The Pope Thread [UK visit 2010 - merged]

[Sirius]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11180862

Some 77% of Britons think taxpayers should not help pay for Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Scotland and England.

Putting aside the Religious side of this visit , Is the Pope the leader in the Vatican and therefor his visit would be classed as the visit of a sovereign states leader ???.

Would there be the same uproar if it was Obama or Sarkozy. Personally i feel most of those asked for there opinion gave it based on the religious side of the visit. I am not a religious person but even i can see we have to treat the Pope the same as any other leader that visits this country ?.

Personally i say we pay up just like any other visit. We would expect that other countries provide the security needed when our Prime minister or Queen visits there country and therefor why should we be different when we are visited by a world leader or statesman.

The Pope is due to arrive on 16 September, the first papal visit since Pope John Paul II's 1982 trip.

The cost of the trip to UK taxpayers, previously estimated at £8m, could rise to between £10m and £12m.

The Catholic Church is also expected to make a contribution of between £9m and £10m towards the costs, which do not include an expected multi-million pound bill for policing the visit.

A Government spokesman said: "The Holy See is an internationally-recognised nation with significant influence across the world, while the Catholic Church has a billion adherents.

"The Pope is visiting at the invitation of the Queen. It is right and proper that the British Government should pay a share of the costs of the visit."

I did not start this thread to have yet another boring religious fight just because you can and if that's all you can contribute then stay out of the thread and start your own. This is a thread about the visit of a sovereign state leaders visit and why some seem to think the public should not be paying for his visit.

[Russ]

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Whilst I have little time for the Pope he is a head of state however because some people are rabidly anti-religion they don't want any of their taxes going towards the visit.

There is another side to this however. From something I heard on the radio a few weeks ago, some people seem to be against us funding his visit due to the Vatican's apparent lack of action against priests and bishops suspected of sexual abuse.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Russ

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Whilst I have little time for the Pope he is a head of state however because some people are rabidly anti-religion they don't want any of their taxes going towards the visit.

There is another side to this however. From something I heard on the radio a few weeks ago, some people seem to be against us funding his visit due to the Vatican's apparent lack of action against priests and bishops suspected of sexual abuse.

My personal view on this is that he is a leader and religion should take no part in the decision on funding. I can see why some would be upset of the allegations of abuse and i think they have not gone far enough to deal with it but those allegations should be dealt with separately to his visit.

You know me and religion but in this case i do believe it has NO bearing on a state visit and its just another reason for some to stick the knife in.

I have no problem with some of my taxes going to fund this visit.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Russ

There is another side to this however. From something I heard on the radio a few weeks ago, some people seem to be against us funding his visit due to the Vatican's apparent lack of action against priests and bishops suspected of sexual abuse.

I agree with that one. it might not be religion being the reason why some think it shouldn't be funded. infact the religious side of it hadn't even crossed my mind.

then it might be because we are supposed to be cutting back but the money we're saving is being spent on this kind of thing.

---------- Post added at 09:11 ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 ----------

Originally Posted by Sirius

My personal view on this is that he is a leader and religion should take no part in the decision on funding. I can see why some would be upset of the allegations of abuse and i think they have not gone far enough to deal with it but those allegations should be dealt with separately to his visit.

You know me and religion but in this case i do believe it has NO bearing on a state visit and its just another reason for some to stick the knife in.

I have no problem with some of my taxes going to fund this visit.

Has anybody said that it's because of religion, or is it just you thinking it's because of that? I think it's more to do with the abuse and just the money side of it.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Gary L

Has anybody said that it's because of religion....

Yes.

According to one of their own press releases:

"In March 2010 The National Secular Society delivered a 28,000 name petition to the Prime Minister (Gordon Brown) objecting to any state funding of what is, in essence, a religious activity."

[Peter_]

It is a state visit and no precedent has been set as we have had a previous visit where we even provided popemobiles for the popes protection.

I am not in the slightest bit religious and personally have no issue with his visit as it will have no impact on my life.

[Kymmy]

Not wanting to go too far down this path but he is a non-democratic head of a religious enclave (not political country or sovereign state) As head he is voted in by people that the previous pope has appointed..

Most others in this situation wouldn't be recieved as a head of state or a nation as he is in fact neither

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Yes.

According to one of their own press releases:

In the Theos survey, some 76% also rejected taxpayer funding for the visit on the grounds that the Pope was a religious figure.

Strange how things change with time. before I don't think anyone could care less.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Not wanting to go too far down this path but he is a non-democratic head of a religious enclave (not political country or sovereign state) As head he is voted in by people that the previous pope has appointed..

Most others in this situation wouldn't be recieved as a head of state or a nation as he is in fact neither

Kymmy, That may well be your opinion however the facts of the matter (and I have no love for the man or his church) are that the vatican state - not the vatican but the state thereof - is a recognised sovereign state based on a monarchial democracy and recognised as such universally in international law.

The Queen of England (another whom many consider to be a burden on the UK tax payer) invited him in his capacity as the head of that particular state.

Hmm! Shame on them if that's the only consideration..Especially as we are bound to be meeting and greeting some real SOBs who are heads of state in the future.

If they they don't protest about them then we will know the real reason is just about religion..and I've no truck with such behaviour.

[Kymmy]

The popes as much a head of state as Paddy Roy Bates and I don't see him being invited by the queen..

I'm sure that the Italian goverment would agree if they actually got themselves a stable non-corrupt goverment..

Yet another govermental appeasment being issued through our monarchy

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Not wanting to go too far down this path but he is a non-democratic head of a religious enclave (not political country or sovereign state) As head he is voted in by people that the previous pope has appointed..

Most others in this situation wouldn't be recieved as a head of state or a nation as he is in fact neither

vatiˈka(ː)no]),[12] which translates literally as "State of the City of the Vatican", is a landlocked sovereign city-state whose territory consists of a walled enclave within the city of Rome, the capital city of Italy. It has an area of approximately 44 hectares (110 acres), and a population of just over 800.[5][13]

---------- Post added at 10:08 ---------- Previous post was at 10:06 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy J

If they don't protest about them then we will know the real reason is just about religion..and I've no truck with such behaviour.

Indeed

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

The Queen of England (another whom many consider to be a burden on the UK tax payer) invited him in his capacity as the head of that particular state.

I realise I'm risking my sanity by attempting to correct Mr Angry here, but there hasn''t been a 'Queen of England' for about 300 years,

</pedantic mode>

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Russ

I realise I'm risking my sanity by attempting to correct Mr Angry here, but there hasn''t been a 'Queen of England' for about 300 years,

</pedantic mode>

Now this should be fun

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

The popes as much a head of state as Paddy Roy Bates and I don't see him being invited by the queen..

I'm sure that the Italian goverment would agree if they actually got themselves a stable non-corrupt goverment..

Yet another govermental appeasment being issued through our monarchy

You may not like it Kymmy but those are the facts. He is the head of a legitimate and universally (not just Italian) recognised state.

Nor is it governmental appeasement through the monarchy. Constitutionally the Queen, in her capacity as both the monarch and the head of the Church of England, could have refused to issue or endorse the visit had she wanted to.

The fact is that she didn't.