Dartmouth Atheist Group Holds Anti-Mother Teresa Event

If your campus group wants to stir up controversy, the Atheists, Humanists, Agnostics at Dartmouth has the way to do it: Go after Mother Teresa:

The [campus-wide] e-mail says the group plans to screen an anti-Mother Teresa film, discuss Hitchens’ book, Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice, and question how the public has been “conned into thinking this woman [Teresa] was good.”

The e-mail states Teresa, who is on her way to sainthood in the Catholic church, “was not a friend of the poor,” but “was a friend of poverty.”

The email links to a now infamous article by the late Christopher Hitchens which attempts to debunk much of the lore that surrounds Teresa.

Just to be clear, they’re not going after her for completely irrelevant reasons. As Hitchens pointed out in his book, there are good reasons for denouncing many of the things she did. But because she’s so venerated, a lot of people refuse to admit she did anything wrong. As you might expect, there’s a lot of opposition to any discussion that suggests Mother Teresa was anything but a saint:

“It’s easy for a group of privileged Ivy League students who have never experienced poverty to meet in a ‘super secret room’ and think themselves as intellectuals by bashing Mother Teresa,” Melanie Wilcox, Executive Editor of the conservative Dartmouth Review, told Campus Reform.

“I’d like to know what they have done, if anything, to help the needy,” she added.

Because Mother Teresa is immune from criticism unless you’ve helped the needy…? Arguments stand on their own merit; it shouldn’t matter who’s making them or where they’re coming from.

Even State Rep. Gary Hopper jumped into the fray with this comment on Facebook:

One thing atheists are very good at is tipping over sacred cows. It doesn’t matter if the subject is God, Mother Teresa, or Jesus. Just because certain people or ideas are revered doesn’t mean they’re perfect and it’s all worth at least a good discussion, which is all the atheists wanted to have.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the chair of Foundation Beyond Belief and a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago. He began writing the Friendly Atheist blog in 2006. His latest book is called The Young Atheist's Survival Guide.

  • Tim

    what is the film?  I am doing my Christmas shopping

    • Adam Hann

      Hell’s Angel by Hitchens from the BBC in the 90′s

    • Victor Harris

       The full film is on YouTube if you can’t find a DVD.

  • cipher

    “It’s easy for a group of privileged Ivy League students who have
    never experienced poverty to meet in a ‘super secret room’ and think
    themselves as intellectuals by bashing Mother Teresa,” Melanie Wilcox,
    Executive Editor of the conservative Dartmouth Review, told Campus Reform.

    “I’d like to know what they have done, if anything, to help the needy,” she added.

    Amazing.  She’s bright enough to get into Dartmouth, and still isn’t capable of critical thought – or, apparently, of putting together a grammatically correct sentence.

    • Emmet

      Here’s Adam Hann who put the event together – seems he’s not “bright enough” to put together a grammatically correct sentence either: ““… when there are areas that people just get vitriol or angry even for bringing it up …”. Or then again, we could attack the arguments and not the person, couldn’t we – or you could anyway, as a champion of critical thought, right?

      • cipher

        Your string of comments here reflects a basic insecurity about your own beliefs. You’re trying desperately to convince yourself we’re wrong.

        • Emmet

          No – I’m asking you to convince me you’re right. I’m seeing a lot of claims and not a lot of evidence. Asking a lover of reason to back up his claims is OK, isn’t it? Pointing out an ad hominem attack is OK, I think, right? 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=632117992 Gavin Sullivan

    ‘a simpering Bambi narcissist and a thieving fanatical Albanian dwarf’ — His Hitchness

    • Emmet

      Sure. Sounds good. Sounds jazzy. You’ll get on that train. Hitchens said it, must be true, right? His Hitchness is infallible, we all know that. No axe to grind, just a clear-eyed regard for Truth. Mm-hm. A woman you’ve never met and know little about? Yeah, you’ll be in for a bit of slander and calumny. Woot!

