Sisters of Charity

DoDi · Apr 27th, 2005, 14:00

"There is only one God and He is God to all;
therefore it is important that everyone is seen as equal before God.
I've always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu,
a Muslim become a better Muslim,
a Catholic become a better Catholic."
>> Mother Teresa

machadinha · Apr 27th, 2005, 14:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by temp

Where will it end?

Just about here as far as I'm concerned. Sorry to have bored any fellow IM'ers. See ya Temp.

machadinha · Apr 27th, 2005, 14:07

Nice 1 Dodi. One more then:

I follow the religion of Love.
Now I am sometimes called
A Shepherd of gazelles
And now a Christian monk,
And now a Persian sage.
My beloved is Three --
Three yet only one;
Many things appear as three,
Which are no more than one.
Give her no name,
As if to limit one
At sight of whom
All limitation is confounded.

By Ibn El-Arabi (1165-1240), as rendered by Idries Shah.

Kiki · Apr 28th, 2005, 19:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoDi

"There is only one God and He is God to all;
therefore it is important that everyone is seen as equal before God.
I've always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu,
a Muslim become a better Muslim,
a Catholic become a better Catholic."
>> Mother Teresa

That's exactly the quote I was looking for earlier (in response to someone saying MOC's try to convert people)...when this thread was still about Mother Theresa's.

Thanks for that!

ddevadatta · Apr 28th, 2005, 20:57

Though I hate to add to this debate I couldn't resist. I trust my comments are offerred in charity and received in the same way. There will always be debates between nationalism and internationalism. Nationalists generally want to prevent the outside world from engaging (economic, religious, moral, etc etc) based on their own structure of reality and power dynamics. This is seen in the so-called anti-missionary or anti-globalization perspectives. I for one think that internatalism brings about the better good in time than strict nationalistic tendencies.

The other issue is the power of human freedom and choices. Why not let people make choices as to where they live, what they work at, what religion they follow (either one of their birth or another by their choice). The differences should be maintained of course. Political and coercive methods (either through war campaigns and territorial expansion) is something we resist (look at Kuwait as a recent example in early 1990's). But most volunteer groups (don't care what the religion is) help and if people make a choice to change this is not being coercive. If you help me in my need and I choose to follow your way this isn't coersion, which has become the favorite but terribly misapplied word for some. The power of human freedom to choose ought to be maintained not what a small group dictates to its followers.

Anways my concern is to let volunteers and people seeking work do their thing. If they go over the line they pay their consequences. I find it terribly arrogant to tell someone they cannot go to India if their motives for going are not in line with my point of view. What is even tragic is we read into their motives, as we are God who could possibly be the only one who reads are motives accurately.

So volunteer in India with any organization of your choice as you would do in your own country.

ananda2193 · Jul 14th, 2005, 23:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chandak

Actually, there ARE many dodgy things about the Missionaries of Charity. I grew up in Calcutta and was always amazed by the unfounded statements Mother Teresa (and her nuns, volunteers and biographers) made about the
inhumanity of Calcuttans. True, there is much poverty in Calcutta, as anywhere else in the Third World. True, many Calcuttans are inhumane, as are many others (e.g. Americans). But mothers killing their children because they could not feed them? The pavements clogged with homeless lepers? Missionaries of Charity running school after school across the city? Whilst I do not wish to hurt anyone's religious feelings, these and countless other images of Calcutta that the Missionaries of Charity have circulated across the world for so many years are simply untrue. Believe it or not, Calcutta is a typical third world city, not the hell-hole the MoC have portrayed it as. The only exceptional thing about Calcutta is that it has always produced an abnormally high number of internationally respected artists, writers and film-makers. (Funny how none of them was educated at one of these many schools that the Missionaries are supposed to run in the city, and funnier that the Mother never deemed fit to mention this side of Calcutta to anybody, not even in her Nobel lecture.) Do go and volunteer in Calcutta by all means, but please don't believe all the hype about the MoC or all the negative stuff about the city.

I have been to India 4 times and believe it is a inhumane heartless society. On my first visit I witnessed a man dying on the steet in Bombay and everyone was just walking by with no concern. They would go out on the street to bypass him and the women would put a cloth up to their nose as they passed by. I guess they think it's his karma and destiny that he is like this so it must be god's will, so let him be. And after seeing this total heartlessness I hated the people there. But I know there are good people and bad people everywhere. I have met many kind people in India. But that image sticks in my mind. As for Americans being inhumane. America is the most generous country on the planet. They give more aid and money to other countries than probably all other countries combined!!

snowcrab · Jul 15th, 2005, 00:46

I wouldn't be too quick to characterize only Indian society as inhumane and heartless.

A friend of mine was busking in Toronto for spare change and he noticed a homeless guy had been lying on the street for a long time. He was too sqeamish himself to check how he was so he phoned 911. The dispatcher told him they had to know if he was alive or dead because if he was dead they could send a coroners wagon for $150. If he was alive they would have to send a ambulance at $400. They wanted my friend to agree to pay the $400 if he wanted them to come over and find out if the guy was still alive. My friend was collecting change for his own housing, he couldn't agree to pay this so 911 wouldn't send anyone. The guy was there the next morning and by then it was obvious that he was dead and the city sent the coroner's wagon.

