Mother Teresa Stamps See Objections

Remove all ads!

I was checking my email this morning and I saw this. Apparently the US Postal Service wants to honor Mother Teresa with a stamp. No problem, right? And about time, too. Well, not according to The Freedom From Religion Foundation, which claims that Mother Teresa is a primarily religious figure, not a humanitarian one. If so, she would violate item 9 on the USPS's criteria for what art can go on stamps:

Of course, here it gets sticky, and not just because Mother Teresa fits squarely in both categories. Other past Stamp honorees include Malcom X (former chief spokesman for the Nation of Islam), Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. (baptist minister and co-founder of Southern Christian Leadership Conference), Father Edward J. Flanagan, and, of course, the Virgin Mary.

So, what do you all think? Does Mother Teresa violate the official criteria? Should the criteria be changed? Does precedent change the decision?

 

NOG, I'd ask some other questions ... like, when was that "item 9" of the stamp criteria created? And when were those stamps for other religious (or somewhat religious) people issued? (That is, were those other stamps issued before or after this anti-religious stamp criteria?)

Personally, I see no problem with stamps for Malcolm X or MLK. A stamp for the Virgin Mary does seem a bit over the top, however. (I'm not familiar with Father Flanagan, so I'll skip over that one.)

Frankly, I think that claiming that Mother Teresa is more of a religious figure than a humanitarian one is a crock. If this issue had been about, say, the late pope John Paul II, I could probably agree with the objections. But this is a crock, plain and simple.

I'm non-religious and I don't mind in the least if the Postal Service creates a Mother Teresa stamp. I might not intentionally ask for MT stamps next time I need stamps, but I wouldn't throw a hissy fit if those were the stamps I was given either.

 

I have no idea when Item 9 was added or when the other stamps were created. I'll agree that MLK and Malcom X are primarily socio-political figures, not religious ones, but it was part of a spectrum, as was the Virgin Mary. Father Flanagan created a program for wayward/troubled children and teens called Boy's Town. It was very successful and is still in use today. That being said, he's Father Flanagan, and I think his program was heavily based on Christian principles (much the same way AA is for those who know it). I'd say he's about on par with Mother Teresa for the balance of his role, though far less known.

Personally, I object to Item 9 on the simple fact that it excludes religious groups. I don't object to the spirit, but it should instead ban any art praising anything for a religious reason. So, Mother Teresa praying is banned, while Mother Teresa giving food to the hungry isn't.

 

That sounds pretty good to me. I would say that I wouldn't mind Father Flanagan either. So what if Boy's Town was based on Christian principles. So was the US. Should every American Prez be banned from being on a stamp for that reason? Father Flanagan and Mother Teresa did things that while based on religious principles were things that had real world benefits. Ditto for MLK, and Malcolm X (I suppose ... I don't know that much about him, but I'll give him a pass).

Mother Teresa really isn't primarily a religious figure. If it weren't for her humanitarian acts, hardly anyone would know who she was. Ditto for Father Flanagan. Ditto for MLK. If there was any reason that I might not be particularly supportive of her being on a stamp, it would be that she wasn't an American nor was she known for doing her great deeds in the US. But that said, I still don't mind if she's on a USPS stamp.

Putting someone on a stamp isn't that big a deal for me. It's not like naming a holiday for someone, or putting their face on a coin or paper currency ... i.e. things that are rather more permanent. Stamps are relatively short term things. The USPS will print up a certain number of those stamps, and then move on to the next thing that goes on a stamp. So, given the relatively short term nature of stamps, I personally don't feel any need to have a terribly high threshold for who or what gets put on a stamp.

 

I'm fine with all of them except the Virgin Mary - that one's just ridiculous and seems in blatant violation of item 9. Item 9 in general sounds pretty good to me.

 

I don't really care who's on the stamp since I don't lick them anymore. There's just something wrong about licking the backside of some butt-ugly historical figure.

 

T2, I'm glad that I wasn't drinking anything when I read that 2nd sentence or I would have spit it all over my keyboard. That was seriously funny!!!

 

I don't understand the basis behind Article 9 -- there's just no way that a stamp can violate someone's civil rights.

 

LKD, didn't you see the name of the group in the original post that has a problem with this? The group is named "Freedom From Religion".... basically a bunch of hate-filled, get-a-life, anti-religious bigots who want to rip out all mention of anything religious from government and are probably offended if someone says "Bless you" after they sneeze.

 

You don't need to be a hate filled bigot to not want other people's illogical beliefs affecting your life.

I feel awkward if someone says 'bless you' when I sneeze - it's just an outright weird thing to say.

The stamps issue is a minor matter, but I'm glad organisations like this are out there fighting to keep religion contained where it should be rather than spilling into the government or the daily lives of those who don't want to deal with it.

Why do you think that there should be mention of religion in the government? I can't see any good reason why there should be.

 

You could figure all that out just from the name? Check out their site. They advocate for separation of Church and state, not the abolition of religion. While their views of religion are less than complimentary, it is quite a stretch to call them "hate-filled". Some of them most assuredly are, but so are a lot of people who call themselves Christian.

