Quantcast

«

»

Apr 14 2012

Let’s Treat them Like a Country

The Vatican would like to be a religious concern when it wants to inflict its “moral teachings” on non-Catholics, control Cardinals and Bishops based on church teachings, and not pay taxes. On the other hand, the Vatican would like to be a country when the Pope is named in lawsuits or when they would like to sweep their minions away to the Vatican when they face legal trouble in some country. The Vatican has done a great job of advancing their agenda with this sleight of hand. For those of us with a shred of skepticism, it smacks of a con game. “Heads I win, tails you lose.” Since being a religion has never helped the Catholic Church with its depravities, let’s force them to just be the little tin-pot country they want to be.

The first thing that has to happen is that the Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests here in the US all need to have their country loyalty questioned. One cannot serve two masters. Are they American citizens subject to US law? If so, then there should be no cover-ups, no hiding behind “church state separation” (where it suits their needs), and no misdirection of the legal system. Those who swear their loyalty to the Pope or god or some other authority should have their US citizenship revoked.  If the Vatican wants to issue them passports, that’s fine. However, let’s be clear: they are guests in our country and subject to our laws.  If they violate them, those involved should be prosecuted or deported. If they behave as organized criminals, then subject their institutions to racketeering laws and have their assets seized until they have had a proper trial. With their stonewalling, that could take centuries.  So be it. Since their criminal activities run internationally, such as money laundering and sex crimes, then let them be subject to international courts, where needed, to bring them into line.

Tax favoritism of Catholic properties should be stopped immediately. There is no reason why the US Government should be subsidizing foreign governments, especially those that have harmed American children. As a point of comparison, Saddam Hussein never harmed Americans, let alone on our own soil. An objective look at their government activities leads one to the conclusion that they are not a friendly nation. Let their activities be scrutinized by the CIA. Let’s stop publishing their press releases in our newspapers.  The USA should not be foreskin-whipped by a bunch of child molesters and their enablers.

Just this month, “US” Catholic Bishops have thrown a little tantrum over their “religious freedom.” Like frothing Muslims when someone draws a cartoon, they have learned that behaving like bratty children gets media attention. This time, they want the US government to bend US laws so that they can control the reproduction of others. Why, exactly, have we let foreign governments control our nation’s hospitals? Why are they holding so many medical ethics board seats? Supreme Court seats? What about the real religious freedom of skeptics not to have to subsidize blatantly criminal organizations?

The Catholic “pro life” stance is just self-serving ploy. Those familiar with the history of the church should be aware of the centuries of torture and genocide it has perpetuated. Remember the Crusades? The Cathars? Witch Burnings? The Inquisition? Auto-da-fé? The rape of the Americas? After its silent assent of the Holocaust (“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”), the Catholic Church contrived its pro-life policy out of a sense of survival. An educated Europe turned away from this horrible murderous institution. How will the parasite nation go on? We all know that God will not provide and nothing fails like prayer. Its only means of survival is to get its clutches into the next generation, the poorer and more gullible, the better. Buy low, sell high.  Their newfound “value” of human life is strangely proportionate to that life financial value as a potential tither. If the Catholic Church would like to manufacture humans, then let them fund their project themselves. If they will not fund the children they want to create, then they are the abortion murderers, are they not?

It’s time to treat the Vatican as a country—one with its own self-interests almost universally at odds with ours. Let’s make them stop using Americans and America for their ends.  Let’s bring the crime ring to justice.

50 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Mark D.

    I would like to see them as their own sovereign nation, but for a different reason than yours.

    I want to see war declared on them. I want to see soldiers marching on the Papal offices, enforcing true freedom and sending the message that if they insist on fucking over our country with their barbaric traditions, we will not be complacent. I want to see the pope and his lackeys captured by SEALs and tried for crimes against humanity.

    If we’re going to bother with a shitty War on Terror, I want it to be about ALL terrorists, Christians included, not just Muslims.

    I would like to live in a world where my Grandmother wakes up and realizes that every week she gives money to a barbaric organization that is directly implicated and/or complicit with ruining the lives of women, children, poor people, colored people all over the entire world and throughout much of it’s history.

