You know what? I thought we'd got past this five years ago.

[davywavy]

I don't know if you noticed, but the UK has recently had a visit from a figure who is, to say the least, quite controverial. Some people consider him to be an ethical and moral authority, but the vast majority look at pretty much everything he's said in the last half-decade with a sinking feeling of dismay at a smug, self-righteous poseur getting the oxygen of publicity.

That's right, I hear Michael Moore was in London for a few days.

But you know what I'm playing at here - the old bait and switch of expectation around the Pope visiting the UK and the somewhat predictable resultant online furure. I actually find it quite depresssing the number of people who I know and consider friends who've gone from being normally intelligent and reasonable folks to, well, not being that over the whole thing. We've even had the old 'pope was a member of the Hitler Youth' line dragged out ad infinitum again, and I swear that the next time someone spouts that old line of crap at me I'm going to go ape bonkers and punch their teeth out through their bottom.
The thing I hate about accusations of and comparisons with Hitler and the Nazis is that it is just incresidibly intellectually lazy shorthand; I'd've hoped that Rik Mayall in the Young ones thirty years ago had shown that up as the vacuous line of argument which it is. What it is basically saying is "I disagree with you but lack the will or ability to formulate an argument, so I'm just going to call you the worst thing I can think of." It's just tiresome. Stop it. I’m very disappointed in everyone who has done so. I thought you were more intelligent than that. All of you.

What's even more tooth-grindingly embarrassing was the open letter from the usual suspects like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Fry in which they "reject the masquerading of the Holy See as a State", pretty much because they don't like orthodox catholicism's views on condoms and homosexuality. Now, I didn't know that one could get away with unilaterally ceasing to recognise states which have things like UN ambassadors and a standing army just because one doesn't like their policies, but if you can then I don't recognise Zimbabwe because Robert Mugabe is a bit of a meanie and, um, hang on... Sweden - yes, Sweden - because, oh, I don't know. Because it's full of pinkoes.
There. That's just as good an argument as any.

There's plenty to disagree with Catholicism about and this sort of posturing does the opposing argument no good whatsoever. Indeed, I'd say that having Richard Dawkins in your corner in any argument about metaphysics makes you look a bit of a twat to the vast majority of 'plague on both your houses' people who just want to get on with their lives.

What's worse is that, reading LJ and FB, a great many people seem to feel that they are in some way morally superior to the Pope. Now with my record, for me to claim moral superiority over pretty much anyone is comedy and I think that’s true of most of the people I know as well. I know what a lot of you have done, you see.
To those who disagree with the Popes moral stance, my suggestion is this: if you feel your personal philosophy can bring greater spiritual peace, succour, and comfort to the poor and dispossessed of the world, then get out there and act, and I don't mean posting it to FB for a bunch of similarly minded people to agree with you like so many nodding dogs.
Who knows? If your philosophy is indeed superior, in two thousand years they may well be electing your spiritiual successor.

Anyway, rant over. It's back to jokes on Monday and I've got some good ones lined up for next week including - maybe - my first ever full musical.

Comments

[twicedead.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but so is the Queen and other countries pay for her to visit them...

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

She's the head (well, for display puropses) of what's still quite an important country, not just a cult. I don't know of anyone who pays for her to show because she's the head of the Church of England?

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

I suspect that the Roman Catholic church probably has more direct impact on far far more lives than the UK does. We have how many citizens? And there are how many devout Roman Catholics around the world?

I mean, you may not agree with the pope, but calling him 'the head of a cult' is a big like calling Barack Obama 'some foreign politician'. It's a tad disingeneous.

Plus, as previously stated, he's the head of a foreign state (Vatican City), and we've paid for a lot of them to come and visit.

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

As that nice Mr Fry pointed out, he's head of a "state" by a historical technicality, not in any meaningful sense.

And yes, he is just the head of a cult. Not a politician. A big cult, yes, but it's still only a cult, not anything useful or meaningful.

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

I'm not a huge fan of the RC church but they put a lot of money into charity, education and research worldwide. Most importantly, disaster and famine relief in countries everyone is more than happy to exploit for cheap clothes and diamonds at least. To say they don't do "anything useful or meaningful" is disingenuous at best.

