Should the Vatican lose its status as a state?
Posted by: acad tsunami on 06 February 2007
What is the Vatican? It is a collection of buildings in the centre of Rome, ruled by a gaggle of archaic and deeply secretive manipulative male clergy, which in it’s daily workings corresponds in no way to any principals of democratic, gender-equal or transparent practice which has no concept of accountability or freedom of speech.
Should the anachronistic Vatican be allowed to have the influence it has – should it indeed be allowed to exist as an independent state at all with a place on the UN?
Why is this overrated medieval entity allowed to play a role in formulating UN policy on matters of major import notably birth control and the use of condoms in league with the sexually repressive coalition of the US, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, policies that lead to the unnecessary deaths and orphaning of millions of people – how is that for an ‘axis of evil’?
Surely the time has long since passed when this carbuncle has any right to be treated as a state and given protection for its devious and pernicious diplomatic and money laundering activities.
Shouldn’t the vast wealth of this world’s richest organisation be handed over to the starving of the world?
Answers on a post card to ‘you know it makes sense’ c/o www.newhumanist.org.uk
Acad
Should the anachronistic Vatican be allowed to have the influence it has – should it indeed be allowed to exist as an independent state at all with a place on the UN?
Why is this overrated medieval entity allowed to play a role in formulating UN policy on matters of major import notably birth control and the use of condoms in league with the sexually repressive coalition of the US, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, policies that lead to the unnecessary deaths and orphaning of millions of people – how is that for an ‘axis of evil’?
Surely the time has long since passed when this carbuncle has any right to be treated as a state and given protection for its devious and pernicious diplomatic and money laundering activities.
Shouldn’t the vast wealth of this world’s richest organisation be handed over to the starving of the world?
Answers on a post card to ‘you know it makes sense’ c/o www.newhumanist.org.uk
Acad
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by Adam Meredith
Acad - what is your opinion?
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by acad tsunami
Adam,
I'm with the writer of the full article which is available on New Humanist website on the link I gave earlier. here
I think it is at best potty in the extreme that the Vatican has the status of an independent state and at the worst symptomatic of so much that is wrong and unfair and backward with the world we live in.
Does the Tibetan government in exile have a seat on the UN?
Does the Anglican Church?
Why should the Catholic Church be the only religion to have what is in effect a place on the UN through the thin disguise of being a separate state?
Acad
I'm with the writer of the full article which is available on New Humanist website on the link I gave earlier. here
I think it is at best potty in the extreme that the Vatican has the status of an independent state and at the worst symptomatic of so much that is wrong and unfair and backward with the world we live in.
Does the Tibetan government in exile have a seat on the UN?
Does the Anglican Church?
Why should the Catholic Church be the only religion to have what is in effect a place on the UN through the thin disguise of being a separate state?
Acad
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by Adam Meredith
Andorra is a member - http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by Cheese
quote:Shouldn’t the vast wealth of this world’s richest organisation be handed over to the starving of the world?
Sure but would you agree to sell your Naim and donate the money to some philantropic organisation ? Neiter do I, nor do the guys at the Vatican.
I understand and support your disagreement about the Vatican being a state, but about a billion Christians in the world don't agree with us.
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by Adam Meredith
quote:Does the Tibetan government in exile have a seat on the UN?
Does the Anglican Church?
Does the Vatican?
Non-member State having received a standing invitation to participate as observer in the sessions and the work of the General Assembly and maintaining permanent observer mission at Headquarters
Holy See
Permanent Observer of Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations.
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by jayd
quote:Originally posted by acad tsunami:
I think it is at best potty in the extreme that the Vatican has the status of an independent state and at the worst symptomatic of so much that is wrong and unfair and backward with the world we live in.
The Lateran Pacts established Vatican City as a sovereign state... how is that treaty different from (i.e., demonstrably less valid than) other pacts establishing other sovereign states?
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:Originally posted by Adam Meredith:
Andorra is a member - http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml
..but is Andorra a religion?
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:Originally posted by Adam Meredith:quote:Does the Tibetan government in exile have a seat on the UN?
Does the Anglican Church?
Does the Vatican?
