Intelligence Squared Debate on BBC

[monitoradiation]

Just saw this on TV while eating lunch; Intelligence Squared debate aired on BBC

"Is the Catholic church a force for good in the world?"

For: John Onaiyekan and Anne Widdencombe
Against: Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry

Thought it was an interesting exchange and that I should share it. Enjoy.


http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F821DBF3CE3374A3

 

[Aught3]

Sweet, I was keeping an eye out for this debate. Thanks for the link.

 

[deefsound]

Depending on your position, it was either a thing of beauty or somewhat of a massacre. If only it were longer.

 

[Aught3]

Depending on your position, it was either a thing of beauty or somewhat of a massacre. If only it were longer.

Agree with both points, but the Q&A section was awful - I think it should have been conducted by the speakers.

 

[monitoradiation]

I agree. I wish the Q&A section had been longer. I think if it had been, the exit polls would've been 100% against the motion that the RC church was a force for good. What I found most telling was the Archbishop's utter reluctance to talk to the audience about Jesus' stance on homosexuality and Widdencombe's reluctance to talk about child abuse and the use of condoms in her dismissive tone.

I mean, given that the topic was whether or not the RC church were a force for good, you can't simply dismiss the bad parts as a here-we-go-again kinda deal. That's almost like a head-in-the-sand approach to the problem. No wonder people were not at all convinced by their "rebuttal", if you could even call it that.

And I found Fry to be completely astounding - way better than even Hitchens.

 

[Aught3]

Yeah, Hitchens is better when he gets a bit of a build up - Fry is simply magnificent. Have you listened to their talk on blasphemy? Check it out if you haven't.

 

[monitoradiation]

Would you happen to have a link handy?

 

[Aught3]

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=E4392ADA168CB0EC&search_query=hitchens+fry+blasphemy

 

[nemesiss]

I agree. I wish the Q&A section had been longer. I think if it had been, the exit polls would've been 100% against the motion that the RC church was a force for good. What I found most telling was the Archbishop's utter reluctance to talk to the audience about Jesus' stance on homosexuality and Widdencombe's reluctance to talk about child abuse and the use of condoms in her dismissive tone.

I mean, given that the topic was whether or not the RC church were a force for good, you can't simply dismiss the bad parts as a here-we-go-again kinda deal. That's almost like a head-in-the-sand approach to the problem. No wonder people were not at all convinced by their "rebuttal", if you could even call it that.

And I found Fry to be completely astounding - way better than even Hitchens.

motion was pretty clear;

before after
for: 678 268
against: 1102 1876
undecided: 346 34

out of a total of 2178 people, that is a massive blow! thats 86%
i wonder how most christians would respond to those numbers?
because its not just the undecided who mostly changed their mind, and alot who were previously for changed their mind. for comparison it would be interesting to see who shifted to what, since it could also shoft from against to either for or undecided (which is very doubtfull).

it was quite clear what the outcome would be when you listened carefully.
the catholics were mostly apologizing, while the atheists-side was attacking.

i wonder if they would also dare to put non-believer up again islam of... even catholic up against islam.
now that would be an interesting result... choosing between two evils ... to phrase it.

 

[MRaverz]

To be honest, the debate statement of 'Is the Catholic Church a force for good?' isn't a terribly good one. This is because the Catholic Church could be seen as a force for good, simply by stating something which it has done which can be deemed as 'good'.

Therefore, in relation to helping those in need - we can roughly say that the Catholic Church is a force for some good.

A more accurate motion would have been 'Is the Catholic Church a force for evil more than it is a force for good?'.

 

[Warhawk57]

I may be the only one hear to say this but... I think the side that said the catholic church was not a force for good in the world... Didnt do so hot, they childshly attacked things about human error somtimes that can't be avoided... The only fair point I think they have is that of countraception. It is wrong for the cathlic church to impose that rule when it is not biblically supported that being said I think that they should preach wait until marraige...

The representives of the catholic church did there job... If the argument would have been in the past has the catholic church been a force for good it would be a different verdict in my opinion... They would totally lose

about homosexuals they can't argue if culturally it is acceptable.


Sorry fo the miss spelling

 

[xman]

Somebody tore Catholicism a new hole.

The long list of blatant lies and misrepresentations from Ann Widdecombe just made me mad. Virtually every single utterance could be completely refuted. What a twat. Somebody should smack her for that.

I was also incensed at the constant urge to look elsewhere. When the very moral fibre of your church is up for debate and you have to try and deflect people's gaze elsewhere you should know you're in trouble.

 

[DrunkCat]

British people need to stop being awesome damn it.

 

[monitoradiation]

I may be the only one hear to say this but... I think the side that said the catholic church was not a force for good in the world... Didnt do so hot, they childshly attacked things about human error somtimes that can't be avoided... The only fair point I think they have is that of countraception. It is wrong for the cathlic church to impose that rule when it is not biblically supported that being said I think that they should preach wait until marraige...

The representives of the catholic church did there job... If the argument would have been in the past has the catholic church been a force for good it would be a different verdict in my opinion... They would totally lose

about homosexuals they can't argue if culturally it is acceptable.


Sorry fo the miss spelling

Warhawk, I think it isn't "childish" to attack something like child abuse. It's not as if it were happening with a select few bad apple priests. If such a thing happened then yes, human error could account for it. But when the pope decides to intervene and hide these child abusing priests from being prosecuted, then it's no longer human error. It's purposeful obstruction of justice. I know that Hitchens and Fry should've brought that up, but they didn't.

But the point still stands. The RC church is letting sexually repressed priests teach young children - the power structure is made suitable for exploitation of children, but not that it was the intent. However, take into consideration that celibacy hasn't always been practiced - if he wanted to, the pope can change that. But he doesn't. What does he do instead? Hide the priests who abused children from law.

