Fry & Hitchens vs the Catholics

[Antiquehunter]

Just posting a linky to the recently aired BBC debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvZz_pxZ2lw&feature=PlayList&p=F821DBF3CE3374A3&index=0

5 episodes well worth watching.

[pakeha]

I saw the videos just now.
I'll second them as great viewing.

[ORUgrad]

Thank you so much for posting this.

[Agular]

Those were terrific.

[Antiquehunter]

What is that word all the cool internet kids use today...?

Pwnage? Something like that? I think it may apply in this case...

Stephen Fry at Tam 2010? - I am so there.

[RandFan]

I live for watching debates. Hands down this is the best I've ever seen.

WOW!

Fry was simply magnificent.

[pakeha]

Yes. Simply magnificent.

[Evolved Wookie]

Ahhh...Stephen Fry. National bloody treasure.

[hgc]

This is a nice summary of the state of the clergy of the RCC, from Andrew Sullivan (talking about the Nigerian archbishop in this debate):

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/benedicts-intellectual-warriors.html#more

In Onaiyekan, you have a classic Benedict/JP II Archbishop: dumb as a post, sheltered from the actual debate in the West, incapable of argument, and pathetic as a spokesman. The problem with the theoconservative take-over in the Catholic priesthood is not so much its extremism as its mediocrity. And it is mediocre because it has been trained not to think, not to argue, and not to engage the modern world. It has been trained solely for obedience - blind, dumb, unquestioning, intellectually moribund obedience.

[Rrose Selavy]

Just posting a linky to the recently aired BBC debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvZz_pxZ2lw&feature=PlayList&p=F821DBF3CE3374A3&index=0

5 episodes well worth watching.

Thanks. Just watched it. Don't think we get the BBC World channel in the UK so missed it.

[kuroyume0161]

Some people think that Hitchens is over-the-top. This proves that he is an enpassioned human who feels deeply about the general state of affairs encompassing humanity. Clone him and keep him away from Speed Racer movies (a cheap shot at his doppelganger).

[bookitty]

This was wonderful. I could only wish that it were longer and a bit more in-depth. Or that the Catholic Church would learn from it.

[Third Eye Open]

Thanks! :D

Would have liked to see some people better public speaking skills on the churches side though, the man struggled noticeably with his English, and that womans voice-- I had to force myself not to skip over her!

[Damien Evans]

Thanks! :D

Would have liked to see some people better public speaking skills on the churches side though, the man struggled noticeably with his English, and that womans voice-- I had to force myself not to skip over her!

I think it was that he was a bad public speaker rather than bad at English, since English is an official language of Nigeria.

[hgc]

I think it was that he was a bad public speaker rather than bad at English, since English is an official language of Nigeria.


Agreed. His English was fine. He's an inept public speaker. And he has nothing to say except for circular drivel. His logic never progressed beyond it's true because I/the church said it.

[MarkCorrigan]

Agreed. His English was fine. He's an inept public speaker. And he has nothing to say except for circular drivel. His logic never progressed beyond it's true because I/the church said it.

Oddly enough that was Widdecombe's stance too.

She's a moron though, so I didn't expect much from her, but seriously "Oh I knew they would bring up AIDS/abuse/homosexuality". Stephen Fry said it best; they bring it up because it's NEVER BEEN ANSWERED.

[hgc]

Oddly enough that was Widdecombe's stance too.

She's a moron though, so I didn't expect much from her, but seriously "Oh I knew they would bring up AIDS/abuse/homosexuality". Stephen Fry said it best; they bring it up because it's NEVER BEEN ANSWERED.


Oh, she is a special treat, isn't she. She had two moments that rank as my favorite. One was when she excused all the past sins of the church with the old who knew back then? The other was when she excoriated the questioner about her stance against women in the priesthood for not being familiar with some obscure theological standard about the "point of consecration." She might as well be speaking Klingon.

[MarkCorrigan]

Slightly OT, but did you see any of her series about getting people on benefits into work and getting women out of prostitution? It was billed as a program where she would provide help to these people. All she did was yell at them on television. "WHY DON'T YOU JUST LEAVE/GET A JOB/etc.?!"

She's just a horrible little woman. Why on Earth she was ever a member of the cabinet I don't know.

[Antiquehunter]

Bookitty - I believe at the intelligencesquared website (www.intelligencesquared.com), they will be posting the unedited full version shortly. I understand that there was over 2 hours of footage, trimmed back to 47mins for the Beeb.

Incidentally, there appears to be another compelling topic for debate coming up hosted by the same organization: Nov 29th I see the topic is "Atheism is the new Fundamentalism". Opposing the motion are Dawkins & Grayling - should be another great discussion!

