Catholic Archbishop Kidnapped

[Kurgan]

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

Wrong. The Church lost its right to that protection long ago by interfering with the internal agendas of other, sovereign countries.

 

The current Pope is heavy on diplomacy. Is that what you're referring to? Or are you talking about the Crusades or something (and even in the latter case you could say the religious authorities and secular authorities agreed on that)?

 

Because any way you look at it, by the logic I think you're going with, no nation has a right to do anything, because they have all, at some point or another "meddled" in the affairs of some sovereign nation.

 

 

My mistake. I should perhaps have said foreign sovereign countries. The Catholic Church had no legitimate business, for example, meddling in the last US elections or trying to bully the EU into praising it.

 

I'm Catholic. Yet I was born in the United States of America. Am I a "foreign national" from Vatican Citystate? Can I be deported? Am I 'meddling' in the affairs of a soveriegn nation (the United States of America) by voting in the last election, holding a job here, etc?

 

How exactly did the Catholic church meddle in the last US election? Are you talking about that Bishop who wrote a letter to John Kerry (if I'm remembering this correctly) saying he wouldn't be welcome at communion if he continued to support abortion rights?

 

There's been a lot of debate about the role of politics and religion together in the public sphere, including on these forums. But when it comes down to it, all the politicians virtually without fail used religious rhetoric and lots of campaigning was done in churches of many denominations, and various religious leaders showed support for various candidates.

 

The Pope told Bush that the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea. He told Tony Blair the same thing. Both of course respectfully ignored his pleas for peace, but still.

 

Is it your opinion that "seperation of church and state" should extend across the entire earth, so that religious leaders are forbidden to speak on issues that affect them and their flock, or what? I'm curious.

 

What exactly constitutes "meddling" and why is it bad?

 

And how does this justify the kindnapping of some archbishop in Iraq?

 

The two are one and the same. If the Church wants the protection that being a religious group affords, they would IMO have to obey two simple criteria: 1) Stay the f*** out of politics. They've got absolutely nothing legitimate to do there.

 

Finally, we get down to it. I stand corrected about your viewpoint. Of course the Pope isn't an American citizen, so he's not bound by the laws of the United States except while he's on our soil visiting or something (then there's still the issue of diplomatic immunity... *insert joke about UN delegates parking illegally here*). Religious leaders in the United States do have to follow certain rules, as religious leaders, however, they still have the freedom of speech, so it's not as if they can't express their opinions. Should campaigning be done in churches? Should religious leaders endorse candidates? Many would say "no" and I tend to agree, still it's a fine line.

 

2) Surrender the Vatican to the EU, along with its funds, and disband their central command structure, allowing the individual countries in which they operate to govern the affairs and preachings of their priests directly and in any way they see fit.

 

So you're in favor of a regime change in the soverign nation of Vatican Citystate. Now who's meddling?

 

 

Any claim to sovereignty - at all - whether theologically, financially, or politically should render null and void any protection inherited from their religious traditions.

 

So they must either be a secular state, or a religious entity ruled over by a secular authority? I'm sure the theocracies of the world would laugh that one off.

 

As an autonomous body, shouldn't they have the right to make their own laws as they see fit?

 

The same demands should be leveled against all other religions. In short: Submit to secular authority, or your priests are fair game.

 

Sounds like an ultimatum to the world. So in short, this archbishop got what he deserved, according to you, because the Vatican Citystate hasn't submitted to the will of the EU (and any claims it might have on it in the first place, which you haven't established).

 

Don't make me laugh. Persecution? Against the Church? When they have endured oppression for a millenium, like the one they forced upon Europe, then and only then can they come back and talk of 'persecution'.

 

The Christian minority in Iraq are being persecuted, there is no doubt of it.

 

So Europe are the victims of a "millennium of persecution" by the Church and this is "payback"? In who's version of history?

 

If you want to talk about the history of who did what to whom, then nobody can ever complain about mistreatment, because everybody has wronged somebody sometime.

 

You confuse the Church and Christianity at large. The Church is a political entity (and a subversive and borderline treacherous political entity at that), and thus should not enjoy the protection offered by freedom of religion.[/qute]

 

There, you've shown your true colors. I thank God you're not in charge!

 

If they want to spread their gospel in Iraq, then by all means, go ahead - but if the locals are gunning for them, then that'll have to be their own lookout. I personally would not lay down the life of one single Coalition soldier to save their missionaries.

 

Missionaries? MISSIONARIES? Again, this sounds like classic 19th century anti-Catholic rhetoric. Catholics are foreignors! They're going to take us over if we don't watch out, don't trust them!

 

You've obviously got quite a strawman of Catholicism in the world built. Did it ever occur to you that these churches may be in fact ancient?

 

That surprises me somewhat... What would be the bounderies of the term 'assassination'? Would a precision strike against a command HQ unit by infiltrated snipers be considered assassination? After all, we are talking military command structure here.

 

I assume you're not talking about the church anymore. The Pope, at best, has command of a pitiful squad of ceremonial guards armed with spears, for crying out loud.

 

 

 

 

The key, I believe, here is at war or something... AFAIK it's somewhat debatable whether Iraq is still at war with the US. After all, no treaties of peace have been signed, the former government has never AFAIK officially surrendered - and the acts of war certainly havent ceased.

 

Forgetting all the rhetoric about "illegal combatants," not declaring war (so technically the US hasn't fought a 'war' on paper since 1945) and all that malarky, the "Iraqi insurgents" and foreign Al Qaeda people attacking US troops would be "guerillas" (a non-traditionally organized armed force). Anybody who picks up a gun and attacks soldiers is a guerrilla. Now if you pickup a gun or bomb and attack civilians for some political reason, you're a terrorist. Again, we have rhetoric redefining terrorism and all that, but using the terms as they're typically used before 9/11 and with an attempt at an unbiased standpoint, that's what you have.

 

Killing a sargeant or a captain in the military isn't the same as assasinating a civilian leader or a whatnot. One is a soldier, the other isn't. Of course somebody might say "but the president is the Commander in Chief of the american armed forces!" etc.

 

Anyway, according to dictionary.com

1. To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons.

2.To destroy or injure treacherously: assassinate a rival's character.

Obviously we're talking about #1 here. Let's say Colin Powell was still commanding troops. Would somebody offing him be considered assassination? He's a prominent person, but he's a soldier, so getting killed would be a battle death, and he'd be a legitimate target in a war.

