Obscene anti-Catholic video created by professional animator

Fraser Davidson,  Head of Motion Graphics at Mainframe, a London Based studio, has directed and animated an obscene anti-Catholic video for Tim Minchin’s ‘Pope Song’ available on Youtube.

Fraser and Minchin’s video not only obscenely insults Pope Benedict XVI, but also obscenely insults Our Lord and Our Lady.

According to his website, Fraser Davidson has done work for companies such as Sony, MTV, BBC, Nickleodeon, Nike and Guinness.  This work includes creating TV adverts, music videos and channel branding working.

http://www.fraserdavidson.co.uk/

Tim Minchin releases his material through Universal Pictures UK, among others.

Protect the Pope.com feels its important to point out that none of the above companies are in any way involved in, or associated with, ‘Pope Song’, which is solely  produced and released by Fraser Davidson and Tim Minchin.

This extreme example of anti-Catholicism has had nearly 450,000 hits on Youtube (July 2010)  since it was released in April 2010.

Protect the Pope has posted a link to the Youtube video on its Anti-Catholicism section with the following caution:

WARNING: MINCHIN & DAVIDSON’S ‘POPE SONG’ IS EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE AND USES VERY OBSCENE LANGUAGE AND IMAGES. DO NOT LET CHILDREN VIEW IT.

Protect the Pope.com recommends that you only view this if you are researching the nature and content of anti-Catholicism.

16 comments to Obscene anti-Catholic video created by professional animator

  • John

    Disgraceful video. Though typical of what we’ve come to expect from these neo-atheists.

    • John,I agree with your assessment of New Atheism. If atheism is so liberating and enlightening why are so many of them foul mouthed, intolerant, violent, and generally lacking in human virtues? Why do so many of them laugh hysterically at the use of obscenities. (Don’t get me wrong, I am sure that there are some thoughtful, well-mannered and pleasant atheists) An example: Professor Dawkins says in front of a auditorium packed with fans, ‘What do you say to some one who says they’re not interested in science? ‘I’d say, ‘Well you can F**** off.’ Professor Dawkins, panel and audience fall over themselves with laughter at the cleverness of his insightful reply. (This edifying example can be seen on Youtube).

  • Anthony

    “If atheism is so liberating and enlightening why are so many of them foul mouthed, intolerant, violent, and generally lacking in human virtues?”

    Atheism is not liberating and enlightening because it is tied to the stale old science of the 19th century. Modern science is revealing that the things we take for granted, such as time and space, are mere approximations of something far more profound. They are not the bedrock of reality as atheists would have us believe. Atheists are fighting a losing battle and they know it. Science which was their close friend is now their bitter enemy, and in their desperation they are striking out wildly at the Church and the Holy Father.

    It is important that we understand that the findings of modern science are increasingly rendering atheism obsolete. As the rational foundations of atheism crumble, all that remains is a violent rage directed against the softest of targets – the Catholic Church.

    • admin

      I assume Anthony you’re referring to the discoveries and hypotheses of Quantum physics. I agree with you that there is something of the 19th century about Dawkins and his associates. They mistake their simplistic models for the complexities of existence. Interesting that something as foul and obscene as Minchins and Davidson’s ‘Pope Song’ has led us to talk about the nature of reality and Quantum physics! Looking into the sewer our minds turn to the stars. Must be the work of the Holy Spirit.

      • Anthony

        “Looking into the sewer our minds turn to the stars.”

        All I am saying is that intellectually atheism is a spent force. Its rational foundation has evaporated under the glare of new science. The only value of atheism nowadays is in refuting the literal interpretations of creationists, and you don’t have to be an atheist to do that. For those Catholics such as myself who believe in theistic evolution, we ought to be grateful that atheists are doing our work for us. The more vigourously they deny literal creationism the more they play into our hands, and that must be a source of great anger and frustration for them.

        In short, atheists have no intellectual answer to Catholicism and whatever efforts they make seem to end up supporting the Catholic Church. They are caught in a web of self-contradiction which can only express itself through the basest of emotions directed against the Church and the Holy Father. As the first poster said, we should not be surprised by such behaviour.

        • admin

          Anthony, please don’t misunderstand I saw your post as a positive and helpful response to the vileness of the Youtube video, that shows in a few words the difference between us and them.

