Do you mean which death had more impact on people?
Man… I thought I was going to be first… geez…
They are both significant… I get where you are coming from, though… seems Diana has more coverage…. actually I haven’t heard about Mother Teresa in a looonnngggg time…. she’s just or more important in my opinion…
Have a great weekend, Dan… be safe…
Hugs, Connie
I wrote too much…dang!
No doubt to the masses.
Define significance…
I have to say about equal in their own way.. Not more or less than others.. Cuz both of them did benefit the world in their own way..
I can’t choose.
The media is infatuated with Princess Di because she was attractive, she was a princess, was rich, had no apparent religion and was somewhat enamored of the spotlight.
Mother Teresa on the other hand did what she believed correct by Gods will (always bad for getting attention from the atheistic media), was poor, and didn’t much care for receiving attention.
Therefore the media probably wished that they could have avoided any mention of Mother Teresa’s death at all because you cannot really talk about her without mentioning things that they despise. That is why the media would have everyone believe that Di was a colossal loss that no one should ever be able to recover from.
I would say though that Mother Teresa led a much more significant life since she loved people who were hated by most everyone else and for that very reason her death was much more significant.
Of course everyone dies so I don’t understand why the media creates such a ruckus anytime someone dies.
A sad statement on our culture.
depends on what aspect you’re talking about or who your talking to. if you were talking to athiest europeans then yes, but if you’re talking to a poor man who was helped out personally by mother theresa, who also helped this man let God into his life, changing it forever, then no.
everyone has a different view.
they both did different things. its unfair to say which ones death was more significant. they both touched different people in different parts of the world.
deaths are equivalent, but the media paid more attention to the first one.
Apparently. Says so much about our society.
I think so.
I would like to think that the life each woman was more significant than their deaths.
Depends on who you ask.
Any death is significant, but I believe the death of princess Diana affected more Americans and British (people from wealthy countries) whereas Mother Theresa served less fortunate countries. Diana had more of a celebrity status in the States and England, so her death was more widely publicised.
I can’t wait for someone to ask who the second one is.
what mrcolorful said
“I would say though that Mother Teresa led a much more significant life since she loved people who were hated by most everyone else and for that very reason her death was much more significant. … The media is infatuated with Princess Di because she was attractive, she was a princess, was rich, had no apparent religion and was somewhat enamored of the spotlight.”~mrcolorful
You are obviously ignorant of the enormous amount of charitable acts Princess Diana committed.
in the scheme of things, neither was very important
but, okay. on the other hand. princess di was thirty-six years old, and the circumstances of her death are shady. her death is more tragic, i think. mother teresa lived a long life of more significance than princess di’s, but death is a beginning, not an end, and so as the holy scriptures say we shouldn’t mourn like those who have no hope, because (although we can’t judge for sure, probably, most likely) we trust in God that he has been faithful and has brought her into full union with himself.
You are obviously ignorant of the enormous amount of charitable acts Princess Diana committed.
okay, no one’s saying she didn’t. but seriously. if we’re tallying them up. mother teresa wins.
you would think so, wouldn’t you? it’s sad.
And in light of Mother Teresa’s passing: good riddance. She glorified the suffering of people and, like most great “saints” of the Church, taught that there was holiness in poverty.
* In 1975 she supported Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s suspension of democracy in India.
* She also supported Gandhi’s son, Sanjay Gandhi, in his highly unpopular population control campaign, which involved forcible sterilisation.
* In 1981, Teresa flew to Haiti to accept the Legion d’Honneur from the dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier. There she said that the Duvaliers “loved their poor,” and that “their love was reciprocated.” Shortly afterwards the Duvaliers were overthrown and went into exile, having stolen millions of dollars from their impoverished country.
* In 1987 Teresa visited Albania for the first time, and drew criticism when she visited the grave of the former Communist dictator Enver Hoxha.
* Criticism of Teresa in the United States grew sharper after it was revealed that Charles Keating, who stole in excess of US$252 million in the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1980s, had donated $1.25 million to Mother Teresa’s order.
* Teresa interceded on his behalf and wrote a letter to the court urging leniency. She also accepted money from the British publisher Robert Maxwell, who stole UK£450 million from his employees’ pension funds.
* Mother Teresa’s organisation has been described as a cult which promoted suffering and did not help those in need. Hitchens said that Teresa’s own words on poverty proved that her intention was not to help people. He quoted Teresa’s words at a 1981 press conference in which she was asked: “Do you teach the poor to endure their lot?” She replied: “I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.”
