Althouse: The Vatican rejects Caroline Kennedy.

April 11, 2009

The Vatican rejects Caroline Kennedy.

Obama picks Catholics as ambassador, but these are Catholics who support abortion, and the Vatican says no.

246 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 246 of 246

Peter V. Bella said...: just lame and surrender-monkey-like.

If Jeremy was awake he would say that was racist, un-American, and un-patriotic. It is Un-Ameican to make fun of this President. It is not patriotic. No true American would do such a thing.

As to the dog, it will probably be the most intelligent member of this White House.; 4/12/09, 7:26 AM
The Dude said...: You are right - I have insulted an entire race of monkeys by comparing them to a dimbulb president.

Probably insulted the French, too. They are true men of action compared to Barry, who is no doubt, at this time, shrilly yelling "PIRATES!!! What do I do, Michelle - you have big arms, help me!!!"

What a pussy.

Ok, now I have insulted pussies.; 4/12/09, 7:33 AM
Peter V. Bella said...: Cripes, guys, just because the guy's an atrocious President doesn't mean his every move has to have some nefarious motive behind it.

He is from Chicago. Chicago is his political birthplace. He was trained in the famed Chicago school of political corruption at the knee of one ofe the most venal and corrupt men ever to hold office in Illinois; Emil Jones.

Now, if you will excuse me, I have to get the leg of lamb ready for dinner.; 4/12/09, 7:35 AM
KCFleming said...: One is driven to ask:
Is the Obama administration just stupid, or was this intentional?

Did they forget to make a call to the Vatican before announcing, or did they know know full well what reaction would ensue by appointing a pro-abortion 'Catholic'?

If intentional, what was the message being sent?
It was received as a slight; was that the intent?

What exactly does this accomplish?; 4/12/09, 7:58 AM
Unknown said...: There is nothing more annoying to me then when the people who are right on the issues proceed to make asses of themselves. Revenant is wrong on the specifics of this particular case, but good lord is my side being needlessly juvenile.

I think it's fair to say that Rev's got a blind spot on religion that's coming to play here. Note: a "blind spot" is not the same being as being an anti-religious bigot, though some of his responses have toed the line. I'm inclined though to give him the benefit of the doubt, given the crap being flung at him. (and if you think there isn't a difference, consider whether you would call well meaning white people who didn't understand why minorities thought race "mattered" racists).

That being said, ultimately why they chose to reject Kennedy (and when did she decide to stop going buy her husband's name?) is a sideshow (though as a pro-choice Protestant, I still don't think the Vatican is wrong to be insulted). It's a well established principle of foreign policy that countries be apprised of potential Ambassadorial picks before we make them. Countries reject first drafts all the time, as is their right (I for example am a vocal supporter of Taiwanese independence. That, and my ability to pay my taxes, means I will never be appointed Ambassador to China). We don't have to approve the reasons, just accept that they're there.

Rev's right, we could tell them to suck it or not have an Ambassador. And this is where the blind spot gets him. In the same way we have Ambassadors to the UN, UNESCO, NATO, the EU, and a plethora of other non-state actors who matter, we have one to the spiritual leader of the world's largest religion, because (and whether you get it or not is beside the point) he MATTERS. If mainline Protestantism, Sunni or Shiite Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism etc. had an equivalent figure, you don't think the US would send someone to talk to him/her (oh who am I kidding, Protestantism is the only of those for whom "her" would be a reasonable answer.)

This was an unforced error by a team who increasingly sees their job as to kiss up to our enemies and snub our friends. To see it as otherwise is to miss the forest for the trees of some pet issue.; 4/12/09, 8:13 AM
Peter V. Bella said...: What exactly does this accomplish?

Absolutely nothing. Which is what has been accomplished in the last seventy something days of this presidency.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. I am Un-American and un-patriotic for criticizing this particular president.; 4/12/09, 8:22 AM
An Edjamikated Redneck said...: Wasn't Obama a Senator for two years? What did he do for a church in those two years? Fly home every Sunday?

