…and this is a 
Look: the Pope is a crank figure, the head of a weird religious cult who promotes weird ideas, such as that condoms promote the spread of AIDS or more lately, opposes legislation to promote equality. He's a nasty old bigot from an insignificant municipality who gets far more attention than he deserves.
Now he's going to be visiting the UK. That's fine; anyone, even irrelevant old coots, ought to be able to vacation where they please. However, this is being treated as a state visit and the British government is plunking down £20 million for the dubious privilege of having a weird geezer in a dress pretend to be speaking for an imaginary man in the sky to a gullible public. The guy has plenty of money of his own — he should pay for his own damn junket. Or the Catholic churches in England that want his attention should be the ones to cough up.
Speak up against the papal boondoggle. The National Secular Society has a petition — get on it.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Brian
|
February 3, 2010 3:28 AM
Whoa! Hey, UK, have me come visit instead! I'll only charge £2 million and my dress will be much more stylish!
Posted by: Andreas Johansson
|
February 3, 2010 3:33 AM
It's decidedly annoying how the Vatican is a state or a religious institution as it suits them.
Maybe we can bribe/blackmail Silvio to bulldoze the place? I hear Rome needs more parking lots anyway.
Posted by: Vole
|
February 3, 2010 3:47 AM
I've signed.
Some people have started calling him Ratty, but Ratty was a sympathetic character in "The Wind in the Willows" (actually a water vole).
I prefer to call him the Bigot of Rome.
Posted by: Psalmotoxin
|
February 3, 2010 3:49 AM
Couldn't agree more, signed up yesterday! Not many people would have that much money spent on them by the British government just to turn up in drag and spout such bile as usually exits his mouth. I mean the guy has imaginary friends - the British tax payers are paying for a delusional old man to preach stupidity!
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
February 3, 2010 4:00 AM
Ugh, of all the things we could be spending that money on...
Signed up. I'm not generally enamoured of the popes but this guy is a clueless bigot.
Posted by: Andreas Johansson
|
February 3, 2010 4:01 AM
Conversely, my sister calls her plush rat Ratzinger.
(She's also got a plush rabbit called Mr Mutilator.)
Posted by: ianmhor
|
February 3, 2010 4:05 AM
I prefer the "Gnome of Rome" - alliterates better.
Anyways this is a man of God how could he possible be a bigot! ;) .
PJ2 had the slight possibility of a glimmer of humanity but this guy - empty.
Posted by: ianmhor
|
February 3, 2010 4:08 AM
Early morning finger dyslexia - that should be JP2
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm0TFqECSBiAvCN2xlbKiyEkKFLc6E4a9I
|
February 3, 2010 4:14 AM
Wonder if they will put him through a body scanner, you could hide a lot of stuff under that dress.
Posted by: bloodredsun.myopenid.com
|
February 3, 2010 4:17 AM
Signed up.
Posted by: palaeodave
|
February 3, 2010 4:24 AM
I've signed it but why they didn't use Number 10's official petition website?
Posted by: Ellie
|
February 3, 2010 4:28 AM
Already has more than 6k signatories and the website says it is experiencing heavy traffic. Awesome :D
Facebook is now a tool for social change, so if you fancy spreading the word in other viral ways, please join and promote this group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=325980342781&ref;=nf
Posted by: Facehammer
|
February 3, 2010 4:35 AM
Where's he going? I think my box of eggs has got an appointment with his leering old mug.
Posted by: negentropyeater
|
February 3, 2010 4:35 AM
£20 mill. for a state visit for the head of a state with 826 inhabitants ? That's more than £24000 per inhabitant !
Something in the order of £826 would seem more appropriate. The UK Govt could pay his return ticket from the airport to central London, one night in a hotel around Leicester square, a meal for two in one of the restaurants, and a few pints of cold lagger in one of the nice gay bars in Soho.
Posted by: davem
|
February 3, 2010 4:38 AM
@3: Surely, it's 'Rahtzi', to rhyme with 'Nazi'.
Maybe we can get an international arrest warrant for enablement of paedophilia? Probably not, since he's a protected species as a diplomat, but at least the publicity might be good?
Posted by: marcushill
|
February 3, 2010 4:42 AM
@7: 'I prefer the "Gnome of Rome" - alliterates better.'
I hate to be pedantic*, but it doesn't alliterate at all, it rhymes.
*This is a lie. Pedantry makes me feel warm inside.
Posted by: ianmhor
|
February 3, 2010 4:47 AM
marcushill #16: Fair cop! Early in the morning having shovelled far too much snow - brain still needs to warm up. (I'll let pedantry off this time as I'm just plain wrong :-))
Posted by: vanharris
|
February 3, 2010 4:50 AM
Instead of calling him 'the Pope', how about referring to him as 'the pope's nose'?
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkmoTXRDh3b06GCmkfnmt5WyMEOpVtamO0
|
February 3, 2010 5:03 AM
I prefer the nice and simple "Herr Ratzinger".
Posted by: Moggie
|
February 3, 2010 5:05 AM
Modest proposal: cap spending on state visits proportionately to the population of the state in question. So if, say, we spent 20 mill on a visit by Obama (US population: 300M), the cost of a state visit by the head of the Holy See (population: 826) should be about 55 quid.
Posted by: Gladsmuir
|
February 3, 2010 5:08 AM
I'm no fan of the pope and certainly disagree with the vast majority of his expressed veiws and Vatican policy in general, his recent statements on the British law proposals regarding equality are a case in point. He should keep his mouth shut and mind his own business.
