Reader comments · Stephen Fry and Richard Dawkins say Pope should not be given ‘honour’ of state visit · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Stephen Fry and Richard Dawkins say Pope should not be given ‘honour’ of state visit

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Totally agree. He should never have been given a ‘state’ visit. Another disgraceful act created by the Labour Party.

  2. I’m sure the Pope will be devastated to learn that the presenter of QI has written a rude letter about him.

  3. Iain MacLeod 15 Sep 2010, 3:06pm

    Well done on Stephen Fry and the others. Sometimes respeced celebrities (example Joanna Lumley) can go much further and have more effect than the simpering sycophantic apolologistic guisers we harbour under the title of politician. This pethetic old man, nor his church should never have been sponsored in any way by the state. £20million overall excluding security to parade the biggest concealer of paedophiles known to date in this country. Could he not just stayed at home and downlaoded a broadcast to You Tube or over the net? Think how many children abused by priests and nuns £20 million could have helped. People drowning in Pakistan and other countries with floods and eathquakes and starving to death, whilst this old fool in his fancy dress outfit deems he is worthy to step on our soil. I hope all those who promote this shameful visit hang their heads in absolute ahame.

  4. What’s weird is that he will be received by the Queen when there is evidence to suggest that he has encouraged her Catholic subjects to break her laws.
    HM and her government shouldn’t entertain him until all that has been investigated and found unsubstantiated, which should mean no state visit for now. In fact, it should mean he isn’t allowed in, full stop.

  5. Erroll Clements 15 Sep 2010, 3:41pm

    Maybe he should be arrested as soon as he touches down on British soil and then throw him into the slammer with George Michael, maybe he may tell him a thing or two ?!! Ahhhhhhhh well we can only wish, still won’t stop the fu***r from coming here !

  6. I agree with the sentiment. Unfortunately, the Vatican is recognized as an independent country and, technically, the Pope is a head of state. He gets to have his cake and eat it, too.

  7. Strikes me as pure Islamophobia that we never invited Ayatollah Khomeini but have invited Papapaedo.

  8. The Pope should be informed that his toxic doctrine is not appreciated in this country, then be given a swift and decisive boot up the backside and sent back to the “Holy See” his make-believe state.
    I think he should be staying at home to get on with some of the massive cleaning-up that desperately needs to be attended to there.

  9. Tatchell’s got a nerve signing this letter. He has covered up child molestation by failing to report underage sexual activity to the police. He should be arrested.

    Where is Pink News’s report on this?

  10. @Flossie Thank you Flossie for that thoroughly entertaining piece of tripe from that upstanding organ of truth and objectivity. I’m waiting with baited breath for the evidence of your cover-up claim. It certainly wasn’t anywhere to be found in your link.

    Better still – go back to posting on nutter sites and leave us all alone, until you can develop some critical faculties.

  11. Flossie
    Peter Tatchell said ‘I was opposing calls for censorship generated by this book. I was not in any way condoning paedophilia’

  12. Comment 2 by Bob

    “I’m sure the Pope will be devastated to learn that the presenter of QI has written a rude letter about him.”

    Stephen Fry is a polymath. Look it up.

  13. Vo Dong Cung 15 Sep 2010, 8:54pm

    Ratzinger did not respect himself how can we respect him? so funny thing the state ivitation him.

    And Vatican can’t be cosidered as a state. They did not sign UN Human Rights Declaration, mean they do not want to be friends of human being. They just want to be friends with animals and doing the same animal ways

  14. He is often referred to as the Whore of Babylon in some of the remote islands of Scotland. Sounds about right.

  15. Catholic dogma and practice infringe at least ELEVEN articles of the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. As the Convention seeks to protect children “without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s or his or her parent’s or legal guardian’s race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status”, ALL children (regardless of any religion of their parents) should be protected.

    National media have reported over the past ten days that 77% of people think taxpayers should not fund the pope’s tour, and that unsold tickets were being offered to schools near London, [Daily Telegraph, 5th Sep.]; that eminent barrister Geoffrey Robertson QC has published a book [“The Case of the Pope”] deploring that penalties for priests found guilty of molesting children are only derisory, explaining that the Vatican is NOT a state, and advocating that Ratzinger should be tried for crimes against humanity, [Guardian, 7th Sep.]; that Belgium now has documented cases of abuse in virtually EVERY school run by the church, [Guardian, 10th Sep.]; that 52% of catholics confess the scale of the child abuse, and the way it was handled, has shaken their faith in catholic leadership, [Guardian, 11th Sep.]; that societies without religion are more benevolent, [Observer, 12th]; that most of Britain’s Roman Catholics oppose traditional teaching church on sex, [Telegraph, 13th.], with only 4% agreeing on abortion; and that half the Catholic clergy jailed for paedophile activity in England and Wales remain in the priesthood, [Guardian, 15th].

    The words of Prof. Richard Dawkins sum up the case succinctly. —

    “Mr Ratzinger, as head of the world’s second most evil religion you are not welcome. True, your church recently ‘pardoned’ Galileo (four centuries late), and eventually revoked its historic anti-Semitism. But the equally long-established misogyny remains. On almost all issues concerned with sex, contraception, population and reproduction your stance is illiberal, inhumane and immoral, and your propaganda claim that condoms don’t protect against AIDS is scientifically inaccurate and murderously cynical. In criminally shielding child-raping priests from justice you have placed the welfare of your church ahead of your victims. Go home to your tinpot Mussolini-concocted principality, and don’t come back.”

  16. Peter Baird 16 Sep 2010, 2:34am

    Will Jesus be collecting the ticket money at the Open Air Mass?

  17. We have our stored, wrotten quail eggs to throw at him; come on Q E 2- give him a reet good telling off…. pleeeeaaase!