[shadron]

In my view, Hitchens and Fry were ready, targeted and pithy. Onaiyekan and Widdecome were obviously not ready for a debate; they were fish out of water, they thought they were there to deliver sermons. It is something in the nature of such debates the the pro side always has the tougher job, the negative only has to punch holes in what the pro has to say. In this case, the holes were gaping, Ms Widdecome could only stand there and declaim about concentrating only on sexual issues, as if life and love weren't all that important.

[joobz]

The Archbishop's ENTIRE argument was an appeal to numbers. It was clearly a "If you criticize the church, you're criticizing 1.2 billion people...." That's a horrible argument. i agree that catholic ministries have done a lot of good, but like Fry said, It doesn't matter if the burgler buys his father a birthday gift.

The woman was snarky, which is fine if she had substance. I agree with her, though, about the one audience member's question. It was rather out of ignorance. The comparison is simply nonsense. To give an alternative analogy, it would be like asking, "Why can a woman be a MP but cannot be the 3rd degree Grand Pooba of the Mystic Order of Water Buffalo?" The reason will be silly and doesn't matter.

Also, I was happy to see Fry bring up the slavery argument. It's a critical failure of the church.

Finally, as a skeptic, I am a bit doubtful of the number of votes in the end.
600 votes that were "pro catholic" decreased by ~66%. It seems extremely strange for such a large number of positives to be changed to negative. Especially regarding the subject matter. People don't typical budge when they are pro a faith.

This leaves, in my mind, a couple of explanations.
1.) A fair number of the 400 were in fact Anti-church, but wished to skew the % change.
2.) That the pro-church numbers were actually people who were non-catholic but had a generally positive view of them. While this is an interestiing result, it still is a result that only reflects a subset of the total population.

I doubt the audience contained many active catholics.

[pakeha]

Bookitty - I believe at the intelligencesquared website (www.intelligencesquared.com), they will be posting the unedited full version shortly. I understand that there was over 2 hours of footage, trimmed back to 47mins for the Beeb.

Incidentally, there appears to be another compelling topic for debate coming up hosted by the same organization: Nov 29th I see the topic is "Atheism is the new Fundamentalism". Opposing the motion are Dawkins & Grayling - should be another great discussion!

Excellent news.
On both counts.

[Darat]

The best comment was from Fry and it really gets to the core of what the RCC claims about itself:

They for example thought that slavery was perfectly fine, absolutely OK, and then they didn't and what is the point of the Catholic Church if it says "Oh we couldn't know better because no one else did" THEN WHAT ARE YOU FOR?

[cornsail]

The best comment was from Fry and it really gets to the core of what the RCC claims about itself:

They for example thought that slavery was perfectly fine, absolutely OK, and then they didn't and what is the point of the Catholic Church if it says "Oh we couldn't know better because no one else did" THEN WHAT ARE YOU FOR?

Yeah I think that completely destroys their "moral relativism" argument.

[Hux]

Dont think Anne Widdicombe is anything other than an astute politician who has survived for years in the House.

Quite simply, she and the Bish had an empty argument, no presence or evidence.

But it didn't help their cause to be up against possibly the two most urbane and witty gentlemen in the western Hemisphere.

[Darat]

...snip...

Finally, as a skeptic, I am a bit doubtful of the number of votes in the end.
600 votes that were "pro catholic" decreased by ~66%. It seems extremely strange for such a large number of positives to be changed to negative. Especially regarding the subject matter. People don't typical budge when they are pro a faith.

This leaves, in my mind, a couple of explanations.
1.) A fair number of the 400 were in fact Anti-church, but wished to skew the % change.
2.) That the pro-church numbers were actually people who were non-catholic but had a generally positive view of them. While this is an interestiing result, it still is a result that only reflects a subset of the total population.

I doubt the audience contained many active catholics.

But the question was not "Are you pro the RCC?" It was whether it was a "force for good"; I could well see that a lot of people with only nominal knowledge of the RCC could think "Oh they do a lot of charitable work, they are strong on morals so yes it's a force for good". Then when presented by a speaker they liked (i.e. Stephen Fry - a very well liked broadcaster in the UK) telling them the "bad things" like the problems with the teachings on condoms and the problem that causes in Africa and how they are not quite as strong on the morals as they'd like you to believe, I can well understand how they might change their minds.

I do agree that if the audience was at all representative of the UK population (and we know it wasn't because there was a nun in it!) then committed Roman Catholics would be thin on the ground - so the pro- side were not starting with a built-in advantage.

But to lose so many people to the anti- side should be worrying to anyone who supports the RCC.

[Rairun]

Agreed. His English was fine. He's an inept public speaker. And he has nothing to say except for circular drivel. His logic never progressed beyond it's true because I/the church said it.

Yeah, his English was fine. And true, he's not a good public speaker, but he'd do okay if he were actually saying something. I don't mind it when people aren't eloquent, as long as they are able to make an argument.

[Rairun]

Also, is it me or does Ann Widdecombe sound like Terry Jones playing a woman?

