At U.N., Vatican Condemns Human Cloning (& Iraq War)

[Khephra]

UNITED NATIONS -- The Vatican, in its first speech ever to the U.N. General Assembly, called Wednesday for a total ban on human cloning and criticized the war in Iraq and unilateral responses to terrorism.

Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo, secretary of the Holy See's relations with states, spoke in broad terms and didn't mention the U.S.-led coalition that invaded Iraq or the nations that have acted unilaterally against terrorists. He referred to Pope John Paul II's fervent opposition to the Iraq war.


snip.......

The Vatican has had an observer mission at the United Nations since 1964, and Pope John Paul II visited the General Assembly 25 years ago, but the Holy See has not addressed the assembly during the ministerial meeting before.

snip.....

The member states approved a resolution during the previous General Assembly session granting the Vatican the right to participate in the debate and in many other activities at the United Nations.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-un-vatican,0,3446291.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines

[VegasWolf]

1. (& masturbation & condoms & sex outside marriage & ... )

[Book Lover]

2. So remind me again why an NGO

gets treated like a government at the UN? This also kills me:

To fight poverty and promote development, the Vatican called for a more just system of international trade, foreign debt cancellation for the poorest countries, and "generously shared" scientific research and technology, particularly on matters of health.

But educating women and providing birth control, two things that we KNOW work to alleviate poverty, well we can't have that, can we? Fuck the Church hierarchy.

[Khephra]

5. Giving the Vatican a voice at the UN at this moment in time

may well turn out to be one of the worst mistakes that the UN has ever made. Just when the Church is turning to the Right and becoming even more outspoken about being involved in governmental affairs, what should we do? Heck, that's the time we decide to give them a microphone to the world.

Great freeping move, UN. Great freeping move.

[Princess Turandot]

6. I'm curious..

are you or were you a Roman Catholic at some point? If you prefer not to answer my question, that's okay too.

[Khephra]

8. Nope

I've always been--even when I didn't know the name of it--a Gnostic.

[Malva Zebrina]

7. the vatican has a seat but not a vote

the only religion to have a seat in the UN.

[Khephra]

9. Correct

I'm just uncomfortable that any religious organization has a voice at the UN. It's called the United Nations not the United Religions. And why just one religion? Did the representatives of any other religion get asked? How about the Orthodox Christians? If Rome gets a voice then shouldn't they too?

Opening up the floor to the Vatican just complicates things way too much.

[Princess Turandot]

10. Technically speaking..

I believe that Vatican City is a separate political state, albeit a theocracy, and that's why it has representation at the UN.

From the US Department of State's webpage:

"Independence: Lateran Pacts confirming independence and sovereignty of The Holy See signed with Italy on February 11, 1929."

"Created in 1929 to provide a territorial identity for the Holy See in Rome, the State of the Vatican City is a recognized national territory under international law."

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3819.htm

[Xithras]

12. It's not even "technical", it actually is an independent nation

Here's the World Factbook entry for it:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/vt.html

It's less than .5 square kilometers and has less than 1000 citizens, but it's an independent nation with a theocratic government.

[Khephra]

13. True

But its theocratic nature complicates things a bit. Because there are Catholics all over the world, the Vatican has an advantage at changing other nation's internal political landscapes that the other countries don't.

:shrug: It may be fair, but I don't have a good feeling about where I think things will be going in regards to future actions by the Vatican at the UN. We'll just have to wait and see, but I've got a real bad feeling about the situation. I've had it since they voted to let them speak during the last session and it hasn't gone away.

[FightinNewDem]

19. OK, what about Britain?

Then I fully expect you to call for Great Britain to lose its seat at the UN, the EU, etc. After all, the British monarch is the head of the Anglican Church.

[Xithras]

11. Because they're the only religion with their own nation

Look it up, Holy See (aka Vatican City) isn't claimed by any nation other than itself. It has its own government, it's own military force (the Swiss Guard), and establishes its own diplomatic relations. The last time I checked, Holy See was recognized by every nation in the world as the smallest country on the planet.

