Chansen

I'm not too familiar with the BBC. It does strike me that they put so little effort into finding top notch debaters for the affirmative side that it seems almost rigged in such a way as to ensure they would lose. Perhaps there were no other willing participants? 

 Stephen Fry is clearly the winner. I do agree with his opinions but I also believe that the Catholic church  does a lot of good charity works throughout the world. I do believe the world would be worse off without the combined charity works of all of the churches  both Catholic, Protestant  or others.

Thank you, Chansen.  It was a very informative debate. The speakers for the pro side had nothing to say about condoms and child abuse and they thoroughly embarrassed themselves.  After listening to the bishop's opening statement my reaction was "that sounds like a whole lot of nothing".  The British MP's response to the question of female priests was predictable and meaningless.

Can the catholic church change? Can the catholic church become more realistic? 

Exactly who would you like to defend the Catholic Church, who has more debating ability than an MP?  Ann Widdecombe is quite a skilled debater.  The Archibishop was a disappointment, but of course, so many archbishops are.

On the other side, obviously Hitchens is a formidable debater, but Stephen Fry?

I think what comes out in the debate is that the few good deeds done by the church are overshadowed by the immense suffering they have caused.  Perhaps in this debate, they were not prepared to have the sins of the church paraded in front of them, though Anne said she expected the points about condoms.  If that was the case, why didn't she defend the church on the charge of spreading the lie that condoms contribute to AIDS?  Could it simply be that there is no adequate explanation for such an evil lie?  Can you even think of a more evil lie?

In the OP, you noted "Now, as an anti-theist, I'm rather pleased how this debate went." So let me ask - What does the credibility of any religious organization have to do with the existence, or non-existence, of Theos/God?

I'm not terribly interested in the future of the Catholic Church so I didn't listen to the debate. But I am always fascinated by how these things are set up. Sometimes they're also a "setup", as someone suggested -

The quality of the debaters -

clergy-types are notoriously bad debaters. Which isn't all that strange, considering that delivering sermons or managing a church organization aren't exactly prepping one for it. So scratch the archbishop.

Hitchens - one does not get to be a well-known author, atheist or otherwise, without media savvy.

Fry - an actor or filmmaker who couldn't play to the audience would fall into the category of "starving". Which I assume he's not since he was invited to this debate.

So that leaves us with Widdecombe. A Member of Parliament? Regardless of her debating skills, British MPs aren't exactly on the public's Christmas list at the moment. So no, this was not an equal match from the get-go.

What about the debate itself?

 If this was honestly intended to be limited strictly to the Catholic Church's status in the present day, maaaaybe, at a stretch, one could get a couple of accountants to do a Ben Franklin list of "good" - charitable works, etc; as opposed to "bad" - stance on same-gender marriage, abuse, cost of maintaining, etc.

But it's obvious by the inclusion of Hitchens that it's intended to fuel the "does God exist" debate. (His book, after all, wasn't called "The Catholic Church is not good") Foolish and funny. And sadly, this sort of stuff always works. I mean, after all, we had people wearing fur coats decry the East Coast seal hunt didn't we?

We could just as well set up a debate on the safety of oil transport by tanker. On the for side, we would invite the captain of the Exxon Valdez and Sarah Palin. On the against side, we could have David Suzuki and Al Gore. Then, when the against side wins, we could make the obvious association that oil is irrelevant to the functioning of society.

I'm starting to shiver  in the dark already.

I <3 the British...theatre is in their blood, and Canada would be IMMENSELY different without them...

(and who can forget Fry and Atkinson and Hugh Laurie and gang in the delightful Black Adder series...ah, the British...)

Just a Self-writing poem,

Inannawhimsey

I believe that the RCC church as a whole has done a tremendous amount of good and a tremendous amount of harm.  It is reflective of its people - some do good, some do bad.  Sounds rather like any other organization...cms

Yes it has done tremendous good and tremendous harm as an organization.  Is it then a force for good in society?  I would think that in order to qualify as a force for good the good would have to outweigh the bad by a fair percentile.

It's an interesting question to explore regardless of the quality of the debate.

I think that at the root of the Catholic church's flaws and problems is authoritarian organizational culture that must maintain its own image at all cost.  It is unlikely that if there is any kind of positive reform, the Pope and other authority figures will not be a part of it. 