* The Missionaries of Charity do not disclose either the sources of their funds or details of how they are spent. In 1998 an article in the German magazine Stern estimated that the order received about US$50 million a year in donations. Other journalists have given estimates of US$100 million a year. Critics have argued that this money cannot have all been spent on the purpose for which it was donated – aid to the sick and the poor – because the order’s facilities, staffed by nuns and by volunteers and offering little in the way of medical facilities, are very cheap to operate and cannot cost anything like these sums to maintain.
* In Britain, where the law requires charitable organisations to disclose their expenditures, an audit in 1991 concluded that 7% of the total income of about US$2.6 million went into charitable spending, with the rest being remitted to the Vatican Bank.
But Dan has a history of picking on celebrities who do good things for people. From his criticism of bands like RCHP for participating in live earth in order to raise environmental awareness, to lambasting pop/movie stars for tellings young people that they shouldn’t abuse drugs; it’s not hard to see how this log is actually an attempt to devalue the character of the Princess through comparing her significance to a figure who most people wouldn’t dare to speak an ill word about.
It seems like almost every time someone with money, or fame, or beauty tries to do something good, he fucking attacks it.
diana’s life was cut short, the death was surprising.
What kind of a question is that?
no death is more significant than another. nor is any life worth less than another.
I cannot choose as well
but i think his point is more than people don’t dare speak a word ill about princess di. and no one here has even done that.
there is holiness in poverty, or there can be. what the world values God hates.
okay, no one’s saying she didn’t. but seriously. if we’re tallying them up. mother teresa wins. -blessed_saint_catherine
I think Mother Theresa was a little more humble then to have her good deeds tallied up for a winning touchdown score. If you want to respect Mother Theresa then have the courtesy to not use her to beat down Princess Diana.
They both did good things. The bottom line.
Yohsiph
She never glorified poverty. Everyone else did when she was around.
She replied: “I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.”-
Damn, I think she just put something bad on herself when she said that. Then again, she might not have meant it to sound so harsh.
any death of a human being is significant…at least to someone in this world. Screw the media.
Certainly
They both got too much publicity. I’d be lying if I said I cared either way about them.
For Christ’s sake, they’re both people. Screw society’s emphasis, they’re both tragi deaths.
Mother Teresa was old, and lived a full life, Diana’s was cut very short.
no…one is just easier magnified by pop culture…
What Bokgwai said (I hope I spelt his name correctly).
But no matter what people say about Mother Teresa, I’ll always respect her.
“in the scheme of things, neither was very important”
well said
Honestly I think the were both tragic. Two lovely, caring, compassionate women. One who lived a long fulfilled life and one who was gone way too soon.
Only to those who loved them
The media has been able to extract more drama out of Diana’s death than Mother Theresa’s. So in terms of cold hard cash, yes, Diana’s death was more significant. In terms of the human factor, I would say they are both missed significantly.
Are we truly adding up the cost of each life? Of each death? Of their charitable acts? Who’s counting? Supposedly, God doesn’t count or save by “works.”
Both women’s life positively affected many, many people in a big way. I’m not discounting anything Mother Theresa did – in fact, Diana met her and admired her a great deal – she loved the way Mother Theresa could get in there hands-on with real people, and she did that herself, some, and wanted to do more.
I believe Diana’s death was more tragic, more shocking, because it was a horrible accident, shouldn’t have happened; also because of the media, her youth, her sons left behind, her tragic life marrying into the Royal Family. But more importantly, it impacted more people because many people loved her and identified with her. She unabashedly loved her boys and was a great mom. but lived with many of the difficult life circumstances that the rest of us do – bulimia, depression, emotional abuse by her husband, feeling trapped in a marriage, being cheated on in a marriage, being treated badly by her in-laws - it was all supposed to be a fairy tale, the way we all hope our marriages will be on our wedding day – yet it crashed and burned, and she suffered a lot, and was brave enough to tell about it. The monarchy will never be the same – now we know the truth – they are not a perfect family, either – and that’s probably a very good thing.
Diana deserved every happiness, and a happy family life, but unfortunately, it wasn’t like that once she realized what she had gotten into. Many common people completely identify with that, but cannot imagine themselves in Mother Theresa’s shoes. I think that’s why perhaps Diana’s death impacted more people. They lost their princess, their sister, their best friend.
Mother Theresa’s life impacted far more hurting people – she helped so many – but her death? She was very old, she had lived a wondeful long life, she did a lot of good – we can celebrate her life, but are not so tragically moved by the death of a very old person, no matter who it is.
Each life is precious………work to protect life.
Some people just come on here to attack each other… fine, disagree have fun, but stop jumping down each others throats. No matter how right you think you are or smart it must make you look it’s really fucking annoying.
