US says Pope Immune from Abuse SuitsAgain, well duh! This story in the UK Guardian is typical of the silliness we see from the left these days.
Daniel Shea, attorney for one of the three plaintiffs, has said that if the pope is granted immunity, he would challenge the constitutionality of the U.S. diplomatic recognition of the Holy See on grounds that it goes against the First Amendment's ``establishment clause'' barring any laws respecting the establishment of religion.
This implies that we cannot grant the same immunity to heads of state that have a formally declared religion that we do to those that don't. Wouldn't that be a violation of the establishment clause? We don't recognize the heads of Isreal, England, any of the Arab states, some South American states, etc. because they have an official religion. Brilliant!
We do not grant the Pope immunity because he heads a church but because he also happens to be a head of state. Why are these people allowed to waste our tax dollars?