As an atheist and a person who insists on following logical principles, I'm extremely disappointed with this book. The fact that it's less than 100 pages of large print with no appendix of citable sources says a lot about the substance of this book, or lack thereof. The language is extremely leading, and reading this book gave me the same feeling of revulsion I got watching the logic-free documentary Vaxxed. Hitchens will weirdly focus on one thing and then go on for pages as if it's some sort of damning evidence. For instance, the book starts off talking about a photo that exists of MT with Michele Duvalier. And the Duvaliers are bad. And there she is, right there in the photo with one of them. And they're holding hands and looking at each other. Right there in that photo. With the bad woman. And she's smiling. And she doesn't deny it. And therefore MT is a horrible person, the worst kind of person, and it's totally obvious. He goes on for pages with stuff like this, and it's a very tedious read.
He also weirdly makes her out to be horrible and fanatical because she takes Christian stances, like being anti-abortion. Really? The missionary Christian nun buys into the Church's position on abortion? Shocking. Or not. It's also apparently her fault that people claim that she performed miracles that she never once claimed to have performed. I mean, he's bashing her because the Church sainted her and he thinks her miracles were a sham. Yet, he's an atheist, which means that he thinks all miracles and saints are a sham. Why is MT somehow worse than the rest? He's also fixated on her forgiving people, questioning by whose authority she forgives, and what right does she have to forgive, and no one asked her for forgiveness. As if each of us doesn't have the right to forgive others for the slights and errors we perceive in them.
The only semi-valid points Hitchens makes are that she might have spent the the money that was donated to her in a more constructive way, and that she took money that maybe she shouldn't have taken, or that she should have returned. But he doesn't even do a good job validating those positions. For instance, maybe she could have built a hospital for the poor as he points out, but her mission was giving comfort to the dying, not curing the sick.
All in all this book was a waste of time. It's nothing more than a lame attempt to tarnish another person, and for no obviously valid reason. It's a takedown for the sake of takedown, and it's utterly unconvincing.
- Amazon Business : For business-only pricing, quantity discounts and FREE Shipping. Register a free business account