    I want to live in a world delusions is not defended, is not institutionalized, and Enlightenment is given the respect, the reverence that it deserves.

    I think, therefore I despair.

    * I originally typed “fairy tail”. I wonder how many will get the significance.

    1. 1.1
      summerseale

      I agree in part with what you say, however there’s a few things which I think go overboard:

      1) When you say Christians included, does that mean you actually think that a war on terror against Muslim fanatics is a good idea? I actually do think it is, but I’ve seen that I’m in the extreme minority in liberal/atheist circles on this one. Most atheists I know think that “the war on terror” is a bad idea. I don’t. I agreed with Hitchens on this one. I’m just looking to see what your particular viewpoint is on this.

      2) One reason I do agree, on a basic principle, with the “war on terror” is because Muslim terrorists are blowing themselves up and purposefully killing a lot of innocent people. I don’t see that much happening with Catholics – bad as they are. Even when we’ve seen Christians fighting Muslims in some nations, or burning “witches” in places in Africa, those ideas are rejected by most Christians. There isn’t a vast and concerted movement which supports these actions. There isn’t a “jihadist” mentality, or even doctrine, which is mirrored by jihadist philosophy and doctrine in Islam. I know that Christians kill many people for their nailed god every year in some third world nations, but it’s not as if there are a hundred million Christians who think that this is a good idea.

      3) I agree with you in part on soldiers marching into the papa offices, but if you do that…do you think it’s a good idea to send soldiers into Mecca to march in and arrest certain Imams? We haven’t done anything even close to that. If we do send soldiers into the Vatican to arrest culprits of crimes against humanity, would you think that we should do that in Mecca as well? Even I, with my approval for the war on terror, think that might be a bit too much to handle.

      1. Jdog

        You’re missing a key difference between Islam and Roman Catholicism. Islam as a whole is not actively promoting terrorism and/or jihad, some organizations that happen to be Islamic are doing so; Al Qaeda, for example. It might help if you realize that Al Qaeda is really organized very similarly to the Mafia.

        Islam is not any more of a unified group than Christianity or Hinduism.

        1. summerseale

          I never said that Islam is promoting terrorism. Nor would I ever say that. I will say, however, that there is a small percentage of Muslims whom are sympathetic to terrorist organizations. Unfortunately, a small percentage of more than a billion people comprises of many millions of people.

          I also wouldn’t say that Catholics, or even Christians in general, approve of terrorist acts. I would say that they do practice a philosophy which, in practice, can be seen as crimes against humanity (such as preaching against condom use in African countries with AIDS).

          I wouldn’t ever say that all of them agree with this, or even that all of their leaders agree with this. But I would say that this is the overall effect of their message.

          I was merely responding to the comment which said that we should send troops into the Vatican papal offices and asked if that’s such a good idea? After all, as I stated, we never did that with Mecca. If you go by the idea that the Vatican promotes crimes throughout the world, then you can’t ignore that Mecca does the same. I think that both do, but I think that sending troops in could be one of the biggest mistakes we could make.

          I wish that was not the reality of it and that we could send troops in to arrest those leaders, but we can’t do that and keep a world from blowing itself apart.

          1. rvanek

            Christianity IS terrorism. The entire premise is that if you do not accept their story as true, you will be, as Jeff likes to put it, TORTURED FOREVER.

            The sheer amount of terror caused to humanity by Christianity (and the other religions with versions of “hell”) is far worse than a few suicide bombers.

          2. summerseale

            rvanek,

            Christianity IS terrorism. The entire premise is that if you do not accept their story as true, you will be, as Jeff likes to put it, TORTURED FOREVER.

            The sheer amount of terror caused to humanity by Christianity (and the other religions with versions of “hell”) is far worse than a few suicide bombers.

            I couldn’t agree more on one level. I’d never say that it isn’t terrifying to some. It’s a bit hard for me to really conceive of how terrifying it is, however, as I never believed and my parents never taught me that as they’re not really believers either. So, having never grown up with that image in my mind, I never was afraid of it. I think it does psychological damage for many, though, and I think that this is utterly insane, stupid, insulting, and wrong for any system to teach this.