Well, I think Diana’s death was probably more significant. Because Mother Theresa was really old–people expected her to die. I’m sure her death was not a shocker. But Princess Diana’s death was so fast and unexpected. I think it had a bigger impact on the world. I certainly don’t recall Elton John writing a song for Mother Theresa when SHE died. (;
Oh my god there should be NO comparison of the 2
Certainly not. As lovely as Diana was and as much as she did contribute, as I said in the Photoblog Mother Theresa’s was the more important and lasting contribution to the world and to the purpose of God. We seem to totally celebrate her life and remember her death just because she happened to die within days of Princess Diana and I think that is incredibly sad.
*totally forget
What IS it with me forgetting words lately?
The Princess was more pretty, so she got more media coverage.
Of course not..
Tbh, I didn’t pay much attention to either.
So to me, neither of their deaths are that significant, if at all.
♥
I think Princess Di’s death was more shocking under the circumstances, and that has a lot to do with the obsession. I don’t know how old either was when they died, but I do know that Di’s death was completely unexpected and rather tragic (car crashes and all that).
they make dianas more important because she was YOUNG when she died. it’s always more sad when a young person dies.
Significant to whom?
they were both equally significant
they both did so much for the world… it’s hard to compare. but i think they would both have been honored if compared to the other one.. being they were both so humble.
no
They are both significant. Both affected people’s lives while they were here.
i don’t think it was more significant… it just had more of a media spotlight put on it.
well, they’re both dead…i’d call that a tie
i never knew her last name, and no, i dont think so
I believe Mother Tereasa would of wanted to be in the shadows of Diana’s funeral just as it happened.
thats a ridiculous question
both are important and missed
Daniel (doubledb)
Depends what country. I’d say Mother Teresa though
I think they both put forth tremendous humanitarian efforts but in different ways as they had different means to do so. You can’t compare one to the other.
All death is significant to the people they impact.
People die every day, and many of those people are charitable. Princss DIana was an attractive woman, and a princess no less. Ive no intention of discounting any of what she accomplished, but lets be honest with ourselves. The woman’s dead and we branding her a saint. She’s a pop icon more than anything.
“Certainly not. As lovely as Diana was and as much as she did contribute, as I said in the Photoblog Mother Theresa’s was the more important and lasting contribution to the world and **to the purpose of God**. We seem to totally celebrate her life and remember her death just because she happened to die within days of Princess Diana and I think that is incredibly sad.”~squeakysoul
“the lie of the “moral world order” runs through the whole development of modern philosophy. What does “moral world order” mean? That there is a will of God, once and for all, as to what man is to do and what he is not to do; that the value of a people, of an individual, is to be measured according to how much or how little the will of God is obeyed; that the will of God manifests itself in the destinies of a people, of an individual, as the ruling factor, that is to say, as punishing and rewarding according to the degree of obedience. The reality behind this pitiful lie is this: a parasitical type of man, thriving only at the expense of all healthy forms of life, the priest, uses the name of God in vain: he calls a state of affairs in which the priest determines the value of things “the kingdom of God”; he calls the means by which such a state is attained or maintained “the will of God”; with cold-blooded cynicism he measures peoples, ages, individuals, according to whether they profited or resisted the overlordship of the priests.”~Nietzsche
Who cares about a Princess?
What power do they actually have?
yet Mother Teresa, by not “pretending” to even TRY and have power. Actually had more power then most.
She didn’t fake it, she didn’t take it. She didn’t try and rake people for what they were worth. She gave, and forgave.
Diana’s death was a scandal and a mystery. Mother Teresa’s death was merely an end to a long and fruitful life. So yes, Diana’s death was more important.
If you believed the media coverage at the time (and an entire decade later), you’d think Princess Diana was more significant. I honestly think both women contributed a lot to the world, but Mother Teresa’s death was less shocking because of her age. Diana automatically got more coverage because her death was tragic and unexpected, she had celebrity status in the Western World, etc.
Both women were significant and important figures in our world–sadly, the media chose to focus on the more “glamorous” one and give Mother Teresa little thought.
The death of Lady Spencer was more significant than the death of Mother Teresa. However, the life of Mother Teresa was significantly more important than the life, and death, of Lady Spencer.
absolutely not. Mother Teresa was a beautiful being, through and through.
Diana was pretty.
it shouldnt be, but she married the right guy to make her known forever
they both gave a lot to society and charity, but I believe the press is overdoing it with coverage.
Can’t understand the infatuation with diana … there’s nothing to be sorry/sad ’bout … she had probably everything a privileged person could ask for & let’s face it she certainly was no saint … so what if her hubby cheated … sure she had good time too !!!
