Does't matter if they all Mother Teresa ..
The USA is not obligated to take them in.

Go back home-- We don't want you. Go waist you own government dollars.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Christopher Hitchens - Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Your video, Penn & Teller - Mother Teresa is Bullshit, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'poverty, disease, suffering, christopher hitchens, mother teresa' to 'poverty, disease, suffering, christopher hitchens, mother teresa, bill donohue' - edited by xxovercastxx

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Christopher-Hitchens-Hells-Angel-Mother-Teresa

Penn & Teller - Mother Teresa is Bullshit has been added as a related post - related requested by xxovercastxx on that post.

Christopher Hitchens - Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa has been added as a related post - related requested by xxovercastxx.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'poverty, disease, suffering, Hitchens' to 'poverty, disease, suffering, christopher hitchens, mother teresa' - edited by xxovercastxx

@ReverendTed bankers work in an industry like any other, there's nothing characteristically evil about their job or their role in society. If government, however, gave [insert random group here] the same powers it hands over to bankers these days, the corruption and damage to society would likely happen on the same scale.

TL;DR: Doesn't matter if you put Mother Teresa as chairman of the Fed.

Btw, I know you're not trying to make any sense of what I'm saying, you're just being a dick. Kudos for being so spectacular at it.

I think we've discussed on several threads now how Paul would endorse a society that openly tolerates racial discrimination. In the context of everything he has done to support and encourage racism, even if he claims to be an angel, the newsletters are very relevant.>> ^quantumushroom:

@NetRunner
Unfortunately for Dr. Paul, no matter how he explains (or fails to explain) liberal accusations of being a racist, he can't win.
Paul has said his aides told him he has to take responsibility for the newsletters' content, whether or not only "a few" statements were terrible, and whether or not he was the author (it's generally conceded he was not, but as you and others will readily point out, his name was in big letters on the top and he was the publisher).
The problem with labeling anyone a racist is that in 2012 it's the equivalent of crying wolf. It's so overused as to be meaningless. In Dr. Paul's case, because the drive-by media refuse to do their damned jobs, you get jabs like this:
RoPaul voted AGAINST awarding Rosa Parks a Congressional Gold Medal! OMG RACISM!
No one bothers to note that Paul also 'opposed giving the medal to Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II as well, so it doesn’t appear race had anything to do with his stance.
'Paul has generally applauded lawmakers for wanting to issue the Gold Medal, but he insists they should put up their own money instead of asking taxpayers to foot the bill, which typically runs about $30,000 for each award.'
What I'm saying in too many words is that the entire anti-Paul/anti-libertarian brigade is howling about an ace hidden in Dr. Paul's sleeve, while every game in their casino is rigged.
You say whether Obama, Wright and you (and/or me) are racist has no bearing on whether Paul is racist. Well, if we're ALL 'racist' then what does it matter?
We're looking for a President, not a saint. LBJ was crazier than a sh1thouse rat, but to the left he was some kind of hero for pushing the Civil Rights Act. Yet LBJ is also quoted as saying "I'll have those n gg rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
I didn't go looking for Dr. Paul's writing on the moral evils of discrimination. As he is a believer in individual rights (and responsibility) I don't see how he could be either an overt or closet racist to the extent you're describing. He's against Drug Prohibition, which is inherently racist, and more questionably, against "wars" because minorities, according to him, have it harder in the military.
Our common framework is you're going to find plenty of dirt to dislike him, and peeps like me will see enough good in him to atone for any misgivings, despite Paul's wacky, totally unrealistic worldview where we recall ALL our troops from all over the world (allowing red china to easily take over). Again, we're electing a ripe-for-corruption American President, not a saint.

@NetRunner

Unfortunately for Dr. Paul, no matter how he explains (or fails to explain) liberal accusations of being a racist, he can't win.

Paul has said his aides told him he has to take responsibility for the newsletters' content, whether or not only "a few" statements were terrible, and whether or not he was the author (it's generally conceded he was not, but as you and others will readily point out, his name was in big letters on the top and he was the publisher).

The problem with labeling anyone a racist is that in 2012 it's the equivalent of crying wolf. It's so overused as to be meaningless. In Dr. Paul's case, because the drive-by media refuse to do their damned jobs, you get jabs like this:

RoPaul voted AGAINST awarding Rosa Parks a Congressional Gold Medal! OMG RACISM!

No one bothers to note that Paul also 'opposed giving the medal to Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II as well, so it doesn’t appear race had anything to do with his stance.

'Paul has generally applauded lawmakers for wanting to issue the Gold Medal, but he insists they should put up their own money instead of asking taxpayers to foot the bill, which typically runs about $30,000 for each award.'

What I'm saying in too many words is that the entire anti-Paul/anti-libertarian brigade is howling about an ace hidden in Dr. Paul's sleeve, while every game in their casino is rigged.

