Forget about the Presidential Medal of Freedom and that little thing called the Nobel Peace Prize. (Okay, bad example…) But it’s obvious, at least to the folks at the Freedom From Religion Foundation, that the Postal Service has no business putting super-humanitarian and all around do-gooder Mother Teresa of Calcutta on a stamp.
Why? It’s the nun thing.
Freedom from Religion Foundation spokeswoman Annie Laurie Gaylor told Fox News that issuing the stamp runs against Postal Service regulations because, quite simply,
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.
…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.
The Postal Service, of course, disagrees. As far as they’re concerned, the Mother Teresa commemorative stamp has nothing to do with her religion. As Postal Service spokesman explained:
“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.
“Her contribution to the world as a humanitarian speaks for itself and is unprecedented,” he added.
I have to wonder: Where was the outrage when the USPS announced the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1979, and Malcolm X in 1999? The FFRF didn’t even raise a collective eyebrow
Fox News adds:
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.
And what about prominent atheist Katharine Hepburn, whose likeness is depicted on one of the other stamps set to headline the 2010 stamp program along with Negro Leagues Baseball and Cowboys of the Silver Screen? No problemo, of course. Because atheism isn’t a religion. Or something.
Look — I’m all for the separation of Church and State. But you’d think the freedom-from-religion people would have bigger (and less universally venerated) fish to fry. Makes you wonder if PETA has a new fund-raising cash cow — seminars in irrelevancy. Ah, I can see it now:
Ever wanted to know how to get the American Public to Stop Taking You Seriously? Learn how at this year’s Irrelevant Campaign Convention!
Topics to be covered include: Strippers and Porno Queens — Superstar Spokespeople, Robotic Groundhogs and Other Animal Alternatives, and The Immortal Pie-In-The-Face Gag“
Come to think of it, that conference sounds kinda fun. I should put a call in to PETA…
Related posts:
- Kellogg’s To Stamp Out Childhood Obesity (With Shoes Made Of Sugar) I must admit, I love me some Coco Pops. If...
- Joy Behar Pwns Speidi on The View Sometimes, like monkeys on keyboards working on Hamlet, the ladies...
- John Mellencamp Doesn’t Like Free Speech John Mellencamp is passionate about the First Amendment. So long...
- PETA’s Newest Spokesman: Michael Vick?? As they say, folks, ya can’t make this stuff up....
- Race Expert Brings the Heat to Bill O’Reilly on MJ Coverage Hoo boy. Bill O’Reilly really got into it with a...
The FFRF doesn’t dare protest the stamp with Malcolm X. Some of those Islamists get cranky.
I this can’t be the case (and I apologize to any that read this) but it seriously seems like most atheists are just complete a-holes. Every time they’re in the news, it’s because they are protesting something that 90 percent of the country has no problem with.
Oh, and Sarah – better proofread a bit more, because I don’t think Dr. King was alive in 1079.
My favorite part of the FFRF quote comes later in the Fox article:
Now I’m not going to pretend I know who the hell Julia de Burgos is, but this is the athiest approved Kate Smith:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8QksTKRYS0&feature=related
Yep. I want a complete and total separation of church and state. Total. But really some people gotta get past the “In God We Trust” stuff on the coins, and the crosses that have been on city logos for 150 years. That sort of thing. It just makes you look like a vegetarian, or a hippie.
Petty, smug, and stupid.
Believe it from an Atheist; we sound like a-holes because we keep on running into self-righteous preachers who have no decency or are focusing on their own Hell-Fire brand. If you add to this the rampant hypocrisy in any large religion, we are quite miffed.
Mother Teresa was the leader of a Conservative branch of the Catholic Church. This is not to be denied. Under her superstar halo, she had spread her branch of ideology across the world. She also She also accepted over a million dollars from Charles Keating, money that he stole via fraud. So she’s not beyond reproach.
Yes, she “Helped The Poor” but it was not completely disinterested. She was also a religious leader and this is why the U.S. Postal Service should had know better and dint put her on a stamp.
Who still uses stamps?
I’m an atheist who doesn’t care if Mother T gets on the stamp or not, but I do have a huge problem with everyone thinking she did 100% humanitarian work 24/7. She was fund raising to build respites to let her religious converts lay on cots in pain till they died eventually. She converted the sick and weak. Some could be vicious enough to say she preyed on these poor people who were begging for help and relief. I’ve heard that said before, but not as often as you would think. She got a huge white washing by public figures like Diana, Princess of Wales and world leaders. She would use that to hit them up for large gobs of money to promote her religion.
