did you see penn and teller's 'Bullshit' about mother teresa? you may have a different view of her.

yeah, i've seen that. don't agree with everything about her, but i still think she's pretty rockin (same for gandhi and the dalai lama, cuz i know penn and teller did a similar thing on them).

MT was good at marketing herself; I'm glad not to have been someone to have been "helped" by her. I'm sure if you look at any of our "heroes" too closely, they will not come off so well.

That's sad that she felt that way. Personally, I think Penn & Teller are very poor journalists and extremely biased. I can't stand Penn, he's so bombastic.

yeah, not a huge penn & teller fan. anyway, i agree she marketed herself, but her high profile was why she made such an impact. i had issues with the religious element to her work, but prior to her, there weren't really organized facilities for taking care of the disabled poor in india - especially in calcutta, which was kind of a hell hole for the poor (though cal has an amazing history as a city)! all heroes are flawed and people have to be real about that. but that shouldn't discount their impact.

Style aside, I trust Penn and Teller to tell the truth far more than the hypocritical, self-delusional, and apparently self-doubting Mother Teresa.

Here's the problem that P&T face. They are trying to bring some balance to commonly held beliefs about people like MT. She has been held in such universal high esteem, yet few of us knew what she really did and what really motivated her. Should we all agree with her methods and philosophy of helping the poor and sick? Because of her religious beliefs, she felt that suffering was good for people. I think that's cruel; and that many people would have suffered less if they could have been cared for by someone without the ulterior motive to convert them to Catholicism. I have no doubt she did some good, and stepped in to help people when others would not. But she also siphoned away resources in the belief that they were being used to help the poor and sick, when in some case they were used to evangelize and support her order.

I don't believe in Saints and I don't think anyone should be held in a position beyond inspection and criticism. P&T are crass, and blunt; but on the other hand the kind of religious bias, zealotry, and irrationalism they are up against are not susceptible to more subtle arguments. I personally applaud them for their dramatic (and entertaining) style.

i've read christopher hitchens' critique of teresa and i agree it sucks that a lot of the money she raised was going to convents - i don't agree with that and i think she should be open to critique in that way. but she did work in an area the indian government didn't want to touch - hospice care for the poor. i don't know that it was her responsibility to open teaching hospitals (as hitchens suggested) with the money. i tend to be skeptical of 'saints' too, but i also don't believe that there was any other form of help on the way for these people at the time she started her work. i don't think mother teresa siphoned money away from a long list of charities waiting to open hospitals in calcutta for people with leprosy. at the end of the day, if she helped people die in comfort, that was better than their alternatives. today, there's no shortage of great NGOs springing up in calcutta that do work in a way that i personally agree with - but part of why indian NGOs are so well-funded nowadays is because of the awareness raised in the global community by figures like mother teresa. i consider her a stepping-stone.

Regarding Penn and Teller... being crass and blunt isn't the answer, even if you think you're taking on totally unreasonable opponents. That doesn't hold any water with me. I think you need to present your "reporting" respectfully if you want to be respected and taken seriously. Even "zealots" will take something away from the exchange if you don't insult them with sarcasm straight out the gate. As a liberal Christian, I find Penn's presentation to be very offensive. He behaves as though anyone who doesn't believe the way he does is a joke and that nothing is sacred. You can be a humanist or a relativist and still not talk about Christians like they're insane. It's just a matter of respect. I understand that he's trying to be funny while getting his point across, but he's not funny to me. I think he's probably most amusing to people who believe in nothing.

Regarding Mother Teresa, I'm not sure how you can call her "hypocritical" or "self-delusional," Mike. Judging from the article, I don't think she ever stopped believing in Christ--she just felt distant from him, which is something that every Christian feels once in a while during the course of their life. Being a Christian is not easy. If you can say anything about the message of the Bible it's that life is guaranteed to be harder if you choose to follow Jesus. If history is any judge, saints and individuals with a higher calling such as Teresa have it even harder than the average Christian. God expects more from them. I'm not a Catholic and I don't put a lot of stock in the saints, but I do think Teresa was purely altruistic. You can't deny the volumes her actions speak about her faith. You suggest that she thought the people she was caring for should suffer because it would make them holier in the eyes of God from a Catholic perspective. I can't believe that that is true. She might have wanted herself to suffer, but not the people she was helping. That doesn't make sense.

i often wish i could make the personal sacrifices and devote my life to humanitarian work. but i just don't know if i'm prepared to do it, and that's okay - most of us aren't and i know there are other ways i can make a difference. but i'm so grateful that there are extraordinary people out there who do make that choice.

