Foxy love of my internet life.
All the afore mentioned people represent(ed) countries.
The pope, god love his pope socks to his cute pope coloured skull cap is simply the leader of a religious grouping.
The rules should be different.
I would consider banning Tom Cruise as the 2IC of Scientology, and if I see one more article about he and Katie breaking up I'll........

Jokes aside, comparison is bogus and coloured by your view of your religion.

Should he be banned? on the basis of the evidence? IMO no. Neither should he be treated with any more public money than that....that....Scientology thingy.

Dear Examinator,

First you flatter me (Love of the internet?),
then you call my arguments "bogus."
Thank You (I think).

But to set the record straight ...

All of our points of view are coloured by
who we are, and where we come from,
our education, culture,
religion (or lack of), friends, profession,
workplace, family, environment, and by
comments on the internet...(joke).

No one is an island... we don't live in a
vacuum and we have to respect the views (no
matter how glib), and
opinions, origins, and culture of others, if
we are to survive on this planet.

And if you don't believe me - ask the Pope!
After all he is infallible! (joke).

Seriously though - my previous opinion came out of
the little research that I had done on the topic -
and the fact that I felt that this was growing
into a case of "pope bashing," without the full
facts being known in this particular case.
I'm sure they will all come out in due course.

As for my presenting a bogus argument?

You're entitled to your opinion. I don't happen to
agree with it. Leaders, are leaders, be they of
countries or religious institutions. People are people.
Who we allow into this country - is of course a
judgement call. However if we are going to judge on
moral conduct - then I simply gave a few examples -
of past visitors - all of whom were could be considered
morally suspect -
so that we're not guilty of a double standard here.

But if you think that's "bogus," all I can say is -
Fair enough!

You cannot be put her in a box,
She speaks her mind with consistent vox,
She’ll challenge you to pull up your sox,
But she has no time for hard-nosed jox,
She bounces back from others knox,
Yet she’s as fragile as a crystal fox.

Foxy, I did quite a bit of investigation on line and in newspapers recently about the Vatican and child sex abuse scandals.

What I found was quite damning about the then Cardinal Thomas Ratzinger and the Catholic church hierarchy in general.

Apparently in 2001 he issued a secret Vatican message to Catholic bishops all over the world telling them to guard the Catholic Church against any child sexual abuse scandals by hiding the details and moving the perpetrators on to other parishes.

In 2005 Cardinal Ratzinger sent out a newly written version of the infamous 1962 Vatican document Crimen Sollicitationis - Latin for The Crime of Solicitation - which gave strict instructions on covering up sexual scandal of any sort.

This document was regarded as so controversial that it came with strict instructions that bishops had to hide them in a locked safe at all times.

Should we keep him out of Australia?
He is probably no worse than many other religious or political leaders we allow in, and I can't see the current crop of God-fearing pollies banning him!

He should spend some time playing mummy with bubba(you know the joke?), fitting I reckon!
Slimy pieces of sticky brown stuff that they are.

This breaking news seems relevant:

<< Fresh allegations made against Pope

Pope Benedict is facing new allegations about his handling of cases of child abuse by paedophile priests.

The Associated Press news agency says it has obtained a letter signed by the future Pope in 1985, when he was a senior Vatican official, in which he resisted appeals for the dismissal of an American priest who had sexually abused two boys at a school in California. >>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/10/2869180.htm