 Ratzinger and these other characters who lead the RC preach about sexual morality as some kind of pseudo-intellectual abstraction.  Their unrealistic attitudes are trouble, and their influence should be opposed.

Being an "Ang"lish crowd, I can't help but wonder about how the scores would have been if the question had been asked about the Anglican church, even though it's history is little different from the Catholic church, from when it was formed.

thank you. that was interesting.

Yet contradiction can be ironic yes?

Beshpin often tells us to learn things we already know about, that he is wrong about.

Witch: your quote:

 I can't help but wonder about how the scores would have been if the question had been asked about the Anglican church.

Pray tell, what's under your hat?  Would the pro scores have improved?  My knowledge about the Anglicans is pretty slim.

I dunno, stardust, given the world-wide reputation of the BBC, and the public relations consequences of falling apart in this debate, either i) the church didn't choose very carefully or ii) they don't HAVE any better.

How can one possibly explain away the RCC's bizarre, ludicrous, and medically and biologically untruthful instructions regarding condoms and the spread of AIDS? It's murdered more people worldwide than a lot of armed conflicts. Why are we ignoring this?

BetteTheRed

I don't think anyone is ignoring the actions of the Catholic church. However, I must google to see if WHO ( the World Health Organization) is supplying condoms to the third world. I hope so! I used to volunteer for Unicef and there was a big hoopla among the Catholic schools because they said WHO was supplying abortion kits at one time. The schools refused to support Unicef because of it. It was way back in the 80's or early 90's. Surely to God WHO is working in the field because its definitely a health issue and a major risk to life. The Catholic church doesn't control the world does it?  Also most practicing Catholics aren't following the rules as laid down by the pope as far as I know. They do still have some common sense. I'll see what I can find on google and get back.

Hi Marzo:

I just scanned this thread and agree with you the most.

Ratzinger is heavily authoritarian and conservative. He comes from the social conservative and heavily Catholic area of Bavaria where Hitler rose to power. He was born in the vicinity of Hitler's birthplace and served in the Hitler Youth. He was Bishop, Archbishop, and Cardinal right where I grew up and was well known for his authoritarin and arch-conservative stance.

I think there is a mighty battle brewing within the RC between Conservatives and Liberals, Traditionalists and Progressives. The latter might yet win out and radically change the RC. 

Hi again BetteTheRed

I must say this is a topic I've never explored until tonight. Its more complex that I ever dreamed possible. If articles on the net are to be believed there is a huge shortage of condoms in Africa. At the bottom of the next  post there's a link with 177 comments. Its what I've been reading alongside other articles. The Catholic church should definitely not be preaching against condom use but at the same time education is key and the UN, WHO, and whatever countries are helping should be supplying lots of condoms. There's a general breakdown with plenty of people to blame including the men who probably dislike wearing condoms in the first place.  Many  men in Canada aren't wearing them either I've read. They do have a condom for women now I believe but I'm not sure how widely available it is?

Worse news than ever is also being reported:

Experts want African aid funds channelled away from HIV

Focus on Aids, they say, has led to neglect of other fatal conditions killing young children.

• Alex Duval Smith
• The Observer, Sunday 25 October 2009
•  
•  
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/25/aids-hiv-africa-aid-scientists
•  
•  
• See next post for comments I've singled out from the link

I'm not taking the church's side. I'm posting comments made by people who responded. I don't know how reliable they are.

Quotes:

• • Austen Ivereigh
  • guardian.co.uk, Thursday 19 March 2009 13.00 GMT
  • Article history
  •  

After listening to the debate I would have voted on the side of the Roman Catholic Church. While I am not a huge supporter of their rituals and dogmas I understand some can find comfort, peace and a closeness to God within this faith.

I listened to Fry mention that he is on "an adventure of moral truth" and how he loves Uganda and goes there often. Well the "truth" for Uganda is that abstinence has been the one significant reason for the overall decline of AIDS in their country, NOT condoms. Their message of changing their lifestyle was the key that is making the change.

