NopePope!

[smokingboot]

So are we broke or are we not?

http://www.secularism.org.uk/protests-planned-for-pope-visit.html

I don't want to pay for the pope to visit. Even if he wasn't anti-gay, anti-womens rights, anti-contraception, even if he wasn't the champion of an institution with a conscious policy of keeping mankind in in servile ignorance for hundreds of years, while I would never stop him coming to Britain, I see no reason to pay for him. Cos apparently, we have no money. He has lots.

Don't get me wrong - I don't think we should be paying for Brenda pick-nose either, or HRH the man who would be tampon - but at least they don't spout. Or if they do, it's not (excuse the pun) treated as gospel. I'm not discriminating against him particularly - I would feel the same of any iman who wanted to talk about forcing women behind the veil, any hindu who suggested that suttee was a fine idea, any buddhist who claimed that Gautama was perfect because he was neither crippled, nor a woman*. I'm all for free speech. You can say what you want to say, let me pay what I want to pay - absolutely nothing.

*I've come across every single one of these views, this last in a very sacred and respected gompah in Nepal. The major religions of the world really don't like girls.

Comments

[ed-fortune.livejournal.com]

Don't Heads of State get a free lunch though? Isn't that how these things are done?

(Hmm, there's a thing: Our Head of State and Head of Executive are seperate entitys, so does that mean Brown should pay his own expenses when he does foreign visits...)

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

I think you are right about heads of state and the free lunch. I still haven't worked out what a head of state is for...embodying a nation's 'personality?/ideals?' Not being sarcastic at all, I genuinely don't know what they do. Regarding Gordo, if there was some kind of fund for keeping him abroad once he goes, I might chip in...

[ed-fortune.livejournal.com]

Heads of State represent the interests of a nation as a whole, rather than a current politic agenda. They're to mantain the principles of the nation, which includes ensuring continuity and legitimacy.

This is why I'm pro-monarchy: Reform the way it's funded, by all means, but having someone trained from the ground-up to be above the political process and a servant of the people. is, in my opinion, a good idea.

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

I'm into meritocracy big time. Training people from the ground up doesn't mean they are any good at the given task, as Philip demonstrates. Sure they may become adept, but they'll never hit the heights of someone with natural ability given brilliant training.

Continuity, I don't understand, are we saying that without monarchs there is no Great Britain? Ollie Cromwell gives the lie to that. Legitimacy - does that mean that if the queen doesn't like it, it isn't law? Sounds like dictatorship to me.

And he who was trained for the role, what has her maj taught her son, what does he embody that is an abiding principle of our nation? What has he learned, 'from the ground up?' This man who would be 'Prince of all faiths' yet cannot keep even his own faith with wife, god and kingdom, perjuring his troth on his wedding day? What manner of embodiment is this? What kind of training have we paid for? if his principles are found wanting, what does that imply for she who should have been his example?

In his defence and hers, I am not sure any human being could ever embody the spirit of a nation - even presuming that such a thing exists as a sole unifying flame. But if we do expect anyone to be the living embodiment of our ideals and beliefs, we should at least be clear of what those beliefs are. Torn foxes and a cup of tea won't do it for me.

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

I should have added that I respect your rights to disagree with me and express those views! Subjectively, this is something I consider a quintessential part of the nation's 'character', currently under threat from political agenda. I wait to see if our Head of State defends that ideal.

[ed-fortune.livejournal.com]

Broadly, I'm in favour of seperating State from Executive. I'd also like to see Church and State seperated as well, mind you.

I suspect we'll both be fascinated when HRH Betty finally falls off the throne. What happens next, I honestly have no idea, but I hope it's through informed and deliberate choice, rather than the wisdom of crowds.

[blackcurrants.livejournal.com]

Ooh, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I needed a bit of rage to get me moving this morning!

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

Glad it roused you! I could rant on about Religion and the suppression of women for a long long time...

[nyarbaggytep.livejournal.com]

The major religions of the world really don't like girls.
I think that's less about the religions, and more about the men in charge on the religions. I seem to remember Christ getting into some trouble over his outrageously liberal view that women are people too, and Mohammed had good relations with women on an equal basis too, etc.

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

Christ does indeed seem to have been very liberal, and I would love to have met him - but Paulianity is by no means as tolerant. Re Mohammed, again, I would love to have heard his inspiration from his own mouth, and I have read bits and pieces that agree with what you say. But then there's that bit in the Koran which decries women as having weaker intellects, though warning that one shouldn't beat them 'too much.' However, I may be at fault here, having read too little of the Koran.

for me, the warning is not to treat religions as accurate reflections of their founding teachers.

[nyarbaggytep.livejournal.com]

I think there are three aspects to religion.
1 - a genuine attempt to understand and explore spirituality
2 - law codes to make society function
3 - power grabbing

The people who get to be in charge of religions (and many other things) largely appear to be entirely interested in 3, maybe a bit in 2 as long as it supports 3 and entirely not in 1.

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

I suspect you are entirely right.

I recall reading a couple of early gnostic texts, the gospel of Thomas and Mary Magdalene, and it seems as though Mary had plenty of ideas about the Christ's teachings - but she seems to have seen it as a Mystery religion. The problem with such teachings is that they are so intensely personal they don't translate as authority over the many. Peter and others appear to have had major problems with it.

[cat-that-walks.livejournal.com]

A lot of the religions round that time (around 40 CE) were Mystery religions, for example Isis, Demeter, Dyonysus, Orpheus and of course Mithras.
Given how Hellene Palestine was at the time it`s unsurprising Christianity could have started out that way before being corrupted by Paul and the other churchianity leaders. Peter and co especially do not seem to have been in the inner circle given how often they apparantly didn`t understand what Christ was on about.

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

There certainly seems to have been a lot of resentment about what Mary knew and they didn't regarding Christ's teachings, pretty much paraphrased as 'Would he have told a woman this, and not told us?'

One can only wonder what shape the teachings of Christ would have taken if they had retained the structure of a mystery religion rather than Paul's vision.

[cat-that-walks.livejournal.com]

At a guess I`d say a lot less structured.

[lucyas.livejournal.com]

Totally agree - much better things to spend money on