I believe so. Mother Theresa had a beautifully long life and seemed to really find happiness in her mission and her God. Princess Diana, it seemed, was just beginning to live. She was finding love and finding her independence. She was young and left behind young children.
While it is true that each life is precious, when a life is lost so tragically it does seem a bit more significant than a life lived well and long and lost at a ripe old age. Especially being a mom, the thought of not being here to be with my children as they grow…it just about breaks me down.
All lives currently end in death. Neither was more significant.
They are both significant.
neither are particularly important
When my grandfather was in hospice, it was right around the time that these 2 women died. One of the last things he ever told me was, “All this attention over Diana.. but what about Mother Teresa? What has this world come to?” Both were significant because they were human beings, but this WAS a sad realization and what America considers more important.
thats what your supposed to think… but id say that mother teresa did much more than she got recognition for.
Yes, in a way, because Diana was young and had two kids.
Diana’s death was sudden and unexpected and actually a bit mysterious in terms of the exact circumstances. Mother Theresa…well she was very very old…
They are both significant.
I think the better question would be “Was the life of this woman more significant than the life of the 2nd woman?” And the answer would be obvious.
Yes. Because I believe that Mothaa Theresa died naturally, in her sleep, whatever. She was old, and didn’t have much left to do in her life when she gave so much already.
Meanwhile, Diana was young and vivacious and could’ve given just as much as Mom Theresa with all of her charities, and its because of those hounding papparazzo and / or the British monarchy wanting her killed just because she wanted to marry a Muslim. OH NO! Wouldn’t that be horrible?!?!
Gag me.
Diana’s death was MUCH MORE IMPORTANT.
Princess Di gets much more attention than Mother Teresa, yes, but I also think Diana is a much more worthy celebrity fixation than many other celebrities that we hear about constantly. Di actually helped society, gave back to the community, tried to help make this a better world. Perhaps not to the extent of Mother Teresa, but she certainly used her fame and popularity in a much more productive manner than Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton.
Any significant change in the lifestyle of a person is important.
And everyone is equal. No one’s death should “mean more” than the other!
Both deaths are just as significant.
I didn’t know either one personally and I don’t feel my life has changed in any way since they’ve died.
The media is infatuated with Princess Di because she was attractive, she was a princess, was rich, had no apparent religion and was somewhat enamored of the spotlight.
Mother Teresa on the other hand did what she believed correct by Gods will (always bad for getting attention from the atheistic media), was poor, and didn’t much care for receiving attention.
Therefore the media probably wished that they could have avoided any mention of Mother Teresa’s death at all because you cannot really talk about her without mentioning things that they despise.
Of course everyone dies so I don’t understand why the media creates such a ruckus anytime someone dies.
<LI class=itemtimestamp>9/1/2007 12:24 AM
<LI class=itemsubmitter>mrcolorful (message)
While I think the death of anyone is significant, I really like mrcolorful’s response.
Yes!
My gosh everyone idolizes Princes Diana. Its sick. Shes dead. And she wasn’t even from our country and were having “A look back at Her life for the 32094839 time!”
they’re both ending up in history books.
Diana was a younger version, so her impact was on the younger generation. I remember Diana died and my mom CRIED. it was WEIRD. when mother theresa died…she didn’t cry. They both had hearts for the needy…
the media played up Diana’s because it was an accident.
As someone said… define significance. But holy crap, interesting.
to the media, I believe Diana’s death was more significant.
No. But Mother Theresa was not “sexy” and sex is what sells publications. Diana was a lovely woman, but she would have been honoured to meet Mother Theresa any day.
No.
One was obviously more loved by the media. The other, with her much more humble approach to life, was easily ignored. Mother Teresa taught us a lot more about how to live life, a life we can all achieve to imitate, than a rich and opulent life that gives time to the poor. Although Diana’s death is sad, Mother Teresa taught me more about how to live than Diana did.
NO
I loved both of them.
One was no more significant than the other. Both were tragic.
Sadly, the public thinks so, but I was more upset with M. Theresa passed than when Diana died.
each life is significant to the Almighty..
Both were good influences..
Mother had a life of servitude, I’d say she was more humble in faith so she gets my vote
every death is important to someone, so the ramifications of their death would really depend on your perception…and our eternity is ultimately between us and God.
I wish everyone would shut up about Diana.
More significant??? They’re both human beings so neither is more significant than the other.
And if we’re going to bring God into this…. they’re both His children and He doesn’t play favoritism (b/c he’s perfect).
I think this is a tasteless question.
it looks like it in the long term eye of the media
Comments (115)
First?
The death of any human being is significant.
The media would have you believe so.
about equal in their spheres of influence, so no
Do you mean which death had more impact on people?
Man… I thought I was going to be first… geez…
They are both significant… I get where you are coming from, though… seems Diana has more coverage…. actually I haven’t heard about Mother Teresa in a looonnngggg time…. she’s just or more important in my opinion…
Have a great weekend, Dan… be safe…
Hugs, Connie
I wrote too much…dang!
No doubt to the masses.
Define significance…
I have to say about equal in their own way.. Not more or less than others.. Cuz both of them did benefit the world in their own way..
I can’t choose.
The media is infatuated with Princess Di because she was attractive, she was a princess, was rich, had no apparent religion and was somewhat enamored of the spotlight.
Mother Teresa on the other hand did what she believed correct by Gods will (always bad for getting attention from the atheistic media), was poor, and didn’t much care for receiving attention.
Therefore the media probably wished that they could have avoided any mention of Mother Teresa’s death at all because you cannot really talk about her without mentioning things that they despise. That is why the media would have everyone believe that Di was a colossal loss that no one should ever be able to recover from.
I would say though that Mother Teresa led a much more significant life since she loved people who were hated by most everyone else and for that very reason her death was much more significant.
Of course everyone dies so I don’t understand why the media creates such a ruckus anytime someone dies.
A sad statement on our culture.
depends on what aspect you’re talking about or who your talking to.
if you were talking to athiest europeans then yes,
but if you’re talking to a poor man who was helped out personally
by mother theresa, who also helped this man let God into his
life, changing it forever, then no.
everyone has a different view.
they both did different things. its unfair to say which ones death was more
significant. they both touched different people in different parts of the world.
deaths are equivalent, but the media paid more attention to the first one.
Apparently. Says so much about our society.
I think so.
I would like to think that the life each woman was more significant than their deaths.
Depends on who you ask.
Any death is significant, but I believe the death of princess Diana affected more Americans and British (people from wealthy countries) whereas Mother Theresa served less fortunate countries. Diana had more of a celebrity status in the States and England, so her death was more widely publicised.
I can’t wait for someone to ask who the second one is.
what mrcolorful said
“I would say though that Mother Teresa led a much more significant life since she loved people who were hated by most everyone else and for that very reason her death was much more significant. … The media is infatuated with Princess Di because she was attractive, she was a princess, was rich, had no apparent religion and was somewhat enamored of the spotlight.”~mrcolorful
You are obviously ignorant of the enormous amount of charitable acts Princess Diana committed.
in the scheme of things, neither was very important
but, okay. on the other hand. princess di was thirty-six years old, and the circumstances of her death are shady. her death is more tragic, i think. mother teresa lived a long life of more significance than princess di’s, but death is a beginning, not an end, and so as the holy scriptures say we shouldn’t mourn like those who have no hope, because (although we can’t judge for sure, probably, most likely) we trust in God that he has been faithful and has brought her into full union with himself.
You are obviously ignorant of the enormous amount of charitable acts Princess Diana committed.
okay, no one’s saying she didn’t. but seriously. if we’re tallying them up. mother teresa wins.
you would think so, wouldn’t you? it’s sad.
And in light of Mother Teresa’s passing: good riddance. She glorified the suffering of people and, like most great “saints” of the Church, taught that there was holiness in poverty.
From Corborg:
* In 1975 she supported Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s suspension of democracy in India.
* She also supported Gandhi’s son, Sanjay Gandhi, in his highly unpopular population control campaign, which involved forcible sterilisation.
* In 1981, Teresa flew to Haiti to accept the Legion d’Honneur from the dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier. There she said that the Duvaliers “loved their poor,” and that “their love was reciprocated.” Shortly afterwards the Duvaliers were overthrown and went into exile, having stolen millions of dollars from their impoverished country.
* In 1987 Teresa visited Albania for the first time, and drew criticism when she visited the grave of the former Communist dictator Enver Hoxha.
* Criticism of Teresa in the United States grew sharper after it was revealed that Charles Keating, who stole in excess of US$252 million in the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1980s, had donated $1.25 million to Mother Teresa’s order.
* Teresa interceded on his behalf and wrote a letter to the court urging leniency. She also accepted money from the British publisher Robert Maxwell, who stole UK£450 million from his employees’ pension funds.
* Mother Teresa’s organisation has been described as a cult which promoted suffering and did not help those in need. Hitchens said that Teresa’s own words on poverty proved that her intention was not to help people. He quoted Teresa’s words at a 1981 press conference in which she was asked: “Do you teach the poor to endure their lot?” She replied: “I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.”
