QUOTE (JeffG @ Sep 17 2010, 10:17 AM)
But it shouldn't be - that's what all the fuss is about. The Vatican is not a proper state.
See Stephen Fry:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11316476The coverage of this visit is excessive, to say the least.
Ah, but it is a state whether you or I agree or not. It's a fact. Nobody can change that fact unless they invent time travel. Historically it's one of the very oldest sovereign states.
QUOTE (Jayjay @ Sep 17 2010, 10:31 AM)
I do not have a problem with the visit, but agree he is not a head of state, therefore cannot be state visit, ergo we should not pay for it. The church is a wealthy institution who can well afford to put it's hand in its pocket, especially when it refers to us a 'third world country'. The creed is give to the poor, not take. How many schools would this money have paid for?
It would have possibly paid to upgrade the schools and universities the Catholic Church originally started. They have a long history of supporting education and the dire state of the economy and education in this country is not the Pope's fault.
Your blame on the cost issue is mis-guided. It was not the Pope who chose to visit England on a State Visit. The invitation was granted by previous governments after years of requests and signed off by the Queen no less. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office sanctioned the visit and therefore you comment on creed taking from the poor is a misrepresentation. The angst on cost is a responsibility for the government and queen to carry.
QUOTE (Darren @ Sep 17 2010, 11:13 AM)
This is a state that employ mercenaries....
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbvr0m_shortfilms - you can skip the annoying ad
I like Stephen Fry. He is an extremely intelligent chap and a British stalwart. Unfortunately he does not necessarily speak from a position of impartiality. He has a clear reason to discredit religion. Simply listing one after another the wicked things that have been done in the Church’s name over the centuries is not an argument and I would have expected more from him to be honest.
He failed to mention or list the fact that for nearly three centuries after the Reformation, Catholicism was outlawed in England. An odd thing to miss out given the fact that he advocates an open view to society and each should be allowed to practice faith by any means. He also failed to mention the various post-Reformation laws that barred Catholics from entering London, traveling more than 10 miles home or owning horses worth more than 10 pounds. Equally he fails to mention that the Pope will visit Westminster Hall, the medieval chamber within the Houses of Parliament where the Catholic Thomas More was tried and convicted of treason in 1535. More refused to swear an oath accepting the annulment of King Henry's marriage.
I could quite easily list thousands of historical events which are evil in nature. Each person, country or religion has skeletons in the closet but to bash historical facts is not an argument, it is more an attack.
Thus my points are summarised as:
1) it's a state visit which has been requested and arranged by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the blame for the £12m cost is not something which can be questioned of the Pope.
2) The television coverage and extreme media is not focused on the visit itself. It's more a focus on the recent spate of sex abuse claims within the Catholic Church.
The crimes committed are heinous and those guilty should be punished severely in my view. The head of the Catholic Church has apologised for these cases and has begged forgiveness from God and "from the persons involved, while promising to do everything possible to ensure that such abuse will never occur again."
All of the above is probably moot anyway. Today's news is tomorrow's bin lining....
I'm sure next week we will be back to debating whether Coleen Rooney should forgive Wayne or we'll be watching Raul Moat style live tv-coverage of another horrific incident.