[QUOTE=KevinPONeill;1025708]Christopher Hitchen "holds back no punches" in his book, "The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice".  In it he evaluates Mother Teresa's work in Calcutta.  This book was published before she died; I just recently got a chance to read it.

Hitchen's critique covers a few very worthy topics.  First he demonstrates how the Press would not follow-up on stories that questioned some of Mother Teresa's funding, and her use of those funds.  Hitchen does not accuse Mother Teresa of unlawful practices.  In fact he shows how her worldview and Faith shapes her actions, which the Press would have questioned if it were not associated with Mother Teresa. Hitchen's critique is directed first at the media.

Next he evaluates the worldview that guided Mother Teresa's ministry.  I believe people would be surprised by Mother Teresa's views on suffering and the role of her mission.   Surprisingly, it was not the eradication of suffering that was the objective of her mission (as many of her contributers may have believed).  Here I believe Hitchen is the most successful, because he takes Mother Teresa's words, and the practices of the mission, and thereby creates a complete picture.

Hitchen goes after some of Mother Teresa' sources for funding, like Keating, of the Keating Five.  Who Hitchen believed used the charity to "redeem himself", and " Papa Doc" Duvalier, the dictator of Haiti, who gave generously to the Calcutta mission, reaping her public praise, as his family fleeced the Haitian people.

Mother Teresa believed suffering is redemptive (we are made holy and drawn closer to God because of suffering), and was therefore a gift from God.

The goal of the mission was to "share in the sufferings" of the dying who entered their mission.  They cared and loved those who suffered, but they did not "hate" the causes of their suffering.

Following the money, Hitchen asks us to wonder why Mother Teresa's facilities were poorly supplied with pain releaving medication.  Where did Mother Teresa's money go? No, she was not indulging in worldly pleasures.  Maybe that is why no one followed the money. 

Mother Teresa's Faith and Worldview guided her practice.  She believed God works through suffering, and she was not in a hurry to undo it.  Her goals was to share this "good news".  The Church received a lot of the donated money for her mission, as well as her Nobel Peace Price money, for the propagation of her faith.

Hitchen rightful asks us why we did not recognize how Mother Teresa's worldview directed her practices (I was shocked by my own ignorance of her worldview).

I think Hitchen fairly questions the uncritical position the media take on religion in general, perhaps out of fear or personal bias.[/QUOTE]

It is a curious crochet of human nature to believe uncritically any and all derogatory information about a famous individual.  It makes us feel better about ourselves if we can tear down somebody else.

Why do you think a journalist notoriously hostile to Catholicism (and all other religions) could report reliably on the worldview of a religious he had never met and whose missions he had never visited?  Certainly, it is hazardous to raise the issue of personal bias in such a situation as you did in your last paragraph.

[QUOTE=KevinPONeill;1026963]How would one critically measure the impact of a particular belief system on it's propensity to produce humanitarian compassion.

Given my experience with people (good and bad) from all "walks of life", I wouldn't even bother.

You believe that Orthodox Christians (all other things being equal) are more moral than any other group of people.  I suggest that you demonstrate it.  The burden of proof is on your very assertive claim.   

Hitler and the butcher of the Balkans are good example of Christian immorality.  I think Christians have demonstrated their propensity for evil enough to make such a claim worthless.  No one group is free from evil, and no one group is a shinning example of morality.  Sociologist and anthopologist would live to see the correlation you promise.  I would as well.[/QUOTE]

If you can't measure morality, then why do you think Jesus is so good? 
Why are you a friend of Jesus?

If you can't measure morality then how can you state Hitler was so bad?
Why aren't you a friend of Hitler?

And if you were to be so bold as to say that Jesus was better than Hitler, why shouldn't I be able to say the Christians are better than Thugees

Here might be the resolution for you. If you want to restate your claim that Orthodox are "better" according to the unique and particular values of Orthodox Christianity, then you are free to claim that. But when you use a general standard of morality and claim to be "better" than others then I say, "prove it".

I am stating a claim that Orthodox Christians are better according to the Universally applicable standards of morality as revealed by Jesus Christ Our Lord and Savior which are the inheritance of Orthodox Christianity.

The mere fact that Orthodox Christians conform their lives to an externally given "value system" is sufficient to confirm their superior potential to moral behavior.  (Do they all live up to this? Of course not.  But at least the potential is there.)

You guide your life by your own internal "value system", and thus are liable to moral failings.  Humans, in addition to loving to read dirt about other people, are much given to rationalizing their bad behavior.  And most people seem to live for righteous indignation, when others fail to endorse their notions.
-----------------------------------------------------------

And I am not at all sure that Hitler would be judged immoral by "commonly held standards".  Genocide has been a common tool of governance since time immemorial.  It is easy to rationalize wiping out an inconvenient people.