Of course, this isn't even remotely totalitarian. If she said "I am the law, and as of now I will physically enforce my beliefs no matter what the wish of the people" that would be totalitarian.

This philosophy is absolutely totalitarian. You don't have to have power to adhere to a totalitarian philosophy. The people in this country who think it should be illegal to criticize the president or the military during wartime are totalitarians because they believe the government should control what people say. Mother Teresa was a totalitarian because she believed the government should prevent citizens from practicing contraception.

The doctrine of being closer to Jesus through suffering and finding grace in suffering does not mean that one in uninterested in alleviating suffering. No Christian tells a person "Don't take an asperin for that headache.

So, why didn't she have medicine and doctors healing the sick? Why didn't sick people find simple cures at her clinics? Because she wasn't interested in healing people's bodies. She wanted to save their souls. (And why did she have to leave the country to be treated for pneumonia?)

I'd really have to see the financial reports for that.

Guess what? You can't because her organization has never made them available to anyone.

One of your links is to an article by a woman who only worked with her in the States and Rome, never saw her actions in Calcutta, and left because she was "disillusioned."

So, then you ignore articles by former hawks who were "disillusioned" with Bush's policies? You ignore articles by former Republicans "disillusioned" with the Bush Administration? Don't be silly, those are terribly educational articles. There's a reason she was disillusioned. Mother Teresa wasn't spending her massive amounts of money on the poor. But it would seem that since she's telling you something that conflicts with what you want to believe, you're going to ignore her. That's simply irrational.

And if the newspaper hasn't a bias, does that mean the writer hasn't any? How am I supposed to know who this is and how trustworthy? Or the newspaper which printed it?

Well, it sounds like you have a ready excuse to ignore any information that conflicts with your beliefs. But a simple google search on the author indicates no pattern of attacking religion or Catholocism.

The fact is, just as there is zero evidence that George W. Bush has the intellectual or moral capabilities to be president, there is zero evidence that Mother Teresa was interested in physically helping the poor (again, no serious medical treatment, no education, no job training), but rather spiritually guiding them into heaven.

While I wholeheartedly agree with your general point, I just want to give credit to Barry Lynn who is a devout Christian (a minister, I believe) and also the head of People United for the Separation of Church and State. He takes on the whacky fundamentalists frequently on television and we need more like him.

I agree with you, but for one detail.

A first good step would be to recognize that all religions are basically different ways of searching for a universal truth and that no one should condemn others for having different beliefs.

If part of a person's religious belief requires injustice towards another person (wives should be subservient, homosexuals should be excluded or even killed, adulterers should be punished, non-believers should be killed or discriminated against, etc.), then I think we have an obligation to condemn, if not that person, then their beliefs.

But, then again, you did say, "...condemn others..." so maybe my point is moot. Okay, never mind!

The point is, both sources provided anectdotal evidence with no concrete facts.

No, both sources provided many accounts of eye-witness testimony of how Mother Teresa ran her clinics. No one's trying to prove a scientific theory here, but rather judge a person's actions, in which case all you have is anecdotal evidence.

I'll put it this way: there's much more documented evidence that Mother Teresa was a fraud and a thief than there is that she wasn't.

But we'll obviously have to agree to disagree.

Well, you've hardly provided me with unbiased sources, have you? The author of an "authorized" biography and an article in "The Catholic New Times." How can you say you don't trust my sources? These people were devoted to Teresa. The people I quoted were not anti-Catholic. Susan Shields was also devoted to Mother Teresa before she left her because of the way she neglected the physical needs of the poor.

Teresa wrote these very words:

"Tell them we are not here for work, we are here for Jesus. We are religious above all else. We are not social workers, not teachers, not doctors. We are nuns."

And let's not forget that she spoke publicly in favor of denying women even the right of contraception.

Look, here are reviews of a book that documents what I'm saying.

http://www.meteorbooks.com/review.html

If you choose to continue to ignore her well-documented misdeeds, let's agree to disagree.

Regarding the book, "The Final Verdict," which supports what I've been saying about Teresa:

NECESSARY, WELL-DOCUMENTED:

The Times Higher Education Supplement, London

PAINSTAKINGLY RECORDED, [exposes] THE OTHER SIDE OF TERESA:

Irish Independent, Dublin

[WRITTEN WITH] PAINSTAKING CARE:

The Telegraph, Calcutta

ALL THIS IS VERY SERIOUS AND DESERVES WIDE DISSEMINATION…TRULY SHOCKING:

Irish Times, Dublin

RESULT OF A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK ON THE PART OF DR CHATTERJEE:

Fr Gaston Roberge, Calcutta-based Jesuit Priest

----------------------------

So, if the fact that these sources of varying backgrounds find the evidence against Mother Teresa compelling doesn't change your mind, you might at least consider reading the book.

What more can I say? Let's agree to disagree for now and we'll both promise to keep our minds open to the possibility that we could be wrong. See, that's why I'm not an atheist, just a friendly agnostic. ;)

I'd like to thank you for a textbook illustration of what a bigoted comment looks like.