 

Religious leaders are non-combatants. Unless of course you have priests or clerics running around shooting up the town, they're no different than any other civilians.

 

It's like you have the bishop of St. Basil's and the manager of Piggly Wiggly. They're high ranking, but they're JOBS. Now the leader of the 250th Battalian is different...

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Kurgan

Anyway, according to dictionary.com Obviously we're talking about #1 here.

 

The Oxford English Dictionary lists "assassinate" as 1. trans. To kill by treacherous violence. In fact, each of the three definitions for the verb form include a form of the word threachery.

 

That the concept of "threachery" was intended by the Geneva Convention is doubtful, but it is clear that muslim militants view judeo-christian religious officials as direct and dangerous threats to their belief system as well as the operational security of their own movements.

 

We also would be naive to think that Western conventions like that of Geneva hold value among Near Eastern groups or religious factions and militants in Iraq. From their perspective, these rules are meaningless and honored by Western states only when it suits them.

 

From the perspective of Western, judeo-christian media, the event is certainly played up as a vile, evil act by a despicable terrorist. From the perspective of the believers of Islam, it might very well seem justified. In all likelihood, however, it was probably an intimidation tactic designed to exert some influence over the elections this past Sunday.

 

I noticed that less was said of his release (unharmed) than of his kidnapping. That he was released unharmed is significant, I believe. Any other combatant would have been beheaded or shot.

 

But make no mistake, senior officials of any of the christian religious organizations are combatants... the just fight their battles differently than the U.S. Army. Christian missionaries have long since meddled in foreign affairs and are quick to take advantage of the dire need of victims of wars and catastrophes. Their lack of regard for humanity endangers not only the lives of those who take the chance of "converting" to get some food or clothing, but it also endangers the members of Western NGOs and archaeological/anthropological teams, who are often equated to christian missionaries. Many cultures don't have the Western concept of "separation of church and state" after all.

 

Let us not forget the hym, "Onward Christian Soldiers" when we think to dismiss the "church" as not being a meddling entity. It matters not if they are Catholics or evangelical Protestants, they have no business pushing their cults on other cultures. If the other cultures and societies want to give up their own cults for the christian cults, let them seek it out.

 

Originally posted by Kurgan

Religious leaders are non-combatants.

 

Only in the eyes of Western, judeo-christians, where much of their societies have separations of church and state. In the Near East, it is far different: for thousands of years, the church and the state have been one in the same for most of the nations there. Even Israel.

 

As long as Western leaders and diplomats keep applying Western modes of thought to the problems in the Near and Middle East, we will always have problems there.

 

Mind you, I'm not agreeing with the methods or norms of Near/Middle Eastern governments and religious organizations. I'm merely stating what should be obvious to the dumbasses that claim to be experts in our governments.

 

Originally posted by Kurgan

It's like you have the bishop of St. Basil's and the manager of Piggly Wiggly. They're high ranking, but they're JOBS. Now the leader of the 250th Battalian is different...

 

I don't think the manager of Piggly Wiggly is sending missionaries to Winn Dixie in attempt to convince Winn Dixies customers that they should abandon Winn Dixie because they risk eternity in hell. But if they come buy their bacon and grits at Piggly Wiggly, not only will they get eternal life and happiness, but they can start to collect double Green Stamps on Tuesdays and enjoy double coupon days on Thursdays.

 

[translation for my Danish friend]The manager of grocery store A isn't stealing customers from grocery store B directly from grocery store B's premises[/translation]

[Kurgan]

I noticed that less was said of his release (unharmed) than of his kidnapping. That he was released unharmed is significant, I believe. Any other combatant would have been beheaded or shot.

 

How many other prisoners have been released? You have made some insightful thoughts there, Skinwalker. Well, except for the "combatant" part.

 

Combatant = one who takes part in combat.

 

 

But make no mistake, senior officials of any of the christian religious organizations are combatants... the just fight their battles differently than the U.S. Army. Christian missionaries have long since meddled in foreign affairs and are quick to take advantage of the dire need of victims of wars and catastrophes. Their lack of regard for humanity endangers not only the lives of those who take the chance of "converting" to get some food or clothing, but it also endangers the members of Western NGOs and archaeological/anthropological teams, who are often equated to christian missionaries. Many cultures don't have the Western concept of "separation of church and state" after all.

 

Herein we disagree. We're not discussing Christian missionaries, rather Iraqi nationals who happen to BE Christians. Your dislike of religion in general and Christianity in particular is well known, and I'll avoid any appeal to motive here, but aren't we changing the subject somewhat?

 

Equating religious leaders with enemy combatants is quite a leap in logic. Is Osama Bin Laden a religious leader? Apparently he is (since he apparently has the authority to declare "fatwas" which are legal opinions, meaning he's regarded at least by his followers as an expert on the Qu'ran, which is what Shariah, or "Islamic Law" is supposedly based on). Is he a soldier? Apparently yes. He carries a gun, wears a uniform and commands guerrilas.

 

Now is this Archbishop a soldier of some kind? We have no evidence from the article that he is. Maybe he is. Who knows. But it seems you're assuming that he must be out to CONVERT someone, and therefore he's a equivalent to a US Soldier.

 

Now, I can't pretend to know what the people who kidnapped him were thinking. I speculated a bit with that already, but in terms of how we think, that seems pretty odd.

 

I mean, it's true, during the Civil War, blacks were lynched during the draft riots in New York (dramatized in the movie "Gangs of New York") as a way of "lashing out" (I suppose) at an unpopular minority that must have symbolized to some what was wrong in their lives (the need to fight and die in a war to free the slaves).

 

Perhaps this is something similar.

 

Maybe he gave food to some US Soldiers. May he said something bad about the terrorists' leader. Maybe it was pure intimidation (using a minority target).

 

What I really think is interesting is the apparent need to put the blame on the bishop himself, that he somehow deserved what he got. He must be foreignor, or a missionary with an agenda. He must have put himself in harm's way.

 

I don't think we can assume that from the article, nor should we.

 

We've done a lot of dastardly deeds in Iraq, and I condemn them, but that doesn't mean we have to make light of things done by "the enemy" either.

 

Are you saying that due to cultural misunderstanding, and the influence of these "bad Christian missionaries" the Iraqis will assume that everyone coming in is a Christian (and thus a good target)? Fine, but even if we grant that, this doesn't explain or excuse attacking ancient Christian minority communities, unless these Iraqis are just as ignorant of their own culture as of Western cultures.