            Islam also teaches about hell. It teaches about hell as much as Christianity does, so you can’t say that Christianity stands apart from Islam on that point. The tortures of hell, in fact, are detailed even more in the Koran than in the New Testament. So, seeing as they both teach about hell, they both cancel each other out on that point as being as insane as the other.

            But I disagree about the suicide bomber part of your statement. It is actual terrorism and I don’t see the victims getting up and walking away after the fact. I’ve known many atheists who have walked away from the “terrorism” of the threat of hell – both Muslims and Christians alike – and they live happy lives now, free from the confines of any religion. However, I’ve also had a few friends killed by suicide bombings, and they aren’t walking away from anywhere any longer.

      2. Jdog

        That was more of a response to your third point, by the way. In your second and first points, you appear to already understand this, but then suddenly don’t when making your third one.

        1. summerseale

          I understand your critique but, again, I think too many of us are far too sensitive when it comes to criticizing Islam. I think it’s fairly clear that Sam Harris is right: we have a problem dealing with that. We have a problem with it for a lot of cultural reasons which, frankly, we need to get over. I’ll continue to critique the inherent barbaric stupidities of the Islamic world just as much as I criticize the rest of the world for their own religious insanities as well.

      3. crowepps

        The strong push to ban all forms of birth control except abstinence will result in tens of thousands of deaths as women are allowed to die of untreated pregnancy complications and/or the complications of unsafe abortions.

        “It is not better that the mother live the rest of her existence having had her child killed.”
        http://www.catholicsun.org/2010/phxdio-stjoes/Q-AND-A-ST-JOSEPH-HOSPITAL-FINAL.pdf

        “Nicaragua last year became one of 35 countries that ban all abortions, even to save the life of the mother, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York. The ban has been strictly followed, leaving the country torn between a strong tradition of women’s rights and a growing religious conservatism. Abortion rights groups have stormed Congress in recent weeks demanding change, but President Daniel Ortega, a former leftist revolutionary and a Roman Catholic, has refused to oppose the church-supported ban.

        Evangelical groups and the church say abortion is never needed now because medical advances solve the complications that might otherwise put a pregnant mother’s life at risk.

        But at least three women have died because of the ban, and another 12 reported cases will be examined, said gynecologist and university researcher Eliette Valladares, who is working with the Pan American Health Organization to analyze deaths of pregnant women recorded by Nicaragua’s Health Ministry.”

        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21601045/ns/health/t/women-die-after-nicaraguas-ban-abortions/

        The fact that they plan to sacrifice only members of the select group of women with gestational problems, and through the passive means of refusing to provide appropriate medical treatment, doesn’t make it any less horrific.

        1. summerseale

          I completely agree. But…are you saying that only Christians oppose abortion rights? Do I have to remind you that abortion rights under shari’a are mostly nonexistent as well? There are some mitigating circumstances in some Islamic countries, but overall extremely few of them. They’re just as nuts as fundamentalist Christians on this matter.

      4. Ingdigo Jump

        Look asshole. I have arab and muslim friends. I take exception to you thinking that they should be sacrificed on an alter to your paranoia and bigotry. You and your ilk of “rational” genocide cheer leaders need to get a clue and realize that when you wage war on some of our friends you wage war on us. You challenge the free speech of Muslim Americans you threaten the free speech of Americans. I would side with my muslim and arab friends against assholes like you.

        And now, I am not happy saying “they’re some of the good ones” and say we’re talking about other people. They have family in those nations you want to bomb. When you talk about going to war with the arab world you talk about going to war with friends of mine and thus you’re talking about going to war with atheists like me.

        Fuck off.

        1. summerseale

          Look asshole.

          Nice to meet you too.

          I have arab and muslim friends.

          So do I. In fact, I live in a city that has a large Arab population.

          I take exception to you thinking that they should be sacrificed on an alter to your paranoia and bigotry.

          When did I say that they need to be sacrificed? And exactly what statement did I use which was bigoted?

          You and your ilk of “rational” genocide cheer leaders need to get a clue and realize that when you wage war on some of our friends you wage war on us.