[Hux]

I wonder, if they had selected better orators than that Bish. and Widdy that they might have fared better? Hitchens and Fry laid down such withering fire that I don't think even Ratswinger could have justified the motion.

[volatile]

Does anyone know what Widdecombe's stance on condoms was before she converted to Catholicism?

I'd love to ask her (and Blair, come to think of it) that question - whether her opinions on important sociological and political matters are the result of reasoned consideration of the evidence or whether or not she changed her mind simply because she joined a club who hold and enforce a particular view from the top down?

[Soapy Sam]

Given the facts of the case and the relative quality of the speakers, this was a matter of shooting long dead, rancid fish in a leaking, 2000 year old barrel.
.

The importance of such debate is not the outcome, but the fact that it is widely seen as appropriate and acceptable in contemporary Britain. For this I think we have Richard Dawkins to thank. His aim has been "to raise consciousness" about the evil inherent in religion. I think he has succeeded.

But had the motion included the word "Islam" in place of the RCC, would the debate have been allowed at all- or seen as a "Hate Crime"? The Roman religion is , on balance, of great harm in the world- but it is doubtful if it does more harm as a philosophy, than any other religion.
A plague on all such houses.

[Darat]

Given the facts of the case and the relative quality of the speakers, this was a matter of shooting long dead, rancid fish in a leaking, 2000 year old barrel.
.

The importance of such debate is not the outcome, but the fact that it is widely seen as appropriate and acceptable in contemporary Britain. For this I think we have Richard Dawkins to thank. His aim has been "to raise consciousness" about the evil inherent in religion. I think he has succeeded.

But had the motion included the word "Islam" in place of the RCC, would the debate have been allowed at all- or seen as a "Hate Crime"? The Roman religion is , on balance, of great harm in the world- but it is doubtful if it does more harm as a philosophy, than any other religion.
A plague on all such houses.

Since this type of debate does not fall under any UK legislation (well apart from health and safety legislation covering any such public gathering) what on earth would it matter what church or religion they were debating about?

[Ryokan]

Agreed. His English was fine.

Was it just me, or did he call Ratzinger The Poop?

[Darat]

Does anyone know what Widdecombe's stance on condoms was before she converted to Catholicism?

I'd love to ask her (and Blair, come to think of it) that question - whether her opinions on important sociological and political matters are the result of reasoned consideration of the evidence or whether or not she changed her mind simply because she joined a club who hold and enforce a particular view from the top down?

I suspect that Widdecombe was already a "high Anglican" - in other words pretty much indistinguishable to us on the outside from a Roman Catholic.

As for Blair - well despite his apparent liberalism in that he supported the lowering the age of consent for male homosexuals and civil partnerships we also know that he was always willing to allow opt-outs on religious grounds. So we have the expansion of "faith" schools (publicly funded) and by all accounts at the time he wanted to allow Roman Catholic adoption agencies to have an opt-out in regards to adoptions into a family with a same-sex partnership. (They were in the end granted a temporary opt-out.)

[Kell]

Given the facts of the case and the relative quality of the speakers, this was a matter of shooting long dead, rancid fish in a leaking, 2000 year old barrel.
.

The importance of such debate is not the outcome, but the fact that it is widely seen as appropriate and acceptable in contemporary Britain. For this I think we have Richard Dawkins to thank. His aim has been "to raise consciousness" about the evil inherent in religion. I think he has succeeded.

This is my feeling on the debate too. It was more an opportunity to rant unapologetically against religion in a way that hasn't been acceptable before. Both Hitchens and Fry let rip cathartically with comments of the sort many have been dumping in front of religious apologists since Dawkins got the ball rolling a few years back. We call a spade a spade, wash our hands of religion and Lo! the sky does not fall, the world does not end, we manage just fine. And feel the better for it.

[Ryokan]

The Archbishop's ENTIRE argument was an appeal to numbers. It was clearly a "If you criticize the church, you're criticizing 1.2 billion people...." That's a horrible argument. i agree that catholic ministries have done a lot of good, but like Fry said, It doesn't matter if the burgler buys his father a birthday gift.

The woman was snarky, which is fine if she had substance. I agree with her, though, about the one audience member's question. It was rather out of ignorance. The comparison is simply nonsense. To give an alternative analogy, it would be like asking, "Why can a woman be a MP but cannot be the 3rd degree Grand Pooba of the Mystic Order of Water Buffalo?" The reason will be silly and doesn't matter.

Also, I was happy to see Fry bring up the slavery argument. It's a critical failure of the church.

Finally, as a skeptic, I am a bit doubtful of the number of votes in the end.
600 votes that were "pro catholic" decreased by ~66%. It seems extremely strange for such a large number of positives to be changed to negative. Especially regarding the subject matter. People don't typical budge when they are pro a faith.