  • Carmelita Spats

    Anyone who has been raised Roman Catholic in the third world KNOWS that the RCC is obsessed with redemptive suffering.  I got in trouble in Catholic high school for referring to Mother T as the Hag O’ Christ. As a sixteen-year-old kid, not a “privileged Ivy League intellectual”, I was appalled when I learned that the Hag O’ Christ saw the use of military rape on a population  as a blessed opportunity to “suffer with Christ” by asking rape victims to carry the spawn of their attackers. Maybe the “Ivy League intellectuals” gathered together to bash redemptive suffering…or military rape…or forced birthing…or Nobel Peace Prize winners who applaud the aforementioned atrocities… I’m just sayin’… ;-)

  • pagansister

    NO surprise that MT wasn’t who the RCC  claims she was.   No human being is worth being prayed to, MT included!  

    • Alexandra

       Wrong.  She’s exactly who the Church claims she was, and they revere her for a lot of the reasons that most people find her work repulsive.

  • jose

    Hitchens was a fervent believer in the right wing myth that the powerless don’t need help because if only they bothered to work hard like him, they would build their own prosperity. He liked to sugarcoat this thought by saying charity and compassion are humiliating, that it goes against human dignity. In other words, wingnut nonsense. That’s why Hitchens went out of his way with his diatribe against mother Teresa, who was of course a human being, imperfect like all of us, yet extraordinarily inspiring nonetheless. He just had to demolish such an icon so his worldview would be validated.

    Everybody should know better than to march behind a guy who writes a whole book attacking mother Teresa but agrees with the war in Iraq (“of course it’s for the oil, stupid” – his words). I wish he had done the same thing concerning poverty as he did with waterboarding. He would have changed his mind about this too.

    • Alexandra

      Hitchens had a lot of terrible ideas, but that doesn’t mean that everything he said was wrong or that he didn’t say a lot of incredibly insightful and important things.  It just a reminder to not put anyone on a pedestal.

  • Alexandra

    Having grown up attending Catholic schools I knew exactly what it was the Mother Teresa was doing at the House for the Dying, and the public’s fascination with Mother Teresa really confused me.  I was always a little grossed out by her, so when I started reading New Atheist literature and found out that Hitchen’s had been involved in “unveiling” of how terrible Mother Teresa was it all made so much more sense.  I had no idea that people were unaware of what it was she was actually doing.  I mean she was a real hardcore Catholic.  She lived and breathed Catholicism, and it’s kind of gross.

  • http://twitter.com/arensb arensb

    When I read Hitchens’s “Missionary Position”, I thought maybe he was being too harsh. I know his skills as an orator, but I don’t know how good he is as an objective reporter.
    What convinced me that he was on the money was that when I went looking for rebuttals, all I found was ad hominem (he’s an atheist, and a drunk, and he swears a lot!) and offense that he would go after such an icon of goodness (why, she opened an institution in Calcutta! Why would she do that if it didn’t do at least some good?).
    What I didn’t find were rebuttals, showing that specific points raised by Hitchens were factually wrong. E.g., any record that she provided analgesics to the patients under her care, or tried to arrange any kind of medical assistance to her charges.

    • Eric D Red

      Pretty much like jose’s post earlier.  Not one word to refute the claims, and an attack on Hitchens.  He may or may not be right on his claims about Hitchens, but it’s not relevant to the discussion about Mother Teresa.

      • jose

        Yes it is. It answers questions. It provides context in which to frame his criticisms. Helps you understand where people are coming from. For example, why her specifically, and not just christianity? He also criticized her by saying she just wanted the poor to keep suffering instead of encouraging prosperity. That criticism can’t be understood without knowing Hitchens’ views on what to do about poverty. etc.

      • Dencal26

        Calcutta Mercy Hospital  founded by Mother Teresa is a full service  hospital.

        http://www.calcuttamercyhospital.org/medical-services/list-of-services

        • cipher

          Actually, Calcutta Mercy was founded by Protestant missionaries Mark and Huldah Buntain: http://www.buntain.org/what-we-support/hospital-rural-clinics

          I’m sure you’ll find a way to blame your ignorance on the matter on Obama as well.

          • Dencal26

            Speaking of Obama. He also has a Noble Peace Prize. Mother Teresa actually EARNED hers.

            • cipher

              Uh huh.

              I think Fox News is on.

              • Dencal26

                Yes Fox News where you can actually see real debate between left and right. On any given evening you may see Dr Lamont Hill debate with O’Reilly or Lanny Davis go at it with Hannity. Or you could watch Al Sharpton and the droolers at MSNBC. Or perhaps you like a typical CNN panel of Blitzer, Roland Martin and Jeff Toobin. Nothing like being brainwashed with one point of view.

