What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Richard Dawkins solicitor says that the Vatican is not a state

RadiomanATL

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
24,942
Reaction score
4,134
Points
48
Location
Not here
Richard Dawkins: I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI -Times Online

“There is every possibility of legal action against the Pope occurring,” said Stephens. “Geoffrey and I have both come to the view that the Vatican is not actually a state in international law. It is not recognised by the UN, it does not have borders that are policed and its relations are not of a full diplomatic nature.”

Put aside all religious issues, and current scandals. I'm drilling it down to a sovereignty issue.

The Vatican was there as a nation/state before the UN. You don't get to wipe it away with the stroke of a pen just 'cuz you don't like religion.

If the Vatican was there first, perhaps they can disband the UN with a stroke of a pen as well?
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
57,517
Reaction score
13,894
Points
2,190
The vatican has treaties with other countries. It issues ambassadors and has embassies.
Its borders are just as policed as those between EU contries.

Kind of a stretch by Mr Dawkins.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,123
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
Richard Dawkins isn't exactly the brightest bulb in the room.

The vatican has it's own military force. And they have no sovereignty? Bullcrap.
 

geauxtohell

Choose your weapon.
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
15,125
Reaction score
2,169
Points
48
Location
Out here in the middle.
Richard Dawkins: I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI -Times Online

“There is every possibility of legal action against the Pope occurring,” said Stephens. “Geoffrey and I have both come to the view that the Vatican is not actually a state in international law. It is not recognised by the UN, it does not have borders that are policed and its relations are not of a full diplomatic nature.”

Put aside all religious issues, and current scandals. I'm drilling it down to a sovereignty issue.

The Vatican was there as a nation/state before the UN. You don't get to wipe it away with the stroke of a pen just 'cuz you don't like religion.

If the Vatican was there first, perhaps they can disband the UN with a stroke of a pen as well?

God, Dawkins is a sanctimonious prick.
 
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
14,201
Reaction score
3,563
Points
185
It's army wears fancy dress, any legal violations are handled by Italy, it is entirely enclosed by the capital city of another state, its authority is just about nil. What's the point to it anyway?


I have to agree when it comes arresting, Dawkins already had it done to him. Mentally.
 

theDoctorisIn

Platinum Member
Senior USMB Moderator
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
37,810
Reaction score
7,308
Points
1,140
Location
In the center of it all
According to accepted international law, Vatican City has been a sovereign state since the 6th century. Good luck, Mr. Dawkins.
 

geauxtohell

Choose your weapon.
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
15,125
Reaction score
2,169
Points
48
Location
Out here in the middle.
Here's what pisses me off about Dawkins. It's not enough for him to simply be an athiest and let other believe as they want. He seems insistent on attacking people for their faith (I say that as a person that is not particularly religious).

In that light, he's on par with the most fervent evangelicals.
 

theDoctorisIn

Platinum Member
Senior USMB Moderator
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
37,810
Reaction score
7,308
Points
1,140
Location
In the center of it all
Here's what pisses me off about Dawkins. It's not enough for him to simply be an athiest and let other believe as they want. He seems insistent on attacking people for their faith (I say that as a person that is not particularly religious).

In that light, he's on par with the most fervent evangelicals.

I'm somewhere between an Atheist and an Agnostic, and I agree wholeheartedly.

I think the same about Michael Moore - I agree with him on a lot of issues, but I intensely dislike him because he's an ASSHOLE.
 

geauxtohell

Choose your weapon.
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
15,125
Reaction score
2,169
Points
48
Location
Out here in the middle.
Here's what pisses me off about Dawkins. It's not enough for him to simply be an athiest and let other believe as they want. He seems insistent on attacking people for their faith (I say that as a person that is not particularly religious).

In that light, he's on par with the most fervent evangelicals.

I'm somewhere between an Atheist and an Agnostic, and I agree wholeheartedly.

I think the same about Michael Moore - I agree with him on a lot of issues, but I intensely dislike him because he's an ASSHOLE.

That's it. The guy is an asshole. I take umbrage with his attempts to take science and discredit religion. Again, other side of the same coin as ID.

If he want's to reach his own conclusions on the matter that is fine, but no scientific journal will accept a paper that "disproves God".

That's why he gets to write books about it instead.
 

theDoctorisIn

Platinum Member
Senior USMB Moderator
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
37,810
Reaction score
7,308
Points
1,140
Location
In the center of it all
Here's what pisses me off about Dawkins. It's not enough for him to simply be an athiest and let other believe as they want. He seems insistent on attacking people for their faith (I say that as a person that is not particularly religious).

In that light, he's on par with the most fervent evangelicals.

I'm somewhere between an Atheist and an Agnostic, and I agree wholeheartedly.

I think the same about Michael Moore - I agree with him on a lot of issues, but I intensely dislike him because he's an ASSHOLE.

That's it. The guy is an asshole. I take umbrage with his attempts to take science and discredit religion. Again, other side of the same coin as ID.

If he want's to reach his own conclusions on the matter that is fine, but no scientific journal will accept a paper that "disproves God".

That's why he gets to write books about it instead.

Exactly. And I get to not buy his books.
 

CrimsonWhite

*****istrator Emeritus
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
7,978
Reaction score
1,778
Points
123
Location
Guntucky
It's army wears fancy dress, any legal violations are handled by Italy, it is entirely enclosed by the capital city of another state, its authority is just about nil. What's the point to it anyway?


