SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: LindyBill who wrote (81122)3/11/2003 4:48:57 AM
From: KLP  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Hitchens asks a really GOOD question, LB! >>>>One wonders what it would take for the Vatican to condemn Saddam's regime.

Baathism consecrates an entire country to the worship of a single human being.

Its dictator has mosques named after himself.

I'm not the expert on piety, but isn't there something blasphemous about this from an Islamic as well as a Christian viewpoint?

I suppose if Saddam came out for partial-birth abortions or the ordination of women or the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle he might be hit with a condemnation of some sort.

(Until recently, one might have argued that his abuse of children would get him in hot water with the Vatican, too. But even that expectation now seems vain.)

In one way, the church's "peace at any price" policy is a historical improvement.



To: LindyBill who wrote (81122)3/11/2003 4:58:22 AM
From: spiral3  Respond to of 281500
 
Hitchens is in fine form this week. Points out that Saddam is on the side of the Angels. The Angels of the anti-war crowd, that is.

we already know that Saddam is a bad guy, that the Vatican is corrupt, that lots of people are going to get killed, that Jimmy Carter is a nut case and that Hitchens is godless, so, sorry, there are no Angels.

thanks for that Castro-Saddam piece btw, great read.