The message of "changing lifestyle" would do us all good. In every country. I myself am a product of the significant change in lifestyle that took place in the America's during the 60's. We would all have to be blind to not have noticed the increases in sexually transmitted diseases whether it's AIDS, chlymidia, genital warts, herpes, etc....Since the 1930's AIDs has been gaining momentum. Correlate that with lifestyle, the pill, attitude and public opinion. It's all fine and dandy to desire sexual freedom but then we must also accept the consequences of our behaviours. Condoms are not infallable. Whether it's from misuse, underuse or a microbe that is created that a condom may not stop. Of course we will not reverse our stance on our behaviours or apologize and make a public declaration that possibly we were wrong in undermining the value of monogamous relationships. We will continue to extoll the virtues of our lifestyle of sexual freedoms while battling the consequences. I am not a prude, but the longer I live, the more I see the sense in promoting "lifestyle changes". whether you're homo/heterosexual. Unfortunately no one in America would have the nerve to give that message on a political level without risking being oursted from office but the first lady from Uganda did exactly that.

I also felt embarassed for the Archbishop, who may very well be an effective agent for Christ in his country of origin. There he was being asked to " show shame" and "apologize" for any atrocity that the Catholic Church had ever committed. Hitchens and Fry gained momentum I'm sure with their grandstanding as outrageously as any southern baptist preacher, appealing to the armchair mentality of the bored, intellectual elite that desire a new source of entertainment from their privileged lives. In the meantime, here was a man (Archbishop), that on a daily basis, lives in Africa, works in Africa and more than likely is revered in Africa that was subjected to an abhorrent amount of accusations with little acknowledgement of what he may have accomplished with his life.

Shame on Hitchens and Fry and for anyone that overrides the failures of any church at the expense of the accomplishments and the gains that have been made for a mere performance to promote their own choices in lifestyle. As the Archbishop stated, "Africa welcomes the aid from the churches"  Perfection does not exist in any organizations and there will always be those that misuse the message. My question to you Chanson is this, "What is the average person's responsibility to prevent organizations from getting off track?" In this regard wouldn't we have to go back in history to not only hold the Roman Catholic church responsible for atrocities that occured but anyone that lived during any period of time? Just as recently as the second world war, how many nations ignored the plight of the jews while being quite aware of it? How many of us still ignore the genocides in Africa? Alot of times it is the church that does not wait for the "red tape" of congressional votes but jumps in first risking life and limb knowing full well they act alone. Their immediate mandate is not to evangelize, but feed the hungry.

Sorry Chanson, but if I were you I'd be very careful about being swayed by the obvious shameful tactics of Fry and Hitchens. I won't discount what they believe is true for them, but surely a truth can be stated without having to reinforce it with examples of anothers failures. The truth will stand alone. 

Emily Foster flips our thinking aboot AIDS in Africa:

http://www.ted.com/talks/emily_oster_flips_our_thinking_on_aids_in_afric...

Just a Self-writing Poem,

Inannawhimsey

Waterfall: your quote: 

I am not a prude, but the longer I live, the more I see the sense in promoting "lifestyle changes". whether you're homo/heterosexual.

I would certainly agree with you on this. I really don't know a lot about  the sexual lifestyle in Africa. I know in Canada and the U.S.A. casual sex is rampant and acceptable. There is little courtship, romance, or what we used to call dating. Two people meet and jump into the sack before they hardly know each other's names. A woman is expected to put out by the second or third meeting or its bye bye. Nobody seems to question this mode of  sexual behaviour. Its cool. No commitments or responsibility  and the male jargon is " I need my space". And so it must be in Africa except I'm not sure the women have a big choice. I recently watched a CNN program called "CNN Heros" where a woman is a hero for providing counselling and care  to young girls who are raped almost daily . I believe it may have been in South America, not Africa. I'm not sure but I was totally appalled. Nancy Reagan had a slogan: "Just say NO to drugs" but I fear it wouldn't work for saying NO to sex. Women will be raped or killed especially in the countries where man is king. They don't enjoy the freedom to just say NO. Its sad, very sad.

From the comments on my post above: Quotes

I come from Africa, I see condom ads wherever I go, right from the airports, but I do not see any ads by the Catholic church against it. You would have to go to church to hear it! On the other hand, Governments, and NGOs have mounted a massive condom promotion exercise against AIDS.

I  do not think that anyone can argue that, if the rule of the church (no sex outside marriage) are obeyed, there would hardly be AIDS caused by sexual contact. Now the Church is being asked to bend its own teaching to suit those that ignore that same teaching. Such people have enough information- the teachings of Governments, Aids groups, myriads of charities and other groups to guide them in their use of condoms. The voice of the church will not be heard by them! Their failure tio use condoms cannot be blamed on the Catholic Church.