This leaves, in my mind, a couple of explanations.
1.) A fair number of the 400 were in fact Anti-church, but wished to skew the % change.
2.) That the pro-church numbers were actually people who were non-catholic but had a generally positive view of them. While this is an interestiing result, it still is a result that only reflects a subset of the total population.

I doubt the audience contained many active catholics.

As said before, it could be that a lot of people either hadn't given it much thought, or didn't know the facts, or a bit of both. Of course they're a force for good, they do charities!

[Hux]

if they wish to be characterised as a charitable institution, they should listen to the words of their Buddy Jesus, go through the eye of the needle and transfer all their wealth - everything - into palliating and curing the suffering of billions of people on this planet.

The debate series should now go ahead and debate Islam - a force for good? Any complaints from the halitosis hordes should be met by referring them to the above debate and an affirmation that violence does not preclude them from debate.

[Rairun]

Honestly, I don't think it's wise to have a similar debate about Islam on national television. I doubt any catholics had any trouble the day after the debate. Islam may be just as bad as the RCC, but the backlash against muslim immigrants would not be a pretty sight. So yeah, Islam is just as bad (or maybe even worse) than the RCC, but we don't want regular people who follow the religion to suffer at the hands of bigots.

[Olowkow]

.....
But to lose so many people to the anti- side should be worrying to anyone who supports the RCC.

I happen to agree with Darat's post, but I suspect some or many of the "pre debate PRO's" may have been trying to be "open minded" on the subject, though in fact they were leaning strongly towards the con point of view.
There were lots of people clapping for Christopher and Stephen, but only very few sitting with their arms folded. I agree that you don't get that many converts with one debate.

Also, is it me or does Ann Widdecombe sound like Terry Jones playing a woman?

Glad to see someone else noticed this. My wife and I were in tears laughing every time she spoke, a Monty Python moment. I expected her to claim "I can burrow through an elephant!"

[Ocelot]

Fry and Hitchens were the cherry on the cake.They turned victory into a landslide however against such weak opposition it was hardly a fair match. Many of the audience remember Widdy as a member of one of the most hated governments in memory. She was introduced as someone who joined the Catholic Church because her own cabal were no longer bigoted enough for her and her screeching in defence of that, prompted by the audience questions alone must have been enough to lose the debate even without such esteemed opposition. The Archbishop didn't help. Acting bemused at the suggestion that his boss sitting in his own gold plated microstate surrounded by the world's art treasures might be a tad ostentatious.

[JAStewart]

Honestly, I don't think it's wise to have a similar debate about Islam on national television. I doubt any catholics had any trouble the day after the debate. Islam may be just as bad as the RCC, but the backlash against muslim immigrants would not be a pretty sight. So yeah, Islam is just as bad (or maybe even worse) than the RCC, but we don't want regular people who follow the religion to suffer at the hands of bigots.

So what, you just shut up shop and don't criticize them?

If criticism can be quelled with violence free speech is dead. Wait til the catholics grab ahold of the theory that "if we react violently, they won't criticize us" - where does it end?

[Darat]

So what, you just shut up shop and don't criticize them?

If criticism can be quelled with violence free speech is dead. Wait til the catholics grab ahold of the theory that "if we react violently, they won't criticize us" - where does it end?

You seem to have totally misunderstood Rairun's post, he was expressing a concern that such a debate could result in more attacks against British folk who are Muslims.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Has Bill Donohue had his obligatory meltdown over this?

[HarryKeogh]

Of course, I liked what Fry and Hitchens had to say but hated the format of the event.

[Soapy Sam]

Since this type of debate does not fall under any UK legislation (well apart from health and safety legislation covering any such public gathering) what on earth would it matter what church or religion they were debating about?
I mean allowed by the BBC.
Some of the things Hitchens said about the history of the church were pretty hateful (however true) and might have been said to stir up hatred. (Not to mention harming the reputation of the church- I know not if slander legislation is as silly as the libel law, but the word "bogus" comes to mind).
The RCC is an easy target in part because it is a real organisation with a recognisable brand image, staff, leadership and HQ. Plus , Cardinal Biggles is unlikely to show up at your door with the comfy chair, far less a bomb.

Criticising Islam or Judaism is harder for a debate sponsored by the BBC to do given the nature of "hate crime" , because there is no comparable structure to blame in either case. It devolves to an attack on the individual Muslim or (Gods forfend) Jew. Anti Semitism at the Beeb- shock! Horror!
Criticising the Vatican is a doddle- A bunch of wierd old men in funny dresses, talking obvious nonsense, defending an outmoded worldview and guarding their ancient rights and rites. Our own Dr. Adequate did so far more entertainingly in verse a few years back.
Fry was at pains to say he was not criticising individual believers. And there the debate fails, from my perpective.
Individual believers are precisely the people to whom sceptics need to communicate the intrinsic falsehood of their beliefs, rather than merely criticising the hierarchy of the organisation. I don't care that a bunch of loonies live in the Vatican. I care that a thousand million people swallow their nonsense.

