Vatican City rejects French Gay Amb

[Saint Frankenstein]

My federal government has diplomatic relations with only one religious organization: the Catholic Church. My provincial government funds only one denomination's religious schools with my tax dollars: the Catholic Church.

Like it or not, your religion is my business... and it will continue to be so until your church stops imposing itself on me.

Take that up with your government, then.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Vatican City meets none of the normal criteria for statehood. It's ridiculous to pretend that a few blocks of Rome that doesn't have a native population and can't even handle its own sewage are sovereign nation. It's just a puffed-up church estate.

Take that up with Italy, then.

 

[psychoslice]

Why do u expect Pope Francis to throw away the Bible?

he may as well throw it away, because he certainly doesn't follow it.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Agreed, particularly vile men who have sex with children under the age of 12. Those disgusting predators are unfortunately very well-represented in certain Abrahamic religions. Child marriage in particular.

Shameful atheist who keeps insulting our prophet pbuh will always be executed or kicked out in our countries. They deserve no mercy because they are evil and workers of satan.

 

[gsa]

Shameful atheist who keeps insulting our prophet pbuh will always be executed or kicked out in our countries. They deserve no mercy because they are evil and workers of satan.

I'm confused now: So you aren't opposed to child rape, just the Catholic priests raping Catholic children? Raping a prepubescent girl is acceptable for some people who claim to speak for gods, but not others?

And we atheists are the evil ones?

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Gsa i advise you to stop insulting our prophet pbuh. You are very provocative. Dont force me to put u in the ignore list. That would be such a shame.

 

[psychoslice]

Shameful atheist who keeps insulting our prophet pbuh will always be executed or kicked out in our countries. They deserve no mercy because they are evil and workers of satan.

What an ugly belief that is.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

What an ugly belief that is.

I can insult your hinduism but Islam forbids me to do that.
Have a nice day.

 

[psychoslice]

I can insult your hinduism but Islam forbids me to do that.
Have a nice day.

You have already did your share of insults, please go back and read.

 

[psychoslice]

Shameful atheist who keeps insulting our prophet pbuh will always be executed or kicked out in our countries. They deserve no mercy because they are evil and workers of satan.[/QUOTE]

This type of thinking belongs in the past, just because someone doesn't believe in your God or beliefs doesn't give you the right to condemn them to death, this belief is ugly, and has no place in a civilized world.

 

[LuisDantas]

Shameful atheist who keeps insulting our prophet pbuh will always be executed or kicked out in our countries. They deserve no mercy because they are evil and workers of satan.

That is certainly nice to know, and informs our understanding and opinion about Islam and particularly Islamic countries.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Shameful atheist who keeps insulting our prophet pbuh will always be executed or kicked out in our countries. They deserve no mercy because they are evil and workers of satan.

Never mind the fact that Mohammed did it over a thousand years ago; what about the fact that it still happens in Muslim societies today? Where does the justification for that arise from?

 

[psychoslice]

That is certainly nice to know, and informs our understanding and opinion about Islam and particularly Islamic countries.

Yes I personally was disgusted with what was said there.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What do you think the purpose of an ambassador is? How do you think the Cold War would have played out if the United States had insisted that any Soviet ambassadors couldn't be communists?

Indeed, and refusing to see an ambassador because of their sexual orientation sounds like a gross breach of diplomatic protocol.

 

[LuisDantas]

Indeed, and refusing to see an ambassador because of their sexual orientation sounds like a gross breach of diplomatic protocol.

And that is the least of the reasons why it is wrong.

 

[Flankerl]

I can understand the Vatican on this one. The hunt just isn't any fun if the potential target is already somewhat willing.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It's all part of the latest fiendish plot by Dr. Evil...he he he.

The Da Evil Code.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Take that up with Italy, then.

Why would I take up your claim with Italy?

 

[Leftimies]

@Leftimies : Are you truly saying that you see some reason for France to take pains not to propose a homosexual as Ambassador to Vatican?

Or, for that matter, that Vatican has any reason not to accept one on grounds of homosexuality?

Sorry, but I hope you are kidding.

Its not my personal opinion on the matter, so there really is no reason to get worked up. It is a sort of realist viewpoint, I guess you could say. Let me explain. First, let me establish three essential points for the explanation:

(a) Vatican is, at its core, a theocratic monarchy established on the principles and teachings of traditional Christianity.
(b) Diplomacy is, in essence, negotiation, friendly relation-maintenance and deal-breaking between two countries.
(c) The Bible, can easily be read to be against homosexuality while lacking any explicit stands in defense of it.

Now, for France to choose a gay ambassador for Vatican (see: a) for upholding of diplomatic relations (see: b), when they knew
full well the, perhaps backwards, opinions of Vatican regarding his orientation (see: c) is broken logic which will result in ill outcome.
It is reality, it is politics. The reason why the ambassador got turned back was because the people at the Vatican, unsurprisingly, did not appreciate the gesture. The entire Vatican state exists solely as a state-representation of the Christian faith, and one could argue that if they did not uphold their own tenets, their whole state could be considered illegitimate, or at least utterly purposeless. They might not even believe in the religion, but for the sake of politics and the rhetoric, they really do not have choice.

Another known theocracy with stances against homosexuality is Iran, and I wouldn't consider it to be all that wise to send a gay ambassador there, either. You can work diplomacy to your own advantage the best when you are as neutral as possible; taking active stances on issues controversial to the other side (especially in the form of your diplomatic representation) is generally not a good idea and could represent a major hindrance to any bilateral diplomatic effort later on. If you want the relationship dynamic to be smooth and easy, rubbing something your 'friend' doesn't like in his face will work to the contrary.

I am quite surprised, if not shocked, that I had to explain this. Its common sense and more importantly, its how even the most basic of human relationships work.

 

[columbus]

I am quite surprised, if not shocked, that I had to explain this. Its common sense and more importantly, its how even the most basic of human relationships work.

Except that your post is full of nonsense. The Vatican barely represents Catholics. It certainly doesn't represent Christians. There is no legitimate reason for a state to bother with an ambassador to a religious sect.

Tom