Stephen Fry on the Catholic Church.

[Arun1664]

Thanks for posting, hard not to agree with all he says. Point being that there are good people within the Catholic Church but they would still be good if they weren't in it, I dont accept that they are good because of the church.

Btw there is an outstanding speach given by Tony Robinson on behalf of Terry Pratchett (Dimbley Lecture) on You tube in 6 parts on assisted suicide, another favourite subject of the holy see.

 

[clapham_gull]

I agree with Stephen Fry on this one, but it's easy to take everything he says as fact because of the brilliance of his delivery.

When he starts harping on about Apple, I have to turn the page I'm afraid.

 

[bhaexpress]

As Fry pointed out, yes the catholic church may have a billion followers but they are predominantly uneducated and very poor.

Fair, non-bias education will go a long way to stopping the exploitation of the poor and uneducated by the catholic church.

Tony Blair and his family have recently become Catholics. I agree though, having seen places like South America and the Philippines you're right.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

does the church or religion have a monopoly on charity work? do all church goers or believers go about charity work? no. so its irrelevent to the debate, nice for you to help but it has very little to do with a church other than they happen to organise it. you speak of "intellectual high ground of athism" after providing the "better that thou" high ground so often used by faith groups.

Well done for either being stupid enough to completely miss the point, or trying to totally twist what I was saying. Of COURSE no religion has the monopoly on charity work, and the excellent work done by the REMF and others on here is quick evidence to prove that.

I was giving that as an example of some of the excellent things that members of the Catholic Church take part in (and by no ways are the only ones who do so) in response to some of the completely unjustified attacks on Catholicism in general, as opposed to what the real issues at hand are.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

As Fry pointed out, yes the catholic church may have a billion followers but they are predominantly uneducated and very poor.

Fair, non-bias education will go a long way to stopping the exploitation of the poor and uneducated by the catholic church.

Out of interest, could you define exploit for me?

 

[beorhthelm]

or trying to totally twist what I was saying. Of COURSE no religion has the monopoly on charity work

im slightly twisting your words. its quite common for the reply from church goers to be "look at all the great charity work" with an implication that this is due to religion, not peoples good nature. Charity work should be removed from the debate as it is seperate, but if you want to bring it up we might also like to bring all those charitable causes done in the name of religion that are to the detriment of local concerns. im sure you dont want to go down there, so leave charity out of it and lets keep the religion pro's and cons to the philiosophy and machinery of the institutions.

 

[magoo]

Out of interest, could you define exploit for me?

As Fry said, by taking advantage of their ignorance and taking their money in the belief that it will give them a better afterlife.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

im slightly twisting your words. its quite common for the reply from church goers to be "look at all the great charity work" with an implication that this is due to religion, not peoples good nature. Charity work should be removed from the debate as it is seperate, but if you want to bring it up we might also like to bring all those charitable causes done in the name of religion that are to the detriment of local concerns. im sure you dont want to go down there, so leave charity out of it and lets keep the religion pro's and cons to the philiosophy and machinery of the institutions.

What seems to be on the table here is the existence of the Catholic Church itself, so of course I am going to bring in charity and its positive work - its a key part of the philiosophy and machinery of the institution of the church. It is done on people's good nature, without a doubt, but is often organised and facilitated by the church. Its but one way of countering the idea being espoused by so many on here that its simply a big profit-making scam playing people's ignorance, which isn't true for so many reasons.

 

[Acker79]

im slightly twisting your words. its quite common for the reply from church goers to be "look at all the great charity work" with an implication that this is due to religion, not peoples good nature. Charity work should be removed from the debate as it is seperate, but if you want to bring it up we might also like to bring all those charitable causes done in the name of religion that are to the detriment of local concerns. im sure you dont want to go down there, so leave charity out of it and lets keep the religion pro's and cons to the philiosophy and machinery of the institutions.

Is that entirely fair?

People donate to REMF out of their good nature, but if someone didn't organise it in the first place would those same people take it on themselves to donate?

Church groups give people's generous nature an avenue to be expressed. Somoene may want to help feed the homeless, but not know how to go about it bar buying food and handing it out to scruffy people on the street or big issue sellers, a church can co-ordinate and arrange for this generous person to act on a larger scale.

And churches aren't alone in their charity acts that are detrimental. There are some that argue Live Aid did more harm than good because it allowed for aid to be delivered to certain areas forcing population shifts that benefited the various Africanm goverments who wanted to weakern the insurgents against them, etc. though the organisers natuirally refute that claim (the same organisers that claim they saved a particular african whose name escapes me, but she was saved by someone else entirely with actiuon starting before Live Aid).


And if we discount the benefits of religion because they are elsewhere you will strip every aspect of religion which will make it impossible to provide any benefits, which may be what you're aiming for, but isn't exactly a fair way to argue the pros and cons of one particular entity.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

As Fry said, by taking advantage of their ignorance and taking their money in the belief that it will give them a better afterlife.

I think my two arguments against this would be:

1. The idea that the church is some sort of scam and the higher powers know this (as opposed to an organic community of shared belief spanning the globe) where someone is sitting down saying "ooh, lets tell them this". It doesn't really add up - where do you suppose the line is drawn between people that believe and people that are taking advantage?

2. It's a slightly medieval notion that the church collects money from people to pay for a better afterlife. Particularly in poorer areas, the church puts out more money than it takes in in healthcare, aid and other areas, and as I have said above facilitates all sorts of great work, and here is no obligation/pressure to pay money towards the church for those that can't.

 

[beorhthelm]

Is that entirely fair?
...
And churches aren't alone in their charity acts that are detrimental.
...

And if we discount the benefits of religion because they are elsewhere you will strip every aspect of religion which will make it impossible to provide any benefits, which may be what you're aiming for, but isn't exactly a fair way to argue the pros and cons of one particular entity.

which is why it should be left out, unless you want to start questioning charity itself. invoking charity is a way to stifle debate because who will question good works? every benefit of religion that exists elsewhere should be stripped away since we then expose the core of what religion offers that atheism and secularism does not.

 

[little al]

Churches shouldn't run at a profit.

 

[bhaexpress]

Out of interest, could you define exploit for me?

Exploitation isn't quite what happens. However they influence millions into believing their out of date dogma and the indoctrination of most Catholics makes them blind to what is really going on. Not unlike Hitler and the Germans in many ways. He too promised his followers something better in the future did he not ?

 

[fatbadger]

Tony Blair and his family have recently become Catholics.

Tony Blair has always been a catholic; now he is a Roman Catholic.

I know it appears rather pedantic, but it annoys me when I hear the Roman Catholic Church call itself the Catholic Church. There are dozens of catholic churches, including, ahem, the Church of England.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

which is why it should be left out, unless you want to start questioning charity itself. invoking charity is a way to stifle debate because who will question good works? every benefit of religion that exists elsewhere should be stripped away since we then expose the core of what religion offers that atheism and secularism does not.

We are talking about two different arguments here.

Firstly, the concept of religion. What religion offers people is personal to them. I know what it offers me and how it has benifited my life, which in turn has benefited others. A keystone of a secular society is freedom to worship as you please. And as an atheist (therefore having no religious beliefs), people's personal worship cannot possibly offend you in any way. So what it offers is frankly not your concern.

Which brings us onto secondly, the pros/cons of the existence of religion in our society. Which is where you can't just rule out several positive aspects (e.g. facilitation of charity work - part of a massive spectrum of charity work from all angles of our society), so you can focus on your negatives.

 

[bhaexpress]

I think my two arguments against this would be:

1. The idea that the church is some sort of scam and the higher powers know this (as opposed to an organic community of shared belief spanning the globe) where someone is sitting down saying "ooh, lets tell them this". It doesn't really add up - where do you suppose the line is drawn between people that believe and people that are taking advantage?

2. It's a slightly medieval notion that the church collects money from people to pay for a better afterlife. Particularly in poorer areas, the church puts out more money than it takes in in healthcare, aid and other areas, and as I have said above facilitates all sorts of great work, and here is no obligation/pressure to pay money towards the church for those that can't.

Given the extreme poverty that so many Catholics endure why doesn't the Vatican open it's bulging coffers one in a while ? How did the Vatican get so wealthy ? How many other religions have their own bank for that matter ? Whereabout does the money for healthcare go in places like the Philippines ? If it does it's very well hidden.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

Given the extreme poverty that so many Catholics endure why doesn't the Vatican open it's bulging coffers one in a while ? How did the Vatican get so wealthy ? How many other religions have their own bank for that matter ? Whereabout does the money for healthcare go in places like the Philippines ? If it does it's very well hidden.

I agree with you actually about the wealth of the vatican being incredibly hypocritical to a large extent. But I do think you almost need to contrast this with the hard work/simple lives of the clergy that serve the people.

 

[beorhthelm]

... Which is where you can't just rule out several positive aspects (e.g. facilitation of charity work - part of a massive spectrum of charity work from all angles of our society), so you can focus on your negatives.

i see, but we can included them so as to bring a positive spin on religion? so we end up in the position were the wrong doings are hidden, overlooked or absolved because the institution does all this good too; you have to take the rough with the smooth.

thats what pisses off the athiests, the protection of institutions that shouldnt be afforded protection simply because they are religions. It has little about or against personal beliefs.

 

[Acker79]

i see, but we can included them so as to bring a positive spin on religion? so we end up in the position were the wrong doings are hidden, overlooked or absolved because the institution does all this good too; you have to take the rough with the smooth.

Or include them to bring some sense of balance to the discussion, these are the good aspects, these are the bad aspects.

What you seem to be saying is "let's discuss the pros and cons of the religion, but you can't list any pros because that's just hiding the cons"

That is unfair.

 

[Dandyman]

Out of interest, could you define exploit for me?

It's going back in time but in 1930s the RC Church were major landowners in Spain as well as owning certain key business this combined with an ultra-reactionary leadership lead to their support for Franco's fascist insurrection against the Spanish people.

Today the Church of Rome remains incredibly wealthy with as has been pointed out an often exremely poor congregation.