However IMHO, if this is a state visit it should be treated like any other and the security bill paid in the conventional way so I disagree with the petition. I'm not keen on China or Isreal because of some of their policies but that's no reason for their heads of state not to visit and direct dialogue made. One could argue about the relevancy of the Papal state or whether it should exist but that is the reality.
@davem #15
The guy might be a complete bastard but I think the "Nazi" label, even implicitly, is below the belt.
Posted by: Abstruseoddity
|
February 3, 2010 5:10 AM
@Gladsmuir 21
There is no legitimate theocracy.
Posted by: Matt Penfold
|
February 3, 2010 5:13 AM
There is a convention for state visits that the visiting head of state does not publicly comment on the internal affairs of the host country for the duration of the visit.
I presume therefore you will demand the Pope not criticise UK equality laws during his visit.
Posted by: latsot
|
February 3, 2010 5:16 AM
@Gladsmuir:
The situation is slightly different. The pope is using his status as a senior religious figure in an attempt to manipulate laws in another state.
Posted by: Draken
|
February 3, 2010 5:19 AM
The problem seems to be that most countries recognise the Vatican as a sovereign country, which is not of this time. As long as they do so, they're probably bound by international law (or their own laws) to treat the Pope as a head of state (is my legally untrustworthy assessment of the situation, correct me if you will).
Posted by: Walton
|
February 3, 2010 5:24 AM
There is just so much wrong with this sentence.
It is absolutely impossible to obtain an arrest warrant for the Pope in a British court, because, as a serving head of state, he enjoys "immunity ratione personae" in international law. Immunity ratione personae means that the senior officials of a state (the head of state, head of government, foreign minister and so on) are immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of other states. In the UK, this is enshrined in the State Immunity Act 1978.
Furthermore, I don't know what you mean by an "international arrest warrant". There is certainly no international tribunal with jurisdiction over allegations of paedophilia (or enablement thereof), nor is it classified as an "international crime" in international law. The category of international crimes (which fall within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court) is a very restricted one: it refers to war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, state torture, and crimes of aggression. Child molestation is not an international crime; it's an ordinary crime under national law and would be tried in a national court.
Posted by: Ellie
|
February 3, 2010 5:24 AM
Gladsmuir @21
As others have pointed out, if he was visiting as the head of state of Vatican City you'd have a point, but he's not. He's visiting as the head of a religion only 8% of his host country actually believe in (16% in Scotland).
Also, I suspect there would be a similar outcry if a visiting head of state was promoting similar damaging practices around the world and responsible for as much harm. The only exception being if the diplomatic visit was likely to prevent such harms in the future.
If he daft enough to comment on our governance and attempt to prevent anti discrimination legislation just before he arrives he only has himself to blame if what he actually does is stir up a hornet's nest.
Posted by: Ellie
|
February 3, 2010 5:26 AM
Incidentally, it's not like we English don't have a history of sticking it to the Pope, what did he expect?!
Posted by: Slugsie
|
February 3, 2010 5:28 AM
I say we take the opportunity for some observational science. Feed him a large does of laxatives, take him to a nearby woods, and wait. Then we will know once and for all if Popes really do shit in the woods. Or is it bears? Either way, still sounds like fun.
(BTW Signed yesterday)
Posted by: CaseyAllan
|
February 3, 2010 5:36 AM
I just tried to sign but it looks like my company has access to the site blocked.
Will sign when I get home though.
Posted by: Gladsmuir
|
February 3, 2010 5:36 AM
@Abstruseoddity
I agree. I don't think theocracies are legitimate either but breaking off diplomatic relations will all of them unilaterally would certainly not be in a secular country's interests. Sorry, I guess I'm a bit too pragmatic. ;o)
@Matt Penfold
I certainly will not demand he doesn't critise UK interal policy during his visit. If he does, I will sit back and smaugly watch the political fallout. ;o)
@latsot
I agree. As I said, he should mind his own business.
Posted by: Walton
|
February 3, 2010 5:38 AM
Apologies if I sounded needlessly snarky and/or condescending at #26. I had to stay up most of the night to write an essay, and haven't finished my coffee yet.
Posted by: Truckle
|
February 3, 2010 5:43 AM
/Signed
The dudes car is awesome however, i think PZ should have one for his tour of Ireland.
Posted by: Gladsmuir
|
February 3, 2010 5:47 AM
@Ellie #27
As I said in my original post -
"...[IF] this is a state visit..." [MY Emphasis].
The news reports I read didn't mention whether it was a state visit or not. If it isn't as you say, I completely concur with you - he can fuck off back to Rome where he belongs. ;o)
Posted by: Miki Z
|
February 3, 2010 5:55 AM
The news reports I read report that it is, in fact, a State visit, in contrast to the 'pastoral' visit of PJPII.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
February 3, 2010 6:01 AM
So it's a state visit.
And he's going to tell Mr Brown that we can't have them homos working for the catholic church, so please make the bad law go away, or else we're going to steal even more anglicans from you !
And Mr Brown is happily paying for the privilege. Sweet.
Posted by: ianmhor
|
February 3, 2010 6:11 AM
Even if it is a state visit. Is it not a good thing to raise this point just to indicate strongly that the idea of a religion as a state is a bit much for the 21st century?
Won't change anything but will give voice to a reasonable and rational displeasure.
Posted by: Sigmund
|
February 3, 2010 6:16 AM
Extradite him to Ireland to answer for his crime of enabling child abuse.
http://sneerreview.blogspot.com/2009/12/crimen-sollicitationis.html
Posted by: Moggie
|
February 3, 2010 6:21 AM
#31:
Yes, it could be dangerous: the Catholics have missals.