* The Missionaries of Charity do not disclose either the sources of their funds or details of how they are spent. In 1998 an article in the German magazine Stern estimated that the order received about US$50 million a year in donations. Other journalists have given estimates of US$100 million a year. Critics have argued that this money cannot have all been spent on the purpose for which it was donated – aid to the sick and the poor – because the order’s facilities, staffed by nuns and by volunteers and offering little in the way of medical facilities, are very cheap to operate and cannot cost anything like these sums to maintain.
* In Britain, where the law requires charitable organisations to disclose their expenditures, an audit in 1991 concluded that 7% of the total income of about US$2.6 million went into charitable spending, with the rest being remitted to the Vatican Bank.
But Dan has a history of picking on celebrities who do good things for people. From his criticism of bands like RCHP for participating in live earth in order to raise environmental awareness, to lambasting pop/movie stars for tellings young people that they shouldn’t abuse drugs; it’s not hard to see how this log is actually an attempt to devalue the character of the Princess through comparing her significance to a figure who most people wouldn’t dare to speak an ill word about.
It seems like almost every time someone with money, or fame, or beauty tries to do something good, he fucking attacks it.
diana’s life was cut short, the death was surprising.
What kind of a question is that?
no death is more significant than another. nor is any life worth less than another.
I cannot choose as well
but i think his point is more than people don’t dare speak a word ill about princess di. and no one here has even done that.
there is holiness in poverty, or there can be. what the world values God hates.
okay, no one’s saying she didn’t. but seriously. if we’re tallying them up. mother teresa wins. -blessed_saint_catherine
I think Mother Theresa was a little more humble then to have her good deeds tallied up for a winning touchdown score. If you want to respect Mother Theresa then have the courtesy to not use her to beat down Princess Diana.
They both did good things. The bottom line.
Yohsiph
She never glorified poverty. Everyone else did when she was around.
She replied: “I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.”-
Damn, I think she just put something bad on herself when she said that. Then again, she might not have meant it to sound so harsh.
any death of a human being is significant…at least to someone in this world. Screw the media.
Certainly
They both got too much publicity. I’d be lying if I said I cared either way about them.
For Christ’s sake, they’re both people. Screw society’s emphasis, they’re both tragi deaths.
Mother Teresa was old, and lived a full life, Diana’s was cut very short.
no…one is just easier magnified by pop culture…
What Bokgwai said (I hope I spelt his name correctly).
But no matter what people say about Mother Teresa, I’ll always respect her.
“in the scheme of things, neither was very important”
well said
Honestly I think the were both tragic. Two lovely, caring, compassionate women. One who lived a long fulfilled life and one who was gone way too soon.
Only to those who loved them
The media has been able to extract more drama out of Diana’s death than Mother Theresa’s. So in terms of cold hard cash, yes, Diana’s death was more significant. In terms of the human factor, I would say they are both missed significantly.
Are we truly adding up the cost of each life? Of each death? Of their charitable acts? Who’s counting? Supposedly, God doesn’t count or save by “works.”
Both women’s life positively affected many, many people in a big way. I’m not discounting anything Mother Theresa did – in fact, Diana met her and admired her a great deal – she loved the way Mother Theresa could get in there hands-on with real people, and she did that herself, some, and wanted to do more.
I believe Diana’s death was more tragic, more shocking, because it was a horrible accident, shouldn’t have happened; also because of the media, her youth, her sons left behind, her tragic life marrying into the Royal Family. But more importantly, it impacted more people because many people loved her and identified with her. She unabashedly loved her boys and was a great mom. but lived with many of the difficult life circumstances that the rest of us do – bulimia, depression, emotional abuse by her husband, feeling trapped in a marriage, being cheated on in a marriage, being treated badly by her in-laws - it was all supposed to be a fairy tale, the way we all hope our marriages will be on our wedding day – yet it crashed and burned, and she suffered a lot, and was brave enough to tell about it. The monarchy will never be the same – now we know the truth – they are not a perfect family, either – and that’s probably a very good thing.
Diana deserved every happiness, and a happy family life, but unfortunately, it wasn’t like that once she realized what she had gotten into. Many common people completely identify with that, but cannot imagine themselves in Mother Theresa’s shoes. I think that’s why perhaps Diana’s death impacted more people. They lost their princess, their sister, their best friend.
Mother Theresa’s life impacted far more hurting people – she helped so many – but her death? She was very old, she had lived a wondeful long life, she did a lot of good – we can celebrate her life, but are not so tragically moved by the death of a very old person, no matter who it is.
Each life is precious………work to protect life.
Some people just come on here to attack each other… fine, disagree have fun, but stop jumping down each others throats. No matter how right you think you are or smart it must make you look it’s really fucking annoying.
