Posted on 07/27/2010 7:13:46 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
MY FEARS that Pope Benedict's forthcoming visit to the UK would prove divisive are already coming true. The row about the cost to the taxpayer has been unpleasant, while the decision of the Roman Catholic hierarchy to levy a "voluntary" charge of £20 on everyone attending the Papal Mass in Glasgow simply stinks - the Church is still one of the richest institutions in the world, and I always thought money being exchanged for the sacraments was the sin of simony.
As for the latest wheeze of a Scottish historical pageant in Princes Street featuring an actor playing John Knox, I can only think that someone in the Catholic Church has taken leave of their senses and clearly has no concept of Knox's theology. The man himself smashed "graven images" in churches across Scotland, and never sat for a portrait. He would find the prospect of a mummer playing him in a Papal cavalcade utterly offensive, and I suspect more than a few Protestants and not a few Catholics will be angered by this patronising gesture.
Yet the people I most fear are the militant atheists who have mounted a high-profile campaign against the visit. They are led by Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, who has called for the Pope to be arrested as soon as he arrives in Edinburgh to start the trip.
While I agree with Dawkins that something needs to be done about the Church's cover-up of clerical abuse, the fact is that Pope Benedict himself is perfectly innocent of a charge of abuse, and he should be free to visit Britain, not least because he is a head of state, albeit that the Vatican is the smallest state in the world.
Dawkins sees the world from the point of view of evolutionary biology, and thinks Darwinism can explain everything. He airily dismisses questions that might upset his cosmological view, such as why does life exist, which is why I don't think he is a very good scientist.
He also reviles religion and clearly despises the very existence of Christianity, Islam, Judaism and all the rest. He really would impose a secular world, and that's why Dawkins and his kind really worry me. They are the atheist Taliban, determined to destroy religion, and you can bet they will exploit the Papal visit to push their Godless creed.
In their own way, they are as bad as any fundamentalist Muslim ayatollah in Iran or raging right-wing conservative Christian in the United States.
For instance, Dawkins wants "faith schools" to be scrapped. So let's go back and rip up the UN Declaration of Human Rights which is supposed to be the guarantor of freedom across the globe. Article 18 would have to go - "everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" - and so would article 26, which states that "parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children".
That's the problem for fundamentalists, be they religious lunatics or atheists. They would restrict basic freedoms and re-make the world in their own perverted image.
Were Pope Benedict a fundamentalist calling for Roman Catholicism to be once again the state religion of Scotland, I would be first in line to bar the door to him. But he appears to be a man trying to preach to his flock, and even if some of his views and doctrines are frankly bizarre in this day and age, he should be allowed to do so.
We should offer a warm Edinburgh welcome to the Pope, listen politely to what he has to say, either heed his advice or ignore him, and then wish him bon voyage. That goes for people of all religion and none.
....As for the latest wheeze of a Scottish historical pageant in Princes Street featuring an actor playing John Knox, I can only think that someone in the Catholic Church has taken leave of their senses and clearly has no concept of Knox's theology. The man himself smashed "graven images" in churches across Scotland, and never sat for a portrait. He would find the prospect of a mummer playing him in a Papal cavalcade utterly offensive, and I suspect more than a few Protestants and not a few Catholics will be angered by this patronising gesture.
Um, cranky Scotsman, be sure to not bother to attend, then. You will save your money and you won’t have to fight the Reformation all over again.
Dawkins is the Fred Phelps of philistines.
20 bucks to see the pope? Sign me up.
Well, if the taxpayer is not going to foot the bill, someone has to do it. Actually, $20 isn't bad; I would imagine that Glaswegians pay substantially more than that to see their football teams in action, or see the latest pop-tart on stage.
It's actually 20 British Pounds (US$31). Bargain.
Of course it would be true, as Jesus stated clearly in Matthew 10, He did not come to bring peace, but to divide people. It is only natural that someone who brings the Message of Jesus would cause some rumblings in the pasture.
But why be fearful? The fact that this divisiveness is happening serves to prove the validity of Scripture. The Pope should not be held responsible for people choosing to act like a bunch of pricks in response to his visit.
SuzyQ: Actually, $20 isn't bad
FWIW, it's not twenty dollars, it's twenty pounds sterling (Scotland uses the British pound for currency). It's roughly $31 in US currency, at today's exchange rate. Locals may have to sacrifice that drive-thru lunch of fish & chips during the pontifical parade.
If they can’t afford it, they should just walk on through.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.