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.ukAcad
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:
Originally posted by jayd:
[QUOTE] So, let's recap:
Jolly good.
quote:
-The Catholic Church and Vatican City ARE NOT the same thing (as your antecedent juggling shows)
Obviously not. I have NEVER said they were. They are however clearly related.
quote:
-Vatican City is a sovereign state under a treaty whose terms you DO NOT dispute
Obviously. Any cofusion existed in your mind not mine.
quote:
-Vatican City has done no worse in the name of its state interests than many other UN states
I have not said this exactly.
quote:
Tell us all again why it is that the UN should kick them out?
er because the VC is a thinly disguised front for the RC. Obviously.
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by acad tsunami
Read more carefully. This is my advice. It will stop your confusion.
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by jayd
Ah. Well, being Catholic isn't a violation of UN bylaws. They also have Jews and Muslims there. Maybe even the occasional Pagan.
...that's it? Then, no, the Vatican should not lose its status as a state. Next question!
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted by acad tsunami:
Read more carefully. This is my advice. It will stop your confusion.
Err, you have already so advised. Still, I'm willing to let the readers of this thread (though I can't imagine there'll be any, honestly) decide which of us is confused.
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:
Originally posted by jayd:
Ah. Well, being Catholic isn't a violation of UN bylaws. They also have Jews and Muslims there. Maybe even the occasional Pagan.
...that's it? Then, no, the Vatican should not lose its status as a state. Next question!
Are you a Catholic?
I wonder if being a Jew or a muslim working inside the Vatican would violate any bylaws?
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted by acad tsunami:
quote:
Originally posted by jayd:
Ah. Well, being Catholic isn't a violation of UN bylaws. They also have Jews and Muslims there. Maybe even the occasional Pagan.
...that's it? Then, no, the Vatican should not lose its status as a state. Next question!
Are you a Catholic?
You've caught me. I'm actually the Pope. Well done!
(What a bizarre, inane question.)
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by acad tsunami
Ha I knew it all along. It is not a bizarre or inane question at all. I am trying to understand your confusion. I feel if you are a Catholic that you may feel that I am somehow attacking the Catholics or the catholic faith? - let me make this crystal clear - I am not attacking either - I am attacking the right of a religious institution to pose as a sovereign state for its own vested interests. For what it is worth may I point out that my attention was drawn to the article which I quote by a very dear friend of mine who is indeed a very devout Catholic and he feels exactly as I do - that there is no way the Catholic church should have special rights within the UN or any diplomatic status at all. He maybe a devout Catholic but he abhors the present Pope and his predecessor and most of those that surrounded them and much of what they stand for. I differentiate between the faith and a ridiculous fossil left over from the middle ages. I believe church and state should always be separate.
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted by acad tsunami:
Ha I knew it all along.
Sad.
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by acad tsunami
I have to go now Jayd, I am being burnt as a heretic in half an hour. More later.
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by Adam Meredith
quote:
Originally posted by acad tsunami:
I wonder if being a Jew or a muslim working inside the Vatican would violate any bylaws?
Probably worth investigating then - rather than drop it in rhetorically.
Posted on: 06 February 2007 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted by acad tsunami:
For what it is worth may I point out that my attention was drawn to the article which I quote by a very dear friend of mine who is indeed a very devout Catholic and he feels exactly as I do - that there is no way the Catholic church should have special rights within the UN or any diplomatic status at all.
Oh. You
and your friend both agree? Well, I had no idea. That's very different.
He feels... you believe... hey, can't argue with that logic. In light of this new evidence, I take back everything I said.
Posted on: 07 February 2007 by Nigel Cavendish
Posted on: 07 February 2007 by JohanR
According to some sources my peaceful Sweden is at war with both Andorra and San Marino (some peace treaty in the 17'th century that was never signed). Should countries that are in war be allowed in the UN?
I've been to San Marino, as a kid, doesn't remember that the San Marinans where in the trenches shooting at us, though.
JohanR
Posted on: 07 February 2007 by Steve Toy
quote:
I believe church and state should always be separate.
It is for this reason that the Vatican exists as a separate state within Italy, so that Italy can be a secular state.
Posted on: 08 February 2007 by JWM
*
Posted on: 08 February 2007 by Melnobone
quote:
I believe church and state should always be separate.
There are automatic entanglements between the institutions, inasmuch as the religious institution, and its adherents, are members of civil society. Secularism requires the primacy of civil laws within its jurisdictions; but some policies provide for protections of religious expression, in order not to unnecessarily conflict with the claims of religion over the public lives of its adherents. Most forms of secularism propose policies guided by an interest in the free exercise of religion, and freedom also for lack of religion, for the sake of assuring equal protection under the same laws. But to the extent that religion cannot be a strictly private matter, some policies defined as "free exercise of religion" are, in terms of a religion which mandates a public duty for its adherents, restrictive of their religion in certain respects.
So should the Vatican lose its status as a state?
Obviously not!
Posted on: 08 February 2007 by acad tsunami
Melnobone,
I dont think you have made a case at all. Many countries operate in the way you describe but they are real countries (even if tiny)not a bunch of old Catholic churches and church offices. The Vatican is a front for a religion and enables the Catholic Church to punch above its already considerable weight on the international stage in a way other churches and other religions can not. Is this fair?
