DISQUS

Houndentenor · 7 months ago

Why do we need to send an ambassador to a religion?

mamazboy · 7 months ago

Well, fuck the Vatican, I say. It's a neanderthal concept, a fake "country" and no doubt crawling with pedophiles and self-hating gays. We don't need to send ANYBODY there as ambassador. Obama should tell the stupid Ferragamo Queen Pope to shove it up his ass. The sooner we stop taking this religious-huckster-freak show seriously, the better.

Judas Peckerwood · 7 months ago

Amen to not legitimizing theocracies with U.S. ambassadors. I'd add Saudi Arabia to that list.

ShirleyGoodnessanMercy · 7 months ago

Amen, brother! Either send no one or just keep proposing the names of gay & lesbian Catholics one after another til the end of time.

hallam · 7 months ago

There really is no reason that the US needs an ambassador to the Vatican, if the pope objects the office should be downgraded to a consulate. Methinks that would be considered more of a blow to the prestige of the pope than the US.

SCLiberal · 7 months ago

I totally agree. I didn't even realize we had an ambassador to the Vatican. Here is something we can cut from the budget!

MikeinSanJo · 7 months ago

Don't forget - protecting known pedophiles and giving sanctuary to their enablers (Boston's disgraced former archbishop, Cardinal Bernard Law) = obstruction of justice.

Here's some interesting reading on the pope.

Sometimes I really enjoy Christopher Hitchens!

J · 7 months ago

Honestly, shouldn't an ambassador be someone who can be respected by another country yet represent America broadly? Why does the Vatican get any veto power at all over this choice? If they don't like our American liberal Catholics, maybe America should send someone who practices Judaism to the Vatican?

ShirleyGoodnessanMercy · 7 months ago

They should send Times Square's Naked Cowboy to the Vatican. I hear he's Pope Benedict's "type."

mehrrh · 7 months ago

The Vatican is being ridiculous. They absolve Nazi-sympathizers, pedophiles and George Bush, who illegally invaded a country causing death and destruction, but they won't have an ambassador who isn't as narrow minded as they regarding choice and stem cells.
Then again, in their acceptance of Bush, the war monger, he did wage war in a Muslim country, and the vatican may not have been so displeased about that.

Bubbles · 7 months ago

Keep sending them liberal catholics and allow the Vatican to keep rejecting them.

Ratzinger single handedly ensured that Bush got re-elected. He leaned on Bishops to advocate for Bush against Kerry. Catholics in St. Louis were told that it was a grave sin to vote for Kerry (a catholic). I personally know people who for those reasons alone voted for Kerry. There's enough Catholics and the margin was small enough in 2004 that that made the difference in Missouri (and certainly in Ohio) and in both cases the electoral votes were enough to impact the outcome.

Why not send Ratzinger 300 liberal catholics and have them reject all 300.

The embarassement would be all Ratzingers.

Jodi · 7 months ago

Sorry to be OT here, but this is important: if you go over to amazon and look up "homosexuality," all the results are anti-gay literature. What gives?

Fireblazes(CheetohsandCatfood) · 7 months ago

Try GAY! Try queer, try anything but the evangelical buzzword!

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search...

RK · 7 months ago

Not all of them -- #4 is Gene Robinson's book; he's the gay Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire. Might do better to use "gay" or "lesbian" as the search term.

RK · 7 months ago

Actually it's a documentary featuring Robinson, Tutu and others; I've heard it's actually pretty good.

ShirleyGoodnessanMercy · 7 months ago

Because only anti-gay people use the word "homosexual" in the title of books today. All pro-gay books use the terms GAY and LESBIAN. Hence using the term "homosexual" primarily pulls up anti-gay books.

Fireblazes(CheetohsandCatfood) · 7 months ago

Then send nobody...

RK · 7 months ago

Make Sarah Palin Ambassador to the Vatican; she was born a Catholic IIRC, she's anti-choice, and it would shut her up for the next three years. LOL

blueoysterjoe · 7 months ago

I am curious. Does the Reich-Pope allow supporters of the death penalty to serve as ambassadors? Who was Bush's ambassador to the Vatican? Did he or she support the death penalty?

hrh · 7 months ago

Yo, Pat, where are you? Calling Pat Mallory!!!