[JAStewart]

Every crime is a hate-crime.

[cyborg]

Every crime is a hate-crime.

Selling pirate DVDs is a hate crime?

[Nursefoxfire]

That was amazing to watch. Even more reason (as if I needed any) to absolutely LOVE Stephen Fry and his darling crooked nose.

[JAStewart]

Selling pirate DVDs is a hate crime?
You must hate the copyright laws.

[hgc]

Of course, I liked what Fry and Hitchens had to say but hated the format of the event.


Speaking of which, from the way it was edited, the moderator was taking audience questions one after the other, but we weren't hearing the responses except to a few questions. Why would they edit to include questions from audience members which weren't addressed by the panel members? As a matter of fact, I can only assume that it didn't happen that way in real time, but I haven't watched the unedited version.

[hgc]

That was amazing to watch. Even more reason (as if I needed any) to absolutely LOVE Stephen Fry and his darling crooked nose.


If Stephen Fry had spinach stuck in his teeth, I'd tell him -- not for his sake, but for my own sake of not having to be distracted by seeing it. And he'd reach in and remove it.

The nose is easily fixed by minor plastic surgery, and it's awfully distracting. I encourage Fry to do so.

[Wolrab]

You seem to have totally misunderstood Rairun's post, he was expressing a concern that such a debate could result in more attacks against British folk who are Muslims.

I am not too familiar with riotous crowds in England. My impression is it is the Muslims that fly off the handle whenever anything they deem against Islam is dared mentioned. Is there a lot of anti-Muslim immigrant violence?


I noticed in the debate that the Arch Bishop never answered how the church can change its position seeing how God's word is supposedly eternal.

[Steelmage]

Hitchens does not do a good job at debates in my opinion. But Stephen Fry kill ass and took names.

[Darat]

I mean allowed by the BBC.
Some of the things Hitchens said about the history of the church were pretty hateful (however true) and might have been said to stir up hatred. (Not to mention harming the reputation of the church- I know not if slander legislation is as silly as the libel law, but the word "bogus" comes to mind).
The RCC is an easy target in part because it is a real organisation with a recognisable brand image, staff, leadership and HQ. Plus , Cardinal Biggles is unlikely to show up at your door with the comfy chair, far less a bomb.

Criticising Islam or Judaism is harder for a debate sponsored by the BBC to do given the nature of "hate crime" , because there is no comparable structure to blame in either case. It devolves to an attack on the individual Muslim or (Gods forfend) Jew. Anti Semitism at the Beeb- shock! Horror!
Criticising the Vatican is a doddle- A bunch of wierd old men in funny dresses, talking obvious nonsense, defending an outmoded worldview and guarding their ancient rights and rites. Our own Dr. Adequate did so far more entertainingly in verse a few years back.
Fry was at pains to say he was not criticising individual believers. And there the debate fails, from my perpective.
Individual believers are precisely the people to whom sceptics need to communicate the intrinsic falsehood of their beliefs, rather than merely criticising the hierarchy of the organisation. I don't care that a bunch of loonies live in the Vatican. I care that a thousand million people swallow their nonsense.

But as I said there was nothing in this debate (and it wouldn't have mattered at all what religion or specific church was being discussed in this way) that fell, by any stretch of the imagination, under any kind of legislation that covers either the BBC or the various incitement laws.

[Darat]

I am not too familiar with riotous crowds in England. My impression is it is the Muslims that fly off the handle whenever anything they deem against Islam is dared mentioned. Is there a lot of anti-Muslim immigrant violence?



Sadly there do seem to be lot of attacks that (apparently) are motivated by the attacker believing the person they are attacking is a Muslim however most of the anti-Muslim violence is not aimed at Muslim immigrants (they are a minority of the UK Muslim's population).

[BPScooter]

Rairun, I must hesitatingly disagree with you. If Roman Catholics can take this medicine, and adherents of a religion I-shall-not-name-without-being-called-a-'phobe' can't, then we've really just shot dead fish in old barrels and shouldn't feel a great sense of accomplishment in in the large sense. I, personally, wonder why the American President used the word "incomprehensible" to describe the motivations for the shootings at the US Army base a couple days ago. Is that true? "Incomprehensible" is the exact word.

[Darat]

Rairun, I must hesitatingly disagree with you. If Roman Catholics can take this medicine, and adherents of a religion I-shall-not-name-without-being-called-a-'phobe' can't, then we've really just shot dead fish in old barrels and shouldn't feel a great sense of accomplishment in in the large sense. I, personally, wonder why the American President used the word "incomprehensible" to describe the motivations for the shootings at the US Army base a couple days ago. Is that true? "Incomprehensible" is the exact word.

BPScooter - You have totally misunderstood Rairun's comment, he was concerned that a debate such as this one that concluded with "Islam is not a force for good" would fuel yet more attacks on British Muslims.

