Atheist Group Blasts Postal Service for Mother Teresa Stamp

[Fury]

Interesting points, Loco. That being said it's doubtful people here would seriously discuss how few Christians practice Christianity's principles because it might end with them being compared to Muslims who have strayed from the Islam.

Funny. They would be just like you then as you're pretty much incapable of discussing Islam without referencing Christianity in the 1200s.

[drkaje]

Funny. They would be just like you then as you're pretty much incapable of discussing Islam without referencing Christianity in the 1200s.

Not talking about the crusades, BF. Talking about how many "Christians" post racist nonsense or advocate killing 1/5 of the world's population. I fully admit not keeping up so it's entirely possible a few of the commandments have been changed.

It's almost like many are Christian in name only and don't attempt to apply any of the tenets to real life.

[Fury]

Not talking about the crusades, BF. Talking about how many "Christians" post racist nonsense or advocate killing 1/5 of the world's population. I fully admit not keeping up so it's entirely possible a few of the commandments have been changed.

It's almost like many are Christian in name only and don't attempt to apply any of the tenets to real life.

This is surprising? The only religious group that doesn't bother me are the buddhists. And that seems to be because they're more concerned with their own lives than what everyone else is doing.

That said, while Christianity/Judaism/Hinduism/etc have their faults, Islam stands head and shoulders above them with regards to fuckery.

[loco]

Not talking about the crusades, BF. Talking about how many "Christians" post racist nonsense or advocate killing 1/5 of the world's population. I fully admit not keeping up so it's entirely possible a few of the commandments have been changed.

It's almost like many are Christian in name only and don't attempt to apply any of the tenets to real life.

Then you admit to Christianity itself being good, but the problem being "Christians" not following Christianity, not following Jesus Christ's example and teachings.  I agree with that.  But many Christians do follow Jesus Christ's example and teachings, or at least sincerely try their best.

[drkaje]

Then you admit to Christianity itself being good, but the problem being "Christians" not following Christianity, not following Jesus Christ's example and teachings.  I agree with that.  But many Christians do follow Jesus Christ's example and teachings, or at least sincerely try their best.

Goodis relative considering religion itself is a creation of man.

[loco]

Goodis relative considering religion itself is a creation of man.

That's not what I meant.

You mentioned "Christians" not following Christianity being a bad thing, "relative" to you, and you mentioned things you consider bad that these "Christians" shouldn't be doing or saying because it goes against what they claim to follow.  So what they claim to follow and what they should follow is good, relative to you.

Now if Christianity had teachings such as "racist nonsense or advocate killing 1/5 of the world's population" and if Christians today did not follow those teachings, then it would be good, relative to you, that Christians don't follow Christianity.

Whether or not it's good that someone follows or fails to follow a teaching or ideal depends on whether or not that teaching or ideal is good, relative to you.

[drkaje]

That's not what I meant.

You mentioned "Christians" not following Christianity being a bad thing, "relative" to you, and you mentioned things you consider bad that these "Christians" shouldn't be doing or saying because it goes against what they claim to follow.  So what they claim to follow and what they should follow is good, relative to you.

Now if Christianity had teachings such as "racist nonsense or advocate killing 1/5 of the world's population" and if Christians today did not follow those teachings, then it would be good, relative to you, that Christians don't follow Christianity.

Whether or not it's good that someone follows or fails to follow a teaching or ideal depends on whether or not that teaching or ideal is good, relative to you.

Your point is dead on but far too complicated for GetBig. Questioning the validity, goodness, or badness of a religion is useless because faith doesn't require proof. It's much easier for people to ask themselves how consistent their behavior is with the core principles of whatever they profess to believe.

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so".

[MCWAY]

Your point is dead on but far too complicated for GetBig. Questioning the validity, goodness, or badness of a religion is useless because faith doesn't require proof. It's much easier for people to ask themselves how consistent their behavior is with the core principles of whatever they profess to believe.

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so".

Your statement about faith isn't quite accurate. Christians have faith in what God can do, based on what God has done.

To use a football analogy, if you're a Colts fan and you're watching a game in which the Colts are down 14 points late in the 4th quarter, you have faith that Peyton Manning can mount a comeback and lead the Colts to victory.


Why?

Because, in the past, Manning has been down by 14 pts, late in the 4th quarters, but has led his team on the comeback trail to victory.

