Wow. I want to be Stephen Fry when I grow up.

Stephen Fry is my absolute hero. Articulate, witty, and right on the money. I've loved him since he played Lord Snot in the Young Ones.

Fry's my favorite hardworking, golden-voiced, beautifully educated, hilarious gay thespian heavy-Tweeting survivor of a well-documented crisis of love and faith. He can do no wrong, except he could put a little more product in his hair if you ask me.

Thanks so much for posting this.

he's my ideal man. i've yet to meet his equal among straight boys. le sigh.

I too idolize the man. You really should see his Jeeves.

Who else thru history has also felt that "the Catholic church are not a force for good" ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Cathol…

I hope this arrogant and hateful 'speech' of his serves to keep him out of Uganda for good.

That was thought provoking and it needed to be said. God bless, Stephen Fry for speaking his heart, speaking out against oppression and injustice. It is my opinion that the "Galilean Carpenter" would approve and be pleased with his heart and convictions.

But do the blind see and the deaf hear? Not without surrendering the pride that allows them to believe that they are always correct.

Stephen Fry is probably one of the few people on the planet who could make "it isn't nice" a perfectly polite condemnation.

@6, more likely, Mr. Frye will stay out of Uganda once their legislature makes his orientation illegal upon the pain of death. A policy that has been heavily influenced and supported by American religious figures to their everlasting shame.

Oddly, THIS she considers to be arrogant and hateful. Loveschild, have you looked these words up lately?

Oh man...

I guess we should say that all Doctors are evil because they used to 'bleed' people in the 17th century.
Italians must be evil too, because they caused so much pain during the Roman Empire and stuff.
Germans? Should Germans be labeled as wrong and evil as well because of WWII?

Is it just me or this guy is sort of full of shit?

@12 It's just you. Doctors, Italians, and Germans have moved on. The Church hasn't.

To think at one time you used to agree with Mr. Fry, Loveschild. Or is "old Ratz boy" a private term of endearment? Which in case than my bad.

Thankfully President Obama has reversed the U.S. family planning /AIDS prevention policies and funding for Africa that the son of a Bush put into place. I think people in the motherland will be more inclined to listen to one of their own than to old Ratz boy.

Posted by Loveschild on March 17, 2009 at 10:06 AM
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

@12 did you miss the opening where he expressed nothing but respect for individual believers - this is about the church. In terms you would understand, no the Germans shouldn't be labeled as wrong and evil because of WWII, but the Nazi party and Hitler certainly should.

you lose savage, because you very foolishly left your judas #13 open to ridicule bus riders who aren't thin and beautiful and a list porn stars.

once again savage, you should advocate the closing of old repackaged porn stores and get rid of all the ugly gang rape gang bang mutiple partner sex reissues and build a holistic center for wayward sex addicts who jealously build multiple advocasy programs to themselves by scrounging the dirt teams and taking advantage of young people to live vicariously through your own mistaken identities.

bravo for advocating youth sex in combination with mind altering chemicals.

I love this man.

Loveschild: Did you really listen? Really listen? I know you are a troll here, and that's fine. But there is a difference between faith and the church. If you agree the catholic church has been honorable and great and not fucked up on many fronts, then you are a fool, and exactly who they are looking for.

Sigh.

@12, you might argue that he spent too much time on historical misbehavior of the church, but he clearly makes the point that only some, not all, of this historical misbehavior has been discontinued, and that much of what has been discontinued has not actually been made right.

@14 The Catholic church is more than the current Pope. There have been many previous leaders with more clean past and of greater charismatic influence who were beloved and exemplified a pastoral figure head better than Ratzinger . John Paul II comes to mind. And those essential core moral teachings of the church cannot be undone by the current figure head. Not that any of that matters to you, since I bet to say that you see nothing wrong with the hate Fry spews. It's almost as if you would love nothing more than his atheist fueled hate to spread in God fearing nations.

I recognize this for what it is and it's certainly more than hatred against Catholics, it's hatred against moral values, teachings and actual respect for God not only by word of mouth as he and others with his mindset would like only to see (so they say), but in action also.

Loveschild- I really don't need to actually write something this obvious but I will anyways. You are full of crap, you pathetic hypocrite. A pathetic hypocrite who proves yet again he/she has no idea what he/she is talking about.

Stephen Fry's commentary is downright pious compared to Christopher Hitchen's evisceration of Catholicism:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbk46d_…

Loveschild @ 20,

Neither Fry nor I ever said that wonderful, godly, individual Catholics did not exist.

You were the one who referenced Uganda. Fry's complaint with regard to Uganda was the Vatican's position and promotion that condoms caused AIDS, and you agreed with Fry's position less than a year ago (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…).