          What “rational” genocide leaders? I oppose genocide in every way and, in fact, stated that I am against sending troops into Mecca or the Vatican.

          You challenge the free speech of Muslim Americans you threaten the free speech of Americans.

          How exactly did I challenge the free speech of anyone?

          I would side with my muslim and arab friends against assholes like you.

          Not exactly sure what you mean by that, considering that most people fighting and losing lives against Islamic extremists are…Muslims themselves. Islamic extremists kill more Muslims every year than any other group of people and I applaud the brave soldiers fighting against them and their genocidal ideology.

          And now, I am not happy saying “they’re some of the good ones” and say we’re talking about other people.

          I really didn’t understand what you meant here. Sorry.

          They have family in those nations you want to bomb. When you talk about going to war with the arab world you talk about going to war with friends of mine and thus you’re talking about going to war with atheists like me.

          I don’t actually want to bomb anyone. I approve of targeted killings of terrorists. I’m against all out invasions of nations on principle.

          Fuck off.

          Thanks for caring, keep smiling, and same to you.

    2. 1.2
      Aliasalpha

      Why war? I seem to recall reading a while back that there’s supposed to be about a thousand swiss guard. The readership of Freethought Blogs could probably take them by ourselves, no need to get countries involved.

      1. summerseale

        So, you believe that it’s a good idea to send troops into Vatican city to arrest the Pope and others who surround him because there are only around a thousand Swiss guards?

        First of all, you’re never going to get the United States, or any other democracy, to actually do that. Second of all, I’m wondering about whether or not you would advocate the same for Mecca if there were only a thousand guards there to protect Imams we should have in the dock as well?

        I’m not saying they don’t deserve it, I’m just wondering if that’s really your stance?

    3. 1.3
      Markita Lynda—threadrupt

      I second Mark D.’s motion!

  2. 2
    Matrim

    Other than the revoking citizenship due to loyalty, I agree to just about everything. Though I think it would be near political suicide for a politician to seriously suggest these things, what with being accused of waging a war on religion (as opposed to a war on child molestation or racketeering, gotta love framing) and getting all the good Catholics riled up.

  3. 3
    brianiverson

    1st – Sorry about my 1st comment being about a grammatical / spelling error but those damn things make you look ignorant – or in a hurry.

    About slight of hand vs sleight of hand
    “Sleight” is an old word meaning “cleverness, skill,” and the proper expression is “sleight of hand.” It’s easy to understand why it’s confused with “slight’ since the two words are pronounced in exactly the same way. (Technically a Homophone – they are a type of homonym that also sound alike and have different meanings, but have different spellings. I do it often – That pear of people look like pairs, or the bear went over the mountain to sea what he could sea)
    Sleight of hand Meaning(s)
    (n) manual dexterity in the execution of tricks
    Also
    Sleight, meaning dexterity or deceptiveness, comes from the Old Norse slœgð,[3] meaning cleverness, cunning, slyness.[4] Sleight of hand is often mistakenly written as slight of hand or slide of hand. Slight descends from slettr, meaning plain, flat, even, smooth, level.

    You’re not going to ban me for this are you?

    Oh, and about your thoughts toward the Catholic Church. You are much too civil. Declare them a country and then invade it, and plunder it’s riches. Carpet bombing only if they resist. And then leave it to be divided-up between adjoining countries. Sounds fair after all they have done to people around the world.
    P.S. I think it would be a war we could easily win.

    Brian Iverson
    Michigan

    1. 3.1
      Ribis

      First, sorry to don the garb of a grammar Nazi, but I cannot resist doing so when others include numerous errors (including another example of the error in question) in their grammatical finger-wagging. I’ll (mostly) refrain from revising for style.

      First, sorry about my first comment being about a grammatical / spelling error, but those damned things make you look ignorant or in a hurry.

      About slight of hand vs. sleight of hand:
      “Sleight” is an old word meaning “cleverness, or skill,” and the proper expression is “sleight of hand.” It’s easy to understand why it’s confused with “slight,” since the two words are pronounced in exactly the same way. (technically, they are homophones – they are a type of homonym that also sound alike and have different meanings, but have different spellings.) I make such mistakes often: “That pear of people look like pairs, or, “The bear went over the mountain to sea what he could sea.”

