I Do Not Believe In Organised Religion
A different look at Mother Theresa.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65JxnUW7Wk4]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65JxnUW7Wk4]
80-89, F
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
thoughtbubble
Agree and disagree.
Agree that sanctification, divine light etc are extras. I have never been a fan of the Church's line of thinking in certain areas.
As to the adulation etc, I think the video may be quite biased. You might notice, it only refers to her in the later years after she became popular. Her toughest years (or, for that matter, for anyone who wishes to work amongst the poor) would have been her early years. Thats a huge period, she started her work in the late thirties, adulation would come only a few decades later. As the saying goes, it's the fruit-laden tree that attracts the most stones.
Also, quite ironic, that work amidst the poor is one thing and to speak about it in journo analysis is another. One of the first things that you realize after you start working for the poor, is that, you can't be all things to all people all the time. You have to choose your area of work (much though you want to do everything, because it's heart-wrenching). You also realize, that no one area of work can deliver by its own. You need all of it, healthcare, education, skills development, nutrition, birth control awareness, hygiene, environ awareness and infrastructure. And then some petty local politics can bring you down. She chose her area of work, thats all, so, to say that she didn't build hospitals is far-fetched. If she built them, someone would ask, why she didn't work on primary health awareness, to prevent disease. If she did that, they would ask, why she didn't provide drinking water, then on adult literacy and so on. It's an endless maze. It's important to realize the good work someone does in a certain area, because good work done in one area contributes in its own way to the overall development. You must also realize that, for the lives she touched (in whatever little way), if she hadn't been there, they would have been left to eat from used plates and die by the dustbin. When you understand destitution and abandonment, with terminal illness and old age, by being there to see it (not read of it). When you want to do something, (most people move on shrugging their shoulders calling it karma) , you don't wait for a holistic analysis from a world economist. You want to start somewhere. She started with 'dignified dying'.
I read Mother Teresa's bio as a teenager. I also read another one 10 years later when I worked for a corporate, having volunteered in my spare time, in the field, by then. My appreciation for her commitment didn't change a bit.
I have worked in villages since my college days. I have had many inspirations and Mother Teresa is one of them.
To dump the good work done, based on the people who talk based on their 'seeing' without the doing, is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Like throwing spirituality out because of the flaws of organized religion.
(To disclose, I am not a Christian by birth, I admire Jesus as much as I do of Buddha. I should admit I don't admire the Church's ways too much).
Agree that sanctification, divine light etc are extras. I have never been a fan of the Church's line of thinking in certain areas.
As to the adulation etc, I think the video may be quite biased. You might notice, it only refers to her in the later years after she became popular. Her toughest years (or, for that matter, for anyone who wishes to work amongst the poor) would have been her early years. Thats a huge period, she started her work in the late thirties, adulation would come only a few decades later. As the saying goes, it's the fruit-laden tree that attracts the most stones.
Also, quite ironic, that work amidst the poor is one thing and to speak about it in journo analysis is another. One of the first things that you realize after you start working for the poor, is that, you can't be all things to all people all the time. You have to choose your area of work (much though you want to do everything, because it's heart-wrenching). You also realize, that no one area of work can deliver by its own. You need all of it, healthcare, education, skills development, nutrition, birth control awareness, hygiene, environ awareness and infrastructure. And then some petty local politics can bring you down. She chose her area of work, thats all, so, to say that she didn't build hospitals is far-fetched. If she built them, someone would ask, why she didn't work on primary health awareness, to prevent disease. If she did that, they would ask, why she didn't provide drinking water, then on adult literacy and so on. It's an endless maze. It's important to realize the good work someone does in a certain area, because good work done in one area contributes in its own way to the overall development. You must also realize that, for the lives she touched (in whatever little way), if she hadn't been there, they would have been left to eat from used plates and die by the dustbin. When you understand destitution and abandonment, with terminal illness and old age, by being there to see it (not read of it). When you want to do something, (most people move on shrugging their shoulders calling it karma) , you don't wait for a holistic analysis from a world economist. You want to start somewhere. She started with 'dignified dying'.
I read Mother Teresa's bio as a teenager. I also read another one 10 years later when I worked for a corporate, having volunteered in my spare time, in the field, by then. My appreciation for her commitment didn't change a bit.
I have worked in villages since my college days. I have had many inspirations and Mother Teresa is one of them.
To dump the good work done, based on the people who talk based on their 'seeing' without the doing, is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Like throwing spirituality out because of the flaws of organized religion.