 

Are they acting like we did in WW2, rounding up Japanese folks into relocation camps because we were at war with Japan? Not that this is a good analogy, but I'm trying to think of one that would be a good example.

 

Let us not forget the hym, "Onward Christian Soldiers" when we think to dismiss the "church" as not being a meddling entity.

 

And this proves what, exactly? I'm sure the Syrian Church has nothing to do with this particular hymn (from 1865).

 

It matters not if they are Catholics or evangelical Protestants, they have no business pushing their cults on other cultures. If the other cultures and societies want to give up their own cults for the christian cults, let them seek it out.

 

Off topic ranting about your anti-religious bias, see above.

 

Only in the eyes of Western, judeo-christians, where much of their societies have separations of church and state. In the Near East, it is far different: for thousands of years, the church and the state have been one in the same for most of the nations there. Even Israel.

 

Agreed. And under Saddam there was supposedly more toleration for different sects, even if a minority (Sunni Muslims) had the real power in Iraq. That's the funny thing about dictators. While they murder lots of people and stomp on freedoms everywhere you turn, they also tend to keep some "law & order" between rival groups. Make everyone fear you equally I guess...

 

Not that I'm saying we're better off with tyrants, by any means.

 

As long as Western leaders and diplomats keep applying Western modes of thought to the problems in the Near and Middle East, we will always have problems there.

 

Fair enough, but what does this have to do with Iraqi minorities being persecuted?

 

I don't think the manager of Piggly Wiggly is sending missionaries to Winn Dixie in attempt to convince Winn Dixies customers that they should abandon Winn Dixie because they risk eternity in hell.

 

Let's put this into terms you understand: ADVERTISING.

 

It's legal to advertise a person's religion, just as it is legal to advertise a person's products, within certain limits we've put on freedom in this country.

 

This of course isn't relevant to the story, since it's about some Iraqis (presumably) kidnapping another Iraqi, of a minority religion.

 

Since the US has been involved in "Nation Building" since Bush declared (prematurely) "Mission Accomplished!" then it stands to reason we'll force them to put a religious freedom clause in their government.

 

It's one thing for you to complain about "missionaries" its quite another to fear for your life because of your unpopular belief. As a person who doesn't believe in hell, what difference does it make to you if somebody tells you they think you're going there? But now let's say that person tries to injure you or imprison you because you don't accept their version of the Bible... that would scare you I'm sure.

 

 

But if they come buy their bacon and grits at Piggly Wiggly, not only will they get eternal life and happiness, but they can start to collect double Green Stamps on Tuesdays and enjoy double coupon days on Thursdays.

 

Anyway, my example about jobs, like the Piggly Wiggly worker was to try to put things into perspective for you.

 

It seems that the two of you can't get it out of your heads that this guy is a LEADER, so he must be A) a valid military target (!) or B) A hated "missionary" who must have deserved what he got.

 

 

It's the whole blaming the victim thing that is the worst part of this argument. Now, again, we're going by the little information we get in the article, but anything else is pure speculation. So if another article comes up that says he was the whole time funneling supplies to some militant Christian terrorist group in Iraq, then you can start complaining.

 

"And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling Christians!"

[ShadowTemplar]

[

Originally posted by toms

Of course, anyone in the US who exercised the right to bear arms but wasn't a member of an official army could be declared an illegal combatant and shipped off as well...

 

No, no, no. Remember that the Supreme Court ruled that US citizens could not simply be stripped of their rights... But anyone else was fair game.

 

The current Pope is heavy on diplomacy. Is that what you're referring to?

 

No. I was referring to - amongst other things - the fact that the Church openly and partisanly participated in the last few US elections. Something that is inconsistent with their claim to protection under freedom of religion.

 

Because any way you look at it, by the logic I think you're going with, no nation has a right to do anything, because they have all, at some point or another "meddled" in the affairs of some sovereign nation.

 

No. What I'm saying is that no country, commercial enterprise, or political entity or organisation should be allowed to claim protection under freedom of religion - which is what the Church - being both a country and a political organisation (and - arguably - a commercial enterprise as well) - does.

 

I'm Catholic. Yet I was born in the United States of America. Am I a "foreign national" from Vatican Citystate? Can I be deported? Am I 'meddling' in the affairs of a soveriegn nation (the United States of America) by voting in the last election, holding a job here, etc?

 

Obviously, your US citizenship would take precedence. Unless you actively carry out espionage, distributes Vatican-made propaganda, carries out missionary activity or other subversive and/or illegal activities. By analogy, being a Stalinist isn't illegal, but carrying out subversive activities on behalf of the Stalin regime would be.

But really that's beside the point. The point is that the Pope occupies what can only be called a hole in the international law. It is a one-of-a-kind entity that - in blatant contradiction to the principles of that very same international law - is allowed to simultaniously hold the titles of Chief of State and Head Bully of a religion. Nowhere else is this recognised. Add to that the fact that the Pope rules his country with despotic authority - again in blatant violation of the principles behind international law.

 

How exactly did the Catholic church meddle in the last US election? Are you talking about that Bishop who wrote a letter to John Kerry (if I'm remembering this correctly) saying he wouldn't be welcome at communion if he continued to support abortion rights?

 

That's just one example. Of course one might argue that the bishop in question acted on his own accord, but in an organisation as rigid as the Church, I find that somewhat hard to imagine.

 

There's been a lot of debate about the role of politics and religion together in the public sphere, including on these forums. But when it comes down to it, all the politicians virtually without fail used religious rhetoric and lots of campaigning was done in churches of many denominations, and various religious leaders showed support for various candidates.

 

So, two wrongs make one right?

 

The Pope told Bush that the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea. He told Tony Blair the same thing. Both of course respectfully ignored his pleas for peace, but still.

 

In Denmark we have a saying: "A blind hen may yet find a grain of wheat."

 

Is it your opinion that "seperation of church and state" should extend across the entire earth, so that religious leaders are forbidden to speak on issues that affect them and their flock, or what? I'm curious.

Ultimately, yes. When you assume the mantle of religious leader, you must accept the consequence that you bar yourself from taking part in the political debate, the same way that most countries have rules barring ceremonial royalty from applying pressure on the politicians.

 

Of course, a much easier and more painless way of doing it would be to dismantle all independent religion, making all religion directly subservient to the country in which it is practised. That way there would be no religious leaders, as all priests would answer directly to the secular authorities. This model has been successfully implemented in Denmark, and is so far the most successful attempt I have seen at suppressing Christianity.