                • cipher

                  Right.

                  Bottom line – you’re an idiot right wing troll with nothing of substance to say.

                  Now have the last word. Your kind always needs to.

                • Dencal26

                  Bottom line. You are an ignorant Obamabot who cannot dispute me

          • Dencal26

            Yes you are correct. Another crazed group of bible thumpers you hate founded that hospital. The Buntains were close friends of Mother Teresa though

            “In the early days, Mother Teresa was a great encouragement to us and was so pleased when the hospital was constructed, to assist the sick and suffering of the needy city of Calcutta.” Bonnie Buntain Long

    • jose

      Hitchens intentionally omitted stuff to make her look worse. He could have just stated the facts – that she was a hardcore anti-choice radical christian (she was born before feminism even existed, btw), as in taking christ’s teachings literally. But no, he had to add that she probably was saving a lot of donation money for herself (conspiranoid claim with no evidence whatsoever, but let’s just put it out there, right?) or that she’s a hypocrite because when she fell ill she went to a high tech hospital instead of to the one she built. What he doesn’t tell you is that she was in Rome when she fell ill, so she was taken to a Roman hospital, duh. What should have they done, get her on a plane to India instead? I don’t know if Hitchens omitted that intentionally, but I’m inclined to believe he read about it somewhere and just included it without checking the details because it was just so fitting to his narrative, to the opinion he wanted to have about her. Says a lot about the man.

      • Isilzha

         No, the point is that she went to hospital at all.  Why should she haven’t even received medical care?  Shouldn’t she suffer for christ just like she forced thousands of others to do? 

        • jose

          Wow, you really are ill informed. Where did you get the idea that mother Theresa’s order doesn’t provide medical aid? Not from Hitchens, I hope. He’s done enough harm.

          • Isilzha

            She had millions, but chose NOT to use that money to actually help people.  

        • Emmet

          She forced thousands of others to do? What the hell do you mean? The “others” had the choice to go to hospital did they, and she forced them not to? Good grief.

          • Isilzha

             She withheld pain medication from people in order that their suffering would bring them closer to jeebus!  She forced suffering on others.  However, when she was ill she went to a proper hospital.  Why didn’t she think she should suffer like all the others she forced to suffer?

      • http://twitter.com/arensb arensb

         If Hitchens omitted evidence that Teresa provided medical assistance or pain relief to the people in her care, then please present this evidence.
        Otherwise, you’re just proving my point, above.

      • skinnercitycyclist

         ”she was born before feminism even existed, btw”

        Really?  She was born prior to the Seneca Falls Convention or 1848?

    • Dencal26

      Hitchens tried to judge her by Western Medical standards trying to compare her care to the Mayo Clinic is absurd. She was in Calcutta where people were literally dying in the street like road kill.  Often times she had a staff of lightly trained medical volunteers.  This was a war zone for all intents and purposes.  One could bash Clara Barton too if they so desired. 

    • Emmet

      Did you find anything that showed that specific points raised by Hitchens were factually right? Claims require evidence, don’t they? Or do you just have *faith* that Hitchens told the truth?

  • Isilzha

    What’s this about a super secret room?  Is that where the baby roasting takes place?

    • Adam Hann

      It’s my living room…we had plenty of dip…baby dip …

      • B_R_Deadite99

         You’re making me hungry…

  • http://www.facebook.com/breanna.sullivan.148116 Breanna Sullivan

    I once stated, to a few college classmates of mine, that Mother Teresa was a pretty terrible person and a bad role model.
    I’m sure you can all image the stares and comments I got for that statement. 

    • Adam Hann

      Probably a fraction as many as I’ve gotten for holding an event about it :)

      Even just stating it aloud can get people pissed, that’s why we did this event

      • Emmet

        Do you understand that this is why many people dislike atheists? Not because atheists don’t believe in God and they do, but because atheists often come across as arrogant, obnoxious and rude. You did this event to get people pissed (off)? Not to discuss what is true or false about Mother Teresa or her religion, but just to piss people off?
        Just another case of atheists acting like “Napoleon Dynamite with a mean streak”:http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godandthemachine/2012/04/atheists-in-the-comboxes/

        • cipher

          Not because atheists don’t believe in God and they do, but because atheists often come across as arrogant, obnoxious and rude.

          Translation: “Atheists say things I don’t want to hear and force me to confront my own doubts about my belief system.”

          • Emmet

            Good grief. No, I don’t mind hearing anything atheists have to say. I’ve heard it all before (just as atheists have heard before (or have they?) everything Christians have to say) and it’s just a bit boring. My point, which you missed in your haste to pile-on and squash the deluded Christian, was this: atheists are often disliked not because they say things Christians don’t want to hear but because they’re deliberately and thoughtlessly obnoxious – and at the expense of truth. 

      • Emmet

        And of course, an atheist holding such an event would make absolutely sure that every fact put forward about Mother Teresa was backed up by solid evidence, wouldn’t he? He wouldn’t rely on just one book or one film, no matter how much he liked the person who made them, would he? I mean, if you’re going to tear a person down in public, you want to be sure of your facts, right? 

    • nua

      Oh, poor Breanna.  Were you that desperate for attention?  I’m sure you thought you were so cool.  

      Actually, it is simply sad to see one not yet fully grown to be that angry.  Didn’t Mummy and Daddy give you all the love you wanted?  

      Hopefully, you will grow up eventually.

      • Slow Learner

        Because everyone who holds a view in the minority is immature, and the consensus is always right?

        Or is it alright to hold minority views as long as you don’t try to express them, and the majority can pretend that there is a consensus?

      • cipher

        You’re operating at a primitive and childish level of development, and are incapable of seeing it. Your comments reflect that.

  • Siroffenzalot

    Just want a good discussion? Most Atheists I have come across are the angriest hate mongerers I’ve ever met. This is not a broad brush paint job but most Atheist need to find a good hobby as they have far too much negative energy that needs to be released with their typical hate filled antics.

    • Bender

       We already have a hobby: pointing out the falsehood and hypocrisy of religion.

    • Slow Learner

      Angry troll is troll-faced, has projection issues.

    • KeithCollyer

       don’t feed the troll

    • Sindigo

      Firstly, as you can only have met a handful of atheists, any term pejorative or otherwise with which you care to describe them is a “broad brush paint job” by definition.

      Secondly, that you choose to describe atheists with such a nebulous term as “hate mongerers” without supplying a single example to prove them worthy of the epithet enables those of us who would defend the group in question to dismiss your opinion as worthless.

      Thirdly, as hobbies go, standing up for what you believe in; in this case fighting the encroachment of religious ideals and ideas into the public sphere is a perfectly reasonable activity in which to engage.

      Fourthly, despite your username, you will have trouble offending anyone with even the most rudimentary grasp of debate. To paraphrase Churchill: “You have enemies? Good. It shows that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life.” You have not stood up for anything here, have proved yourself a mindless troll and as a consequence have offended no-one. Thanks for trying though.

      • M B

        @Siroffenzalot •

        Absolutely right! In any blog where religion is discussed and
        you’ll find this kind of rage against God and Christians.
        What’s clearly obvious is that those who hold a grudge against God, who spew their venom at Christianity, have hidden anger, feel threatened or have non admitted fears of being in the wrong; others hold a grudge against God for their own personal reasons.
        Many because of chosen life styles which Christianity clearly opposes.
        They rage, curse and spit at God and anyone who defends him. Like
        toddlers throwing a tantrums who can not be consoled. The path they
        pridefully chosen will bring them desolation at the end; in this life
        and in the next.
        We believers understand that Christianity has been under attack from
        the start, with murderous King Herod’s execution of all the male
        infants under the age of two in Bethlehem as he try to kill the Messiah
        whom he feared as a threat to his throne.

        Yeah, persecution started then and it continues now–Secularism and Atheism are the “ King Herods” of today.
        But we know what was said by Christ himself…

        “…I will establish my church, and the Gates of Hell shall not
        prevail against it.”

        • Sindigo

          I have no argument with any gods. I have no argument with any fictional beings. I certainly feel threatened, both in this life with the very real threat of persecution, prejudice and fundamentalist terrorism and with eternal torment in an impossible afterlife.

          We don’t “rage and curse” at your gods nor those that choose to defend the indefensible, we rage at the atrocities and iniquities done in their names.