@Melissa - I think you and I can have a calm and reasonable discussion about religion. But, in the broader debate we also have the fanatical evangelists and demagogues. As an atheist, I'm glad to have people like Richard Dawkins, and yes, even Penn and Teller, to call things as they see them too.

I was subjected to an onslaught of evangelical Christianity growing up in Oklahoma. I honestly feel that the brainwashing of children with religion is a poison in our society that we have to overcome. While I mean no disrespect to anyone who holds religious beliefs of one kind or another, I don't think that is disrespectful for me to tell them that *I* believe that those beliefs are totally without merit and probably on-the-whole harmful to society.

Unfortunately, in our society, atheists and atheistic ideas are treated as second class citizens and we are often denied the right to express our opinions.

In the B.S. episode in question (have you seen it?), Penn comes right out and says he has no problem with anyone believing whatever the F* they want. But he draws the line on people intrusively trying to force their own views on him and others; and especially in using public resources to do so.

I hope we can create a culture where being "good" is not equated with ascribing to any particular religion (or any at all).

BTW - I've enjoyed this discussion and I REALLY DO hope I haven't offended you.

i enjoyed this discussion too! i just hope when people watch penn and teller, they also seek out other sources in making up their minds about mother teresa and the other figures they 'expose.' (i'm not saying you guys haven't!) but for example, their basis for critiquing gandhi was saying that 'mahatma' means saint. actually, it means 'great soul.' they are right about many of gandhi's shortcomings - but those are no secret. they also overlook many atrocities going on in tibet in their critique of the dalai lama. i think it's good to remember the human and sometimes contradictory side of these figures - nothing is black and white. i also don't think penn & teller shouldn't do these pieces - it's important to question and critique. but there are a lot of angles to consider.

To Mike: No offense taken. I'm well acquainted with the fanatics of whom you speak. My mom is one and I was dragged to a Pentecostal church every Sunday of my teen years. Even at age 12 I knew they were f****** crazy. By the way, I grew up in TEMPERANCE, Mich., so I also know a thing or two about close-minded communities. I did not blindly adopt my mom's religious beliefs, but pounded the philosophical pavement for myself and I own the beliefs I have now. My beliefs as a Christian are warranted. (Read Alvin Plantiga's "Warranted Christian Belief" for a fair, intellectual arrival at why it's not totally insane to be a Christian.) Today, I'm someone who Christians like my mom would have major problems with if we bothered to talk about anything outside of the weather. I’m Pro-Choice; I think stay at home mothers are destroying feminism; I go to a church that extends membership to gay people and openly, lovingly embraces them--as it should. Our pastor recognizes that other religions of the world are valid and that (gasp) Christ may not be the only path to salvation. Our homeless ministry has more aim to alleviate troubles than evangelize. You will have a tough time finding a church like ours. Yet, as soon as I say I’m a Christian most people will associate me with the George W. Bush, rightwing brand of conservative Christians. There are so many Christians like me who cringe at this. But, when the media wants a "Christian perspective" they don't go to people like me and Derek; they go to the Bob Jones University types. And thus, we have the reputation we do. It's your right to see Christianity as "without merit" and I'm happy to have a reasonable discussion with anyone about religion. I’m always ready to bring the ontological meat and potatoes. ;) Though, I feel the same way about atheists as you do about Christians: I think they are deaf, dumb and blind. Yet, I respect anyone who _owns_ their beliefs and doesn't accept parental or societal spoon-feeding of religion. I also wish that we could create a culture where being good is not equated with religion, but I feel that that lends far too much trust to people. One of religion’s virtues is having at least some sort of moral standard that everyone can recognize--at least for the major stuff. Unfortunately, I don't think enough of people to trust the idea of moral relativism. Do you?

I suppose I do believe in a sort of moral relativism. I certainly have strongly held beliefs of what is right and wrong. But I don't look to an external authority to decide those for me; I have decided my moral system for myself.

I personally think we are probably VERY CLOSE as to what we (and most other westerners) would believe to be right and wrong behaviors. Richard Dawkins referred to this as the "Moral Zeitgeist" in chapter 7 of "The God Delusion". It's a relativistic morality in the sense that it recognizes changing social norms over time, but claims a general standardization across broad sections of our culture.

His feeling (and mine), is that established religions are FOLLOWERS of the Moral Zeitgeist, and not actually LEADERS. Churches tend to espouse the moral elements from their religions only when they fall in line with the current social norms (and they deprecate those that are out of favor). Many of your beliefs stated above would be broadly considered heretical and amoral by all branches of Christianity in a past era - but are now broadly adopted in a modern Christian community.

It's obviously not Christian dogma that provides your moral basis - since that is static and unchanging. I propose we both draw our moral compass from the same source - the Moral Zeitgeist.