[haider]

TA asked pellius

I was simply pointing out to TA the fact that Muhammad will never be on a stamp because one, that does not glorify Islam but rather offends Muslims and two, Muslims most likely will put a bounty on the head of anyone who does that.  These are simple facts.

I never said in this thread that this was evidence against Islam as being a "violent religion."  You said that.  I wasn't putting down Islam or trying to start a Christianity vs Islam argument.  You did.

By the way, you got your Christians reversed.  The "Christians who take their faith seriously" are the ones who not only would not strike you if you do or say something derogatory toward Christianity or toward Jesus Christ Himself, but they are the ones who also would not strike back even if you strike them first.  Christians who take their faith seriously are the ones who forgive their enemies and do not harm those who hate them.  And there are a whole lot of them left around.  They have been around for thousands of years.  This is what Jesus Christ taught by word and by example.  This is what his apostles taught by word and by example.  This is what Christians who take their faith seriously do or at least try very hard to do.  It has always been that way.

Pliny the Younger Letter to Trajan (c.111-117 C.E.)

"...they maintained that their fault or error amounted to nothing more than this: they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before sunrise and reciting an antiphonal hymn to Christ as God, and binding themselves with an oath not to commit any crime, but to abstain from all acts of theft, robbery and adultery, from breaches of faith, from repudiating a trust when called upon to honour it."  Pliny, Epistles x.96, from Bruce, p.26.

I was only annoyed at your insistence that muslims would act a certain way. Perhaps you took my intial statement as being a defensive one, whereas I only said so in a humorous manner (note the smiley).

Your statements about what a 'true christian' is like, though not exactly relevant to our 'debate' do ring true in my mind; and they also are true for how a good muslim should act. In fact, in Islam we do not make the distinction between how a true christian and true muslim acts (there are some difference in theology, but we are talking about acts here).

Just as you do not like Christianity to be portrayed in a bad manner, neither do I when it comes to Islam. But I do see that it was not in your intentions to do in your intial statement. I apologise that I might have misread your post (but I didn't react so badly did I? )

[loco]

I was only annoyed at your insistence that muslims would act a certain way. Perhaps you took my intial statement as being a defensive one, whereas I only said so in a humorous manner (note the smiley).

Your statements about what a 'true christian' is like, though not exactly relevant to our 'debate' do ring true in my mind; and they also are true for how a good muslim should act. In fact, in Islam we do not make the distinction between how a true christian and true muslim acts (there are some difference in theology, but we are talking about acts here).

Just as you do not like Christianity to be portrayed in a bad manner, neither do I when it comes to Islam. But I do see that it was not in your intentions to do in your intial statement. I apologise that I might have misread your post (but I didn't react so badly did I? )

You're a good guy haider! 

[drkaje]

Your statement about faith isn't quite accurate. Christians have faith in what God can do, based on what God has done.

To use a football analogy, if you're a Colts fan and you're watching a game in which the Colts are down 14 points late in the 4th quarter, you have faith that Peyton Manning can mount a comeback and lead the Colts to victory.


Why?

Because, in the past, Manning has been down by 14 pts, late in the 4th quarters, but has led his team on the comeback trail to victory.

You really can't offer solid proof that God has even done one thing. Faith, by its very nature, requires no proof. The Bible could be proven as  history's greatest work of fiction and people would still want to believe what's in it.

I believe there's something and can't find any harm in calling it God. Seeing a nice ass on a woman makes me want to believe it couldn't happen by accident.

[haider]

You're a good guy haider! 

thanks loco!

the feeling is mutual 

[The True Adonis]

You really can't offer solid proof that God has even done one thing. Faith, by its very nature, requires no proof. The Bible could be proven as  history's greatest work of fiction and people would still want to believe what's in it.

I believe there's something and can't find any harm in calling it God. Seeing a nice ass on a woman makes me want to believe it couldn't happen by accident.

Glutes on any human is not by accident at all.  It is non-random genetic alleles combined with environmental stimuli (accumulation of fat due to diet, muscularity from working out etc..)  that produce the effect you so dearly love.  Nothing accidental at all.

[SAMSON123]

Yeah great,she sucked but Martin Luther King[by the way also not his real name]was out fucking prostitutes and making all kinds of shady deals, we laud him as a saint.

Not to side track the discussion, but why are all of you trying to defame people who have done exemplary work in the world for the good of mankind? Martin Luther King's only supposed difference in his name was that it is Michael and you are trying to demonize him?. What shady deals are you speaking of? Supposedly dealing with communist? The american white government referred/s to all people, races and nations as COMMUNIST when they don't/didn't go along with american nonsense. So far as supposedly "fucking white prostitutes"...now that the man is dead all manner of claims were and are being made against him by the white establishment to defame and slander...WHY?