Nice try with regard to changing the subject and twisting this to be about the hatred of moral values, teaching, and actual respect for God.

In fact Fry's speech was rich in moral values and rich in respect for both an individual's need for religion in their life and to God. You just did not recognize it, because your church has not taught you that there is a justice and morality above the church. A hint: It is the justice and peace of the kingdom of God.

Now, I am off to take another shower.

@2: He played Lord Snot? I like him already. I must say, it's good to be reminded that my family's not the only people in America to watch The Young Ones.

@20: If you feared God, you might be a little nervous about attaching the name of HaKadosh Baruch Hu to everything you say. Your arrogance shows so clearly when you claim to interpret God's will all the time. And what he says isn't hatred against Catholics, it's a rebuke of the Catholic Church. It's like how so much of the world didn't hate America, per se, they hated Dubya.
So tell me, how are moral values being threatened by telling off the Catholic Church. You realize, they didn't so much have the moral high ground during the Middle Ages.
http://www.royalscandals.com/part8.htm
I know, it's a bit sensationalist.
But it's good to see that you've recovered from that schooling linda with a y gave you the other day. We thought you might have died from it. Well, I guess you can't keep a good cuntwhorebitch down.

@ 20: What a shame.

I watched the whole debate a while back and I recommend it as it is jolly good fun. At the start, the audience was, I believe, about 2/3 in favor Hitchens and Fry's position. At the close, the majority of the remaining 1/3 came over to their side as well.

@23 Fry's first complaint concerning Ugandan society, especially their leader (Museveni) is that they have found God and that such relationship serves to guide the values in which they shape their society. Because they recognize that justice and morality comes from God. Only those who leave their ideologies and place their lives in His hands for Him to mold and transform into new can attest to this.

Watch the video again after you take another shower.

http://funzro.files.wordpress.com/2009/0…

I'll bet Ratzi Boy longs for the days when popes could punish people for the sorts of things Stephen Fry said. These days he and his followers can do nothing to prevent us from mocking them and can not impose consequences even when our intent is to blaspheme.

@20

If you seem to think that the Catholic Church is a bastion of intellectual and spiritual integrity, you must be for the most part unaware of its history, which, with close analysis, is predominantly affected by matters of politics, not spirituality. The line of Papal succession is mired amidst many political struggles and many of the Pope's themselves serve as an example of virtue to no-one. I want to just bring up one major example of this phenomenon: the "Pornocracy" stretching 904 to 964 in which Popes were selected by one powerful Italian family, the Theophylacti. Of course there are other instances of this behavior, but this is especially delicious as one of the daughters from this family, Marozia, herself was a concubine (starting at the age of 15) to Pope Sergius the III, from which union she had child. This child, according to her influence, went on to become a Pope, that is John the XI.

The doctrine of the Catholic Church was ultimately decided and influenced by people of common integrity, and those who were always unable to follow their own beliefs. This is to say nothing of the other forms of Abrahamic monotheism, which I am not in any way indemnifying, but it does show the fair amount of criticism the Church deserves to suffer under, obviously being no categorical representative of any divine, but nevertheless maintaining such pretense.

For more reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornocracy

Loveschild,, your god and the one you said they found in Uganda is not worthy of worship.

I would get a sex change and bottom every night for Stephen Fry.

That's the only way he'd sleep with me, anyway. T-T

Loved the talk by Fry. I wonder what the other side had to say in their defense.

@27 - your argument would be much more convincing if it weren't based on a 10 second joking aside out of a 20 minute video. Try again.

Hey venomlash @24:

Could you please not use "cuntwhorebitch" anymore. Please. It is coming across as being anti-women and I don't think you are against women in general. Are you?

No thanks, LC @ 27,

I'm all fresh, clean, smelling sweet, and with flushed cheeks to boot.

My point stands and your using a joke to support your point betrays you.

Go see if someone else wants to wrestle with you.

Does anyone know who the other panelists are?

It sounds like they are debating some sort of legislation...does anyone know what issue they were debating? Is it funding for the RC church, or something else?

I wonder which Stranger staff member drew the "be the Loveschild sock puppet" duty today.

Is anyone else here a fan of QI (Quite Interesting)?

@ 38 Yes, it's a debate for the motion that "the Catholic Church is a force for good in a world". Fry spoke against the motion along with Christopher Hitchens, who was also great.

I'd advise all of you to check out the whole debate if you can. The RC Church gets fucked up the ass.

@37 A joke ... yes how convenient for you to see that venom as such, but it doesn't surprise me in the least.

