Atheist Group Blasts Postal Service for Mother Teresa Stamp

[Sal316]

An atheist organization is blasting the U.S. Postal Service for its plan to honor Mother Teresa with a commemorative stamp, saying it violates postal regulations against honoring "individuals whose principal achievements are associated with religious undertakings."

The Freedom from Religion Foundation is urging its supporters to boycott the stamp — and also to engage in a letter-writing campaign to spread the word about what it calls the "darker side" of Mother Teresa.
More here

Here's the relevant paragraph from FFRF's Action Alert:

If this choice of a polarizing Roman Catholic figurehead or the Post Office's flagrant violation of its own policy distresses you, let the Post Office know (by mail or e-mail below). Or make this the subject of an educational letter to the editor, or simply use this opportunity to enlighten friends and colleagues about the darker side of Mother Teresa's religious activism. Send blind copies of your letters or e-mails, if you like, to:

[onehandle]

1. Yeah. Throw shit at Mother Teresa. That'll get you some good press.

'The Freedom from Religion Foundation' has entered the PETA zone.

[rd_kent]

11. No, they haven't.

[Joanie Baloney]

2. Not for just her anti-abortion stance

but also because she would be against the criteria for who can be on a stamp:

It is against these postal regulations to "honor religious institutions or individuals whose principal achievements are associated with religious undertakings or beliefs."

Pretty straight-forward, I'd say.

-JB

[Sal316]

3. Then why the smear campaign?

Are they taking lessons from the Fundie's obsession with Darwin?

[darkstar3]

10. Because they know

that the committee has broken the rules in the past. Since they object to those rules being broken, they're trying to rally people behind their cause by giving THEM reasons to object to the rules being broken.

Yes, throwing shit at Mother Teresa is a horrible way to win friends and influence people, and frankly I disagree with the FFRF's tactics here, but you can't deny that she is inextricably tied to Catholicism and that her being on a stamp breaks the rules.

[paulsby]

13. you most certainly CAN deny it

iow, if you ask most people "what do you know about mother teresa?" i would bet most people would mention that she helped poor people in india.

the reverend martin luther king, under this "theory" could also be prohibited from stamps. he was a baptist minister after all who helped found the southern christian leadership conference.

however, both king and mother teresa ( both nobel prize winners btw) are primiarily known for their ACTS to help the downtrodden.

[darkstar3]

27. Your argument is specious,

and ends with the word "Mother," which is her title.

Anyone on the planet who could actually tell you WHAT she did, would first tell you she was a nun.

[paulsby]

29. and many people refer to MLK

as the Reverend Martin Luther King.

he was a baptist minister

the point is spot on.

by this argument, MLK should be banned from stamps.

Reverend is AT LEAST as suggestive of religion as "Mother" is.

arguably moreso.

[darkstar3]

32. You may not know this,

but the committee violated the rules voluntarily when they put him on a stamp. They felt that the groundswell of support for his presence on a stamp outweighed the possible fallout from violating the rule.

Maybe you should get off your huffy bike and realize that this is not MY argument, nor is it from the FFRF. The rule is clear, and in case you didn't notice, this subthread started when I mentioned the fact that they had violated the rule before. Who did you think I was referring to if it wasn't MLK?

Either they should adhere to the rule, or they should expunge it. Of course, since the USPS is a government entity, they'll never be able to expunge it. So why put ANYONE on a stamp? I've got an idea for a new stamp every year for the next 150 years, and we could go well beyond that. Let's showcase every state flag, state bird, and state tree. Hell, do all three at once, we're still covered for 50 years, and we have a whole lot more to work with from there.

(For the record, I've always had a problem with this. People shouldn't be on postage stamps. In my mind it cheapens their memory and reduces their contribution to this world to a one-liner a stamp collection book. Mostly inconsequential symbols belong on stamps, and people belong in history books and encyclopedias.)

[paulsby]

33. the rule IS clear

whether or not having mother teresa VIOLATES the rule is another question entirely.

[darkstar3]

34. .

Bullshit. She was CLEARLY a member of a religious organization, and her works were a part of it. How could she NOT violate the rule?

[paulsby]

36. depends on how you parse "associated"

most people would say mother teresa's principle achievements were helping poor people.

by associated, what do they mean? "associated in people's minds", etc?

helping poor people is associated with plenty of people who AREN't religious, for instance.

the way the reg is written is VAGUE (understandable, these are federal bureaucrats who write this crap)

fwiw, many, if not most people in the US are "associated" with a church of some sort.

it is a DEBATABLE issue, and i would have to look at past cases (which i don't have available) to try to figure it out.

this is the kind of crap that lawyers bill big $$ for arguing over endlessly.

i have a theory that legislators and bureaucrats purposefully write vague laws and regs to keep lawyers busy and well paid

[darkstar3]

37. Your theory notwithstanding,

let me see if I can say this any clearer:

She. was. a. NUN!!!! How more closely associated can one woman be with the Catholic Church? And ANYONE remotely familiar with her work would know first and foremost that she was a nun. Are you denying this?

[paulsby]

38. i am well aware she was a nun

does that mean that no matter what she does, for whom, etc. she can't be on a stamp? the reg is written vaguely, and i'm simply agnostic as to whether the fact that SHE is a nun means that she can't be honored on a stamp for acts she does that are not necessarily/primarily associated with religion, at least in most people's minds.

i get your point, i just don't think it's that simple and w/o other cases and etc. to guide me, i remain agnostic.

[darkstar3]

41. Vague?

It is against these postal regulations to "honor religious institutions or individuals whose principal achievements are associated with religious undertakings or beliefs."
For Teresa, it WAS a religious undertaking, and that's what matters.

[paulsby]

42. and that's how you are parsing it

iow, FOR TERESA, iow SHE associated it thusly.

is that what they mean, or do they mean associated with, according to those who are honoring her?

since i don't have any case examples, past precedents, etc. i am AGNOSTIC.

you have decided how to interpret a vague reg.

good for you.

i haven't

[skepticscott]

39. Have to disagree with you on stamps

When done right, they're wonderful mini works of art and historical commemorations of people, events and all sorts of things. US stamps have been very stolid in that respect for a long time, though...other countries are much more imaginative.

That said, in the fight against religious intrusion, I'm not sure this is the best battle to waste resources and public opinion on, particularly given how many fewer stamps are used today. Personally, I bought 500 Forever stamps a few years ago (with the Liberty Bell on them), and I only use about 10 a year, so I expect to leave some to my heirs and still never have to worry about getting stuck with Mother Theresa postage.

[dmallind]

138. No you can't - the "smear campaign" is simply correcting an absurd standard hagiography

This woman was directly responsible for untold suffering that she was personally able to avoid but chose not to. Insufficient pain medication because suffering was seen as godly. Treating junior members of the order as de facto slaves. Obstructing family planning efforts to reduce the number one cause of suffering in those areas - overpopulation. She caused FAR more harm than good.

[demosincebirth]

4. Helping the less fortunate is a religious undertaking?

I guess atheist don't believe in charitable works.

[Deep13]

146. The money she collected went toward her monastic order, not charity. nt

[paulsby]

5. while mother teresa is (obviously) associated with catholicism

she is known primarily for her acts, namely helping poor people.

one could get really picky and make the same complaint about mother teresa and direct it towards stamps of REVEREND Martin Luther King Jr.?

do they really want to go there?

[demosincebirth]

7. I guess they do.They"ll jump on anything or anyone who is associated

with any religion or associated with anyone doing charity. Unbelievable!

[ipaint]

16. Helping the poor is not standing between them and access to family planning.

“I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child – a direct killing of the innocent child – murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love, and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even his life to love us. So the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love – that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.”

Mother Teresa upon receiving the Nobel Peace Prize 1979

Her dogma was the cause of as much if not more poverty than she relieved. She was a right wing fundamentalist.

[paulsby]

23. and this is relevant how?

yes, mother teresa was anti-abortion

so was gandhi.

the issue was RELIGION.

both MLK and Teresa were religious figures, to some extent.
who cares if mother teresa was a right wing fundamentalist, as you claim?

the issue is is she PRIMARILY associated with religion or what she did?

and compare to MLK

MLK was a baptist minister

he FREQUENTLY wrote and spoke that his views on civil rights were informed by his religion.

so, would you argue that MLK can;t appear on a stamp?

is it a "violation of a church and state" that we have a national holiday celebrating this baptist minister?

do i really need to quote some stuff from MLK to counter your mother teresa quote?