      Sleight of hand Meaning(s):
      (n) manual dexterity in the execution of tricks.
      Also,
      Sleight, meaning dexterity or deceptiveness, comes from the Old Norse slœgð,[3] meaning cleverness, cunning, slyness.[4] Sleight of hand is often mistakenly written as slight of hand or slide of hand. Slight descends from slettr, meaning plain, flat, even, smooth, or level.

      You’re not going to ban me for this, are you?

      Oh, and about your thoughts toward the Catholic Church: you are much too civil. Declare them a country, and then invade it and plunder its riches. Carpet bombing only if they resist. And Then, leave it to be divided up between adjoining countries. Sounds fair, after all they have done to people around the world.

    2. 3.2
      Don Baker

      Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I’ve corrected the post.

    3. 3.3
      jacobfromlost

      Brian Iverson,

      The name is very familiar. Did you happen to live in a state starting with “W” in high school? If so, what letter did the town start with, and what letter did the school start with?

      (Why do I feel like a psychic doing a cold reading?)

  4. 4
    gwen

    They are like a mafia organization, with legal tax breaks..

  5. 5
    Improbable Joe, bearer of the Official SpokesGuitar

    If the Vatican is a foreign power equivalent to a nation/state, then every Catholic church in America needs to be treated as an alien embassy, and every American swearing loyalty is a potential traitor.

  6. 6
    Martin Evans

    One of the best posts I’ve read here. Well said, Don Baker, very well said!

  7. 7
    machintelligence

    NO NO NO! Then they will be able to claim diplomatic immunity and get away with ANYTHING!

    1. 7.1
      Aliasalpha

      Oh come on, you’ve seen movies, you just need a loose cannon cop who breaks the rules so the bastards won’t get away with it.

      1. Max Entropy

        I’m getting too old for this shit.

    2. 7.2
      michaeld

      I assume you also have to go through certain channels to get diplomatic immunity and maybe even be a diplomat. I think there are a few potential holes in this idea.

      1. Rick Pikul

        Diplomatic immunity is also not really the “can do anything you want without consequences” found in fiction.

        First of all, the home nation can refuse immunity if they don’t like what someone did.
        Second, claiming immunity does not mean that you are exempt from prosecution. It just means that your nation does it rather than the host nation.[1]
        Third, the host nation can kick you out at will

        [1] One Russian diplomat got reminded of this the hard way: He drove drunk and killed a woman in Ottawa. Choosing to invoke immunity resulted in a jail sentence twice as long as he would have received in a Canadian court and he had to serve it in a Russian prison.

  8. 8
    Nomen Nescio

    Those who swear their loyalty to the Pope or god or some other authority should have their US citizenship revoked.

    not… necessarily; the rules around dual citizenship get hairy, and it’s not as automatic and clear-cut as that. the vatican, even if treated as a country, could simply refuse to grant citizenship to catholic clergy no matter how loyal. and statelessness is almost never imposed on anybody; the U.S. Government would be unlikely in the extreme to revoke the citizenship of someone without an alternate one. it’d be an international-law faux pas and cause the USA to lose face.

  9. 9
    Andy

    Let’s not suggest that anyone who is a dual citizen should be stripped of their US citizenship. There are many people who were born in the US who are also a citizen of another country. We can’t begin violating the 14th amendment just because we don’t like the Catholic church.

    The courts have said that even if you acquire a second citizenship you keep your US citizenship unless you specifically acquired the second citizenship with the intent of abandoning your US citizenship.

  10. 10
    TwoPiDeltaIJ

    I dislike the catholic church rather a lot, however I really can only agree with you about treating the Vatican as a country in so far as we already do. I think you are correct that it should be a nation where we think twice before granting entrance visas and where there is some scrutiny as to if those trips are really for business purposes (and taxable). On the other hand, I think it is a terrible idea to start taking away citizenship or threatening to take away citizenship due to questions of loyalty.

    What I think we should be doing is working to remove the falsely “earned” respect that clergy get here in the US. Clergy should be investigated like any other citizen for crimes they are suspected of. They should have to register as lobbyists when they wander through the capitol lobbying for their positions. Above all, and the point I do agree with you on, they should pay the same taxes as the rest of us.