In India there is not even that much infrastructure and the people walking by may not have personal resources of their own to deal with any costs arising from trying to succor a stranger on the street.

I wouldn't be too quick to throw the first stone.

pandrea82 · Jul 15th, 2005, 01:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by snowcrab

I wouldn't be too quick to characterize only Indian society as inhumane and heartless.

A friend of mine was busking in Toronto for spare change and he noticed a homeless guy had been lying on the street for a long time. He was too sqeamish himself to check how he was so he phoned 911. The dispatcher told him they had to know if he was alive or dead because if he was dead they could send a coroners wagon for $150. If he was alive they would have to send a ambulance at $400. They wanted my friend to agree to pay the $400 if he wanted them to come over and find out if the guy was still alive. My friend was collecting change for his own housing, he couldn't agree to pay this so 911 wouldn't send anyone. The guy was there the next morning and by then it was obvious that he was dead and the city sent the coroner's wagon.

In India there is not even that much infrastructure and the people walking by may not have personal resources of their own to deal with any costs arising from trying to succor a stranger on the street.

I wouldn't be too quick to throw the first stone.

Right on. I don't understand why people still generalize and stereotype in that way -- I mean saying an entire society is messed up/inhumane, whatever. That just doesn't make sense. Its like saying all humans are heartless, selfish, individualistic, out for themselves. Sure some humans may be selfish sometimes, maybe even most of the time, but it would be ridiculous to characterize all humans that way.

Who knows why no one helped that poor man dying that day? It is very tragic, but you have to consider how a country's citizens might be affected by living with so much poverty in their society. Maybe there's a certain level of desensitization.

machadinha · Jul 15th, 2005, 01:37

Moreover

Quote:

Originally Posted by ananda2193

As for Americans being inhumane. America is the most generous country on the planet. They give more aid and money to other countries than probably all other countries combined!!

This is just humbug and poppycock but OK, it's a first post, don't let me deter you & welcome.

ananda2193 · Jul 15th, 2005, 02:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by machadinha

Moreover

This is just humbug and poppycock but OK, it's a first post, don't let me deter you & welcome.

You tell me one country that gives more and is willing to die for other peoples rights!! By the way I see you have posted 1,190 times. Maybe you should get a girlfriend and do something more constructive with your life!

snowcrab · Jul 15th, 2005, 02:13

Wow! You haven't even read any threads on this forum have you?

Hope I'm not too late, but Mac is really the last one of us you should want to flame.

By the way, American's have certainly proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that they are more than willing to kill to protect their rights. You would have to be a little more specific about that business of dying to protect others. Not saying I don't believe you, but some examples would be nice.

machadinha · Jul 15th, 2005, 02:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by ananda2193

You tell me one country that gives more and is willing to die for other peoples rights!!

Yes well that was to be expected. Maybe you can look up some numbers to support your point of view. Let's start here (an easy start I know):

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

Quote:

Quantity
Over the last 20 years, annual ODA [Official Development Assistance] has been between $50bn and $60bn. The United States is the world's largest contributor of ODA in absolute terms ($15.7 billion, 2003), but the smallest among developed countries as a percentage of its GDP (0.14% in 2003). The UN target for development aid is 0.7% of GDP; currently only five countries (with Norway in the lead with 0.92%) achieve this.

...

In the United States, popular estimates of spending on aid are often highly inflated - 15-25% of the federal budget is a typical answer; the real number is closer to 1%. In absolute terms, the $15-20bn of aid compares with $50bn spent annually on the war on drugs and $500bn spent on the military. Some commentators, such as Jeffrey Sachs, have said that if the US spent more money on helping the poor, it wouldn't need to spend quite so much on defending itself against them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ananda2193

By the way I see you have posted 1,190 times. Maybe you should get a girlfriend and do something more constructive with your life!

Thanks for keeping track, it's easy to see with the little number to your left there don't you think. I always love people who engage in public discussions then accuse others of doing so too much for want of other arguments.

Welcome again!

machadinha · Jul 15th, 2005, 02:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by snowcrab

Hope I'm not too late, but Mac is really the last one of us you should want to flame.

... Too late Snowcrab. Thanks for support btw

I don't mind an argument as we all know, but let's see some arguments!

edwardseco · Jul 15th, 2005, 03:35

Another issue crops up here which is total giving for charitable purposes rather just for foreign purposes and there I believe the percentage ranking for the US reverses (not to mention the political bias of a 5 basis). I would also also question whether foreign giving really does much more than foster political control, donor business and ease some consciences. Now the latter has some merit. An Indian once explained the dignity of beggers as providing a service to the givers. However, in the days of J. Sachs we aren't supposed to ask such questions. Interesting but verboten in the PC era.

Hope the OP managed to make a contact. I did "sisters of charity India" in google to get such..

pandrea82 · Jul 15th, 2005, 04:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by ananda2193

You tell me one country that gives more and is willing to die for other peoples rights!! By the way I see you have posted 1,190 times. Maybe you should get a girlfriend and do something more constructive with your life!