You say whether Obama, Wright and you (and/or me) are racist has no bearing on whether Paul is racist. Well, if we're ALL 'racist' then what does it matter?

We're looking for a President, not a saint. LBJ was crazier than a sh1thouse rat, but to the left he was some kind of hero for pushing the Civil Rights Act. Yet LBJ is also quoted as saying "I'll have those n*gg*rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

I didn't go looking for Dr. Paul's writing on the moral evils of discrimination. As he is a believer in individual rights (and responsibility) I don't see how he could be either an overt or closet racist to the extent you're describing. He's against Drug Prohibition, which is inherently racist, and more questionably, against "wars" because minorities, according to him, have it harder in the military.

Our common framework is you're going to find plenty of dirt to dislike him, and peeps like me will see enough good in him to atone for any misgivings, despite Paul's wacky, totally unrealistic worldview where we recall ALL our troops from all over the world (allowing red china to easily take over). Again, we're electing a ripe-for-corruption American President, not a saint.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You can't earn your way into Heaven. We are saved by grace, which is unmerited favor. So, even if you did better works than 10 Mother Teresas, if you don't know Jesus Christ, you are still dead in your sins. It's only through Him that we are redeemed, and not by our works, but only our faith in Him is what justifies us.
If you're walking with the Lord then you are not going to commit suicide. The salvation of anyone doing so is in doubt. God gives us the strength to overcome, but when you walk away from Him you open yourself to spiritual oppression, which is where feelings of depression and suicide come from. So, anyone getting to that point had probably been walking away for awhile.

>> ^Porksandwich:
I wouldn't say Im an atheist, but I certainly don't follow any organized religions. I generally like logical answers, atheism usually has those when it comes to religion vs science discussions......but I also don't like people who say that all religions are 100% wrong. I like to think that all of them have a bit of truth to them, and people are too focused on the rest of the crap associated with it that the overall message is lost. Think of them as exaggerated stories, fairy tales, mythology.....just general stories that pass on a code of conduct and some lessons.
Now with that said. I have always wondered if the idea of suicide being a mortal sin is what keeps many religious followers from killing themselves as soon as they find the religion that gives them the best "deal". It's how terrorists operate, it's what nut jobs on the news use as an excuse to kill their kids and themselves.....to "save" them. I mean you are basically living your life by a set of commandments/codes/whatever and doing things to "earn" your way in. You live this life, for an eternal one.....but it seems like too many just look at the destination and ignore the journey. Kind of a, it sucks now and we can't do anything about it (we're being tested, it's a trial, it's our punishment, it's whatever), but eventually we'll get to <insert "heaven" equivalent here>.



I normally have you ignored, but apparently the site still sends emails when an ignored person quotes or mentions you (consider this a bug report to whomever I am supposed to report these to) and it also includes their text.

So, after reading this nonsense, I had to respond.

1) If you "know JC" and "believe in Him", going out and murdering a few dozen people should not allow access to Heaven. So, by not murdering said people, you are in fact "earning" your way in by acting within the guidelines of said religion which also include "knowing JC" and "believing in Him". The notion that someone who is of sound mind and practices a religion that can then go out and break all the guidelines set by it and still get in via grace is no place I would want to exist for eternity.

2) If following God prevents mental illness (depression is a mental illness), why does reading all of your commentary depress me so? Shouldn't I feel better simply by reading all this nonsense? Plus I think you should poll your fellow church goers to see how many are on mood stabilizers or hit the bottle hard in the evenings. I don't think strength = heavy drinking or pills.....or counseling or therapy...or any other coping mechanism for that matter. I think you'll find your list of people walking with the Lord is very small, and that seems like they are forsaking him by their actions and therefore would be denied entry into Heaven. It just doesn't make sense for people to have to rely on external factors to stave off depression if walking with Him prevents mental illness, so the only other explanation is they are faking it.

Atheists have a higher suicide rate. I argue this is because they don't have the guidelines of a religion stating that suicide is a unforgivable sin and that they are not fearful of missing out on heaven/virgins/whatever. It's far too simple an answer to explain away suicide as the forsaking of faith. But it's rather depressing to know that your life has to remain shit because religious people hold sway in many decisions that are contrary to scientific evidence....preventing others from alleviating suffering. Stem cells, certain drugs, scientific research, etc.

It strikes me as supremely arrogant to assume that your will and wish is the will of your deity, and that free will of others should be suppressed because they aren't in lockstep with your beliefs.

Please don't quote me or tag me if you respond to this, hopefully they'll fix the ignore function a little better in the future.

You can't earn your way into Heaven. We are saved by grace, which is unmerited favor. So, even if you did better works than 10 Mother Teresas, if you don't know Jesus Christ, you are still dead in your sins. It's only through Him that we are redeemed, and not by our works, but only our faith in Him is what justifies us.