THAT is why they get a seat at the UN, not because of their religious status. If the Saudi's were to give Mecca its independence, then Islam could have the same thing.

[Malva Zebrina]

14. Yes but that still does not address the fact that it is a religion more

than a state. It does not vote yet it has the influence to influence the vote.

Indeed, why does it claim it is a state to begin with? No other religion has had the opportunity to declare itself a state. Further, the question must be asked: is it a sovereign state and is it a democracy? No it is not either one. It is a dictatorship--plain and simple.

[Xithras]

15. There are many dictatorships in the UN

Having a democratic government isn't a prerequisite to UN membership, and the institution would disintegrate if it were (there are a LOT of dictatorships in the UN). The UN makes no judgements as to the form of government that a nation holds...it simply requires that member nations have land unclaimed by other nations, that it have a formal government, and that it have full time citizen residents. Holy See meets these requirements and therefore has a right to demand UN representation.

By the way, if I remember correctly the prohibition against Holy See voting in the UN was laid out by Holy See itself, and not the UN at large. The pope did NOT want to have the voice of only one religion voting on matters that affected the entire world, and asked that the Holy See seat at the UN be nonvoting. If the pope simply wanted to use the UN to impose his religious will on the world, he never would have made that request.

As to why it's a state: It's a state for the same reason that Monaco, Andorra, Leichenstein, and San Marino are independent nations...because the countries that completely surround them never bothered to take them over. Holy See is completely surrounded by Rome, but Italy has never attempted to claim it as Italian territory making it a de facto independent nation. Italy could roll in the troops tomorrow and end that status in under 20 minutes, but it has no interest in doing so.

[Malva Zebrina]

16. I guess that makes it right that the only religion represented in the UN

is the Catholic religion.

How about some other religion being represented--such as some who are not as rich or powerful.

The notion thatm other dictatorships are also represented in the UN does not make it right that religious distatorship is perfectly acceptable as an entity. It is the only religion represented in the UN, period. That says something in and of itself.

Not only that, but there are various, legitimate arms of this religion that do not agree with the Vatican on many of it's tenets.

Why should they assent to being represented by this Vatican who does not have the necessary power to represent all of it's wayward arms?

For instance--the Liberation Theology movement in South America which was promptly squelched by the Vatican.

As a member with a seat it should be held to the various laws or rules of membership in the UN. One of those, I believe, is the repsect for equality and rights of all human beings, including women. Now this seems to me to be on an equal footing with say, Saudi Arabia, or even the Taliban who also relegate to women a secondary role.

Undoubtably, the Vatican is not respective of women's rights or a woman's right to her own health and body as well as a woman's participation in the administration of this religious dictatorship. This is due to "tradition" as a convenient excuse for this subjugation of women and denying them access to a higher position in the authority of the church.

It demeans women and inherently ascribes to women a secondary role, not only in the politics of the religion, but in it's very tenets.

It does however exercise great power over the rulings that affect, especially from the United States under George Bush, the health of women, world wide.

That is not just.

[Xithras]

17. Again, they have that right by virtue of land and population

The UN isn't (and shouldn't be) in the business of judging the validity of one form of governance over another. They are a body where ALL of the worlds governments, whether democratic, totalitarian, dictatorial, or theocratic, come together to discuss their differences and work out their international squabbles.

And from the point of view of the UN, the seat for Holy See isn't there to represent a religion, it's there to represent the citizens of that nation. And there are NO rules in the UN which demand respect for equality and rights from their member nations...if there were, many of the Islamic and dictatorial nations would quit along with the Holy See. The UN is only effective if it can bring everyone to the table.

You have to remember that the rules and structure of the UN weren't put in place like a typical government. It's a place to meet, talk, and sometimes to agree on mutual courses of action that serve many nations. It was designed from the start to be both powerless and nonjudgemental, and to serve as a place of treaty.

