Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To be disappointed that Stephen Fry isn't....

211 replies

BertrandRussell · 09/05/2017 10:33

....going to be tried for blasphemy? I was so looking forward to it!

OP posts:
EveningShadows · 10/05/2017 13:14

Why should he not be allowed to express an opinion?! Shock

If people had never challenged the teachings of the church we would still be stoning people to death for farming on a Sunday or whatever - we absolutely should be allowed to speak out about religion and all it's teachings. It's called progress.

BertrandRussell · 10/05/2017 13:14

"Fry was asked his opinion he could have said he didn't want to discuss that,"

Why on earth should he have done that? Hmm

OP posts:
grannytomine · 10/05/2017 13:15

If he didn't want to offend people, obviously he might want to offend people but that seems an odd thing to do.

grannytomine · 10/05/2017 13:16

People are saying it as if he was helpless, someone asked him an opinion and he was powerless and was forced to say whatever he said. He wasn't, he had a choice and he made his choice.

BertrandRussell · 10/05/2017 13:23

So in your view, nobody should express any negative view of Christianity? Blimey!

OP posts:
TinselTwins · 10/05/2017 13:26

Stephen Fry is not critical of religous institutions - bloody fair game I say!
He aims to be hurtful and belittling about ordinary believers!

multivac · 10/05/2017 13:26

I'm guessing you've never heard Mr Fry on the topic of 'being offended', granny...

TinselTwins · 10/05/2017 13:27

I'm guessing you've never heard Mr Fry on the topic of 'being offended', granny..

Wasn't that quote shortly before he flounced off twitter because someone had insulted him ?

AvoidingCallenetics · 10/05/2017 13:28

Granny, it was an interview. What would be the point if he didn't answer the questions?
He has every right to discuss what he wants. Why should someone else's religious beliefs take precedence over his right to do so?

BertrandRussell · 10/05/2017 13:29

"He aims to be hurtful and belittling about ordinary believers!"

Really? References please.

OP posts:
multivac · 10/05/2017 13:30

Quite possibly. But I don't believe he thought the people who had insulted/hurt/upset him should be charged with a crime, which was his point.

MaybeNextWeek · 10/05/2017 13:35

"And I think that people can believe anything they want so long as they keep it to themselves and don't use it to hurt other people "
I agree. SF could say "I don't believe, but if I were to meet him I'd ask why he allows all the suffering and tragedy".

Easy enough without trying so very hard to be controversial. Is it the only time he gets publicity when he's being unpleasant though?

TinselTwins · 10/05/2017 13:37

Quite possibly. But I don't believe he thought the people who had insulted/hurt/upset him should be charged with a crime, which was his poin

He's not been reported by someone who was upset with him
He's been reported by people who wanna demonstrate how stupid the law is
Whoever they picked for this will only benefit from the publicity and notoriety it brings and will not face any penalties
Which is why it's a shame they chose such an ass-hat for what should be a positive move in history

limitedperiodonly · 10/05/2017 13:40

I like Stephen Fry but he should have acknowledged borrowing that idea from David Attenborough, who said this years ago:

When creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that’s going to make him blind.

And [I ask them], ‘Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child’s eyeball? Because that doesn’t seem to me to coincide with a God who’s full of mercy.

Attenborough has virtual saint-like status, so you'd think he could get away with it more than Fry, who is a bit Marmite, but even he regularly receives hate mail from religious zealots.

Attenborough is an agnostic btw.

limitedperiodonly · 10/05/2017 13:47

Sorry, my post isn't clear. I forgot to point out that Stephen Fry had said he doesn't believe God exists but if he did, Fry would want to ask him why he created bone cancer in children.

It was in answer to a direct question about what he would do if he died and discovered God existed. I don't see how or why he should have ducked it. That would be rude, surely?

Andrewofgg · 10/05/2017 13:52

Which fool even suggested the prosecution?

user1493022461 · 10/05/2017 13:53

SF could say "I don't believe, but if I were to meet him I'd ask why he allows all the suffering and tragedy

That IS what he said, just a bit more forcefully.

He was asked a direct question and gave his honest answer. How can any of you have a problem with that?

TinselTwins · 10/05/2017 13:54

Which fool even suggested the prosecution?

How do people keep missing this
The original person who reported it said that he didn't think SF had done anything wrong, but it was his civic duty to report that the stupid law had been broken (paraphrasing)

i.e. to demonstrate that it is a stupid law that should be abolished along with all intertwinement of state and church!

hackmum · 10/05/2017 14:05

"He was asked a direct question and gave his honest answer. How can any of you have a problem with that?"

I have no idea. It's not as if he said, "All religious believers are idiots, and I don't see how they can believe this crap."

He gave a perfectly reasonable - and, in my view, unanswerable -
response.

BertrandRussell · 10/05/2017 14:08

"e. SF could say "I don't believe, but if I were to meet him I'd ask why he allows all the suffering and tragedy"

But that wouldn't have been his opinion. Why shouldn't he say what he thought?

OP posts:
BertrandRussell · 10/05/2017 14:10

And David Attenborough is only an agnostic in the same way that Richard Dawkins is. The same way that the east majority of atheists with old fashioned educations in philorlsophy are. There's a formula in logic for it but I forget what it is.

OP posts:
hackmum · 10/05/2017 14:10

Can anyone who thinks what he said was hurtful or upsetting explain why it's hurtful or upsetting?

These feels a bit like those transgender threads where any attempt at rational discussion is met with cries of "transphobe"!

Deranger01 · 10/05/2017 14:32

It's the scornful tone of the way he talks about believers. Got nothing stronger than tone for you, but it is the smug pompous tone of what he says when he talks about the subject.

DioneTheDiabolist · 10/05/2017 14:38

I didn't find what he said hurtful or upsetting. I found it old, unimaginative and unoriginal. Just as I find SF himself these days.

BertrandRussell · 10/05/2017 14:48

Ah. So you''ve gone from"He aims to be hurtful and belittling about ordinary believers!" to "I don't like his tone". Fair enough.

I am, I have to say slightly amused by "Oh that old unimaginative unoriginal completely unanswerable and unanswered question! Couldn't he come up with a new completely unanswerable question?"

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread