97 replies on “Stephen Fry v. the Catholic Church”

  2. @Loveschild

    I think you and I watched different speeches. Because in the one I saw, Stephen Fry stated and repeated that his criticisms were not of Catholics, but of the institution that is the Catholic Church. I guess you don’t understand that distinction.

    In several posts, you’ve accused Fry of being hateful and morally bankrupt… but you haven’t even attempted to refute a single one of his points from the speech. If he’s wrong about the Catholic Church, why can’t you defend it?

  3. 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.

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

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  10. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  19. @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?

  20. @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.

  21. @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.

  24. 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.

  26. 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.

  28. “It’s almost as if you would love nothing more than his atheist fueled hate to spread in God fearing nations.”

    Fucking right.

  29. 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?

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

  34. 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.

  36. 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.

  38. 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?

  39. 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.

  40. @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.

  42. 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.

  43. @ 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.

  44. @ 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.

  47. ElaineS…how come Sarah Palin isn’t your president yet…oh wait…”no no don’t press that button – it doesn’t call room service…”

Comments are closed.