          • Physics is the repetition of experiment in order to test something that can be observed multiple times and the attempt to fit a theories to the results.
            At the macroscopic level it is easy to draw up such models as the geometric way the human eye interprets the macroscopic world reflects what needs to be seen for survival and is easy to see. I say easy – Newtonian mechanics took until the 17th centuary.
            As you go to the subatomic level it becomes clear that viewing the world in this way is a simplification of what is there.
            Things like the Bohr model of the hydrogren atom are not neccessarily reality – they are models which work.
            However, quantum mechanical partical wave duality or quarks are not, as some people would argue, a proof or otherwise of the existence of God.
            They simply are or arent depending on which mathematical model you use – I lost track when it got to 4th degree differential equations.
            Of course physicists being highly intelligent people quickly realised that if you put the word God in a book it sells millions.
            So they did. But really, from a theological point of view, faith should not be reliant on physical proof anyway – or what is the point of it?
            Happy are those that do not see and yet believe… if you postulate a physical world where laws were directly violated by God all the time there would be no theological point in it.

            However, when the other Anthony says “the only purpose of Evolutionary Biologists is to reject Creationism”.
            Let’s turn the arguement around.
            Imagine that you are Richard Dawkins and imagine that you are an Evolutionary Biologist and have spent your whole life researching the subject.
            Would you not think that it is just a little mental that 45% of Americans still claim to believe in Creationist Theology?
            http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
            This despite nearly two thousand of years of theologians repetatively rejecting literal interpretations of Creationist interpretations of theology stretching back almost to before the birth of Christ.
            Even in the UK more than half of people think that creationism should be taught in schools
            http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6889918.ece
            despite the fact it is not the doctrine or theology or teaching of any major Christian denomination.
            In the US the Supreme Court has ruled that the teaching of Creationism in schools is illegal yet people still try to.
            In the UK depsite the Archbishop of Cantebury himself, Dr Rowan Williams, stating unequivocally that creationism has no basis in theology or science and should not be taught in schools there’s still an organisation called Truth in Science distributing misleading literature about it.
            Having to deal with such constant streams of insane disinformation is it any wonder that Professor Dawkins has simply concluded that all religion is bunk.
            But maybe you have more in common with him that you think.

  • Lazy Daisy

    Nick, why did you choose to give these people air space, linking to their You-Tube nonsense, and their mindless school-boy pranks? These people really need to grow up. Why give them them fuel for their fire? It can only make things worse…not better.

    You should not put links to a site which will only relish in the fact it has lots of hits, and from a Catholic website at that! Goodness me it’s enough to have made the Lancashire & Cumbrian Martyrs turn in their graves…

    Actually, I am finding your blog very negative, Nick. Can you not find something positive to report about the Pope’s Visit? Has it all to be gloom and doom?

    If you want to link to a You-Tube video, then here is a great one, and one the children can watch, or rather listen to, without parental control. Genesis

    God bless

    • admin

      Hi Lazy Daisy, I had to think long and hard about posting about Minchin’s and Davidson’s ‘Pope Song’, but one of the purposes of Protect the Pope is to raise awareness of the level of anti-Catholicism in this country in order to challenge it. This stuff is poisoning the minds of 100,000′s of young people, and some of us involved in evangelisation and catechesis need to know about it.

      Yes, this website will be very negative because its been designed to record and challenge anti-Catholicism. I’d prefer to do something else, but someone has to challenge the lies and mendacious propaganda that’s being relentlessly spewed out by enemies of the Church.

  • Caring Sharing Atheist

    You Catholics, always good for a laugh.

    I’d say ‘god bless’, but well..you know.

  • Oh get a life! The last thing any organised religion needs is another witch hunt like the one Stewart Lee was subjected to by Christian Voice.

    The reason the song has so many hits is because
    a) It is entertaining
    b) It sticks to one subject, poses a theological question then attempts to close off all the counter arguements systematically one by one.

    This makes it an extremely powerful and effective piece of satire.
    It’s what atheists should be doing – criticising the flawed human institutions of the Church.
    It is not insulting to the doctrines of the Church.
    Artists are allowed artistic licence to push the boundaries of taste in liberal societies.
    That is what this is doing and it goes as out of its way to separate its criticisms of the institution from any incitements to religious or sectarian hatred as can be reasonably expected.

