Valid points. Got me thinking about why it is that Islam doesn't have a central religious government (Saudi Arabia as a de facto one perhaps?). Or more importantly, what shape it would take.

I sometimes wonder what would actually happen if the extremist sects of Islam managed to establish their longed-for caliphate.

I imagine one possibility is a 'vatican' like state existing in Mecca,

Presumably, there would still need to be an apparatus for government the separate states, though in certain quarters such as Saudi Arabia, not much would change. There would still be a government, taking advice from the religious power in Mecca.

While there would be untold damage done in terms of forcing the religion upon people, there's also the possibility that in realising their dream, the ultimately flawed conception of said dream would lead to collapse, with the reality proving much less desirable. My suspicion is that it would result in a nasty decade for these countries, but would collapse and ultimately lead to a decline in influence for extremist groups.

Nevertheless, it would provide an opportunity for direct dialogue at a political level, which always leads to compromise or failure. When extremist groups achieve their goal of power, they're always forced into moderacy or collapse.

But to return from my tangent...

Does anyone else see this as a gesture which is supporting theocracy as a valid form of government?

"But will the fact that Australia has now committed to open-ended multi-million-dollar funding of a fulltime embassy to the Holy See add any real clout to such prime ministerial presentations? That’s the real multi-million-dollar question."
Multi million dollar funding? In his recent book 'the God Delusion', Richard Dawkins wonders where our sense of ethics comes from, and remarks on how selective Christians are when it comes to deciding which parts of the Bible to take as 'Gospel', and which not.
Clearly, neither Rudd nor the Pope have much time for the words of Jesus:
'Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.'
The Pope of course, can claim to own nothing. He merely has total control over billions of dollars of assets.
Rudd, on the other hand, has no such excuse. He -through his wife- is unambiguously rich.
Has anyone else noticed that Rudd isn't actually "Labour"?
The founders of the Australian Labour party must be spinning in their graves.

Is there any connection between the Foreign Minister sending his daughter to a catholic school and this extraordinary appointment?

Well this is quite a win for the Vatican, as to give them credit,
they are one of the most influental lobby groups in the world.

They have learned long ago that pushing buttons at the highest
political level, to achieve their agenda, is far more effective
then convincing the masses. Just a single Catholic senator,
ie Harradine, could make a huge difference for instance.

I guess that some of these politicians can be convinced that
they will be given a Catholic ticket to heaven, if they play
by the Vatican rules.

When George Bush won office in the US, the Vatican lobby
groups sprung into action. Before long, any family planning
organisations that even so much as gave advise on abortion,
had their funding cut off globally. Various organisations
doing great work in places like Africa, were hamstrung,
poor women in Africa suffered as a consequence.

Next thing we had the huge campaign promoting abstinence over
condoms. It was a disaster, but Catholic lobbying worked once
again, as they are so darn good at it.

Why bother with the masses, when twisting the ear of a few
politicians in high office, achieves far more.

It will be interesting to see if the Rudd Govt gets suckholed
into doing the dirty work for the Vatican, as the Howard Govt
did.

I have to disagree that Tim Fisher is an inspired choice. Surely any catholic should be barred from the position, as there is a potential conflict between their religious beliefs and Australian government policy. Could we rely on Tim Fisher to go in to bat on the need for condoms to prevent the spread of aids in Africa, for example? I think not.

My first thoughts when I saw the ambassador-elect being presented to the Pope by the PM (on the evening news) were that Kevin Rudd was desperate to get a slice of the 'WYD' publicity and 'Why does he want Tim Fisher out of the country?

1. Why so many countries have ambassadors in the HOLY SEE?
In the website of the USA embassy in the HOLY SEE I read that
"The United States and the Holy See have collaborated in recent years on many related efforts to further the cause of human dignity. We have joined to address the problem of hunger and malnutrition in the world, rampant in so many areas. The U.S. government recognizes the impressive work carried out by Caritas agencies, religious congregations, lay associations, and volunteer organizations affiliated with the Church on this score.... Further, we believe that the advance of agricultural science and technology can help human beings even in the most difficult environments to produce crops to feed more of their own people."
Probably for the same reasons PLUS we will establish a full time embassy in the the HOLY SEE.
2. Most Australians are catholics and we can not ignore it, if other non catholic countries have embassy in the the Holy See then we must have too.
3. Rudd is a religious man, ( I am atheist), the HOLY SEE is the capital city of the Cristian world, we like it or not, in our days there is a conflict between Christians and Muslims , smaller or bigger, IT IS VERY LOGICAL, AN EXPECTED DECISION FROM THE RUDD TO OPEN A FULL TIME EMBASSY IN THE HOLY SEE.

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide