Stephen Fry and the Hitch debate catholics. Serious roastage ensues.

robindch

In London last Monday evening, Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens debated the motion "The Catholic Church is a Force for Good in The World" with Anne Widdicombe (former Conservative minister) and John Onaiyekan (current catholic archbishop of Abuja, Nigeria).

The 2,000-strong audience was no doubt packed with people who were irreligious to start with, but it's still difficult to see the motion defeated by 87% to 13% as anything but comprehensive. The New Humanist reported on the debate here and was similarly blogged about here. Even the UK's leading catholic newspaper, the Catholic Herald, glumly reported on the drubbing (here). From the reports, especially of Fry's passion, I'd say this one is unmissable.

The BBC recorded the debate and will be broadcasting it in two parts at the end of next week (7th and 8th of November). A mobile phone recording lives here, but it's so crappy that it's probably best hang on until it shows up on youtube.

Zombrex

"Mr Fry accused the Church of being obsessed with sex"

Oh yeah, but when I do this ... :P

Agricola

Cannot............wait!

eightyfish

robindch wrote: »

The BBC recorded the debate and will be broadcasting it in two parts at the end of next week (7th and 8th of November).

Any more specifics on this? It's not turning up searching the BBC site. Radio?

robindch

eightyfish wrote: »

Any more specifics on this? It's not turning up searching the BBC site. Radio?

The second blogger said it was going out on BBC World, but I dunno if whether NTL or Sky have this (am I the only person in Dublin with a "basic" telly package?).

I'm sure it'll show up on youtube a few nanoseconds after it finishes...

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They probably are a tiny force for good, but :

Spreading Complete and utter BS about contraception and safe sex means many suffer needlessly from STIs.
Offers an easy excuse for homophobic.
Was seriously contemplating the backing of ID over evolution.

Charity with strings attached is not charity,in my book.

Rev Hellfire

Malty_T wrote: »

Charity with strings attached is not charity,in my book.

Which is arguably better than no charity with no strings.

eightyfish

It's on BBC World News at 7.10am and repeated at 3.10pm and 8.10pm on the 7th and 8th.

Search schedule here : http://www.bbcworldnews.com/Pages/Schedules.aspx

May be broadcast also on BBC News but their schedule doesn't go that far ahead yet.

ironingbored

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

To name but a few:

Goal
Médecins Sans Frontières
Oxfam
Amnesty International
Red Cross

I know of no religious equivalent to non-denominational organisations -essentially volunteers - who dedicate their lives to helping others for no other reason than altruism as opposed to trying to curry favour and make it into heaven.

Zombrex

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Who are conservative God fearing morons?

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And you were doing so well

Valmont

Stephen Fry is much too funny to be debating religion. Do another podcast damn you!

The Mad Hatter

robindch wrote: »

The 2,000-strong audience was no doubt packed with people who were irreligious to start with, but it's still difficult to see the motion defeated by 87% to 13% as anything but comprehensive.

I'm more interested in the great swing before and after the debate, to be honest.

Before, it was for the motion: 678; against: 1102; don’t know: 346.

Afterwards, for: 268; against: 1876; don’t know: 34.

Nay had had the lead to begin with, but still increased its numbers by fifty per cent!

(source)

robindch

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Before, it was for the motion: 678; against: 1102; don’t know: 346.
Afterwards, for: 268; against: 1876; don’t know: 34.

Given the audience they'd have been dealing with, I think there's a good chance that some people lied during the first vote in order to embarrass the church by appearing to switch sides.

All the same, an unsurprising result.

PDN

In the red corner we have a popular comedian and an articulate literary critic. In the blue corner we have the ugliest woman in politics who was a member of Thatcher's Tory government, and a Nigerian clergyman.

The subject of the debate is a minority religious group (only 8% of the population of England and Wales).

I am amazed that as many as 13% of the partisan audience voted for the motion.

Morbert

It's the swing that is so surprising to me. Before the debate, approximately 48% of the audience were either for the motion or undecided. After the debate, it dropped to 14%.

The system might have been exploited, as robindch mentioned, though I find it hard to imagine the combined forces of Hitchens and Fry losing a debate.

Teferi

PDN wrote: »

In the red corner we have a popular comedian and an articulate literary critic. In the blue corner we have the ugliest woman in politics who was a member of Thatcher's Tory government, and a Nigerian clergyman.

Why do I have a feeling that if Fry and Hitchens were debating for the motion you wouldn't mention this...?

Teferi

Teferi wrote: »

Why do I have a feeling that if Fry and Hitchens were debating for the motion you wouldn't mention this...?

Ah perhaps this is an unfair comment and I retract it.

Flamed Diving

Keep me posted.

Prof.Badass

hahaha. BBC giving out about catholics. Who'da thunk it ?

studiorat

Popular comedian and self serving alcoholic has been. I find it very unfortunate that such a dispicable creature as Hitchens is so popular among the atheist hip-set. Even on this forum he is reveared. The man has little in the way of journalistic integrity and his moral posturing is very tiring at this point. He's quite capable of jumping on what ever bandwagon will improve his lot. Considering he turned into such a conservitave why he's a poster boy for atheism is entirely beyond me.