If you're walking with the Lord then you are not going to commit suicide. The salvation of anyone doing so is most likely in doubt, but that isn't for certain. What I know is that God gives us the strength to overcome, but when you walk away from Him you open yourself to spiritual oppression, which is where feelings of depression and suicide come from. So, anyone getting to that point had probably been walking away for awhile. It's not cut and dry but I would say that's how it is in general.

>> ^Porksandwich:
I wouldn't say Im an atheist, but I certainly don't follow any organized religions. I generally like logical answers, atheism usually has those when it comes to religion vs science discussions......but I also don't like people who say that all religions are 100% wrong. I like to think that all of them have a bit of truth to them, and people are too focused on the rest of the crap associated with it that the overall message is lost. Think of them as exaggerated stories, fairy tales, mythology.....just general stories that pass on a code of conduct and some lessons.
Now with that said. I have always wondered if the idea of suicide being a mortal sin is what keeps many religious followers from killing themselves as soon as they find the religion that gives them the best "deal". It's how terrorists operate, it's what nut jobs on the news use as an excuse to kill their kids and themselves.....to "save" them. I mean you are basically living your life by a set of commandments/codes/whatever and doing things to "earn" your way in. You live this life, for an eternal one.....but it seems like too many just look at the destination and ignore the journey. Kind of a, it sucks now and we can't do anything about it (we're being tested, it's a trial, it's our punishment, it's whatever), but eventually we'll get to <insert "heaven" equivalent here>.

@hpqp

Rational debate often isn't what happens here on the Sift, unfortunately, which is why I have indeed moved on to other sites--sites where the majority of discussion challenges people's assumptions without the need for cheap theatrics like sarcasm or insults or condescension.

I have no problem with upvoting or downvoting comments (you seem to have misunderstood my point there). I have a problem to the pandering for upvotes through insulting another poster without addressing the content of their post in any rational way (and thereby dismissing the original poster's argument--ad hominem in its purest form). That's a practice that is becoming a bit too frequent here in my opinion and the way this thread has developed is damning evidence for it (to your credit, you started out in this whole thing by actually addressing the point of Shiny's post rather than just harping on his evangelicalism--it's too bad things went downhill from there).

As I posted in @ChaosEngine's profile, whether Hitchens is or is not an alcoholic is a matter of opinion--and I happen to believe very much that he is. I posted my rationale for why I believe he is an alcoholic in that post, so check out Chaos's profile if you're interested in reading why.

As I also said in that post (on Chaos's profile), regardless of whether he is an alcoholic or not we can all agree (Hitchens would absolutely agree, I think) that he has been an excessive drinker. And this excessive drinking is likely one factor in the development of his cancer. Which brings me back to the original point which everyone seems so intent on missing--toasting an alcoholic excessive drinker is incredibly ironic, particularly when it is said alcoholism excessive drinking that's a contributing factor in his early death.

You disagree that he is an alcoholic? That's fine. Go ahead write your support for your point of view here. In fact, I can already guess what you'd provide as support: Hitchens "60 Minutes" interview in which he is asked point-blank whether he believes he is an alcoholic. And I would refute that interview and you could provide more support for your opinion and so on... But we'd just be arguing semantics at that point and missing out on Shiny's original point.

Now, we could have a fine and friendly disagreement about this whole issue without the name-calling, without the sarcasm, without egos getting in the way.

But this is the Sift and, as you have once again proven to me, this is not the place for that to happen.

By the way, while I did rather enjoy the condescending arrogance of your "FTFY" in your original reply to me, had you actually bothered to ask me why I wrote it we could have probably had an interesting discussion about a number of things, such as whether insulting someone's beliefs does or does not insult them personally and how some of Hitchens' comments are not actually directed against beliefs but specific people (Mother Teresa, for instance). But so convinced of your position were you that you chose to burn that bridge of dialogue before we could even cross it.

Also, I never answered your other post because I have a full-time job with unpaid overtime and a 6-month old at home, so I only get a limited amount of Net time. Given how this thread has gone, I now have zero inclination to continue talking with you. I said my peace in that thread. You replied. Let people who come later read the comments and decide for themselves what they want to believe or whether they even care. I simply don't anymore.

Thanks for reminding me about why I don't post comments on the Sift (at least, not anything that expresses much of an opinion).

Happy Sifting to you.

>> ^rebuilder:

I see this video and I'm struck by how much has changed in just my brief lifetime. We're now a society where the death of a tech company's CEO is noted more highly than that of, say, Mother Theresa's was.


1. Mother Teresa wasn't that nice and
2. I don't know what society you live in, but I remember people going nuts over her death, to the point where someone I know made the facepalm-inducing suggestion that the end times were near because god was "calling his favourites home" (she and princess diana died within a week of each other).

Besides, I don't see anyone claiming Jobs was a saint....