tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post1467691021276942362..comments2024-03-17T11:05:22.464+00:00Comments on The Life And Opinions of Andrew Rilstone: Papal Visit Controversy ReduxUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-29152972379602078012010-02-07T17:41:21.867+00:002010-02-07T17:41:21.867+00:00Surely the problem is that, once you grant that th...Surely the problem is that, once you grant that the witches have the right to decide what's ceremonially correct, you <i>have</i> sold the pass. It's all very well saying that they can decide what's theologically correct for them, but society has the right to determine what's correct in the secular world, but that's drawing a distinction that many - perhaps most - extant religions will tell you is totally spurious and downright offensive. Religions are full of detailed commandments which are supposed to govern every aspect of life, or complicated and fetishistic hang-ups about "purity".<br /><br />You could try asking the courts to get into each group's detailed theology and rule on the internal logic, but that wouldn't really solve the problem even if it worked in places. (Shame - I love the way that a regional court in British India ended up ruling who was the rightful heir to the mantle of Hasan-i-Sabah.) The ruling would too often have to be "they can do whatever they damn well like", on the internal logic.<br /><br />(And is this distinction, umm, rather Anglican?)<br /><br />It's probably a fundamental paradox of liberalism. Or something. Me, I think I'm with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_%28practice%29#Non-Hindu_views_and_criticisms" rel="nofollow">General Napier on the application of customs</a>. But I would be.Phil Mastershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533451060065715833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-78614682373676153162010-02-04T16:28:40.363+00:002010-02-04T16:28:40.363+00:00There is an angle you're leaving out here:
CH...There is an angle you're leaving out here:<br /><br />CHIEF WITCH: Harriet is being mean to Wanda. Therefore, as the <i>sovereign of an independent state</i>, I am going to address a deputation of witches from Harriet's neck of the woods, and tell them to do their utmost to <i>oppose legislation being passed in another independent state</i>.<br /><br />HON. MEMBERS: You're going to do that <i>and</i> expect us to get out the best china when you come to visit? Who do you think we are?<br /><br />RED-HEADED PEOPLE, AND FOLK WHO SUPPORT THEM: And don't forget, we pay taxes too! Why should we pay money to support a visit from someone who's declared themselves morally opposed to our goals?<br /><br />PS: Of course, one would expect the Pope to object to laws that, by the measure of the Church, are deeply immoral. He's free to do that, and he bloody well should do it. But nobody should be surprised that when he does do it, people who don't agree with him get annoyed at his intervention.<br /><br />PPS: Of course, the UK taxpayer has paid for the visits of far more objectionable heads of state. I personally don't think that is correct either. At the end of the day, even when you're dealing with the poorest countries, heads of state aren't known for lacking personal funds or a government travel budget, perhaps it's best if they all paid their own way. This would be mildly onerous on the leaders of poor countries when they go to visit, but it's only fair when the leaders of rich countries visit poor lands. And arguably, if your country is so desperately poor that it can't pay for an air ticket and a security detail for you, you have no business running around all over the world in the first place.<br /><br />PPPS: I know that the Pope is more than a head of state. But the problem with being a head of state is that you're never really off-duty; your statements are always going to have a political dimension to them. Comes with the territory.Arthurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082868759668427041noreply@blogger.com