Posted by: Gladsmuir
|
February 3, 2010 6:26 AM
@Moggie #31
And potentially weapons of MASS destruction ;o)
Posted by: ianmhor
|
February 3, 2010 6:29 AM
Moggie #39 & Gladmuir 40:
Thanks for that! Lightens the day!
The inventive humour of this place excels.
Posted by: Gladsmuir
|
February 3, 2010 6:33 AM
Sry Moggie, I mis-numbered your post.
Posted by: Moggie
|
February 3, 2010 6:38 AM
#36:
Brown is unlikely to still be in power at the time. But don't expect his successor to give papa the cold shoulder: the Tories have recently announced their intention to create the biggest expansion in the number of "faith schools" since the 19th century.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
February 3, 2010 6:58 AM
Of course it's a State visit; the pope is still the Imperator Romanus. I'm sure the Britons have accorded state honors to far more despicable people. Hmm ... let's see ... what despots have visited the UK in the past 50 years?
Posted by: MadScientist
|
February 3, 2010 7:01 AM
@Moggie: I think I have a Roman Missal somewhere; it must be pretty old by now so I guess it should be decommissioned. Then again for all I know it's already been feeding god's hordes of boll weevils and silverfish.
Posted by: alistair.coleman
|
February 3, 2010 7:02 AM
Joined 7,108 other signatures.
Take your fear of women and gays somewhere else, Ratzi.
Posted by: Strangest brew
|
February 3, 2010 7:03 AM
#43
"the Tories have recently announced their intention to create the biggest expansion in the number of "faith schools" since the 19th century.'
Ahh! yes the faith schools they said were a political shenanigan foisted by a labour party eager for religious votes...then they found out the actual savings for the tax payer and all of a sudden they were the bees knees of public/private initiative...
There is also an element of Dickensian envy being stroked there...Faith schools administered by the local councils will receive extra funding by local bizzyness...who apparently will get the pick of the crop year on year.
Posted by: Truckle
|
February 3, 2010 7:08 AM
#44 A good example of a distinguished guest would have to be General Pinochet.
Charming fellow he was.
Posted by: Gladsmuir
|
February 3, 2010 7:16 AM
After reading the posts again I think I've changed my mind - 20 million is a small price to pay to stop Slugsie (#29) kidnapping an old man and force feeding him laxatives in remote woodlands.
Some of us might be athiests but that doesn't mean we have the God-given right to behave like Christian Fundamentalists. ;o)
Posted by: Timord
|
February 3, 2010 7:16 AM
Ratzi should pay for his own tour. He has plenty of money and since he has no intention of giving it to the poor and staving of the world, he should pay his own way. Don't hold your breath though!
Posted by: rwtwm
|
February 3, 2010 7:20 AM
Thanks for picking up on this PZ. I thought you might have done. I'd hope for all UK visitors to this board (at the very least) to get behind this.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
February 3, 2010 7:34 AM
Did you type this up post it while you are in Ireland?
Posted by: Moggie
|
February 3, 2010 7:42 AM
Hehe, there can't be many blogs where the regulars actually hope to see the blogger arrested!
Posted by: negentropyeater
|
February 3, 2010 7:45 AM
Here is a list of inwards state visits to the UK for the past 55 years.
The most obvious example of despot visiting the UK on a state visit is that of Mobutu in Dec 73.
And no to #48, Pinochet never got that honour.
Posted by: MetzO'Magic
|
February 3, 2010 7:51 AM
I prefer Pope Panzerfaust (somebody here coined that one. Kudos to whoever it was).
And, you *must* watch this video if you haven't seen it already:
Sarah Silverman: Sell The Vatican, Feed The World
Posted by: Andreas Johansson
|
February 3, 2010 7:59 AM
Is that supposed to be an ironic twist on his old nickname "Panzerkardinal"?
Posted by: davem
|
February 3, 2010 8:19 AM
You're right, it was below the belt. I recently learned that the catholic priest who whipped my father as a child of 7 until his back was running with blood did all the damage above the belt. Good for him. You'll have to forgive my not feeling over-charitable to the current chief bastard enabler.Posted by: zombiefriednuts
|
February 3, 2010 8:24 AM
There is also a petition on the No.10 website http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/ProtestthePope
Posted by: Truckle
|
February 3, 2010 8:50 AM
Ah true, he was never granted an official state visit whilst he was head of Chile but he pubically visited Margaret Thatcher on a few occasions having personal visits to number 10 and was generally (no pun intended) very pally with the conservatives for being our ally during the Falklands.
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
February 3, 2010 8:52 AM
While I'm with you in principle, I couldn't help, reading this, thinking: wasn't there some US jurisdiction or other where sex offenders were required by law upon moving into an area to notify the residents of their presence?
I mean, considering Ratzinger's involvement and that of his organization in certain criminal matters of late, it seems to me maybe this could be considered. Y'know... Sure, he can visit, provided he warns people in the area personally, see...
(/'Kay, so actually it's just the image that amuses me. Some shopgirl opens the door and there's this guy in red Prada shoes, wearing a mitre, looking a bit hangdog: 'Hullo,' he sez. 'I am required by law to notify you that I'll be in the area for a few days... and I'm the Pope.')
Posted by: Moggie
|
February 3, 2010 9:04 AM
#60:
'By the way... nobody fucks with the Jesus'.
Posted by: bbgunn071679
|
February 3, 2010 9:09 AM
I thought 'Emperor Papalstein' was a decent nom de derision used for this guy.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
February 3, 2010 9:15 AM
I always preferred Pope Palpatine...
Posted by: Zeno
|
February 3, 2010 9:38 AM
And some of us refer to the pope as "Benny Hex."