Or just not bother, since his Sunday routine was not in the public eye?; 4/12/09, 8:46 AM
An Edjamikated Redneck said...: Rev, I have long read and appreciated your comments, but on this issue you have dropped off the deep end.

How can you say that the ability to kill your child is a "basic human right"?

A medical decision is shrouded in a right to privacy, but a decision to abort for a non-medical reason should no be a private decision, but a crime.

The idea that we can seperate the Vatican into a religious institution and a civil state is nuts as well. The Vatican exists as a civil state solely to keep a civil authourity from having dominion over the Church.

Reagan appointed an ambassador to the Vatican soley as a means to work closely Pope John Paul during the days of Solidarity in Poland, and I think the ability to keep track of devepments in the Vatican as it relates to world affairs is still vitally important.

I don't understand your unreasonable position here, as much as you have tried to justify it. You normally are such a clear thinker; but in this instance, not so much.; 4/12/09, 8:59 AM
KCFleming said...: If a liberal Catholic is one who supports abortion, then I am reminded of a joke Woody Allen told as part of his stand-up routine.
"My uncle is a reformed Jew. A very reformed Jew. A Nazi"."; 4/12/09, 9:18 AM
Unknown said...: I have to agree with Andre that I was inappropriately harsh with Revenant last night. I do apologize!; 4/12/09, 11:00 AM
From Inwood said...: Just arrived on this site.

TY: ROFL at your comments.

Peter Bella; I'm sending your parody letter to my friends (with attribution, of course).

Seven: Agree with pretty much everything you say.

I would add that now that the NYT is a junk paper & that its financial status is being recognized as junk also, so it's fitting that a junk person from a junk family would be interested in Pinch. (No comments about no official, legal, accounting, etc. definition of “junk” corporation, pls.)

If the atheist/agnostic commenters here would allow me, let me repeat the old adage re Pinch & the Pinched-Face Princess: "God made 'em & he matched 'em."

This just in: Continuing his in-your-face approach to Pope Benedict XVI, Obama may appoint Chris Buckley, Mario Cuomo, or Richard McBrien of Notre Dame as ambassador to Vatican.; 4/12/09, 11:10 AM
buster said...: Revanant said:

"Apparently you believe in moral relativism, wherein the Vatican is blameless so long as you can find someone guilty of worse crimes to point to. My view is that one person's crimes are not diminished simply because another person committed worse crime."

Let me summarize Revenant's position as I understand it:

(1) Freedom of religion is a human right.

(2) Violating a human right is a crime.

(3) The Vatican violated Kennedy's freedom of religion by rejecting her as US ambassador.

(4) Therefore the Vatican is guilty of a crime (against humanity, I suppose).; 4/12/09, 1:35 PM
Revenant said...: Andre,

First of all, thank you for offering an reasoned counter-argument.

I agree that it is in our interests to keep lines of communication open to major religious leaders. But we've always done that. Having an ambassador is a whole different matter -- that constitutes official recognition. If we grant an ambassador to Religion X but not to Religion Y, we are implicitly saying "we consider Religion X to be more important than Religion Y". Put yourself in the shoes of, for example, a Sunni Muslim. He sees that Catholics get official recognition from the United States and no Muslim religious leaders do. The obvious conclusion is that the United States considers talking to Catholics more important than talking to Sunni Muslims. That way lies bad feeling.

Consider that around 80% of the world's population is non-Catholic and therefore considers the Pope to fall somewhere between "misguided" and "actively evil". Yet he is, so far as I know, the only religious leader we honor with an ambassador. That just doesn't sound prudent.

I'm not saying we shouldn't talk to or listen to the Pope. But if we're going to do him the honor of granting formal diplomatic relations, it should be because he rules a country, not because he's the head of the most popular religion.; 4/12/09, 4:16 PM
Revenant said...: Or just not bother, since his Sunday routine was not in the public eye?

