The Catholic Church is the single largest force for good in the world.
It provides 26% of the worlds total healthcare provision (it runs 117,000 hosptials and health-centres world wide). It provides free healthcare to millions of people, who have no other source of healthcare.
It is the world largest non-Governmental educational body. It provides education to millions of people worldwide, many of whom would otherwise go without. It champions the eglitarian nature of education - it is a human right - and in many societies, it is often the only organsiation which will educate female citizens.
It runs a global network of relief and aid agencies (CARITAS), which spends approx $2 billion on the poor and needy per annum.
Anyone clamining this record does not repesent the Church being a force for good in the world is a f*ck-wit basically. No other conclusion about such a person is possible.
The debate linked to in the original post is very poor (I have seen it before).
To give an example of how relevant its content is - none of the above info is mentioned within it.
Its is essentiallly a "bash the Catholic Chruch" event, not a serious debate. The anti-Catholic speakers were:
- Christopher Hitchens; an alcoholic, arrogant narcissist and attention seeker who would say anything -
anything - no matter how outrageous, ridiculous or controvrsial, if he thought it would have got him some attention. His style of debate is to take the piss and act self-righteously - not look at the facts. He was a performing monkey essentially. His attacks on the Church convince only those who know nothing about the Church, Christianity, or History.
Christopher hated religion because he arrogantly felt he was too intelligent for it (same way he thought he was too intelligent for most things; such as common courtesy, good manners, advice on safe levels of alcohol drinkining etc).
I often felt sorry for Christopher when he was alive, he looked like he could be great company, but often seemed to be a very bitter man - as people who need the crutch of alcohol, every day, often are.
- Stephen Fry; a self-regarding homosexual man who - like many homosexual people - cannot seem to adopt an objective view of his disordered sexuality. In the modern day he is famous for nothing, bar being a famous homosexual (20 years ago, he was a decent small-time bit-part actor in comedies - Blackadder, Jeeves and Wooster etc) .
He dislikes the Catholic Church because it has the courage to tell the truth about human sexuality -a truth which he would prefer not to hear. He even has the audacity to say "
What is it for?" to applause from the crowd, as though the point of the Catholic Church is not obvious, or cannot easily be found out. (Hint - its for doing the type of massive good listed above, you stupid-ass bufter).
What these men have in common is that their public personas are carefully honed acts. They are also both very charming, erudite speakers - and this fact alone often seduces people to believe what they say, never mind the accuracy of what they say.
In opposition, the program organisers chose a batty old woman, (who - quite apart from religion, is already viewed in the UK as a figure of fun), and an African Bishop who spoke only heavily accented english and at times seemed to struggle to follow what was being said - a very strange choice, given they could easily have invited any UK clergyman, who has english as his first language.
Even with its choice of those who are chosen to represent Catholicism, the program maker is subtely trying to influence the viewer, before the show even begins.
The producers want the anti-Catholic postion advanced by charming, funny, eloquent men. But the Catholic position must be advanced by an an elderly lady and a clergyman from the 3rd world. The subliminal messages being sent here are very clear, for those who have the wit to recognise them.
Ultimately, as the debate does not feature any info, such as I give above, and most of the simpletons in the audience voted agaisnt the Church, it shows how skewed and removed from reality which many secular peoples perceptions of religion are.
Many secular people base their opinions on what they have been told by the likes of Fry and Hitchins, they do not like to inestigate and find things out for themselves.
(February 27, 2013 at 2:24 am)justin Wrote: galileo may disagree.
If you disagree with the other poster about the massive ongoing contribution the Catholic Church has made to science, pleases visit my "Science v religion" thread in this forum.
I have been massively underwhelmed by the reponse to it so far.
Normally atheists like to suggest religion is anti-science, or "stupid shit" (to use your own terminolgy).
But - as in my thread - when asked to substantiate and defend this position....they cannot* - why do you think this is? Is it maybe because they dont really know what they are talking about?
(*if they can - we are still waiting).
