John Cleese on the Dick Cavett Show, 1979, part 2 of 6

[MoveOverCasanova]

it is great how always when a python simply explains what jokes didn´t work for "life of brian", the audience laughs like forced to, only because "a python tells a joke", though all he does is tell the story....misunderstanding is so everywhere everytime

[Bloodlovefreak]

I've never heard of Cavett but this interviewer is of the first rate kind that seems entirely absent from current US television.

[PhilipPorter]

Were US audiences more open minded or intelligent back then? Or is this a New York thing? I don`t imagine a comedy mocking religeon would receive such an easy going reaction in the US these days.

[Dantemadison]

@PhilipPorter Nah, it was pretty much like today -- same voices out there on both sides, only not quite so loud. My Mom took me to see the film when it came out. We both loved it. Her brother kinda scolded her for going to see it as the Vatican gave it a "C" rating ('C' for 'condemned' meaning it was literally a sin to see the film).

I remember listening to her speaking to him on the phone, telling him the film was not blasphemous at all.

[pwarren1010]

@PhilipPorter Dont mean to bust in on your conversation but I would have to say reaction would be worse then.Churches today are less religious today.No doubt in my mind

[crispiegee1]

Dick Cavett is just such a subtly funny guy. Dry, intelligent and always classy. A talent like him could never survive today.

[reyzaguirr]

blessed are the cheesemakers...

[evo5dave]

Being from the UK, I have no idea who Dick Cavett is but, despite the terrible and overlong intro, he's actually quite an interesting interviewer.

[comanchio1976]

They forgot to mention my favourite line in the above mentioned scene...

Brian: "You're all individuals!"

Crowd: "Yes, we are all individuals!"

Brian: "You're all different!"

Crowd: "Yes, we are all different!"

Man in crowd: "I'm not."

[Intbel]

@comanchio1976  - Yup. My favourite also. A classic, that.

[ugleeamerican]

Dick Cavett is probably one of the best TV talk show hosts! He can ask the difficult questions in a funny way , all the while giving a dignity to the topic. It really opens up the interviewee. He`s got balls, humor and intellectualism.

[watayapupuya]

@ugleeamerican

How many balls does he have and where are they?

[runi8]

that's my fav line as well :)

[NyeTunes]

LOL.... the censors didn't catch "Biggus Dickus". :-P

[jerryhello100]

@NyeTunes Well, it's not really a swear, not technically.

[Bajingo221]

Jon Cleese is absolutely brilliant

[HunterMann]

Reading some of the discussion/debate that this video inspires shows the power of an interview from 31 years ago.

[UndercoverAgent197]

It's very interesting to hear Cleese discuss Life of Brian and the offended reactions it received. I personally don't understand why people got so upset about the film. I figure people of all faiths should either be quiet and enjoy it, or else not watch it at all and be done with the whole argument.

[Buffoon1980]

Godwin's Law!

[TheTerrorUforgot]

The dicussion, albeit heated and seemingly well-informed, seems a tad out of place?

[JiffySpook]

I love how Cavett mentions 'Bigus Dickus' in offhand passing to avoid censors. Thanks for breaking out the Beta Max.

[EminemBase]

I'm sick of people calling basic moral values religious too.

Religion doesn't deserve any credit for anything and certainly not our basis of human conditioning.

I'm an atheist but I don't require a priest to tell me not to rape and murder. And steal.

These are moral values that WE (humans) have built upon and developed by means of social evolution and construct. They are not religious values what so ever.

Religion just hijacked them and preaches them as if the original source.

[EminemBase]

And I think a moral atheist is a far better person than a moral religious person. Because if you're only kind and generous etc. because you think you'll be rewarded for it. Because you think somebody is watching you and you may get punished... What kind of a sick fuck are you. That's not good.

Far better to think nobody is there and do it because you want to do it. As far as I'm concerned nobody is watching me but I don't act like an asshole or kill people because I DON'T think it's right.

[EminemBase]

Don't know what's wrong with these drones who need somebody else to teach them how to be a human. Fucking insane.

[courageousjake]

I'm sick of atheism, it's so outdated. Such a child of the 60's. I'm tired of culture revolving around the baby boomer generation, and atheism might as well have a peace symbol and flower power sticker on it.

[EminemBase]

What are you talking about you drone lmao.

Atheism isn't any one thing it's simply a LACK OF belief in bollocks or... God as you might say.