    On a side note, I think the last sentence of the second paragraph of the blog post makes more sense with “where” instead of “were” but maybe I am wrong.

  11. 11
    cl

    I’m technically a Christian and this was my first visit here. I have to say, I agree with almost the entire OP, save this line:

    We all know that God will not provide and nothing fails like prayer.

    The rest of the post struck me as spot-on. It’s always been my opinion that Satan rules the Vatican, just like he rules the rest of the world’s major religious institutions. This is not to slam individual, God-fearing Catholics, either. There is a difference between Catholics and Catholicism.

    1. 11.1
      Mark D.

      It’s been your made up fantasy that the Vatican is ruled by Satan. How do you know you’re any better than them?

      You don’t. The only things you have are wishful thinking, willful ignorance, confirmation bias, and “no true Scotsman”.

    2. 11.2
      Zengaze

      What about the statement you cited do you disagree with? I’d love to know when prayer actually works, got a study you can refer me to that demonstrates this? And just to be inquisitive, does it matter which or what thing I pray to in order to get it to work? If I pray to my dog is it less likely that I will get the outcome I want than if I prayed to the deity Thor?

      I really really want prayer to work, that way, Nothing in life is ever really my responsibility. Thor wills it! Therefore it is. What’s meant to be Thor will make be, if it isn’t part of his plan for me as a sub factor of his overall plan for the redemption of the human race, and it doesnt impinge on the freewill of others to facilitate the actioning of his will (cant fuck with freewill) he’ll give me what I asked for. Then again, maybe talking to Thor in my head asking him to keep a parking space free for me is a dumb idea, Thor knows what’s best, and if I should have that space he will have kept it for me anyway, pretty arrogant of me a mere creature to assume I should Know what What’s best for me. thor will know best. I’ve just realised I don’t need to pray.

      But maybe I should pray for mary Jane to get cured of that cancer she has, and ask thors hammer to knock it out of her ball park, I know he’ll do it regardless of my plea IF it’s in his overarching plan to save mankind from him, but I like the idea that I can do something about Mary janes cancer, I can be an instrument of Thor and his hammer can come through me. I like that idea. “by the power of grey skull I command you to leave this woman be”. Thor likes having me ask him for things, it reminds him that he’s in charge, and reminds me that I need his hammer. It’s all about our relationship, it’s a personal one, and people who don’t know Thor can never understand just how much he loves me. So see prayer does work, maryjane got cured by the way so that proves the power of me as a vehicle for Thor. All glory to Thor!

  12. 12
    atheistthaigirl

    Well said, Don.

  13. 13
    heisenbug

    1. I will not be bickering about dual citizenship, since it has already been covered.

    2. The Vatican is not really a country, at least in the common ubderstanding of the word. It is a special case like the UN. Treating it like a wholesome state would be a huge mistake even if it is an incredibly powerful organisation.

  14. 14
    Warp

    What I do not understand is this: Why does diplomatic immunity allow foreign heads of state to enable, support or even commit crimes with impunity?

    So if the pope went to the US and stabbed someone to death in front of the cameras, nothing could be done. “Sorry, diplomatic immunity.”

    Perhaps diplomatic immunity laws need a change?

    1. 14.1
      heisenbug

      Your understanding of diplomatic immunity is faulty. It is not an out of jail card. The person is still subjected to the laws of their homecountry, so they will be prosecuted regardless in theory. Furthermore, in some special cases the immunity may even be waived.

      If things were different then Saudi Arabia would have the right to stone to death the unfaithful wife of an American diplomat.

      1. Warp

        But in this case it *is* an “out of jail” card: The pope cannot be prosecuted because of “diplomatic immunity”. His “own country” will certainly don’t do it either. So he gets off scot-free.

      2. Felix

        In the Vatican (state), the Pope is the final arbiter of any and all law. The only reason he has other people and advisors doing most things for him is the work load. In theory, he could excercise the authority to grant himself a pardon for murder.
        Of course, bin Laden thought (or pretended) that Allah had given him the supreme authority to command murder, but somehow the SEALs didn’t get the memo. The Pope could get away with anything under law. But not everything in the world happens while the law is watching (or even cares).

