September 30, 2008
A Question For Andrew Sullivan
No, not regarding his Palin Derangement Syndrome – rather one regarding
his rampant anti-Catholic Homosexualist agenda.
The Pope rejects the new Sarkozy-appointed French ambassador to the Vatican because he's gay and married to a man. These facts in no way impede the man's ability to do his job, just as being gay does not in any way impede a seminarian's ability to be a great priest (as so many gay men have been through the centuries). But this Pope is a bigot, as we now know - and will discriminate against people just for who they are, rather than what they can professionally do.
Excuse me, Andy, but Sarkozy appointed an individual to be ambassador to the Holly See whose lifestyle he knew would be repugnant to Catholic teaching and practice. The leadership of the Vatican made a decision to uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church by rejecting this intentional affront to Catholicism. To have made this appointment is no different than if he had appointed an abortionist to the position.
I’d like to ask – would Sarkozy have appointed this individual as ambassador to Saudi Arabia or Iran? Remember, please, that the Vatican simply refused to accept the diplomatic credentials of the individual in question – in the Islamic world, they would have likely been executed for the crime of sodomy. So before you start demanding that the rest of the world start bowing down before the demands of your Homosexualist agenda, consider that there is no requirement that the rest of the world follow your extreme fundamentalist religious/philosophical/sexual beliefs rather than their own consciences.
Posted by: Greg at
02:40 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.
1
So Vatican is better than a country ran by Islamic counterparts. That really makes it alright!
Posted by: Sunil at Sat Oct 4 11:38:05 2008 (P1LQt)
2
This Sullivan fellow seems to have erroneously conflated full compliance with a particular set of Canon law by the leader of, not only a religion, but of a theocratic state as well (yes, the Vatican is a sovereign state, & a theocracy) & personal, pick-and-choose enforcement by a petty official in a "democracy".
If Sad-Sarc were to send a Jewish ambassador to any of the officially theocratic Muslim countries, it would, quite rightly (as far as diplomatic courtesy goes) be seen as a gross insult. Same for sending a Baha'i to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Sullivan & his fellow-travelling moral equivalence espousing elitists have blinded themselves to the reality of the world & the cultures therein. Perhaps as a result of too long exposure to their insular "echo chamber" ultra-left web sites (huff-and-puff post, daily koskish etc.) with little exposure to the viewpoints of the vast majority of the world's people, they delude themselves into thinking that their pathetic, less than flash-in-the-pan retardocracy with all its inherent hatred & intolerance, actually has some traction in the real world. The religious (of all stripe) who have stood the test of thousands of years & really "gifted" hate-filled butchers & murderers, will lose no sleep over these aberrant "mayflies". Like the culture of death that they so worship, they will, in short order pass away, to be remembered (if at all) as a by product of spoiled, over-indulged, profoundly stupid children.
Posted by: yehudasf at Sat Oct 4 15:59:42 2008 (0VW98)
3
But it doesn't matter what the Vatican thinks of Frances ambassador. It matters what France thinks of him. The French embassy in The Vatican (or wherever) is a forepost of the French administration, and it is none of anybodys business but the French, whom they choose to put there.
When the Vatican is snobbing an ambassador, they are snobbing the democraticly elected French leadership and thus the people of France (Catholics included).
The weakness of your arguments are sufficiently illustrated by you having to resort to 'cleaning yourself with other peoples dirt' So what, if it is worse in Islamic countries? Shouldn't we hold The Vatican to a much higher standard than Saud-Arabia? If 'it s worse in Saudi-Arabia' is your strongest argument, then you've got yourself a weak case.
Posted by: William Jansen at Tue Oct 7 10:22:44 2008 (PDtjg)
4
Silly Willy, you obviously know less about diplomatic protocols than you do about the proper use of the English language.
Each host country has the explicit choice/right of approval over every ambassador sent unto them. That O stupid one, is why diplomats have to "present their credentials". Intentionally sending an offensive person to the Vatican was a bad call on the part of Sad-Sarc.
But with buffoons of your calibre defending his actions, I'm certain he will sleep well at night.
Idiot.
Posted by: yehudasf at Tue Oct 7 20:08:56 2008 (0VW98)
5
,
vshgfeio, xcwraz,
rulxgkgt, 7106,
ajmiwuvo, ivb,
lfjobpke, 0355,
djsdpcqz, xci,
npnobmci, jjsq,
Posted by: Tkfqvwlg at Fri May 1 00:11:34 2009 (Lj/Hr)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
10kb generated in CPU 0.0054, elapsed 0.0238 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.02 seconds, 34 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