We need you here to defend against all this anti-Catholic bigotry. Hurry! HURRY!!!! We are desperate!!!!!

FrozenNorthObserver · 7 months ago

I'm surprised Obama has not intervened and protected him. He seems to like protecting war criminals.

BuryMeKnot · 7 months ago

It's the prerogative of all foreign countries to accept or reject the credentials of ambassador. If Obama had a sent an unknown person, who was pro-abortion, they might have been accepted. Unfortunately he sent a famous member of a famous Catholic family -- who by her outspoken support of abortion has publicly rejected Catholic teaching. It would be okay if she weren't Catholic.

cowboyneok · 7 months ago

"It would be okay if she weren't Catholic." ? Uh, it wasn't okay for Obama to speak at Notre Dame, according to the Catholic Hierarchy, and he isn't Catholic. I doubt being Catholic has anything to do with it. By the way, the French Ambassador they rejected because he was gay... I would be shocked if he were Catholic considering the very hateful stand of the Catholic church regarding gays and lesbians.

lilybart · 7 months ago

I have an idea.

Don't send anyone.

Jophus · 7 months ago

I don't understand why the vatican/pope is such an issue on this site. Admittedly, I don't pay attention to posts that are about this issue, and that may be why I just don't understand.

Are the AmericaBlog team just religious folks, having problems with the management of there religion, or is it an increasing problem with Vatican City embedding itself into the inner-American dialog?

I don't mean any disrespect to anyone. I just don't see the connection. I view the church/pope as old world, and their exertion of power being one of the things holding America back. Why not leave the vacancy the way it is, if we are not good enough for them?

mirth · 7 months ago

Jophus,

You made this comment on another thread:

"You want the democrats to sit silent? That is what we did after September 11th.

How are you supposed to seek the truth (as your username suggests), when people aren't giving any facts?"

There. You have answered your own question.

Jophus · 7 months ago

Touche.

I clicked the "like" button on your comment....

I genuinely don't understand the issue here though. Although after you pointing out my own position, I am thinking differently about my stance.

Wow, you really got me mirth. I keep typing out paragraphs, and then backspacing, because it doesn't apply to both comments. Maybe I am just against the "organization" of religion, but it should be the other way around. We shouldn't be reaching out to them, they should be reaching out to us.

Thanks for calling me out.

mirth · 7 months ago

Jophus,

Using your words from one thread to another lets you know I pay attention to what you write. Just now I see that being against the organization of religion (to the degree I understand what you mean) is another agreement between us.

As John commented earlier, an experienced blogger, particularly one zoned day-to-day into the b'sphere, pretty much knows when to highlight an issue or person and when to let such slide so as not to give them undeserved recognition. I don't always agree with a stance he may take, but I do know his posts keep me informed about what I might otherwise ignore. I trust his judgment. And I always have the option of scrolling on to a post I like better.

A "Like" backattcha.

Jophus · 7 months ago

You purposefully read my comments? I am very flattered, if I understood what you've said correctly.

I came into this particular thread with ignorance, and am pretty much walking out with ignorance as well (not afraid to admit that). I hope everyone can see that it was a genuine inquiry into the issue, because as it stands I don't really understand it. I try not to mention my disdain for the past/present behavior of organized religion because I fear religious people will mistake it with hatred for their lifestyle. I think religion is truly a wonderful tool, which I just happen to leave in the box. I just hate how it creeps into the political forum so frequently.

Thank you for pointing out my double-standard, sincerely. I hope you continue to do so if you happen to see me do it again. It really has my gears turning right now. Also, thank you for your kind words.

mirth · 7 months ago

It probably won't happen again. I just got lucky this time.

Yes, I always stop at the green star on the scroll down. You've been added to my Faves in this community of wicked-smart people.

So you're Gay, huh?

*pouty lip*

Jophus · 7 months ago

Haha.... I've branded my comments with a green star. I love it.

I'm going to have to look into this favorites thing, because there are quite a few people I love reading on here. I definitely agree with you about the intelligence of AmBlog readers. I get just as much information out of the comments as I do the actual posts.

