In case you missed the Intelligence Squared debate on BBC last fall, here’s a brief summation: the Catholic Church got absolutely massacred by two well-spoken atheists. The motion in question: whether or not the Catholic Church functions as a force for good in the world. In the Church’s corner was Ann Widdecombe, Member of Parliament, and Nigerian Archbishop John Onaiyekan. And on the victorious side were the polemical voices of Christopher Hitchens and Steven Fry. So how did two secular atheists emerge triumphant against the most powerful religious institution on Earth?It’s actually quite simple. Hitchens’ law states he cannot lose an argument. Combine this with the emotional discourse and charm of Steven Fry, and you’ve got a winner by default.
To be fair, the proponents of the Church were lacking — if not downright outmatched. But was it simply the opponents’ presence that merited victory? Not even close.The archbishop opened the debate apparently thinking his title would prohibit anyone from disagreeing with him — I’m sure he’s used to that at the pulpit. After ranting about the benevolent nature of the Church — and failing to establish any form an argument — he had the audacity to conclude “is there anyone here who still doubts?”
The crowd responded with laughter.
Hitchens, in true fashion, came roaring through the gates and initiated “you [the Church] must start by asking for forgiveness.” The absolution needed by the Church is for innumerable atrocities, but Hitchens focused primarily on historical crimes against humanity as well as the modern mayhem caused by their actions. Invoking the Church’s silence during the Holocaust, the promotion of genocide in Rwanda by its clergy and the inadvertent murder of millions through their policy on condoms, Hitchens thus elicited roars of applause. He shoots — he scores.
Widdecombe, though more capable of framing a dispute than the archbishop, failed to make a persuasive case that her Church was indeed a force for good. She doomed herself and her cause, I believe, when she whined that all these debates somehow digress to the Church’s policy on condoms and sexual prohibitions.
Fry was the final contributor and did quite well to call Widdecombe out on her ranting about the monotonous citations of the Church’s sexual policies. He likened her petition to a burglar in court, who would plea that his crimes were irrelevant because he did nice things sometimes too.
As a gay man, Fry attacked the doctrines of the Church that would prohibit him from membership. And, perhaps more seriously, he held the Church responsible for the murder of innumerable AIDS victims through spreading the lie that condoms increase the possibility of contracting the disease. Not leaving out the systematic child rape that has occurred for far too long, Fry’s discourse was the final blow to an already wounded creature.
The votes were then tallied, and here’s a bombshell: The Church is not a force for good.So what does one take away from this debate? For starters, the voice of secularism is finally emerging triumphant over claims of religious infallibility. We should be proud to see these brave voices standing up and crying foul when needed. A group of homophobic virgins indeed has no place dictating family values. Condoms don’t kill people — lies of the Church do. The billion followers they boast about need aid and guidance — not the dogma and religious bigotry that has killed so many. For shame!
Perhaps we need more Sinead O’Connors, those who would dare to rip apart a picture of the pope on national TV — crying “fight the real enemy.” I will continue to feel this way until this behemoth of a corporation decides to apologize for its crimes against humanity and recognizes its potential to actually be a force for good. Relinquish your keys to heaven — you have been weighed and found unworthy to hold them. 
 
 
 
—-Contact Andrew Robertson at [email protected] Robertson is a 23-year-old religious studies senior from Baton Rouge. Follow him on Twitter at TDR_Arobertson.