Posted by: bbgunn071679
|
February 3, 2010 9:40 AM
Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom @63:
I would have used that, too, but I fear the wrath of Lucas and his copyright lawyers.
Posted by: Louis
|
February 3, 2010 9:44 AM
If Papa Ratzi (Der Katholischekirchenubergruppenfuhrer) wants to come to sainted Albion, let him.
If he wants to spout his usual brand of Dark Age waffle covered Bronze Age bollocks, let him.
If he wants to be protected from some legitimately irate person heaving a brick at him, let him.....pay for it his fucking self!*
He can afford it after all.
Louis
*Oh I know, I know, he's a head of state, it's not the done thing to allow heads of state to, you know, suffer the consequences of their words and deeds. Unless of course they are a naughty head of state which we have previously, say, funded, armed, set up and supported. In which case we should hang them. And this isn't anti-catholic bias, it's anti-scumbag bias. If the sets of "offical catholic doctrine" and "kiddy fiddling subset of priesthood" overlap with the set of "scumbag", then it's hardly MY fault now is it?
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
February 3, 2010 9:59 AM
If you can convince him he can afford a two-front war against Poland and Bavaria…
Nope. tz is long and is preceded by a short vowel, z is short and is preceded by a long vowel (or a consonant).
(By "long vowel" I do mean literally long vowels.)
Posted by: Truckle
|
February 3, 2010 10:06 AM
On a related note my Dad just had his first letter to the Daily Telegraph published...
Oy vey... *facepalm*
I could tell him why, but I still love my dad even if I completely disagree with him on a lot of things, and I prefer our 'don't talk about it' strategy we seem to have.
Amusingly however the next letter is directly contradictory saying it is the anglican church that has bravely defied the government and the catholic church has been only mildly disagreeing and in fact agreeing with the sex education part of the bill...
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
February 3, 2010 10:09 AM
WHat would you blackmail Berlusconi with? That requires shame.
Posted by: ryan
|
February 3, 2010 10:16 AM
Does anyone know if the Pope is coming to Canada? Are we paying? Is there something like this set up for us? I've done a couple google searches but I might just be retarded this early.
Posted by: shonny
|
February 3, 2010 10:31 AM
Paying for Ratzi the Nazi (Siegheil 2)to visit?
They should pay the paedophile-protecting motherfucker to stay at home! Not much though, - say one token pence.
Posted by: K. E. Decilon
|
February 3, 2010 10:33 AM
I have been referring to Herr Ratsinger as "Pope Benny the Umpteenth" for some time now.
Posted by: Randomfactor
|
February 3, 2010 10:40 AM
Say what you will about Pope Ratzi, but at least he acknolwedges he's a primate.
Posted by: Tark
|
February 3, 2010 10:43 AM
@70
or Canadian? (Sorry, too easy ....)
I heard Pope Benny was hanging with Tim Gunn these days and also trying to appear on Project Runway, or Launch My Line or Kiss My Rings and Shoes
Tax Religion.
Tark
Posted by: shonny
|
February 3, 2010 11:09 AM
By the way, any US news about the ten Baptists who wanted to smuggle children out from Haiti and now are jailed there?
Nice mob. Not!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-baptists-knew-taking-children-out-of-haiti-was-wrong-1886357.html
Posted by: Miki Z
|
February 3, 2010 11:16 AM
It's one of the things we've been talking about (though not for a little bit) over on the endless thread. There has been some U.S. coverage of it.
Posted by: MolBio
|
February 3, 2010 11:20 AM
I created a Facebook Group you might like as a good joke to counter Christian Censorship calls...
Make the Bible R18+
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=286083255739
Let's Pharyngulate some Christ-facists on FB. :D
Posted by: MrFire
|
February 3, 2010 11:27 AM
I submit: Papa-Ratzi*.
*I suppose Papa-Ratz-o would be more accurate, but whatever.
Posted by: malcanoid
|
February 3, 2010 12:03 PM
This afternoon, it seems that the minister responsible for the Equalities Bill that old Ratzzi gets so upset about, has given in to him.
The provisions that would have prevented the churches exercising their bigotry in employment matters were overthrown (with the help of Anglican bishops) in the House of Lords. Harriet Harman has announced she will not now be forcing the issue through the Lords.
Rationalist Egalitarians 0 Bigotry Romana 1
Posted by: Miki Z
|
February 3, 2010 12:12 PM
WWJD? becomes WWJDA? (Who Would Jesus Discriminate Against?)
Posted by: kaessa.com
|
February 3, 2010 12:17 PM
Signed... oh, and I prefer "Pope Palpatine" myself.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
February 3, 2010 12:20 PM
You know your God is made up when he hates all the same people you hate.
Posted by: Die Anyway
|
February 3, 2010 12:43 PM
"Look: the Pope is a crank figure, the head of a weird religious cult who promotes weird ideas,..."
PZ, you have such a wonderful way with words. I'm luvin' it.
Posted by: Stogoe
|
February 3, 2010 12:57 PM
I prefer to call him Joey the Rat, myself.
This would be really cruel, or really hilarious. Me, I'm betting it's both.Posted by: MolBio
|
February 3, 2010 1:21 PM
Maybe we should pay to fly all religious leaders to one place, give them pointed sticks, and ask them to prove which is the one true faith. :p
Posted by: Sanction
|
February 3, 2010 1:46 PM
AJ Milne @60
In Minnesota at least, authorities are required to notify a neighborhood when certain sex offenders plan to move there. The sex offender is required to inform the authorities of his place of residence and any plans to relocate to a permissible area, but he is not required to personally provide the notification to the neighborhood.