If you like my comments. I went kind of nuts in the Patterson Legislation post.

mirth · 7 months ago

Ha! You'll notice there that I read them.

ShirleyGoodnessanMercy · 7 months ago

Most of us here at Americablog are gay or lesbian, I think, and the Vatican concerns us because they actively pour their vast resources into efforts to destroy us and our lives, keeping us 3rd class citizens in our homeland.

Jophus · 7 months ago

As am I... An outspoken one at that. Is that why there are so many posts? The gay angle? I can understand that.

I don't understand why we take it, and upon second reading of this, I guess that is the point. I tend to see the Vatican destroying all of our lives, not just our relatively smaller community.

larry · 7 months ago

can someone explain why we have or need an Ambassador to a church? Do the Southern Baptist get one too?

Older_Wiser · 7 months ago

I hate to sound narrow minded, but the Vatican is not a democratic republic-nation (slowly coming back to our senses, it is true), it is a theocracy-city; therefore, it's not necessary for the US to send an ambassador since we're a secular nation and don't bow to the wishes of countries not based on reality.

Jophus · 7 months ago

Exactly why I proposed we leave the vacancy open.

*I'm editing this, because I wanted to add the caveat that I can see the value in having an ambassador to other religious based, non-democratic, and fundamentalist states. Just in this instance, I feel strongly disrespected that my people aren't good enough, based off my culture's priorities, is not good enough for a person who is supposed to be the embodiment of all that is good in man.

UncleGlenny · 7 months ago

Well, then, we should bring democracy to them!

boloboffin · 7 months ago

Isn't Demjanjuk a little old for the Vatican's tastes?

Diogenes · 7 months ago

Is Mark Foley willing to travel?

Ignatz · 7 months ago

The vacancy should be left open, and it should be used to highlight the fact that the Vatican is not just a church, but a foreign state, and some Republicans think the President of the United States should be answerable to the head of a foreign state.

That said, I doubt it's a non-denial denial: I don't see why they would want to deny it. If they HAD refused ambassadors because of abortion, I think they would be proud of it and brag about it.

caphillprof · 7 months ago

Send Gore Vidal.

hrh · 7 months ago

Brilliant!

Steve_in_CNJ · 7 months ago

the vatican is holy sea of clowns. they rejected the french ambassador last year for being gay and the argentinian ambassador for being divorced. it's one thing to reject ambassadors for hostility to their policy. but these actions are personal. it's preposterous that we treat these people like a country. it glorifies their medieval dogma as some kind of foreign policy.

sherifffruitfly · 7 months ago

Um, they're entire LIVES are built around lying.

Outspoken1 · 7 months ago

And not having an ambassador there would cause what problem? Funny if they were treated as unimportant; then they might want to be important again. Obama should just 'get around to it' - maybe in a couple of years?

Butch1 · 7 months ago

I don't know why we bother, it's a church pretending to be a country, in my opinion. ( I know they are a sovereign nation separate from Italy )

mikeyDe · 7 months ago

Please, Obama, throw up your arms and say Uncle. Just because the Vatican has a post office doesn't mean we have to send an ambassador. Yet another Reagan innovation we can do without.

vkobaya · 7 months ago

It's a shame that Spanish court won't also prosecute Pope Rat. Would love it if Pope Rat can't leave the Vatican, can never return to Germany except in manacles or a casket. Sigh!

mark · 7 months ago

Or Obama could send a pig who also blames Katrina on the queers.

Indigo · 7 months ago

Send the former Bush Error ambassador to Nepal. He's a nutjob Catholic with money.

noname1234 · 7 months ago

How about looking for a trifecta candidate:

The US needs to find and nominate a prosecutor of RC child-abuse crimes who also opposes abortion and the death penalty. If he or she is not accepted, leave the position empty

Steven in Tokyo · 7 months ago

Perfect solution!

larry · 7 months ago

Clearly the chose should be a 12-13 pubescent boy, and an Aryan of course. A Hitler youth candidate would be the best. Ambassador problem solved....and certainly will have lots and lots of contact with the Curia and the Pope for sure. ....lots. ....lots. ...contact. ...lots.