(To disclose, I am not a Christian by birth, I admire Jesus as much as I do of Buddha. I should admit I don't admire the Church's ways too much).
berangere · 80-89, F
And I don't entirely disagree with you when it come to some of the work Mother Theresa started and put in motion.Yes, she was there when no one else was and there is a part in the video I do not agree with,the young woman who visited the hospital or hospice where she says she saw all the patients had shaved heads,I do not believe that the reason was to treat the people who were being cared for without due respect,as indigent who had to be identified as such, it was done to stop the spread of lice and other parasites which dwell into hair,to maintain a standard of cleanliness, so as to minimise the spread of infection.I certainly thought that jumping to that conclusion was biased and not very bright on her part.And I agree that whatever you do, you will also attract criticism from people who themselves would not have attempted to do that much to help people in need and that often politics and private greed get in the way.But she did boast to having built convents,when she could have used the money generously given to her by people who grew to admire the work she was doing and should have used that money to giving medical care and food to people.And it appears that she was supported financially by the public and not by the church with its immense wealth.I believe the church used her to its end,to spread Catholicism and its tenets like the forbidding of contraception to name one of many and I also strongly suspect that some of the money given to her ended up in the coffers of the church! I do believe she had a vision but was also quite naïve when it came to the church and its manipulative ways.
thoughtbubble
Agree with you on naivety and falling for the Church's ways. Unfortunately, this is one of the internal challenges that a social worker faces. To match his/her idealism, with the pushy ways of the rest of the world.
I try to understand, why she went gung-ho on convents. (Not debating here, just thinking aloud about possibilities). It might have come from her belief, on what made her commit herself to social work.
1. Good service work can come from Love for Humanity (not counting God in).
2.It can come from Love for God, inspiring and expressed as Love for Humanity. This again, can come from (a) within religion (b) outside religion but under a spiritual belief)
In her case, the 2(a) happened to her. I felt, she was being sincere, when she said, "for the Love of God", she wasn't cooking it up. What she did for that sake, or whether God wants convents.vs.hospitals, or he wants jihad, is another matter. Since she came from a training that inspired people to good work in the name of God, she must have thought, let's have more of what inspired me, may be that'll translate into more good work, may be nuns from those convents will go on to start hospitals. This is possibly a motivation for many, that do good service work from within the Church. (Their conversion frenzy etc, puts me off though). Ditto for other service works done from inside the various religions, if it is benefiting not just their believers but any member of society based on need and without discrimination, such as, say, Ramakrishna Mutt hospitals.
As to contraception etc, probably she didn't catch the entire gamut of the problem and the impact of her views. She went with the Church's view (obedient soldier type).
As to adulation, I am not sure, if she "sought" any adulation or medals and worked for its sake. Ditto for contacts with celebrities etc. A lot of people in the charity world tend to believe, that if it comes on its own, some visibility with the celebrities doesn't hurt, since it'll hopefully translate into more funds and then more good work. (Even if this motive is noble, I disagree on this approach, because it's fraught with pitfalls). The celebrity world is much more manipulative than the religious world, LoL. Compassion is a fancy for them, they use you.
We live a funny world. People of a good heart, wanting to do good work, have a tough time pushing themselves in terms of thought (retaining their motivation), word ( getting others to do) and deed (producing good quality output). And, then, the problems accompanying visibility (such as competition, jealousy) and so on. They all need an MBA, LoL.
I remember a time when I used to give free tuitions for slum kids, in my room. Teachers in the vicinity who gave private tuitions, developed grudges, because their business was getting hit. The colony security was worried the kids paint an unaesthetic picture, will steal stuff and spoil the colony kids. Teachers of the schools they went to, were worried that the kids appreciated my lessons more than theirs. Aha, it drives you crazy, LoL. (There were other good ones, who wanted to help too). I really wonder how Anand Kumar manages it at Super 30 in Bihar.
I try to understand, why she went gung-ho on convents. (Not debating here, just thinking aloud about possibilities). It might have come from her belief, on what made her commit herself to social work.
1. Good service work can come from Love for Humanity (not counting God in).
2.It can come from Love for God, inspiring and expressed as Love for Humanity. This again, can come from (a) within religion (b) outside religion but under a spiritual belief)
In her case, the 2(a) happened to her. I felt, she was being sincere, when she said, "for the Love of God", she wasn't cooking it up. What she did for that sake, or whether God wants convents.vs.hospitals, or he wants jihad, is another matter. Since she came from a training that inspired people to good work in the name of God, she must have thought, let's have more of what inspired me, may be that'll translate into more good work, may be nuns from those convents will go on to start hospitals. This is possibly a motivation for many, that do good service work from within the Church. (Their conversion frenzy etc, puts me off though). Ditto for other service works done from inside the various religions, if it is benefiting not just their believers but any member of society based on need and without discrimination, such as, say, Ramakrishna Mutt hospitals.