You know, during the eight years he was in Washington Ronald Reagan almost never attended church. Should we conclude, therefore, that his frequently-professed faith in God was a sham designed to trick the rubes in the Religious Right into voting for him? Or perhaps he thought his faith was a matter between him and God -- not between him, God, and whichever nosy members of the public decide to play Religion Police.

Maybe Obama's Christianity is a sham. Given how insane his last church was I'd feel happier if it was. But so far there's no evidence of that.; 4/12/09, 4:31 PM
Revenant said...: How can you say that the ability to kill your child is a "basic human right"?

I didn't. I said the (current) three branches of the US government consider it one.

As for your other points, I've responded to them already when other posters made them.; 4/12/09, 4:33 PM
Revenant said...: Let me summarize Revenant's position as I understand it:

This should be entertaining...

(1) Freedom of religion is a human right.

Right so far.

(2) Violating a human right is a crime.

Violating a human right is morally wrong. It is a crime only in those places where it is criminalized.

(3) The Vatican violated Kennedy's freedom of religion by rejecting her as US ambassador.

Assuming that the rumored reasons for her rejection are true, yes.

(4) Therefore the Vatican is guilty of a crime (against humanity, I suppose).

No. See point (2), above. The Vatican is guilty, as it has been since its establishment as a separate country, of violating numerous human rights within its borders. But these violations aren't a crime because neither domestic nor international law forbids them. Not all moral failings are crimes.

For example, if any country wanted to say "we're not letting any Catholics into this country, and nobody's allowed to practice Catholicism here either", that wouldn't be a crime. It would just be morally repugnant to decent people.; 4/12/09, 4:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Let's assume, just for fun, that the United States rejects some country's ambassador. What would we want that country to do? Cut off all diplomatic relations with us?

Or wouldn't it better if that country sucked it up and just tried again to make us happy?; 4/12/09, 5:31 PM
buster said...: Revenant said::

"he Vatican is guilty, as it has been since its establishment as a separate country, of violating numerous human rights within its borders. But these violations aren't a crime because neither domestic nor international law forbids them. Not all moral failings are crimes."

Sorry for the misunderstanding. But then the question arises, just what "crimes" (your word, see my previous post) is the Vatican guilty of "within its borders?"

Because the Vatican City is legally a sovereign state, it legislates the law governing its territory. If, as you claim, a human rights violation is not a crime unless it has been criminalized by a body with authority to legislate, nothing the Vatican does within its borders is a crime as long as it follows its own law. You are not claiming that the Vatican violates its own law. Therefore the Vatican is not comitting crimes within its territory.

A human rights violation can also be criminalized by an international organization whose laws are binding on countries that have submitted to its jurisdiction (and perhaps in some cases on all countries irrespective of agreement). I don't know much about the Vatican's foreign relations, but unless you can give some actual examples of it violating a human rights treaty it acceded to, I think you can't defend your assertions.

On another subject, I suggested earlier that the constitutional right to travel is not a human right. You responded that the right to travel is very important, and that John Locke, among others, agreed. I think you are wrong about Locke, who I doubt ever heard of the concept of a human right. Locke dealt with "natural" rights. In any case, by your own reasoning (as I understand it) the right to travel is not a human right (even though it is an "important" one), unless some country or international authority has proclaimed it so. I'm not aware of any charter or declaration of human or fundamental rights that includes the right to travel. Even if there were, I doubt it would carry much weight. Human rights protect interests that arise from human nature (IOW the condition of being a human) and are so important that infringing them violates basic human dignity. I don't think the right to travel meets that criterion. I think the right of a human foetus not to be aborted does.

Also, I believe that human rights are creatures of natural law and therefore exist whether or not international or municipal law recognize them. But that is an argument for another time.; 4/12/09, 5:45 PM
buster said...: @ Revenant:

Further to my previous post, you now seem to be claiming that the Vatican commits "human rights violations" within its borders, even though those violations are not crimes.

Whether this is true depends on what a human right is, and I think your definition is hopelessly over-inclusive. Thus, Kennedy's human right to freedom of religion is infringed when the Vatican rejects her as US ambassador, even though it claims it cannot work effectively with her because she is a Catholic who espouses heretical views (and even though it could work effectively with a non-Catholic who espouses the same views, which in the latter case would not be heretical because the person is not a Catholic)?