The Mad Hatter

studiorat wrote: »

Popular comedian and self serving alcoholic has been. I find it very unfortunate that such a dispicable creature as Hitchens is so popular among the atheist hip-set. Even on this forum he is reveared. The man has little in the way of journalistic integrity and his moral posturing is very tiring at this point. He's quite capable of jumping on what ever bandwagon will improve his lot. Considering he turned into such a conservitave why he's a poster boy for atheism is entirely beyond me.

Hitchens' politics are rather disgusting alright, but I haven't seen anyone dismantle the ten commandments quite like him. I don't particularly like him among the "new atheists," but it is interesting to see such an all-out attack approach.

Flamed Diving

studiorat wrote: »

Popular comedian and self serving alcoholic has been. I find it very unfortunate that such a dispicable creature as Hitchens is so popular among the atheist hip-set. Even on this forum he is reveared. The man has little in the way of journalistic integrity and his moral posturing is very tiring at this point. He's quite capable of jumping on what ever bandwagon will improve his lot. Considering he turned into such a conservitave why he's a poster boy for atheism is entirely beyond me.

So it's not possible to be both conservative in your politics and an atheist? If so, then your classification system is a tad simplistic and is in dire need of review.

Turtwig

studiorat wrote: »

Popular comedian and self serving alcoholic has been. I find it very unfortunate that such a dispicable creature as Hitchens is so popular among the atheist hip-set. Even on this forum he is reveared. The man has little in the way of journalistic integrity and his moral posturing is very tiring at this point. He's quite capable of jumping on what ever bandwagon will improve his lot. Considering he turned into such a conservitave why he's a poster boy for atheism is entirely beyond me.

I understand what your saying but Hitchens is one of the better atheist proponents and speakers out there. His politics may be twisted but then again I hate Bill Maher's anti vaccine shyte; I still think Maher's funny though.

studiorat

I dislike the way in which he ensconsed himself in American politics and how he seems to see himself as a pretender to Gore Vidal or something.

Of course it's possible to be conservitave and not be religious. I think you are missing the point. I believe he's disingenuous, no one can really tell what his views are and there's parctially always a contradiction in his agruments.

asdasd

Acutally debates like this show the hollowness of British Liberalism. If they want to attack a religion why not pick on Islam? Too dangerous? It cant be any other reason.

1) Catholicism is a minority religion.
2) Catholicism is a religion of immigrants.
3) Anti-Catholicism is a historic form of nationalism.

These are the claims they make against anti-Islamic groups. Like the EDL. Anti-minority, anti-immigrant, nationalist.

Why is it "right wing" for people in the UK to attack Islam ( homosexual activist Pim Forutyn called a bigot, and a fascist for similar attacks on Islam based on the very real anti-homosexuality of that religion - which has far more consequences).

This isn't atheism, it is far right Protestantism. The fantasy of Katholics causing aids in Protestant dominated Southern Africa for instance. There is a negative correlation with Catholicism, and a overwhelming correlation with the British Empire.

Most Catholic countries - I think all - have legalised homosexuality. Many Catholic countries in Western Europe have civil partnerships. Int he US there is a correlation between Catholicism and legality ( i.e. the Western and Eastern States have legal relationships).

There is a different form of Atheism which attacks all comers.Dawkins for instance spends little time on Catholicism, except to defend it on the child abuse ( he says in a footnote to the God Delusion that he thinks all religions are at this).

This is not atheism. It is protestant bigotry. Maybe German liberals should have a debate on Orthodix Judaism as a fount of anti-homosexuality, while studiously ignoring Islam, or calling attackers of Islam fascists.

Flamed Diving

Religion of immigrants?

asdasd

Actually Hitches, to be fair, is considered right wing because he is not just at the Katholics.

asdasd

Religion of immigrants?

Poles, now. Irish historically.

Flamed Diving

asdasd wrote: »

Poles, now. Irish historically.

So there are no original British Catholics?

asdasd

So there are no original British Catholics?

There are very few who survived the penal laws. The primary source of Catholicism in the UK is immigration, or historical immigration.

However free to replace immigrant religion in my post, with mostly immigrant. And feel free to deal with the rest of it.

I am not a believer by the way, just pointing out the absurdity of the Bitish Liberal's point of view. If they were really anti-anti-homosexual they would have a different target. This is the same old same old.

robindch

asdasd wrote: »

Poles, now. Irish historically.

Wasn't all of the UK catholic up until Henry 8th?

And anyway, since the UK is an Island, isn't everybody technically an immigrant?

asdasd

Wasn't all of the UK catholic up until Henry 8th?

Is this related to anything. Yes they were. sO what? they then became and anti-Catholic power.

And anyway, since the UK is an Island, isn't everybody technically an immigrant?