 

What exactly constitutes "meddling" [1] and why is it bad? [2]

 

1) a) Interference of religious leaders with the governing of a country. b) Interference of a country with the the governing of another, sovereign country.

 

2) a) Because religion is dogmatic, it does not belong in government. b) Countries should not (ideally) meddle in the affairs of other countries, because that's what we have the UN for.

 

And how does this justify the kindnapping of some archbishop in Iraq?

 

Since the Church is a political entity, and since the Church actively seeks to install its own politicians in the countries it operates in (the examples are legio) Catholic missionaries commit subversive acts. Additionally, being an Archbishop is (AFAIK) only one or two steps below Cardinal, which means that an Archbishop is - argueably - part of the Vatican chain of command. And since the Vatican commands armed forces, its chain of command would be military personnel.

 

 

So you're in favor of a regime change in the soverign nation of Vatican Citystate. Now who's meddling?

Not exactly... What I say is that they cannot have the cake and eat it too. They have to choose one or the other. Never said they had to change their regime, but if that's their choice, then Catholicism must disentangle itself from said regime.

 

So they must either be a secular state, or a religious entity ruled over by a secular authority? I'm sure the theocracies of the world would laugh that one off.

 

Of course. But, y'see with the Papacy it would actually possible for the civilised world to enforce the rules if the political will to do so was present, whereas in the cases of other theocracies around the globe, it would be a tad more troublesome.

 

As an autonomous body, shouldn't they have the right to make their own laws as they see fit?

 

Yes, they should. But the Church should refrain from any involvement. Essensially, the Vatican may very well say "Won't you help make our laws?" But the Church should reply: "We're a religion, so we can't." Until the Church has learned this important lesson, I see no reason why Catholicism should be considered a religion.

 

Sounds like an ultimatum to the world.

 

Ultimatums are leveled against countries or diplomatic entities. The Church is neither. So the word 'ultimatum' is pure rethoric. All I ask of the religions is that they obey the rules of common decency and intellectual honesty if they wish to take part in the political debate. Being religions, they can do neither, and so should not take part in the political debate.

 

So in short, this archbishop got what he deserved, according to you, because the Vatican Citystate hasn't submitted to the will of the EU

Not quite... The Archbishop made the terminally stupid move of accepting/not resigning from his position of religious authority. That's equivalent to having a Danish tourist running naked through the captial of Saudi Arabia. After such a display of outright stupidity, the American (for example) government should not be obliged to get him out of prison.

 

That his position of office is offensive is of course ultimately a result of Vatican politics, but his decision to accept the office is his alone.

 

Make no mistake kidnapping a priest would be an offence. But this guy is n Archbishop. He should know the risk and be prepared to run it. And if any country should waste its soldiers trying to pull his bacon out of the fire, it should be the Vatican.

 

(and any claims it might have on it in the first place, which you haven't established).

 

The Vatican of today is purely Moussolini's construction. By all rights it should have reentered Italy during the clean-up after the War. Hence, the most natural country of alligiance would be the EU... But of course, if they want to surrender to another country, then by all means...

 

The Christian minority in Iraq are being persecuted, there is no doubt of it.

 

That may well be correct, but you were talking about the persecution of Christianity. Persecution of a minority is bad. Persecution of a religion is good.

Missionaries? MISSIONARIES? Again, this sounds like classic 19th century anti-Catholic rhetoric. Catholics are foreignors! They're going to take us over if we don't watch out, don't trust them!

 

You've obviously got quite a strawman of Catholicism in the world built. Did it ever occur to you that these churches may be in fact ancient?

The age of the organisation is irrelevant. Missionary work, even amongst people in countries in which you have been for ages, is subversive action.

 

I assume you're not talking about the church anymore. The Pope, at best, has command of a pitiful squad of ceremonial guards armed with spears, for crying out loud.

 

Nevertheless, they are a military unit. Chemical Ali was in command of an equally impotent force (if any at all), yet he was acknowledged as a military target. If the quality of the unit in question was an issue here, then most countries would not qualify as having any military targets at all.

 

And by the way: They carry some sort of small SMG sidearm. Which I suspect they wield with greater deftness than their primary weapon...

 

Of course somebody might say "but the president is the Commander in Chief of the american armed forces!" etc.

 

Which makes him, along with the Danish Minister of Defence for that matter, a military target. And that's actually official.

 

Religious leaders are non-combatants. Unless of course you have priests or clerics running around shooting up the town, they're no different than any other civilians.

 

So a general who has never fired a shot in anger in his entire life, and who is currently unarmed is not a military target?

 

It's like you have the bishop of St. Basil's and the manager of Piggly Wiggly. They're high ranking, but they're JOBS. Now the leader of the 250th Battalion is different...

But since the Vatican has an army, and since the Church runs the Vatican the higher echelons of Church chain of command would be legit targets. What would - of course - be open to debate is whether Archbishop is a 'high echelon' rank or not, but not the basic principle that - say - the Pope and Cardinals would be legit targets.

 

But it seems you're assuming that he must be out to CONVERT someone, and therefore he's a equivalent to a US Soldier.

 

Actually, we're equating him to a Vatican soldier. Or, rather, to a 5th collumnist.

 

("5th collumn" is a Danish term, meaning not-quite-traitor - similiar to, but more serious than, the Russian term "useful idiot" (meaning guy-who-spreads-our-propaganda-but-is-not-our-agent.)

 

The subtle distinctions between the terms I'll save for a rainy day, but on a scale from "citizen" to "traitor" they go roughly like this:

 

"citizen"

"useful idiot"

"5th collumn"

"spy/traitor")

 

What I really think is interesting is the apparent need to put the blame on the bishop himself, that he somehow deserved what he got. He must be foreignor, or a missionary with an agenda. He must have put himself in harm's way.

 

Well, I'm actually blaming the Church here.

 

Off topic ranting about your anti-religious bias, see above.

Quite the contrary. Since an integral part of the Church is missionary activity, the legitimacy of missionary work is of great importance to this topic.

 

That's the funny thing about dictators. While they murder lots of people and stomp on freedoms everywhere you turn, they also tend to keep some "law & order" between rival groups. Make everyone fear you equally I guess...

 

Heh. Maybe they just don't like competition...

 

As a person who doesn't believe in hell, what difference does it make to you if somebody tells you they think you're going there?