[ipaint]

44. I could care less whether she is on a stamp.

The myth of mother teresa certainly serves a purpose. If the post office wants to honor an anti abortion, anti birth control, anti family planning religious zealot it certainly is fitting considering the state of this country and it's fundamentalist religious population.

Mother teresa was no MLK or Malcolm x, they both fought those who refuse to empower the poor, mother teresa embraced them to further her dangerous religious beliefs.

Carlin says it best-

“Aren’t you sick of being told who your heroes oughta be? Bein’ told who you oughta be lookin’ up to? I’ll choose my own heroes, thank you very much.”

[paulsby]

53. spare me

there is as much of a myth surrounding MLK as there is with mother teresa. they all had their warts.

need i speak about MLK's plagiarism?

nobody tells me who my heroes are. they suggest. the decision is mine.

[damntexdem]

28. My first reaction was 'a plague on both their houses':

But the more I read, the more I find the FFRF to bear the major portion of the fault. Despite everything else, Mother Theresa did a lot of do-gooding, which whatever else anyone thinks about it, can easily be separated from religious proselytizing.

[paulsby]

30. exactly like the Reverend Martin Luther King

a baptist minister, a man who helped found the Southern CHRISTIAN Leadership Conference, and a man who FREQUENTLY spoke about his faith/beliefs in god, etc. as informing his beliefs about civil rights.

[Green_Lantern]

71. you don't need to pass a political litmus

To be on a stamp and be honored for good works.

[Joanie Baloney]

72. Actually

According to their own rules, you do.

[LiberalFighter]

6. Are US stamps suppose to commemorate those not related to American history?

[rd_kent]

8. Just a blatant violation of church and state and stamp rules. Very Clear Cut!

[sarge43]

9. The following individuals are honorary American citizens

William Penn and his second wife, Hannah
Kazimierz Pulaski
Gilbert, marquis de LaFayette
Sir Winston Churchill
Raoul Wallenberg
Mother Teresa

All, except Hannah Penn, have had postage stamps issued in their honor.

[rd_kent]

12. And?

From the USPS rules on stamps...


It is against these postal regulations to "honor religious institutions or individuals whose principal achievements are associated with religious undertakings or beliefs."

[rug]

14. Tell it to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee.

They'll be impressed with your postage stamp regulation.

[rd_kent]

15. Its not my regulation, its the USPS. And who give a shit about the Nobel Peace Prize Committe?

[rug]

18. Yeah! Fuck the Nobel Peace Prize! Protect our stamps!

[rd_kent]

19. Nice strawman! Who said fuck the nobel peace prize? Just you.

[rug]

21. So you do give a shit about the committee that awards it?

[rd_kent]

22. Not in THIS instance I dont. This has nothing to do with them, it about stamps.

[rug]

24. Do you object to a Nobel Peace Prize winner being honored with a stamp?

[rd_kent]

26. Nope, not at all. But the stamp rules are pretty clear.

FWIW, I approve of momma T on the stamp, but the rules ARE pretty clear.

[rd_kent]

52. Actually, after reading her acceptance speech, I am 100% against it.

and you should be too, but I know you are a fundie, at least your posts lead me to that conclusion, so I don;t expect you to agree.

Read it for yourself....

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1979/teresa-lecture.html

[rug]

102. A fundie?

:rofl:

[Duke Newcombe]

135. Don't worry. It's a cognitive shortcut around here...

for the intellectually lazy who broad-brush all of a particular religion.

[MindPilot]

66. The Nobel Prize Committee is not a US government entity.

and is therefore not subject to the US constitution.

[sarge43]

17. And as demosincebirth said when has charitable and humanitarian works

been a solely religious activity?

[rd_kent]

20. Its not.

[darkstar3]

31. Charitable and humanitarian works are not primarily religious,

but anyone with a sixth grade education can tell you that Mother Teresa was a nun, and that she helped the poor because she felt that her God called her to do it. Further, as I said before, not only is her reputation inextricably linked with Catholicism, she was affiliated with the church for the entire time that she performed these works.

Her being on a stamp violates the rules set down by the committee for these reasons. If you'd taken two minutes to examine how the rule might possibly apply to MOTHER Teresa, maybe you wouldn't have been so quick to follow demo's straw man.

[onehandle]

45. Don't bother.

There is little rational thought in this room. It's the official room of bashing anything vaguely related to religion.

[RC]

25. Mother Teresa collected Millions of dollars and put it in banks, never to touch again.

Most of it is still in the various banks. A good share of her "Helping the Poor" was for show. They got minimal health care, while she went to the best hospitals for her care.
The Nuns would tear their own habits into strips for bandages because that is all they had, while millions of dollars sat idle in the banks.
I have no doubt Mother Teresa is toasty warm now, inside one of the rings of Hell.

[MorningGlow]

35. R/T jumps the shark

D00dz...!



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[trotsky]

40. Mother Teresa denied pain medication to those who were suffering.

She believed that such suffering brought them closer to Jesus.

Perhaps you think that is a noble thing to do, Sal316. I do not.

[MorningGlow]

43. LINK?!?!?!?!

Oooh I always wanted to do that! :P
:rofl:

[rug]

48. Chick.com

[MorningGlow]

49. !!!

:rofl:

[trotsky]

56. OMGWTFLOLBBQ!!!!

You are so funny! Or not.

[Green_Lantern]

159. your source is Jack Chick...

A right-wing religious intolerant minister?

[darkstar3]

162. Somebody missed the

:sarcasm:

[trotsky]

55. HERE YA GO!!!!!!!

I always wanted to provide you one!!

From Sanal Edamaruku, president of the Indian Rationalist Association:
http://www.rationalistinternational.net/article/20031020_en.htm

The legend of her Homes for the Dying has moved the world to tears. Reality, however, is scandalous: In the overcrowded and primitive little homes, many patients have to share a bed with others. Though there are many suffering from tuberculosis, AIDS and other highly infectious illnesses, hygiene is no concern. The patients are treated with good words and insufficient (sometimes outdated) medicines, applied with old needles, washed in lukewarm water. One can hear the screams of people having maggots tweezered from their open wounds without pain relief. On principle, strong painkillers are even in hard cases not given. According to Mother Teresa's bizarre philosophy, it is "the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ". Once she tried to comfort a screaming sufferer: "You are suffering, that means Jesus is kissing you!" The man got furious and screamed back: "Then tell your Jesus that he should stop kissing me!" Do we have to be grateful to be the victims of this very special kind of charity? Do we have to tolerate that ignorant and helpless people are used as extras in the inhumane and cruel religious drama of the beauty of suffering in Christ?

BONUS QUOTES from Michael Parenti:
http://www.michaelparenti.org/motherteresa.html

During a press conference in Washington DC, when asked “Do you teach the poor to endure their lot?” she said “I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.”

...

Mother Teresa is a paramount example of the kind of acceptably conservative icon propagated by an elite-dominated culture, a “saint” who uttered not a critical word against social injustice, and maintained cozy relations with the rich, corrupt, and powerful.

She claimed to be above politics when in fact she was pronouncedly hostile toward any kind of progressive reform. Teresa was a friend of Ronald Reagan, and an admiring guest of the Haitian dictator “Baby Doc” Duvalier. She also had the support and admiration of a number of Central and South American dictators.

There's quite a bit in Mother Teresa's theology that leaves something to be desired.

[MorningGlow]

57. YOU CALL THOSE VALID SOURCES?!?!?!

HOGWASH!!! COME BACK WHEN YOU'VE GOT A DECENT MAINSTREAM SOURCE YA LOONEY!

Hey, this is fun!
:rofl:

[trotsky]

58. So the president of the Indian Rationalist Association is a liar?

You know how to use Google, right? Go ahead and pick your own source if you want. I chose that one because it was a simple page and clearly stated.

[MorningGlow]

59. Lighten up, Francis

I was enjoying being on "the other side" of the attack for once. Guess you weren't enjoying it as much. I wonder why. :P

[trotsky]

60. Well at least you have an ally in one of the more obnoxious Christians in here.

Have fun!

[MorningGlow]

64. Trotsky, did you just take your bally and go home?

:rofl:

Oh, and for the record, I did check with teh Google about the painkillers issue before I asked you for a link. After looking through six pages of results, none of which linked to a source I recognized, I decided to throw it to you to prove your claim. Of course, I would NEVER call Sanal Edamaruku (WHO???) a liar, but you've gotta admit that the president of the Indian Rationalist Association MIGHT have a bit of a bias, no?