I don’t have a problem with fund raising and people giving from their hearts to her organisation, but I do have a huge problem with gov’ts giving on behalf of all their people whether they liked it or not. That, to me, was underhanded of her. The gov’t would have spent that same money on something more ridiculous and infuriating like a bailout if she hadn’t come a-calling, I’m sure.
According to Webster’s religion is a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. That makes Atheism, is a religion just like any other. By that argument we can only put agnostics on stamps.
Who cares if Mother Teresa is on a stamp!? I honestly don’t see why there’s a whole kerfuffle over it. You’d think people would be focused on more important things. If it’s okay to put an atheist on a stamp, why is it wrong to put a religious person on a stamp? Both are forms of belief. Atheists are all fine and dandy with promoting their views, but they get a whiff of religon and go crazy.
Also, the Constituion says that there will be “no respecting an establishment of religion,” not “any mention of religion must be erased entirely.” It seems that the stamps have featured people from a wide religious background – Catholic, Muslim, Christian, Atheist, just from the article above – and I don’t see the problem with that. That’s not respecting one particular establishment of religion over another.
I don’t have a problem with the stamp either way. My issue is with Teresa. While she put the poor who were sick on cots. She was wisked away to several different western doctors. (And how did she pay for that since as a nun you take a vow of poverty?) If the medicine and service she gave was good enoough for the people she “helped”; it should have been good enough for her. (No I am not an atheists; yes I am Catholic, yes I feel my guilt for saying this.)
I wonder if a famous painting of Mother Theresa would be acceptable.
http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com/04_madonna37_f.jpg
Political correctness has become a major impediment to governmental efficiency.
I wonder if a famous painting of Mother Theresa would be acceptable.
http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com/04_madonna37_f.jpg
Political correctness has become a major impediment to governmental efficiency.
Thank you Nienna for remembering me how logic works in the Theist world; If it’s about religion, then it is a religion. Please dig in the Webster’s to find the Atheist’s “Holy Days”, I never found them myself.
Atheists can be as ridicolous as religous fanatics. They both act smug in their on self delusional need to be better then the other
The problem with having “In God We Trust” on money is that doing so is an act establishing religion by the feds (see Amendment One). While a lot of people are saying “get over it” and the like while rolling the ol’ peepers, I challenge any of those people to tell me exactly where the line should be drawn dividing the “get over it” and “whoa, not cool” territories. And none of this “well, use your judgment” crap. I want hard and clear lines that can stand up to any assault. Nothing ambiguous or open to interpretation.
Imma guess and say that every line drawn by each getoverit individual will be unique and differ from the other lines drawn by fellow getoverits. I should stop calling them “lines” and call them for what they really are: opinions.
So, since such a line cannot possibly be drawn, I offer a suggestion: Get rid of the phrase. There. Plain. Simple. And most importantly, Indisputable.
I have to wonder that, too.
Oh, snap! You just know this post is going to get the atheists collective knickers in a bunch. After reading some of the comments from atheists I couldn’t shake the feeling that I detected some notes of religious zeal, for FFRF and their ilk atheism is their brand of religion, only they refuse to recognise it as such, ironic. Brings to mind that South Park episode were in the future they established two churches of atheism that started fighting each other over who is the truer atheist.
It must be tough to be a follower of a religion that causes you to get bent out of shape at every other person who has a more traditional and popular belief system. I, for one, cannot see myself living that way every day of my life.
LN- that’s weak. In the real world we can’t save everyone but it makes sense to help the person who is doing so much to help others. Letting her suffer the same fate as the poor and wretched that she aided, out of some illogical principle of “fairness”, would serve no purpose and cause untolds more to suffer unnecessarily.
I don’t care if Mother Theresa converted people before she died. She still did a damn sight more for those people than anyone posting here did. Stacerella, LN- you do a fraction of what she did (feeding, cleaning, advocating) and then we’ll talk. I know you have a right to your beliefs but I believe that even if a person does have less than perfect intentions, it’s their actual actions that count.
And quigonkick- you want my getoverit opinion? The coins don’t say what God. Yes I’m serious; if they said ‘in Jesus we trust’ that would be wrong. But all religions use the word God so it’s hard to prove that’s who they’re referring to. I wouldn’t let it bother you.
I don’t think someone would have to walk in MT’s shoes to be able to say something about her. I don’t have to be a world-renowned chef to say something I’m eating tastes like crap. Going by those rules, none of us have any right to judge corrupt politicians unless we’ve been there, that we can’t say a mechanic did a crappy job of fixing a car unless we could do the same thing (defeats the purpose of hiring a mechanic, but I digress), or that we can’t say someone operating under the guise of charity is a phony unless we’ve dedicated our lives to matching said charitable efforts.
