Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Cuntjustification

I like that word so much I'm going to make it a new label, and I'll probably put it on every post from here on in. It just kinda rolls off the tongue.

Cuntjustification.

Anyway, on to the reason for my little linguistic bundle of joy: A couple weeks back, a few of you mofos asked me what my beef was with the late Mother Theresa, a woman I have called a "cunt" on more than a few locations. Mercifully, since I was drunk, the conversation didn't go long, because I am somehow incapable of remaining dispassionate on the subject of this thieving whore.

But if any of you are curious, here's a short, funny, and accurate account of the basic beefs with Mother Theresa. If you need even more reason to hate this bitch after this, then I'll be more than happy to finish the job.

8 comments:

Colin E. Laisure-Pool said...

Wow. I had always just assumed that she was a decent human being by virtue of her title. Why would the Catholic church canonize (has she or is she in the process of sainthood?) such a person?

Hitchens reminds me of William F. Buckley; my favorite condescending Brit from the 'Face the Nation' programs back in the day. I can still envision him calling Charles Rangel a 'torpid mountebank' (I had to look up both words), to which Rangel repied with a seemingly genuine 'thank you.' Good times.

Diesel said...

As far as I know, the church is actually accelerating canonization for Mother Theresa. But they're having a problem with the whole "documented miracles" thing.

Pat said...

I have no take on this whatsoever besides the following.
A) Christopher Hitchens AND Penn & Teller say it. It must be accurate!
B) The categories at the bottom of the post are hilarious — autism, bullshit, Charlie Manuel, Cuntjustification, Mother Theresa, Penn and Teller.

b said...

Did Penn actually cough and say "fucking cunts" when the nuns had them all wrapped up!?!

Now that's comedy!

Anonymous said...

not to be a douche or anything, but Penn and Teller come off like the assholes here. so let's see, they got 4 people, one of which was a drunk, to say she wasn't a great person. big fucking deal. by all means, come back at me with hardcore stats and interviews and I'll change my mind, but until you do that, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the woman who moved to the 3rd world and took care of the poorest people in the world. even if, and that's a big if, she became a "cunt" later in life, that was still a very humane action she took earlier in her life, one that's more praiseworthy than anything you or anyone else on this blog has ever taken.

D. (bringing it) Suave

St said...

Excuse me, Sleazy, but I've helped tens of young Arizona athletes pass their freshman composition courses so they could continue to play and provide positive role models for Tucson's youth.

I'm actually partly responsible for the UA's recent softball national title. If it weren't for me, there's no way one of their starters would have been eligible.

So there. Mother Schmeresa.

AnEasyMark said...

Why are people surprised that money was spent on achieving religious goals?

Why do the actions of Mother Teresa need justification?

Christianity owes, in large part, its success and size to the care that it has provided to the sick, dying and poor. Minimal care was provided by early Christians to the destitute, those suffering from the plagues and poverty of the Roman Empire. The theory, presented by Rodney Stark in 'The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal, Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries', goes that the minimal care (shelter, food and basic nursing) would result in an increased survival rate of ~25%. This is a factor in the explosive pre-Constantine growth the Christians enjoyed. Additionally, converting the survivors of urban diseases increases the likelihood that they will survive future pandemics, and thereby ensuring the ability to work closely with the infirm.

This is self perpetuating. It is a model that has worked well for two thousand years and has been more successful than countless competing sects. Why change?

Religion is a service industry. The service Christianity provides is faith to those suffering physically and spiritually. And in turn the infrastructure providing spiritual services receives increased influence and power.

I'll open Nietzsche's Twilight of the Idols to a random page "the invalid is a parasite on society. In a certain state it is indecent to go on living." (36, A moral code for physicians).

Where do we draw the line, what is best for society, how do we judge what is best for society? I see how it is in the interest of Catholism to instill guilt or prolong suffering. That's not cool. Welfare state? That kinda sucks, too. WHO WILL CARE FOR THESE PEOPLE??? I don't want to be left with Nietzsche and eugenics, an INVALID calling all invalids parasites. Do you? What is the alternative the the 2000 year old Christian model that is rushing to DEIFY Mother Teresa?

mark

Anonymous said...

Read City of Joy. You will learn how Mother Teresa cleaned maggot-infested leprous and necrotic wounds with her own hands. She was afraid of NOTHING but lived each and every day on faith alone. She turned no one away. Money spent for a nunnery? So poor uneducated girls who want to be nuns can do so rather than be forced into prostitution? Gets MY VOTE. The lady was a true inspiration and legend! btw I am not a Catholic but I am a Christian.