But someone like Ratzinger can end up on the sex-offender registry in Minnesota even if he doesn't personally molest a child.
"A personal shall register [as a sex offender] if:
the person was charged with ... conspiracy to commit ... any of the following, and convicted of ... that offense ...
[first-degree] criminal sexual conduct ..."
First-degree CSC is committed if a person engages in sexual penetration or sexual contact with a person under 13 years of age and the actor (the first person) is more than 36 months older than the victim.
And conspiracy does not require that the underlying crime actually be committed.
Posted by: ~Pharyngulette~
|
February 3, 2010 1:50 PM
Louis @66
I'd just like to step out of the lurk-shadows for a moment to make my chortling known. Phrase above=WIN. It sounds like a new ice-cream treat: "Hey kids, it's delicious dark-age waffle, smothered in bronze-age bollocks! Wow! Tell your friends!"
Posted by: cag
|
February 3, 2010 1:51 PM
I refer to the spin doctor for superstition and head of the catholic pyramid scheme as Ratboy.
There was a time when the catholics had such power over the populace that in order to protect their children, parents would indoctrinate their offspring with ridiculous, stupid, superstitious and injurious ideas to keep them from being killed by the adherents of a "loving" imaginary being. Our children are no longer subjected to this danger, except in some islamic countries, but the stupid indoctrination continues. For this alone the pope should be unconditionally and universally condemned.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384
|
February 3, 2010 1:52 PM
Henry VIII is revolving in his grave right now... Yeah, he was a complete bastard, but he really screwed the catholic church over.
I'm another fan of the 'Pope Panzefaust' monicker. Truely epic.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
February 3, 2010 1:56 PM
I bitterly object to the idea that even one penny of my tax-pounds should be spent on this visit by a paedophile-protecting, misogynist, homophobia-spouting old git.
What is worse, Pope Palpatine actually has the raw gall to try to subvert UK equality law (ably abetted by the travesty of Anglican bishops in the House of Lords), and our government promptly rolls over and lets the pseudo-sanctimonious old monster do it! What a wonderful day for British 'democracy'.
If the cretin must darken our shores to spout his bigoted garbage, then the obscenely rich Vatican can pay for the proceedings itself.
Now, if Ratzi were promptly arrested upon his arrival for conspiracy to facilitate child abuse, that would be different. Unfortunately, this is a legal impossibility.
A man can dream though, can't he?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384
|
February 3, 2010 2:08 PM
Oh yeah, Ratzi's old crew were really a nice piece of work too.
He's already interfered in other countries ability to investigate crime so fuck him. With a hammer.
Posted by: tsg
|
February 3, 2010 2:29 PM
Sideways.
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
February 3, 2010 2:37 PM
All I have to say to this is: in the extremely technically demanding category of 'almost painful, rib-splitting guffaws per character typed', you have just shattered all previous records by at least a factor of four.
(/Also, fortunately, I'd just finished my second martini before reading your comment, and so not only might this have helped, but no spillage ensued... Anyway, my point is: you're cool with me.)
Posted by: No More Mr. Nice Guy!
|
February 3, 2010 2:56 PM
@#26: International arrest warrants do exist, and were one of the issues that came up in the debate over Ireland's (stupid and retarded) blasphemy law. In recent years a Jordanian court has issued an IAW against a Dutch filmmaker for blasphemy, and a Greek court has issued an IAW against an Austrian cartoonist for blasphemy. Since the Republic of Ireland now makes blasphemy a crime, it would pretty much be compelled to honor an IAW for blasphemy against one of its citizens and let them be dragged off to some Muslim hellhole prison.
Posted by: No More Mr. Nice Guy!
|
February 3, 2010 2:59 PM
Source for my previous comment:
http://blasphemy.ie/2009/06/07/artists-to-face-extradition-for-blasphemy/
Posted by: timrowledge
|
February 3, 2010 3:11 PM
By odd coincidence, today is apparently the anniversary of the Papal massacre and pillage of Cesena - look on wikipedia under 1377 & Cesena for some info. They really do have the moral authority of their delightful deity, don't they?
Posted by: tsg
|
February 3, 2010 3:12 PM
@AJ Milne
I appreciate the compliment and I'm also glad to hear that I wasn't responsible for the spilling of a perfectly good martini. I don't know if I could handle that.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
February 3, 2010 3:14 PM
@94: Missing the point. International Arrest Warrants exist. If one were made out for a *Head of State*, it would not be honored.
So are you guys making the argument that Pope Palpatine can be put on a sex offender list. Yeah, probably, legally. But it would never happen no matter how strong the case one. And I'm not sure if there's enough to prove such a thing happened beyond a reasonable doubt, much less the popeatine's involvement.
Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD
|
February 3, 2010 3:21 PM
Sara Silverman speaks out. Only slightly OT and damned funny.
BS
Posted by: No More Mr. Nice Guy!
|
February 3, 2010 3:36 PM
#98: you missed my point. Someone questioned whether IAW's exist. They do. And I don't think anyone here actually believes El Popo would be put on a sex offender list. Don't be so literal-minded, leave that to the fundies.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
February 3, 2010 3:50 PM
I signed both the NSS and Downing Street petitions - but really, they should be calling for the UK to declare war on the self-styled "Holy See" for blatant interference in our internal affairs. If Ratfinger (my own preferred designation) or any of his subjects come here, they could then be held as PoWs.
I don't think there's much chance of Berlusconi joining the anti-Papal front, though - he and Ratfinger are as thick as thieves.