Jeez, what are you smoking? Way to go with the petty insults that have nothing to do with the topic. Stop judging people and grow up. Then you would be doing something constructive with your life.

Apr 28th, 2005, 20:57	#35
ddevadatta Finger Licking Good Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 907	Hate to Add Though I hate to add to this debate I couldn't resist. I trust my comments are offerred in charity and received in the same way. There will always be debates between nationalism and internationalism. Nationalists generally want to prevent the outside world from engaging (economic, religious, moral, etc etc) based on their own structure of reality and power dynamics. This is seen in the so-called anti-missionary or anti-globalization perspectives. I for one think that internatalism brings about the better good in time than strict nationalistic tendencies. The other issue is the power of human freedom and choices. Why not let people make choices as to where they live, what they work at, what religion they follow (either one of their birth or another by their choice). The differences should be maintained of course. Political and coercive methods (either through war campaigns and territorial expansion) is something we resist (look at Kuwait as a recent example in early 1990's). But most volunteer groups (don't care what the religion is) help and if people make a choice to change this is not being coercive. If you help me in my need and I choose to follow your way this isn't coersion, which has become the favorite but terribly misapplied word for some. The power of human freedom to choose ought to be maintained not what a small group dictates to its followers. Anways my concern is to let volunteers and people seeking work do their thing. If they go over the line they pay their consequences. I find it terribly arrogant to tell someone they cannot go to India if their motives for going are not in line with my point of view. What is even tragic is we read into their motives, as we are God who could possibly be the only one who reads are motives accurately. So volunteer in India with any organization of your choice as you would do in your own country. __________________ Ayurvedic cure for an Indian headache

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Charity - Is Rs.245,690/- enough for a month in S. India?	john.sw	Volunteering and Charitable Causes in India	31	Sep 5th, 2008 18:13
Best charity for donation?	russporter	Volunteering and Charitable Causes in India	9	Aug 10th, 2005 02:24
Kolkata - Sisters of Mercy	tash	Volunteering and Charitable Causes in India	5	Jul 31st, 2005 01:46
Setting up a UK based charity	torryquine	Volunteering and Charitable Causes in India	4	Mar 16th, 2005 02:41
[Friso]Charity Postcards	Freezo	Volunteering and Charitable Causes in India	1	Dec 23rd, 2004 14:43

Apr 27th, 2005, 14:00	#31
DoDi Nodal Agent Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: I live in my cube. Posts: 215	"There is only one God and He is God to all; therefore it is important that everyone is seen as equal before God. I've always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic." >> Mother Teresa

Apr 27th, 2005, 14:07	#33
machadinha Not Your Guru Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: yörp Posts: 11,089	Nice 1 Dodi. One more then: I follow the religion of Love. Now I am sometimes called A Shepherd of gazelles And now a Christian monk, And now a Persian sage. My beloved is Three -- Three yet only one; Many things appear as three, Which are no more than one. Give her no name, As if to limit one At sight of whom All limitation is confounded. By Ibn El-Arabi (1165-1240), as rendered by Idries Shah.

Jul 15th, 2005, 00:46	#37
snowcrab Maha Guru Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alberta, Can Posts: 1,053	I wouldn't be too quick to characterize only Indian society as inhumane and heartless. A friend of mine was busking in Toronto for spare change and he noticed a homeless guy had been lying on the street for a long time. He was too sqeamish himself to check how he was so he phoned 911. The dispatcher told him they had to know if he was alive or dead because if he was dead they could send a coroners wagon for $150. If he was alive they would have to send a ambulance at $400. They wanted my friend to agree to pay the $400 if he wanted them to come over and find out if the guy was still alive. My friend was collecting change for his own housing, he couldn't agree to pay this so 911 wouldn't send anyone. The guy was there the next morning and by then it was obvious that he was dead and the city sent the coroner's wagon. In India there is not even that much infrastructure and the people walking by may not have personal resources of their own to deal with any costs arising from trying to succor a stranger on the street. I wouldn't be too quick to throw the first stone.

Jul 15th, 2005, 02:13	#41
snowcrab Maha Guru Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alberta, Can Posts: 1,053	Wow! You haven't even read any threads on this forum have you? Hope I'm not too late, but Mac is really the last one of us you should want to flame. By the way, American's have certainly proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that they are more than willing to kill to protect their rights. You would have to be a little more specific about that business of dying to protect others. Not saying I don't believe you, but some examples would be nice.

Jul 15th, 2005, 03:35	#44
edwardseco Maha Guru Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Land that shakes and bakes. Posts: 4,208	Another issue crops up here which is total giving for charitable purposes rather just for foreign purposes and there I believe the percentage ranking for the US reverses (not to mention the political bias of a 5 basis). I would also also question whether foreign giving really does much more than foster political control, donor business and ease some consciences. Now the latter has some merit. An Indian once explained the dignity of beggers as providing a service to the givers. However, in the days of J. Sachs we aren't supposed to ask such questions. Interesting but verboten in the PC era. Hope the OP managed to make a contact. I did "sisters of charity India" in google to get such..

User Name		Remember Me?
Password