[(Anonymous)]

And they're very good at maintaining slums. Just look at Calcutta... disease-ridden slum when Mother Teresa arrived, disease-ridden slum when she croaked.

[crocodilewings.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, what's the gross domestic export of the Vatican?

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

Do we evaluate the economy of every head of state who wants to visit us? Is there a cut off point? How about square mileage?

What constitutes a 'real state', which is, I presume, what you're getting at?

I tend to think if Vatican City is recognised as a state, then it's a state.

I also think that regardless of that, the Pope is a major figure who's views and opinions have a very direct impact on the lives of billions of people and an awful lot of British citizens. And that's why we're paying a lot of money for him to visit. Because he is important, whether one may personally approve of him or not.

[crocodilewings.livejournal.com]

It was more a response to your assertion that Catholicism had more direct impact on more lives than the UK does. By some measures it absolutely does, but it definitely depends on the measure. I wasn't actually looking at it from the perspective of hosting foreign heads of state based on trade value, but now we've accidentally stumbled onto it, you've brought up an interesting point.

The fact is we do evaluate the economy of every foreign head of state who comes to visit us, and how important they are (i.e. how valuable they are to us) determines how much of a fanfare they get, and how much we spend on them. In that light, the amount of effort put into the Pope's visit is kind of jarring. After all, we don't trade with the Vatican; they give us all the religion we want for free, and evidently we don't want all that much. We're not courting them for political reasons. We don't need them to swing a vote with the UN. There's no middle-eastern country we require their asistance in invading. It is literally a case of the Pope nipping over for a chat and a cup of tea.

I for one don't begrudge him this, but he doesn't really belong in the same category as foreign dignitaries visiting for important matters of state.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I've largely stayed out of the debate today, but I'm just going to pick you up on a point of Realpolitik here: we are courting the pope for political reasons. There are four million self-identified catholics registered to vote in this country. Any PM seen to be snubbing the supreme pontiff wouldn't help their party-political chances.

[crocodilewings.livejournal.com]

There are even more Twilight fans, many of whom will be naive first-time voters come the next election, and Robert Pattinson would be a significantly cheaper date.

Slightly less spurious edit: I do obviously realise the difference between the Pope and Robert Pattinson, but it kind of raises another point. The Pope is treated the way he is because of his celebrity status rather than because of anything useful he does.

In that sense, I'm not really sure there's that much functional difference between the Pope and, say, Bono, except one explicitly admits he thinks he's the mouthpiece of the divine. If Bono got afforded this level of respect, we'd at best think it was a bit weird and at worst kick him off his high horse. No-one, even the most die-hard U2 fans, would think it actually made sense.

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

Robert Pattinson is already a limey and can't stop trolling his fanbase.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

In two thousand years, I shall be happy to accord Stephanie Meyer's spiritual representative on Earth the honour of a state visit - providing they're a head of state, obviously.

[crocodilewings.livejournal.com]

Would you really, though? I mean, really?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

What, if they were a head of state? Of course I would.
That's what state visits are, you know.

[crocodilewings.livejournal.com]

It's the "happy" bit I'm incredulous about.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

You'll never be a politician, will you? :P

[crocodilewings.livejournal.com]

You're familiar, I assume, with the difference between wonks and hacks?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Have you ever seen the film Thank you for smoking?

[crocodilewings.livejournal.com]

No I haven't. I am probably familiar with its core premise, though, assuming it has one and it's congruent with the title.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure if you could infer it from the title, but I recommend it to you. The scene in which the Aaron Eckhart character explains debating with icecream to his son is probably the best explanation I can give as to why I'd be happy to host state visits were I PM.

[crocodilewings.livejournal.com]

I'll be sure to give it a look-in.

[crocodilewings.livejournal.com]

If you mean this one, then no, I will never be that kind of politician. I feel unclean just having watched it.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Really? That's a shame - I love that film, and consider Nick Naylor to be an aspirational character.

[(Anonymous)]

I rather think if David's alive in 2000 years, yes, he'd be pretty happy.