So, if I held your link to the parameters by which you and your fellow skeptics hold other people's links (you know what I'm talking about)--that is, accepting nothing less than an article published in the New York Times, drawn from a double-blind study conducted under quadruple-secret probation and witnessed, approved, and notarized by Einstein, Curie, and A Third Dead Scientist To Be Named Later, then encased in gold leaf--I'd have to say...um...yeah, I am a bit...hey! skeptical! :think:

And now, Trotsky, my little puddin' pop, I'll generously afford you the last word in our friendly little sparring match, as I have to take the ol' laptop in for repairs, and I don't think I'm going to enjoy posting from my iPod Touch for a few days. Have a lovely weekend! :*

[trotsky]

67. Wait a sec...

You actually thought this was a "sparring match"? LMAO OK, Toots! :hi:

Enjoy your conservative religious icon on the stamp. Everyone needs heroes I suppose!

[uberllama42]

110. Your weasel words aren't helping you

You are accusing Sanal Edamaruku of lying. Your entire point is that you can't trust a skeptic, because they have a tendency to lie about the religious.

But I don't expect anyone to take yous seriously, because it's clear that you are concerned more with raising trotsky's pique than making any kind of point.

[MorningGlow]

113. Sigh--try reading the posts before you strike

If you had READ my posts, you would see that I am questioning Mr. Trotsky's source because Edamaruku is president of a "rationalist" organization. I was asking for a more NEUTRAL (and more well known) source. Get it?

As for "raising Trotsky's pique" (er, the colloquialisms are "raising one's ire" and "causing a fit of pique" but never mind), I was happily yanking Mr. Trotsky's chain because he and other skeptics enjoy demanding links to claims, then discounting them as not valid. Again, if you had READ my posts, you would see that I was enjoying the shoe being on the other foot for once.
Now "go 'way, kid, yer botherin' me". :rofl:

[darkstar3]

114. The colloquialism Mr. Leghorn uses is

"Now go 'way son, ya botha me."

If you're going to invoke the precious Tunes, get them right.

:rofl::hi:

Oh, and BTW: The source of an argument makes no difference if an argument is sound, but of course, you already knew that.

[MorningGlow]

115. Actually I remembered it as "boy"

but I thought that could have too many spurious connotations on an anonymous board. :D

On edit: and this is about a claim (could be true--not saying it absolutely isn't) that, IMO, requires a more neutral source to verify it.

[darkstar3]

116. Darn, you may be right,

but I wanted to get into an argument over interpretation and versioning, 'cause you know, we just don't have enough of those around. :)

MY VERSION IS THE RIGHT VERSION! HOW DARE YOU QUESTION ME !!!11!!!!!111

[MorningGlow]

117. Snerk!

:thumbsup:

[uberllama42]

118. How could I refer to the content of your posts if I hadn't read them?

That's utterly daft, and it drives me batty when people say that.

I don't follow your explanation at all. You are not willing to trust Edamaruku because he is on the other side of a particular debate from MT. That's my explanation of your point. That's your explanation of your point. The only difference I see is that you apparently make some distinction between "Mr. Jones is likely willing to lie about Mr. Smith, because he disagrees with Mr. Smith" and "Mr. Jones is not a reliable source, if he makes claims about Mr. Smith, because he is biased." Nothing you've said, in #113 or elsewhere, makes that distinction clear to me.

I understand your quip about double-blind studies and so forth, and it reinforces my impression that people who believe in the supernatural don't understand how scientific tests work or why they're important. A claim about whether or not MT used appropriate painkillers for the sick in her shelters is not something that would be confirmed or disconfirmed by a double-blind test. So yeah, that joke is probably funny to someone who argues with skeptics a lot, but it really doesn't make any sense at all. You really can't say that the shoe is on the other foot.

"Pique" and "ire" are synonyms. You can use them pretty much interchangeably. Just because "raising one's pique" is not a trope that other people use doesn't mean it's improper. The way I used the word conforms with its established denotation. But thanks for being a pain about it.

[MorningGlow]

133. You're absolutely right

I should have made a better distinction between reading posts and comprehending them. So--one more time for the folks in the cheap seats:

No, I am not willing to trust Edamaruku without verification of his claim from another, more mainstream source. I looked for one and did not find one. Therefore, his claim is just that--a claim--until I hear otherwise from a more neutral source. You have to admit that the president of a "rationalist" society MIGHT just have a bias against a religious person, no? I'm not saying he does, but I am also not going to take his statement at face value without verification from another, neutral source.

You know what I think? I think this is really about something else--that certain skeptics and atheists want believers and "woos" (and anyone else they choose to disdain) to sit quietly and be nice, polite punching bags, and when one speaks up--let alone uses the same argument the skeptics and atheists use (in this case, a request for verification/proof)--the believer/"woo" is being unreasonable. ;)

Oh, and I know that "pique" and "ire" are synonyms. But "raising one's ire" is a colloquialism, while "raising one's pique" is not. :hi:

[MineralMan]

46. Atheists can be moronic, just like anyone else.

This is moronic. I don't like it when atheists act like morons. It makes me have to explain things to people I barely know.

Who cares if Mother Theresa is on a freaking stamp. The freaking Madonna is on a stamp every year. Not she's the supposed freaking mother of Jesus. This is a really bogus issue.

[rd_kent]

50. The head of the FFRF is not an atheist, he is a christian. OOPS!

FORMER evangelical, but still a xtian.

[struggle4progress]

54. The author of "Godless: How An Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists"

Dan Barker, considers himself a Christian? Not according to anything I read. I really don't care whether he's a Christian or not -- but why do you say he is, if he isn't?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Barker

[rd_kent]

61. Thanks for that. From what I have read, he was still a xtian

or at least a beleiver, but a heavyweight supporter of separation of church and state.

[trotsky]

62. You may have simply confused him with the leader of Americans United

(for the Separation of Church and State), Barry Lynn.
http://www.au.org/about/authors/barry-lynn.html

Both are great organizations working hard to defend the Wall.

[rd_kent]

63. Bingo! Thanks again for the correction.

[Goblinmonger]

51. Could I throw out that Mother Theresa is real while the Madonna...

And so if the Madonna shouldn't be on a stamp and is then Mother Theresa should be if it is against the rules.

[rrneck]

47. She was the founder of

an organization that operated under the auspices of the Catholic Church and performed its good works in accordance and with the blessings of that organization. The life of a nun is a life given wholly to service to God through the church. It's part of the job. She was a religious personage and is therefore not eligable for representation on a postage stamp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa

Teresa received Vatican permission on 7 October 1950 to start the diocesan congregation that would become the Missionaries of Charity

...

Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity continued to expand, and at the time of her death it was operating 610 missions in 123 countries, including hospices and homes for people with HIV/AIDS, leprosy and tuberculosis, soup kitchens, children's and family counselling programs, orphanages, and schools.

If Mother Teresa has remained but a lowly nun in the squalor of Calcutta, I would say pointing out flaws in her character would be wrong. But she was the CEO of a huge organization in control of millions of dollars. When you get that big, you get dirty.

[Green_Lantern]

70. If having flaws kept you off stamps...

No one would be on them.

[rd_kent]

73. C'mon, lets be honest here. This is NOT about "flaws" its about USPS rules on stamps.

And MT is precluded, solely on religious basis, to be on a stamp.

Now, I do consider someone who is religious to have a "flaw", but that another thread....

[Green_Lantern]

75. if the rules preclude her..

Then why are religious figures like Jesus and St. Francis on stamps. Rules can be bent obviously.

[rd_kent]

78. Yes, they can, and as I stated in another post to you,the rules have to start being enforced

at some point, right? Why not right now?

[Green_Lantern]

84. where is this rule...

Who decided it...

[rd_kent]

88. Just for you, bud.

http://www.usps.com/communications/organization/csac.htm



9. Stamps or stationery items shall not be issued to honor religious institutions or individuals whose principal achievements are associated with religious undertakings or beliefs.

So. there you go.

[Green_Lantern]

92. well she wouldn't be the first religious figure to be honored

Her achievements weren't religious any more than REVEREND MLK, so I don't think this pertains. She's being honored for helping the poor, not being a founder of a religious order.

[rd_kent]

94. For fucks sake, man! I know, you have repeated that several times!

ANd I said I disagreed with the previous stamps, but the rules HAVE to start being enforced, and now is the time.

