philosoraptor42 (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
philosoraptor42) wrote2009-10-04 06:09 pm
philosoraptor42) wrote2009-10-04 06:09 pm
Entry tags:
Maybe I was wrong about Pat Condell....
In my last few posts about Pat Condell, I accused him of being racist, xenophobic and even sexist. However, while what Pat had to say was most certainly racist, xenophobic and sexist in sentiment, his latest video suggests that he's actually suffering from paranoid delusions. How can I hold a man responsible for his words and actions when he is so thoroughly detached from reality?
His latest video claims that priests are part of a totalitarian system whereby they use religion to increase their own power and to control the populace. He claims that priests are making huge amounts of money and demonstrates this by the fact that certain Archbishops, as well as the pope, live in palaces.
The problem is that this simply doesn't ring true to anyone who actually ever listened to a sermon in an actual church. The priests aren't in some special upper class within society. It's also difficult to claim that their modest collections are part of some kind of racket when Church buildings are falling into disrepair and the biggest source of money for the Anglican Church is land ownership, not contributions on Sundays.
Now I'm a big fan of Nietzsche and he has a few passages where he talks about the oppression by "the priest", but this is an ideological oppression which Nietzsche even recognises is somewhat masochistic in nature. I find it funny that even Mitchell and Webb provide a more realistic impression of the clergy than Pat Condell provides (which also puts pay to the idea that Condell's argument only seems ridiculous because he's exaggerating for comic effect):
It's certainly true that, having achieved the position of Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams lives in a palace. However, this is part of a long tradition passed down from a time when the Archbishop of Canterbury was a leading advisor to the King. Far from being a sign of modern corruption, it's a remnant of the medieval hierarchy. Even if it weren't the home of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lambeth Palace would still be in the same situation as today whereby it has regular guided tours, only it would probably be in posession of the National Trust rather than the Church of England.
Now for a great deal of the video Pat Condell makes some sensible points. The thing is, we've heard all this stuff before and last time it wasn't sandwiched by utter nonsense. So let's go through the true statements in the video that we've heard many time before, followed by summing up the more ridiculous claims of the video.
His latest video claims that priests are part of a totalitarian system whereby they use religion to increase their own power and to control the populace. He claims that priests are making huge amounts of money and demonstrates this by the fact that certain Archbishops, as well as the pope, live in palaces.
The problem is that this simply doesn't ring true to anyone who actually ever listened to a sermon in an actual church. The priests aren't in some special upper class within society. It's also difficult to claim that their modest collections are part of some kind of racket when Church buildings are falling into disrepair and the biggest source of money for the Anglican Church is land ownership, not contributions on Sundays.
Now I'm a big fan of Nietzsche and he has a few passages where he talks about the oppression by "the priest", but this is an ideological oppression which Nietzsche even recognises is somewhat masochistic in nature. I find it funny that even Mitchell and Webb provide a more realistic impression of the clergy than Pat Condell provides (which also puts pay to the idea that Condell's argument only seems ridiculous because he's exaggerating for comic effect):
It's certainly true that, having achieved the position of Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams lives in a palace. However, this is part of a long tradition passed down from a time when the Archbishop of Canterbury was a leading advisor to the King. Far from being a sign of modern corruption, it's a remnant of the medieval hierarchy. Even if it weren't the home of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lambeth Palace would still be in the same situation as today whereby it has regular guided tours, only it would probably be in posession of the National Trust rather than the Church of England.
Now for a great deal of the video Pat Condell makes some sensible points. The thing is, we've heard all this stuff before and last time it wasn't sandwiched by utter nonsense. So let's go through the true statements in the video that we've heard many time before, followed by summing up the more ridiculous claims of the video.
We already knew the following:
- Priests and bishops will often make stupid comments in the media (like many other prominent political figures and organisations).
- Secularism is often posed as some kind of evil force in society by people in religious authority. (Interestingly Pope John Paul II was keen to make -albeit misleadingly- a distinction between 'secularity' where the state separates itself from the Church and 'secularism' where steps are made to remove religion from the public sphere. However, since Ratzinger disagreed with Vatican II, he never even bothers to make such a distinction.)
- Of course, Condell once again puts forward the complete myth that Rowan Williams (who I really don't like, but I at least have enough respect not to tell lies regarding) supports sharia law. What he actually said was that state-run sharia courts "seem unavoidable" (sharia courts that are not state-run were already in existence - and we are, of course, only referring to civil courts here).
- The Catholic Church condemns birth control and relatively recently propogated demonstrably false information in support of the HIV denialism already rife in Africa.
- He touches on the idea from my last post that human beings should focus on a better place after death (an "afterworld" as Nietzsche calls it) to the detriment of our lives here.
- It was quickly pointed out by many people when the pope was railing against fat cats hoarding money for themselves, that he lives in a building covered in gold leaf and it's pretty hypocritical for him to blame others for hoarding material wealth. What's strange here however, is that Pat Condell seems to believe that palaces like these simply shouldn't exist. He's not simply pointing out that it's completely hypocritical when you look at the teachings of the Christian faith. He's actually further insisting that there's something deeply immoral about these buildings even existing. I'm sorry, but I can't join in. The vatican museum is a brilliant collection of artwork and St. Peter's Church is a fascinating and beautiful remnant of its time. I think it's right that such places should exist, even if I don't think the Church would ever constructed them if it had really paid attention to its own scripture.
The following is nonsense:
- Religion always despises democracy.
- Clergy are characterised as "priveledged facists" (yes, I know, hyperbole - ok fair enough, on we go..)
- Clergy attempt to eliminate as much creativity and pleasure as possible in order to neutralise the human experience.
- Every public utterance from a senior clergyman is designed to disempower us and to "disconnect us from the planet which gives us life" (went a bit new agey there, didn't it?)
- Clergy reap huge rewards from the devotion of believers and they live in the lap of luxury in palaces. (Even though these are generally old buildings with crappy central heating which you can't make many changes to because they are 'listed'.)
- "I bet you know about a handful of people living in palaces?" Um... no, not really. "How many of the Christian clergy are living in palaces?" Well, um, about a handful.
- Rowan Williams wants sharia law implemented...
- ... because it's religious law...
- ... and because he thinks religion comes first while people come second.
- If the clergy ever stumbled across the truth they would hide it. (Pat's been reading too much "Da Vinci Code").
- The clergy are all in reality "career politicians, petty, status-obsessed, ego-bound men."
- From this point on the video descends into a farce seemingly portraying every single member of the clergy as a Big Brother figure from Orwell's "1984", before finally making a sensible comment right at the end by giving us the origin of the word "heretic".