Well, I think Diana’s death was probably more significant. Because Mother Theresa was really old–people expected her to die. I’m sure her death was not a shocker. But Princess Diana’s death was so fast and unexpected. I think it had a bigger impact on the world. I certainly don’t recall Elton John writing a song for Mother Theresa when SHE died. (;
Oh my god there should be NO comparison of the 2
Certainly not. As lovely as Diana was and as much as she did contribute, as I said in the Photoblog Mother Theresa’s was the more important and lasting contribution to the world and to the purpose of God. We seem to totally celebrate her life and remember her death just because she happened to die within days of Princess Diana and I think that is incredibly sad.
*totally forget
What IS it with me forgetting words lately?
The Princess was more pretty, so she got more media coverage.
Of course not..
Tbh, I didn’t pay much attention to either.
So to me, neither of their deaths are that significant, if at all.
♥
I think Princess Di’s death was more shocking under the circumstances, and that has a lot to do with the obsession. I don’t know how old either was when they died, but I do know that Di’s death was completely unexpected and rather tragic (car crashes and all that).
they make dianas more important because she was YOUNG when she died. it’s always more sad when a young person dies.
Significant to whom?
they were both equally significant
they both did so much for the world… it’s hard to compare. but i think they would both have been honored if compared to the other one.. being they were both so humble.
no
They are both significant. Both affected people’s lives while they were here.
i don’t think it was more significant… it just had more of a media spotlight put on it.
well, they’re both dead…i’d call that a tie
i never knew her last name, and no, i dont think so
I believe Mother Tereasa would of wanted to be in the shadows of Diana’s funeral just as it happened.
thats a ridiculous question
both are important and missed
Daniel (doubledb)
Depends what country. I’d say Mother Teresa though
I think they both put forth tremendous humanitarian efforts but in different ways as they had different means to do so. You can’t compare one to the other.
All death is significant to the people they impact.
People die every day, and many of those people are charitable. Princss DIana was an attractive woman, and a princess no less. Ive no intention of
discounting any of what she accomplished, but lets be honest
with ourselves. The woman’s dead and we branding her a saint.
She’s a pop icon more than anything.
“Certainly not. As lovely as Diana was and as much as she did contribute, as I said in the Photoblog Mother Theresa’s was the more important and lasting contribution to the world and **to the purpose of God**. We seem to totally celebrate her life and remember her death just because she happened to die within days of Princess Diana and I think that is incredibly sad.”~squeakysoul
“the lie of the “moral world order” runs through the whole development of modern philosophy. What does “moral world order” mean? That there is a will of God, once and for all, as to what man is to do and what he is not to do; that the value of a people, of an individual, is to be measured according to how much or how little the will of God is obeyed; that the will of God manifests itself in the destinies of a people, of an individual, as the ruling factor, that is to say, as punishing and rewarding according to the degree of obedience. The reality behind this pitiful lie is this: a parasitical type of man, thriving only at the expense of all healthy forms of life, the priest, uses the name of God in vain: he calls a state of affairs in which the priest determines the value of things “the kingdom of God”; he calls the means by which such a state is attained or maintained “the will of God”; with cold-blooded cynicism he measures peoples, ages, individuals, according to whether they profited or resisted the overlordship of the priests.”~Nietzsche
Who cares about a Princess?
What power do they actually have?
yet Mother Teresa, by not “pretending” to even TRY and have power. Actually had more power then most.
She didn’t fake it, she didn’t take it. She didn’t try and rake people for what they were worth. She gave, and forgave.
Diana’s death was a scandal and a mystery. Mother Teresa’s death was merely an end to a long and fruitful life. So yes, Diana’s death was more important.
If you believed the media coverage at the time (and an entire decade later), you’d think Princess Diana was more significant. I honestly think both women contributed a lot to the world, but Mother Teresa’s death was less shocking because of her age. Diana automatically got more coverage because her death was tragic and unexpected, she had celebrity status in the Western World, etc.
Both women were significant and important figures in our world–sadly, the media chose to focus on the more “glamorous” one and give Mother Teresa little thought.
The death of Lady Spencer was more significant than the death of Mother Teresa. However, the life of Mother Teresa was significantly more important than the life, and death, of Lady Spencer.
absolutely not. Mother Teresa was a beautiful being, through and through.
Diana was pretty.
it shouldnt be, but she married the right guy to make her known forever
they both gave a lot to society and charity, but I believe the press is overdoing it with coverage.
Can’t understand the infatuation with diana … there’s nothing to be sorry/sad ’bout … she had probably everything a privileged person could ask for & let’s face it she certainly was no saint … so what if her hubby cheated … sure she had good time too !!!