This doesn't seem to me to rise to level of a human rights violation, although it apparently does to you. This is not the place to thrash out that question, but consider this:

I doubt that Caroline Kennedy thinks the Vatican infringed her freedom of religion, but suppose she does. If the Vatican were a member of the Council of Europe (it isn't, but it has acceded to some of its Conventions and participates in many of its initiatives), Kennedy could bring a claim in the European Court of Human Rights. Can you honestly say that you think she would win.

Other examples you give in your various posts are either made up or ridiculous. (I don't have time or inclination to track them down, but doubtless you will recognize them.) For example, you say that non-Catholics can't practice their religion within the Vatican without official permission.

Suppose an Iranian diplomat, a Muslim, visits the Vatican to participate in a three-day conference on Christian-Muslim relations. During that time he prostrates himself and prays five times a day as his religion requires. Do you really believe that the Vatican authorities require that he obtain permission to do this? Suppose he doesn't obtain permission. Do you believe he will be expelled if he is found out? (Arrest is out because he's a diplomat.) Do you think he'll be called in to be remonstrated against? That the Vatican will protest to his government? That his conduct will even be frowned upon?

You also accuse the Vatican of not allowing non-Catholic places of worship to be established within its territory. I don't know whether this is true, but I will assume it is.

The pope's ecclesiatical office is Bishop of Rome. Within his diocese there are many Protestant churches, Jewish synogagues, and mosques. John Paul II visited many of them and prayed there. Within the Vatican and throughout Rome there are non-Catholic religious and scholarly institutions. Assuming that non-Catholic places of worship are no allowed within the Vatican's walls, that is perfectly reasonable and understandable given the Vatican's special character as the Church's seat of government. It is preposterous to say that non-Catholics can't practice their religion in territory under the pope's personal jurisdiction.

How about activities extra muros? According to you, there is a human right to abortion. The Vatican opposes the practice of abortion at every opportunity: at international conferences devoted to the subject, in its public statements, and in its internal discipline of dissenting Catholics like Kennedy. Do you seriously claim that the Vatican is committing human rights violations by furthering its own objectives through activities that are perfectly legal, and no different from what pro-abortion organizations do from the opposite side?

I agree with Joan that you're an interesting and provocative commenter. I also agree with Peter and Seven that it's hard not to conclude that, at least on this occasion, you're exhibiting an unreasonable hostility to religion, or perhaps just to Catholicism.

Finally, I think you and several other posters seriously underestimate the political and diplomatic heft of the Vatican. For a brief summary, see http://www.geographyiq.com/countries/vt/Holy_See_Vatican_City_relations_summary.htm; 4/12/09, 7:15 PM
Joan said...: Rev gives an example why having an ambassador to the Vatican is less than wise (emphasis added): He sees that Catholics get official recognition from the United States and no Muslim religious leaders do.

The reason behind this is obviously that there is no single leader of the Muslim religion. In fact, each mosque is an entity unto itself, AFAIK, which is why when Muslim extremists do horrible things, there's a near-complete lack of denunciations from Muslim clerics. Not their mosque, not their problem or responsibility.

Continuing,
The obvious conclusion is that the United States considers talking to Catholics more important than talking to Sunni Muslims. That way lies bad feeling.

No, the obvious conclusion is that you can't establish diplomatic relations with someone who doesn't exist. As for the "bad feeling" this supposedly engenders, just add to the list that begins with "We exist".

How do we handle the Dalai Lama? He would be a somewhat analagous person to the Pope, being the head of a religion and the head of nation-state, albeit in exile.; 4/12/09, 7:27 PM
Anonymous said...: How do we handle the Dalai Lama?

Close, Joan, but no cigar. The reasons that we don't do much in the way of handling said Lama is because we don't want to anger the Chinese for no useful purpose.

