Arrogant Catholic Bastards

[Smellyoldgit]

The Twatican finally separates from Italian law

With effect from New Year's Day, the Pope has decided that the Vatican will no longer automatically adopt laws passed by the Italian parliament.....

Vatican legal experts say there are too many laws in Italian civil and criminal codes, and that they frequently conflict with Church principles.

The Vatican has also decided to scrutinise international treaties before deciding whether or not to adhere to them.

What do I have to do in order to ignore laws that I don't like? - oh yeah, I become a criminal.

Smellyoldgit wrote

The Twatican finally separates from Italian law



What do I have to do in order to ignore laws that I don't like? - oh yeah, I become a criminal.

The Vatican is an autocratic sovereign state.There is no legal or moral obligation for it to adopt any Italian law(s) It has done so traditionally for convenience..

Most countries tend to ignore laws they't don't liike if they can get away with it. The US government has ignored the constitution more than once for the sake of expedience aka "national security."

Two examples off the top of my head: The internment of Japanese Americans during WW2, even though they were US citizens. GWB; suspension of due process at Gitmo, and under the Patriot Act.

As for the Brits. Hardly know where to begin.(ignoring of course centuries of Imperialism)

Perhaps with the secret Sykes-Picot agreement in 1916 between England and France to steal Arabia from its rightful owners.

[Choobus]

BOF wrote

The Vatican is an autocratic sovereign state.

It's a theocratic sovereign "state", and therefore an absurdity.

Choobus wrote

It's a theocratic sovereign "state", and therefore an absurdity.

Of course it is, although I can't see how that's relevant. I think that's called "a straw man".

That the Vatican is a sovereign state and recognised as such internationally is simply a political reality. That reality confers certain politcal rights,such as making its own laws. Whether the reality is absurd or the the actions hypocritcal are matters of complete irrelevance.

[Smellyoldgit]

BOF wrote

Whether the reality is absurd or the the actions hypocritcal are matters of complete irrelevance.

Technically, you're quite right - but I find it interesting and quite amusing to watch a major religious organisation take such action to defend it's absurdities.

Battle lines are being drawn to avoid having to deal with a number of 21st century issues which much of the real world now openly discuss - same-sex unions, euthanasia, stem-cell research to name but a few.

I see the action increasing catholic isolation, leaving their ancient traditions exposed as the nonsense it really is. Eventually they'll have little choice but to join the party, but I suspect we'll have to wait a few centuries to see it.

[Choobus]

BOF wrote

Of course it is, although I can't see how that's relevant. I think that's called "a straw man".

That the Vatican is a sovereign state and recognised as such internationally is simply a political reality. That reality confers certain politcal rights,such as making its own laws. Whether the reality is absurd or the the actions hypocritcal are matters of complete irrelevance.

Not a straw man, merely an observation you patronizing tosser. In any case, the relevance, such as it is, lies in the fact that it's not a real fucking country and is tolerated as such only because the grip of jeebus is strong in Italy. they know this and are worried that the increasingly anachronistic nature of the arrangement will be brought into sharp focus by the inexorable progress of modernity (in which they can play no role) and so they are simply trying to ensure that they don't have to defend themselves in the light of day, because it shows them for what they are: absurd.

[Philboid Studge]

Choobus wrote

Not a straw man, merely an observation you patronizing tosser. In any case, the relevance, such as it is, lies in the fact that it's not a real fucking country and is tolerated as such only because the grip of jeebus is strong in Italy. they know this and are worried that the increasingly anachronistic nature of the arrangement will be brought into sharp focus by the inexorable progress of modernity (in which they can play no role) and so they are simply trying to ensure that they don't have to defend themselves in the light of day, because it shows them for what they are: absurd.

The Church began sharting in its pantaloons from about the middle of the 19th century, when it fought the post-unification secularization of Italy tooth, nail, and vagina. The Vatican decried the Liberalism of the state as a sin, and tried to tell Catholics -- throughout Italy -- that they couldn't vote. And of course the Church made an unholy alliance with Mussolini in the 20th century, and embraced Fascism with open labias.

And so forth.

[Sternwallow]

Perhaps, when the Vat' sees its success in this, they will reinstate the Inquisition and revisit the apology to Galileo and go back to their cherished and open hatred of all Jews.

[Choobus]

Indeed, this is just business as usual for these dress wearing guilt mongers.

@choobus:I did not insult you personally,so why did you attack me for expressing an opinion?

I was not being intentionally patronising. I'm sorry if your little ego is so delicate that you saw it that way ( THAT'S patronising) you odious little sphincter (insult)

My understanding is that a straw man is introducing an argument not under discussion,a red herring. The comment that the Vatican is an "absurdity" is an opinion and a proposition (with which I agree) but it's not an observation. "The Pope wears red robes" is an observation. If I'm wrong,I apologise.

Oh,I'm an Aussie,we prefer "wanker" to "tosser" if you don't mind.

[Choobus]

fuck you cobber, you may not intend to be a patronizing shit muncher, but you always seem to manage it. Luckily it is of zero consequence here on teh interwebs so no harm done.

[dogpet]

Totally unrelated BOF, but has anyone told you you use the word I rather a lot?

dogpet wrote

Totally unrelated BOF, but has anyone told you you use the word I rather a lot?

NO . How very passive aggressive of you. From whence did you gain the impression I'm interested in having you point out my weaknesses? I prefer being insulted by Choobus, he's more honest.

Patronising ALL the time? Well,that's another thing which no one has ever told me----I HAVE been called a patroning arsehole before,though,and that was by some one one I knew and respceted.

But in Choobus' case I think it's at least partly due to an inability to distinguish between 'pedantic', 'didactic', and intentionally insuting.

[Choobus]

BOF wrote

I HAVE been called a patroning [sic] arsehole before....

My guess is that one of the main reasons for this is that you are in fact a patronizing bastard/asshole/wanker/tosser.

However, this is only a guess. There may well be another explanation, or it could even be that "patroning arsehole" is some queer outback term I have never heard of. Either way, you're still a tosser.

Choobus wrote

My guess is that one of the main reasons for this is that you are in fact a patronizing bastard/asshole/wanker/tosser.

However, this is only a guess. There may well be another explanation, or it could even be that "patroning arsehole" is some queer outback term I have never heard of. Either way, you're still a tosser.

Oh,so relieved to discover your opinion of and respect for me is considerably higher than mine for you.

Patronising? Bastard? Arsehole? Certainly,but mainlywhen dealingwith the same,as in your case.

Bored now,not playing with you any more unless you can come up with some more creative insults.