Comment from South America:

In my country, condoms are distributed FREE in hospitals and planned parenthood federation centres. In my company, you can pick them up even in the Ladies... Admittedly not in every community, but lack of access to condoms does not equate to a papal ban!

Comment:

You've got to understand network theory. Imagine the world connected by lines, representing each sexual act. Each line has a percentage attached to it, which represents the risk of transmission. Now colour a few of the people pink. When you get a transmission, the next person goes pink.

Now the speed with which pinkiness spread throught the network depends on two things, the number of connections, and the percentage.
Condom use decreases the percentages. However it increases the number of lines. It may also add new, high percentage lines, if people occasionally neglect to use a condom with a partner they normally use condoms with.

When you model networks like this on a computer you find that it is actually quite hard to make predictions about what the results of fiddling with the parameters will be.

Comment

You might agree with me that people infected with HIV (which happens to be my case) are foremost among those who must use condoms constantly, if no other strategy of prevention is identified. the problem then is, how do you maintain the contant use in the face of:

-desire to have children
-cultural (and religious) opposition
-condom use "fatigue" (try using them for 20 years every time you have sex to understand what i mean by this
-desire for sexual pleasure and intimacy
-inavailability of condoms or their inferior quality
-the fact that using a condom (or insisting on its use) is often perceived as identifying a person as HIV-positive, opening the door to stigma and discrimination...

i'm sure others could add to that list.

Condoms are not a bad idea, relying on them exclusively to prevent HIV transmission (now that it has been ascertained that antiretroviral drugs do a far better job at this) is a bad idea. this, i think, is one of the corollaries of BXVI's pronouncements en route to angola and cameroon earlier this year.

Comment:

Education is the key, as you pointed out yourself. It's not racist to say education is very poor in sub-saharan Africa. It's *very* difficult for someone not in sub-saharan Africa to realise how much of the shared 'zeitgeist' is just *missing*. As a result religion (under different brand names - it's not JUST the Catholics, let's be clear about that, we have a strong US-influenced Evangelical movement who say pretty much the same things) has a strangehold on the local memetic culture.

For an example, the whole Matthias Raas saga (search Guardian for the stories) and how that fed into the whole AIDS-denial things. 50,000 people (if I remember correctly from the article I read) from a township in Cape Town dumped their ARVs and started taking vitamins instead (and similarly elsewhere they took 'herbs' from a 'traditional healer'). It's very hard to see how people like that, who are sick and afraid, and haven't been taught better, will evaluate a message like 'Condoms don't work' or (as the Catholic Church has been doing) 'Condoms spread AIDS' on it's merits.

Final comment:

Once again we have an article about condoms. Could we have a few articles on polygamy, promiscuity, the sex trade and the use of rape as a means of establishing political supremacy for one ethnic group. Or the phenomenon of child rape for those who erroneously believe sex with a virgin is a cure for Aids- HIV

Sorry for the long rant. I'm just trying to show that aids, with or without condom use, is a very complex issue. We have so many young teenagers in Canada and the U.S.A. who are unwed mothers going back to the 1960's.  Sexual diseases are as prevalent as the common cold in our society. I doubt very many people are influenced by the pope although they may now use it as an excuse for not using condoms. I wonder how many virgin girls age 14 or 15 have the guts to insist the boyfriend use a condom? Would he listen?  Somehow, I don't think so. Imagine yourself in this position. I imagine a young girl in Africa could be as young as 11 or 12, easily coerced into having sex without her partner using a condom.

Amen...and contrary to what Arminius says : All is well and all is well and all is well - Julian of Norwich, I regret having to inform Arminius and Julian that all is not well and all is not well and all is not well..

Hi Stardust:

Well, all's not well. If it were, it would not be necessary to emphasize it over and over again, and do-gooders like you and me would have nothing meaningful to do.

Julian Norwich and I refer to peace of mind. In the practical world, there is always room for improvement and lots to do. Once we have attained the peace of mind that Julian and I extol, then it will be easier to do what needs to be done without being scathed by the misery out there.

Arminius

Don't worry!

All is well and all is well and all shall be well.

P.S. Its a favorite saying of mine as well.

Arminius - nice to see you back!