I'm not the one who needs to face her demons sweetie. My Heavenly Father has always sent his angels to guard me in all my ways.

Your cleanings are only superficial dear, here's hoping that will change soon.

Why thank you, Loveschild. Thank you, indeed, for the compliment.

Deep cleansing is only possible by washing away sin through blood.

@42
Seems perhaps a little reflexivity and humility are in order, no? Admitting to the faults of our associations and the presumptuousness of our beliefs will lead us all to more love and less suffering, lest we walk the arrogant path of demanding that others view the world as we do.

"Physician, heal thyself!"

The Catholic Church isn't alone, but many evangelical and protestant Christians fall into similar patterns:
"extra ecclesiam nulla salus" is the basic mechanism by which all sanctimonious Christians claim their own salvation while damning others - they are allowed to lie, steal, and abuse in order to "win souls for Christ" - and they purchase absolution for their tangential personal faults with a slight temporary increase in piety.

FreudianShrimp@ 22,

Thank you for the link.

You are correct, Karl The Pagan, in my opinion.

@34
Kim in Portland- thank you for writing what I was thinking. Hugs.

With each post Loveschild sounds more and more like the Church Lady from SNL...

Great comeback there at @42. The worst of Christianity distilled down to a handful of sentences.

loved it... just loved the overall point that it's not the individual, it's the institution that's done the damage... wonderful...

Brilliant.

Brilliant

It was a good debate. Conservative British MP Ann Widdecombe hit back at Hitchens pretty hard--she had a ton of control, the epitome of conservative toughness--but Fry's eloquence won the house over in the end. And he nailed her for snarking about condoms. I recommend watching the whole thing.

stinkbug, i am an ardent fan of QI. i bought the first season DVD when i was in london last year, and am waiting for season two in the post. it's the best show on the BBC.

Damn it my link didn't work. How about this:

The rest of the vids.

I receive comfort and joy from Stephen Fry (despite the double-breasted jackets, can't appreciate that but it does resonate with people who rhyme "house" with "mice"). Until recently I received comfort and joy from Sir Peter Ustinov. I could use some more sources.

Thanks, Dan. I wouldn't have seen this otherwise.

Oh Stephen, I love you.

Damn.

I mean, DAMN.

One knockout punch after another. Rarely have I seen anything so well composed or delivered with so much conviction and poise. You're a hero, Stephen Fry.

Kim, what if venomlash shortened it to cwb? I think it's singular anti "this" woman than a slam against all women.

Once endowed some nicknames are hard to take back. Especially when the shoe fits so nicely.

Step child, I think that it is likely a singular anti "this" woman. But I'm not the only person who has requested it or thought it (#51) and this is not the first thread that the request has been made. I understand the reasoning behind it, just look above, but those are loaded words for many women. Not to mention that it has the potential to reflect badly upon the user. To reflect an untruth about the user. So, cwb might work as a compromise.

In the end it is venomlash's choice.

I was never really convinced about Loveschild being a troll until this thread.

Fry uses his tongue prettier than a $20 whore. This was a jarring wake up call as to how far the quality of public debate has sunk in America, and how much literacy we've lost in just a single generation. Future versions of this debate will need to be written in 40 characters or less and sprinkled with emoticons.

Were Loveschild politically ambitious, I'd suspect her of engaging in Sarah Palin's soundbite tactics and hoping for source amnesia to set in. Since I doubt this to be the case, I would suspect that she's using the common troll tactic of stating as fact points that are both false and controversial, in hopes that someone will respond, as she thrives on any attention she receives here, approvial, dismissal or disparagement.

And, Ironically, this very post feeds her as well.

Many of us love respect and honor you, Kim, and that isn't going to change no matter what poisons Loveschild might introduce to the well. Loveschild is not worth response or regard, but rather, as one whose motives are fueled by her delusions of preference, she serves as an example of the most pathetic, the most wretched of creatures that deign to impede the forward march of civilization.

@65, 66: As step child pointed out, it is singularly against Loveschild; I have great respect for women and consider myself one of those male feminists (i.e., both genders equal in potential, rights, and responsibilities). However, I do hear those on SLOG who think it's a little over the line.

I figure maybe I'll abbreviate it to CWB in general and only write it all out when she says something PARTICULARLY ridiculous/offensive (comment #6 in this thread would be about borderline, I think). Compromise sound good?

@71 I too was offended by your comment @24.

Mostly because you used this deeply offensive language in the same post in which you also spoke of HaKadosh Baruch Hu, So what? You won't type the name of G_d, but disgustingly derogatory comments towards women - that's alright?

