The BBC website featured a picture of that silly old bugger Sir Ian McKellen protesting against the Pope.
Sir Ian was wearing a T-shirt that said ‘Some people are gay. Get over it.’
I am fairly confident, Sir Ian, that Pope Benedict is fully aware that some people are gay. He is faced with almost daily demands to apologise for, and make reparations for, the behaviour of a small group of predatory homosexuals over whose actions he had no control whatever.
And, Sir Ian, when was the last time the Pope turned up at an event featuring you, and publicly demanded you change the way you think?
So what makes you think anyone would be interested in your turning up uninvited to tell the Pope how to think?
But that’s the problem with these diversity loving liberals. They can’t stand anyone having an opinion that diverges from theirs.
Eda Anderson is a perfect example. She turned up to protest as well. ‘I think it is unacceptable for the UK government to part-fund the visit of a man who does not represent me or my beliefs,’ she said.
Oh. Right then. Before any future visits from heads of states are agreed to, we’ll just send the Prime Minister around to your place to check that the opinions of the proposed visitor are perfectly in accord with yours, shall we Eda?
More of this inclusiveness except of anyone they disagree with was seen this week in Sweden, where thousands of morons turned out to protest the fact that some poeple voted for a party they don’t like.
‘I’m not sure what should be done,’ said twenty one year old Thomas Zebuehr, ‘But something has to be done.’
The funny thing is, these loons complain that those who have the unspeakable bad taste to disagree with them are Nazis, racists, sexists, right wing extremists, or whatever other terms they think will cause the most damage. But they, the compassionate leftists, are always the ones who seem to want to shut people out or shut them up, or just get rid of them.
And I won’t even get started on the greenies’ calls for the suspension of democracy so that anyone not suffering from global warming derangement syndrome can be forcibly silenced and sent for re-education.
Thanks for reminding me why I’m always defending Catholics. Hypocritical activists just can’t give them a break.
I have just come across your blog and it appears you have innaccurately quoted me, and I would like to set the record straight.
Your quote reads:
“I think it is unacceptable for the UK government to part-fund the visit of a man who does not represent me or my beliefs”
Since I do not recall ever saying something like this and I certainly have never met you, I can only assume you constructed this sentence from the BBC News feature that I was interviewed for, the original article for the benefit of your readers can be found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11359512
Reading the BBC article, it is clear that you have re-worded my original quote and in doing so have changed the meaning. The reason I am against the state visit is not simply because he “does not represent me or my beliefs”, but is rather more complex. I am against the state visit for these reasons:
Firstly, the vatican cannot and should not be considered a “state”. The so-called Vatican City is a political nonentity covering about 0.17 square miles of Rome. The pope himself is simply the leader of a religious organisation, not a head of state, and the taxpayer should not be expected to fund religious visits. To turn this point around, would you be happy with the Church of the Invisible Pink Unicorn spending a similar amount of taxpayers money on a visit from their leader? Probably not.
In the current economic crisis there are infinite other, more wothwhile causes on which the money could be spent – not least to help the victims of the Catholic sexual abuse scandal. The British government are making cuts across the board, many of which directly affect me, while at the same time pouring millions into welcoming a man who is guilty of crimes against humanity, simply because he claims to represent a supernatural entity of which we have no proof even exists.
The pope is guilty of covering up the henious crimes of Catholic preists. He is a fraud. If this man was half the Catholic he claimed to be, he would release the private files of the Vatican to the relevant authorities and do his part to make sure the perpatrators of these crimes are not left in the position where they can reoffend. He is guilty of hampering the efforts of thousands of AIDS workers in places such as Africa for using quasi-science to claim that condoms increase the spread of the disease, when in fact the opposite is true. He is guilty of being a major contributing factor to the homophobia that is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of gay teens, hate crimes, and is a major opponant of equality laws designed to protect people, instead holding back the progress of society because of his own unfounded beliefs.
This part of your post I find is also quite inaccurate:
“He [The Pope] is faced with almost daily demands to apologise for, and make reparations for, the behaviour of a small group of predatory homosexuals over whose actions he had no control whatever.”
Firstly, you seem to have mistaken the word “peadophiles” for “homosexuals”. The predators in these cases targeted children of both sexes and your words unfairly and inaccurately try to pass the blame onto an unassociated class of people. The Catholic Church is squarely to blame for these crimes, and the Pope had the power to hand these criminals over to be dealt with by the justice system, instead he relocated them to places they could simply reoffend, and tried to brush the whole scandal under the carpet. To say he had no control over these people is simply absurd.
Further, did it not occur to you that Sir Ian McKellen’s T-Shirt was not just for the attention of the pope? In fact, the phrase in question is a collaboration from the LGB charity Stonewall and is used fairly widely to spread the message to people all over the place.
As a liberal, I quite welcome the fact that people have differing oppinions. As a matter of fact, I had no problem with the Pope visiting the UK, the problem I had was the fact that it was largely funded by the taxpayer, a fact that is reflected by the wording of the placard that I held on the day:
Ashley was right. I had mis-read the BBC article (not entirely my fault – it was very badly written), and attributed to her a statement made by another person. I have changed the original post to correct this error. My apologies to Ashley.
However, I stand by the rest of the post.
In relation to her other views, there is nothing I have not heard before.
In particular, her views about the use of condoms as an AIDs preventative, and about the Pope’s supposed cover-up of sexual abuse, are both completely counter factual.
It is people like Ashley, who continue to push for the distribution of condoms as an AIDS preventative, when it is clear that this actually increases the rate of AIDS infection, whose unfounded beliefs cause massive additional suffering and pointless loss of life.
There is no evidence whatever that the Pope ever delayed or hindered any action to stop sexual abuse by any member of the clergy.
While there were a very few instances of sexual abuse of females, the majority of abuse was committed by homosexuals against teen and pre-teen boys. Calling them paedophiles doesn’t alter the fact they were primarily homosexuals.
And finally, the Vatican is a state, regardless of its size. So are Tuvalu and Monaco, and I would expect the leaders of those small nations and others, to be welcomed and treated with respect if they came as visitors.