"Please discuss, and remain amicable."

Lol.

The Vatican has less than 800 citizens. It is more like a club. With ambassadors.

It is a state. It is a religious state. It is accepted in the modern world. What more do you want?

From my view, it depends on the country. If it's homogenous, with an extremely high rate of one religion and virtually no one of others, then sure. Whatever floats their boat. Of course, the Vatican is one of few places that fits this description. If the society is diverse, like the United States or most other Western countries, no. Even if a majority is carried, no. If a state wants a mixed and hodgepodged culture, or already has one, a religious state defeats the purpose. I personally would rather be in a diverse and secular society.

In a lot of ways, the Vatican isn't a fully functioning state.

Yet it is.

Yes, obviously. A state should not oppress religious minorities, but while there are many excellent arguments for the wisdom of a religiously neutral state, which fortunately convinced the founders of the US, there is no rule or reason why a people may not constitute themselves a religious state.

The following exchange has been a prime example of Aristotelian argument and rebuttal and how not to do it.

I am not here for an argumentative writing, since I've been a part of this community long enough to know it is a moot thing. But For the sake of bo_sox' insanity I'll continue: What are the lot of ways Vatican is not a fully functioning state? You made the claim, the burden of proof lies on you.

Saudi Arabia is the Islamic Vatican State on a larger scale without the religious freedom of the Vatican State. No openly practicing of other than the state religion.

Randomizer, I doubt that there are many non-Catholics that live in the Vatican. But... I think that is understandable. I think to live there you must be an employee of the Catholic Church.

Well to be fair the Holy See only gives out passports to Catholics.

Except during WW2

Well for the sake of your argument we can forget that.

True.

But you don't have the same banning on overt religious practices in Vatican City that you have in Saudi Arabia. For example during Gulf War I, American troops couldn't wear crosses openly when they were stationed in Saudi Arabia. Non-Catholic visitors can wear religious icons in Vatican City and openly pray there.

It's a difference in tolerance between the two religious states. Although the Vatican was more restrictive in the past with the heresy trials and punishments.

"What are the lot of ways Vatican is not a fully functioning state? You made the claim, the burden of proof lies on you."

Are you aware of what a claim is? I haven't even entered this debate let alone made any claim. The Vatican is one of the most irrelevant figureheads in world history. They don't matter.

But Vatican passport holders ("nationals" if you will) are all Catholics, so there is no other religion practiced in Vatican. Granted other religion believers are not treated differently while visiting there, but there are no other "official" religions practiced in there.

Randomizer, to be fair, most heresy trials etc. were handled by the state courts, not the church.

Bo, how is the Vatican one of the most irrelevant figureheads? The pope has a huge amount of influence. One of the best examples, John Paul the Second. He was hugely responsible for the fall of communism. The Vatican's role is not of world power house, certainly, but its influence is felt far and wide. Kind of hard not to with over one seventh of the world's population being Catholic. And others listen as well.

Are you aware of what a claim is? I haven't even entered this debate let alone made any claim. The Vatican is one of the most irrelevant figureheads in world history. They don't matter.
I was not answering to you: it was a question to mendax. Learn to read (even in between the lines and in the context).

Exactly, KC. The Catholic Church has influence. The pope has influence. The Vatican is the Catholic Church's home. Even if the official governing body of the Vatican is the Catholic Church, it is not the Vatican itself speaking, but the Church. The Vatican is the figurehead intended to legitimize the Church among those such as myself who think they have no place in government.

Ah, fair enough. I misunderstood you. But I disagree. The Catholic Church needs a home where they can be completely autonomous. It frees it from the political machinations of the countries surrounding it. If the Vatican did not exist, then the Church would only be able to inhabit Rome by the good will of the Italian government. And governments are fickle. There have also been examples of why the Vatican's autonomy is good for everyone. The Church hid thousands of Jews and other fugitives from the Nazis. I recommend you read or watch the Scarlet Pimpernel of the Vatican.

@KC no

@Ramsu Holy See =/= Vatican, and yes the Vatican is a fully functioning state. The Holy See doesn't hand out passports, simply because the Holy See is no state (and has no population to which he could hand out passports)

Which part is "no"?

I think he means the OP. For the sake of discussion, why not?

As an American, I tend to stand firmly on the side of separation of church and state. However, state religions have historically been quite common, and there are still many countries which have an established religion and many countries in which a religiously-derived law code plays an important role at least in some spheres of jurisprudence. Just as the "Christian democracy" movement played an important role in late-19th-century European popular politics, it is possible that some sort of "Islamic democratic" movement might be a hopeful alternative to secular nationalist movements, viewed especially by many Arabs to have failed in their mid- and late-20th-century implementation, and Islamist regimes.

Ideally, any "religious state" would have strong protections against the tyranny of the majority, would allow the practice of minority faiths or no faith, and would not raise barriers to full participation in civic life by women, adherents of minority religious faiths, the non-religious, or others who do not live in the mainstream of the established faith.

I would think England is at least as interesting an example of this as the Vatican.

Bump

Should it legally?

I don't see why not...nations are so various, and the idea of a nation itself implies certain exchanges and forfeitures of rights, so sayeth Hobbes and Locke and Rousseau and a bunch of other Smart Dead White Guys. Short of outright killing or mutilating its own citizens or those of other countries, determining universals when it comes to what should and shouldn't be allowed in a state is pretty tricky.

Now, should it be morally/ethically/would *I* want a state based on religion?

No. Christian states have committed atrocities fueled by Christianity, and the same can be said of Judaism, Islam, and just about any religion. (I WOULD specify the difference between a Judaic and Jewish state...since again, being Jewish is/can be both a religious AND ethic/cultural thing, so where I don't like/don't want Israel to become the former, a "Judaic" state, I'd be fine with it identifying as a Jewish state in terms of ethnicity and culture. I don't want it to exclude people on THAT basis either--though Bibi will, because I think he, Abbas, and Hamas leadership have a bet to see who can come across as the biggest cartoonish villain--but again, Jewish over Judaic, and cultural over religious when it comes to a state.)