[Green_Lantern]

96. well good...

And I think the stamp is fine just as an MLK stamp is. Bending this rule harms no one.

[rd_kent]

99. Eventualyy it does, and THATS the problem.

Its all "ok to bend the rules" until it isnt, and now it isnt.

[Green_Lantern]

123. the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee

Who made up these rules and criteria are the ones who decide on the stamps obviously don't think this violates the criteria.

[rrneck]

103. In your examples they were broken. nt

[rrneck]

95. Her religious affiliation

should keep her off stamps. Those had nothing to do with her eligibility.

It is however appropriate to point out flaws if they are there, especially if that individual has as much financial clout as she did. And she represented an organization that has significantly more.

[MindPilot]

65. This likely would not be an issue if...

This and other minimally obtrusive violations of church-state separation likely would not be an issue if it was not for the fact that the religious insist on sticking their noses into absolutely every facet of our lives.

At some point you can no longer ignore them and you have to step on each and every violation to keep them from getting bigger.

The difference between MLK and MT is that MLK was a great civil rights leader who happened to be a reverend. Mother Teresa was a nun who happened to do some missionary work.

[Green_Lantern]

69. how do you explain..

Jesus and St. Francis being on stamps but not MT, except changing the way things are done just as a screw you to MT?

[MindPilot]

108. I just did. n/t

[Green_Lantern]

68. wouldn't be the first religious figure on a stamp

This atheist group is basing this opposition on an agenda, not protecting USPS rules. Here's a list of other religious figures on stamps:

Fr. Flanagan---founder of Boys Town
George Fox--- one of the first military chaplains killed in WW2
St. Francis of Assissi
Jesus
Martin Luther



There is a history of this so why suddenly are they raising heck over Mother Theresa. She deserves to be on a stamp for the good things she did.

[rd_kent]

74. Just because mistakes were made in the past should not mean at SOME point the rules start to get

enforced. No better time than now to start doing it right, right?

[Green_Lantern]

76. not when it violates common sense..

And hurts no one. This group just has an agenda.

[trotsky]

77. Yeah, an agenda to prevent the creeping erosion of the Wall of Separation

between Church and State.

Fucking extremists - what kind of whacko commie did they get that principle from?

[Green_Lantern]

80. I support separation of church and state but

This doesn't violate that any more than MLK, a Reverend, being on a stamp.

No one is being coerced to use this stamp so I'm unsure how this violates anyone's right to not participate in religion.

[trotsky]

81. Chip, chip, chip, chip.

I'm sure gonna miss that wall when it's gone.

[Green_Lantern]

86. this is like a nerf hammer on that wall

nt

[rd_kent]

89. A million NERF hammers can do a lot of damage.

Don't always need a wrecking ball to bring down a wall.......

[trotsky]

91. It's really no big deal.

Like religious slogans on our money.

Or a prayer before a football game.

Or public funding for religious groups who can discriminate in their hiring.

Just a silly little nerf hammer. Nothing to worry about.

[Green_Lantern]

93. nothing like that...

No one is being coerced to do anything here.

[rd_kent]

100. Ugh! The stupid....

It BURNS!!!!

[rrneck]

105. Maybe not, but they should be coerced.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The USPS should be coerced into abiding by the rules regarding who gets represented on a postage stamp.

[Green_Lantern]

124. it's not a govt. agency funded by taxes...

Also the stamps aren't mandatory. Since its reorganization into an independent organization, the USPS has become self-sufficient and has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s.

[rrneck]

129. Please don't be disingenuous.

From the Wikipedia item you quoted without attribution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service
The United States Postal Service (USPS) is an independent agency of the United States government responsible for providing postal service in the United States. It is one of the few government agencies explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution . Within the United States, it is commonly referred to as the "Post Office", "Postal Service", or "U.S. Mail".

...

Article I, section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution grants U.S. Congress the power to establish post offices and post roads. The Federal Government has interpreted this clause as granting a de facto Congressional monopoly over the delivery of mail. According to the government, no other system for delivering mail - public or private - can be established absent Congress's consent. Congress has delegated to the Postal Service the power to decide whether others may compete with it, and the Postal Service has carved out an exception to its monopoly for extremely urgent letters.

It doesn't matter whether or not the stamps are mandatory. It is unconstitutional to use the power of the government as a vehicle to proselytize. Not once. Not ever. Period. That's why the rule is there, and that's why it was broken and not "just bent".

What's really annoying is the blistering sanctimony and intellectual dishonesty you have displayed here. You should know better.

[Green_Lantern]

136. it wasn't intellectual dishonesty..

I was just mistaken, but still it operates without tax funds. Secondly this stamp isn't pushing religion on anyone. Should MLK not be on a stamp because faith in God drove his activism?

[rrneck]

139. You were willfully mistaken.

This is from your post:
Since its reorganization into an independent organization, the USPS has become self-sufficient and has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s.

This is from the Wikipedia item:
Since its reorganization into an independent organization, the USPS has become self-sufficient and has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s.

You cherry picked a quote to support your point and ignored the balance of the source. That is by definition intellectual dishonesty. Also from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dishonesty
Intellectual dishonesty is dishonesty in performing intellectual activities like thought or communication. Examples are:
the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading
the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context.

Anyone at all interested in reasonable discussion would have examined the article for adaquate information to make an informed opinion.

"but still it operates without tax funds"

The board that selects who goes on a stamp is nominated by the President and their nominations are ratified by the Senate. Exceptions to the monopoly status of the United States Postal Service require an act of Congress. In case you hadn't noticed, that's all three branches of the federal government. It seems that seperation of powers even applies to postage. The funding is irrelevant.

"Secondly this stamp isn't pushing religion on anyone"

If the presence of a religious personage has no impact on the public exposed to it, then you shouldn't mind if Jerry Falwell appears on one. Then again, these are your words: "What did those guys do deserving of this honor? So MLK is the same as Falwell because both are Reverends? That makes me ill to even say." It seems you do mind after all. That's because it does matter. It matters to you because memorializing anyone on a postage stamp is an honor, and when that honor is conferred on a religious personage it makes religion look good. That means you want to use the power of the United States government to proslytize for your faith, a practice that is expressly prohibited by the United States Constitution.

"Should MLK not be on a stamp because faith in God drove his activism?"

I See the Promised Land - Martin Luther King, Jr.'s last speech

http://www.mlkonline.net/video-martin-luther-king-last-speech.html
Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people will get to the promised land. And I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.

Correct. That's because his faith was defined by his religion. All you have to do is listen to any speech he ever gave and if you didn't speak english, you would swear you were listening to a sermon. He was trained as a Baptist minister and he applied that training to the cause of civil rights. He was a great man and a great American, but his religious affiliation precludes his appearance on a postage stamp. To argue otherwise would be to argue that Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson should enjoy that same honor because hundreds of thousands if not millions of people believe that those two crooks have had a positive impact on this country because of their religious convictions.

That is why we have a bill of rights. It is there to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority.

I can't believe I actually have to explain this to you. You are being willfully ignorant. The most generous explaination for your willful ignorance can only be the cognitive dissonance and compartmentalized thinking caused by your religion. If that is the case, it is not a faith at all, but the consumption of a product like having a Nike swoosh on your shoes. If you would approach the issue with more intellectual honesty than you have displayed in this thread it would save us all a lot of trouble.

[Green_Lantern]

149. ...

That's because it does matter. It matters to you because memorializing anyone on a postage stamp is an honor, and when that honor is conferred on a religious personage it makes religion look good.

Well then any person who did something deserving of an honor couldn't be honored if they were driven by faith because it makes faith look good.

Yes I think this honors a person but not for being religious but for doing good for others. Why does the motivation for doing it matter?

[rrneck]

155. Your enthusiasm

for your religion has obviously affected your reading comprehension:

I reiterate:

To argue otherwise would be to argue that Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson should enjoy that same honor because hundreds of thousands if not millions of people believe that those two crooks have had a positive impact on this country because of their religious convictions.

That is why we have a bill of rights. It is there to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority.


What solution do you propose to successfully differentiate the good works a religious personage does from his religious faith in the minds of those who share that faith?

[Green_Lantern]

158. well we differentiate between secular people on stamps...

I can't give an example because it may get me kicked off DU if it's quoted out of context but for instance we put Einstein on a stamp for his scientific discoveries but keep off Joseph Mengele.

I'm not on the advisory board though so I don't have a say.

[rrneck]

164. The

separation clause in the First Amendment does not address distinctions between various secular groups of people. You're being evasive and, once again, intellectually dishonest.

The question was: What solution do you propose to successfully differentiate the good works a religious personage does from his religious faith in the minds of those who share that faith?

Of course you "have a say". You vote the way your religion tells you to.

[Green_Lantern]

167. you don't even know my religious views..

To say I vote for whatever my religion says.

Let's just simplify this...I have no problem with Mother Theresa being on a stamp as long as other people of other religions are allowed on the stamps.

The First Amendment doesn't mean religious people can't get honored for secular accomplishments. We can distinguish by judging the accomplishment.

[rrneck]

171. Yes.

"We can distinguish by judging the accomplishment"

Hence the question which you continue to avoid:
What solution do you propose to successfully differentiate the good works a religious personage does from his religious faith in the minds of those who share that faith?

"I have no problem with Mother Theresa being on a stamp as long as other people of other religions are allowed on the stamps."

Your lack of a problem IS the problem, because that lack is shared by millions of deluded Americans now and millions more of deluded individuals that allowed their religious faith to determine how they structured their government. The sectarian wars, pograms, slaughters and brutalities perpertrated at the behest of a government backed religion are why we have a First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, already discussed at length above.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If you had any real faith in yourself, your religion, or anything else you would answer the question or admit you don't know.

[Green_Lantern]

172. I don't understand what you're asking..

You seem to be fishing for a response you want. We get it, you hate religion.

[rrneck]

173. You claim

to be able to evaluate who merits memorialization on a postage stamp. You claim the evaluation can be made based on an individual's accomplishments in life apart from their religious faith. I am asking you how you are able to separate those good works from the religion of the nominee in the minds of others that share his or her faith. How do you make it clear to others of that faith that the individual is being honored for their good works and not their religion and how do you see to it that their political decisions are not based on the influence of that honoree as a result of an awareness of his or her religious practice?

Since you won't answer one question, now I'll ask you two:

The original: What solution do you propose to successfully differentiate the good works a religious personage does from his religious faith in the minds of those who share that faith?

And a new one that may help you answer the first: Can the practice of religion have any meaningful impact on the actions of those who practice it?

You are feigning ignorance, and it's getting embarrassing (and a little boring).

"We get it, you hate religion."
I hate sanctimony and hypocrisy. You lack sufficient virtue for martyrdom.

[rd_kent]

140. Yes it was and you are being obtuse.

Just because the rule was broken in the past does NOT mean it should be broken again.

MT has no place on a stamp, it is against the rules. Nothing done in the past can justify it, nothing.

[uberllama42]

160. The USPS loses billions of dollars every year

How have they avoided bankruptcy if they don't get tax subsidies?

[Green_Lantern]

161. stamps and delivery fees...

That produces a lot of revenue.

[darkstar3]

163. Federal money laundering.

That has to be it!

[rd_kent]

79. Common sense? Common sense would have kept MT out from the start and we wouldn't even be TALKING

about this.
Common sense would have believers understanding that those that do not share their belief DO NOT WANT that belief shoved in their faces.

Common sense would keep religion in the church and out of politics.

Common sense, huh? Yeah, right.

[Green_Lantern]

82. nothing is shoved in your face..

You can choose to use other stamps.

[rd_kent]

83. Agggh! The stupid.....

it BURNS!!!!!

[Green_Lantern]

85. are you afraid a Christian will mail you

A letter with this stamp?

[rd_kent]

87. You cannot be serious. No one is THIS idiotic.

Please tell me you are being deliberately obtuse and are just having a bit of fun at my expense.

[Green_Lantern]

90. I was joking about the mail thing

nt

[rrneck]

106. I choose that my government abide by the law. nt

[rrneck]

104. Yes, it has an agenda,

and the USPS rules and the United States Constitution on its side.

[Odin2005]

97. She was a monster pretending to be a saint.

[Green_Lantern]

98. doubtfully...

Monsters don't dedicate their lives to helping the poor. She walked the walk.

[rd_kent]

101. Don't post ignorant! Its like driving drunk, just a stupid thing to do.

Read a book, do some research, open your eyes.....

The truth is right there for you to see....

[Green_Lantern]

125. I know about the criticisms against her....

Glenn Beck puts his bs in books too.

[niyad]

107. you mean, like her association with charles keating, of the keating 5?

[Green_Lantern]

126. an association?

He donated money to her charity. Every charity given money by shady people aren't just bad...

[TreasonousBastard]

109. Certainly no proof of the "rationality" of atheism since...

this is worthy of PETA after taking the brown acid.

So, we should repent for the sins of putting Jesus and Mary on stamps. MLK, Gandhi, and Luther too. Extra credit to anyone who knows why we should also repent for Lucretia Mott, William Penn, and Roger Williams on stamps.

And, let's not forget Dante. And that Spanish explorer looking for the Fountain of Youth and the conversion of all native peoples.

Anyway, this is is arguably the most chickenshit argument so far this year, and makes atheists look like batshit crazy assholes to anyone who isn't already a batshit crazy asshole.

I am actually quite fond of several atheists of my acquaintance, and know for a fact that most atheists are not batshit crazy or excessively dogmatic. However, these reasonable atheists seem to be as powerless to shut up the asshole wing as I am to control the asshole wing of Christianity. This is indeed unfortunate, but I have learned to live with it.

Separation of church and state means avoiding the establishment of a state religion and avoiding sponsoring or encouraging one religion or sect over another. It does NOT mean that the Post Office cannot recognize someone who has contributed to society in some way simply because that person has religious ties.

What sort of insanity is it to allow Dizzy Gillespie on a stamp but deny Mother Theresa? What possible rationale is there for that except the batshit wing of the Motormouthed Atheist Movement doesn't like it?

[darkstar3]

112. *sigh* You obviously haven't read

any of the subthreads discussing this topic here, or you would understand a little more about what is going on. I will attempt to summarize the key points, and add some as well:

1. Rules are rules, and should either be adhered to or rewritten. Just because prior incarnations of the Committee have broken those rules doesn't mean the rules should be broken again.
2. The US Post Office, as a government entity, is subject to the Establishment Clause. While it has been argued that the Establishment Clause can be adhered to through "equal time", in practical application this never happens, and the easiest way to avoid breaking the Establishment Clause is to avoid even the possibility of the endorsement of one religion over another.
3. Your statements about "asshole atheists", and in fact even the label itself, are problematic because every atheist is an asshole to someone, and usually to many people. We question the very existence of their gods and the truths they have always clinged to, and in a world where religion has not only demanded respect for millennia, but crushed those who wouldn't give it, this is anathema. Atheists always have been persona non grata with the majority of believers, and the ones who make a point of standing up to question that position will always be labeled as "assholes."
4. When atheists start throwing cans of red paint at churchgoers and shouting "religion is murder!", then you can compare them to PETA. This little argument doesn't even come close to the batshit insanity you claim. Not by half.

[TreasonousBastard]

119. OK...

1-- Rules may be rules, but YOUR interpretation of the rules is not necessarily the right one. Just who decides on the proper interpretation of those rules, and who decides when it is approriate to "break" the rules?

2-- The Post Office is a private entity now, and it is debatable just how much of the Constitution applies to it. Be that as it may, however, you would still have to prove that the Establishment Clause forbids any mention of religion or precludes commemorating a religious figure under any circumstances. Find a series of court decisions, or someone who actually knows something about Constitutional law to argue that point. And while you're at it, explain how it's improper and possibly illegal to have an MLK, Christmas, or Thanksgiving holiday. Or how Congress can't legally begin its sessions with a nondenominational prayer.

3&4-- Atheists have the privilege of being as assholish as any other group, and often they are. This has nothing to do with any discrimination, present or historic, real or perceived, that they may feel.

As much as you pant and rail at our shoving religion into your faces, (which most of us don't do) we would appreciate it if you wouldn't push your nonbelief into ours. If you don't believe in something, the usual thing to do is not to comment on it. What, after all, could you possibly add to the conversation if you do not believe in the original premiss?

To do otherwise would be verging on the assholish.

