This is silly for various reasons.

1) The National Secular Association should very well respect the Pope as the leader of the Vatican State, and therefore eligable for the taxpayers’ expense. It seems proposterous that a ‘Society’ supposedly designed to encourage secularism will emphasis only the religious character of a statesman.

2) The National Secular Assocation seems to show its colours here as, in general, anti-religious rather than pro-secularity. The Pope, who represents about 1/6 of the World Population and 1/3 of the British population, by varying metrics and levels of dedication, should be welcomed, if not for his religious leadership, then for the important role he holds in the life of a considerable proportion of Britons.

3) This Pope is probably the most pro-reform pope we’ve had in a long time. He sanctioned a paper last year calling for a change in Church doctrine towards allowing contraception in exceptional circumstances; he’s supported gay bishops under attack in Italy; he’s called for more of a role for women.

It seems from my perspective that the Secular society and its coalition, should welcome and encourage a reforming Pontiff rather than attacking him.

Im sorry Roland, but your comments are just plain silly. To your points:

1. The Vatican state is not a “normal political state” it is a wholly religious entity and as such the NSS is perfectly within its rights to question why £20 million is being spent on this jolly, especially when the Pope has expressed views throughout his tenure that are plain offensive to large sections of the British population.

2. This point is particularly confused, the NSS has always supported toleration, it just believes as well that religion shouldnt be ingrained in public life. This isnt anti-religious, its a consistent secular viewpoint.

3. Im sorry, but you have to be joking. A reforming Pope? A man who has said that homosexuality is the greatest threat to humanity, who let a holocaust denier back into the fold, who regularly preaches against contraception, has done nothing to sort out the abuse claims within his church and who kicked off his papacy by saying Islam was an aggressive religion. Maybe Im dense, but surely this man is just an entrenched conservative with views more fitting the 19th century than the 21st.

That 0.1% of the population. Presumably the other 64,999,999.9 don’t have a problem with the Pope?

PG @ 2

the Pope has expressed views throughout his tenure that are plain offensive to large sections of the British population.

But I’d guess that those ‘large sections’ of the population who are offended by the Pope’s statements probably themselves hold views that are plain offensive to an even larger section of the British population.

For instance, the country’s 3.5 million Catholics might easily be plain offended by the views of the 11,000 secularists who have signed this petition.

Lets look at this again.

A campaign exists to stop a man visiting Britain because of his religious beliefs.

Can’t see anything further to add to this description.

Now the Pope is clearly wrong on a number of things (homosexuality, contraception, clerical marriage – that one’s not even in the Bible!) but bluntly he is not spreading hate or encouraging violence, which I believe is the only way someone can be banned from visiting the United Kingdom. He may be mad, but he’s not dangerous.

P.S. PG, The Vatican is not a purely religious state. It exists physically, and even has a seat at the United Nations. So if the Vatican can be discounted because of its religious nature, Iran doesn’t exist either…

A campaign exists to stop a man visiting Britain because of his religious beliefs.

False. Nobody is campaigning to prevent him from coming here, we just don’t think we should be paying for it. I’m perfectly happy for the Pope to individually visit every Catholic in the country, provided he does it on his own (not inconsequential) dime.

Dunc,

Sorry. Blame my reading of the report:

“A signature campaign against the Pope’s visit to the UK has gathered over 11,000 signatures according to the National Secular Society’s website.”

Without a clear clarification below (where to be fair it is mentioned that the state visit is paid for by the taxpayer).

This does lead to a question – is this a state visit, or a visit by a religious head. As the tax payer should only pay for certain accepted functions, perhaps the Catholic Church should foot the bills for other bits. But the Pope is an influential world leader, so a state visit from him is still significant enough to accept, so long as it is the state bit. So perhaps the campaign is badly aimed, unless it is designed to gain attention?

Another P.S. Why is there a national secular society? Surely the point of secularism is that you need no religious organisation. I know I don’t.

Why is there a national secular society?

To campaign for secularism, obviously. It’s no more a “religious organisation” than the RSPB. In case you hadn’t noticed, we still have an established Church in this country.

Dunc

Nobody is campaigning to prevent him from coming here, we just don’t think we should be paying for it.

Isn’t it a bit like complaining about the cost of providing Police protection for Salman Rushdie?

I’m sure the Pope would much prefer to come here without having all Police leave cancelled in order to protect him from a lunatic fringe of homicidal secularists, Protestant bigots or Islamist nutters.

Rushdie was a British citizen. It’s more like complaining about the costs associated with inviting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the UK to speak about his view on Judaism.

And “homicidal secularists”? Really?

Gordon Brown issued an invitation to the Pope over a year ago. He hasn’t just taken it upon himself to come here uninvited. Gordon, of course, was hoping he’d visit before the election in order to secure the Catholic vote..

A petition to the pope – ha ha ha, yeah, that’s gonna work you. Much like a muslim, anyone not Catholic is a heretic, will burn in hell and have as much influence on the church as a sane man in the Labour cabinet.

Dunc,

“To campaign for secularism, obviously. It’s no more a “religious organisation” than the RSPB. In case you hadn’t noticed, we still have an established Church in this country.”

Not sure the RSPB is not a religion – have you met many members? Or maybe I’m just lucky enough to bump into the militant wing a lot. Certainly if an obscure American bird turns up (insert name of minor Dallas actress of choice here…) then they flock to worship.

More seriously, I can see the point of a society for disestablishmentarianism, which might need an acronym, but not for a campaign for secularism. That to me is like religion – spreading your own view at the expense of others. I suppose it might be politics, but it does not seem to function in that sphere. I am happy to question who funds the Pope’s visit when it is not purely a state function; I am not happy with the idea that as a secularist (albeit one who believes in a vague God, but only on a personal level) there are others speaking in my name. It’s a bit like being told how to behave because you are not complying with the rules of surreal chaotic anarchy: it defeats the bloody object.

Watchman – you appear to be conflating secularism with atheism. The beliefs and attitudes of some atheists are arguably of similar character to those of religion, but secularism is not a belief system in this way. It’s concern is the relationship between church and state, and it is perfectly consistent to be both a religious person and a secularist.

Whoops, I let a typo slip through…”It’s” was obviously supposed to be the possessive “its”!