Now here we are with Mother Teresa a woman who dedicated her whole life to helping the diseased/sickly/poor/homeless and hungry and yet the same slander ensues...again... WHY?

Maybe you should all check your own mental sicknesses, lacking and short comings. It is NOT that these people have done any wrong, it is that you are resenting the fact that despite their frailties they have accomplished much which has brought them recognition and here you are with the same frailties but more resources...YET HAVE NOT ACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING.

[SAMSON123]

You would think that those who are so convinced that there is no God would have better things to do than to bleat and blubber, about an old lady, who spend the bulk of her life doing humanitarian work.

This, even by their standards, is PITIFUL.

Atheist Group Blasts Postal Service for Mother Teresa Stamp


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."

But Freedom from Religion Foundation spokeswoman Annie Laurie Gaylor says issuing the stamp runs against Postal Service regulations.

"Mother Teresa is principally known as a religious figure who ran a religious institution. You can't really separate her being a nun and being a Roman Catholic from everything she did," Gaylor told FoxNews.com.

Postal Service spokesman Roy Betts expressed surprise at the protest, given the long list of previous honorees with strong religious backgrounds, including Malcolm X, the former chief spokesman for the Nation of Islam, and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist minister and co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

"In fact we honored Father Flanagan in 1986 for his humanitarian work. This has nothing to do with religion or faith," Betts told FoxNews.com.

Gaylor said the atheist group opposed Father Flanagan's stamp but not those for King and Malcolm X, because she said they were known for their civil rights activities, not for their religion.

Martin Luther King "just happened to be a minister," and "Malcolm X was not principally known for being a religious figure," she said.

"And he's not called Father Malcolm X like Mother Teresa. I mean, even her name is a Roman Catholic honorific."

Gaylor said Mother Teresa infused Catholicism into her secular honors — including an "anti-abortion rant" during her Nobel Prize acceptance speech — and that even her humanitarian work was controversial.

"There was criticism by the end of her life that she turned what was a tiny charity into an extremely wealthy charity that had the means to provide better care than it did," Gaylor said. "...There's this knee jerk response that everything she did was humanitarian, and I think many people would differ that what she was doing was to promote religion, and what she wanted to do was baptize people before they die, and that doesn't have a secular purpose for a stamp."

But the Postal Service said the commemorative stamp has nothing to do with Mother Teresa's religion.

"Mother Teresa is not being honored because of her religion, she's being honored for her work with the poor and her acts of humanitarian relief," Betts told FoxNews.com.....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584165,00.html

BTW, someone should mention to these folks that, the reason Malcolm X isn't called "Father" is because he ain't Catholic, though in Muslim circles, he was known as "Brother Minister".

And, lest these factually-challenged geniuses forget that other civil rights leaders' title, it's REV. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

THe very sad part is Mother Teresa did not operate on religion, but compassion for the needy. What does compassion have to do with religion that these Godless freaks would be so up in arms? Cue the FIRE AND... BRIMSTONE

[pellius]

Not to side track the discussion, but why are all of you trying to defame people who have done exemplary work in the world for the good of mankind? Martin Luther King's only supposed difference in his name was that it is Michael and you are trying to demonize him?. What shady deals are you speaking of? Supposedly dealing with communist? The american white government referred/s to all people, races and nations as COMMUNIST when they don't/didn't go along with american nonsense. So far as supposedly "fucking white prostitutes"...now that the man is dead all manner of claims were and are being made against him by the white establishment to defame and slander...WHY?

Now here we are with Mother Teresa a woman who dedicated her whole life to helping the diseased/sickly/poor/homeless and hungry and yet the same slander ensues...again... WHY?

Maybe you should all check your own mental sicknesses, lacking and short comings. It is NOT that these people have done any wrong, it is that you are resenting the fact that despite their frailties they have accomplished much which has brought them recognition and here you are with the same frailties but more resources...YET HAVE NOT ACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING.

Really! We all have sort of a moral bank account. We make good deposits and bad withdrawals. Hopefully, at the end of the day (or life) there's something there. The totality of a person's life should be taken into account. For example, I hate to admit it, but I flipped off an ass clown that cut me off in traffic. But to make up for that transgression when a homeless person asked me for money I kicked him in the nuts.