          As the majority religion in the world, your belief that you are under attack is as laughable as the fairytales you cling onto. One more example of the persecution complex that your religion engenders in its slaves.

    • http://www.facebook.com/don.gwinn Don Gwinn

      My hobby is making fun of grammar on the internet.  I don’t know if that makes me a hate mongerer, but I can’t really help it because I’m a fatherer and a teacherer by profession.

    • C Peterson

      I don’t see much hatred among atheists- that’s something that seems much more apparent in religionists. Certainly, there is some anger. And justifiably so, given the privilege claimed by many theists and most religionists, and the discrimination that atheists face. Anger is not an inherently negative thing. It was anger that drove the American Revolution. It was anger that gained women the right to vote. It was anger that created the civil rights movement. It is anger that is expanding the rights of homosexuals.

    • Tainda

      Masturbation and My Little Pony

    • The Other Weirdo

       Names, dates and examples of hate mongered, or GTFO!

      • Valphein

        Let’s see names, Stalin, MaoTse Tung to start with.  How about those names, huh?

        • Count_Von_Krolock

           Communists =/= atheists. It’s pretty sad that this distinction still has to be explained to some people.

        • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

          You realize that if you have to immediately go to Stalin and Mao, you’ve basically lost the argument, right?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jocta-Utmost/1478951079 J’octa Utmost

      -
      Most people in the World despise rapists and pedophiles and all criminals; especially those who corrupt the minds and bodies of helpless innocent
      children and the foolish among us.
      -
      And certainly it is criminal to use lying indoctrination of unfounded dogma
      to enslave those who were born adiamorphic and have no need for lying
      myths, nor fairy-tales to live a sane and rational life.
      -
      Religion is organized crime! 

      Time has come to end all the criminal activity of those thieving rapist pedophiles and the evil criminal entity they are proselytizers for.
      -

  • DougI

    I’ve helped the needy, so I guess I’m perfectly justified to say that Theresa was an immoral hag who took money from dictators, shuffled that to the pedophile protecting Catholic church, and left the inmates she called patients in miserable conditions, suffering needlessly, while self-righteous pricks got rich.

    • nua

      The only way your terrible mental and spiritual problems will go away is to get down on  your knees and ask God’s forgiveness.  I pity you.  Obviously, you do not have any joy in your life.  Poor soul.

      • DougI

        What are you babbling about?

      • Count_Von_Krolock

        The only way your terrible mental and spiritual problems will go away is to get down on  your knees and ask Cthulhu’s forgiveness.  I pity you.  Obviously, you do not have any joy in your life.  Poor soul.

  • Gwen

    With the billions and billions of dollars MT collected, she could have built and maintained a state of the art hospital to proved adequate care for the poor in that community, but she didn’t. She maintained the original filthy hovel for her victims. She could have hired well trained medical staff, OR sent her nuns to school for medical training to learn to care for her victims, but she did not. She could have afforded to buy medical supplies to care for the victims, instead she rewashed syringes and IV needles and reusing them, putting her victims at high risk for infection. She could have listened to the child development specialists, who taught them how to stimulate the children and infants so their brains would grow, and they would learn attachment, but they refuses, making the death rate of their infants untenable high, and those who survive un-adoptable, because they are all developmentally delayed and and cannot attach to those who want to take them into their homes. She had Billion and Billions of dollars and NOTHING to show for it.

    • MariaO

      She has founded a new order of nuns with many convents all over the world. In her view that was obviously a better way of using the money than building hospitals, hireing doctors or buying medicine.

    • Emmet

      “Billions and billions”? Where did you get that figure from? No don’t tell me – thin air. Truth? Who needs it when any old assertion will do?

    • M B

      Ha,ha,ha, and how are you so sure it was mere billions and not trillions or quadrillions?
      Well, she may be the richest woman ever, eh? ( where is the proof)

  • SJH

     So I read his
    article and it seems like a thoughtless attack on a woman with an attempt to
    discredit her. Of course she is not perfect. That goes without saying. That is a silly statement to waste time writing an article about. It makes you wonder why he wrote it.

    There are a lot of assumptions and speculation made in his
    article that he seems to use as arguements as if they were fact. It leads me to
    conclude that he has an agenda to make Mother theresa and the Church look bad.
    Of course this is speculation on my part but either he has an agenda or is not
    all that bright.

    According ti Hitchens in his article, “Many more people are poor and sick
    because of the life of MT: Even more will be poor and sick if her example is
    followed.”

    Just before
    that, he states, “that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
    and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
    evidence.”

    I guess we can
    dismiss his assertion since he does not back it up. I am guessing that he can’t
    back it up because he is choosing to believe something in order to push his
    agenda but again, just a guess, and no, I cannot back it up so feel free to
    dismiss my assertion.

    • Collin

      “Many more people are poor and sick because of the life of MT”-According to Hitchens, there is already a cure for poverty which has a 100% success rate, and that is education and freedom for women.  Thanks to the stance of MT and the catholic church, millions of people lack information and access to condoms and birth control in general, perpetuating poverty and illness.  Hitch, of course, was right.

      • SJH

         100% really? Again I quote Hitchens:
        “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
        and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”

        I think you are very misinformed. You may want to look into those issues a little more.

        Also, I think you, Dartmouth and Hitchens are missing the purpose of Mother Theresa’s mission.

        • phantomreader42

           SJH, you have a well-established history as a pathological liar.  Why should anyone trust anything you say?

  • Robster

    I remember something about the old nun renouncing her attachment to that nasty god fantasy, his decomposed son and strange ghost thingy not long before she (Teresa) shuffled off this mortal coil. She was a nasty piece of work but did realise her delusion at the end, so that’s sort of good.

    • Emmet

      You “remember something” … uh-huh. What was that “something”? Let me guess – you read it on an atheist blog? Just a remembered “something” that you’ll put out there, a bit of mud you hope will stick? 

      • phantomreader42

         Your cult makes shit up all the time, without the slightest remorse no matter how many people DIE as a result, so you don’t get to be so picky. 

        • Emmet

          What made up stuff? Do tell.

          • phantomreader42

            Heaven, hell, limbo, purgatory, libel against gay people, libel against atheists, libel against scientists, libel against women, libel against the jews, including but not limited to the blood libel, decades of shameless lying to cover up the rape of children and ensure a steady supply of victims for pedophile priests, a multitude of outright lies about the effectiveness of condoms, and more but of course you’ll never be able to bring yourself to look in the general direction of reality, you’ll just keep babbling whatever nonsense you need to prop up your failing faith in your child-raping death cult. 

  • TheExpatriate700

    What’s the point? She’s been dead for over ten years. Go after something relevant.

    • C Peterson

      Because the RCC is still pushing her as a role model. It is still advancing her sainthood. It is still supporting people who are carrying on her methods.

      To not expose historical figures who are misrepresented is to support revisionism.

      • Emmet

        Sure. I agree. Let’s just make sure the expose is based in fact not in faith.

      • Emmet

        Who are the people the Church is supporting who carry on Teresa of Calcutta’s “methods” by the way? Anyone particular in mind?

  • http://twitter.com/TreeOfLifeSword TreeOfLifeSword.com

    Mother Teresa warned, “The fruit of abortion is nuclear war.”
    Thanks for reminding me of her prophecy in a world that is continually devaluing life while moving closer and closer to a final conflagration, as prophecied in Scripture. This is all happening under the most pro-abortion president in the history of the world.
    I’ll pray for all of you who unjustly condemn her.

    • phantomreader42

       So, the fact that this prophecied nuclear war HASN’T HAPPENED is proof that mother Teresa was a WORTHLESS LYING SACK OF SHIT! 

    • cipher

       Your time would be better spent praying to be restored to sanity.

      • Emmet

        What was that about operating at a childish level? Pot, meet kettle.

    • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

      That might be the most ridiculous non sequitur I’ve ever heard. So much for her supposed wisdom.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jocta-Utmost/1478951079 J’octa Utmost

    -Most people in the World despise rapists and pedophiles and all criminals; especially those who corrupt the minds and bodies of helpless innocent
    children and the foolish among us.
    -
    And certainly it is criminal to use lying indoctrination of unfounded dogma
    to enslave those who were born adiamorphic and have no need for lying
    myths, nor fairy-tales to live a sane and rational life.
    -
    Religion is organized crime! 