Lame.
Catharine, you’re right about the exact text but it does not say “under A God”, “under YOUR God”, etc. Also note it doesn’t say “Jehova”, “Buddah”, or “Mohammad” and if you honestly think that non-Christians would buy your argument, you should prep yourself for a letdown. Me, personally, the text doesn’t bother me but rules are rules (I’m referring to the Constitution, more specifically the First Amendment) and we must abide by them even when they don’t cater to our every wish. The document works and we’ve strayed too far from it. We wouldn’t want to be featured on this very blog, would we?
Funny how some people think the “under God” thing is nothing to fret over – that it’s “really silly and people need to get over themselves” – yet they turn right around and fart raging infernos about the health care bill and how much IT is unconstitutional or about anything else that treads on the Big C’s Bill of Rights. It’s Deceiver.com-worthy, if you ask me…
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
“In God We Trust” doesn’t establish a specific religion. It’s quite generic with a nod to our country’s history. Historical context allows us to realize that not establishing a national church was the clear intent of the founders. Unless you read that as them establishing Southern Baptist or is it Presbyterianism or is it Methodist or…? In this setting the rest of your argument falls flat. Do you take issue with the Declaration of Independence too? Please let us know what God and what Creator that are spoken of there. “Nature’s God” could mean oh-so-much.
It would also seem that most “non-Christians” don’t appear to mind as they understand the context in which it resides and take no offense by it. Of course, I can only base that on previous experience of when this topic arises the only people to try a spirited defense are the atheists. But reality is what I find it to be so that is only what I use. Indeed, many people of different faiths take comfort in knowing the country they live in is guided by a higher principle even if not their specific cup o’tea. Only the anti-religious crowd of atheists seem to take the most offense. Again, I don’t understand how people can live such unhappy lives, always taking offense at others beliefs. Smugness is an ugly thing. I do hope you can overcome it.
Quigonkick- Frankly, I think you should be grateful you live in a country where you have the luxury of getting upset over a matter of semantics. We all know what happens in other countries: people are killed, ostracised, etc. for religious beliefs or not following the state religion. To use some analogies like you, it’s unfair for a Westerner to gripe over the chef not putting enough mayo on a sandwich, when someone in Africa is dying of starvation. It’s unfair of someone to complain about waiting in line at the doctor, when there are people who will never benefit from the medical care we have here.
“Me, personally, the text doesn’t bother me but rules are rules (I’m referring to the Constitution, more specifically the First Amendment) and we must abide by them even when they don’t cater to our every wish. The document works and we’ve strayed too far from it. We wouldn’t want to be featured on this very blog, would we?”
Dude. The text obviously does bother you!!! It’s okay, but there YOU go being Deciever worthy yourself, saying you’re not going to get upset and then ranting on.
And lastly, you don’t have to walk in her shoes to see hypocrisy, true. But watching people sit on their butts and nitpick someone else’s charitable intentions is annoying to me.
This reminds me of people who get upset about a charitable donation can sitting on a counter in a break room because the contents are earmarked for Religion X’s humanitarian team. The team may not proselyte at all, but the fact that the organizing body consists of church members who believe that tenet Y requires them to help the needy is enough to make the charity unsupportable, and the can for donations inappropriate, even if no one ever actually ASKS for donations. Better to let the needy suffer!
I don’t think Mother Teresa was perfect, but I think that she probably did more for others than most people will do in their lives. The money spent badmouthing her and protesting her stamp would be better spent on humanitarian relief efforts.
Religion doesn’t have to be organized, nor does it have to involve a belief in the supernatural. There are plenty of devout atheists and plenty of people whose only affiliation with a church is a baptismal certificate.
“Under God” excludes a lot of people’s personal beliefs and it does walk the dog in a certain direction. (Look up the short story “stone soup” to know where I’m going with this.) Since some people are all about intent, take into account the religious standing this country had when such phrases were injected, then try to say it isn’t being specific. This is not about being PC. How many firearm-restricting laws were on the books in 1800 vs 2010? Did that constriction happen overnight? No, it didn’t… the dog was walked slowly in that direction. Stone Soup.
Tell me, Hurricane and Catharine, since that phrase is not anything worth fretting over, where do YOU draw the line? Spell it out for me, and make your lines clear, simple, and sensible to where anyone can understand it without reasonable doubt.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting me or my country to be better. Such striving has driven mankind to heights good (and bad). I understand people are dying around the world from things we take for granted. I also understand my tax dollars – those earned during the most effective years of my life – are shipped out in countless aid packages that DO help people. (Oops, beside the point, my bad.) Does that mean it’s okay for someone to steal from me because I should be grateful that I even HAVE a job to finance whatever is being stolen? I don’t think so. Do you?
Would you have a problem with someone launching a home invasion against you? I sure hope not… there are a lot of people who are homeless. That you won’t publish your home address (or even better, your Social Security number) in this discussion is proof that you don’t want to even risk any of that. Am I right? Remember, a lot of people are homeless in this world… and at least you have something you consider valuable enough to protect…
It’s the whole “I don’t agree with what you are saying at all, but I’ll fight like hell for your right to say it”. Have you ever been in such a position? If you have, then why are you saying the text bothers me? I told you it doesn’t. Am I lying simply because it’s something YOU don’t agree with or that since I am discussing it, it MUST bother me?
It’s funny you’re trying to imply that I’m not grateful. Cold milk. I can drive one mile and buy cold milk in at least a dozen locations. Do you have any idea how blessed we are to be able to say that? These are the kind of things I am grateful for on a daily basis and it constantly floors me that it’s true. Really! If I’m grateful for cold milk, imagine what else I am grateful for! Absurd? Maybe, but just because I can buy cold milk doesn’t mean it’s okay to walk all over my rights because some people in this world don’t even have rights, much less the chance to buy cold milk. Yes I have cold milk in my fridge right now but if someone tries to enter my home uninvited, I will not be okay with that.
I’ll tell ya something that annoys me: Those folks that have no problem with gov’t butting into private lives and wanting to add a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage but turn right around and gripe that their gun rights (or other rights) are being threatened. You know, those types that like to cherry pick their rights. If you’re willing to discard even one of them, you deserve none of them. I’d love to end people that burn the flag, yet I understand that they really do have a right to do so. In other words, and again, it is impossible to draw a line where it becomes “too much”.
I’m trying to explain my point of view rather than expecting people to blindly accept it. Big difference between long winded explanations like mine and a pointless rant. I’m not going to insult anyone’s intelligence by disagreeing and ending it there without going through great pains to explain my point of view. I think discussions like these are lacking in today’s world. Surely you understand.
Oh yeah, the Declaration of Independence is not a binding document that disperses the power and rights that make up this wonderful country. Any point trying to be made on it in regards to the “under God” text is blindingly beside the topic and a red herring.
I’d talk more, but I’m already late for my “Smugness Anonymous” meeting. That’s a joke, folks.
I thought my “line” was quite clear but I’ll try again. I draw it at the government establishing an official religion. State churches and such. And trampling on gun rights, rights provided by the Constitution, is different than supposed gay marriage rights (not specifically mentioned in the Const.) Now, in our democratic system of governing we can, and do, debate these things but to say they are on the same footing is incorrect.
As for the “Under God” thing. I must have missed something. Weren’t we talking about “In God We Trust”? Talk about shifting the line.
I couldn’t possibly care less if they put Mother Teresa on a stamp.
But.
Katherine Hepburn? Are you suggesting that Katherine Hepburn is known to the same degree for atheism as Mother Teresa is for Catholicism? Do we say “Atheist Katherine Hepburn” the way we say “MOTHER Teresa”? Did Hepburn always wear clothing that was a clear indication of her atheism? Did she begin and end every public appearance with a ritual reaffirming her atheism? Did she claim that it was her mission to spread atheism all over the world?
“I’ll tell ya something that annoys me: Those folks that have no problem with gov’t butting into private lives and wanting to add a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage but turn right around and gripe that their gun rights (or other rights) are being threatened.”
It occurred to me the other day that we now have a highly-modified Bill of Rights. This thought was crystallized by the Supremes’ recent decision that free speech can be directly converted into money, and vice versa. This comes on top of too many comments I’ve seen from too many people lately, which can be summarized as, “We keep saying that criminals [i.e., everybody, because we're all under suspicion] have a bunch of so-called Constitutional rights, well I don’t care if the FBI searches my library records, hell I don’t even go to the library, I got nothin’ to feel guilty about, listen to my phone calls, read my mail, I got nothin’ to hide, unlike these people with their radical pro-terrorist agendas, well sir, your so-called Constitutional rights have got to get in line behind my right not to get blowed up on an airplane.” (Even though it’s about a million times more likely that you’ll be killed by a speeding jackass on the way to the airport.)
Then when the subject turns to guns or free speech money, the talk is of the Holy of Holies, the Revered, the Sacred, Most Holy Document of the Republic, let us Bow Our Heads in Reverence, Holy of Holies, Founding Fathers, Must Not Be Abrdiged, Don’t Tread on Me.
Stated as briefly as possible, here is the new Bill of Rights:
“Guns and money. **** everything else.”
I…thought we were talking about Mother Theresa, and the FFRF’s double-standard. Seriously. Not trying to be snotty, just sort of bewildered. I STILL want to know why MLK and Malcolm X weren’t problematic, when it’s fairly clear that they both were/are figures of not just public, but religious significance. If that’s the standard, the only standard, that FFRF is worried about, then why are they gagging on MT when MLK and Malcolm X went down just fine? So to speak…
Sorry Quigonkick. I’m not going to argue anymore- I could fight back but I know we’re never going to agree, no matter how many times I state my opinions. Basically I’m just going to agree to disagree. Anything more is pointless.
Yep. Over here, cleaning my guns, with stacks of money. Sitting on a sofa made of money. And guns. I guess you’re on to us; the ENTIRE American working class are secretly rich, armed to the teeth, and callous. That’s one hellaciously cartoony world you live in.
despite her name having become synonymous with ‘do-gooder’, do just a little bit of research and one will discover that theresa wasn’t a very nice person. she actually brought quite a bit of harm to people while she built up her little empire. i don’t much care if she’s on a stamp, an honor she will share with the likes of tweety bird, but i do wish that a hole would finally be poked to deflate the mythology that has grown up around this..uhh..’mother’.
What I wish is that the same people who rail against Mother Teresa to ‘deflate the mythology’ would be consistent and do the same for rampant adulterer Martin Luther King, Jr., grotesque racist warmonger Mahatma Gandhi, serial corruptocrat Nelson Mandela, etc. I’d love to see the riot that would follow a book on MLK with a title at the same level as The Missionary Position (originally Sacred Cow) or Hell’s Angel.
I keep getting the impression the REAL problem with Mother Teresa is the same for most of her critics as the Freedom From Religion folks. Hell, Hitchens admitted as much in interviews over his book. I mean, you’ve got guys like Tariq Ali bitching her out for associating with Baby Doc who then turn around and wax poetic about Fidel Castro. Does. Not. Compute.
To say nothing of Malcolm X’s racist hatred.
“Yep. Over here, cleaning my guns, with stacks of money. Sitting on a sofa made of money. And guns. I guess you’re on to us; the ENTIRE American working class are secretly rich, armed to the teeth, and callous. That’s one hellaciously cartoony world you live in.”
(First, yes I went well off-topic, I don’t deny it.)
Money: The Supreme Court just ruled that corporations have the same rights as individuals in using money, in any amount, to support political campaigns. Corporations can avoid personal liability in a way that a person can’t, but when it comes to buying legislators, they have equal rights. I didn’t say or imply, in any possible way, that every gun owner is rich. You made that up.
Guns: Maybe you haven’t heard it, but I’ve heard a lot of people saying, even louder than usual, “My right to own guns is guaranteed under the Constitution and SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED, it is my FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT under the Constitution”, as in the Second Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, and there is frequently rhetoric after that to the effect that any attempt to abridge will be be met with a hail of gunfire, blood in the streets, we will take back our country, etc.
I’ve also heard a lot of people say, in effect, what I said above: “These so-called imaginary constitutional rights to a trial and jury and the law and all of that crap is RIDICULOUS.”
Habeas corpus, equal voting rights, due process of law, equal protection, illegal search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, wiretapping subject to judicial review: all optional, to be enforced at the government’s discretion, and they only need to tell us what they feel like so long as they “act in good faith.”
If you want to ignore all of that, go right ahead.
Did you read your original post–the one I quoted above? Hyperbole is useful, and it’s FUN to use. Shoot, I use it all the time. But you and I, and anyone else who indulges in it, should expect to be called on it.
Make what you will of the bias inherent in this article: http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html.
But do note the eighth through fourteenth paragraphs, in re: Police duty to protect citizens, or rather the legally-accepted ABSENCE of said duty. Given that in both legal and logistical terms, police not only can’t protect us, but shouldn’t be expected to do so, I don’t have a problem with private gun ownership. A gun is THE great leveler.
Again, I’m not sure how this has thing one to do with MT or the FFRF.
Sometimes, religious affiliations and beliefs are irrelevant of the good deeds people do. Sometimes people are just good in nature. Why must people protest that?