It is so easy for the media to bring in an apostate “Catholic archbishop” to make the case for the demonic atheism of Hitchens and Fry seem more palatable. Hitchens and Fry are believers in atheistic enlightenment and they forget to tell people at the debate that demonic atheism (communism, fascism) are responsible for the deaths of at least 65 million in Russia and 100 million in World War II. Not to mention that demonic atheism is responsible for over 200 +million murdered babies in and around the world since 1973 through abortion and China’s one child policy and India’s infanticide of little baby girls.
In Fry’s (an anti-christ) speech he commits every sacrilege and blasphemy against the church a reprobate is capable (so intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt an eight year catholic would have no problem refuting) of. I don’t know what was more blasphemous though, the infamous rantings of an antichrist or the Novus ordo bishop and a nun clapping (scandalous) for him when he was done. This is standard fare now in all types of media: Have scumbags, Hitchens and Fry. debate an apostate from the Catholic Faith, the “archbishop” (not a Catholic archbishop), who in no way represents the Catholic Faith or its teachings. In the pretend debate they bring in a total apostate and heretic novus ordo “catholic bishop”, have them supposedly represent the catholic church, and since they aren’t catholic anyway, Jesus Christ and the church are incessantly portrayed in the worst possible light both by the attacker and the “defender”. Mr. Fry happens to be an extreme anti christ figure so his portion is as vile an attack as I have ever seen.

Mr. Fry is a homosexual reprobate and he gives that away numerous times when he says how upset he is because the true catholic church teaches against his unnatural and perveted homosexual lifestyle. He certainly has a bone to pick but a true Catholic, would have destroyed his intellectually deficient argumentation.
Paul R,

I’ve been reading The Freethinker for nearly a year now, and every time I hear about these type of debates I wish I lived in Europe so I could attend them. Go Chris Hitchens!!

brb, doing murder.

CH: Well, it may sound like a religious, or confessional answer, but you have to start with yourself. We all have to overcome our own irrationalities and superstitions first. That’s a lifetime of education, and it’s worth having. I try and do it everyday. I expose myself to other people’s opinions, writings and so forth, so that’s the main thing. Oh, and if you do well enough, you might just get asked your opinion.

The other thing is not to give anything the go-by. You have to get up and say no when someone suggests there should be a tax break for churches, or that the bishops should sit in the House of Lords, or anything like it. Oppose anything that trespasses on the secular line of the separation of church and state, because civilization begins where the separation of church and state begins. There are no exceptions to that in any country. So it’s in the general interest, as well as your own, that we patrol that line with great vigilance.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

A free thinker, cool, good for you matey. As for tax breaks for the church, why not? They collect a great deal of money for charity and they provide a moral frame work for society. Atheists etc do not have the same need to behave. They are primates (look how they behave), they are chemical robots, they do not fear a God, they do not recognise love for anything, other than a survival tool, a clever little twist of nature to assist us in surviving as a species but once you know this, once you have evolved to realise you real potential at freedom – Hey! Once you realise this, you do not need to stay with your family any longer for example! You can what the hell you like! F–k who you like, murder who you like, install any totalitarian regime that you like; be a dictator because, after all CH knows best!

I agree, but I would not leave it to people like CH to decide what was superstition! The life of Christ is not something to sneer at as superstitious, cleverer minds than CH (not hard to find)would never consider Christ or the theologians of the Church as superstitious.

He is so generous in allowing religion to survive, being a rather endearing human trait, how sweet of him!

CH: Indeed. The creepy word “islamophobia” has been coined to give the idea, without actually saying so, that quarreling with Islam involves a dislike of Muslims –the majority of whom are darker skinned than I am. But that’s absurd because Islam promises to be a religion of universality. It at least does say that. Some religions aren’t accessible to all. Judaism for example. Well, you can convert, but it’s not quite the same.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This chap is really full of drivel! Apart from his first sentence, which I agree with.
A religion of Universality? Doesn’t really mean anything at all, any religion is such, ie open to converts. It is certainly not a benign religion, never has been! Atheism is a universal religion but one still needs to convert.

CH: Well, I have a standard reply, I hope you don’t mind. I’ve evolved it over a lot of debates, and put it to a lot of religious believers and spokesmen, and I’ve never yet had a reply: Name for me a moral action or a moral statement ever made or committed or uttered by a believer, that a non-believer couldn’t have made.

No-one’s ever come up with one. Name for me now a wicked thing done or an evil thing said because of their religion – you’ve already thought of one.

There’s wickedness in print and in action, directly so with religion. Goodness can be found in the giving of yourself to other fellow creatures. And for it’s own sake, I should add, not so you’ll spread the word, sign up more people so you can keep on saying your number is a billion. That’s not a good motive for charity. So, although it’s a question one has to ask, I think it is a fatuous question.’

My answer would be, what a fatuous answer! There can be no better motive for charity than to please God. The fact he does not believe in God means his efforts at doing good to his fellow creatures becomes utterly worthless. What is the point? He is a product of a primordial soup, why bother to do good deeds!?