Is the Vatican a Sovereign State? - How to get away with rape
Sat, 19/06/2010 - 12:25pm
An interesting article by Christopher Hitchens. I could not find it on the news feed so I am assuming it has not been noticed.
http://www.slate.com/id/2255270
Regards,
Kerneels.
Mon, 28/06/2010 - 1:21pm
#2
my penn'orth
I've written a couple of blog posts about this myself if anyone's interested:
http://stewartsstruggles2.blogspot.com/2010/04/colm-ogormans-book-beyond-belief-is.html
http://stewartsstruggles2.blogspot.com/2010/04/more-on-catholic-statehood-and-immunity.html
The second link goes directly to this issue. I don't seriously believe Papa will ever face trial on this issue, but I think the pressure should be kept up, and I think the first step would be to seek to strip the Vatican [or the Holy See] of its status as a sovereign state. As I wrote on my blog,
On the one hand, when it wants to absolve itself from responsibility, the Catholic hierarchy describes the Church as a devolved organisation, administered at the local level, but when it wants sovereignty it describes itself as a government.
This is precisely what Hitchens points out in his article - amongst other things.
Tue, 06/07/2010 - 3:28pm
#3
Up $1500 Payday Loans.
I guess the best way to get away from this scandalous act is to take care of yourself and be aware and sensitive enough about the things tha are happening around.But on the other side,I am piteous about the ex girlfriend of Mel Gibson who accused him of domestic violence.Mel Gibson's girlfriend filed a restraining order against the actor, and I for starters am not shocked. It seems that when somebody has an excessive amount of money they tend to think they can do what they want, and Mel Gibson isn't any exclusion. He's threatened and made hateful comments to his ex-girlfriend, the mother of his eighth kid; and she supposedly has this caught on tape. If this is true there probably is not a cash advance large enough to keep those tapes from hitting the media.
He can play it either:
1) He is a head of state, in which he can be prosecuted for crimes against humanity, including institutionlised terrorism & willful genocide.
or
2) He is not a head-of-state, in which he can be prosecuted for aiding and abetting the mass rape of minors, the willful genocide of Africans, the sheltering of felons, etc.
Let him pick which crime he'd rather face. Either is as good to me. He cannot escape prosecution either way.