Distinct lack of logic here. SM is trying to keep to the Mail's pro-Pope line while conveying her own secular sympathies, but gets into an awful tangle -
"Yet to treat all Catholics - many of whom are well aware of what is wrong with the church’s hierarchy - as bigoted morons strikes me as bigoted and moronic.
It is clear that Catholicism here is in decline. I am a humanist but feel what I have seen this weekend has been a group of men who think they know best sneering at people - often women - of faith and humility.
If you want to convert people to ‘reason’ away from ‘faith’, may I suggest a good start is to not merely insult them."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z0zyHCBjLC
So the logic goes:
1.I don't like the Pope's views on most things and I resent having to contribute to the cost of his visit.
2.But not all Catholics are like him.
3.Therefore atheists should suck it up when insulted by him and should not retaliate.
Surely 3 should read 'therefore he does not speak for all Catholics and should be ignored'? The problem, surely, is that he is the one doing the insulting? Obviously it would be better if those insulted didn't retaliate, since by doing so they come down to his level, but human nature being what it is few people will shut up when told they are bad people because they don't subscribe to the flying spaghetti monster stuff.
Incidentally - I have been truly gobsmacked at the fancy dress involved in this visit. Is it just my residual Presbyterian sympathies that makes me feel this is a bit indecent?