Posted by: Sanction
|
February 3, 2010 4:05 PM
No More @100
I certainly don't. I was referring to someone like Ratzinger, or more accurately someone who does what some think Ratzinger's done (authorized the relocation of rapist priests with knowledge that molestation would continue with new victims).
But Rutee's correct in one sense. Proving beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of an agreement to commit a crime, which is required for a conspiracy conviction, would be tough unless the parties involved were complete idiots.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
February 3, 2010 4:11 PM
@negentropyeater: Thanks for the list. I'd have too look up some of those names; I just can't remember them. Ceauscescu is another good one on the list.
I envy the British - the upper class still lord it over them. In the USA we're still working hard to achieve class segregation again, but corporate chiefs are winning. Just last year we handed out billions to irresponsibly managed banks, so I think that's a fantastic start.
Posted by: FrankT
|
February 3, 2010 4:34 PM
Pope Palpatine is the best. It's alliterative (in the actual poetic sense), it's geeky, and it's insulting. Plus, he really does look and talk like the Emperor. And he live in Rome.
Posted by: MetzO'Magic
|
February 3, 2010 4:39 PM
The long arm of the fatwah. I just hope poor PZed manages to last out the week here.
Posted by: Fred The Hun
|
February 3, 2010 4:58 PM
And you still find that odd?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
February 3, 2010 5:06 PM
I haven't decided if I prefer Pope Palpatine or Pope Benny Razi as a nom du dégoût.
Posted by: Marcus
|
February 3, 2010 5:21 PM
Over 10,000 people have now signed the petition. But it is nowhere near enough. If you haven't already, please get behind this because it feels like there's a huge ground swell building up.
Let's make this a movement that the global media, the UK government and his evilness the pope can't ignore.
But most of all, let's make it the start of a worldwide movement that says a very loud, simple and co-ordinated 'no' to the lies that this bastards stand for.
Posted by: illdoittomorrow
|
February 3, 2010 5:26 PM
Sanction @ 102: I wouldn't put it past at least a few of the Catholic hierarchy to be that stupid.
Speaking of sex offenders and such... I wonder what the legal consequences of putting up "wanted" posters around, say, a venue Pope Palpatine is scheduled to appear at would be? I'm not familiar with England's nasty libel laws.
Posted by: Kausik Datta
|
February 3, 2010 6:02 PM
The visit to Ireland seems to be doing wonders for PZ's brain. This statement is SO full of WIN:
Posted by: Joffan
|
February 3, 2010 7:02 PM
Does anyone have a link to the £20 million figure that explains how it is calculated?
Current news seems to imply that the government is mostly only handling security costs (plus I guess their internal costs for ministers who want a chat with the head god-botherer). That could still be quite a large lump of money, of course, but it's always good to keep the machinery in regular use.
Posted by: xunatz
|
February 3, 2010 7:23 PM
PZ, tell us how you really feel about the Pope?
Posted by: Nick
|
February 3, 2010 7:25 PM
Jeez, listen to you guys. its not as if the Pope is the head of a large organisation that has been involved in genocide, torture, theft, oppression, physical, sexual and psychological abuse, destruction of cultures and languages, lieing, bribery, misinformation about health care.....
Um, OK. I see your point.
Mr Brown, tell him he is welcome to come to the UK, at the tax payers expense, if he formally apologies for the crimes that the Catholic Church has committed in the past, and demonstrates how he will ensure that the Catholic Church is going to ensure that they do not become involved in any further wrong-doing.
Posted by: Nick
|
February 3, 2010 7:33 PM
And you know, the funny thing is, I've heard the Pope speaks very highly of PZ. Reads this blog religiously.
Posted by: Andyo
|
February 3, 2010 8:25 PM
Wanna start a T-Shirt business?Posted by: Nineveh
|
February 3, 2010 9:13 PM
I think that's what Jesus used to charge for his travels across Israel.
The "Pope" should be more ashamed of himself than he is. Then again, so should most people who peddle invisible friends while sitting on golden thrones.
Posted by: Kamaka
|
February 3, 2010 10:50 PM
It's unbelievable, really, that these shits do this over and over again, and keep getting away with it.
"I know what gawd thinks!"
Posted by: DLC
|
February 4, 2010 12:04 AM
Louis @ #66 ::. . .
But I like waffles, Dammit!
especially with bacon on the side.
I'd like the pope on a rope. or at least on a perpwalk.
PS:
This just in: "Self-Help" scammer James Ray has been arrested in connection with the deaths of four people in a "Sweat lodge".
Posted by: Woof
|
February 4, 2010 12:33 AM
Here's an amusing letter from "Science" to Darth Ratzo: http://bit.ly/9KK0fX (It's at Science Digestive, which I recommend.)
Posted by: F
|
February 4, 2010 1:11 AM
Rev. BigDumbChimp @ 52:
Awesome. Blasphemy by committee.
Posted by: Moggie
|
February 4, 2010 1:39 AM
Although, being a bleeding-heart liberal and all, I should say that there's nothing wrong with being "a weird geezer in a dress", particularly if it's Eddie Izzard. I'd have no problem with Ratzi's dressing up or his alternative sexuality if it weren't for the more troubling things he does and stands for.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkBSMeADPoPaKK-z3uWENxvLgXZ_yotY-I
|
February 4, 2010 1:50 AM
I disagree with this petition. Whether or not I like the Pope is not even relevant. The Pope is a head of state, as such his visit to the UK is a state visit.
Posted by: Colin
|
February 4, 2010 2:02 AM
The whole thing proves God does not exist.
If Benny The Rat is the Vicar Of Christ, surely Christ would have chosen someone slightly more photogenic?