    It is satire hitting its target. Even if you accept all Pope Benedict’s arguements as to why he, like Macavity, was never there when the “smoking guns” are shown in the same frame as him and all his claims that he has been misrepresented. And to be fair there isnt any convincing evidence connecting him to any particular cover up … the fact remains that the best light the Vatican can put on what happened is “no one cared enough to stop it earlier”. It took till 2001 for the Vatican to centralise child abuse investigations and start getting on top of them. That is slow by anyone’s book.

    This video is not blasphemous or an incitement to religious hatred it is simply fair comment.
    Indeed one kind of wishes all the attacks on the Catholic Church were as cogent and well argued as this one.
    The Pope and the Catholic Church are not above criticism

  • Wow, thanks for the plug guys. Aside from your extreme distaste of the liberal use of the F word, could you please point out to me which lyrics in the song you find so offensive? From my point of view I’ve always thought of Popesong the song as being anti pedophilia and the cover up thereof. Whilst Im a non believer and dont especially think that a man sitting on a literal golden throne is the best representative of the “think not for the morrow” Jesus you all go on about, I would have thought we share some common ground. As moral people, I would have thought that we could at least all agree that child rape and protection of child rapists is inherently evil? But then again, I would also assume that teaching innocent children that they are from birth cursed by the sin of two fictional people living in a remote (also fictional) part of the middle east (was that where the Garden of Eden was?) was a pretty horrific thing to do also.

    • Dylan

      The answers can be found in the lyrics.

      “Means you unthinkingly brand me an unthinking apostate, and this has nowt to do with other * godly *”.
      “I’ve no problem with the spiritual beliefs of all these * while those beliefs don’t impact on the happiness of others.”

      So yes, I’d say Fraser Davidson is correct there, in how Minchin explicitly states that this is an anti pedophilia and the cover up thereof, and nothing to do with faith. “There are other * songs” that deal with faith.

      Anyway, just in case Fraser Davidson looks back in here, I’d just like to say I’m really impressed with your Minchin works, and looked at your stuff and was surprised to see quite how many things I recognised that were due to you. Have a virtual cake on me.

      Finally, it’s not popular because it’s offensive, or because it uses foul language. It’s popular because it’s a well animated movie of a showcase of clever lyrics which fully explain the argument and why it is necessary. The bad language is just a way to get emotion across, as raising ones voice would be. Minchin does not sound angry, so he uses the F word instead. Almost all of the song is even devoted to explaining why he is using bad language, and that he is not attacking faith!

      • An Atheist who Loves Tim Minchin

        Thank you, Dylan, for really listening to the meaning of the song, and for listening to Mr. Davidson.

        People just assume because the animation depicts a pope, and mentions religion, that Tim & Davidson are slandering the Catholic beliefs. If they REALLY LISTENED, then they would realize that Tim & Davidson are just trying to open people’s eyes about the problems in today’s world, whether they relate to religion or not.

        And, being an atheist, I am VERY offended that these Catholics think that they must “challenge” atheists. I am VERY offended to hear them think that all, or at least the majority, of atheists are vulgar, crude, uneducated people. (At least, this is the message that I am picking up from reading the previous comments.) I am frankly disgusted by your views of us. Why must beliefs still get in the way of us respecting each other?!

        Anyway…
        To sum up (and add to) my statements in the first paragraph:

        Tim & Davidson are just trying to use humor to lighten a very serious topic. A topic that is not focused on faith, but that we can all (atheists, Catholics, Christians, etc.) relate to in one way or another.
        I am sure that they did not mean to pin the blame on any particular group or party. They were only trying to make the world wake up!

        Whether you find the film entertaining and/or interesting or not is your opinion. But, I do NOT think that publicly insulting a group with different beliefs than yours is a good way to voice that opinion.

        We should ALL work TOGETHER fight the problems at hand (pedophilia, like the song suggests), instead of creating new upsets because of technicalities.

        I hope one day we will all learn, and open our eyes to the world at large.
        :)

        P.S. Mr. Davidson, I love your work! And if/when you speak to Mr. Minchin again, I hope you tell him that I am inspired by his works and messages every single day. <3

  • Mike Francis

    If atheists are 19th-century thinkers (which I do not concede), they’re still ahead of the Catholic Church, whose thinking is firmly entrenched in the 13th.

  • Virum Iratum

    While I will agree that even the pope is not above criticism (recall Savonarola and Alexander VI), to drop the F-word 75 times and then some is hardly something you would expect from a rational atheist, right? One can dispute Benedict’s manner of handling these cases without entering the realm of calumny or ad hominems.

    I do not see where this video insults Christ or His mother.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>