.

I don't know you well enough to gauge whether you really don't grasp the difference or are, yet again on this thread, being disingenuous.




tazzygirl -> RE: What would Mother Teresa say? (4/21/2012 6:33:47 PM)

Oh trust me, I am being completely frank. I find it rather interesting that those who make broad assumptions like to pull out that term... disingenuous... something I have yet to be on this thread.




dcnovice -> RE: What would Mother Teresa say? (4/21/2012 6:52:30 PM)

quote:

Oh trust me, I am being completely frank.


I'm sorry to have to say this, but I don't trust you. Between the "I'm just a simple seeker of sources" pose, the faux victimhood of being "landblasted" when nothing of the sort happened, and the sleight of hand with the quote boxes (followed by the pretense that the issue was my confusion rather than that of other readers, who would have no earthly idea of who'd actually said what), I've lost any sense I might have had that I'm talking with an honest person.

quote:

I find it rather interesting that those who make broad assumptions like to pull out that term... disingenuous...


And I find it rather interesting that I'm apparently not the first person to apply that adjective to you.







tazzygirl -> RE: What would Mother Teresa say? (4/21/2012 7:00:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Oh trust me, I am being completely frank.


I'm sorry to have to say this, but I don't trust you. Between the "I'm just a simple seeker of sources" pose, the faux victimhood of being "landblasted" when nothing of the sort happened, and the sleight of hand with the quote boxes (followed by the pretense that the issue was my confusion rather than that of other readers, who would have no earthly idea of who'd actually said what), I've lost any sense I might have had that I'm talking with an honest person.

quote:

I find it rather interesting that those who make broad assumptions like to pull out that term... disingenuous...


And I find it rather interesting that I'm apparently not the first person to apply that adjective to you.



They often do when they cant find any other way to try and shut me up. Didnt work for them either.

But since you are having trouble reading the simple thread...



quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Got something beyond Hitchens to back up your assertion?


http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4095909

My first post. Post #10

quote:

I am surprised that the well researched reasoning by Hitchens, who did not accept MT's sainthood at face value, is not good enough Tazzy. However, I would suggest you read his book "The Missionary Position" if you want more proof. In the meantime, here is a shorter article by the man himself. I have also never heard the fact that she accepted money from Keating, and then never returned it after finding out it was stolen, refuted. What more do you want?



http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4095926

Post #11

Hard to lie about something when its black and white, easily found within the same thread, and presented in such a manner as to NOT be confusing.. unless you wish to be confused.

Which you have shown yourself willing to be.

Pity, you were one of my favorite posters.




dcnovice -> RE: What would Mother Teresa say? (4/21/2012 7:25:18 PM)

quote:

But since you are having trouble reading the simple thread...


Ah, the old "reading comprehension" tactic. I'm sorry to see you sink to that level. Which reminds me, whatever happened to Sanity?

quote:

Post #11


Post 11 is not mine, so I'm not sure why you're lobbing it at me. I said quite the opposite: "I understand the reluctance to take him [Hitchens] as a sole source on Mother Teresa" (Post 40).

I also provided links to a few other sources, including Hope Endures.

quote:

Pity, you were one of my favorite posters.


And you were one of mine. Perhaps we'll meet again under happier circumstances.

And now it's time for Compline. Good night.







tweakabelle -> RE: What would Mother Teresa say? (4/22/2012 12:12:04 AM)

quote:

dcnovice
Which reminds me, whatever happened to Sanity?


Shush! You know what they say about speaking of the devil ......[:D]




dcnovice -> RE: What would Mother Teresa say? (4/22/2012 6:10:32 AM)

LOL! Good point, Tweak!




Iamsemisweet -> RE: What would Mother Teresa say? (4/22/2012 7:06:50 AM)

As the author of the infamous post 11, I must admit I am surprised you consider that statement "lambasting", Tazzy. However, I continue to find your demand for a second source intellectually lazy, if nothing else. The article by Hitchens cites several easily verifiable facts. What MT said in her Nobel peace prize lecture can easily be verified. The incident regarding acceptance of stolen money from Keating is easily verifiable. MT's opposition to Vatican reform is easily verifiable. It would hardly be worth lying about such public matters, in the age of Google. Why not look it up yourself, rather than demanding another source for the same facts? You don't have to agree with the spin that the author puts on those facts, but I am sure you are discerning enough not to do that. Still, the facts don't change, even if they are mentioned in a source that is more likely to praise MT's virtues than Hitchens would be. If you don't like him, do your own search. Why should anyone else search for a source that is, in your eyes, more acceptable? Especially when, after providing said second source, you turn up your nose at that one, too. Chase your own unicorns.

The fact is, Hitchens wrote a book on MT. The Church itself deemed him knowledgeable enough and credible enough to be the devil's advocate in discussions regarding her beatification. I am still curious why that wasn't good enough for you. Your only response was that you want two sources, or some such nonsense. So why not look it up yourself?