But, let's play this game. It's perfect, really. I believe that China should get out of Tibet and should drop its claims on Taiwan. Suppose I make a big political deal about my beliefs Obama sends me as the ambassador to China. As a bonus, China actually is a flagrant and awful human rights abuser, unlike the Catholic Church.

China would rightly refuse me. Under Rev's absurd argument, the United States ought to end all diplomatic relations with China. Is that wise?

Rev hates religion, and it colors his argument to a level of craziness.; 4/12/09, 7:35 PM
Revenant said...: Sorry for the misunderstanding. But then the question arises, just what "crimes" (your word, see my previous post) is the Vatican guilty of "within its borders?"

Ah, I see where the confusion is.

The one and only time I used the word "crime" in relation to the Vatican was indirectly, in this passage:

Apparently you believe in moral relativism, wherein the Vatican is blameless so long as you can find someone guilty of worse crimes to point to. My view is that one person's crimes are not diminished simply because another person committed worse crimes.

In that passage, I was using the word "crime" in its more metaphorical sense, i.e. "any offense, serious wrongdoing, or sin". I was not using it in the literal sense of "an action that is legally prohibited". The Vatican is guilty of "crimes" in the former sense, not the latter sense; the latter is what I thought you were asking about.

Therefore the Vatican is not committing crimes within its territory.

I never said they committed crimes within their borders. My only references to Vatican activity within its borders stated that it committed human rights violations there.

On another subject, I suggested earlier that the constitutional right to travel is not a human right. You responded that the right to travel is very important, and that John Locke, among others, agreed.

I didn't mention John Locke. Offhand I don't remember which philosophers I was thinking of, since I've read so many they all kind of blend together after a while. :)

In any case, by your own reasoning (as I understand it) the right to travel is not a human right (even though it is an "important" one), unless some country or international authority has proclaimed it so.

I never said anything that could reasonably be construed as "it isn't a human right unless a country or international authority proclaimed it so". So no, that's not my reasoning.

Now, I *did* explain to Peter -- patiently, repeatedly, and without much success -- that the fact that the United States was party to an international declaration that listed "freedom of speech" and "freedom of religion" proved that the United States considered those two things to be human rights. But that's obvious to any sensible person even if it wasn't to Peter; if you sign on to a declaration that X is true, you are obviously adopting the position that X is true.

Also, I believe that human rights are creatures of natural law and therefore exist whether or not international or municipal law recognize them.

That's how the Founders saw freedom of speech and freedom of religion. That's why the Bill of Rights says not that the people are hereby granted those rights, but that Congress cannot restrict those rights. They took it as self-evident that all humans enjoyed those rights from birth.

I wouldn't recommend explaining that to Peter, though. He's obsessed with thinking of them as lesser, trivial rights to be suppressed at a government's discretion. :); 4/12/09, 7:51 PM
Jeremy said...: What if you use birth control or deny millions of Jews were killed?

That okay?

How about molesting young boys?

Oh.; 4/12/09, 8:13 PM
Jeremy said...: Seven Brain Cells - "Or wouldn't it better if that country sucked it up and just tried again to make us happy?"

Ahhh, the intellect.; 4/12/09, 8:14 PM
Jeremy said...: Maybe Obama could appoint this dude:

James Dobson, 72, who resigned recently as head of Focus on the Family -- one of the largest Christian groups in the country -- and once denounced the Harry Potter books as witchcraft, acknowledged the dramatic reverse for the religious Right in a farewell speech to staff.

"We tried to defend the unborn child, the dignity of the family, but it was a holding action," he said.

"We are awash in evil and the battle is still to be waged. We are right now in the most discouraging period of that long conflict. Humanly speaking, we can say we have lost all those battles."; 4/12/09, 8:15 PM
Jeremy said...: zedzded said..."They are true men of action compared to Barry, who is no doubt, at this time, shrilly yelling "PIRATES!!! What do I do, Michelle - you have big arms, help me!!!"

How'd that work out for you dickhead?

Ha.; 4/12/09, 8:17 PM
Revenant said...: The reason behind this is obviously that there is no single leader of the Muslim religion.

