DNC: If you laugh at Obama’s Nobel, you side with terrorists

Mother Theresa – the fraud:

http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/

Anders on October 9, 2009 at 1:11 PM

During the deliberations over the Second Vatican Council, under the stewardship of Pope John XXIII, MT was to the fore in opposing all suggestions of reform. What was needed, she maintained, was more work and more faith, not doctrinal revision.

What does Hitchens care? He will never kneel at a rail or stand in a queue. What does he care?

Her position was ultra-reactionary and fundamentalist even in orthodox Catholic terms. 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*. Believers are likewise enjoined to abhor and eschew divorce, but they are not required to insist that a ban on divorce and remarriage be a part of the state constitution, as MT demanded in a referendum in Ireland (which her side narrowly lost) in 1996. Later in that same year, she told Ladies Home Journal that she was pleased by the divorce of her friend Princess Diana, because the marriage had so obviously been an unhappy one …

Hitchens generously allows for individual faith, just not collective action.

This returns us to the medieval corruption of the church, which sold indulgences to the rich while preaching hellfire and continence to the poor. MT was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction.

Christopher Hitchens would cure poverty by destroying their families. What a sick bag of pus.

And she was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan.

Wouldn’t you like a friend who shows up and takes your money? Little Miss Suckup refused to have cookies and punch at the White House, saying she never ate in the homes of the rich so the poor would not feel ashamed to give her nothing. She gave Bill and Hillary both barrels on abortion (“What a poverty it is to kill the unborn child”)from the podium they ushered her too. What a kissup, huh?

Where did that money, and all the other donations, go? The primitive hospice in Calcutta was as run down when she died as it always had been—she preferred California clinics when she got sick herself—and her order always refused to publish any audit.

Yeah, get some floor wax and some vases and paint the place, lady! Jes–uh, yikes.

But we have her own claim that she opened 500 convents in more than a hundred countries, all bearing the name of her own order. Excuse me, but this is modesty and humility?

Yeah, what’s with all the bathing the ulcers of the poor? How about some well-appointed pharmacies dispensing the Pill?

The rich world has a poor conscience, and many people liked to alleviate their own unease by sending money to a woman who seemed like an activist for “the poorest of the poor.”

She healed the sick. Some sick people would like to be healed. Crazy of them, but there it is. Of course what Hitchens thinks they really need is a condom.

People do not like to admit that they have been gulled or conned, so a vested interest in the myth was permitted to arise, and a lazy media never bothered to ask any follow-up questions. Many volunteers who went to Calcutta came back abruptly disillusioned by the stern ideology and poverty-loving practice of the “Missionaries of Charity,” but they had no audience for their story.

You know that thing on her head was a habit, right? You know she’s a nun, right? You know her place is run by an order of nuns, right? What kind of drunkard untheist complains of the ‘strict ideology’ of a convent???

Chris_Balsz on October 9, 2009 at 7:18 PM