[courageousjake]

Nope, you would think that at first inspection, but really it is the OVERreaction to distaste for religion. As such, "Athiesm" is a religion in itself with faith in no diety, and it has a clear agenda now to remove reference to God from everything...which shouldnt't bother a true atheist. Intellectual honesty means you don't know either way, so that's agnostic. Other people's belief wouldn't matter to an Agnostic. which is the thinking man's atheism.

[EminemBase]

LMFAO. Oh my goodness. That's one of the most outdated, cop-out, absurd responses to this argument I've seen.

Okay, for the final time. Atheism is NOT a religion or an irrational belief system. What a lame argument.

Atheism is a LOGICAL conclusion that there is NO God due to lack of evidence.

Definition of Religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers

Definition of Atheism: alack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

So it makes no sense to say atheism is a religion.

[EminemBase]

Agnostic is not intellectual honesty.

Just because you can't disprove something does NOT put the probability of said thing at 50%.

You can't disprove that there are no fairies either but would you say it's 50/50 on whether they exist?

Of course not, if you did I'd say you are a moron.

There are millions of things you can't disprove but that doesn't make the existence and non-existence of them equal. How totally ridiculous.

[EminemBase]

Technically nobody can be certain about ANYTHING or anything not existing.

We're all technically agnostic about flying pigs but due to the fact it goes against all logic and there is no positive evidence in its favour, I'd say we're as close to a-flying-pigest as possible.

It's an accident of history that so many people believe the bollocks, it's bronze-age mythology but that doesn't make it any more likely.

[EminemBase]

The idea of God is in the same ballpark as any absurd fairytale or myth you may choose to name.

[EminemBase]

You and every religious person alive is an atheist about 99% of Gods.

Most Christians are atheists about Zues or Thor.

Atheists just go one God more :) Just because the personal god of a religion may be comforting to weakminded individuals doesn't make it anymore likely or true.

It's as irrational and false as any other unfounded illogical claim in history.

[waldoistwisted]

No 'true' atheist says they are 100% atheist, they leave that fallacy to the religious. They are willing to accept that intelligent design 'could' be true, but only in as much sense as a 'flying spaghetti monster' could be a creator. An atheist says that 'there is almost certainly no god'. Based on Science, which is the only truth when you're talking about the Universe and Origin of life. Check out Darwin and Krauss for more info. It's not 50/50, there is or there isnt, its more like 99.9/0.01

[courageousjake]

Yes yes, I hear you. But, as we think about it, aren't we a little amazed that we can think? That we can make abstractions, and complex arguments, and are self aware, and able to empathize? Those facts alone should make an atheist more than .01% open to the possibility of the supernatural, the source of life. Evolution has nothign to say about the source of life, and it has nothign to say about the source of new DNA either... mutationism is a fantasy as much as religion.

[waldoistwisted]

Evolution does give explanations abt altruism etc as evolutionary methods which developed called 'reciprocal altruism'. We can see how more 'developed' animals, i.e. apes have larger pre-frontal cortexes where mri scans show where the brain perceives these abstract emotions. Microevolution actually shows how over many generaions mutations occur and selection tkes place, e.g. bacteria. Don't you find it a hard angle to say tht 'well evolution hasnt explained this YET so it must be transcendent.'

[courageousjake]

ppl have been microevolutionists since they first bred animals and plants. The Greeks knew about this. Darwin's fame was about timing, timing that went well with the eugenics and atheistic/communist ideas of the time. Now to make Darwin's ideas float, mutations have to account for genetic diversity. The complexity of any organism is beyond comprehension, and it's blueprinted on DNA. That is another incredible discovery that had Darwin known about it, he might not have published his theory.

[waldoistwisted]

Darwin discovered natural selection not hereditay genes. Eugenics is artificial selection, not natural selection, (so nothing to do with darwins findings). Complexity isnt beyond comprehension. People have mapped out and decoded DNA. Mutations occur in EVERY species. We know from hereditary genes tht these r passed on. If this mutation is beneficial fr survival, with limited resources, those with the variation will have more chance of survival. Over a long period those without it will die out.

[courageousjake]

Recently a group of scientists released 8 lizards onto an Italian island. When they came back 36 years later, the lizards had a "new" valve in their stomach to aid plant digestion. This cecal valve is hailed as a 'mutation'. However, just like EVERY other example of mutations, under close scrutiny it fails:

"the writers were cautious enough to say that the changes in the lizards may be due to phenotypic plasticity".

