I read the walking pilgrimage and found it quite inspiring. But I think the mention of Mother Teresa is seriously misplaced. Her idea of love was that the people at her centres would find Jesus through suffering. Although they have changed since her death, she didn't even give them anti-malarials, and the vast donations were spent either on opening new centres that worked the same way at negligible cost or filling the coffers of Rome. When people offered to donate stuff that wasn't hard cash, they were generally refused. This has been documented in a number of books (for instance,
The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice), and admittedly some of them are anti-Catholic, but the data and reference material available as proof is mostly incontrovertible. With regards Bill Gates, I am sure his philanthropy started to improve his image (which was very poor at the time) and he was maybe tiring of Microsoft. But love him or hate him, the protocols he has set up for dispensing funds are carefully data-led. This means that charities are held very accountable (most charities in the world are not) and that funds - for instance to fight aids - are not hedged with religious paraphernalia such as GW Bush's disastrous funds-with-strings that prevented countries accepting help unless they promoted abstinence over condom use.
I am a great fan of dailygood.org, but tossing 'feelgood' names in the mix without first knowing the facts could considerably erode its credibility and effectiveness.
On Jun 19, 2013 Chris Docker wrote:
I read the walking pilgrimage and found it quite inspiring. But I think the mention of Mother Teresa is seriously misplaced. Her idea of love was that the people at her centres would find Jesus through suffering. Although they have changed since her death, she didn't even give them anti-malarials, and the vast donations were spent either on opening new centres that worked the same way at negligible cost or filling the coffers of Rome. When people offered to donate stuff that wasn't hard cash, they were generally refused. This has been documented in a number of books (for instance,
The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice), and admittedly some of them are anti-Catholic, but the data and reference material available as proof is mostly incontrovertible. With regards Bill Gates, I am sure his philanthropy started to improve his image (which was very poor at the time) and he was maybe tiring of Microsoft. But love him or hate him, the protocols he has set up for dispensing funds are carefully data-led. This means that charities are held very accountable (most charities in the world are not) and that funds - for instance to fight aids - are not hedged with religious paraphernalia such as GW Bush's disastrous funds-with-strings that prevented countries accepting help unless they promoted abstinence over condom use.
I am a great fan of dailygood.org, but tossing 'feelgood' names in the mix without first knowing the facts could considerably erode its credibility and effectiveness.