How 'bout we all find intelligent, polite arguments against Loveschild's inanity - go back and watch Mr. Fry's debate again for pointers. He can be scathing without cheapening himself with profanities.

@71 - If you consider yourself a feminist, you should know that those particular insulting words are given strength because they carry behind them the cultural weight of centuries of patriarchal institutional power and female sexual servitude and shame. That's why they're taboo, that's why they feel so naughty, and that's why it can feel so damn good saying things like that when we feel particularly incensed.

I've encountered a similar phenomenon in otherwise racially sensitive white people who, in particularly contentious moments involving people who happen to be persons of color, find themselves biting back the "n" word. Is it because they're secretly racists? Not as such. But racism, like sexism, appeals to our baser instincts, starts to toy with our urges and come into play when we feel angry, frustrated, insecure, and, in many cases, when we find ourselves despising someone for reasons that have nothing to do with that person's race or sex. We just want to get to them, somehow, so we find ourselves tempted to take the easy, surefire way to do that; offensive language.

venomlash, you seem like a reasonable person, so I'd urge you to think about this a little bit rather than dismiss it outright, please. I'm sure your issues with Loveschild have nothing to do with a fact that she's a woman, so please, insult her for what's actually wrong with her. When you use language designed to put women in their place, it effects all of us.

Lovechild, Morality comes from God? That's what the people who flew planes into the World Trade Center thought too.

@72 +1

Morality: people made up religion and God, therefore morality comes from people. I don't understand why people think it's so mysterious.

Unless they are mystery-mongers, in order to make themselves appear wise.

Really? You think it's worthwhile to defend the Church? Really? When their only role should be to actually feed and clothe and comfort, not lie and rape and sreal, which they continue to do TODAY. (And just because others lie and rape and steal does not mean one reserves judgement on an INSTITUTION that conspires to do these things, masquerading as a Moral Authority and Hyper-link to God).

Catholics, take back the Vatican, give back what they stole, sell the gold, and give it to the poor. It's what you tell yourselves Jesus Would Do. So do it and stop aiding evil.

Anyone who hasn't read Fry's biography "Moab Is My Washpot" should go out and do so immediately.

Thank you for writing back, venomlash @ 71.

I appreciate your 'listening' to us.

I for one, am going to take try and take the advice of a very wise and generous person. He said, "arguing with LC is like wrestling with someone who's covered from had to toe in shitven if you win, you walk away covered in shit too." Hopefully, I will keep myself clean. Time will tell.

Take care.

Uriel @ 69,

Thank you for your kind words, encouragement and advice. I appreciate it.

Hugs.

C from Mass @ 51,

Hugs.

"It's almost as if you would love nothing more than his atheist fueled hate to spread in God fearing nations."

Fucking right.

I love how Loveschild accuses me of crimes that perhaps someone in my family history "might" have had something to do with the slave trade (I am Portuguese from the Azores but my family has been in this land for a 300+ years) yet the Catholic Church is this great thing.

Hypocrite much?

Despite not being religious at all (despite having grown up Roman Catholic (baptized and confirmed) with 12 years of Sunday School/youth group), I completely agree with Fry: respect individuals and their beliefs, eviscerate the hierarchy that keeps them down. This would be an appropriate point to make a joke about the GOP.

To really appreciate the force and correctness of the "no" side's arguments you really have to watch the whole episode. Christopher Hitchens is every bit as eloquent as Stephen Fry, and both entirely demolish the "yes" side's flimsy platitudes.

48 Has inadvertently summed up clearly all of Fry's true intentions in this video. Fry is just starting with Catholics maybe because he can get away more easily with that sort of hate in england but his hatred as that of many other secularist and atheists who share his views goes beyond just the Catholic church. They despise the church (all of them) and it's teachings in general. He just needs to be jovial and make light of it so that his vile rhetoric is seen as a "joke" by the blind, but make no mistake, advocating for the destruction of the church is his goal.

It's obvious that you haven't watched the entire episode and misunderstand its context, 84, but no matter. Fry isn't advocating for the destruction of the church, but if he were it would not only be justified: it would be a good thing. Fry elegantly demonstrated not only that the Catholic church isn't a force for good in the world, and not only that it does more harm than good, but that it has absolutely no moral standing or relevance. The world will probably never be rid of the church, but there's no doubt that in the not-soon-enough future its influence will be severely curtailed.

85, You have to understand about lovechild. She probably did watch the video, but as usual, most of what was said went right over her head. She misses a lot.

Wow, loveschild really just runs these comments threads when he/she wants to.
I nominate Kim to be discussion leader next time.

