STEPHEN FRY

eva0607 said:

I also have a question: has any of you seen the full unedited version of the debate (the one under 2 hours long)?

I've seen Stephen's and Mr Hitchens' speeches and the Q&A sessions here:

http://www.dailymotion.com/user/Xrunner17

...and thought that the edited version I'd seen before was extremely edited indeed .

It's almost a shame that they had such weak opponents in this debate (at least speaking as a viewer).

I navigated to this forum as a result of watching this on YouTube because, like Stephen, I think this is an important subject, and I felt moved to make a comment / contribution of my own.

I think it is important to remember that this issue, like any other philosophical issue, doesn’t finish here (if ever), and I would like to think that this forum might be a good place to continue the debate. In my heart I agree with what Stephen was saying, but in my head I can see flaws in at least a couple of the points he made – points which I think we should investigate further.

(I’m going to start with just one point, by the way, because these sorts of postings take a long time, and I need to get back to work!)

First of all the difficulty with making judgements upon the events of the past is our lack of context. Unless God really does exist and he appears to me and gives me a moral code then I believe that all our morality is contextual – i.e. whether we are good or bad, and *how* good or bad we are, depends on what everybody else is getting up to.

Torturing people for reading the bible in English sounds heinous and self-serving to us now, but how was it perceived at the time and what would be the equivalent by today’s standards? In terms of emotive issues, maybe child pornography, though I expect that it was more likely seen as a way of undermining government, so maybe anarchy.

My feeling, for what it’s worth, is that individuals behave with far less freedom of choice than we might imagine, so Thomas More’s actions in the sixteenth century tell us much more about the society that he lived in than about that one individual.

People do vary, of course, however given the fact that I wasn’t around at that time my views on whether he was particularly wonderful or particularly awful are going to be highly dependent on the imperfect, and very changeable, information I have about him and the world that he lived in. This means that not only can I not make a judgment upon this myself; I cannot judge the Catholic Church’s judgment of it either. At least, I cannot judge whether they are right or wrong, although I could try to judge what was behind their judgement - if I heard it. The reason I could judge *that* is because the Catholic Church and I share, to a sufficient degree, today’s moral context, and it is this which allows me to get an impression of their moral compass regardless of what Thomas More was *actually* like.

For now, however, cannot take this debate any further because I have no idea why the Catholic Church likes the man so much.

Has Stephen seen Bel Mooney's Facebook comments about his debating skills ?

Thanks, found Morris West the Australian author on Wikipedia.

AnCBeck23 said:
I grew up Catholic, and while I no longer really consider myself Catholic, I do think it's important to realize that not everything the Church has ever done was bad. Same thing with any other religious institution--each has done both good and bad things in the world. However, I understand that Stephen was presenting a particular side of the debate and obviously was going to emphasize the negative. And he did it extremely well, and quite frankly, he hit on a lot of the things about the Church that upset me enough to shy away from it in recent years. And because he's Stephen Fry, he did this without becoming whiny or vicious against individual believers. Well done!

Then again, you wouldn't recognise Nazism as 'okay' because Hitler created jobs in Germany, would you?

The fundamental ideas of every variation of the church have since day one mainly been about genocide, oppression, unequal values, tyranni and so on. Considering the consequences of the church has mostly been seen through these different values as well, I really can't see the good side of it.

...reference the "Intelligence Squared" debate on whether the Catholic faith is a force for good in the world i'd add to Mssrs Hitchins and Frys' excellent discourses, the following thought: ARTICLES OF FAITH BIND and BLIND....as they are intended to, because being frail humans some of us feel the need to be engaged to a rock solid creed, whilst others need to be told (or else burnt at the stake....disageeable heretics) for not doing so (the rotters)
So that is what it is....a credo.
Now, how to undo any article of faith which has been pronounced upon in one easy lesson?...nay, decreed upon by the Bish of Rome as dogma for us all to hang onto as our revered credo? Well,it can actually be done, or rather, undone...... HOW?, you may well ask can he do this, seeing as he was infallible when pronouncing on such matters? HOW can any Pope, EVER again, EVER go back on something apparently GOD told to His Pope in 1302 was wrong? "So sorry Number 2, but We got that one wrong back there...I know I know but humans are more complicated than I imagined when I imagined them"
Well it's easy-peasy...all Pope has to do is to make another decree ex cathedra (i.e.speaking infallibly) that he was not infallible on such & such matters after all and noone can argue because he's infallible. He doesn't even need to apologise for centuries of fear, hate and discrimination, torture, burning, slaving, addling small boy's conciences for wanking and then giving them a helping hand, etceternobilis because he was only.....yeah, that's right...he was only acting under Orders. (rings a bell?)
Infallibility is second only to Catch 22 in it's absolute simplicity in that it neatly solves a dozen worries of any patriarch....in ONE law....you have to admire the economy, and above all the application of the principle of the Möbius ribbon....whichever way you look at it it's sewn up...no joins....perfect, and it goes round and round. You see, it's this:- (and i spent hours thinking this out whilst whiling away boring hours of church tedium when i was a little Catholic): Some pope-man said that he was told by God that he would be infallible when pronouncing on matters of doctrine. And then it was declared to the world that in pronouncing this he was speaking infallibly. Love it! Honest dictatorship!
On 18 November 1302,or was it 1802, Pope Boniface VIII issued the Papal bull Unam sanctam.....sinners who don't repent their sins won't see God....so unless you stop being gay, birth controlling, or wanting to be a lady priest (or covering up the clergy's paedophilia) and doubtless other odds and ends, forget it! You won't get even a back row sheat for da big show. Sho dere!

Regarding the wealth of the Catholic Church, something which really brought this home to me was an exhibition of monstrances at a Catholic pilgrimage church in Prague. One of them, called the "Prague Sun", is made of solid silver/gold and studded with over 6,000 diamonds. Considering that this is just one item, the extent of the Church's wealth must be mind-boggling.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/the10101/3447344345/
http://www.prague-guide.co.uk/articles/the-loreto.html