Boards

He IS one of the greatest living public figures, if not the greatest.

But he IS also a political figure, and so it's not that unsurprising that there will be some who oppose his politics. Perhaps more fundamentally, he IS a human, and therefore not flawless. Although, as Joey said, I don't really think any of the reasons I gave will be the ones used by the effigy-burners...

Surprised it was you though. Obviously there were thousands - probably hundreds of thousands, possibly millions - of unheralded individuals in the 20th century who were not only "as good as" but even "better"/"nicer"/"more worthy"/"more selfless"/whatever than not only MT but Mandela and Gandhi too. Pretty sure both of the latter shook hands with dictators too, by the way - at least, Mandela definitely has.
Is there a reason MT has been elevated above all the nurses etc you mention? Well, yes, obviously it's part marketing and part the self-multiplying effect of fame. Did she ask to be marketed in such a way? I don't know, but I suspect not, and even if she did I'm not so sure it's a bad thing. Whether you despise them or not, charities and pro-poor organisations need popular figureheads and marketing. Should people have to be prompted, through mass cynical campaigns such as Comic Relief and Children in Need, to give money to charity? Shouldn't people just give to charity all year round? Yes, and many do, but that doesn't stop the millions of pounds (and the mass awareness) raised from being used for good. Likewise, was LiveAid and all that Make Poverty History stuff a massive waste of time and resources that could have been better spent if only people would just regularly give their time, energy and money to good causes without needing a bunch of hypocritical celebs telling them to do so? Again, yes, but that doesn't make it entirely without merit. Prominent figures like MT are hugely important for raising the profile of pro-poor advocacy, lobbying and campaigning for social, political and economic change (as well as fundraising); activities which MT was heavily involved in. Maybe, in an ideal world, they shouldn't be; and people should give to the poor out of nothing more than basic human compassion. Again, of course, many already do.
Ultimately, I think you're saying she's not a "saint" because she's not as good as a (relatively) small handful of exceptional people, which is perhaps valid but only a fair measure if you hold it up to everyone you meet (are your friends/colleagues/family/favourite authors "as good as" these people, and if not do you hold it against them?). I, personally, think it's far more fair to compare her (if compare her we must) to the great bulk of humanity that, imho, resides in the "not as good as" category. Surely someone who has, seemingly wholeheartedly, devoted their entire life to helping those more unfortunate than themselves (even if you disagree with their methods of helping) has to rank in, say, the top 10% (although such a concept is hideous)? Surely the world *would* be a better place if we had a few more like that (albeit flawed) and a few less of, I dunno, greedy bankers / neo-Nazis / Tories / wifebeaters / [insert-your-own-pet-villain-here]s? Praise the faceless, "flawless" MSF workers, nurses (NHS and otherwise), pro-poor campaigners etc all you like, but don't throw all those who are trying but failing to live up to their example into the same camp as those who aren't even trying.

Incidentally, I think your ideological opposition to the Catholic church (and your very valid criticisms of some of their more harmful activities) are blinding you to the fact that they do actually also do a lot of good. I don't particularly like 'em either, but credit where credit's due.

MB from Manchester has got a good point. Once you take away the photos of people in Nazi outfits and the public singing of pro Nazi songs these accusations are completely baseless.