 

Quite a lot. Because weak, malleable minds may become convinced that the Hell BS makes sense. Especially when it's being spoon-fed to them 24/7 in, for example, monestary-run schools. Or when - their resources depleted by war or disaster - they recieve aid from people who tell them that the aid is 'sent by GOD' (when in fact the source is very much more real and tangible). The callousness of missionaries in general and the Catholic Church in particular in exploiting war and disaster makes the Bush admin look positively altruistic by comparison.

 

 

 

What made me respond so agressively is that religious leaders in general, and Christian religious leaders in particular, are appearently regarded as being worthy of a protection not normally extended to 5th collumnists. If he had been (e.g.) a member of the Iraqi Communist Party - assuming that such a thing exists - or the civilian branch of the Hamas, I doubt very much that this thread would have existed.

[Kurgan]

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

No. I was referring to - amongst other things - the fact that the Church openly and partisanly participated in the last few US elections. Something that is inconsistent with their claim to protection under freedom of religion.

 

Can you refersh our memory with specific documented examples?

 

 

No. What I'm saying is that no country, commercial enterprise, or political entity or organisation should be allowed to claim protection under freedom of religion - which is what the Church - being both a country and a political organisation (and - arguably - a commercial enterprise as well) - does.

 

So your problem is really the First Amendment and other similar clauses in the constitutions of other democratic nations (and the UN's rulings).

 

 

Obviously, your US citizenship would take precedence. Unless you actively carry out espionage, distributes Vatican-made propaganda, carries out missionary activity or other subversive and/or illegal activities.

 

So telling someone about your religion is illegal?

 

By analogy, being a Stalinist isn't illegal, but carrying out subversive activities on behalf of the Stalin regime would be.

 

How would you define "subversive actions"? Talking about religion? Praying? Please explain...

 

It sounds like you're just saying what you want to be true, not what actually is. But I could be wrong...

 

But really that's beside the point. The point is that the Pope occupies what can only be called a hole in the international law. It is a one-of-a-kind entity that - in blatant contradiction to the principles of that very same international law - is allowed to simultaniously hold the titles of Chief of State and Head Bully of a religion.

 

So these same rules don't apply to the Orthodox Bishops (and the Pope of the Coptic Church), or the leaders of any other religion?

 

You're jealous of the Pope's power and think he should be "dethroned" in favor of a more democratic body? What's your suggestion... the College of Cardinals rule instead? Local elections? Decentralized like most protestant denominations?

 

Nowhere else is this recognised.

 

See above. You may fear the Pope and the Catholic Church, because of its apparent size and influence, but other than that, what reason can you have for all this rhetoric? I don't see the favoritism being shown, other than the current Pope is somewhat popular in the world community. Other world leaders have been celebrities and media-darlings, etc.

 

Add to that the fact that the Pope rules his country with despotic authority - again in blatant violation of the principles behind international law.

 

Specific examples please? I was under the impression that while the Pope is indeed the supreme Ruler of Vatican Citystate, he leaves the running of the day-to-day stuff to others, to focus his energies on his religious duties. How many executions have there been in Vatican City since 1978? How many uprisings crushed? What percentage of the population there is in labor camps or in prison? Examples, please.

 

That's just one example. Of course one might argue that the bishop in question acted on his own accord, but in an organisation as rigid as the Church, I find that somewhat hard to imagine.

 

They do it all the time. Now of course the Pope and the council of Bishops is supposed to settle the disputes, but the Church is a big organization. When you have that many members (a billion) and so few leaders, communication can be slow.

 

Anyway, what did this bishop "do" exactly? He got kidnapped. Again, you seem to be painting him as the one that brought it on himself. He was the woman who wore revealing clothes out at night and got raped, in other words.

 

So, two wrongs make one right?

 

No.

 

Ultimately, yes. When you assume the mantle of religious leader, you must accept the consequence that you bar yourself from taking part in the political debate, the same way that most countries have rules barring ceremonial royalty from applying pressure on the politicians.

 

So you're assuming that Bishop must have said something political and thus again, he "brought" the wrath of the kidnappers on himself. With that logic nobody should say anything controversial or hold contrary beliefs, because somebody might be offended and wish you harm. Yes, by becoming a leader one opens oneself to security issues. That's why the President has the Secret Service. But that doesn't mean that illegal or violent actions taken against leaders are thus excused. See what I'm saying? Again, if I'm mistaken correct me, but it seems you're saying that by being a wicked missionary, he obviously deserved what he got and nobody should be complaining. We have yet to see that supported by evidence.

 

You're assuming that he violated some law against religious leaders having political views or something, but we haven't seen evidence for that. Were the churches that were bombed in Iraq similarly deserving targets because of some political "meddling"? You're assuming an awful lot. The point of terrorism isn't to "punish the guilty" after all (though some terrorists may believe they are doing just that, based on whatever twisted thinking they use), but to cause fear. Ie: "I could be next" so "I better give in to their demands."

 

That's why it would make sense for someone to attack the Pentagon because it has strategic military value, but attacking say the World Trade Center or some random airline, that's just to cause chaos and fear. Likewise this is as good an explanation as any, until we discover those secret plans in the Bishop's office where he planned to sabotage the elections. ; )

 

Of course, a much easier and more painless way of doing it would be to dismantle all independent religion, making all religion directly subservient to the country in which it is practised.

 

The People's Republic of China has done just this. Look at all the good they've accomplished by it. Oh wait, nevermind...

 

That way there would be no religious leaders, as all priests would answer directly to the secular authorities.

 

So you're for getting rid of freedom of religion and replacing it with state religion. Isn't that what Karl Marx was so upset about... when religious authorities support the state? (and they would, if they were state run)

 

This model has been successfully implemented in Denmark, and is so far the most successful attempt I have seen at suppressing Christianity.

 

So Denmark has no freedom of religion? Interesting. How long has it been in place and how many people are we talking about here? I don't think what you're suggesting would be feasible in the world, even if it were ethical.

 

 

1) a) Interference of religious leaders with the governing of a country. b) Interference of a country with the the governing of another, sovereign country.

 

Nations do it all the time. The UN is all about interference. We have no "prime directive" on earth. Rather, if a nation does something the world community doesn't want them to do, they apply pressure to see it stop. And every now and then a nation will take matters into it's own hands (like the US & Britain did in Iraq, etc).

 

2) a) Because religion is dogmatic, it does not belong in government. b) Countries should not (ideally) meddle in the affairs of other countries, because that's what we have the UN for.