Posted by: Strangest brew
|
February 4, 2010 2:30 AM
#113
"if he formally apologies for the crimes that the Catholic Church has committed in the past,"
Which will be the thing that will never occur before catolik hell freezes over!
It was all their sky fairies will after all.
"and demonstrates how he will ensure that the Catholic Church is going to ensure that they do not become involved in any further wrong-doing"
But that "violates natural law".
This bunch of bozos have no intention of growing up to be rational human beings...the catolik dogma is perfect cover for the insane, the mentally retarded, the fantasist, the incompetent, the bitter, the incapable,the inadequate,the sexually dysfunctional, the deeply ignorant, the sycophantic, the paedophile, the bully, the liar, the abuser, the bigot, the fearful, the pompous, the intolerant, the haters and the greedy.
That is just soooooooo much fun being a sunbeam of irrationality that they would claim the 'bhaabi jeebus' would cry if they renounced their character....along with all their made up saints and sinners in their torridly twisted damaged juvenile imaginations.
Posted by: F
|
February 4, 2010 2:33 AM
#122
Do you expect that some loudmouth head of state from, say, Palau or Nauru (or Prince Roy of Sealand, for that matter) would be granted the same sort of expenditure and pseudo-obsequious acceptance? This "state" to which you refer has suffered rather large but somewhat temporally irregular territorial losses (I do not defer to the tone of the Lateran Treaty here), and exists solely on the sufferance of religious atavists and others afflicted with a strange traditional nostalgia.
Hell, not only is it entirely surrounded by another coutnry, it is entirely surrounded by another city, and does not fulfill many of the generally accepted criteria for determining what is or is not a sovereign state (a distinction it holds in common with Sealand).
Sure, it is recognized as a sovereign state, but only through a pathology of extreme mental disturbance.
Posted by: Mr T
|
February 4, 2010 2:46 AM
#122:
Don't get me wrong: there are plenty of reasons to dislike him, but that's not all there is to it.
First, I think it's debatable whether a state visit like this should cost £20 million. Of course they will be expensive, but that certainly seems excessive (although I'm not British, so I don't really know how it compares, except to about $32 million).
More to the point.... Does the Pope do anything as "head of state" that should have any bearing whatsoever on international politics? Honest question. Something more than "Yes" or "No" would be nice. I don't see why the Vatican should even be recognized as a state by (ostensibly) secular governments. You could explain that part of it too, if you like.
Posted by: DSil
|
February 4, 2010 5:13 AM
What I don't get is, why do you call it a "cult?" If all religion is by definition unfounded in evidence and therefore ridiculous, why does calling it a cult make it any more despicable? That's the kind of terminology mainstream religions use to distinguish their institutions from modern upstarts trying to take a piece of the superstition pie.
If Catholocism is a cult, what religion isn't?
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkKknWGHbqsThjsMRnRWycLsrZ7YEn3jLI
|
February 4, 2010 5:20 AM
Truckle @59 re. Pinochet:
That's a disturbing image. Are you sure you've got this right?Posted by: Monkey's Uncle
|
February 4, 2010 6:51 AM
Signed. As a subject of mad german royals, I personally can't wait to protest against this vicious, vacuous, vociferous vagabond.
oh, and I prefer Pope Papaltine...:-)
Posted by: Miki Z
|
February 4, 2010 6:51 AM
From the BBC, re Thatcher and Pinochet:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/304516.stm
Posted by: Walton
|
February 4, 2010 7:10 AM
The criteria in international law for determining what is or is not a state are quite complex, but the most common definition is that outlined in the 1936 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, which specifies that a state must have (a) a defined territory, (b) a permanent population, (c) an effective government and (d) the capacity to enter into relations with other states. In practice, of course, fulfilling these criteria do not automatically make an entity into a state: there are several state-like entities (such as Somaliland and Abhkazia) which have effective control over an area of territory, but which, for various reasons, are not treated as states by the international community.
The Vatican City, however, is indisputably a state. It maintains full diplomatic and consular relations with numerous countries, and enjoys observer status at the UN. Palau and Nauru are also states under international law. Sealand is not, because it does not have a territory (an artificial platform does not count as "territory" for purposes of international law, and falls within the 12-mile limit of British territorial seas in any case) and has never been treated as a state for any legal purpose, despite the claims they make on their website.
(Interestingly, the Holy See, as distinct from the Vatican City State, is a sui generis subject of international law with its own special rights. Even between 1861 and 1929, when the Vatican was occupied by Italy, it was still considered an independent entity under international law and was entitled to send and receive ambassadors, despite not having any territory. The only other similar entity is the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, which likewise does not control any territory but is still treated as a sovereign entity under international law.)
I am simply laying out the position in international law; this should not be construed as an endorsement of the Pope's visit (which I certainly do not support).
Posted by: ConcernedJoe
|
February 4, 2010 7:53 AM
Is the Vatican State a State? As Walton has elucidated - yup!
But here is the point. It is a ROGUE state - by international definition!
This means meeting certain criteria, such as:
* being ruled by authoritarian regimes (no argument there I hope!)
* that severely restrict human rights (most of their doctrines seek to control and limit behavior and cast laws in their restrictive image - World Wide!)
* sponsor terrorism (is it not terrorism to tell susceptible people World Wide do it my way or burn in Hell?!? Because this is coupled with the next point also)
* and seek to proliferate weapons of mass destruction (e.g., is not their influence that restricts contraceptives especially those that would minimize horrible disease just that? how many people has this killed? - simply because they exert there power and influence World-wide)
Think about it!
Posted by: F
|
February 4, 2010 8:03 AM
DSil @ 127:
Why not? It fits many definitions of a cult.
