- He is not the whole catholic religion. You can disapprove of his actions and his beliefs without condemning the entire religious body of catholicism, or christianity in general.
- To hate him is not the same as being intolerant of other people’s beliefs. Objecting to his behaviour and policies is not the same as religious intolerance, even if he uses his warped view of religion to justify his appalling views. Most of the charities and organisations supporting the protest are humanist groups aiming for equal rights and justice.
- He has broken laws. He is a criminal. He has perverted the course of justice in regards to child sex scandals. If you would attack another man for protecting a known paedophile, you are a hypocrite to believe it is ok because he is the Pope.
- He has abused his position of power to influence people to disregard basic human rights. Being gay is not a crime. Trying to remove someone’s human rights because of their sexuality is.
- His continuation of the no-condom policy has directly and indirectly caused rape, child abuse and the spread of HIV and AIDs in third world countries. In the UK we challenge poor sex education in schools, yet because it is not in the Western world we turn a blind eye to this for fear of being intolerant of religious belief. We must give equal concern to atrocities that occur in english speaking countries as those which happen in non-english speaking countries. This NIMBY attitude is not a bit shy of racism, in my opinion.
- He is being honoured not as a religious leader but as a political ally. This is proof of his interference in politics and his arrogance to assume his opinion is inherently more important than other religious leaders and people in general. This is unacceptable. He should have no more or less say than any other citizen of the world. This is what democracy is supposed to be.
- He’s just a man. A man who must take responsibility for his actions, which are offensive on all levels. They are not the actions of all catholics and they should not be tarred by the same brush. The fact I have to make this point suggests that they are. If you’re assuming my attack of the pope is an attack on religious individuals (and they are, by the way, individual, and take responsibility for their beliefs as such), all you’re doing is backing up this point.
- On an economic note, why’re we wasting money flattering this man’s ego instead of investing in our schools and healthcare? My friend in hospital is unable to speak to a nurse after pressing the emergency call button for at least ten-fifteen minutes because of staffing issues. We’re spending 1.5million glorifying this man. You look me in the eye and tell me that money isn’t better spent saving my friend’s life from the terminal illness she’s suffering from.
- Check out his itinerary. It seems he’s mainly visiting catholic schools, churches and other religious figures in the UK. Why does he need state funding to do this, pray tell? If he takes his responsibility seriously, he could do this without our government inviting him or funding it for him. We’re cutting funding for university students, but we’ll happily foot the bill for this. When the Vatican is one of the richest cities for it’s size, why can’t they pay their own way like we’re expecting 20 year olds to do??
- It is infuriating and downright wrong to assume that to attack the pope will hurt the feelings of religious people. Using religious belief as a shield to deflect criticism – the classic and very very tired “You can’t attack my religion because it’s important to me” trash if what I’m referring to here – is nonsense. The man thinks he’s infallible and holy. He is just another human being with a lot of power, he is as open to praise, blame and citicism as you see fit as any other person under the sun. If he cannot defend his beliefs or actions that is his problem. Any mature and responsible christian, or indeed person, should be willing to engage in articulate discussion regarding their beliefs. Those who object to debate on emotional grounds do not get a say in the debate. It is not immature or childish to hold an opinion that is thought out and considered, even if it disagrees with someone else’s.
http://www.thepapalvisit.org.uk/
http://www.protest-the-pope.org.uk/
Advertisement
One quick note – the £1.5 million you mentioned is only the cost of policing his visit. The taxpayer’s contribution is looking to be towards £12 million.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/uk/britains-catholics-rejoice-though-shadow-of-abuse-hangs-over-popes-visit-14949415.html
1. True.
2. You think his views are appalling. That is not the same thing has his views objectively being appalling.
3. Actually, no, he hasn’t. He hasn’t protected criminals, he hasn’t covered up what has happened, he has not protected known paedophiles.
4. Agreed. Although what human rights has he tried to remove from gay people?
5. The no-condom policy does not ’cause’ rape or child abuse. Sadly it has massively helped in the spread of AIDS and the no-condom policy is one I cannot personally condone. But it does not cause rape.
6. Plenty of religious people and religious leaders have political influence. I cannot see that there is anything wrong with this unless you would suppress all religious people and insist that the world is run entirely by atheists?
7. You have yet to give concrete example of offensive things he has done. I may well agree with you when you have.
8. Again, fair enough. But that ‘money-better-spent’ argument could be applied to e.g. government funding of university places, sociological research centres, Sure Start centres, and all kinds of other things too.
9. is basically the same point as 8.
10. I don’t know to whom you’re referring here, but any reasonable person should always be prepared to argue for their beliefs, and to stand up for the beliefs and actions of others where they feel that that is justified.
With regards to the protection of criminals:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/09/pope-benedict-stalled-chi_n_532073.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html
I would say that these stories indicate the Catholic Churches position and response overall but does show that the current pope has had a direct part in at least 2 cases.
I am curious as to how a policy of no-condoms might lead to rape though I do agree that it leads to the spread of sexually transmitted infections, particularly HIV.
with regards to gay rights:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/01/pope-condemns-british-equality-bill
he is arguing that catholic’s religious-based belief that homosexual couples are unsuitable parents (and thus not allow gay couples to adopt) over-rule a homosexual couple’s rights to adopt a child.
8. The argument of “money better spent” could indeed be argued over many points, but I do not see how it can be justified to use UK taxpayers money to pay for a state visit from the pope and all that that entails, when they do not require that financial aid. I don’t believe it would be justified at any time but especially not when this country is in such a poor financial position.
I know that this comment comes a significant time after this was posted and topical but I think the points still stand.