Regardless of whether the Pope has bad manners or does not hold a claim in your eyes to be a head of state, the fact is he is a head of state, and a foreign citizen who has committed no crime in his or our country, and to bar him from visiting on grounds of his beliefs unless he pays is ridiculous.

I didn’t make it clear in the post, but I edge more to the US ideal of secularism than the French or Turkish. It’s not a case of merely opposing taxpayer funding of religion – it’s not hard to find examples of state-backed religion while not doing so from tax income – Saudi Arabia being one such. That was more or less the point I was getting at the post – that to focus on tax is to miss the wide point. But even this US ideal is more accommodating and less athetistic-driven than the British Secular Society’s grassroots are.

There are countries which have a financial relationship with religions but still consider themselves secularist in some sense: France, for example. There are others which fund all religions (and sometimes humanism) equally: I believe Norway falls into this category.

However, the British secularist movement as a whole has always opposed both state promotion and state funding of any religion or religious organisation. I don’t say that’s universal, but it has been the tendency of the National Secular Society since 1866.

In which respect it perhaps has more in common with the establishment clause of the US constitution (and the arguments precisely about funding which that has led to), than with French models of laicite.

Dan

The state funding of religion can be seen as similar to state funding of many cultural activities from aforementioned gay Belgian performance artists, to the BBC to museums. The state using religious laws to govern the populace is an entirely different matter and what is truly at the root of secularist arguments.

Secondly, “it costs you money” is central to secularism and always has been. To expect religions to support themselves financially has *always* been a demand of the secularist movement in this country. The state should not fund religions. For secularists, that’s a democratic argument, not a populist-”taxpayers” argument.

Dan

We should not pay for the Pope’s visit because of a lack of *manners*? I mean, I know we’re British and manners are key to everything, but that’s taking things a bit far old chap.

The only thing I disagree with in your post is the notion that secularism somehow bestows some higher intelligence. It doesn’t. Absence of faith is not necessarily an intellectual function. Plenty of very stupid people do not believe in God.

Is that
“YOU PAY £1 TO PUT BABIES ON SPIKES?” (divide by population)
“HARDWORKING FAMILIES TO PAY £4 TO PUT BABIES ON SPIKES” (divide by families)
“NEWBORN BABIES TO PAY £10 TO BE PUT ON SPIKES” (divide by birth rate)
“EVIL SPIKES POLICY COULD PAY FOR NEW ARMY CHOPPERS” (politically laden calculation based on multiplying the cost over 7 years assuming 20% inflation and dividing by cheapest helicopter on ebay)

In every case you ignore the people who want the policy and are presumably happy to pay.
It also ignores the fact that businesses have a tax burden. I have no idea how much money business contributes to the Government – let alone any investments, debt repayments, service charges etc.

Money that the Government gets is fungible. I can, if I really want, think that my tax bill goes only to cottage hospitals and border control if that what makes me happy. Furthermore, I get a kick out of knowing that all of Boris Johnson’s tax bill pays for Arts Council funding for one-legged gay Belgian performance artists.

T