Iamsemisweet -> RE: What would Mother Teresa say? (4/22/2012 7:15:37 AM)

Getting back to the original intent of the thread though, it appears the nuns involved are telling the Vatican to it on a tack:

The leader of a group of US Catholic nuns on Saturday rejected condemnation from a Vatican report that said it defied Church doctrine.

“We haven’t violated any teaching,” Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of Network, a Catholic social justice lobby, told AFP, insisting the group would not stop “caring for the least among us on the margins of society.”

Network was singled out for supporting women’s health rights in aVatican report this week condemning the main US association ofCatholic nuns, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious(LCWR).

The three-year inquiry by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which oversees Roman Catholic doctrine, criticized the LCWR for taking liberal stances on contraception, homosexuality and female priests.

Campbell said that Network, which works with the LCWR and vocally supported President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform legislation, would not shy away from its mission, calling theVatican’s report “painful,” and also puzzling.

“It was a total shock for many reasons, no one talked to us” during the inquiry, Campbell said.

“We are a political, not doctrinal, organization: we don’t teach theology.”

The LCWR has also said it was “stunned” by the report, which pointed to “serious doctrinal problems” and “unacceptable positions” on a range of issues.


The report accused members of the LCWR, which represents around 80 percent of the 45,000 nuns in the United States, of “corporate dissent” with the Church’s teachings against homosexuality, and claimed it was pursuing “radical feminist themes.”

Campbell lamented that the Washington DC-based Network “could dissipate our energy if we get distracted and caught up in what might be considered a battle” with the Vatican.

After the report was published, Campbell said it was “painfully obvious” the Vatican leadership was “not used to having educated women form thoughtful opinions and engage in dialogue.”

“We will keep doing our mission,” she insisted in a phone interview Saturday, saying the group was founded to “lobby, organize and educate” in the name of social and economic justice.

LCWR has come under criticism from the Catholic hierarchy for endorsing Obama’s US healthcare reform, including its provisions on abortion and contraception, in the run-up to the US election in November.

“There seems to the major disconnect, where (the Vatican) seem to think that faith can only lead to one political approach,” Campbell said. The Network group, she said, “speaks for our members, not for a church. Helping others is at the heart of our faith.”

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said it has appointed the Archbishop of Seattle, Peter Sartain, to oversee the LCWR and ensure it follows “the teachings and discipline of the Church.”




kalikshama -> RE: What would Mother Teresa say? (4/22/2012 7:59:06 AM)

As Dan Savage's devout Catholic mother said, "Are they (the Vatican) trying to make Lutherans of us all?"




dcnovice -> RE: What would Mother Teresa say? (4/22/2012 2:05:21 PM)

quote:

As Dan Savage's devout Catholic mother said, "Are they (the Vatican) trying to make Lutherans of us all?"


LOL! It worked n my case. Well, Episcopalian rather than Lutheran but the same general idea of getting the hell out of Dodge.




tazzygirl -> RE: What would Mother Teresa say? (4/22/2012 2:19:22 PM)

quote:

Post 11 is not mine, so I'm not sure why you're lobbing it at me. I said quite the opposite: "I understand the reluctance to take him [Hitchens] as a sole source on Mother Teresa" (Post 40).


Yes, reading comprehension... no worries. [;)]

And when you liken me to sanity, there will be no happier circumstances.




tazzygirl -> RE: What would Mother Teresa say? (4/22/2012 2:27:44 PM)

quote:

As the author of the infamous post 11, I must admit I am surprised you consider that statement "lambasting", Tazzy. However, I continue to find your demand for a second source intellectually lazy, if nothing else.


I asked for something to substantiate the Penn and Teller flick, which only contained Hitchens. At which time you demanded to know why that was not good enough.

quote:

The article by Hitchens cites several easily verifiable facts. What MT said in her Nobel peace prize lecture can easily be verified. The incident regarding acceptance of stolen money from Keating is easily verifiable. MT's opposition to Vatican reform is easily verifiable. It would hardly be worth lying about such public matters, in the age of Google.


Amd yet how often do we seem MANY lie in this day and age, hmmm?

quote:

Believers are indeed enjoined to abhor and eschew abortion, but they are not required to affirm that abortion is "the greatest destroyer of peace," as MT fantastically asserted to a dumbfounded audience when receiving the Nobel Peace Prize *


According to Catholic religion it is. I really do not understand the bitch about this. Its extremely obvious those who follow do not agree.

quote:

You don't have to agree with the spin that the author puts on those facts, but I am sure you are discerning enough not to do that. Still, the facts don't change, even if they are mentioned in a source that is more likely to praise MT's virtues than Hitchens would be. If you don't like him, do your own search. Why should anyone else search for a source that is, in your eyes, more acceptable? Especially when, after providing said second source, you turn up your nose at that one, too. Chase your own unicorns.


FFS get your panties out of a wad.. I asked for something else. A simple solution would have been to tell me to do my own, instead of DEMANDING i accept what YOU believe to be the gospel according to some fanatical atheist.

As far as this thread, I am fucking done.

As far as you, over this, you have shown your true colors.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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