I think you're missing my point, Joan. Obviously you are right that it is easier too establish diplomatic relations with Catholicism than it is Islam. But that doesn't address the problem I was pointing out, which is that if the United States opens diplomatic relations with one religion and not others, by doing so it implictly says that religion is more important than the ones it isn't conducting those relations with.

Suppose the situation were political rather than religious. Your have one country with over a billion people in it, and numerous other countries with somewhere between a hundred million and a few thousand people in them. The United States sends an ambassador to the one big country and doesn't bother with the others. What message does that send to those other countries? The very nicest message they can get out of it is "sorry, you're not important enough to be worth our time and effort".

Now, in actual politics the United States maintains diplomatic relations with just about every country, no matter how small, unless they've done something specifically to cheese us off or unless we have strategic reasons not to (as in the case of Taiwan). So we maintain relations with the Vatican because it is, after all, a country, tiny though it may be.

But so far as religions are concerned? If people are correct in viewing our ambassador as an "ambassador to Catholicism" then we're doing the equivalent of sending an ambassador to China while ignoring the rest of the planet. Not good behavior.

No, the obvious conclusion is that you can't establish diplomatic relations with someone who doesn't exist.

But they do exist. They just don't have flocks as large as the Pope. And don't get hung up on Muslims specifically; there are plenty of other non-Muslim religious folk we're ignoring here. The head of the Russian Orthodox Church represents 85 million adherents, for example. Isn't he important enough for an ambassador? What about the Southern Baptist Convention, with its 16.2 million members? Sure, they don't have a Pope but they have a governing body that could receive an envoy. The list goes on and on. Even in the case of Islam, there are higher-level (if non-authoritative) groupings to which we could send envoys. Just because you can't dictate to your flock doesn't mean you can't pass along their views and pass America's views on to them.

How do we handle the Dalai Lama? He would be a somewhat analagous person to the Pope, being the head of a religion and the head of nation-state, albeit in exile.

We do not recognize the Tibetan government in exile and have no diplomatic relations with the Dalai Lama. We covertly supported him during the Cold War, as we did pretty much every other thorn in the Communists' side.

Anyway, Joan, I strongly feel that the United States should not be mixing international politics with international religion -- which is exactly what an ambassador to a world-spanning faith would require. It isn't that religion is bad, but that the mixture of politics and religion is bad. Do we want the United States government bending to the will of a faith the vast majority of Americans don't belong to? Conversely, do adherents of that faith want it issuing decrees based on political convenience rather than spiritual necessity? Bad business all around.; 4/12/09, 8:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Whose crazy idea was it to separate church and state?; 4/12/09, 8:33 PM
Anonymous said...: I wonder, in all this, who might the Whore of Babylon be?; 4/12/09, 9:34 PM
Joan said...: I take your point, Revenant, but at the moment, Obama is pretty much stuck with sending an ambassador to the Vatican, because eliminating the post at this point would be an insult. Obama inherited this situation and I doubt he has the wherewithal to extricate himself from it.

This: Do we want the United States government bending to the will of a faith the vast majority of Americans don't belong to?
You're putting that spin on a situation that most others are content to pass, acknowledging that "Host country gets to make the call" has long been the case and the reality is, they can refuse an ambassador if they don't like the cut of his suits.

We wouldn't send a Muslim apostate to an Islamic nation, so why send a Catholic heretic to the Vatican? Sure, the Pope's adherents aren't going to murder anyone over the insult, but does that mean we can justify tin-ear "diplomacy"? Is it really an affront to Caroline Kennedy's religious freedom, or is it just common sense? Caroline Kennedy is free to practice her religion as she chooses, just not as ambassador to the Vatican. Last time I checked, there's no "right to be appointed to a plum government job," even if your last name is Kennedy.; 4/12/09, 9:42 PM
Unknown said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/12/09, 9:51 PM
Unknown said...: Whose crazy idea was it to separate church and state?