In other words, the environment triggered unexpressed genes to be expressed

[waldoistwisted]

One experiment and one cautious conclusion does not disprove gene mutation. If these mutations are beneficial then they will be more likely to reproduce, due to hereditary passing on of those genes. E.g. the way that disease can 'mutate' and grow immune to anti-biotics; growth in the dark by Chlamydomomas; the 10,000 generation study by D, Sneider of bacteria; Penguins losing their ability to fly; Whales still have the bones frm wen they were land mammals, fossil evidence for these

[EminemBase]

Religion is a pile of shite and it deserves NO respect.

I'm sick of this automatic heightened respect people buy into, even atheists, it's bizarre.

It's this weird conditioning that's been padded through society over centuries and it needs to end now. This movie certainly helped as are things like "The God Delusion" etc. Now.

[EminemBase]

Religious people OFFENDED. Fuck off. How about I'm offended by the constant preaching and moral highgrounds or the cunts in towels bombing each other and US over bits of land because their "god" wants them too.

It's complete insanity. If one person believed in God, they'd be locked up. But because it's wishful thinking and "comforting" < I don't know why, to weakminded people, they buy into it and so do the rest of society in thinking.

[EminemBase]

you shouldn't OFFEND THEIR faith. Bite a bullet. Fucking twisted thinking.

It just shows the absolute irrational, weak, twisted, sick nature of religion and its thinking. They cannot take ANY criticism because they know it's bullshit themself and so have to constantly fool themself.

Go ahead and make fun of Evolution. Pretty hard. Religion needs to end now. All it's ever caused is death and it's utterly pointless and retarded.

[courageousjake]

Atheism has killed more people than "religion" if you can even claim that. But you would equate killing of innocent people by Hitler or Stalin or Mao Tse-Tung, to people killed in religious wars. For pure murder, not warfare (which isn't murder), nothing even comes close to atheism. Which is perfectly logical, since they don't believe in human value or repurcussions to their actions.

[waldoistwisted]

Wow out-dated argument. Firstly Hitler was roman catholic. Don't you think that the nazi's doing the killings were religious? hmm.

Secondly Stalin had backing of the russian orthodox church. Stalinism is almost a pseudoreligious way of thinking anyway. Plus these ppl didnt do these things in the name of atheism. see the comparison?

And dont u think tht says something abt theists, that they're only good cos of repercussions? Whereas atheists are moral regardless.

[courageousjake]

Hitler was not Catholic! Read a bit and you'll see he was atheist. Atheists like to kill theists when they get the power. Stalin was backed by the church he persecuted? He was backed by them as he put them to death?? Over 100,000 monks and nuns were shot during the purges of 19371938. Logic my friend, logic please! Cure your misconceptions before writing these things.

[waldoistwisted]

*Sigh* Hitler WAS roman catholic who had backing from the pope, probably for his anti-semitic views. Stalin didnt kill people BECAUSE he was an atheist, it was political. Whereas people kill BECAUSE they are religious, i.e. Islamic extremists.

[courageousjake]

Could you cite something, anything, that shows Hitler was a Roman Catholic? I've read enough about him to know he was not Christian. If he worshipped anythign it was the Aryan race.

Stalin killed his own, powerfless people because of their religious beliefs. Also known as murder.  He killed people for other political reasons too. And for rascist reasons, since brown people aren't as 'evolved' as white.

When he had use of religion, during WWII, suddenly he was a "friend of religion".

[waldoistwisted]

I wonder if you've read mein kampf, i quote, by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord".

In 1941 he told his generals, I am now, as before, a Catholic and will always remain so.

Stalin killed indiscriminately.

Challenge:

Name one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been done by a nonbeliever. Now think of an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith? The second question is easy to answer, is it not?

[courageousjake]

Yes, Hitler did use religious rhetoric sometimes, but there was a difference between his personal writings and those meant for public consumption. Like Stalin, he played politics with religion, possibly to bring onboard Germany's religious (Martin Luther prescribed the Final Solution hundreds of years beforehand).

[courageousjake]

I will also quote Wikipedia: "The leader of the Hitler Youth stated "the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognized as a purpose of the National Socialist movement" from the start, but "considerations of expedience made it impossible" publicly to express this extreme position."

[waldoistwisted]

Precisely, who do you think was carrying out the atrocities? Dont you think the average German was christian at the time? Oh and with the backing of the protestand and catholic churches justifying it.