Non-member State having received a standing invitation to participate as observer in the sessions and the work of the General Assembly and maintaining permanent observer mission at Headquarters
Holy See
Permanent Observer of Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations.
Good point. There is of course a difference between full status and observer status.
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by jayd
quote:Originally posted by acad tsunami:
..but is Andorra a religion?
...is Vatican City a religion? Seems to be a state - one that exists to administer/oversee/support a religion, true, but who are we to decide what is or isn't a valid reason for a state to exist?
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:Originally posted by jayd:
[QUOTE]
The Lateran Pacts established Vatican City as a sovereign state... how is that treaty different from (i.e., demonstrably less valid than) other pacts establishing other sovereign states?
The treaty may well be the same as any other treaty establishing any other sovereign state but if the Anglican church were to seek sovereign state status for 'Canterbery Cathedral City' in order for the Anglican church to have diplomatic status and increased influence in the UN would not the tactic be seen as transparently obvious? Should Mecca City have equal diplomatic status?
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:Originally posted by jayd:quote:Originally posted by acad tsunami:
..but is Andorra a religion?
...is Vatican City a religion? Seems to be a state - one that exists to administer/oversee/support a religion, true, but who are we to decide what is or isn't a valid reason for a state to exist?
It is a religion posing as a state. This is obvious.
who are we to decide what is or isn't a valid reason for a state to exist? Well, we are free thinking adults capable of intelligent independent thought.
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by jayd
quote:Originally posted by acad tsunami:
The treaty may well be the same as any other treaty establishing any other sovereign state but if the Anglican church were to seek sovereign state status for 'Canterbery Cathedral City' in order for the Anglican church to have diplomatic status and increased influence in the UN would not the tactic be seen as transparently obvious? Should Mecca City have equal diplomatic status?
<looks for Mecca City on Google maps; comes up blank... ditto Canterbury Cathedral City...>
So, it seems you resent the fact that the leaders of the Catholic Church have been more successful than leaders of other religions. Would your thread title have been different if all major religions had their own states, and equal status in the UN, or would you be calling for their unilateral banishment?
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by jayd
quote:Originally posted by acad tsunami:
It is a religion posing as a state. This is obvious.
who are we to decide what is or isn't a valid reason for a state to exist? Well, we are free thinking adults capable of intelligent independent thought.
The fact that this is obvious to you says more about your bias than anything else, really. I suggest that as a free-thinking adult capable of intelligent, independent thought, you immediately begin working within the channels of diplomacy, and utilizing the fullest extent of the UN Charter and its bylaws, to bring about the expulsion of Vatican City from UN Observer status. It's the only path that makes sense.
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:Originally posted by jayd:
[QUOTE]
[QUOTE] So, it seems you resent the fact that the leaders of the Catholic Church have been more successful than leaders of other religions.
The catholic church did not become the world's most 'successfull' institution by being perfectly good now did it? The words religious persecution and inquisition spring to mind.
quote:Would your thread title have been different if all major religions had their own states, and equal status in the UN, or would you be calling for their unilateral banishment?
Fairness is the thing. Either all religions should have equal status or they should all be banned from having their own sovereign states. I'm for banning I think.
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by jayd
quote:Originally posted by acad tsunami:
The catholic church did not become the world's most 'successfull' institution by being perfectly good now did it? The words religious persecution and inquisition spring to mind.
On the other hand, (as we know) all the other UN member states actually DID become successful by being perfectly good. So it's a valid criterion for singling out Vatican City.
quote:Fairness is the thing. Either all religions should have equal status or they should all be banned from having their own sovereign states. I'm for banning I think.
I think the key clarification to your fairness clause would be that "all religions that have successfully negotiated treaties to establish their own sovereign states should have equal status". So, that leaves Vatican City and... hmm.
Really, under your logic, I don't see how any non-secular state could possibly justify its existence (let alone any inclusion in the UN). Is that your goal, the complete disintegration of any state with a non-secular mission? First the Vatican, then Peru?
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:Originally posted by jayd:
[QUOTE]
[QUOTE] On the other hand, (as we know) all the other UN member states actually DID become successful by being perfectly good. So it's a valid criterion for singling out Vatican City.
