Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
I don't think he does - as with many of this country's highly intelligent and articulate atheists, when asked to comment on religious issues he can't help but dissolve into spluttering disapproval.
He, of all people, I should have expected to be able to articulate why he thinks the Pope shouldn't have had a State reception today. Unfortunately when it came to the crunch his argument boiled down to 'he shouldn't get one because it's self evident that the Vatican isn't a State'. Sadly for him and those who think like him, international law doesn't hold that assertion to be self evident.
And I'd be very careful about decrying something due to its status being an 'accident of history' - most of the British constitution is an accident of history, yet I don't hear Stephen Fry demanding a revolution.
|
While that's a fair point, I thought the observation that if the Vatican is a state, it is best described as an Autocratic Monarchy an interesting one. Should we see the pope's invitation as a head of state as UK endorsement of Autocratic Monarchy* as a form of Government?
*An autocratic monarchy that is seen by many as failing to act on widespread child abuse in its ranks at that.