I believe so. Mother Theresa had a beautifully long life and seemed to really find happiness in her mission and her God. Princess Diana, it seemed, was just beginning to live. She was finding love and finding her independence. She was young and left behind young children.
While it is true that each life is precious, when a life is lost so tragically it does seem a bit more significant than a life lived well and long and lost at a ripe old age. Especially being a mom, the thought of not being here to be with my children as they grow…it just about breaks me down.
All lives currently end in death. Neither was more significant.
They are both significant.
neither are particularly important
When my grandfather was in hospice, it was right around the time that these 2 women died. One of the last things he ever told me was, “All this attention over Diana.. but what about Mother Teresa? What has this world come to?” Both were significant because they were human beings, but this WAS a sad realization and what America considers more important.
thats what your supposed to think… but id say that mother teresa did much more than she got recognition for.
Yes, in a way, because Diana was young and had two kids.
Diana’s death was sudden and unexpected and actually a bit mysterious in terms of the exact circumstances. Mother Theresa…well she was very very old…
They are both significant.
I think the better question would be “Was the life of this woman more significant than the life of the 2nd woman?” And the answer would be obvious.
Yes. Because I believe that Mothaa Theresa died naturally, in her sleep, whatever. She was old, and didn’t have much left to do in her life when she gave so much already.
Meanwhile, Diana was young and vivacious and could’ve given just as much as Mom Theresa with all of her charities, and its because of those hounding papparazzo and / or the British monarchy wanting her killed just because she wanted to marry a Muslim. OH NO! Wouldn’t that be horrible?!?!
Gag me.
Diana’s death was MUCH MORE IMPORTANT.
Princess Di gets much more attention than Mother Teresa, yes, but I also think Diana is a much more worthy celebrity fixation than many other celebrities that we hear about constantly. Di actually helped society, gave back to the community, tried to help make this a better world. Perhaps not to the extent of Mother Teresa, but she certainly used her fame and popularity in a much more productive manner than Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton.
Any significant change in the lifestyle of a person is important.
And everyone is equal. No one’s death should “mean more” than the other!
Both deaths are just as significant.
I didn’t know either one personally and I don’t feel my life has changed in any way since they’ve died.
The media is infatuated with Princess Di because she was attractive, she was a princess, was rich, had no apparent religion and was somewhat enamored of the spotlight.
Mother Teresa on the other hand did what she believed correct by Gods will (always bad for getting attention from the atheistic media), was poor, and didn’t much care for receiving attention.
Therefore the media probably wished that they could have avoided any mention of Mother Teresa’s death at all because you cannot really talk about her without mentioning things that they despise.
Of course everyone dies so I don’t understand why the media creates such a ruckus anytime someone dies.
<LI class=itemtimestamp>9/1/2007 12:24 AM
<LI class=itemsubmitter>mrcolorful (message)
While I think the death of anyone is significant, I really like mrcolorful’s response.
Yes!
My gosh everyone idolizes Princes Diana. Its sick. Shes dead. And she wasn’t even from our country and were having “A look back at Her life for the 32094839 time!”
they’re both ending up in history books.
Diana was a younger version, so her impact was on the younger generation. I remember Diana died and my mom CRIED. it was WEIRD. when mother theresa died…she didn’t cry. They both had hearts for the needy…
the media played up Diana’s because it was an accident.
As someone said… define significance. But holy crap, interesting.
to the media, I believe Diana’s death was more significant.
No. But Mother Theresa was not “sexy” and sex is what sells publications. Diana was a lovely woman, but she would have been honoured to meet Mother Theresa any day.
No.
One was obviously more loved by the media. The other, with her much more humble approach to life, was easily ignored. Mother Teresa taught us a lot more about how to live life, a life we can all achieve to imitate, than a rich and opulent life that gives time to the poor. Although Diana’s death is sad, Mother Teresa taught me more about how to live than Diana did.
NO
I loved both of them.
One was no more significant than the other. Both were tragic.
Sadly, the public thinks so, but I was more upset with M. Theresa passed than when Diana died.
each life is significant to the Almighty..
Both were good influences..
Mother had a life of servitude, I’d say she was more humble in faith so she gets my vote
every death is important to someone, so the ramifications of their death would really depend on your perception…and our eternity is ultimately between us and God.
I wish everyone would shut up about Diana.
More significant??? They’re both human beings so neither is more significant than the other.
And if we’re going to bring God into this…. they’re both His children and He doesn’t play favoritism (b/c he’s perfect).
I think this is a tasteless question.
it looks like it in the long term eye of the media
Not to me.