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
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:
Originally posted 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.


I note your avoidance of the question.
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted by acad tsunami:


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.


By claiming that Vatican City isn't a state, rather "a religion posing as a state" (your words), you dispute facts in evidence. Back it up, or back away.
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted by acad tsunami:
quote:
Originally posted 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.


I note your avoidance of the question.


And I similarly note your seeming inability/reluctance to grasp the concept of "non-secular state".
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by acad tsunami
I ask again 'in what way is Peru a religion'?
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted by acad tsunami:
I ask again 'in what way is Peru a religion'?


In the same way, by your logic, that Vatican City is a religion. (I myself am a recent convert to Vatican City. We're ever so much holier than Catholics.)
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:
Originally posted by jayd:
[QUOTE]

By claiming that Vatican City isn't a state, rather "a religion posing as a state" (your words), you dispute facts in evidence. Back it up, or back away.


I have never said that the vatican is not a state (quite the opposite - this is what my thread is about)I have never disputed the legal status of the vatican I merely dispute the validity of having a religion pose as a state. This is clear.
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by jayd
Hang on... I've just had a thumb through "World Religions"... Vatican City isn't listed as a religion! I've been duped.
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:
Originally posted by jayd:
quote:
Originally posted by acad tsunami:
I ask again 'in what way is Peru a religion'?


In the same way, by your logic, that Vatican City is a religion. (I myself am a recent convert to Vatican City. We're ever so much holier than Catholics.)


I have never said that the Vatican City is a religion - I said (as you yourself have quoted)the 'Vatican City is a front for a religion'. You are getting tedious.
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:
Originally posted by jayd:
Hang on... I've just had a thumb through "World Religions"... Vatican City isn't listed as a religion! I've been duped.


You show me where I have said that the Vatican City is a religion and I will donate £5,000 to the Pope himself.
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted by acad tsunami:

I have never said that the vatican is not a state (quite the opposite - this is what my thread is about)I have never disputed the legal status of the vatican I merely dispute the validity of having a religion pose as a state. This is clear.


I apologize. When you differentiated between a sovereign state and a religion posing as a sovereign state, and then clearly aligned Vatican City with the latter rather than the former, I mistakenly thought you meant that Vatican City wasn't a sovereign state.

Or have I got it wrong again?
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted by acad tsunami:
quote:
Originally posted by jayd:
quote:
Originally posted by acad tsunami:
I ask again 'in what way is Peru a religion'?


In the same way, by your logic, that Vatican City is a religion. (I myself am a recent convert to Vatican City. We're ever so much holier than Catholics.)


I have never said that the Vatican City is a religion - I said (as you yourself have quoted)the 'Vatican City is a front for a religion'. You are getting tedious.


Ohhhh. Then by asking me "in what way is Peru a religion", you really meant "in what was is Peru a FRONT FOR a religion".

See, I'm starting to understand whence the difficulties arise.
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:
Originally posted by jayd:
[QUOTE]

Or have I got it wrong again?


Yes. Read more carefully. Winker
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:
Originally posted by jayd:
quote:


Ohhhh. Then by asking me "in what way is Peru a religion", you really meant "in what was is Peru a FRONT FOR a religion".



No. I meant what I said.
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted by acad tsunami:
You show me where I have said that the Vatican City is a religion and I will donate £5,000 to the Pope himself.


On page one of this thread, you wrote:

"It is a religion posing as a state. This is obvious."

The direct antecedent of "It" was "Vatican City".

(I've notified the Pope to expect your cheque... he asks that you please make it out to "Joe Ratzinger".)
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted by acad tsunami:
Yes. Read more carefully. Winker


One of us has it wrong. That's certain.
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:
Originally posted by jayd:
quote:
Originally posted by acad tsunami:
You show me where I have said that the Vatican City is a religion and I will donate £5,000 to the Pope himself.


On page one of this thread, you wrote:

"It is a religion posing as a state. This is obvious."

The direct antecedent of "It" was "Vatican City".

(I've notified the Pope to expect your cheque... he asks that you please make it out to "Joe Ratzinger".)


The 'It' in question was clearly the Catholic Church' insofar as you can not show I have said the Vatican city is a religion your pal the former member of the Hitler Youth can expect to survive on the ill-gotten gains of several centuries of stealing from the poor. Winker

From the first page '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?'
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted 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.


Do please point out the words "Catholic Church" to me in the above post.
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted by acad tsunami:
quote:
Originally posted by jayd:
quote:
Originally posted by acad tsunami:
You show me where I have said that the Vatican City is a religion and I will donate £5,000 to the Pope himself.


On page one of this thread, you wrote:

"It is a religion posing as a state. This is obvious."

The direct antecedent of "It" was "Vatican City".

(I've notified the Pope to expect your cheque... he asks that you please make it out to "Joe Ratzinger".)


The 'It' in question was clearly the Catholic Church' insofar as you can not show I have said the Vatican city is a religion your pal the former member of the Hitler Youth can expect to survive on the ill-gotten gains of several centuries of stealing from the poor. Winker

From the first page '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?'


Your implication that I number an ex-Nazi among my friends is pretty poor form. If you think putting a smiley face after it makes it cute or clever, you're mistaken.
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:
Originally posted by jayd:
quote:


Do please point out the words "Catholic Church" to me in the above post.


The fact that I did not say that the 'it' referred to the Catholic Church in that sentence does not mean the 'it' referred to the Vatican City now does it?

Read more carefully. Don't make assumptions. That's my advice.
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:
Originally posted by jayd:
quote:


Your implication that I number an ex-Nazi among my friends is pretty poor form. If you think putting a smiley face after it makes it cute or clever, you're mistaken.


Is he an ex-Nazi? I take your word for that. Well seeing as you have a clear line of communication to him personally I imagined you were on friendly terms.

btw - the smiley was so you did not take my words seriously. Obviously you did. How sad.
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted by acad tsunami:
quote:
Originally posted by jayd:
quote:


Your implication that I number an ex-Nazi among my friends is pretty poor form. If you think putting a smiley face after it makes it cute or clever, you're mistaken.


Is he an ex-Nazi? I take your word for that. Well seeing as you have a clear line of communication to him personally I imagined you were on friendly terms.

Read more carefully. Don't make assumptions. That's my advice.

(Dude, you lose badly. Frankly, I expected better.)
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by acad tsunami
Dream on.
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by acad tsunami
Jayd joins the Spanish Inquisition

Posted on: 06 February 2007 by jayd
So, let's recap:

-The Catholic Church and Vatican City ARE NOT the same thing (as your antecedent juggling shows)

-Vatican City is a sovereign state under a treaty whose terms you DO NOT dispute

-Vatican City has done no worse in the name of its state interests than many other UN states

Tell us all again why it is that the UN should kick them out?
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by jayd
Dude, why the personal attacks? Is that all you have left? Class.