The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The Vatican ambassador appointment: unconstitutional? > Comments

The Vatican ambassador appointment: unconstitutional? : Comments

By Max Wallace, published 14/5/2012

Why didn't the government send a militant protestant, or atheist, as its ambassador to the Holy See?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Our perspicacious foreign minister might have sent the lad over there to stir an insurrection against the arrogance of the incumbent Bishop of Rome. Chose him to assist in lifting the lid on the closed shop; foster action by the many there who crave some modern enlightenment in that disparate non-democratic, non-UN-member state.
Posted by colinsett, Monday, 14 May 2012 10:13:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
More importantly, perhaps, why are we spending taxpayers' money on sending any representative at all to a 'state' with an area of 44 hectares and a population of 800? Especially since that state has demonstrated it is impervious to reason and diplomacy, and devoted itself to the financial and sexual exploitation of thousands of people all over the world -- including Australia?

Do we really need to maintain this expensive retirement home amongst the sodality for party allies whose domestic services are no longer required? Can anyone name any benefit, no matter how slight, provided to Australia by the sojurns at the Vatican of Amanda Vanstone or Two-Minute Tim?
Posted by Jon J, Monday, 14 May 2012 11:43:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't and largely irrelevant argument? Like somebody actually gives a flying French fur-burger, who or what gets appointed to ambassadorial positions. Its entirely the current govt's call! Just as long as the appointees appear to be accomplished convincing, straight faced, tea sipping, always smiling purveyors of horse feathers or birds fur?
Which arguably, I believe, is the first of many similar requirements? Is Craig Thomson a committed Catholic? Herman Goring apparently was? Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 14 May 2012 11:55:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
perhaps we should be asking whether australia's recognition of the vatican as a 'state' is the problem! the vatican in its fundamental principles offends against sex/gender equality, equal rights, etc as too often shown in its voting pattern at the un.

the status of the vatican as a voting member of the un is not simply problematic. it is wrong. why, if the vatican has this status, does not (for example) mecca? the un should not give imprimartur to any religion over another and indeed should extend it to none at all. a perusal of voting by the vatican at various un fora and its 'performance' at un csw 56 raise serious questoins as of course does the un giving membership to a collection of people (all male) around a 'leader' - always male (no pope joans wanted), which runs directly counter to all un charters, conventions, covenants, etc on equal rights.
Posted by jocelynne, Monday, 14 May 2012 12:19:19 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whilst I agree, Jon J, you did ask, and I couldn't resist answering…

"Can anyone name any benefit, no matter how slight, provided to Australia by the sojurns at the Vatican of Amanda Vanstone or Two-Minute Tim?"

Yes.

They weren't here.
Posted by WmTrevor, Monday, 14 May 2012 12:21:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said. I agree, though, with Jocelynne. The whole idea of having an ambassador to the Vatican is based on a myth: that it is a valid sovereign state (see Geoffrey Robertson's 'The Case of the Pope'). There are other reasons for rejecting spending taxpayers' money on an ambassador. For example, the Government compromises its secular nature by having a special alliance between our Government and a religion of any sort (the diplomatic relationship will presumably not revolve around trade, or defense, or other civil matters: it will at least overwhelmingly deal with the church's interest in morality. Further, the Vatican has a dubious approach to human rights and the handling of child abuse complaints. Read my expansion of these points at:
http://meg-wallace.blogspot.com.au/.
Posted by Meg Wallace, Monday, 14 May 2012 9:25:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When, pray, are the Australian Government going to send an ambassador to the Appenine Republic of San Marino or Alpine Liechtenstein?
Posted by Vioetbou, Tuesday, 15 May 2012 8:03:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
More very compelling reasons as to why the vatican sux.

http://popecrimes.blogspot.com.au
Posted by Daffy Duck, Tuesday, 15 May 2012 12:57:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, Australia recognises Israel as a nation-state, and they are not exactly 'human centered' are they?

Hell, we even recognise North Korea as a state too.

So the Vatican is in good company, at least.

But that apart, it is an outrage that Australia, once again, pays homage to God, and a very particular god at that, the Vatican model, on state funds.

I just heard Bill Kelty, that class traitor from the union movement, talk about the need for plain honest speaking in government.

Well, one could hardly accuse Rudd or Gillard of honesty or plain speaking when it comes to their eager support for Christianity, what with their support for the funding of the Pope's visit, Rudd's gifting of scarce tax dollars to the McKillop nonsense, and of course the $500m gone to school chaplains in state schools.

It is clear the ALP cannot be trusted with any debate concerning a transition to a republic here, since they have no understanding of the role of the 'wall of separation'.

Now, where's runner and OUG to refute everything here?
Posted by The Blue Cross, Thursday, 17 May 2012 9:07:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Because there are a lot more Catholics than hand-wringers. The last one to make such statements was in the CCCP; for instance, that pillar of rectitude, Stalin, asked "How many Divisions has he got?" (the Pope). The Pontif has be effectively exercising "Soft Power" for a long time for the benefit of all, apparently a recent one had some influence on the passing, after a lot of straining, of the CCCP.

Simply in a crass, materialistic basis, as a religion is does not teach the virtue of lying, probably better to do business with.
Posted by McCackie, Monday, 21 May 2012 9:47:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy