Posted on 01/28/2010 11:02:50 AM PST by ColdOne
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.
The stamp -- set to be released on Aug. 26, which would have been Mother Teresa's 100th birthday -- will recognize the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize winner for her humanitarian work, the Postal Service announced last month.
"Noted for her compassion toward the poor and suffering, Mother Teresa, a diminutive Roman Catholic nun and honorary U.S. citizen, served the sick and destitute of India and the world for nearly 50 years," the Postal Service said in a press release. "Her humility and compassion, as well as her respect for the innate worth and dignity of humankind, inspired people of all ages and backgrounds to work on behalf of the world’s poorest populations."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
If such a regulation exists, would it not be an unconstitutional discrimination against religion?
That said, how often do we honor foreigners on our stamps? Why her? Was it part of a series of Nobel Prize winners?
Wllingness to take dirty money. Discouraging nuns from getting medical training so they could better deal with the sick and dying, resulting in a standard of care lower than it could have been. Most of all her general belief that suffering is good, and having no desire to end it, only to help make it more bearable.
Source?
We also have Christmas stamps every year.
I am tired of these self-loathing individuals.
If they show up at my place, I have a couple of bullets and some empty land & backhow\e waiting for them. Let them go back to God and try again with another life.
Just like those who think Catholics shouldn’t work in Emergency Rooms.
Did the atheists boycott the “Eid Stamp” last September?
Good Lord, can they get any worse?
Time for me to go out and buy a bunch and plaster them on every piece of mail I send out.
What? Are these “atheists” afraid they’ll burst into flames if someone sent them a letter with a Mother Teresa stamp on it?
Must be.
Wow, I thought this was well-known. You could probably start with her Wikipedia entry and go to the various sources cited. For the finances, she took money from Duvalier and Keating and praised them as good people for their donations. IIRC, she even pleaded for leniency for Keating, which would mean she knew the money she got was stolen.
That would kind of make them not atheists, wouldn't it? You have to believe in something in order to believe it can harm you.
The fact that they often act as if touching a rendering of a religious figure or entering a religious building could have some special meaning due to the religious nature leads me to believe that they are not atheists, but anti-theists (or, more specifically, anti-Christians).
Matthew 16:24-25 Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it.
Where in the world could have Mother Teresa gotten a crazy idea like that?
The source being cited is uncorroborated by someone who left the order so take if for what it is worth -
"Colette Livermore, a former Missionary of Charity, describes her reasons for leaving the order in her book Hope Endures: Leaving Mother Teresa, Losing Faith, and Searching for Meaning. Livermore found what she called Mother Theresa's "theology of suffering" to be flawed, despite being a good and courageous person. Though Mother Theresa instructed her followers on the importance of spreading the Gospel through actions rather than theological lessons, Livermore could not reconcile this with some of the practices of the organization. Examples she gives include unnecessarily refusing to help the needy when they approached the nuns at the wrong time according to the prescribed schedule, discouraging nuns from seeking medical training to deal with the illnesses they encountered (with the justification that God empowers the weak and ignorant), and imposition of "unjust" punishments, such as being transferred away from friends. Livermore says that the Missionaries of Charity "infantilized" its nuns by prohibiting the reading of secular books and newspapers, and emphasizing obedience over independent thinking and problem-solving.[49]"
I don't know. It's kind of a twisted masochistic theology. Jesus wasn't talking about suffering for suffering's sake, he was saying to endure any necessary suffering in following him because the reward will be greater than the suffering.
Exactly what I was thinking.
So you are a big Christopher Hitchens fan especially his book the "The Missionary Position"?
You are ignorant with regards to the Catholic teachings and understandings on suffering so I forgive you for your error.
Also, as go along with Hitchens on slandering a holy woman with regards to her dealings with Keating you might want to skim the Hitchens book where it states in her letter that Mother Teresa didn't know anything about Keatings dealings. She was writing a letter to the judge just to tell the judge about Keatings dealings with the poor, nothing else. There is no pleading for clemency or anything like that in it. One kind letter to a judge.
Hitchens is one sick puppy that should be avoided like the plague.
Here goes:
If we take the word “religion” to be mean a belief system and world view determined by said belief system*, there are two religions in the world. Everyone, regardless of label, falls into one category or another**.
1. Those who not only believe in God, but accept and try to follow the rules set out in the scriptures of the world; which are, in the main, largely in agreement over the basic rules of morality, behavior and values for human society. For instance, prohibitions of sex before and outside of marriage, against homosexual acts, against murder, theft, false witness, blasphemy, and so on. And finer concepts as avoiding lust, greed, anger, envy, covetousness, and so on.
Another aspect of this meaning of religion is the world view that this mortal world is not our eternal home, but a sort of testing ground; with the real home in the eternal Kingdom of God, and that true happiness can be found only in relationship with the Supreme Godhead.
2. The other world view and belief system is based on atheism, hedonism and moral relativity - which is based on hypocrisy, since what it really means is that only their view point is valid.
This world view is not just espoused by outright atheists*** but many who claim to believe in “God” - but the “God” they supposedly worship does not have the actual qualities of God. For instance, various denominations who allow homosexuals to be priests and ministers, consider abortion perfectly okay, and so on. Up to the Metropolitan Community “Church” that is focused solely on homosexuality, or Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity Church which is merely a racist and marxist political group using sort of Christian sounding slogans occasionally.
Religion #2 views this world as all in all, and seeks to find perfection in this world; perfection in their eyes meaning the most enjoyment possible (in their view) before the worms take over. “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow you die”. There is no God in control (other than a superficial label pinned on), you make your own rules, each sees his own desires and whims as the guiding light in life, or the whims of others who have similar values and world view.
The really bad news is that Religion #2 is completely intolerant of any of the viewpoints, morality or world view of religion #1 having any sway in public life. They pretend that there is “neutral ground” for public life, and that Religion #1 should not have influence over public policy, in supposed deference to “secularism” or “neutrality”.
But, the problem is that there are only two world views, or two religions. If theists cannot influence public life, than atheism and hedonism are the standard. There can only be one standard, there is no neutral ground.
* Of course, there are other meanings of the word “religion” but leaving that for another day.
** I am also leaving Islam aside for now as that is a whole ‘nother category in a sense. Or a subset.
*** An interesting point is that there atheists who are content to live in a world peopled by group #1 with the morals and values of group #1. Such atheists are another subset. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.