Ignoring the non-sequitor there ( the relationship between island status and immigrant status), and your misunderstanding of what political entities the UK actually covers, that sort of argument is both useless, ill-defined and off-topic. Would an attack on Islamic immigrants not be considered anti-immigrant even if the Britain were an Island?

The question is, gvien the reality of de-facto Catholic liberalism on homosexuality regardless of what the Pope says, why are Anglo Saxons taking on Katholicism once again. Is is that they Know Nothing?.

DublinWriter

Valmont wrote: »

Stephen Fry is much too funny to be debating religion. Do another podcast damn you!

Jesters do oft prove prophets (King Lear)

robindch

asdasd wrote:

robindch wrote:

asdasd wrote:

Flamed Diving wrote:

asdasd wrote:

2) Catholicism is a religion of immigrants.

Religion of immigrants?

Poles, now. Irish historically.

Wasn't all of the UK catholic up until Henry 8th?

Is this related to anything.

Er, yes -- your second point.

asdasd wrote:

This is not atheism. It is protestant bigotry.

G'wan, I dare you say that to the Hitch!

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

Er, yes -- your second point.G'wan, I dare you say that to the Hitch!

@ Rob How'd do you that Multi Box Quote thing?
Tis Awesome!
Do one with Infinity:o

The Mad Hatter

Malty_T wrote: »

@ Rob How'd do you that Multi Box Quote thing?
Tis Awesome!
Do one with Infinity:o

Put quote tags inside quote tags. And lots of copy-pasting.

Just

like

this

Turtwig

Awesome

Stuff

Thanks

Infinity

Dan133269

so is this going to be shown on telly?

ShooterSF

I don't believe in quote boxes inside other quote boxes.

eightyfish

Dan133269 wrote: »

so is this going to be shown on telly?

please read the thread

stevejazzx

ShooterSF wrote: »

I don't believe in quote boxes inside other quote boxes.

The evidence for them is overwhelming.:)

ShooterSF

stevejazzx wrote: »

ShooterSF wrote: »

I don't believe in quote boxes inside other quote boxes.

The evidence for them is overwhelming.:)

I disagree.

Rondolfus

robindch wrote: »

The 2,000-strong audience was no doubt packed with people who were irreligious to start with, but it's still difficult to see the motion defeated by 87% to 13% as anything but comprehensive.

Yea its very difficult to see :rolleyes:

Flamed Diving

Rondolfus wrote: »

Yea its very difficult to see :rolleyes:

A blind man will not thank you for a looking-glass.

RealEstateKing

The only supposedly 'right-wing' belief that he has is his support for the Iraq War: On almost all other issues you can name , he is decidedly left-wing.

Even his support for the Iraq War, he would argue , is done for left-wing reasons - the desire to see a people liberated from a Right-Wing dictatorship. I dont agree with him there, but I wouldn't call him a conservative.

Zillah

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Even his support for the Iraq War, he would argue , is done for left-wing reasons - the desire to see a people liberated from a Right-Wing dictatorship. I dont agree with him there, but I wouldn't call him a conservative.

Using military power to impose your version of democracy on a society is the one of the core principles of neo-conservatism.

studiorat

RealEstateKing wrote: »

The only supposedly 'right-wing' belief that he has is his support for the Iraq War: On almost all other issues you can name , he is decidedly left-wing.

He aided the Republican party to hang a perjury charge on Sidney Blumenthal his friend at the time, and more generally assisted the Republicans effort in tarring the Clinton administration with accusations of dishonesty and immorality. Hardly the Marxist he once was then.

He's a free booter. He feels no responsibility towards anyone. He hobnobs with officials and journalists in right-wing and neo-con circles.

According to the Washington post...
Hitchens belongs to...

“a rarefied world where the top pols and bureaucrats sup with the media and literary elite at exclusive dinner parties. It's a cozy little club of confidential sources and off-the-record confidences...”

asdasd

He's also attacked Kissinger as a war criminal, and Mother Thersea as a fraud. The attacks on Clinton arguably came from the left. he worked for the Nation at the time. Obama recently came under attack from Pilger.

Left wing ideologies are a quasi-religion. Hitchens would have been safe attacking Catholicism ( despite English history) but not Islam. He was a heretic by attacking Islam, and supporting Afghanistan. ( On Iraq, he can argue that he as fooled as anybody else).

Once you break with the Left on any thing you are cast out as a heretic. For all I know hitchens is still a trot, and he may well believe in taking over the means of production. He is certainly a secularist. What he cant be, is any of this and leftwing, since leftwing thought is set in stone, and he supported Iraq. Supporting Iraq is casting out offence for the religion of the Left.

( He cant, for instance, be wrong or misguided on Iraq, he has to be a heretic - i.e. rightwing)..

asdasd

Using military power to impose your version of democracy on a society is the one of the core principles of neo-conservatism.

It was also the core principle of Stalinism ( although the neo-cons are also a left wing heresey, of sorts). But replace democracy with people's democracy.

I wonder how many people who opposed the US invasion of Afghanistan supported the Russians. I was a kid but I dont remember a march agin it.