Pope

Maybe it was "The Tatch" on a practice run :)

Dear oh dear,
A lot of people appear to be getting somewhat het up over the visit of the pontiff. Whether you're a Catholic or not, he is a head of state and must be afforded the same hospitality as any other head of state.
Some posters appear to oppose the visit or funding thereof because of the recent church scandals and a veiled dislike of organised religion (particularly Christianity)
I wonder if those self same posters would kick up such a fuss if Premier Hu Jin Tao of China were to visit the U.K at our expense. After all, he does lead a political and military machine which suppresses human rights and has kicked the living bejaysus out of Tibet for the last 50 years. Or how about various leading Islamic imams who spout the most vile anti-semitic and anti-western bile from their mosques on a daily basis. I think not.
You see, to criticise Western and Judeo-Christian leaders and institutions is just soooo fashionable among the chattering classes but they don't dare criticise various global tinpot dictators and crackpot religious leaders, as long as they say "Death to the West" on a daily basis. It's combination of white middle-class guilt coupled with a mistaken belief that "East is good, West is bad" and if we do something nasty, we are just downright evil, whereas if they do something nasty, it's "their culture" and we just don't understand. How thoroughly patronising.

Imams aren't state leaders. People DO protest when e.g. the Chinese premier comes over here. And, as I said upthread, TPs position as a state leader is comparable to that of the PM of Andorra, but I doubt we make so much fuss over him/her.

His significance drives from being a church leader

Excuse ME Stewie, I have no trouble whatever criticising Robert Mugabe or (at the time bythe way) horrible Tabu Mbeke, nor am I keen to pay for a visit from the president of the DRC, nor Mr. Ahmendinajhad...we happen to be discussing the POPE on this thread. We can talk about other dictators or people of whom we disapprove or with whom we take issue if you wish. I hope you will note that in MY post I said I was opposed to ALL religions (Eastern, Western, whatever) because of the dissent they seem to engender. And if the Vatican is a "state"...er...well...it does indeed have such a moniker, but to call it such is a bit far fetched. We arent trying here to encourage exports or establish trade relations or defence treatys after all...

Ivanhoe, is it the cost to the taxpayer that's twisting your pretzel or the fact that it's the pope?
The holy father is here at the invitation of then prime-minister Gordon Brown; that makes it a state visit and as such funded by the tax payer. If it was envisaged that the prime minister of Andorra would attract crowds of hundreds of thousands of people whilst here, then the state would have to provide accordingly.
Would you object so vociferously if the Dalai Lama were visting and was being feted by the leading political figures in the u.k (as he has done in the past)? After all, he's just a "church leader" and he doesn't even have a country.

Jackie, your criticism of various tinpot dictators is laudable and I was in no way trying to suggest that all critics of the Pope's visit are hypocritical guardianistas.
Your views on what constitutes a "state" is somewhat irrelevant. The Vatican is recognised as a state , the head of said state was invited by the British P.M and accepted. It is therefore a state visit. I'm not exactly cock-a-hoop about the taxpayer having to foot a £15 million bill, but blame the rules of international protocol, not the pontiff. There are plenty of other things that Britain wastes millions on, yet I hear not a peep on this board. For example, the U.K currently sends approx £400 million pounds in aid to India every year. A country that is currently launching multi-million pound rockets to survey the moon! Now that is obscene.

Stewie,
Please see my postings on 'Chatter' 8/6/10 and 30/7/10.
re the 'World Cup.' Where were you when I needed an ally?

Ahhh... My link to Tim Minchin's pope song appears to have been removed.

So here's a link to another link instead:
Warning: contains profuse swearing.
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2010/04/tim_minchin_-_p.html

Alternatively, one can google it rather easily and it's actually rather good.

Gwynaethva wrote:

Ahhh... My link to [deleted]'s pope song appears to have been removed.
So here's a link to another link instead:
Warning: contains profuse swearing.
[deleted]
... it's actually rather good.

That's not "profuse swearing", it's nothing but swearing, and it's not "rather good", it's the sort thing one made up as a 13 year old having just discovered swear words!

Stewie Griffin wrote:

Ivanhoe, is it the cost to the taxpayer that's twisting your pretzel or the fact that it's the pope?
The holy father is here at the invitation of then prime-minister Gordon Brown; that makes it a state visit and as such funded by the tax payer. If it was envisaged that the prime minister of Andorra would attract crowds of hundreds of thousands of people whilst here, then the state would have to provide accordingly.
Would you object so vociferously if the Dalai Lama were visting and was being feted by the leading political figures in the u.k (as he has done in the past)? After all, he's just a "church leader" and he doesn't even have a country.

Hello Stewie

I don't care if he's a catholic, or whatever religion he represents. All I'm trying to do is to provide a counterpoint to the angels-on-a-pinhead sort of skewed reasoning that keeps insisting that this is a state visit.

Yes, it is true that TP is head of the Vatican. In the same way that our Queen is head of the armed forces (and, for all I know, she's also patron of the Royal College of Physicians). However, when said Queen goes to another country, it's not a military (or medical) visit. It's a visit of the Queen.

TP's role as head of a "state" (a "state" with a population of less than 1000 people, and a total size smaller than a large wheatfield) is entirely irrelevant, and I think it's ridiculous to keep banging on about it and insisting that "it's a state visit".

I think TP should be treated pretty much entirely the same as Mr Lama (iirc, I've said precisely that upthread). Which means I'd be very happy to see him in lots of meetings with government bods to talk about ways in which the religion he leads is impacting on world politics and foreign affairs.

They could talk about the way his religion colluded with the police in Ireland to cover up abuse, or about the way his religion and its attitude to condoms is a barrier (sorry) to preventing the spread of HIV in Africa, for example. I'd consider that to be Govt. money well spent.

But since TP is basically here to hold religious services, and to edge Cardinal Newman one step closer to sainthood, I can't really accept that the "state" element of his visit has any great importance.

But I can't wait for you to point out that he'll be spending 10 minutes with David Cameron and so it MUST be a state visit...