    Time has come to end all the criminal activity of those thieving rapist pedophiles and the evil criminal entity they are proselytizers for.
    -

    • Emmet

      Mm. The atheist worldview: nice.

      • Deven Kale

         Well, one atheists worldview. Not necessarily indicative of all atheists. Definitely not indicative of mine.

        • Emmet

          Fair enough. 
          Same distinction when Hemant Mehta trawls the shallow end of the internet for one of his many “Look at what Christians believe” posts.

          • phantomreader42

             Just one of many differences that you will never acknowledge as long as you live is that the horrible christian examples include elected officials, church leaders, representatives of multi-million-dollar political lobbying groups, and THE FUCKING POPE, while the atheist examples you incessantly whine about are random commenters on a blog. 

            Another distinction you will adamantly refuse to grasp is the difference between slander, libel, discrimination, criminal activity, and death threats on the christian side, versus MOCKERY from atheists. 

            • Emmet

              Sure. Whatever.  I make no apologia for death threats from Christians. Hang your hobby horse up in the garage, take a breath and engage with what I’m actually saying, not with the caricature you think I am. 

  • cipher

    The trolls, particularly Emmet and Jose, seem to be unaware that others aside from Hitchens also criticized her. One of her former nuns, Mary Johnson, recently wrote a book about her experiences with the MoC (although I don’t believe she’s as harshly critical of MT as Hitchens was).

    I’ve never been convinced she was the villain Hitch made her out to be, but she was obviously seriously misguided on a number of issues and was deeply enmeshed in the conservative Catholic worldview. Of course, those who share that worldview won’t want to look reality squarely in the face.

    Stay in your own neighborhoods, guys, and don’t go trolling on atheist blogs. Too many of your sacred cows will get run over.

    • Emmet

      Sure. And you know that Johnson’s book is completely factual how? I’m not saying it’s not – I haven’t read it. But you seem to have faith that just because she’s a former sister (not a nun actually – that’s one of those many Catholic subtle distinctions, one of the many nuances that opponents of the Church often can’t/won’t grasp – not an important one, here, but still worth pointing out) she’s telling the truth. I thought atheists based their claims on truth, not on faith: that they based their claims on looking reality squarely in the face, not on claiming reality is what they want it to be because then it’s a stick to beat the Church with.

      I don’t consider I’m trolling. Disagreeing with someone isn’t trolling, surely?

      • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

        So you’re choosing this issue to be hyperskeptical about? What cipher said about sacred cows seems to be applicable here. If you haven’t looked at the evidence – and I can safely say that I have seen none of it – then you aren’t in a position to discount it out of hand. Of course, you can remain agnostic until you evaluate it, but that isn’t the position you’ve staked out, now, is it?

        • Emmet

          The position I’ve staked out is that the Church has weighed up the evidence for and against Teresa’s sanctity and come down on the side of progressing her cause for sainthood. Obviously, when it’s a choice between the bombast of Hitchens and the clear-sighted filtering of evidence for and against that the Church goes in for, I’ll take the Church. 

          My point in all of this is this: I read atheist blogs on and off, for interest, and often see a professed regard for reason that is akin to worship of it, but see so often a disregard for facts, critical thinking and balance. The breathless passion of the Hitchens camp followers in this issue in particular doesn’t make them look like people who have much regard for reason at all.

          That’s what I’m staking out here. I’d expect atheists to be more skeptical is all. I’m so often disappointed by the credulity of my co-religionists, and one thing I look for on atheist blogs is cool, clear critical thinking – so I’m disappointed when you let me down.  :)

          • phantomreader42

             Given that the church has been established to have spent decades lying to protect and reward priests who raped children, not to mention centuries murdering random people on false charges of witchcraft and promoting the blood libel against the jews, why should anyone trust the word of the church over any random drunk? 

          • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

            Oy vey. You seriously think that the RCC has weighed evidence against sainthood for MT? You don’t have any room to criticize the “credulity of [your] co-religionists,” my friend. The position of promotor fidei was abolished in the ’80s by John Paul II so he could speed up the canonization process, and there’s absolutely no reason to think that this process is selective and thorough. Someone wants a person canonized, and then it just becomes a matter of rubber-stamping the application. (Hitchens was asked to argue against canonization by the Vatican, but it can hardly be thought that they would have even weighed his testimony fairly.)