  15. 15
    crowepps

    When Bishop Olmsted of Phoenix, Archbishop Schnurr of Cincinnati, Bishop Ricken of Green Bay and Bishop Rodriguez of Lubbock, Texas all issue identical announcements that they have joined in a conspiracy to break the law, and attempt to recruit the members of their respective churches to join with them in doing so, it seems to me that representatives of a foreign power have as good as declared war on the women of our country.

    http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=25613

    They should certainly be cut off from the government monies that are funding a large portion of the ‘church affiliated enterprises’ in question — no Medicaid reimbursements, no Medicare reimbursements, no Veteran’s reimbursements, no Federal student loans, no Federal research grants, no Federal social service grants.

    What the Church decides to do with its own money certainly should be exempt from government interference, but I see no reason why women who pay taxes should fund a reign of terror against themselves, be stigmatized for their reasonable intention to have sex while avoiding unwanted pregnancy, and fear having their medical treatment withheld by zealots who require them to die because they shouldn’t *want* to survive a doomed fetus.

    The Court recently found that relying on faith healing was a criminal act if parents’ failure to provide appropriate medical care resulted in the death of their child. Applying that decision more widely, it is not reasonable for a Catholic hospital to insist that prayer is the only treatment they will *allow* doctors to provide a woman dying of pregnancy complications.

  16. 16
    Hairy Chris, blah blah blah etc

    This topic has been covered by English human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson in his book “The Case of the Pope”.

    I can highly recommend it if you are interested in the legal nooks & crannies of this issue.

    1. 16.1
      Hairy Chris, blah blah blah etc

      Oops, it appears that he might actually be a UK-based Aussie. Apologies!

  17. 17
    mnb0

    Country loyalty is stupid. It begs for a Godwin. Read Ian Kershaw’s The End, Hitler’s Germany 1944-45. Country loyalty demanded half a million German deaths a month – and no, not even the majority of them were nazi’s.

    1. 17.1
      Zengaze

      Agree. I am loyal to my conscience, you can stick your flags and the morons who wave them where the sun don’t shine.

  18. 18
    Thomas Bourque

    So you’re saying that US Catholics shouldn’t be allowed to hold places of authority?

    1. 18.1
      F [is for failure to emerge]

      I think the default value of “he was saying” is “read it again”.

  19. 19
    RickRay

    Unlike Sadam Hussein, the Pope and his minions do have weapons of mass destruction. The Catholic hypocrites use their WMD’s on innocent children and call it “God’s Love.”

  20. 20
    jbrock

    Why hasn’t any Democratic administration even tried to use RICO statutes to put the Catholic Church out of business in the US? It probably wouldn’t cost the Party a significant number of votes, and any theoretically Democratic Catholics could be kept from defecting to the GOP camp by simply disenfranchising them as citizens of a foreign country, and/or participants in a criminal enterprise, and/or mentally incompetent.

    Sure, the RCC might be the largest or second-largest single religious organization in the US, but they’re still outnumbered by rival religions. Any of the other bible thumpers who (out of sheer perversity) wanted to support the Papists could be kept out of the fight by threatening them with the loss of their de facto Federal subsidies (i.e. “tax exemption”) on SOCAS grounds.

    Okay, technically one or more of those ideas might be unconstitutional if you squint at it from just the right angle. That would just be an academic quibble, though; besides, how many divisions does the Chief Justice command? (Wait, he’s Catholic anyway; he and his fellow child-rape cultists on the Court could just be removed for conflict of interest.)

    (There. That should bloody well qualify as unhinged enough to make any other likely posters on this thread look reasonable. You’re welcome.)

  21. 21
    RickRay

    I keep telling people there’s a war against religion going on within the blogs of the internet, but they don’t believe me. It’s mostly people who are technologically illiterate and afraid their computer might blow up. Now, if we could actually bring that war into the realm of reality we might accomplish something positive, or, blow up the world!

    signed: An atheist who agrees that; “Religion Poisons Everything.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite="" class=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>