GR, I had a full reply to your post ready to go two days ago, then lost it in an inadvertant "Go back one page" browser selection.  I sat there, composed myself, and hurled my monitor against the wall.  Imagine if I hadn't composed myself.  Let me try again:

"Anti-theist" is not the same as "a-theist".  An atheist does not believe in any gods.  Anti-theism is a position that theism is dangerous and destructive.  In short, I agree with the "Nay" side of the debate, and I was pleased to see the debate, and public opinion in London, agrees with my position.

The existence of God was not discussed in this debate.  You should watch it - it's quite good.

GoldenRule wrote:

I'm not terribly interested in the future of the Catholic Church so I didn't listen to the debate. But I am always fascinated by how these things are set up. Sometimes they're also a "setup", as someone suggested -

OK, so the debate was a BBC conspiracy to discrfedit the Catholic Church, at the hands of an author and a filmmaker, against an obviously weak defense provided by a lowly archbishop and a veteran MP?

Clergy are excellent public speakers.  That's the first attribute of a good debater.  Clergy have powers of persuasion.  And one would think that an archibishop from Africa, of all people, would be able to defend the Catholic church's record in Africa as well as any person alive.

Stephen Fry is almost unknown to me.  All I really know is that he is the voice on the children's TV show "Pocoyo", which you can catch on the Treehouse channel.

Hitchens is clever and witty, and is one of the most well-read individuals around.  He has given an open invitation to debate with religious leaders of all faiths.  A number of Christians have taken him up on that.  You can find many of these debates or discussions on YouTube.  There is also an upcoming movie called "Collisions" based on his debates with Pastor Douglas Wilson.  Hitchens is experienced in the area of debating religious leaders.  Fry is not.

So people voted against her position because they don't like her?  She's not part of the Labour government, and she didn't vote to send troops to Iraq.  Her constituency is well outside of London, she received 52.7% of the vote in the 2005 election, and she has announced that she is not running for re-election.  This was not a referendum on Ann Widdecombe or the Conservative party.  This was a debate and poll on the effect of the Catholic Church in the world.

I have no idea if fur coats were worn while protesting the seal hunt.  If there were, that's a red herring.

Once again, the existence of God was not debated.  It had nothing to do with this debate.  Hitchens has written more book than "God is not Great".  He wrote, for example, "The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice".  When the Vatican was looking to beattify Mother Teresa, it called upon Hitchens to give evidence against Mother Teresa, a role that was once called "The Devil's Advocate".

And I hate to repeat myself, but had you watched the debate, you would know that there was a "trial balance" of sorts.  But how do you weigh the silence of the Catholic Church during the Final Solution, to them hiding a few thousand Jews later in the war?  How do you balance the telling of the evil lie that condoms can cause HIV and AIDS, against the aid provided?

Either you're being very complimentary toward Hitchens and Fry, or you are being incredibly disrespectful toward the archbishop and the MP.  Or maybe both.

I've been suggesting the religious step out of the dark for years now.

This thinking not only goes against what the people who are actually there are saying, it is an affront to common sense.  "Abstinence only" education has been a failure every time it has been employed.  You can't prevent people from having sex, be they teenagers in Toronto, or teenagers in Uganda.  The best you can do is educate them and convince them that when they do have sex, they need to use a condom.  "Abstinence only" is a delusion of the religious.

Condoms are more infallible than the Pope, they are more infallible than Jesus, and they are more infallible than God.  We can prove condoms work, ~99.9% of the time.  Any test for God's actions on matters comes out 50:50, or exactly the same as if you assume He isn't there.

Yes, you can suggest abstinence, and it does work, but if you limit the message to abstinence-only, you are going to fail.  When it comes to HIV, that failure is going to get people killed, and it has gotten people killed.

You arrogant twit.  You think Hitchens and Fry are there to promote homosexuality?  While they were arguing against systematic child rape and the spreading of lies about condoms, they were actually trying to promote homosexuality?  Again, you arrogant, useless twit.  That's one of the most disgusting things from a believer I've read in a long time.

Truth is what we can demonstrate to be true, not what one believes.  Learn the difference.  The truth was not on the side of the MP and archbishop at the debate, and it's not on your side now.

Chansen,"You arrogant twit.  You think Hitchens and Fry are there to promote homosexuality?  While they were arguing against systematic child rape and the spreading of lies about condoms, they were actually trying to promote homosexuality?  Again, you arrogant, useless twit.  That's one of the most disgusting things from a believer I've read in a long time."

