Woe be to those whom Stephen Fry does not support
"The only people who are obsessed with food are anorexics and the morbidly obese. And that, in erotic terms, is the Catholic Church in a nutshell."
This absolutely piercing gem of insight comes from this debate (in five parts on YouTube). The question is whether or not the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world. I think you can tell from that quote who "won" that debate.
Despite my professed agnosticism and atheism, I am not as sure of the answer as either party in this debate. Certainly, I don't think the Catholic Church smells of roses and creates rainbows that shelter the poor from the elements or anything. I think it's a deeply flawed organization that spends far too much money on itself and its members of rank when it's not using the funds it strips from parishioners to defend pedophiles. On the other hand, most Catholics I know are way more enlightened than just about any of the Protestant religions (save for the very, very liberal sects that practically aren't churches at all), in that they do emphasize stewardship of the Earth (i.e. support the goal to preserve, protect, and improve the environment); will actually concede things to science on occasion (John Paul II, I believe, said evolution wasn't incompatible with faith); and their work with the poor truly is stellar. When I find myself criticizing the religious zealots that hate on everything, I frequently remind myself that although Catholicism teaches profoundly backwards and dangerous and damaging beliefs about sex, they do do stuff besides teabagging about health care or whatever the Protestant morons are doing these days.
I should mention here that I was raised Protestant. And I always had a semi-hostile view of Catholicism growing up due to the fact that I, being Lutheran, was following the doctrines of a man that the Catholics forcibly ejected for daring to suggest that they were full of shit on some things. (That, and it was really annoying trying to schedule things with my Catholic friends--or maybe it just seemed that way since they would, of their own volition, go to church at least once a week, whereas I had to be dragged.) Growing up taught me a lot of things about both sects of Christianity, which led me to more forcibly reject the Protestants whose religion makes them awful (in this country at least) whereas Catholics I've known--even the nuns and friars I've met--are 100% genuine and 100% okay with you not wanting to be drawn into their stuff. Yes, it's still creepy how the nuns were trying to get me to come and be involved with them, but they didn't push too hard, and nothing came of it. I was free to walk. It's different if you're already on the inside, I get that. The difference for me is that no Catholic ever made the public demand that I come inside their way of thinking. Before and since we elected a moderate centrist but Democratic president, it's been nothing but shrieking noise about non-Protestants being damned, damned, damned. (No, not always literally, just by inference--i.e. if you don't support us hounding women back into positions of subservience and dependence, than you're an evil feminazi abortionist baby-eating librul who is damned, damned, damned.)
As ever, I make the caveat that I acknowledge not all religious people are like that. I have to make that concession because religious people feel attacked whenever someone points out, as I did under that cut, that their shit stinks just like everybody else's. Personally, I get quite annoyed at having to explain that when I cast generalizations, CLEARLY I'm not targeting people who aren't on TV making asses of themselves and their cults. (Because, let's be honest, there is only a difference in numbers between religion and cult, and with the way Scientology has filled its ranks, I'm beginning to think that even that definition no longer holds.) When I paint with this broad a brush, it's not about you, okay? It's that other guy who's making your look bad. It's that organization that controls how you believe whatever you believe in.
That? That to me is the problem: in order for people to have religion, it has to be controlled by an external source. And that external source, imbued with the power to dictate to people without fear of being questioned or forced to defend their work, is just a system ripe for abuse. That's why you get, as Stephen Fry points out, St. Peter's Basilica from the organization built on the back of a man who preached about the necessity of aiding the poor.
This absolutely piercing gem of insight comes from this debate (in five parts on YouTube). The question is whether or not the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world. I think you can tell from that quote who "won" that debate.
Despite my professed agnosticism and atheism, I am not as sure of the answer as either party in this debate. Certainly, I don't think the Catholic Church smells of roses and creates rainbows that shelter the poor from the elements or anything. I think it's a deeply flawed organization that spends far too much money on itself and its members of rank when it's not using the funds it strips from parishioners to defend pedophiles. On the other hand, most Catholics I know are way more enlightened than just about any of the Protestant religions (save for the very, very liberal sects that practically aren't churches at all), in that they do emphasize stewardship of the Earth (i.e. support the goal to preserve, protect, and improve the environment); will actually concede things to science on occasion (John Paul II, I believe, said evolution wasn't incompatible with faith); and their work with the poor truly is stellar. When I find myself criticizing the religious zealots that hate on everything, I frequently remind myself that although Catholicism teaches profoundly backwards and dangerous and damaging beliefs about sex, they do do stuff besides teabagging about health care or whatever the Protestant morons are doing these days.
I should mention here that I was raised Protestant. And I always had a semi-hostile view of Catholicism growing up due to the fact that I, being Lutheran, was following the doctrines of a man that the Catholics forcibly ejected for daring to suggest that they were full of shit on some things. (That, and it was really annoying trying to schedule things with my Catholic friends--or maybe it just seemed that way since they would, of their own volition, go to church at least once a week, whereas I had to be dragged.) Growing up taught me a lot of things about both sects of Christianity, which led me to more forcibly reject the Protestants whose religion makes them awful (in this country at least) whereas Catholics I've known--even the nuns and friars I've met--are 100% genuine and 100% okay with you not wanting to be drawn into their stuff. Yes, it's still creepy how the nuns were trying to get me to come and be involved with them, but they didn't push too hard, and nothing came of it. I was free to walk. It's different if you're already on the inside, I get that. The difference for me is that no Catholic ever made the public demand that I come inside their way of thinking. Before and since we elected a moderate centrist but Democratic president, it's been nothing but shrieking noise about non-Protestants being damned, damned, damned. (No, not always literally, just by inference--i.e. if you don't support us hounding women back into positions of subservience and dependence, than you're an evil feminazi abortionist baby-eating librul who is damned, damned, damned.)
As ever, I make the caveat that I acknowledge not all religious people are like that. I have to make that concession because religious people feel attacked whenever someone points out, as I did under that cut, that their shit stinks just like everybody else's. Personally, I get quite annoyed at having to explain that when I cast generalizations, CLEARLY I'm not targeting people who aren't on TV making asses of themselves and their cults. (Because, let's be honest, there is only a difference in numbers between religion and cult, and with the way Scientology has filled its ranks, I'm beginning to think that even that definition no longer holds.) When I paint with this broad a brush, it's not about you, okay? It's that other guy who's making your look bad. It's that organization that controls how you believe whatever you believe in.
That? That to me is the problem: in order for people to have religion, it has to be controlled by an external source. And that external source, imbued with the power to dictate to people without fear of being questioned or forced to defend their work, is just a system ripe for abuse. That's why you get, as Stephen Fry points out, St. Peter's Basilica from the organization built on the back of a man who preached about the necessity of aiding the poor.