I have to agree when it comes arresting, Dawkins already had it done to him. Mentally.

Believe it or not, but this one of the most highly trained soldiers in the world.

swiss-guard-at-the-vatican.jpg
 

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
Richard Dawkins: I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI -Times Online

“There is every possibility of legal action against the Pope occurring,” said Stephens. “Geoffrey and I have both come to the view that the Vatican is not actually a state in international law. It is not recognised by the UN, it does not have borders that are policed and its relations are not of a full diplomatic nature.”

Put aside all religious issues, and current scandals. I'm drilling it down to a sovereignty issue.

The Vatican was there as a nation/state before the UN. You don't get to wipe it away with the stroke of a pen just 'cuz you don't like religion.

If the Vatican was there first, perhaps they can disband the UN with a stroke of a pen as well?

Let the Vatican try. :lol:

I remember the Iranian hostage situation. Sovereignty on foreign soil, is only as good as those who agree to recognize it.

That said, if they can get lawyers to write up a thing or two...

Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the atheist author, have asked human rights lawyers to produce a case for charging Pope Benedict XVI over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church.

The pair believe they can exploit the same legal principle used to arrest Augusto Pinochet, the late Chilean dictator, when he visited Britain in 1998


I love the personal attacks on Dawkins. Makes me admire the man more.
 

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
The Vatican is not a nation.
Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great, said: “This man is not above or outside the law. The institutionalised concealment of child rape is a crime under any law and demands not private ceremonies of repentance or church-funded payoffs, but justice and punishment."

Last year pro-Palestinian activists persuaded a British judge to issue an arrest warrant for Tzipi Livni, the Israeli politician, for offences allegedly committed during the 2008-09 conflict in Gaza. The warrant was withdrawn after Livni cancelled her planned trip to the UK.

“There is every possibility of legal action against the Pope occurring,” said Stephens. “Geoffrey and I have both come to the view that the Vatican is not actually a state in international law. It is not recognised by the UN, it does not have borders that are policed and its relations are not of a full diplomatic nature.”

Richard Dawkins: I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI -Times Online

I don't see it happening, but I see no credible arguments from the idiots here @ USMB. No arguments, just attacks in Dawkins.
 

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
The vatican has treaties with other countries. It issues ambassadors and has embassies.
Its borders are just as policed as those between EU contries.

Kind of a stretch by Mr Dawkins.

Dawkins and Hitchens: Hitchens says the Vatican does not have borders that are policed.

Could you explain where you are right and Hitchens is wrong?

“There is every possibility of legal action against the Pope occurring,” said Stephens. “Geoffrey and I have both come to the view that the Vatican is not actually a state in international law. It is not recognised by the UN, it does not have borders that are policed and its relations are not of a full diplomatic nature.”

Richard Dawkins: I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI -Times Online
 

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
Richard Dawkins isn't exactly the brightest bulb in the room.

The vatican has it's own military force. And they have no sovereignty? Bullcrap.

AS usual, the house idiot did not read the link.

Where does Dawkins or Hitchens say the Vatican has no sovereignty? You are using a red herring argument framed by the OP.

Read the link before you speak your shit.

Dawkins and Hitchens believe the Pope would be unable to claim diplomatic immunity from arrest because, although his tour is categorised as a state visit, he is not the head of a state recognised by the United Nations.
 

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
Richard Dawkins: I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI -Times Online

“There is every possibility of legal action against the Pope occurring,” said Stephens. “Geoffrey and I have both come to the view that the Vatican is not actually a state in international law. It is not recognised by the UN, it does not have borders that are policed and its relations are not of a full diplomatic nature.”

Put aside all religious issues, and current scandals. I'm drilling it down to a sovereignty issue.

The Vatican was there as a nation/state before the UN. You don't get to wipe it away with the stroke of a pen just 'cuz you don't like religion.

If the Vatican was there first, perhaps they can disband the UN with a stroke of a pen as well?

God, Dawkins is a sanctimonious prick.

another clueless prick who didn't read the link.:eek:
 

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
According to accepted international law, Vatican City has been a sovereign state since the 6th century. Good luck, Mr. Dawkins.

This may be, but where is the evidence for that? International law?
 

theDoctorisIn

Platinum Member
Senior USMB Moderator
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
37,810
Reaction score
7,308
Points
1,140
Location
In the center of it all
The Holy See is recognized by the UN.

It has permenant observer status. They have embassies in NY.

And they've been accepted as a Sovereign State since the Lateran Treaty in 1929.

Richard Dawkins doesn't get to override international law because he feels like it.
 

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
Vatican City is a city-state that came into existence in 1929 and is thus distinct from the central authority of the Roman Catholic Church, the Holy See, which existed long before 1929. Vatican City - Re.ViCa

how many conservatives or conservative/progressive christian assholes here have said things to the contrary?
 

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
The Holy See is recognized by the UN.

It has permenant observer status. They have embassies in NY.

And they've been accepted as a Sovereign State since the Lateran Treaty in 1929.

Richard Dawkins doesn't get to override international law because he feels like it.

true but...

here is the argument...

Dawkins and Hitchens believe the Pope would be unable to claim diplomatic immunity from arrest because, although his tour is categorised as a state visit, he is not the head of a state recognised by the United Nations.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top