For my part, I think the Freedom From Religion Foundation is dead wrong. Her accomplishments are clearly more closely associated with the Catholic Church than the accomplishments of Dr. King or Malcolm X were with theirs (Mother Theresa worked through her church to achieve her objectives, while the movements of Dr. King and Malcolm X were far greater in both size and scope than their respective religions), but I think the good she did was the type that transcends faith or credo. It is something that any person can respect, that no one would view in a negative light. Whether her "principal achievements are associated with religious undertakings or beliefs," in the end, comes down to a simple judgment call. I think judgment calls this close should favor inclusion.

 

I'm not sure I would classify all of these people as "hate filled bigots" -- just because you do not agree with someone else does not necessarily mean you hate them or are a bigot. I would argue that they are making a mountain out of a molehill and wasting their resources on a non-issue -- the term my old boss used to use: "tempest in a teapot", pops into mind.

And Aik, I'm not sure that the existance of a stamp is "forcing you to deal with religion", even if it had a picture of Christ, Buddha, or Muhammad on it. It's a STAMP, for <deleted> sake!

 

Well, Mother Theresa is being considered for sainthood, so it does lean a little towards the religious side of things. However, I don't think that the post office has had an issue of this in the past. My mother-in-law is very religious, and every year she sends out religious Christmas cards. The card we received this year, came with a stamp that showed a picture of a Nativity scene, which would have to be considered religious. I don't think we'll ever see a stamp of Mohommed though - cannot draw the prophet rule.

 

Aldeth, I'm gonna use your mother-in-law as an example here -- hope you don't mind.

Let's suppose that she sent a card to an atheist friend of hers named Buford. Does the act of receiving a card that says "May God Bless You In The Coming Year" damage Buford? Is it a threat or a taunt? Would any sane, reasonable, impartial judge ever be able to interpret that card, with its accompanying Nativity scene stamp, as having injured Buford in any way? Of course not. The notion is absurd.

The same goes for Buford buying a stamp to send in a cheque to his power company (I know that's a kind of outdated notion, mailing in a cheque, but whatever). Does the fact that he bought and used a stamp with Mother Teresa, or even the Nativity, damage him? Does it slow down his letter? Does it cause him mental anguish? He might not like it, but it hardly causes Buford any harm whatsoever. The fact is that if we outlawed things just because some people don't like it, we would pretty well have to outlaw everything. We couldn't even just have plain stamps with the money value printed because someone would get offended over the font type.

And lest anyone say I'm making a straw man, let me state, getting wound up over Mother Teresa on a stamp is to me just as stunningly, stupidly ridiculous as getting wound up over the font type. Absurd in the extreme.

 

Last time I was at a post office to purchase stamps, I had a few options. I ended up purchasing stamps from the TV show, "The Simpsons", but I could have purchased stamps with a Olympic theme. If you don't want to use Mother Theresa stamps, there are other options...

 

I disagree, LKD. As I've said before... I call myself a "non-theist"... I am a non-believer. However, I refuse to call myself an "atheist" because it is my considered opinion that atheists who make these public stinks are nothing but hate-filled bigots who can't stand anything associated with religion and seek to wipe any reference to it in public life. And I sincerely do mean "hate-filled bigots" when I use those words, because to really do believe that they are filled with hate for religion and religious people.

 

Does everything have to be so polarized for you, Crusis? There are a lot more colors out there than just black and white.

 

lol. Yeah, I was feeling a little bit outrageous. Really, I couldn't care less about this issue I do find item 9 to be completely reasonable though - getting your face on a stamp is a pretty big acknowledgement, and I'm not sure that purely religious figures who haven't really done anything that a secular society would consider noteworthy should be acknowledged in that way by a public/government-run institution.
On the other hand, if they wanted to do a great religious figures or whatever series, I don't think I'd actually care.

By all means, put Mother Teresa on a stamp. From what I know, she did some pretty good things.

 

Well, Crucis did mention this:

You'll note he didn't say "all atheists", just the ones who make a stink about relatively minor matters just to be pains in the ass. On that note I agree. Not all atheists want to wipe out references to religion in public discourse. But there are those who do.

But that of course makes me think of my own small sub-group. People claim that when Mormons as a group take a stand on social issues, they are only acting out of hate. Well, I am here to tell you that is bullkaka. I know many Mormons who have done things that the membership in general disagreed with, and I have never seen a congregation act like the stereotypical bigoted fools some want to make them out to be. My brother is a first class flamer, but he was never treated like dirt or assaulted or any of that nonsense. My wife had an abortion before she met me. I myself did some evil things after my divorce. The church dealt with things according to a plan, but it never once devolved into anything that an honest person could term "hate".

What's my point? I know that many people think that my religious beliefs are silly. I can live with that. Most of those people are still able to be civil to me. I cannot and do not tolerate being labelled a bigot (or having my religion so labelled), though, when I know that it is simply not true. So I would like to try and give the same consideration to my opponents. I may think their position is silly and a waste of time, and I may think that they are going to far, but I am hesitant to label them as "hate filled". The Golden Rule pops into mind here. If any don't know it, try a Google search