[darkstar3]

120. In order:

1. The committee decides, with input from the public, and my input, as well as my interpretation, is just as valid as yours.
2. I'd forgotten that the USPS went private, since it happened when I was a child. I find it strange that they are still subject to so many different governmental regulations when they are a private organization, but your point about Constitutional applicability is valid. I stand corrected.
3&4. If you don't believe in something, the usual thing to do is not to comment on it. What, after all, could you possibly add to the conversation if you do not believe in the original premiss(sic)? So it would seem that, for you, atheists must remain silent, or be considered assholes. Gotcha. You'll have to pardon me if my only response to that POV is a hearty "fuck you, and the horse you rode in on." :puke:

[TreasonousBastard]

127. Well...

1-- The committee has decided, and it has decided your interpretation is not the one they will go with.

3&4-- "Premiss" is the way it's spelled in logic texts. Be that as it may, your outrage is misplaced. I never meant that atheists, or anyone else, should remain silent. It is what people say when they choose to speak that often leans toward the posterior.

I keep repeating that there is nothing wrong with atheism, but insisting that atheism is somehow more valid than religion is problematic. And, atheists who constantly chuck spears at religion have little right to complain when a few of those spears are chucked back.

[darkstar3]

134. Wrong.

1. The committee has NOT decided. The stamp is "planned", not finalized, and input from the public is important.

3&4: My outrage is aimed precisely where it should be. You can backtrack all you want, but it won't change what you wrote above. The two statements below, both from you, contradict each other:

If you don't believe in something, the usual thing to do is not to comment on it. What, after all, could you possibly add to the conversation if you do not believe in the original premiss?

I never meant that atheists, or anyone else, should remain silent.

[TreasonousBastard]

143. Dunno about that. The article said an August...

release was planned, and the call is for a boycott, not public comment.

Be that as it may, yes, it would seem that an atheist commenting on religious matters makes as much sense as me commenting on menopause-- silence is not called for, but choose your words very, very, carefully lest you appear the fool.

[darkstar3]

145. And why,

pray tell, does it make so little sense for an atheist to comment on religious matters? Religions are simply very stringently adhered to ideals, nothing more, and nothing less. Anyone, inside or outside of that religion, or even non-religious at all, should be able to discuss those ideals with equal footing and merit.

Claiming that it makes no sense for atheists to comment on religion is exactly the same as claiming that science has no business investigating religion: You are trying to protect religion in general from outside analysis and critical thought. No surprise there, as it is the same thing that has been attempted for centuries.

So here's some turnabout for you: A progressive/liberal/democrat/DUer telling someone that they have no business commenting on a topic makes about as much sense as a lesbian voting republican.

In the future, I suggest you take your own advice.

[rd_kent]

165. The only ones appearing a fool are those that make claims without evidence.

And ALL religious claims are made without evidence.

[Green_Lantern]

168. maybe....

But it's pretty foolish to believe that there is not meaning beyond the religious literalism that reveals truths about life.

[rd_kent]

169. What truths?

[Green_Lantern]

170. that people and the universe...

Have a spiritual element and we have a spiritual connection to the universe.

[rd_kent]

174. Thats a truth? How so?

Can you provide evidence to support that claim?

[Green_Lantern]

183. I meant

Mysteries of the universe.

[rd_kent]

189. If its a "mystery" then its not a "truth" now is it?

Thanks for making my point.

[Green_Lantern]

192. I wasn't disputing your point...

nt

[rd_kent]

194. Then what are we arguing about again?

[rd_kent]

177. Definition of "truth"

truth –noun
1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.
6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
8. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
9. agreement with a standard or original.
10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.



Please explain how your statement fits ANY of those definitions.

[TreasonousBastard]

176. See, this is why atheists should just mind their own business...

and stop making absurd statements. There are theologians who study this stuff specifically to tear it apart and rebuild it.

Yes, there are certain elements of theology and cosmology from some belief systems that are doubtless false premisses. But, not EVERY claim made by any religion is without evidence. And you don't have the background to tell which is which.

Do you also explain to you doctor how to examine you, or your carpenter how to measure a board?

[trotsky]

178. Your religion DOMINATES OUR LIVES.

No, we're not going to shut up about it because your damn religion follows us from cradle to grave in this country whether we like it or not. Your religion is reinforced in the media, by nearly every politician, in our national pledge, in tons of laws, and by the very currency we spend. You enjoy your majority status so much, you are clearly PISSED OFF when anyone even DARES to threaten it.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/003/264xqezm.asp

The Senate passed a resolution by a vote of 99-0 expressing support for the Pledge of Allegiance and its reference to "one nation under God."

Atheists just need to SHUT UP and let the believers do what they want! YEAH!!!

And yes, EVERY claim made by religion lacks SERIOUS evidence. "Because lots of stone age people believed in it" is NOT serious evidence.

Do you also explain to you doctor how to examine you, or your carpenter how to measure a board?

If my doctor started strapping on a phrenology device to my head to diagnose me, or my carpenter pulled out some divining rods to look for hidden pipes in my walls, you bet your ass I'd take issue with them. BONUS QUESTION: what do those items have in common with religion?

[Green_Lantern]

185. you are protesting a stamp...

Galileo faced potential death to challenge the Church's dominance of science. Now that's a meaningful battle I can get behind.

But this atheist group must have too much free time, they are protesting a stamp. This isn't about religious freedom, no one is being forced to do anything.

[trotsky]

186. Chip, chip chip.

You love your majority status too, dontcha?

Some of us feel defending the wall is important.

[Green_Lantern]

190. I'm a disabled American...

So much for majority status.

[trotsky]

195. Red herring.

But thanks for playing.

[rd_kent]

196. It took less than 100....

less than 100 posts for you to reveal yourself. At least we wont have to go on and on and on with the same repeat arguments with you.

less than 100 posts for all of your talking point to get debunked and for you to start down another, totally irrelevant path.

[Green_Lantern]

199. ok fine...

Even in the realm of religion my views have no such majority status. I assume the majority you're refering to are Christian theist.

I'm a nontheist so what majority am I in?

[darkstar3]

187. No one is being forced to do anything,

except allow the federal government to appear to endorse Christianity.

There, fixed it.

[Green_Lantern]

191. do you oppose MLK having a national holiday??

Wasn't he a religious leader?

[darkstar3]

202. There is no reason

to suspect that the federal government is endorsing Christianity with an MLK holiday. The actions gained him praise, the actions that got him that holiday, were sufficiently removed from the tenets of his faith. Hell, MLK even had to stand up to other members of his faith in order to pursue his ideals, or have you forgotten the large number of Southern Baptists who used the Bible to oppose Civil Rights?

Civil Rights was a secular struggle, not a religious one. MLK's motives transcended those of his religion, and therefore he is able to be honored by the government for his accomplishments and leadership.

Tell me how MT even remotely parallels this.

[Green_Lantern]

203. his motives were definitely religious

From his final speech: And then I got to Memphis. And some began to say the threats, or talk about the threats that were out. What would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers? Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. So I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.--- ML King Jr.

[darkstar3]

205. His motives and actions most certainly did not jive with his religion.

As I said above, many of his own faith stood against him, even threatened to silence him. He may have believed that he was doing "God's will", and as such his motives may be considered faith-based, but those motives most certainly didn't come from his religion.

I have no problem recognizing a man who went against his own religion and adapted his own view of God to fit the morality that he so clearly saw in the secular struggle of Civil Rights. This is why I say his motives and his actions transcended his religion, and even transformed his faith.

[Green_Lantern]

207. that's a load....

Yeah right. According to Wikipedia he was a member of The Dexter Avenue Baptist Church:

The Dexter Avenue Baptist Church congregation was organized in 1877 and was first known as the Second Colored Baptist Church. The church trustees paid $270 on January 30, 1879 for a lot at the corner of what is now Dexter Avenue and Decatur Street. The first church building was a small wood-frame building, it began to be replaced by the current structure in 1883. The new brick building was not completed until 1889. The church began serving the broader African American community on October 3, 1887 when it hosted the first registration of students for Alabama State University.

The actual church promoted civil rights for blacks since its conception.

[darkstar3]

208. Such willful ignorance of history.

Tell me, what religion was Strom Thurmond?

ETA: You really want to stop quoting Wikipedia.

[Green_Lantern]

212. What does Strom Thurmond have to do..

With MLKs church? You are really stretching here.

[darkstar3]

214. Stretching? Not so much.

You see, MLK was a Baptist minister.
Strom Thurmond, the senator famous for being a racist prick and filibustering the passage of the Civil Rights Act, was also a Baptist.

Members of MLK's faith stood against him. Many of them, actually. Attempting to state that his small church was the only religious group to which he belonged is incredibly dishonest. He was a Baptist, and a great many Baptists did NOT care for his actions.