 

On this we agree. Meddling need not be a negative thing, unless you value sovereignty over all other forms of morality. However saying religion doesn't belong in government is likewise a value judgement, and many countries have no problem with mixing the two (not that they are any better than purely secular governments mind you, I'm just saying).

 

So your problem is only that Vatican Citystate is a nation AND a religious institution. If the Pope sold it to Italy and just said "we're just a church now" that would solve your "problem" (until of course all religion is abolished, but this is a compromise you'd agree with?).

 

Since the Church is a political entity, and since the Church actively seeks to install its own politicians in the countries it operates in (the examples are legio) Catholic missionaries commit subversive acts. Additionally, being an Archbishop is (AFAIK) only one or two steps below Cardinal, which means that an Archbishop is - argueably - part of the Vatican chain of command. And since the Vatican commands armed forces, its chain of command would be military personnel.

 

Sounds like you're a conspiracy theorist my friend. So the Catholic Church is trying to TAKE OVER THE WORLD through placing "its own politicans" in power. Riiight.

 

John Kerry didn't do what the Church wanted, and neither did JFK. I guess we have yet to see the conspiracy come about. And where are these "armed forces" of which you speak? The Swiss Guard? The Vatican City police force? The secret Elite Vatican Commandos? The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch?!

 

Not exactly... What I say is that they cannot have the cake and eat it too.

 

So one (you're saying) can either be religious, or political, not both. Sounds okay, but if you apply the same to individuals, you have no choice but to eliminate freedom of religion (which I guess is something you wouldn't mind, since I'm guessing you don't have one).

 

They have to choose one or the other. Never said they had to change their regime, but if that's their choice, then Catholicism must disentangle itself from said regime.

 

So Vatican City has to be secularized or the Pope and his officials have get an apartment someplace else. Ok.

 

Of course. But, y'see with the Papacy it would actually possible for the civilised world to enforce the rules if the political will to do so was present, whereas in the cases of other theocracies around the globe, it would be a tad more troublesome.

 

The Pope is very influential, many people love him (and many people hate him too of course). But even his "fans" ignore him all the time. I don't see any Catholic conspiracy to control the world (if it's in place, it's awfully ineffectual).

 

Of all the "theocracies" in the world, you have less to fear from Vatican City than the others I'd say.

 

Yes, they should. But the Church should refrain from any involvement. Essensially, the Vatican may very well say "Won't you help make our laws?" But the Church should reply: "We're a religion, so we can't." Until the Church has learned this important lesson, I see no reason why Catholicism should be considered a religion.

 

Plenty of religions have opinions about laws and politics. Should they all be "not considered religions"? Basically you're saying that religious members should sit on their hands. If we somehow put that into force right now, 90% of Americans would lose all political voice (even if only a fraction of them ever vote).

 

Ultimatums are leveled against countries or diplomatic entities. The Church is neither. So the word 'ultimatum' is pure rethoric. All I ask of the religions is that they obey the rules of common decency and intellectual honesty if they wish to take part in the political debate.

 

Meaning, they can express no opinion? Unless you want to talk more about this alleged meddling.

 

Perhaps you're saying that a person should divorce their religious and moral beliefs from their political beliefs. In some cases this wouldn't be too hard, in others, that itself would be intellectually dishonest.

 

Being religions, they can do neither, and so should not take part in the political debate.

 

So Catholics shouldn't have freedom of speech? Or just Catholic leaders?

 

There's no law on the books (at least where I live) that says a religious leader can't vote or have political opinions, or even speak on political issues. However, there is a fine line, meaning he can't demand people vote for a certain candidate from the pulpit or like. But I'd have to consult a Constitutional lawyer for that. You see cases of this sort of thing all the time, religion in the public sphere has always been a hot topic. You always hear about some person doing or saying something and then catching heat for it. But then, some can see partisanship involved, (ie: if the guy you like does it, it's okay, but if the guy you don't like does it, then call him on it).

 

Not quite... The Archbishop made the terminally stupid move of accepting/not resigning from his position of religious authority. That's equivalent to having a Danish tourist running naked through the captial of Saudi Arabia.

 

BS. So all the Christians should have fled Iraq, because they knew they were living in a majority Muslim nation that was host to some anti-Christian groups/sentiment. With that attitude we can justify all manner of persecution of minorities simply because they "should have known" they weren't wanted. And this goes against freedom of conscience.

 

Maybe when he became Archbishop he considered the possibility he'd even be martyred for his faith, yet, that doesn't excuse what was done to him. Again, that's blaming the victim. Unless you believe in absolute conformity in society, then this rationale doesn't hold up.

 

And again, I don't see evidence that this guy hopped on a plane to Iraq just so he could leap into the arms of these kidnappers. AFAIK, the Syrian Church is old and it's been around a long time. They didn't just set up shop to watch the sparks fly. Few people in the West probably even realized there were any Christians in Iraq until very recently (and thus assumed they must be up-to-no-good foreignors).

 

 

After such a display of outright stupidity, the American (for example) government should not be obliged to get him out of prison.

 

Yeah, that stupid man. He shouldn't have followed his conscience, but should have left the country immediately. I don't buy it.

 

As the (current) only enforceable ruling body in Iraq, the US (and Britain, if they're still in it with us) does have an obligation, like it or not.

 

If it's proven that this Bishop was a gun runner who threw the first punch, maybe he'll get in trouble, but until then I don't see any reason to assume that.

 

That his position of office is offensive is of course ultimately a result of Vatican politics, but his decision to accept the office is his alone.

 

True, he must have decided on his own to be a Bishop. However, I don't see where you're going with this. How would his position NOT be offensive... should he convert to Shiite Islam and become an Imam instead? Seriously...

 

Make no mistake kidnapping a priest would be an offence. But this guy is n Archbishop. He should know the risk and be prepared to run it.

 

Sure, I agree. Leadership entails risk. Being a part of an unpopular minority entails certain risk as well. But of course neither of that excuses illegal/violent action taken against such people. Nor does that excuse obligation of the ruling authorities from taking action to address such matters (rather than just turning away and saying "sorry buddy, you did it to yourself").

 

And if any country should waste its soldiers trying to pull his bacon out of the fire, it should be the Vatican.

 

What soldiers? Where are the Vatican's armed forces?

 

Okay, I'll try to explain again. This guy is not a citizen of Vatican Citystate. Nor am I, or most of the billion Catholics in the world. We're members of the CHURCH, which is headquartered there, but NOT a member of the political entity known as Vatican Citystate.