  18. saw fry in an ad for the Murdoch owned times. if he’s so smart he’s taking cash from that gay hating pig? rupert(facelift) Everett was in it too wft is wrong with these homos

  19. @9, Flossie wrote: “Tatchell’s got a nerve signing this letter. He has covered up child molestation by failing to report underage sexual activity to the police. He should be arrested.”

    But if you read (below)what Tatchell actually says in the Peter Hitchens article Flossie has linked to you will get a much better understanding of what Tatchell is very clearly and eloquently saying…

    “… on June 26, 1997, Mr Tatchell wrote a start­ling letter to the Guardian newspaper.

    In it, he defended an academic book about ‘Boy-Love’ against what he saw as calls for it to be censored.

    When I contacted him on Friday, he emphasised that he is ‘against sex between adults and children’ and that his main purpose in writing the letter had been to defend free speech.

    He told me: ‘I was opposing calls for censorship generated by this book. I was not in any way condoning paedophilia.’

    Personally, I think he went a bit further than that. He wrote that the book’s arguments were not shocking, but ‘courageous’.

    He said the book documented ‘examples of societies where consenting inter-generational sex is considered normal’.

    He gave an example of a New Guinea tribe where ‘all young boys have sex with older warriors as part of their initiation into manhood’ and allegedly grow up to be ‘happy, well-adjusted husbands and fathers’.

    And he concluded: ‘The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures.

    ‘Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13.

    ‘None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.

    ‘While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.’ ”
    Peter Hitchens

  20. George Broadhead 16 Sep 2010, 10:44am

    It is significant that both Stephen Fry and Richard Dawkins are atheistic Humanists, both being distiguished supporters of the British Humanist Association

  21. Rod Harrison 16 Sep 2010, 11:21am

    Somebody oughta check on the queens advisers, she’s supposed to be defender of the faith-if I am not mistaken that is the anglican church, so why parly with the enemy. Are we about to witness a catholic takeover? What beats me is the unbelievers are doing what true christians should be doing. I don’care if you’re pink, blue yellow or what gay, queer, happy unhappy, alchoholic, rapist, paedo, everybody faces the judgement (or not) Henry the eighth went through a lot of bother disassociating this nation from a papist dynasty, and Cromwell got rid of a monster who thought himself to be Godly inspired, we as a nation have got problems enough with greedy bankers, and overpaid superstars (Stephen fry among them) to be wasting taxes like this. Mind you Frys book Moab is my washpot or whatever was a good read! The bible says BE WARY OF THOSE WHO DRESS IN LONG ROBES! It also advises us not to judge!Dawkins is a self opinionated imbecile but an entetaining one! What happens if the Archbishop of Canterbury gets an invite to ROME? At the end of the day it’ll still be midnight!

  22. OMAR KUDDUS GayasylumUK 16 Sep 2010, 12:22pm

    Well atleast not on my tax pound, please.
    If you hate us that much, why should wwe have to supplement your visit.

  23. For a while it looked like Downing Street was being open and transparent about comments on David Cameron’s “very warm welcome” to the Pope video. However the comments have now been removed and disabled –

  24. The Devil wears Prada…………(!) think about it;-)

  25. By the way has anyone noticed that when he speaks, the old Arch Homophobe of Rome sounds just like the toadying sidekick of Herr Flick in ‘ello ello; Von Small Hausen?????

  26. You can bet his private meeting with CallmeDave will include same-sex marriage bashing and how gay legal relationships are having a horrible impact on marriage and morality in general. Too bad, Cameron didn’t have the guts and strength of character to come out in support of full marriage equality before the homophobe’s visit. He’ll listen to that evil piece of human detritus but he won’t listen to our demands for full equality.

  27. I couldn’t resist this semi-satirical report form the daily mash… sums it all up nicely for me.

  28. Tip for boys and girls.

    What’s the difference between this guy and Saudi’s King or the President of china?

  29. John (not the one in post 6) 17 Sep 2010, 12:37pm

    Before the Pope came to the UK my view was somewaht ambivalent as to whether or not this would be something that I would welcome. I am not a Catholic and while I agree with many of the Pope’s positions on sexual ethics etc. I am uncomfortable about the way instances of child abuse perpetrated by priests have been handled and some of the doctrines and practices of RC church.

    But reading his v.recent speeches, I felt what he had to say was in the realm of the prophetic and addresses some of the key issues of the hour (sadly not being said well enough by Christians in my own section of the Church) e.g. encouraging young people to love God and resist the lies of the culture when it comes to promiscuity, continuing to stand up for the rights of the unborn child and his robust attack on “aggressive secularism”.

    I am looking forward to reading reports of what he says when he addresses Parliament later and I hope our leaders and the British people will take heed.

    My own position has been well stated on: It seems the Pope agrees.

    While I have a certain respect for the work of many of those people who signed the letter opposing the Pope’s visit, I have to say I profoundly disagree.

  30. 21stCenturySpirituality 17 Sep 2010, 1:46pm

    Isnt one of the lofty honors assigned to the Pope the role of being Gods representative on earth – the implication being that such an all powerful entity cannot possible speak for or represent itself but must rely on a frail pensioner to perform this function.

  31. SteveDenver 18 Sep 2010, 2:34pm

    @Flapjack: “What’s the difference between this guy and Saudi’s King or the President of china?”

    Does this question indicate your ignorance, stupidity, or simply your refusal to think critically on your own… or both?

    Anytime someone on a blog asks to be schooled, it’s a sure sign they have no ideas and are unwilling to learn.

  32. He shouldn’t be treated as anything but a trouble maker. He is just out to spread his homophobic crap to a country with a perfectly superior church C of E system to his. And check out those vile beady weasel eyes.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.