Secondly, about the homosexuals, I think we have a chicken-and-egg problem. It isn't culturally acceptable to be homosexual in "the past" because religion teaches that is it an abomination. That's why it wasn't culturally acceptable. As I remembered, for the Greeks of 400-300 BC(ish), it was entirely socially acceptable that men formed almost a homosexual bond with their friends. Alexander the great may have been bisexual, even.

That is all irrelevant to the point about homosexuals. The social zeitgeist may well change, but the fact remains, that prejudices towards people of a different sexual orientation is at least permitted. That is not something that I think we can agree is "good", be it a thousand, 200 years ago, or now. That I think holds true for all time. Just as slavery has always been bad for society, even if people didn't realize it in the bronze age.

 

[MRaverz]

British people need to stop being awesome damn it.

We're sorry, can't help it most of the time. :lol:

 

[Warhawk57]

Re: Intelligence Squared Debate on BBC

Warhawk57 wrote:
I may be the only one hear to say this but... I think the side that said the catholic church was not a force for good in the world... Didnt do so hot, they childshly attacked things about human error somtimes that can't be avoided... The only fair point I think they have is that of countraception. It is wrong for the cathlic church to impose that rule when it is not biblically supported that being said I think that they should preach wait until marraige...

The representives of the catholic church did there job... If the argument would have been in the past has the catholic church been a force for good it would be a different verdict in my opinion... They would totally lose

about homosexuals they can't argue if culturally it is acceptable.


Sorry fo the miss spelling


Warhawk, I think it isn't "childish" to attack something like child abuse. It's not as if it were happening with a select few bad apple priests. If such a thing happened then yes, human error could account for it. But when the pope decides to intervene and hide these child abusing priests from being prosecuted, then it's no longer human error. It's purposeful obstruction of justice. I know that Hitchens and Fry should've brought that up, but they didn't.

But the point still stands. The RC church is letting sexually repressed priests teach young children - the power structure is made suitable for exploitation of children, but not that it was the intent. However, take into consideration that celibacy hasn't always been practiced - if he wanted to, the pope can change that. But he doesn't. What does he do instead? Hide the priests who abused children from law.

Secondly, about the homosexuals, I think we have a chicken-and-egg problem. It isn't culturally acceptable to be homosexual in "the past" because religion teaches that is it an abomination. That's why it wasn't culturally acceptable. As I remembered, for the Greeks of 400-300 BC(ish), it was entirely socially acceptable that men formed almost a homosexual bond with their friends. Alexander the great may have been bisexual, even.

That is all irrelevant to the point about homosexuals. The social zeitgeist may well change, but the fact remains, that prejudices towards people of a different sexual orientation is at least permitted. That is not something that I think we can agree is "good", be it a thousand, 200 years ago, or now. That I think holds true for all time. Just as slavery has always been bad for society, even if people didn't realize it in the bronze age.

So I would like to say your right about the first two paragraghs I had not heard that information about the pope.
Then secondly even though homosexuals should have the same right as everyone else the church cannot support it because it is in the bible... I was just trying to say that it's not like they are actively killing gay people now a days... Besides that shouldn't be an argument if they the argument was about if the church was a force for good... They aren't really related if you consider that the church doesn't persecute gay people and that the church doesn't have that strong of political control...

 

[nasher168]

And Anne Widecombe continues to be elected HOW? She's not just a bigot. She's a self-loathing bigot.

 

[Baranduin]

the church doesn't have that strong of political control...

I don't know where you, but bishops threaten with excommunication to those politicians who vote against the catholic dogma - say, legalizing gay marriage, abortion - when they are in position to do so. That's called coercion. Not to mention the manipulation of the masses and inciting civil disorder. Here an example.

That when they don't play politics and use the status of the Vatican City as an official state to push decisions - not to mention the damn concordats they have with some states, which grant them certain immunity against civil laws. Catholic Church is a strong power out there. The fact you are not affected does not make them be better.


Your position, however, scares me. Do you mean that all the cases of hiding child molesting and ilegal maneuvers aren't that bad only because they are not in power? Sorry, I can't agree with that. They act wrong, no matter how much political control they hold.

 

[Warhawk57]

Your position, however, scares me. Do you mean that all the cases of hiding child molesting and ilegal maneuvers aren't that bad only because they are not in power? Sorry, I can't agree with that. They act wrong, no matter how much political control they hold.

No I meant that in the united states.... That since they don't have any power to affect over our goverment that they can have there prejudice against gays because it doesn't affect our law system... The minute they hurt someone as a group they lose their rights... And about child abuse it is one of the worst Crimes that can be committed... If as you say the pope hid these un-named preist for protection then they have indeed committed an act of evil... There by they are not a force for good in this world.

 

[Baranduin]

No I meant that in the united states....

"Is the Catholic church a force for good in the world?"

However, even if you don't overcome your US-centrism, here some cases. My favourite is the first of the list, with the vatican asking diplomatic immunity. The request was denied, but the Pope got immunity from prosecution.

And of course, a classic.

I don't blame RCC of having had pedophiles. If they had, OK, then take measures for that not to happen again, and let the secular law to take care of the offenders. But that's not what they are doing; they grant protections - sometimes even offending again for that, perhaps you want to check Bishop Quinn in Cleveland -, try to shut up the media of covering those issues, and present excuses trying to blame the victims.

I realize that RCC is not as important in US as it is in other countries with a stronger catholic presence, but that doesn't make it less important (nor its wrongs less wrong). I realize too that some catholics are doing a great work out there, but that doesn't justify its behavior at all.