Letters to the Editor
-
Christopher1988, I didn't speak of anyone but
Mother Theresa, who was proveably a fraud. I am certain there are good people who are priets, nuns, garage mechanics, politicians, etc. There is NOTHING which establishes or proves the validity of Christianity, Catholocism, Hindi, Shintoism, Islam or any of the other currently practiced faiths above that of the Greek & Roman gods, Mithrasian faiths, Druidism, etc. They all sought to manipulate and control. At least those faiths that existed before many of the scientific laws and theorems were established had a basis in honesty to explain the unexplainable. Current faiths are just shams. There is no god. Jesus, as the son of god, is a myth (if he even existed!). Delude yourself all you like. The truth, unlike faith, will set you free.
-
Definitions
I have enjoyed the postings but I think some of the arguments might be clearer (and people could agree in a few more places) if things like spirituality and religion weren't used interchangeably. Maybe some definitions would help. Does anyone buy this as a distinction:
Spirituality - a desire or searching for the answers to things that appear to be unknowable,e.g. why are we here? what happens at death, etc. Humans can come up with all sorts of answers to these questions and there is no reason to argue about whether one answer is better than another or to try to convince someone else to adopt one's own views.
Religion - a set of answers to unknowable questions, based on faith, and imposed by some sort of structure (arguably for control and/or money or maybe even a sincere desire to do good things). Religion is organzied at some level and the fundamental ones insist that theirs is the only way. Even "moderates" are likely to believe that followers of other sects are wrong about something.
As an atheist, my personal view is that spirituality is a waste of time and usually evidence of sloppy thinking or an inability to get over a fear of death or loneliness or whatever. But who cares? As long as people don't feel a need to impose their views on others (or make decisions that impact others' ability to live in peace and happiness), I don't care if they need to see supernatural forces at work where I would see rational or natural processes.
Religion, however, with its assurance in knowing the unknowable and its adherents need to be sure that their particular variation is the "truth," is clearly poison.
-
the hitch with Hitchens
The problem with books like Hitchens' (and Harris', etc.) is that they are so wildly, egregiously out of touch with typical believers -- their lives, their hopes, their reasons for believing (which are often very good, if not rationally, then adaptively, as a means of comfort, emotional sustenance and meaning-making).
The chasm between Hitchens' bafflement and believers' sincerity makes it virtually impossible for his book to persuade anyone who is not already convinced.
-
Aiming Low
Harvey nails this critique, the last two paragraphs especially. Out of their rage and incredulity, writers like Hitchens stoop to ill-concieved, semi-rational rants. If he truly wishes to convince anyone, why not take on--as Harvey suggested--a more worthy opponent than fundamentalists? (who even most religious people think are quacks) Why on earth would such a brilliant mind aim so low?...
-
Christopher 1988
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.
-
Quacks, eh?
If he truly wishes to convince anyone, why not take on--as Harvey suggested--a more worthy opponent than fundamentalists? (who even most religious people think are quacks)
If "most" religious people think fundamentalists are "quacks", why aren't we being carpet bombed with books, editorials and above all legislation - written by "most religious people" - condemning fundamentalist quackery? After all, religious people make up the bulk of the population. If "most" religious people felt that way, you'd think you'd see a lot more opposition to fundamentalism.
Instead, it seems to me like the only ones actively opposing the fundamentalists are atheists and those groups (women's rights advocates, certain ethnic and religious minorities, gays, lesbians and the transgendered) under constant legislative assault from fundamentalists.
That's OK though. When they've successfully denied those groups of their rights, they'll happily move along to destroying the rights of "most" religious people (or just outright slaughtering them, the way fundamentalists are doing today in Iraq).