Calling it a cult cannot make it more despicable. Making Catholicism or any other religion despicable is a job efficiently fulfilled by the religion itself.
A distinction without a difference. I myself have no obligation to respect the interests of "established" religions. Never mind that all religions were modern upstarts at one time.
I can't imagine any.
Posted by: F
|
February 4, 2010 9:09 AM
Hello, yes, Walton @ 131
I am quite well aware of this. Perhaps you'd care to address how a diplomatic visit by a leader of one of these nations, who also happens to be vociferously opinionated on how the citizens and government should conduct their private and internal affairs, would be received, and how much money, etc., would be invested in receiving them. I do not submit that such leaders of Palau or Nauru exist, they are examples for consideration in this thought experiment, but do consider that they are in fact larger states than the Vatican.
Thank you for explaining that to me.
Only, as I have mentioned, because it is recognized. There are any number of localities which could quite easily fulfill these criteria, if allowed. You could do it yourself with any small town, as long as its independence and sovereignty were recognized.
Indeed. And yes, it is interesting, if only because it such a recognition exists.
You see, I was arguing against the silliness of the Vatican's recognition as a state by international law. All the criteria it fulfills are entirely granted by the sufferance of others. It has no true economy, produces and exports nothing but a variety of bullshit unsuited for use as fertilizer and exists solely on the donations of others made contemporarily or at some time in the past. It offers no more stabilizing force upon its population than an extra three or four Roman police officers might.
The position of international law is obvious. If the position of international law were not such as it is in this case due to religious tradition, the Vatican would only be recognized as an autonomous territory of, and only within, Italy, by Italy. No one would find any pressing need or benefit to recognizing it otherwise.
I did not construe any statement of yours as an endorsement of the Pope's visit, the Pope, the Roman Catholic Church, or the international recognition of the Vatican as a sovereign state. You haven't mentioned your position on any of these with the exception of your clear statement that you do not endorse the Pope's visit in this case. This I understand to mean that you at least do not agree with the proposed expenditures of the British government in this matter, and possibly that you do not like him visiting at all. (Which is what your statement sounds like, but given the context, I'll assume it means only "no money for Pope hotel".)
Posted by: ConcernedJoe
|
February 4, 2010 9:16 AM
And F #134 I add
That is grant and accept it is State then we must also recognize it is a Rogue State by definition.
I stated this above - and although someone can lawyer a counter - what I am saying is not silliness on face value.
It is a ROGUE State and should be shunned by all freedom loving peaceful Nations.
Posted by: heff.myopenid.com
|
February 4, 2010 9:18 AM
@7: 'I prefer the "Gnome of Rome" - alliterates better.'
@16: I hate to be pedantic*, but it doesn't alliterate at all, it rhymes.
"Gnome of Rome" is not an example of alliteration, but it is an example of assonance (which tickles me to no end).
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkKknWGHbqsThjsMRnRWycLsrZ7YEn3jLI
|
February 4, 2010 9:51 AM
Miki Z @130: if that's a response to my #128, try reading the bit I blockquoted again, more carefully this time.
Posted by: Miki Z
|
February 4, 2010 9:57 AM
You're right. My mind just refused to see it until I took it letter-by-letter, which I wish I had not.
Posted by: F
|
February 4, 2010 9:58 AM
ConcernedJoe @ 135
I see no real difference to treating the Vatican as a rogue state or no state at all, excepting perhaps in regards to the technical manner of apprehension and prosecution of any accused of criminal activity therein or such accused outside its borders to whom the Vatican and related institutions are accessories, harbor criminals, or interfere with lawful investigations.
It can be shunned equally well as a state or institution, but if you feel that the phrase "rogue state" has some social engineering value above other possible appellations, you are welcome to your opinion, and I won't particularly disagree.
However, the only entities which count here, i.e., the governments of other states, will likely nether list the Vatican as a rogue state (which may be of usage somewhat peculiar to the U.S., I don't know), nor stop recognizing it as a state.
It would be better to lobby your government to stop making special allowances granting the Roman Catholic Church the amount of immunity from prosecution that they do. Not just the Catholic Church, but all religious institutions. Not just for criminal activity, but for all special status, including their enjoyment of tax-exempt status where not conforming to the rules laid out for other non-profit organizations, including NPO status itself.
Although I do tend to recognize the Vatican as a state of denial.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe
|
February 4, 2010 10:29 AM
F - I accept your points.
However there is congruence between the Vatican and (at least the USA) criteria for a Rogue State. And there is a politic of language.
The Vatican does do real damage in the World - at a massive scale. Their damage is not limited to horrific but relatively small number of victim abuse of children and young adults (e.g., the Irish Nunneries). It is systemic and affects a broad swath of humanity.
I see value in the simple use of International criteria that defines bad behavior to drive home the "unholyiness" of the "holy" See.
Posted by: tsg
|
February 4, 2010 11:05 AM
None of them. That's the point.
Posted by: vinnie
|
February 4, 2010 11:34 AM
After playing Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, I can't help but picture Pope Ratzi as Redd White.
Same smug smile, same bling, same condescending attitude, same greedy behavior. All that's missing is the gravity-defying hat.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
February 4, 2010 12:43 PM
Even between 1861 and 1929, when the Vatican was occupied by Italy - Walton
Interesting - I hadn't realised that the Vatican City State and Holy See are both counted as sovereign! Nor how much had been occupied by Italy before 1929 - but the Apostolic Palace was not, so the Pope still had some territory under his control.
Posted by: qbsmd
|
February 4, 2010 1:18 PM
But "Ratzi the former Hitler Youth who supports anti-Semitic priests" just doesn't have the same ring to it...