[courageousjake]

As for your challenge, Jesuit monks in South America gave their lives to defend the natives they had converted there. Watch "The Mission" with De Niro for a great expose on this piece of history. It's the greatest film you've never seen, atheists can love it too. Now, would religiously faithless people walk into gunfire for some moral principal? No, they would call that insanity. And maybe from your perspective it is, but the actions of the monks will never be forgotten, and are saintly.

[waldoistwisted]

I have seen it. I try not to get my historical knowledge from De Niro films. You dont think that atheists who run into burning buildings to save others, or maybe sacrificing ones life in war times, risking ones life to save Jews couldnt be performed by atheists? Many of the founding fathers would be considered atheists, strange they managed to write the constitution with such immorality. And you ask who would walk into gun fire for moral principle? How about WW2 for democracy and freedom.

[courageousjake]

Agnostics recognize that millions of people have seen miraclulous things, and discounting them all is illogical. Agnostics also see the human being as something unique and singular in nature, and evolution does not answer the many questions about our make-up and actions.

[waldoistwisted]

So when someone has a miracle, (lets just leave statistical likelihood and coincidence out for ease) and they 'see' the virgin mary, whereas someone 'sees' krishna. Well at least one is wrong... People also see ghosts, or think they've been abducted. Sometimes ppl will attribute statistical improbable events to a god. Not the BILLIONS of events which happen every moment, where you'd EXPECT something unlikely to happen.

[courageousjake]

Yeah lots of people lie to get attention. They lie abotu seeing Jesus, they lie abotu ghosts, UFOs, the Virgin Mary, all true. All liars suck, we agree. But, in some cases you cannot discount things as lies so easily. For instance, when 30-40,000 people witness something supernatural and testify to it, and many of those people were there to scoff. Professors of science were there, and they said the same thing the "religious wackos" did. Now that is not so easily dismissed.

[waldoistwisted]

Yes some lie and others dont 'lie' They genually believe they've witnessed god, or krishna, or mohammed. Im just demonstrating tht the human mind is nt entirly rational all the time. So these 'miracles' are 'delusions and illusions'. When have 30'-40,000 ppl witnessed this supernatural event?

[courageousjake]

the miracle of the sun at fatima, portugal, 1917.

[waldoistwisted]

Eye witness testimony is very doubtful, see Loftus for studies performed. Strange how no-one 40km seen the sun do such a thing, these people of course not involved in the media frenzy at the time. Isn't better to understand what it was using science than to claim it a 'miracle'. E.g. A sundog, where astonishment, fear, exaltation and imagination must have played roles in both the observing and the retelling of a natural phonomenon

[courageousjake]

No, that is exactly what people saw 40km off! Independant people saw the same thing, but here's the rub: not every one at the scene saw what the others did. Yes wikipedia will say skeptically that it 'might have been a sundog', but that is ridiculous, and a professor of natural science was there and wrote his account, as did reporters there to scoff at the unrealized prophecy they came to witness.

[waldoistwisted]

A professor of natural science in 1917 probably didnt have the same grasp of EM scales in those days. Many people claim that it was a UFO sighting, but misinterpreted cos of cultural differences. Just because lots of people without scientific understanding, mixed with mass hysteria and the thought of retributed denial see a natural phonomenon it does not mean that it was a God! It like someone seeing the aurora borealis and claiming its god. Until they are reminded tht its actually solar winds.

[EminemBase]

Wow 6 parts. This is long.

American interviews or... Interviews in general from the 70's seemed to be richer, more well done and more intelligent. And hence more interesting.

Most stuff is so watered down now. I say this as if I'm 70, I'm 19 but still, I can see the transaction from Top to Tacky.

[Gost88888]

thanks, it is very interesting

[punkmanjon]

John is so articulate. I love him. Best british comic of all time.

[stuntbaby63]

Cleese said, "Look. We know what American network television is like, that you will want to edit them [the Python TV shows]..." He and the others were offended when ABC went against their wishes and reimagined their performances in less-than-complimentary ways. To me, this is pretty much the same complaint of Christians. The Pythons took the stuff of faith and played fast and loose with what it all meant. They snipped out this, pasted it with that, stepped on punchlines, offending millions.

[dabble778]

This is a real gem. Thanks for putting this up :-)

[121o121]

Compare Dick Cavett to the idiot women on "The View"; Montel Williams; Maury Povich; Jerry Springer; Carson Daly; Oprah Winfrey; etc.

Age discrimination and pandering to cretins keeps many entertaining, educated elders off the air.

We miss you on TV, Mr. Cavett.