I would also want to know why she was doing those things, if indeed she was.
I will gladly look at your evidence IF you will also agree to view her in the context that, whether you agree or not, it is legitimate and appropriate to believe that the life one lives after this life is more important than the live lived on earth, that sacrifices may need to be made in this short life on earth to assure an eternity of blessedness, and that it is a gift to people who seek your aid to focus on their eternal life as your primary concern. I don't ask you to agree with this philosophy, just agree that it is an appropriate philosophy for those who choose it.
Which doesn't justify going out and harming people, as some people in the Middle East do -- I'm not talking about suicide bombing as a path to an eternal life of sex with virgins. But let's keep in mind that, as far as I know, those who came to MT's clinics for care came there voluntarily, and were not forced into it. If they were content with her ministry, who are you to carp?
If you insist in viewing MT only from your own spiritual (or non-spiritual) context, you're basically in the position of a person who comes across a TV telecast of a hockey game and rails at how terrible is is that this skater ran right into that skater and knocked him down. Sure, on the streets of New York running into a person an intentionally knocking him down is a crime. In a hockey game, it's an agreed part of the process.
Context is key to human interactions. If you only look at MT's actions from your own context, naturally you will find things to object to. Just as, if she looked at your life only from her context, she would see in you a terrible sinner and think that some things you do are far, far worse then the things you accuse her of. After all, in denying God, if you succeed in turning one person away from God you will have destroyed a soul for eternity, which in her context would be one of the worst evils possible.
So, yes, I'll look at whatever factual evidence you want to bring up IF you'll agree to judge her actions by the context of her beliefs, not yours. Otherwise, what's the point? Judged by a context not our own, all of us have done terrible, terrible things in our lives.
Of course, this isn't to say that there isn't an agreed context to judge her by, which are the norms society has cast into law. So if you can show that she broke the law, that's a significant issue for me (though not dispositive--I broke the law myself back in the days of the civil rights movement, so you're dealing with someone who believes that in certain contexts it is a moral duty to break the law. But certainly it makes the burden of proving one's actions right much higher.
One by the way: as to the Keating dollars. First, not all his money was stolen, some was legitimately earned. How do you know which kind she got? Second, do dollar bills have consciences? This is an ongoing debate in the nonprofit field, and so far the general consensus conveniently seems to be that even if there is a possible taint on the money, the right use of it by the charity cleans it. So she was well in line with the normative values of U.S. charities to keep the money. Third, Keating certainly paid taxes, both personally and through his banks, to both the U.S. and to California (and in local property taxes, sales taxes, etc.) Can you show me that California or any federal or local government took money they had received in taxes and gave it back to the people Keating "stole" it from? I'm betting you can't. If they don't believe it was wrong to accept and keep "stolen" money, why should she?
So, in sum, I am quite willing to look at your facts, but they must be viewed in the context of a) law and, if her actions were not illegal, b) her principles and beliefs. Just as I judge your actions in the context of your beliefs and do not judge you as being immoral because your belief system differs from hers. |
