Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama chooses ambassador to the Vatican (307 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not really (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sportin Life, Kaneda

    the commentor is just stating his opinion, as he has every right to do.  I'm sure many agree with him to some degree or another.  I myself have some questions as to the separation of church and state issue but not to get worked up to that level.  However, I definitely don't have any respect for the catholic church.  

    •  Calling a religion shared (0+ / 0-)

      by a billion and a half people a "crime syndicate" is HR worthy.

      •  There is a difference (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ShempLugosi, Andhakari

        between the believers, the people in the pews, and the rulers of the organization who don't allow anyone to tell them what to do.

      •  Are we talking about Catholism, catholics (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        or Vatican City?  I often see one confused with one or the other in discussions here; sometimes by supporters and sometimes by detractors of one of those entities.  I think the main conversation here is about the Vatican, and I doubt if there are more than of few thousand residents there.
        The fact that they are surrounded by vast wealth and operate in complete secrecy is no reason to call them criminals.  But we can wonder.

        "It costs a lot of money to die comfortably" ~ Edmund Burke (prophesying the demise of the Republican Party)

        by Andhakari on Thu May 28, 2009 at 09:35:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What standing do you have (0+ / 0-)

          to demand that Vatican operate in any way other than in which it operates?

          •  You talkin' to me? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I don't need no stinkin' standing to make a comment here, but I haven't demanded anything.  Did you post to the right comment?  
            As far as I'm concerned the Vatican can do whatever it wants so long as the Vatican stays out of my business too.

            "It costs a lot of money to die comfortably" ~ Edmund Burke (prophesying the demise of the Republican Party)

            by Andhakari on Thu May 28, 2009 at 10:23:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Vatican does stay out of your business (0+ / 0-)

              It is a sovereign state.  It also is a seat of the Papacy that constitutes the leadership of the Catholic Church.  If the people wish to subscribe to that leadership it is their business.

              •  The Lakota nation (0+ / 0-)

                of Native Americans is also a sovereign state but that didn't stop little georgie from sending in federal troops when they tried to grow their own industrial hemp.  So the idea of our government respecting a "sovreign nation" doesn't hold any water with me and I really don't believe that the vatican should have an ambassador.  And I also don't believe the Vatican stays out of anyone's business.  The pope is constantly speaking out against things that are just not his business.  If he wants to preach to his choir, fine, but he shouldn't be going around the world condemning things that are outside of his domain.  If you're offended by the "crime syndicate" comment, it's your right to be so and to express it by hide rating it.  We've agreed on other things in the past, I just happen to think that you're wrong in this instance

                •  Lakota Nation (0+ / 0-)

                  is quasi-sovereign.  Their residents are citizens of the U.S. and the treaties call for U.S. to exercise sort of parens patriae authority.  Quite different from Vatican being completely sovereign.

                  As to the Pope preaching things, he can do it both as a head of state and as a religious figure, and just as a human being with a right of free speech.

      •  Religions can't be subject to criticism? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ShempLugosi, Andhakari, GillesDeleuze

        Religious organizations can't be?

        The Vatican Bank Scandal makes "crime syndicate" a legitimate, if perhaps inflammatory, charge.  And honestly, the Vatican has been so secretive and so non-transparent for so long that one might reasonably assume the full of extent of the corruption has never been brought to light.

      •  offended? (4+ / 0-)

        switch gods.

        the flying spaghetti monster teaches patience and tolerance for all meatballs.

      •  I have to disagree (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rgjdmls, Andhakari

        Your comment seem to indicate that the sheer number of catholics exempt them from criticism.  While I'm sure that's not your only reason, I feel the number of catholics is irrelevant.  Religions should not be exempt from criticism from their own members nor from those who do not share their beliefs nor those who have no religious beliefs at all.  The pedophile priest coverups alone lend weight to the "crime syndicate" label.  Personally, I find the catholic church to be fairly irrelevant.  I can find no logic as to why anyone would continue to follow the dictates put forth from the pope.  Many catholics I've met tend to disregard or ignore the pope and focus on their own sense of right and wrong.  They seem to enjoy the sense of community that their "catholic" church provides and that's why they're still members.  But my own feeling is that everyone has a conscience, except perhaps for the non-empathic sociopaths, and no one needs a pope, a minister, a priest, or anyone else to tell them what is right and what is wrong.  Each person must decide that for themselves.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site