[BPScooter]

Thanks, Darat. I'll go back and see what I missed! Sorry if I took this thread off-topic, and I'll also rephrase anything I meant to say in better words.

[BPScooter]

Cutting and pasting here: Rairun said "Honestly, I don't think it's wise to have a similar debate about Islam on national television. I doubt any catholics had any trouble the day after the debate. Islam may be just as bad as the RCC, but the backlash against muslim immigrants would not be a pretty sight. So yeah, Islam is just as bad (or maybe even worse) than the RCC, but we don't want regular people who follow the religion to suffer at the hands of bigots."

I am not worried about the criticism of Roman Catholicism, that has been going on for some time. I am indeed worried about the "regular people who follow the religion." I am not worried about Catholic bigots.

I remain worried.

[Hux]

What backlash against Muslim immigrants? There is none. The protagonists of the programme have more to fear from Muslims than the other way around. Hitchens is no stranger to death threats.

Its disingenuous to suggest the Muslim community might find themselves in peril because of a debate. There will always be thugs who will go toe to toe with Muslims but Muslims are well protected by law and political correctness. Its crazy to suggest the Muslims would be in danger. There would be hell on for a few days and then Muslims would just go back to being noisy.

[Undesired Walrus]

Was Hitchens wearing an Iranian flag pin?

[Hux]

Nope. Its his US flag that he wears with great pride.

[Undesired Walrus]

Certainly doesn't look American.

[Foster Zygote]

if they wish to be characterised as a charitable institution, they should listen to the words of their Buddy Jesus, go through the eye of the needle and transfer all their wealth - everything - into palliating and curing the suffering of billions of people on this planet.

"The Vatican knows all about poverty. They have many priceless works of art depicting it." - Stephen Colbert

[hgc]

Certainly doesn't look American.


Recently became US citizen.

[qayak]

What backlash against Muslim immigrants? There is none. The protagonists of the programme have more to fear from Muslims than the other way around. Hitchens is no stranger to death threats.

Its disingenuous to suggest the Muslim community might find themselves in peril because of a debate. There will always be thugs who will go toe to toe with Muslims but Muslims are well protected by law and political correctness. Its crazy to suggest the Muslims would be in danger. There would be hell on for a few days and then Muslims would just go back to being noisy.

I agree. Whatever is going to happen when the "first" debate takes place is going to happen so, better to get it over with sooner rather than later and get the real discussion started.

[Hux]

Certainly doesn't look American.

Well he has the early signs of a Mullet.

[RandFan]

Hitchens does not do a good job at debates in my opinion. But Stephen Fry kill ass and took names.Sometimes I wish he would not leave propositions unanswered. Otherwise I think he is outstanding. Hitchen's is one of my my favorites. His free speech argument (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6379618149058958603#) being his magnum opus in my opinion. Still I have to say that even though Hitchens was outstanding here Fry stole the show.

[Hux]

I thought Fry was a little more diffident than his usual demeanour. But he was entirely charming. I doubt he would have carried the day on his own. Hitchens just kicked ass.

[MarkCorrigan]

What backlash against Muslim immigrants? There is none. The protagonists of the programme have more to fear from Muslims than the other way around. Hitchens is no stranger to death threats.

Its disingenuous to suggest the Muslim community might find themselves in peril because of a debate. There will always be thugs who will go toe to toe with Muslims but Muslims are well protected by law and political correctness. Its crazy to suggest the Muslims would be in danger. There would be hell on for a few days and then Muslims would just go back to being noisy.

Quick question Hux. Are you British?

[Brown]

Hitchens, as I've said, seems to present himself as two people. The "Good Hitchens" and the "Bad Hitchens" are both sharp-tongued, but the "Bad Hitchens" distinguishes himself by unfounded self-promotion and by sentences that are so wound up in their own cleverness that they become nearly incomprehensible.

(As I've said, I thought it would be nice if the "Bad Hitchens" would grow a goatee.)

In this presentation, the one speaking is the "Good Hitchens." I do not say this because his message was good; I say it because he made his points cleanly, with more punch than I have ever seen.

[Agular]

Hitchens, as I've said, seems to present himself as two people. The "Good Hitchens" and the "Bad Hitchens" are both sharp-tongued, but the "Bad Hitchens" distinguishes himself by unfounded self-promotion and by sentences that are so wound up in their own cleverness that they become nearly incomprehensible.

The "Bad Hitchens" is usually drunk.

[Rrose Selavy]

Hitchens can often tend to meander, go off on a tangent so the original question gets quickly lost. But if these, as said, are the edited parts of a longer debate then he seems more focused becaus of that.

It's about time Fry used his brain to do something more useful than twittering from a lift about the latest gadget he's acquired..

[justcharlie09]

Just posting a linky to the recently aired BBC debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvZz_pxZ2lw&feature=PlayList&p=F821DBF3CE3374A3&index=0

5 episodes well worth watching.