 

Fine, you don't want anybody to die for a priest, okay, but who cares about that. That has nothing to do with anything, really. You either want to blame the bishop himself for what happened or blame the Vatican. You said the Vatican can't be a religious headquarters and a political entity, well tough, it is both. Yet, most Catholics belong to the religious entity, not the political entity.

 

I don't know how big this church in Iraq is, but I bet you it would be rather difficult to uproot and move everyone and settle them into Vatican City.

 

And why should they move? Iraq is their home.

 

The Vatican of today is purely Moussolini's construction.

 

More or less, from what I understand. Mussolini was a political opportunitist after all. He's even famously portrayed accepting the "Sword of Islam."

 

By all rights it should have reentered Italy during the clean-up after the War.

 

Meaning the Pope would rule all of Italy?

 

Hence, the most natural country of alligiance would be the EU... But of course, if they want to surrender to another country, then by all means...

 

So really this is about taking Vatican City and making it part of the EU. You can't stand it being seperate. I can understand that. It's been a classic problem with alliances and empires, and building highways through neighborhoods. It's the one stubborn tenant who refuses to move over for "progress."

 

Hey, oh well. If the armed forces of the EU wanted to take out Vatican City, scoop up the Pope and move him out, there isn't much they could do about it. Sure, there'd be a huge outcry over it, but what are they going to do? Declare war on the EU?

 

That may well be correct, but you were talking about the persecution of Christianity. Persecution of a minority is bad. Persecution of a religion is good.

 

Says you. What you can't understand is that you can't just seperate the religion from the people practicing it. So in a sense you are calling for the persecution of people. Persecution of anyone is bad, not just minorities.

 

Anyway, as far as Iraq is concerned, Christianity, and Catholic Christianity is a minority, and it's being attacked.

The age of the organisation is irrelevant (though in this case by all counts it's old). Missionary work, even amongst people in countries in which you have been living in for ages, is "subversive action."

 

Say's who?

 

As one who dislikes religion, of course it's something good to you, to me, a religious person, it's not good (if I were in their place, it'd be my rights you'd be demanding be taken away). So there we have to agree to disagree. Of course the general principal in my country is that we allow the other guy to disagree, otherwise eventually our own right may be taken away on similar grounds.

 

Religion is not just about practices, but also ideas. And ideas and beliefs go hand in hand, so by disallowing unpopular beliefs, you also disallow freedom of speech and conscience. If you're okay with that, fine, but I don't see how that's a greater good. I know, I know, "if only all the things that I disagree with were eradicated the world would be a better place," right?

 

 

Nevertheless, they are a military unit. Chemical Ali was in command of an equally impotent force (if any at all), yet he was acknowledged as a military target.

 

Doesn't follow. And the US/British policy of targetting civilians, torturing civilians, and making up all that "illegal combatants" rubbish to justify it IS unethical and illegal under the terms of international law. What we did there was deplorable. Regardless of how much somebody like "Chemical Ali" might deserve it, it's still illegal.

 

Nations make up all sorts of excuses for what they do. I'm calling them on being wrong here. So yes, they could tomorrow declare that priests or little babies are "military targets" but that is just outright incorrect and insane. It only makes sense in a Machiavellian/Orwellian state of mind.

 

 

If the quality of the unit in question was an issue here, then most countries would not qualify as having any military targets at all.

 

Not necessarily. The issue is if you have people who are armed. That is, possessing credible weapons (ie: I'm not talking box cutters here, set the lower limit at pistols, rifles, shotguns or homemade explosives that can maim or kill a human being). Then there is the issue of proportionality. Do we need to do surgical strikes or drop daisy cutter bombs on a couple of guys with M-16's? I don't think so. Doing so might be "fun" for the bloodthirsty, but it wastes resources and inevitably causes massive collateral damage (as we've been doing in Iraq and Afgahnistan since the war began). The concept of "overkill" is meant to scare the enemy into submission, but in the process it almost inevitably sheds a lot of non-combatant blood. And the point of a war isn't to become worse than the enemy is it?

 

In the end, the question is, was this action justified? That's the whole idea behind Just War Theory.

 

Now if you're a neocon or similar thinking, and you really don't care about that, then yes, it is all about winning. But even then there's the question of what is the BEST way to do this, not the most costly.

 

So, no, calling something a military target doesn't automatically make it one.

 

As far as I know, nobody has called priests in Iraq military targets yet. Osama Bin Laden obviously feels that all Jews and Christians are "crusaders" and "zionists" who are valid targets, so maybe he feels that way, but nobody else that I know of would, unless we have priests fielding mortars and uzi's out there.

 

And by the way: They carry some sort of small SMG sidearm. Which I suspect they wield with greater deftness than their primary weapon...

 

Sorry, I lost this in the post. Who carries a submachinegun?

 

Carrying a weapon makes you armed, meaning you could be a valid threat. However simply possessing a weapon doesn't mean anything if you aren't using it/threating to use it on someone. Unless all weapons are illegal of course.

 

Perhaps in Denmark all firearms are illegal except for the police and military. I don't know. How is it in Iraq? Like many unstable areas of the world it may be that it's illegal but people do it anyway, because they can't count on the police/military to protect them (when they aren't being killed in collateral damage of course).

 

Which makes him, along with the Danish Minister of Defence for that matter, a military target. And that's actually official.

 

So a jihadist who is at war with the Christian religion or the Vatican, can consider Bishops to be legitimate targets. Okay, I'll buy that. Of course I wouldn't condone war against another religion in the first place...

 

To put it another way if someone were at war with Jews, targetting high ranking Jewish leaders would likewise be valid.

 

Should the Jihadist war on Iraqi Christians be considered an "internal matter" and left to settle itself? Past precedent says no. As the defacto rulers of Iraq, the US/Britain has an obligation to stop civil war in their territory.

 

 

So a general who has never fired a shot in anger in his entire life, and who is currently unarmed is not a military target?

 

Actually, I think according to the Geneva Convention you are not allowed to assasinate officers (and probably generals as well). However, in terms of how its commonly observed, yes, he would be a target if he commands troops in the war, even if he doesn't have a gun on him at the time.

 

Now we don't have any Vatican troops in Iraq, do we? Simply saying that a Bishop can be given orders by the Pope and that religion is a "weapon of ideas" doesn't cut the mustard. With that logic every single person on the face of the earth is a valid military target because everyone has an allegience to something and some idea that somebody else somewhere doesn't agree with.