My, my, my how you do get agitated. But I suppose I must humour you with an answer. Their "choice in lifestyle" was referring to atheism, although I could see how you could translate this into homosexuality.

And Chansen, if you cannot respond to me in a decent manner from now on, then do not bother to respond to me at all. Civilized dialogue will be expected.

Right.  That "lifestyle" of atheism.

Here are some articles that support "behavioural changes". and give more credit to it turning around Uganda's Aids epidemic which is one of the two African countries that have actually reversed the Aids epidemic. They never used the "ABC" campaign although Condoms had a role but lifestyle changes were emphasized more.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1526465/

"In her message for World AIDS Day last year, the Ugandan First Lady also spoke of condom use, but from a completely different perspective. "I would not be caught advising you to take any shortcuts or compromise your lives by using any device invented by man, such as condoms, in order to facilitate any desire to go against God's clear plan for your life," Mrs. Museveni told students at the Uganda Christian University, Mukono. "God's plan for your life is that you should honour your body because it is His temple."

Warning the young people that they should not be complacent as HIV infection rates rise, Mrs. Museveni asked them to encourage other students to abstain from premarital sex.

This stance of the Ugandan First Lady is not new, it was the approach which led to Uganda's world-renowned success in fighting AIDS. In 2004 Mrs. Museveni spoke to over 2000 youth at a conference in the national capital of Kampala telling teens to ignore those who push condoms noting that companies which promote such products are after money. "Don't give your airtime to anyone talking to you about using condoms," Ms Museveni said. Adding she could "not be apologetic" for objecting to them. Rather she encouraged the young people to practice "God-centered" self-control."

And

"

The US as well as other Western nations have been pushing condoms on Africa as a supposed means of controlling the spread of AIDS. This despite the fact that a meta analysis on "Condom Promotion for AIDS Prevention in the Developing World: Is It Working?" published in the medical journal 'Studies in Family Planning' in March of 2004, found that "In many sub-Saharan African countries, high HIV transmission rates have continued despite high rates of condom use." The study noted further that, "No clear examples have emerged yet of a country that has turned back a generalized epidemic primarily by means of condom distribution."

AIDS activists in Africa are furious with the West and its push for condoms and permissive sex education for youth. With a 2003 UNAIDS report showing that condoms are ineffective in protecting against HIV an estimated 10% of the time, can anyone be surprised that Africans are upset with the West proposing a bio-hazard Russian roulette for their children? "

AND

"

Writing in the same paper Mrs. Bush chose for her condom push, Edward Green, a medical anthropologist with 25 years of experience in Africa, and a senior researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health, whp noted the failure of condoms to affect HIV rates. In an article published November 29, 2003 in the Washington Post, co-authored by Tanzanian Professor Wilfred May, Green wrote "The African countries with the highest levels of condom availability -- Zimbabwe, Botswana, South Africa and Kenya -- also have some of the highest HIV rates in the world."

With those facts, it is no wonder that another African First Lady - Kenya's Lucy Kibaki has joined Uganda's First Lady in calling for abstinence and fidelity as the only ways to bring AIDS under control. Speaking to school girls last year, Mrs. Kibaki said that sexual abstinence before marriage, not condoms, was essential to preserving their lives and futures. "Fellow citizens, this gadget called the condom … is causing the spread of AIDS in this country", she said"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1939496/posts

And here's another slant. And no I don't agree with the "first ladies stance" on homosexuality, but maybe we should all get back to monogamous relationships. Not really sure what the answer is but I find it interesting to look at what has worked and what hasn't.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08080107.html

I have done the same myself. (not the monitor hurling - lol) I have commented, not complimented, the softwware the cafe runs on previously. meh.

I appreciate the distinction hansen, but you're more or less making my point rather than yours. Why would an "anti-theist" care about a debate about the Catholic Church? If the existence of God was not a factor, then all that was being discussed was whether or not a charitable organization was "good" or "bad". The crowd said "bad" - if this had nothing to do with theism, why would an anti-theist be "pleased" at that?

hansen wrote:

GoldenRule wrote:

I'm not terribly interested in the future of the Catholic Church so I didn't listen to the debate. But I am always fascinated by how these things are set up. Sometimes they're also a "setup", as someone suggested -

OK, so the debate was a BBC conspiracy to discrfedit the Catholic Church, at the hands of an author and a filmmaker, against an obviously weak defense provided by a lowly archbishop and a veteran MP?

 

lol - oh, I'm afraid I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist. But I understand marketing and perception. I have a hard time believing that you're as naive in that regard as you're letting on.

Here's a different example - back when Bill Phipps was UCC moderator, he said that Jesus was "all of God that we could understand" - a perfectly biblical stance, and one so in tune with the majority of Canadians that it should have had throngs of "seekers" busting down the doors of dusty old churches nation wide. Didn't happen. Why? Because those "excellent public speakers" you claim clergy to be were so totally unable to handle simple on air interviews that they made the whole church look like ... well, it was embarrassing. I found myself sitting in front of the TV during one interview yelling something like "For God's sake, SAY something!!" while one would-be-defender of Phipps let an empty-headed interviewer walk all over him. 

lol - hardly.  Clergy, for the most part, preach to the converted. And they do not "persuade", they dish out comfort.

Yes I know. Too bad I don't qualify as a "religious leader." I'd jump at the opportunity.

Which again begs the question - why does an "anti-theist" care, since the effect of the organization has nothing to do with theism?

 I think it was mink. Bridgitte Bardot as I recall. Must have been twenty five years ago. My Newfie friends were saying - "But she's wearin' fur, by!!! Why doesn't the dam' TV fellas ask her where 'dat came from, eh?"  No idea of perception, the boys on the Rock.

I repeat myself a lot, but then, I'm getting old. So to repeat myself, why does the failure of the Catholic Church in the above examples, a position we agree on by the way, "please" an anti-theist? How do you make the leap from the failure of the organization to a position that "theism is dangerous and destructive"? (At least, how do you make that leap without proving my point that this was a debate that atheists will try to make about God rather than a specific organization?)

If pointing out that the "for" side was outmatched is "disrespectful" then color me guilty as charged. As to complimenting Hitchens or Fry, well of course. Why wouldn't I? I don't know Fry either. But again, to be part of the event he must have some credibility in his circles.

Want to see an even match? Put Eckhart Tolle, or Neale Donald Walshe, or even Rick Warren, up against Hitchens. Equally media savvy, equally able to play to the audience. (although Walshe is a little past his expiry date) Now there's an event I'd pay money to have a ringside seat at.

I think it might surprise you how alike we are in our dismissal of organizations like the Catholic Church my friend. And our respect for forward thinkers and those who ask tough questions. Where we differ, in our approach to God at least, is that, for me, you're throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Thanks for taking the time to rewrite an excellent reply. I'm happy to continue if you are.

Be well 

David 

Which is not the experience of Senegal, an African country that has the lowest rate of infection, comparable to the US and Switzerland (1)

A forward-looking government recognized the magnitude of the problem back in 1986; Senegal’s moderate Muslim and Christian leaders have worked together to improve education; and organizations such as the US Agency for International Development (USAID) have thrown money, condoms, or both at the problem. “I have enough condoms in my home for one year,” says Diasse Ibrahima, one of Senegal’s biggest basketball stars. “I saw someone on TV with AIDS and I thought, ‘I never want to get that.’”

Senegal also recognized that prostitution existed, will always exist, and was a leading cause of transmission.  Instead of turning a blind eye to that fact, they acted upon it.

Prostitution was legalized in this predominantly Muslim country in 1969, and today the government tolerates it as long as each prostitute registers with the state, is over 21 years old, and comes regularly to a center run by the Ministry of Health for checkups, education, and medical treatment. And that’s a big reason why this West African nation of 10.5 million, according to the World Health Organization, has an HIV infection rate of about two percent while many of its nearest neighbors face rates several times higher; some Southern African countries, such as Botswana, report that a mind-boggling 39 percent or more of the adult population is infected.

Why Senegal's bold anti-AIDS program is working

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that neither Hitchens or Fry touched on the issue of sexism when speaking of the Roman Catholic Church - namely women's rights around contraception, women in the Priesthood etc etc. 

Maybe America should take some notice on how these countries are handling Aids:

http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol12no4/pioneers.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Uganda

Waterfall:

I'm posting this just as information for us all or aids awareness. I also found a new link re an Aids World  Update for 2008.

 Sorry, my copy/paste html doesn't work properly. I can't edit.

80,000 people infected in the UK, 7700 new cases in 2008.

Why, when the US has a lower rate than Uganda?