Thanks for posting!

I would add to this the discussion between Hitchens and Albacete

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47gkjGcX6PU

And for more discussion by both atheists and theists:

http://meaningoflife.tv/

[justcharlie09]

The "Bad Hitchens" is usually drunk.

That's is biggest drawback. Sometimes I'd really like to see someone slap that guy or drag him off to rehab. Other times, I find myself enjoying what he has to say.

[qayak]

The "Bad Hitchens" is usually drunk.

And . . . ?

[Malerin]

The Catholics never had a chance on this one. They were not good debaters, and the Catholic Church is so morally bankrupt, even a master sophist would be hard pressed to make the Church come out ahead, on the balance sheet, as a "force for good".

[Darat]

...snip...

It's about time Fry used his brain to do something more useful than twittering from a lift about the latest gadget he's acquired..


Er... I think you'll find he does a little bit more than that already...

[Hux]

Quick question Hux. Are you British?

Quick answer Mark. English.

[Hux]

And . . . ?


Exactly. Even when drunk (and I would ask you to point out out to me when he is) he's still the most eloquent kid on the block.

[RandFan]

Exactly. Even when drunk (and I would ask you to point out out to me when he is) he's still the most eloquent kid on the block.Agreed. Telling is that he is respected by a rather large and eclectic group including folks in academia, scientists, philosophers and simple folk like myself. He's in high demand by many including universities and TV.

He's doing something right. :)

[Darat]

Quick answer Mark. English.

Or yes.

[Hux]

Nope. He asked if I was British. I told him my nationality. if I was a Jock (God forbid) I suppose i would not demure from saying so. Even the Welsh appear to have some nationalistic pride for some reason. So I told him I am English. I make no apology for being specific.

[Darat]

Nope. He asked if I was British.

...snip...

And if you are English you are also British so as I said: Or yes.

[Hux]

I choose to signify myself as English. I am also a member of the united kingdom. Whats your point?

[Darat]

I choose to signify myself as English. I am also a member of the united kingdom. Whats your point?

Point? That the answer to the question was actually "yes".

[Hux]

I choose not to refer to myself as British. I choose to refer to myself as English. Whats it to you?

[Ocelot]

Eye yam AC tee zen off thee whirled.

[volatile]

Your latest response sheds some interesting light on your former ones, Hux...

[Hux]

Care to elucidate?

[Denver]

In my view, Hitchens and Fry were ready, targeted and pithy. Onaiyekan and Widdecome were obviously not ready for a debate; they were fish out of water, they thought they were there to deliver sermons. It is something in the nature of such debates the the pro side always has the tougher job, the negative only has to punch holes in what the pro has to say. In this case, the holes were gaping, Ms Widdecome could only stand there and declaim about concentrating only on sexual issues, as if life and love weren't all that important.

Fry and Hitchens won, but in this case, I don't think that's saying much. The pro debaters were not the right people to really make this interesting for me. The con side presented great topics worthy of debate, but they weren't debated.

I can recall some religious debate tv show where the host (pro-religion) would find some misinformed or fringe member who claims they are a member of some group, debates them into the ground, and uses that to show how the host's religious views have triumphed over the opponent's religious group's belief system. This debate unfortunately felt a little like that.

I say felt, but obviously it wasn't that disingenuous. It seems reasonable to expect that an archbishop actually should be able to speak for the entire RCC: but I don't know if that is really true. Archbishops I gather are fairly local entities, still responsible for promoting the entire churche's 'message', but not necessarily engaged in setting, or even being able to debate, its policies. I want to hear a debate from those in the latter camp. The pope would be ideal. Or those involved at that level.

Others in this thread have said the debate was important because of the freedom of expression it allowed in the UK. I'm in the US, and so can't really evaluate it on that basis. And maybe the 2 hour unedited version will be more interesting.

But even beyond that, the entire theme of the debate I felt was ridiculously broad and more for entertainment than for any real substance. I'd much rather see one single focused topic selected (the RCC's stance on homosexuals, or condoms, or woman priests), and spend a couple hours or more, with the best representatives from the RCC, on that.

I think that would really allow the best debate, and the best learning experience, for all involved.

[volatile]

Care to elucidate?

You seem to be coming to this debate with (shall we say) a rather "nationalistic" viewpoint?

[Hux]

Some good points there but also remember that the Bish. thought this was more than just debate; it was his life. One would have thought he would have had a better argument.

It seems that Hitchens and Fry did focus on particular doctrines and the only response from Widdy was "Oh I knew you'd bring that up". As Stephen Fry said in his summing up, "These things matter". Indeed they do.

Had they managed to get Benny the Poop on the show, I would have been fascinated to see how he would explain his downright lies about condoms.

[Hux]

You seem to be coming to this debate with (shall we say) a rather "nationalistic" viewpoint?