Question: Who said this in 1809, expressing his concern about the the deemphasis of the Bible in education as new books were added to the curriculum?

Why then, if these books for children must be retained, as they should, should not the Bible regain its place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples, captivating and noble; the reverence of the sacred book that is thus early impressed lasts long, and probably not impressed in infancy, never takes firm hold of the mind."

Answer: Fisher Ames, a member of the first Congress, and a participant in the writing of the First Amendment.; 4/12/09, 9:52 PM
Anonymous said...: mcg -- I was thinking more along the lines of Give unto Caesar...

That was revolutionary.; 4/12/09, 9:56 PM
Revenant said...: You're putting that spin on a situation that most others are content to pass, acknowledging that "Host country gets to make the call" has long been the case and the reality is, they can refuse an ambassador if they don't like the cut of his suits.

Sorry, I was unclear. I wasn't referring to the act of sending an ambassador, I was referring to the act of conducting diplomacy.

There are basically two kinds of diplomatic exchanges. The first is "we'll give you X if you give us Y", where "Y", of course, can be an equivalent favor to be named later. The other kind of diplomatic exchange is "give us X or else". There is an exceedingly rare third scenario that periodically applies to the United States and other Anglosphere countries, where we genuinely work in each other's interests without regard for immediate personal gain. That's very rare, and doesn't exist at the moment.

But basically, diplomatic relations are promotion of interests, either one-sided or mutual. That's what I was referring to: do the people of the world want the United States promoting Catholic interests? Do most of the world's Catholics want the Church promoting American interests?

Anyway, I agree that it might be perceived as an insult if we canceled the ambassadorial relationship; certainly the insane response of many of the religious folk in this forum suggests as much. But there's always the possibility of just... failing to find a mutually acceptable ambassador. After all, if the reason we don't have diplomatic relations with the Vatican is that they keep rejecting our ambassadors, well, nobody can say we didn't TRY to talk to them. :); 4/12/09, 9:57 PM
Revenant said...: Whose crazy idea was it to separate church and state?

According to the book of Samuel, the Jews thought it up first. :)

But John Locke (the guy the Founders nicked the "life, liberty, and _____" line from) was a more recent proponent.; 4/12/09, 10:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Samuel in no way could be called a separator of church and state, since he fancied himself the crowner of the king of Israel.

Furthermore, your hero John Locke was no atheist.

Still further, we're going to have an ambassador to the Vatican, and you can sit and stew about it.; 4/12/09, 10:20 PM
Joan said...: do the people of the world want the United States promoting Catholic interests? Do most of the world's Catholics want the Church promoting American interests?

No, and no, again -- but again, you're conflating, or at least seem to be, "finding an ambassador acceptable to both parties" and "promoting Catholic interests."

Surely we don't consider finding an ambassador acceptable to Iran or North Korea the same as promoting Iranian or North Korean interests, do we?

This is classic mountain-out-of-molehill material, here.; 4/12/09, 10:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Joan -- Very valid, except we have no diplomatic representation in either of those places.

Cuba (where we sort of have a mission), Libya, and Syria are all better examples.; 4/12/09, 10:48 PM
Revenant said...: Samuel in no way could be called a separator of church and state

Yes, little brain, and that's why I said "the Jews thought it up first", not "Samuel thought it up first". According to the book of Samuel, the Jews asked for a secular ruler, where previously they had been ruled by a theocracy.

Furthermore, your hero John Locke was no atheist.

And a smarter person than yourself would look at that little fact and think "huh, I guess believing that separation of church and state is a good idea isn't the same thing as hating religion".; 4/12/09, 10:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Rev: Here is a critical distinction to keep in mind. I have never called you stupid. I called your argument stupid. There is a substantial difference.

The fact is that you have shown pretty poorly in this thread. Even the people who are defending you disagree with you.; 4/12/09, 10:53 PM
Revenant said...: No, and no, again -- but again, you're conflating, or at least seem to be, "finding an ambassador acceptable to both parties" and "promoting Catholic interests."