This is pure drivel. You can not name one country that is perfectly good much less call them all perfectly good. The Catholic church has been the most successful, in part, because it stopped at NOTHING in persuit of its goals. Simply put - it was the most ruthless.
quote:So, that leaves Vatican City and... hmm.
Exactly. How fair is that?
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:Originally posted by jayd:
[QUOTE]
Really, under your logic, I don't see how any non-secular state could possibly justify its existence (let alone any inclusion in the UN). Is that your goal, the complete disintegration of any state with a non-secular mission? First the Vatican, then Peru?
In what way is Peru a front for a religion?
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by jayd
quote:Originally posted by acad tsunami:
This is pure drivel. You can not name one country that is perfectly good much less call them all perfectly good.
And neither can you. Which proves my point: indicting Vatican City because of its less than perfect past is ludicrous, unless you would indict every other UN member state on the same basis. All are equally guilty.
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by jayd
quote:Originally posted by acad tsunami:
In what way is Peru a front for a religion?
Peru is a non-secular state, as per the context of my post. There are many, many others.
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:Originally posted by jayd:quote:Originally posted by acad tsunami:
This is pure drivel. You can not name one country that is perfectly good much less call them all perfectly good.
And neither can you. Which proves my point: indicting Vatican City because of its less than perfect past is ludicrous, unless you would indict every other UN member state on the same basis. All are equally guilty.
I differentiate between a sovereign state and a religion posing as a sovereign state. Yes, I would indict any UN member state guilty of contravening international law. All countries are guilty but we can not say they are equally guilty surely?
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:Originally posted by jayd:quote:Originally posted by acad tsunami:
In what way is Peru a front for a religion?
Peru is a non-secular state, as per the context of my post. There are many, many others.
The head of Peru and its government are priests?
'The formal politics of Peru takes place in a framework of a presidential representative democratic republic, whereby the President of Peru is both head of state and head of government, and of a pluriform multi-party system. Executive power is exercised by the government. Legislative power is vested in both the government and the Congress. The Judiciary is supposed to be independent of the executive and the legislature'. Source:Wikepedia
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by jayd
quote:Originally posted by acad tsunami:
I differentiate between a sovereign state and a religion posing as a sovereign state.
Then you question the validity of the Lateran Pacts. Although, on what grounds, I can't imagine, since Italy, Vatican City, the UN, and probably a good deal of the rest of the world seem to accept it as valid.
What info do you have that invalidates the Treaty?
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by jayd
quote:Originally posted by acad tsunami:
The head of Peru and its government are priests?
Look, I'm not going to explain "non-secular state" to you. Google it.
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:Originally posted by jayd:quote:Originally posted by acad tsunami:
I differentiate between a sovereign state and a religion posing as a sovereign state.
Then you question the validity of the Lateran Pacts. Although, on what grounds, I can't imagine, since Italy, Vatican City, the UN, and probably a good deal of the rest of the world seem to accept it as valid.
What info do you have that invalidates the Treaty?
I have never questioned the validity of any treaty on this ere thread (quite the contrary in fact) so do not put words in my mouth - thank you). The validity of any treaty is irrelevant. My point is should the vatican as a front for the vested interest of the catholic church be allowed sovereign status? If you think they should then say why you think they should and also if you think that ONLY the catholic church should have this status.
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by jayd
quote:Originally posted by acad tsunami:quote:Originally posted by jayd:quote:Originally posted by acad tsunami:
In what way is Peru a front for a religion?
Peru is a non-secular state, as per the context of my post. There are many, many others.
The head of Peru and its government are priests?
'The formal politics of Peru takes place in a framework of a presidential representative democratic republic, whereby the President of Peru is both head of state and head of government, and of a pluriform multi-party system. Executive power is exercised by the government. Legislative power is vested in both the government and the Congress. The Judiciary is supposed to be independent of the executive and the legislature'. Source:Wikepedia
Article 50
Within an independent and autonomous system, the government recognizes the Catholic Church as an important element in the historical, cultural, and moral formation of Peru and lends it its cooperation.
The government respects other denominations and may establish forms of cooperation with them.
(source: The Peruvian Constitution)
For more, read here:
Peru: A Non-Secular State in the 21st century