I think you assume too much. I am proud of being English just as I doubt you will find a Scotsman who doesn't call himself Scottish. Assuming anything else is just silly and unfounded.

[bokonon]

The Catholics never had a chance on this one. They were not good debaters, and the Catholic Church is so morally bankrupt, even a master sophist would be hard pressed to make the Church come out ahead, on the balance sheet, as a "force for good".
I think, on balance, it IS a force for good. Yes, their stance on birth control, and especially condoms, is appalling, and their opposition to gay marriage will one day be the contemporary version of their former stance on slavery. Their cover-up of the actions of their pedophile priests can't be defended.

But in my mind, when you stack all that against the people they are feeding and to whom they are providing medical care and upgraded sanitation, I think they're doing more good than harm. As an atheist, I'd naturally prefer that they'd do it without dragging their religious baggage along, but they get to decide the conditions under which they'll distribute their resources, just as I get to decide how I'll distribute mine.

I think what lost the debate for them is the "no shame" comment from the African guy. There's really nothing else he could have said -- he's not being paid to express his own opinion, but to be a mouthpiece for the official party line, so even if he does disagree with some policy or other, he can't very well do so publicly. I think that's what lost the crowd -- not that they aren't doing more good than bad, but that they're unapologetic about the bad, and (really) unwilling to discuss it, or even acknowledge it.

[MarkCorrigan]

Quick answer Mark. English.

So when you were talking about there being no backlash against Muslims you totally missed vile cretins like "The English Defence League (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8250017.stm)?

Maybe the whole "BNP gaining ground" thing passed you by too.

Unless you think these things are good, and I have no reason to believe that, you can't possibly be serious when you say there would be next to no trouble.

[Hux]

They are vile cretins yes.

They do not speak for me or the majority of this country.

I made the point that Hitchens has more to fear from Muslims than they do from him.

[Undesired Walrus]

Recently became US citizen.

The flag pin doesn't look American.

[odeed]

The flag pin doesn't look American.

I think it's the Kurdistan flag (or maybe the Iranian flag upside down)

[Hux]

It would appear you are right!

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/06/09/f-vp-handler.html

But unlike some master insulters, such as the right-wing Anne Coulter, for example, Hitchens is both clever and serious, while ranging over an immense ideological territory.

He's scolded Mother Teresa, Henry Kissinger and old friends on the left who he angered with his support for the Iraq war. (Hitchens now wears a Kurdish flag pin in his label.)

He also disdains Islamist suicide bombers and fervid Israeli settlers, sometimes in the same sentence. Moral equivalence is one of his highly-evolved debating tricks.

[Brown]

Here are some excerpts from Hitchens's address. The question was whether the Catholic Church was a force for good in the world, and Hitchens adopted a theme of apologies. He listed a few of the areas in which the Catholic Church, despite its leadership by one claiming to be infallible, has already apologized:The Crusades, the Inquisition, the persecution of the Jewish People, injustice towards women (that’s half the human race right there), and the forced conversion of indigenous peoples (especially in South America), the African slave trade, the admission that Galileo was right and of course silence during Hitler’s Final Solution or Shoah.Hitchens mentioned other areas where the Church has expressed regret, mostly pertaining to the abuse of young people in the Church's charge, and chided the Church for not apologizing in a proper and mature matter. But then came this:There will come a time when the Church will issue apologies and explanations and half-baked appeals for forgiveness for things it's still doing.

I think that there will be an apology for what happened in Rwanda—the most Catholic country in Africa—where priests and nuns and bishops are on trial for inciting from their pulpits and on the Church’s radio stations and newspapers the massacre of their brothers and sisters.

Staying in Africa, I think it will one day be admitted with shame that it might have been in error to say that, "AIDS is bad as a disease, very bad, but not quite as bad as condoms are bad; or not as immoral in the same way."

I say it in the presence of His Grace and I say it to his face: The preachings of his Church are responsible for the death and suffering and misery of millions of his brother and sister Africans, and he should apologize for it! He should show some shame!
Hitchens wasn't done. He saved his most moving words for the Church's continuing attitude toward his friend:For condemning my friend, Stephen Fry, for his nature! … He's not being condemned for what he does, he's being condemned for what he IS! … This is disgraceful, it's inhuman, it's obscene, and it comes from a clutch of hysterical, sinister VIRGINS who've already betrayed their charge in the children of their own church! For shame! For shame!The Catholic Church, like most religious organizations, like to see itself on the moral high ground. But Hitchens showed the audience that the Catholic Church is not on the moral high ground.

[Mashuna]

Nope. He asked if I was British. I told him my nationality. if I was a Jock (God forbid) I suppose i would not demure from saying so. Even the Welsh appear to have some nationalistic pride for some reason. So I told him I am English. I make no apology for being specific.

And nor should you! A fine example, showing all that is best of nationalistic pride.

[Hux]

Diolch mate!