• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Pope's visit to Britain

cover drive man

Well-known member
Yes despite the child sex abuse scandal (although scandal doesn't even begin to describe the seriousness of it) as well as growing mistrust and criticism for the church, Pope Benedict XVI is visiting Britain. Thoughts?
 

PhoenixFire

Well-known member
He can visit here if he wants, I don't care about that, I'm just vehemently opposed to it being a state-funded visit.
 

cover drive man

Well-known member
He can visit here if he wants, I don't care about that, I'm just vehemently opposed to it being a state-funded visit.
Hmm.


I'd hate it if he started a big rant on homosexuality/contraception/abortion and protests get out of hand. But I think (or at least I hope) he's too rational to do that.
 

PhoenixFire

Well-known member
Yeah I don't think he'd be so stupid to do that. I don't really see why we, the British public should have to pay for the security of an unelected religious leader, who happens to be the head of a corrupt state, and who also has such lamentable record on harbouring paedophiles, homosexuality and the use of condoms in Africa.
 

cover drive man

Well-known member
Awta.

Coincidentally a teacher said to me today that most of the people in the world believe in god. Er, well I don't think 100 percent of the (approximately) billion people who have been christened catholic are devout believers, in fact I'd go as far to say a rather large percentage of them (like myself) don't even think about the fact that they've been christened catholic.

So, if I went down the street after winning a grand on a bet (Which will never happen, unfortunately :() And a catholic fund-raising event was going on and a nice old woman asked me could I spare any change would I give a donation? Well firstly there are four options for me (let's assume I wouldn't mind losing up to 100 pound) :

1) Give a good donation.
2) Give very little spare change, say 20p or something, pretending that's all I have.
3) Say I've got no money and walk on.
4) Directly Refuse

Now, options 2 and 3 do come across as quite devious and people pleasing, but again let's assume the only reason I won't pay is out of an ethical viewpoint. As for saying "I don't want to give any money to your church as I'm morally against it." I'd say that's quite cruel considering (without stereotyping too much) it is a nice old lady and a religious debate, especially with me not knowing her, could cause problems, so we'll rule out option 4.

In deciding to go with option one, I would have to do it because I think it's going to a good cause, I'd never even consider giving £100 to a charity I didn't like out of my own free will. In a sense it could be going to a good cause, it could be going to an aids research facility, humanitarian work etc at the same time it might be going towards a children's home where terrible crimes are committed or perhaps other nasty, in fact evil, underbellies of the church. And I certainly don't want to finance abuse. Although the money may go to a genuinely good cause I'm still funding what has become a very unjust organisation, I'm not trying to offend any catholics that's just how I feel.

Option two, I would be giving a donation but only a very minor one which would buy a few jellies if that, but at the same time I'm contributing to what I think is an unjust organisation. Someone might see me (a random fella) donating and feel encouraged to donate themselves and who knows? They might have ten grand in their pocket. But I wouldn't rule this out, mainly for the old woman's sake.

I'd probably say 3 is the favourite followed by 2 then (by quite a distance) 4 then 1. Polite (if slightly devious) and not betraying my moral judgement (although I'm not god so the idea of me "making judgements" is quite arrogant tstl)



Anyway, that might be slightly irrelevant, but that's my views on the church, I might amplify on this later but, me be tired.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
An absolute disgrace that he's been afforded a state visit.

In the last couple of years this government has refused to allow an American Evangelical preacher into the country on the basis of his abhorrent views on homosexuality, yet we not only allow the Pope, who has equally repugnant views on homosexuality and a reprehensible record when it comes to paedophile priests, to visit the country, we roll out the red carpet for him.
 

Uppercut

Well-known member
Feel the same as PF.

Don't care if he visits, we already have plenty of turds in the UK, but using public money to pay for it? Whose idea even was that?
 

PhoenixFire

Well-known member
Same as any head of state isn't it
He's a head of state, but that doesn't mean that he should be afforded the luxury of a state visit. Firstly, he isn't a democraticaly elected head and doesn't represent the people of the Vatican and secondly, it's hardly what you'd call a normal state that warrants the same circumstances as say, France or Italy. And that doesn't even take into account everything else about the man.
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
I'd be more concerned about the UK channelling billions of pounds of taxpayers money into a war that most people there didn't want in the first place, rather than it being used for an old guy to go around in a bulletproof golf cart, but thats neither here nor there :)
 

cpr

Well-known member
Yeah I don't think he'd be so stupid to do that. I don't really see why we, the British public should have to pay for the security of an unelected religious leader, who happens to be the head of a corrupt state, and who also has such lamentable record on harbouring paedophiles, homosexuality and the use of condoms in Africa.
Thought Bush had left the White House?
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Yeah I don't think he'd be so stupid to do that. I don't really see why we, the British public should have to pay for the security of an unelected religious leader, who happens to be the head of a corrupt state, and who also has such lamentable record on harbouring paedophiles, homosexuality and the use of condoms in Africa.
Thought Bush had left the White House?
Bush has two out of those three. The pope hits the trifecta. Aren't there strict laws in the UK against libel? I wonder if a condom company can sue him for flat out just factually lying about their effectiveness. I mean, I might be mistaken but I thought there was something in the Bible against lying too.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Anyway, this is annoying but I wouldn't care much even if it wasn't the US - wasn't Mugabe also allowed a visit on state funds? Plus the UK also has an official religion, so it may make sense to allow other religious leaders to visit for free.
 

Uppercut

Well-known member
But it's phrased although we're somehow obstructing them from doing something, when we're just saying we'd rather not pay 20 million quid for an old man nobody likes to come visit in the middle of some of the biggest spending cuts in the country's history.
 
Top