What's do you see the US-Vatican diplomatic relationship doing, exactly, that doesn't involve promoting American or Catholic interests? I guess they could meet for tea and cookies, but I'm not sure why we need to pay a diplomatic staff for that. :)

Surely we don't consider finding an ambassador acceptable to Iran or North Korea the same as promoting Iranian or North Korean interests, do we

We don't have an ambassador to North Korea or Iran.; 4/12/09, 10:58 PM
Joan said...: I'm clueless about this ambassador stuff but at least I'm willing to learn. I should be embarrassed, I suppose, that I didn't know we don't have an embassy in Iran or NK but, hey, I know now!

Seven, thanks for the better examples. Ignoring for the moment my ignorance, did I not raise a valid point? There are all kinds of places where we have embassies that we've been able to staff without the appearance of furthering the host nations' ends.

Revenant, I have no idea what the ambassador to the Vatican's actual duties would be. In fact I imagined them to be purely ceremonial, with no authority or much of a budget behind them. It's not as if we're negotiating trade routes or treaties with the Vatican, or consulting them on our position when we do so with other nations.

If that's the case, it's a harmless gesture of respect to maintain the relationship. If Obama had wanted to, he could have just left the post vacant and it would have withered away unnoticed, most likely, especially given the way the press has been covering him. I knew we had an ambassador to the Vatican because I used to live in Boston and I was still living there when Ray Flynn was given the position. Outside of Boston, how many Americans even realized we had an ambassador to the Vatican before this story broke?

There was no good purpose served by proposing Kennedy for this position.; 4/12/09, 11:15 PM
Revenant said...: Rev: Here is a critical distinction to keep in mind. I have never called you stupid.

You expect brownie points because you just called me "insane", not "stupid"? Amusing.

The fact is that you have shown pretty poorly in this thread.

The fact, Seven, is an increasing number of people who think I'm entirely wrong have nevertheless stopped by to apologize for the appalling behavior that you, Peter, and others have exhibited here.

I responded to your comments respectfully, despite the fact that they were as usual idiotic and ill-reasoned, right up to the point where you decided to start slandering me without cause. Then I switched to mostly ignoring you. I've treated you with a level of respect over and above anything you deserve, so quit your whining and grow up.; 4/12/09, 11:21 PM
Revenant said...: I should be embarrassed, I suppose, that I didn't know we don't have an embassy in Iran or NK but, hey, I know now!

Well, it is easy to forget. We've been negotiating with them for years -- it is just that we've been doing it without formally acknowledging that they are a legitimate government.

There was no good purpose served by proposing Kennedy for this position.

If it is an unimportant position with no real duties, the purpose served would be domestic political patronage. Mark my words, Caroline Kennedy's going to end up with SOME government job. :); 4/12/09, 11:28 PM
Joan said...: Well, it is easy to forget.

I appreciate your kindness, thank you.

ITA that Caroline Kennedy is going to end up with some kind of appointment for backing Obama over Hilary -- but that in no way conflicts with my statement that this disastrous attempted appointment served no good purpose.

It's fairly easy to read the intended purpose from our angle, but the fact that the administration failed to consider whether it would fly from the Vatican's point of view reflects badly on them. Once again, they look like idiots.

In the interest of fairness, Obama made the right call in giving the Navy the go-ahead in dealing with the Somali pirates. But will that minor show of strength be enough to offset all the missteps he and his administration have made? We've been looking like fools and it's going to take more than one diffused hostage situation to change that.; 4/13/09, 1:36 AM
Revenant said...: that in no way conflicts with my statement that this disastrous attempted appointment served no good purpose.

I don't think it can accurately be called a disaster. I seriously doubt many Americans care about it, and as we've discussed here earlier it isn't actually an important job. The worst you can say is that it embarrassed the Obama administration, but even that much is a stretch unless they ultimately let themselves be browbeaten into appointing a pro-life Democrat to the position.

But will that minor show of strength be enough to offset all the missteps he and his administration have made?

In the eyes of the news media, yes.; 4/13/09, 1:48 PM