As to contraception etc, probably she didn't catch the entire gamut of the problem and the impact of her views. She went with the Church's view (obedient soldier type).
As to adulation, I am not sure, if she "sought" any adulation or medals and worked for its sake. Ditto for contacts with celebrities etc. A lot of people in the charity world tend to believe, that if it comes on its own, some visibility with the celebrities doesn't hurt, since it'll hopefully translate into more funds and then more good work. (Even if this motive is noble, I disagree on this approach, because it's fraught with pitfalls). The celebrity world is much more manipulative than the religious world, LoL. Compassion is a fancy for them, they use you.
We live a funny world. People of a good heart, wanting to do good work, have a tough time pushing themselves in terms of thought (retaining their motivation), word ( getting others to do) and deed (producing good quality output). And, then, the problems accompanying visibility (such as competition, jealousy) and so on. They all need an MBA, LoL.
I remember a time when I used to give free tuitions for slum kids, in my room. Teachers in the vicinity who gave private tuitions, developed grudges, because their business was getting hit. The colony security was worried the kids paint an unaesthetic picture, will steal stuff and spoil the colony kids. Teachers of the schools they went to, were worried that the kids appreciated my lessons more than theirs. Aha, it drives you crazy, LoL. (There were other good ones, who wanted to help too). I really wonder how Anand Kumar manages it at Super 30 in Bihar.
berangere · 80-89, F
You have raised many interesting points,people who are truly altruistic and want to help without agenda and there are not many of those sadly, are always up against those who are out to fulfil their own personal gain,they look upon these selfless people as a threat.Like you I believe Mother Theresa did act for the love of God,but her love of God was exploited by the church,which I am sure had taken her "in hand" so to speak and she had to follow the dictates of her religion and her "superiors",she could only do what she did with the back up and approval of the catholic church which did not have her altruistic aims,they saw gain and the advancement of the catholic faith first and foremost,you just have to see the immense wealth of the Vatican and wonder how the catholic church came to that wealth and this is without counting their wealth outside the Vatican.They used her as a mouthpiece to spread the tenets of the church knowing she was respected and admired by many and they could certainly have influenced her to build convents,paid with the money given to her by a grateful and admiring public,so the church did not have to pay for them as always, and there are many instances where the parishioners do pay for church repairs amongst other things etc....Even to help in the supporting of retired priests (I am not kidding you!) She could not act alone,she needed the back up AND approval of the catholic church to pursue her aims and they got their pound of flesh. Her religious "education" obviously brainwashed her into accepting certain ideas blindly as the wish of God, as "written" in the bible,like avoiding contraception and how disastrous the results of such 'teachings' can be.
EarthlingWise
I completely agree. The sanctification of Mother Theresa epitomizes the Christian scam. The worship of symbols, martyrs, popes, and the very figure of Jesus Christ as an icon , is the way Conservatives of all continents have found to protect the ugly status quo.
peza
Thanks for posting that and reminding me just how much I detest religion and all those charlatans who cloak themselves in it.
CrystalRainsPearls
hypocrisy ...it doesn't matter who you are,if people think you're someone else. Sad truth..
berangere · 80-89, F
Most of the money that was given for her efforts went to the catholic church of course to build convents and convert people to Catholicism,only a small proportion would have gone to help the poor,just think how many hospitals and clinics could have been created with the millions that were given by people all over the world? But No! she chose to build convents! I think the catholic church with its unbelievable wealth could have built those convents,why use money given in good faith for more pressing needs? I am sure she must also have built churches where they were "needed".It reminds me of the fundamentalist Christians sending BIBLES to countries where food and warm clothing would have been more appropriate.
Thank you for reading and commenting.
Thank you for reading and commenting.
SovietSpaceDog
Worship a goat or big rock in the woods.
berangere · 80-89, F
And if there is a God he or she is certainly has no affiliation with religion.
Orangetas
No birth control ... ?? !!!
Seems crazy to me :(
Seems crazy to me :(
berangere · 80-89, F
Yes it IS crazy,in a country where so much poverty exists and children go hungry and end up on the streets, begging! and dying because of the lack of proper care when ill. But this is the church for you,following blindly some verses in the bible and not using their judgement and I also believe it is a way of control,it is a question of "do what we tell you and do not question it" this is why "heaven and hell" was invented by the church,terrorising people into submission.Do you know that some people actually believe that giving money to the church will secure them a place in paradise and the church continues to let them believe this.But if you use contraception you surely will go to hell!