Number one commandment is "thou shalt have no other gods before me" yet the catholic church demands that people pray their way up through the hierarchy before they dare speak to God... that He can only be reached through their particular phone line. The bible states that Jesus himself said for all people to pray directly to God with NO middlemen including himself. I praise Fry for his commitment to looking into his own heart with faith that God has made him just the way God intended to make him and to follow where his heart leads him.

Wow. That was great Dan. Thanks for sharing.

Stephen Fry, while eloquently spoken, went to great lengths to disclaim opposition to common practice of Catholicism, for for that matter, any mystery based spirituality, Loveschild. If you actually listened to what he said, it was clear (unless you are accusing him of lying) that he believes there is a role for religious faith in society. Take Fry's defense of practiced faith in contrast to Richard Dawkins commonly expressed belief that revealed religion is corrosive to civilization (and vice versa).

As one of the antireligious conspirators of which you speak, Loveschild, I'll admit freely, we do, in fact, endeavor to weaken the the grasp of religion-based organizations on common folk, and who seek to supplant faith-based morality (as revealed by intra-system appointed human authorities as interpreted sacred scripture) with reason-based morality (where each dictum is logically derived from the core fundamentals of social cooperation). But we are not as legion as you imply, having recruited all of, or even a significant number of all the atheists or secularists in the free world.

One of the misnomers, for example is that secularism is not a position. Secularists that are not better defined by a subset (say, atheist or nontheist) don't relate to any faith- or thought-based organization, and don't concern themselves with existential issues. No organization means no conspiracy, which in turn means no agenda.

As for antitheists and antireligionists, while we regard the present social power of faith-based organizations a problem (compounded by the lack of moral character shown by many of those arbitrarily issued authority within these agencies), it is against our principles to bring them down by force, as that would be a violation of freedom of thought, which we hold dear as it relates to others because we hold it dear as it relates to ourselves.

Contrast this to Dominionism, which is a component of some denominations of Christianity, and is popular amongst the more conservative sects of the United States, and takes a Calvinist interpretation of Genesis 1:28 not only as license to exploit the natural resources of the Earth, but also to spread Christian values throughout the world by force, despite the fact that this is not only anti-American (that whole wall of separation thing), but also that freedom of thought and belief thing being recognized as an inalienable human right throughout the free world.

Which brings up a pertinent point, Loveschild: to which schism of Catholicism to you devote your loyalty? What denomination of Christianity guides your spirit?

Where was my grasp of English, yesterday?

...we do, in fact, endeavor to weaken the the grasp of religion-based organizations on common folk, and do seek to supplant faith-based morality (as revealed by intra-system appointed human authorities as interpreted sacred scripture) with reason-based morality (where each dictum is logically derived from the core fundamentals of social cooperation). But despite our efforts and wishes, antitheists are not as legion as you imagine, having yet to recruit all, or even a significant number, of the atheists or secularists in the free world.

One of the common misnomers, for example is the term secularist as associated to any position at all. Secularist that are not better defined...

Again, all due apologies.

@20 - Loveschild, you write: "And those essential core moral teachings of the church cannot be undone by the current figure head."

You do realise, I hope, that the Catholic Church disagrees with you on this? I refer you to the doctrine of Papl Infallibility...

There are plenty of good people in the Catholic Church, both I and Stephen Fry agree with you wholeheartedly. His argument is that structurally and as an institution is overall does harm. There were quite a few specific arguments made in his speech. I would be interested to hear why you disagree with them.

Forget that Loveschild, what I'd be more interested in is: Brits, how come this man isn't your Prime Minister yet?

The presentation is very good, but there is one critical flaw. The Catholic church is not the only church that claims that Apostolic succession to be necessary. Nor are they they only church that claims to have apostolic succession. The speaker suggests this is the case. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints claims to have Apostolic Succession, and also that such is absolutely vital.

@ oh_man

How can a church claiming to have Apostolic succession have major faults in their past. Personally I see the fact that the church allowed people to repent via a cash donation as a sign that there in fact was an apostasy. Therefore eliminating their claim to apostolic succession.

So does the past matter? Yes, it certainly does. For it shows the church had already strayed from God. The Bible has examples of such periods when the church was corrupted, and at each point a new dispensation would start with the calling of a new prophet to put people back on track.

@ Shelby

The panelists for the Catholic church are John Onaiyekan. He is the Archbishop Of Abuja, Nigeria. The second is Ann Widdecombe MP. She's the Former Converative Government Minister of England.

For the full debate, parts 1 - 5:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuPfymsbN…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH6DI37bK…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SumnIqY_t…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHnVWs3Et…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI2WvD1gz…

Fuckin'. A.