[Green_Lantern]

215. baptist just means

The churches have autonomy and no ecclesiastical authority. Each church develops its own philosophy based on its interpretation of the Gospel.

Strom was a member of the Southern Baptist convention and King was a member of the Progressive National Baptist convention who preached that Christ's teachings supported social justice.

[darkstar3]

217. Can I borrow your razor?

I need to shave later so something that can split hairs that thin will certainly be better than the week old razor I have left.

[Green_Lantern]

219. if I did have a razor..

I'd use it to cut my ears off to avoid hearing atheists complain about stamps.

[darkstar3]

221. Now THAT'S a picture of intolerance!

You'd rather maim yourself than listening to opposing viewpoints?

[Green_Lantern]

222. wow you're way too literal

n/t

[darkstar3]

225. While you overuse hyperbole,

spout falsehoods, and split hairs. I wasn't being "too literal", friend, I was mocking your bitchy and hyperbolic show of intolerance.

[Green_Lantern]

224. no I'll talk to atheists..

Just not the ones complaining about silly things.

[darkstar3]

226. Keep diggin' that hole...n/t

[rd_kent]

179. Show me ONE religious claim that has supporting evidence.

Just one.

[darkstar3]

180. What sanctimonius horeseshit!

First, see #145, and second, comparing theologians to doctors and carpenters is the false-est of false parallels.

Theologians fall prey to two problems:
1. Bias: A theologian is someone who studies their religious texts from the specific point of view that those texts are true.
2. Lack of factual rigor: You can study and spout all the context you want about the Bible or other holy texts, but the bottom line is that there are NO facts to back up the major claims made by these books.

Theologians do not look at these texts, dogmas, and ideas with a truly critical eye. If they did, C.S. Lewis' apologetic works, among many others, would be laughed out of divinity schools. Further, since there are zero recognized standards or practices to the study or application of holy texts, theologians hold no special office or standing over laymen in the debate of religious ideas.

Now I suppose your argument will be to tell me to shut up? :eyes:

[rd_kent]

121. Ahh, I see, if atheists would just shut up, everything would be fine?

How about this....YOU, as in believers, shut up. How about you keep your religion in your, in your homes and in your private life where it belongs, and we will too! Deal?

[TreasonousBastard]

128. More to the point...

many of us see our religions as lifestyles, and can't exactly keep it to outselves when that lifestyle insists we try to reduce or eliminate things like poverty and the death penalty. This would also include Unitarians, Ethical Culturists, and other groups not exactly known as firebreathing preachers. Should we all stop this because the source of our belief and work might offend a nonbeliever somewhere? Or that some other beliefs by Catholics and Baptists might not be so acceptable to some?

And many, such as Jews, are content to celebrate their culture and beliefs without evangelyzing. They should stop?

On the other hand, too many on all sides prefer to criticize others, and that's where the trouble starts. Atheism is not a problem-- the mocking of religion by some atheists and the proseltyzing that they have the "Truth" is a problem.

[rd_kent]

130. Point taken, but I think you are being willfully obtuse to my point.

I think you are smart enough to understand the point I was trying to make. You are aren't you?



Atheism is not a problem-- the mocking of religion by some atheists and the proselytizing that they have the "Truth" is a problem.

And that is what I am talking about. WHen believers STOP telling everyone else that they are right, that they have the only answer and that not believing in exactly what they believe in will lead to an eternity of suffering, I think you will see the mocking stop.



We can start right here in the R&T forum.......

[TreasonousBastard]

144. Just for shits and giggles, kindly point out where...

a believer has claimed to have "the truth" around here. The most I've seen is someone saying "I believe" not "You should believe."

For extra credit, compare the number of believers compared with atheists who claim the truth.

Even better, compare the number of posts calling believers fools with the ones calling atheists fools.

[rd_kent]

166. Read throught he forum for your answer.

Its all right there in front of you.

[TreasonousBastard]

175. Yes, it is-- all religions are false, religion has no place in...

modern life, invisible friends, religion is responsible for every bad thing that has ever happened...

etc. etc...

And that's just the unsolicited comments-- every time someone says something positive about any religion, out come the flamethrowers.

[darkstar3]

181. .

[rrneck]

131. Has the constitution been amended?

The United States Postal Service (USPS) is an independent agency of the United States government responsible for providing postal service in the United States. It is one of the few government agencies explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution.

...

The Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service sets policy, procedure, and postal rates for services rendered, and has a similar role to a corporate board of directors. Of the eleven members of the Board, nine are appointed by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate (see 39 U.S.C. § 202). The nine appointed members then select the United States Postmaster General, who serves as the board's tenth member, and who oversees the day to day activities of the service as Chief Executive Officer

...

Article I, section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution grants U.S. Congress the power to establish post offices and post roads. The Federal Government has interpreted this clause as granting a de facto Congressional monopoly over the delivery of mail. According to the government, no other system for delivering mail - public or private - can be established absent Congress's consent.

[Amaya]

111. While I think it's absurd that the FFRF picks on Mother Teresa

it's equally laughable you posting this...

aw shucks, Sal come back to the dark side!
:evilgrin:

[Laura902]

122. as an atheist

I would say just don;t buy the freakin' stamp and get over it

[rrneck]

132. Fine. Lovely. Lets put these guys on postage stamps too

Jim Jones


Tomás de Torquemada (1420–1498), prominent leader of the Spanish Inquisition.


David Koresh


Jerry Falwell


Pat Robertson


Robert Tilton
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_TjrYAgaMNsg/SQj2LuQsTfI/AAAAAAAAAJw/5-QpwWK9jqM/s400/Robert+Tilton.jpg

How's that idea grab ya'? Why is it the controversy is always about whether or not the government should or should not make religion look good, but the issue of the government making religion look bad is as rare as hen's teeth?

[Green_Lantern]

137. that's a stretch....

What did those guys do deserving of this honor? So MLK is the same as Falwell because both are Reverends? That makes me ill to even say.

[rrneck]

141. If you want to trumpet the

accomplishments of an individual because of their faith, you cannot deny the faults of others when they share the same faith. And don't even start with that one true scotsman bullshit.

[Deep13]

147. MLK was a great man because of his deeds.

It has nothing to do with them all being clergy. Mother Theresa has far more in common with with the Fundies and extremists than she does with MLK.

[Green_Lantern]

150. yeah right...

Living amongst the poorest people in India is nothing like Jerry Falwell. How was she like fundies?

[Ian David]

142. When do we get our Carl Sagan stamp?!?!?!

Proposed Carl Sagan commemorative stamps unveiled at Ithaca Sciencenter



http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Feb08/sagan.stamps.aj.html



Petition to put Carl Sagan on a stamp
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/02/20/petition-to-put-carl.html

[Green_Lantern]

151. who opposes that?

n/t

[Deep13]

148. Agnesë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu, alias "Mother Teresa," is not the person most think she was.

What's with religious figures and their psuedonyms?

Here's one critical article I found with a quick google search.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_16_4.html

And spare us the ad hominem, blame the messenger accusations. Telling me that Hitchens is an asshole or a drunk is not the same thing as telling me he's wrong.

A more informal criticism that reads like a school paper:

http://www.fitz-claridge.com/Articles/MotherTeresa.html

[Green_Lantern]

152. Hitchens criticisms are dumb..

Examples:

The care facilities are grotesquely simple: rudimentary, unscientific, miles behind any modern conception of what medical science is supposed to do.

Same thing can be said of Haiti and Red Cross facilities, not for a lack of money but lack of access, supplies, etc.


Hitchens isn't objective at all.

[Deep13]

153. They have hospitals in India.

Teresa's place was "a home for the dying." She said she operated it because being around suffering made her feel close to Jesus. She has been widely criticised for not doing much to help her patients actually recover from their ailments.

[Green_Lantern]

154. I know they have hospitals in India...

But I doubt the people she helped were at the top of their list. They are the so-called untouchables.

She never said watching people suffer made her feel closer to Jesus, she said that suffering can increase someone's faith.

And the First Noble truth in Buddhism is that life is suffering.

[trotsky]

156. Wow, I am completely disgusted.

You agree that suffering is a good thing.

Christianity is really fucked up. At least SOME people's interpretation of it.

[Green_Lantern]

157. no I didn't...

I didn't say suffering is a good thing, it's just reality. Life involves suffering.