 

But since the Vatican has an army,

 

Where? Some info on this "Vatican Army" would be nice. Other than the police force of Vatican Citystate and the ceremonial bodyguard (the Swish Guard) of the Pope, who are we talking about here? How many? What kind of hardware do they have?

 

and since the Church runs the Vatican the higher echelons of Church chain of command would be legit targets.

 

Once you establish the Vatican Army, we can talk about this further. However if somehow they did have one, does the Bishop in Iraq have one?

 

By that logic we can just go around bombing the houses of retired veterans, because they have some connection to the armed forces. Does this Bishop have troops he's in control of? Don't say his parishioners, because that's just silly. Even if they all have guns, that's like saying a celebrity rockstar is a military target because he might have some fans who would "kill to protect him, if they could."

 

Another example, President Bush has control of an army (and WMD's too incidentally). I don't. I have friends that own guns, but I don't have command of them, and even if they wanted to somehow protect me from some harm somehow, they would stand no chance against a "real" army.

 

What would - of course - be open to debate is whether Archbishop is a 'high echelon' rank or not, but not the basic principle that - say - the Pope and Cardinals would be legit targets.

 

Yes, if one were specifically at war with Vatican City, the Pope and his cardinals would seem valid targets under the notion of political leadership. However, I don't know about the Vatican's military prowess and who controls it. If you can establish this we can move on from that thought...

 

Actually, we're equating him to a Vatican soldier. Or, rather, to a 5th collumnist.

 

("5th collumn" is a Danish term, meaning not-quite-traitor - similiar to, but more serious than, the Russian term "useful idiot" (meaning guy-who-spreads-our-propaganda-but-is-not-our-agent.)

 

Conspiracy theory. Burden of proof to establish it.

 

That's equivalent to saying that all Republicans are valid military targets because they support Bush, who in turn ordered the troops into Iraq and Afgahnistan.

 

Unless we have proof he's actively funneling intel and guns to his superiors for strategic use, I see no reason to assume he's doing so. It's the same kind of logic our president argued against when 9/11 happened:

 

Just because somebody is a Muslim or of "Middle Eastern" ethnicity, we shouldn't assume they are a terrorist.

 

But you're saying that we should assume he's an enemy soldier from Vatican City, simply because he's a Catholic leader. That's foolish. You're saying it's valid to attack religions, well I disagree. If religious ideas are a threat to you, fine, use your own strong ideas to argue with them.

 

The whole argument against religion usually given by secularists is that if we don't check religious power it'll lead to an Inquisition where the dissenters get forced to accept something they don't want to or punished. But what you're advocating sounds like the same thing, merely on a secular level (ie: force religious people to recant their beliefs).

 

Then again I'm not going to assume ill intent, I just wonder if you understand the import. You're saying that violent action in the suppression of religion is permissable. Or aren't you?

 

I'm saying there is no mandate to suppress religion. Rather, one may respond to violent action. I disagree with the whole notion of "pre-emption" too btw (and in the case of Iraq that didn't even matter because it turned out to be completely false). So when you show proof that the Bishop was pointing nukes at some neighborhood, then we'll discuss his guilt.

 

The subtle distinctions between the terms I'll save for a rainy day, but on a scale from "citizen" to "traitor" they go roughly like this:

 

"citizen"

"useful idiot"

"5th collumn"

"spy/traitor")

 

You'll have to define all those terms. "Treason" is a big one of course. So you consider Iraqi Christians, or at least Iraqi Christian leaders to be "Traitors".. (or borderline, ie: "fifth columnists"). To whom? To Iraq? To the US? To Shiite Muslims? To the terrorists?

 

Well, I'm actually blaming the Church here.

 

I couldn't tell. ; p

 

I think you're letting that bias get in the way of your thinking. Somehow it must be their fault, but you have yet to establish how, merely to make allegations without proof.

 

Quite the contrary. Since an integral part of the Church is missionary activity, the legitimacy of missionary work is of great importance to this topic.

 

Certainly, but where is your evidence that this bishop is a missionary? And likewise, this doesn't establish that missionaries are "traitors" or "soldiers" who should be punished.

 

Even if they were outright criminals (yet to be established), it would be the duty of the government of Iraq (the US/British occupational force, for now) to punish them, not secretive bands of vigilantes. That's the concept of Law & Order, vs. anarchy and lynch mobs.

 

He wasn't given a fair trial, that I know of, he was just kidnapped.

 

 

Quite a lot. Because weak, malleable minds may become convinced that the Hell BS makes sense.

 

\my point of view\ And weak, malleable minds may become convinced of the BS that Hell doesn't exist.

 

So what? You're first assuming that an idea is wrong (from your POV of course it is, but you're not the judge of everyone else), then you're assuming that it's dangerous. Then you're assuming that other people shouldn't be allowed to judge for themselves. So it's assuming a lot.

 

snip, anti-missionary rant

 

Oh yes, they must be evil and up to no good, of course, heard it before, numerous times from you and others in this forum. Irrelevant. If I were to agree with you and assume that religion is an evil, terrible thing, then I could still say that people should be able to make up their own minds.

 

What made me respond so agressively is that religious leaders in general, and Christian religious leaders in particular, are appearently regarded as being worthy of a protection not normally extended to 5th collumnists.

 

In my country, the USA, they are. It's the law of the land and one of our founding principles. So excuse me if I don't swallow your opinion as trumping that. And the term "5th columnist" is propaganda too isn't it? Or is it legally defined where you hail from? My grandma was scared of the "5th columnists" on the radio when she was a little girl, but c'mon...

 

You're assuming that religious leaders are working for "the enemy" (the Church), but you're simply too biased to see that its possible to be religious and a loyal citizen of your home nation as well. Anti-Catholic bigots did the same song and dance when JFK was running for office here in the States. "Oh he's a Catholic! He's anti-democratic because he listens to some deluded Italian prince! He'll start another Inquisition!" etc. Complete and utter propaganda. But apparently some people actually believed that rhetoric (and still do).

 

But, like the "vast Jewish conspiracies" is there anything to it? I have yet to see the evidence. I'd say the burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists to prove it, not demand we assume it exists and go from there.

 

 

If he had been (e.g.) a member of the Iraqi Communist Party - assuming that such a thing exists - or the civilian branch of the Hamas, I doubt very much that this thread would have existed.

 

Ah, now we're getting somewhere! "IF"...

 

Without such evidence, you have no grounds to complain except your built in anti-religion bias.

 

Concession accepted.