This is exactly why I tend to have such a big problem with internationalists who want to turn the UN into some sort of world government. Personally, I don't like the idea that one person (i.e. a pope or dictatorial ruler) should have a vote equal to millions of people located in another country. The UN as a form of government will only work if we restrict its membership to free democracies, and I don't see that happening in our lifetimes.

[Princess Turandot]

18. The Taliban pretty much controlled all of Afghanistan..

would you want Mr. Omar addressing the UN? You're comparing the Taliban to Roman Catholicism? The last I heard, other than anti-abortion crazies who shoot MDs, who are probably not acting under the direction of anyone in all likelihood, I haven't heard the Church call for women to be shot in the head for anything lately. And in general, the UN does not control or dictate most of the things that may concern you about the Catholicism. Letting Fidel Castro address the General Assembly hasn't seemed to inspire more communism in the Western Hemisphere.

I don't know if you are a Catholic. Most of what concerns you about its 'treatment' of women is practiced by many other mainstream faiths and in many cases, to a larger extreme. As a female who is Catholic, I've never felt demeaned to any degree, probably because I did not think birth control was the provence of religion, and the issue of women priests raises no reaction in me.Several of the other Christian sects who did so during the Reformation objected among other things, to the Church's reverence for the mother of Jesus. Not too liberated in my book

Despite his continued adherence to long-standing views largely related to sex,this Pope has an extraordinary record of speaking out for the poor and against violence in society. No Catholic Pope in modern history before him has done anything like this, as they sat sheltered in the Vatican.

What other religious leader has again and again called for world peace and actually used his 'bully pulpit' to speak out against those whose goals are purely self-interested? What other religious leader has routinely and vocally condemned the death penalty, as well as sending communications to US governors asking them to commute the condemneds' sentences in practically ever case? What other religious leader is practically shouting (to the extent that he can) for social equality to the degree that the Pope has? JP II is even put on a lot of peoples' list as being one of the most important individuals in helping overthrow Communist dictatorship, since after decades of American 'polish jokes', it was the Solidarity movement in Poland who stood up to their masters before anyone else did.He has elevated more minorities to higher ranks in the Church than probably all of the Popes before him in this century.
He even granted a private audience to a rock star (Bono of U2, who isn't Catholic, because of his own efforts to help the so-called 'Third World'.

His views on sectarian social issues are in truth not going to change anyone's mind about abortion or birth control or impact American policy. (Abortion, btw, is legal in Italy itself, which is far more likely to be influenced by the Vatican.) But he single handedly has turned the Roman Catholic Church into a much more vocal opponent against war, the death penalty, and the inequality in the world, because he left the confines of Vatican City to make his views known. (And I suspect that more than one Italian Cardinal who voted to make him the Pope so long ago, has been horrified by his outreach.) I wouldn't be so quick to condemn the UN for letting the Vatican's representative speak at the GA: he basically spoke about the things that most people here believe in, and stayed away from contentious social issues from the extracts I've read of the speech.

[Just Me]

3. We are DEFINITELY too irresponsible to clone humans,..

,...and we proved it by our irresponsible, life-destroying, inexcusable war in Iraq.

I'll have to agree with the fundamental objections although I believe stem-cell research to be a good baby step forward.

Too bad the pope was unwilling to be noble and principled and Christian enough to stop the war,...by simply being present in Baghdad to stop that "shock and awe". But, hey,...he is only human, after all.

[Maple]

4. And boinking altar servers?

No mention of that?

[FightinNewDem]

20. Nice work

Oh, hey, an irrelevant cheap shot...that certainly adds to the level of discourse.

[w4rma]

21. Note the headline is about a minor part of the article and favors the GOP

The rest of what the Pope said, which isn't alluded to in the headline, favors Dems. The pope spoke about poverty and his opposition to the Iraq war.

All you guys above who are bashing Cathlocs and him, as a kneejerk response to the headline, are being manipulated by the AP's editor who wrote this headline.