Hard times can increase someone's faith because it can help them get through tough times.

That doesn't mean I wish suffering on people.

[Odin2005]

211. The Buddhist term "Dukka" is usually translated as "suffering" but doesn't have the same meaning.

The term means something more like "existential unsatisfactoriness", which does refer to actual suffering, but also refers to how we become disillusioned because pleasurable experiences never last. "suffering" makes Buddhism seem more negative then it actually is.

[Green_Lantern]

213. Well don't many Buddhists believe displeasure

Is illusory, like everything in life?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

182. Mother T. was a scam artist extraordinaire.

She took millions of dollars and did not use ANY of it to help patients with medical care. She thought their suffering made them closer to God. They didn't think so.
Her book keeper talked to Hitchens and told him that they were not allowed to use any money, even small amounts, for their own nuns' care, nor to use it to help patients.

To me that is absolutely criminal. She was not running a hospital and she was NOT relieving suffering.

Hitchens was observing observable fact -- no health care or medicines, and NOT because of lack of money. Far from it.

[Green_Lantern]

184. life is suffering...

If you don't think so maybe you need to work amongst the poor in India. I simply doubt your assertion that she spent no money on the poor.

Hitchens is a cheerleader for Mideast intervention yet you blindly trust him on this?

[darkstar3]

188. You've made that point already,

but just because "life is suffering" doesn't mean we need to allow such suffering when something can be done about it, and that's part of the reason why some people are angry at MT.

As for your second sentence, are you perhaps familiar with the concept of "ad hominem"?

[Green_Lantern]

193. I am doubting your assertion..

That she did nothing to alleviate anyone's suffering. If it's true perhaps you can provide an example of this happening.

The poor in India aren't exactly given the same access to medical care as in Western countries. Why is that her fault?

[darkstar3]

197. The examples have been given in this thread.

You've denied their validity based solely on the fact that you don't like the source, which is an ad hom.

[Green_Lantern]

200. I'm denying it based on the fact....

You haven't even quoted Hitchens for me to even look up the assertion.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

209. Direct quote from Hitchens about what he found. Millions of $$, no treatment.

http://www.christianaggression.com/item_display.php?type=ARTICLES&id=1058908715

Hitchens interview with Free Inquiry magazine excerpt:

FI: You point out that, although she is very open about promoting Catholicism, Mother Teresa has this reputation of holiness amongst many non-Catholics and even secular people. And her reputation is based upon her charitable work for the sick and dying in Calcutta. What does she actually do there? What are her care facilities like?

HITCHENS: The care facilities are grotesquely simple: rudimentary, unscientific, miles behind any modern conception of what medical science is supposed to do. There have been a number of articles - I've collected some more since my book came out - about the failure and primitivism of her treatment of lepers and the dying, of her attitude towards medication and prophylaxis. Very rightly is it said that she tends to the dying, because if you were doing anything but dying she hasn't really got much to offer.

This is interesting because, first, she only proclaims to be providing people with a Catholic death, and, second, because of the enormous amounts of money mainly donated to rather than raised by her Order. We've been unable to audit this - no one has ever demanded an accounting of how much money has flowed in her direction. With that money she could have built at least one absolutely spanking new, modern teaching hospital in Calcutta without noticing the cost.

The facilities she runs are as primitive now as when she first became a celebrity. So that's obviously not where the money goes.

FI: How much money do you reckon she receives?

HITCHENS: Well, I have the testimony of a former very active member of her Order who worked for her for many years and ended up in the office Mother Teresa maintains in New York City. She was in charge of taking the money to the bank. She estimates that there must be $50 million in that bank account alone. She said that one of the things that began to raise doubts in her mind was that the Sisters always had to go around pretending that they were very poor and they couldn't use the money for anything in the neighborhood that required alleviation. Under the cloak of avowed poverty they were still soliciting donations, labor, food, and so on from local merchants. This she found as a matter of conscience to be offensive.

Now if that is the case for one place in New York, and since we know what huge sums she has been given by institutions like the Nobel Peace committee, other religious institutions, secular prize-giving organizations, and so on, we can speculate that if this money was being used for the relief of suffering we would be able to see the effect.

FI: So the $50 million is a very small portion of her wealth?

HITCHENS: I think it's a very small portion, and we should call for an audit of her organization. She carefully doesn't keep the money in India because the Indian government requires disclosure of foreign missionary organizations funds.

I think the answer to questions about her wealth was given by her in an interview where she said she had opened convents and nunneries in 120 countries. The money has simply been used for the greater glory of her order and the building of dogmatic, religious institutions.


================

[Green_Lantern]

228. about Hitchens...

Newsweek said:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/104081">Disquieting as his specifics are, Hitchens hasn't done the extensive investigative work to justify his scorched-earth condemnation. He quotes one disaffected member of Mother Teresa's order who claims some $50 million accumulated in a single checking account in the Bronx and that the vast sums taken in never reached the poor. But Hitchens has no idea how much the order takes in or what it costs to run its far-flung operations. And his flippant tone--why the title's sophomoric double-entendre?--and refusal to take into account Roman Catholic dogma make us distrust his objectivity.


Hitchens is a lying hack. It's not ad hom to say his willingness to lie to support invading Iraq goes to show his lack of objectivity.

Is this article all lies: http://www.newsweek.com/id/96859

[Green_Lantern]

229. Hitchens twisted reality to fit his version of the story

Well, I have the testimony of a former very active member of her Order who worked for her for many years and ended up in the office Mother Teresa maintains in New York City. She was in charge of taking the money to the bank. She estimates that there must be $50 million in that bank account alone. She said that one of the things that began to raise doubts in her mind was that the Sisters always had to go around pretending that they were very poor and they couldn't use the money for anything in the neighborhood that required alleviation. Under the cloak of avowed poverty they were still soliciting donations, labor, food, and so on from local merchants. This she found as a matter of conscience to be offensive.


Reality:http://www.newsweek.com/id/61858">Mother Teresa refused to allow the sisters in her order to use washers or dryers to clean their clothes. Nor would she allow them to buy milk and other commodities in bulk to save shopping time. Her argument was that her sisters should live like the poor they served. "I took a vow of poverty, not efficiency," she said.

[Green_Lantern]

201. MT quotes on suffering

“Without out suffering, our work would just be social work, very good and helpful, but it would not be the work of Jesus Christ, not part of the Redemption. All the desolation of the poor people, not only their material poverty, but their spiritual destitution, must be redeemed. And we must share it, for only by being one with them can we redeem them by bringing God into their lives and bringing them to God.” http://thinkexist.com/quotation/without-out-suffering-our-work-would-just-be/538344.html

[darkstar3]

210. And you think she needs to be recognized for that?

And we must share , for only by being one with them can we redeem them by bringing God into their lives and bringing them to God.”

So food, water, healthcare, shelter, clothing, these things are all secondary to God in the redeeming of people from suffering. I think not.

[Green_Lantern]

216. she didn't say that...

She didn't say we shouldn't help people by fulfilling physical needs. She was talking about spiritual redemption not just for them but for everyone.

I think even atheists realize people have more than just physical needs.

[darkstar3]

218. .

I never put words in her mouth. She plainly stated that the primary way to help those who suffer is to bring them to God and bring God into their lives. All other methods of relieving suffering are, obviously to her, secondary to God.

Blankets, food, water, and shelter are not secondary to imaginary friends for those who are cold, hungry, and sick.

[Green_Lantern]

220. reread it..

All the desolation of the poor people, not only their material poverty, but their spiritual destitution, must be redeemed.

But you're going to believe whatever you want.

[darkstar3]

223. Another impasse.

But you're going to believe whatever you want.
You've show thoroughly in this thread that this statement applies to you personally. You can throw it at me if you want, but all you're doing is shutting down the conversation.

[Green_Lantern]

227. ok just as a sign of good faith..

I really will check out Hitchens' claims you quoted.

[rd_kent]

198. Hewy SAL316 , its been a week since you posted this and you have yet to respond. WTF?

Or is one of your sock puppets doing the talking on this one?

[Amaya]

204. can't stop laughing

his degree in theology from a highly qualified internet college has rendered him an expert in gods will!
:wow: :rofl:

sorry Sal... couldn't resist :)

[darkstar3]

206. A highly qualified internet college?

I missed THAT mockworthy aspect! :rofl:

[ChadwickHenryWard]

230. I say let them put the old fraud on a stamp.

It's just the Post Office. It's not like their rules are of any real significance.