• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Obama’s call to close Vatican embassy is ‘slap in the face’ to Roman Catholics

Sherman123 said:
I'm not really sure how it diminishes ties. We didn't have a separate residence for the Vatican until 1994 and the position has never been an exceedingly important posting, it has largely been a symbolic one. Shifting the residence from one location to another (it is a residence primarily, not an embassy office) Most serious bilateral work done with the Vatican is done directly by the State Department. This seems to be blown dramatically out of proportion, it's just an office move. It isn't even being subsumed, it is going to occupy its own space with its own entrance and section of the compound.
Click to expand...

In another country!

Of course it is all about symbolism. You think I give a rat's ass where bureaucrat's process forms?

As I pointed out in subsequent posts, this is only another in a long line of snubs, insults, and back-handedness coming from this administration...

It isn't an isolated incident, it is one for instance in a patterned behavior.
 
ChezC3 said:
In another country!

Of course it is all about symbolism. You think I give a rat's ass where bureaucrat's process forms?

As I pointed out in subsequent posts, this is only another in a long line of snubs, insults, and back-handedness coming from this administration...

It isn't an isolated incident, it is one for instance in a patterned behavior.
Click to expand...

The previous residence (which will remain there till 2015) is not in Vatican City. I'm not sure if any country has their embassy on the actual territory of the Vatican. There simply isn't enough room. According to the Vatican the proposed location change meets their qualifications for having an envoy. We've moved the small offices around a lot over the decades, this is just one more move. Again aside from the symbolism it isn't a very important posting.
 
ChezC3 said:
So the Mexican Ambassador can easily wear the hat for Spain... Brazil for Portugal, Chile for Peru, hell, why not Austria for Germany, China for Japan, Egypt for South Africa, I mean seriously...

It is a diplomatic smack in the face. It is an insult.
Click to expand...
What is sillier than Australia having an Embassy in Waspington when we get our orders over the phone or by email. And even that depends on whether America feels like informing us of stuff like, we are going to war, or we are going to sign a grossly uneven trade pact with the Reich. Plus our reply is always the same "Yes Sir, yes Sir, three bags full Sir!!" so why bother?
 
mikeafone said:
thoughtful response ... thank you ... but I believe the Vatican is considered a country ... Are you sure it's not?
Click to expand...

I believe the Vatican calls itself a country and at various other times a city state, a state, the Holy See, etc., basically under an agreement with Italy in 1929. If it really mattered to anyone, they might question the validity of calling 40 acres in the middle of Rome with less than 800 residents a country, but it's basically good manners just to let them be what they want to be. It's like North Korea calling itself a Democratic Republic - everyone knows it's nonsense, but who cares.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I believe the Vatican calls itself a country and at various other times a city state, a state, the Holy See, etc., basically under an agreement with Italy in 1929. If it really mattered to anyone, they might question the validity of calling 40 acres in the middle of Rome with less than 800 residents a country, but it's basically good manners just to let them be what they want to be. It's like North Korea calling itself a Democratic Republic - everyone knows it's nonsense, but who cares.
Click to expand...

actually, I think they care ... but I think they're content with their "Permanent Observer" status with the UN ...
 
Sherman123 said:
I'm not really sure how it diminishes ties. We didn't have a separate residence for the Vatican until 1994 and the position has never been an exceedingly important posting, it has largely been a symbolic one. Shifting the residence from one location to another (it is a residence primarily, not an embassy office) Most serious bilateral work done with the Vatican is done directly by the State Department. This seems to be blown dramatically out of proportion, it's just an office move. It isn't even being subsumed, it is going to occupy its own space with its own entrance and section of the compound.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is totally blown out of proportion. Guess the haters couldn't find anything better to hate on.
 
Peter Grimm said:
What part of the first amendment says we need to spend the same amount of money on embassies for each religion? The first amendment says we don't have an established religion in the United States, it says nothing about maintaining diplomatic relations abroad.
Click to expand...

The first amendment says that the government doesn't respect the establishment of religion nor does it prohibit the exercise of religion.

Whether to have an embassy somewhere is a practical matter not an ideological matter. Does it benefit the people of the United States to have an embassy in the Vatican? That's the question you should be asking/answering.
Click to expand...

Nor more than having a embassy at ORU or some other religious complex that takes up a few city blocks or more.
 
ChezC3 said:
It isn't in geography where the comparison fails. The Vatican and the Pope hold a unique position in the world. Seeing as 25% of Americans identify themselves as Catholic, the unique and distinct office of the Papacy in dealing with world diplomacy, the only reason nowadays to diminish such ties are to diminish its influence. Which is not only a tragedy for Catholics but the world in general.
Click to expand...

Totally irrelevant. Ambassadors represent countries not congregations. Ambassadors are sent to countries or adjacent countries, not religious institutions. Those 25% of Americans refer to themselves as catholics are Americans, not Vatican citizens.
 
by the way - if conservatives want to yell at someone about this, they should yell at George Bush.

Jeb Bush: Obama's Decision To Move Vatican Embassy Is All About Obamacare Retaliation | ThinkProgress


Ironically, the process of moving the embassy from its current location to the compound at the U.S. Embassy to Italy began under Jeb’s brother, President George W. Bush, whose administration purchased the buildings. The new location is actually a tenth of a mile closer to the Vatican and the move will come with no reduction in staff or activities.
Click to expand...

Think that will finally shut them up on this issue?
 
No truth required, for now they will move on to another outrage, then, in a few months on a slow day, they will trot this one back out. Outrage requires constant fuel.
 
ChezC3 said:
It isn't in geography where the comparison fails. The Vatican and the Pope hold a unique position in the world. Seeing as 25% of Americans identify themselves as Catholic, the unique and distinct office of the Papacy in dealing with world diplomacy, the only reason nowadays to diminish such ties are to diminish its influence. Which is not only a tragedy for Catholics but the world in general.
Click to expand...

Why do you think Catholics should have more influence in the USA than any other religion when they aren't even the most popular one?
 
mak2 said:
No truth required, for now they will move on to another outrage, then, in a few months on a slow day, they will trot this one back out. Outrage requires constant fuel.
Click to expand...

It could be that there are Catholics and others who are genuinely offended by this decision. Just because you disagree with their opinion doesn't mean that this opinion isn't sincerely felt.
Why isn't it enough for you to simply disagree without casting aspersions on the sincerity of contrarian ideas?
 
mak2 said:
No truth required, for now they will move on to another outrage, then, in a few months on a slow day, they will trot this one back out. Outrage requires constant fuel.
Click to expand...
Luckily, they have an outrage machine:

bpzvkwwxmopti2engvmn.jpg
 
Two of those three hosts are practicing Catholics. Your point?
 
Also hilarious is how the RNC tries their hardest to make Obama look like the anti-Christ:

NRSC_PetitionMockup_Vatican_v1_01.jpg

ROFL -- it's The Omen Part 4. :)
 
Again, your point?
 
nota bene said:
It could be that there are Catholics and others who are genuinely offended by this decision. Just because you disagree with their opinion doesn't mean that this opinion isn't sincerely felt.
Why isn't it enough for you to simply disagree without casting aspersions on the sincerity of contrarian ideas?
Click to expand...

I don't know why they would be, but if they are - I hope they are mad at George Bush, since he's the one who started the whole process of moving the embassy.

But really this is a non-issue
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom