In not wanting The Pope to visit uk at the taxpayers expense?

[Alouiseg]

Apparently The visit wil cost 12m pounds. That's 12 million pounds to be pinched from other budgets. For a man who has been responsible for covering up crimes against children.

My MP will receive an email today and I will make my abhorrence very clear.

Saying 'catholic bashing' so lazy and so unprepared to justify the points raised in an discussion.

YANBU

The Catholic Church is raking it in on ticket sales to the pope's gigs. Yet they want the UK government to pay all the security costs.

YADNBU!

Fucking predictable RC-bashing!
What other religion would people feel they could be so intolerant of?
10% of the population of this country are memebers of this "organised pedophile ring".

Would anyone care to list the atrocities exerted in the name of 'British rule' in numerous colonies?

Soz, haven't read everything but I don't think we'd be hosting visit and rolling out the red carpet from a "proper" head of state if that state was complicit in protecting child abusers.

10% is a pretty small amount really though isn't it? And probably only 10% of them actually care enough to want to go and see him. Why is the state paying? It wouldn't pay if we wanted to flock to see Madonna or Eminem. What's the diffrence? I'm not sure this is about Catholic bashing - it's about makeing jusdgements on how our money is spent in a financially tough period.

Don't know if this has already been mentioned, but all British taxpayers support the upkeep of the Monarch, who is the Head of the Church of England, and all her family and all the hangers-on. Why should Catholics/ Jews/ Muslims/ atheists/ Presbyterians/ Methodists/ Wesleyans/ Quakers/ etc. support the Head of the C of E?

Kerrymumbles 8 Milion Euro () for the richest woman in the world (ok maybe in the top 20) who still gets her uncut allowance from the taxpayers?

marjoriew you are very eloquent and you have redoubled my determination . I am going to be at the roadside , booing the pope. I exhort all like minded mumsmetters to do the same
Itinerary

Edinburgh
Strawberry Hill in south west London
Westminster
Midlands (tbc)

Personally I wouldn't complain if we stopped funding the monachy, but the Queen is not a spiritual leader, merely a figurehead of the CofE. The argumetn would be that non-CofE Brits contribute to her because she is the Wueen, not because she is the head of Cof E. The Pope has no such other role.

YANBU. We shouldn't be paying for this nonsense. I'd be happy for us to stop paying for the monarchy too but that's a whole other conversation

Easywriter I appreciate what you're doing but it is utterly pointless trying to defend the Catholic religion on here. A few months back someone saw fit to start a thread saying she didn't want her children to be baptised and go to Catholic schools because she thought that they would be abused at liturgy group or school. The fact that she was off her effing trolley passed everyone by and the level of nastiness on that thread and sheer lack of knowledge about absolutely anything to do with the Catholic religion that isn't printed in the Daily Mail was astounding.

You are really really wasting your time. I used to try but have long since given up. The fact that these people aren't capable of debating whether or not the Pope should visit without resorting to the usual name calling is very sad. Just leave them to it.

And for the record, yes I'm Catholic, no I don't want him to come and won't go to see him as I did for JP2 but none of you really want to talk about that, do you? So carry on with the uniformed hysterical whitterings...

How very well said Rockbird, the level of 'debate' is shockingly DM. You're quite right, there's little point in raising an alternate view.

I feel intolerant of any religion/person/thing/organisation/business etc etc that costs the UK taxpayer £10 million to come say hi to a few people.

No name calling. No Catholic bashing.

So why should we pay? I really do want to know?

Alternative view is good. Superior is not.

To debate, you have to deal with the good, bad and the ugly and not just tar it all with the same brush of 'oh they are all just Catholic bashing'

There has been admitted child abuse. Why are you so against MN's mentioning this?

totally agree, waste of money. i think it is insulting to the victims of the catholic church that haven't had any support or counselling to know that £12m of tax payers money is going towards this.

I never called anybody names or disparaged the church. I just said they are making heaps of money out of the appearances and should pay their own way. As many other have said.

There are a few (minority) Catholic apologists here who want to turn any criticism of the Pope's visit or it's funding into an attack on the Catholic Church or it's followers. This is typical of the sort of religious person who wants any criticism of the workings of their organisation to be seen as religious vilification (or racism or blasphemy or any number of other things) when in this instance, the main argument is economic.

Kind of makes a person look over-sensitive and simple-minded, doesn't it?

The difference between the Head of State of the Vatican and the visit of Eminem is that Eminem is not a head of state even if he thinks he is.

How much did the visit(s) of George W. Bush cost? Did anyone seriously like him or feel the benefit of his visit(s)?

Any time the Irish Head of State visits the UK, you're hosting the head of a state that was complicit in farming out the 'care' of children to abusers. Belgian monarch -- probably related to Leopold (Congo atrocities). Chinese (ever heard of Tibet? Tianamen Square? One child per family? Orphanages? Political dissidents? Freedom of religious worship?)

YANBU

I do not think we should pay for a catholic, a muslim, a jew, a hindu or a buddhist leader to come. It's not a question of which religion but that of appropriateness.

When we can't afford to fund hospitals and children's education, it's really not an essential buy is it?

Similarly I'd cancel the Olympics.

Bugger it, we need to be consistent here, we are either being austere or we aren't.

YABU. He is a head of state. Most of this country is complicit in crimes against children - most crimes against children are committed by their parents. Why don't you stop this RC bashing? This kind of attitude belongs in the 17th century you idiot.

The Queen is not elected, and her position has never been put to any kind of referendum. Taxpayers are forced to pay for her and all her family and the dukes and duchesses of this and that who are on the civil list whether they like it or not, with no chance to challenge the malarkey. And what on earth does a church need a titular leader for if he or she is nothing more than a figurehead?

The Pope is the Head of State of the Vatican, a very small sovereign state (which used to be much larger), but a sovereign state nevertheless.

Rockbird I share your pessimism about sensible debate here...

Oh, and for what it's worth, why aren't you campaigning for the disestablishment of the Church of England or the abolition of the requirement to have a daily act of Christian worship in schools, huh? I suppose you are the kind of person that condones the sexist fact that only a MAN can inherit the throne because that is also in the Act of Settlement. Why don't you go and find some real problems to worry about? This country is so f*ing mental, you can't even let a perfectly mainstream religion in the rest of the world carry on with its business.

hands tattyhead a valium