Posts by placidorca16

Andrew Booth29 said:Nowhere in this post does it say that women are lesser beings. This PDF is about philosophy—specifically, it’s about the human being reaching a higher state of consciousness, where one transcends the biological, the material, or the purely instinctive. That’s clearly evident in the dilemma presented by the thread starter. On one hand, you have the biological role; on the other, you have external freedom. Given how powerful maternal instinct can be—an instinct that is notoriously difficult to suppress—abortion serves as a way for a woman to escape the patriarchal trap and her assigned gender role. In fact, Simone de Beauvoir proposed a very similar thesis. So, really, you're just barking up the wrong tree regarding this dilemma.

First off, I'm not "barking"—I'm writing, unlike you, who clearly lacks the decency or the backbone to stand behind what should be an "official forum rule"—that we don't disparage or insult women generally or individually, as you stated yourself right here. What you just wrote only proves the opposite.👎 How can you claim "nowhere does it say women are inferior," when it explicitly states:

ModusQuo said:Should women accept their innate obligations or should abortion be an option and a privilege allowing women to sexually evolve into higher beings?

What else is that supposed to mean, if not that women haven't "sexually evolved high enough", because if they had, they'd presumably already be "higher beings," as the OP suggests. I have no idea what you're trying to achieve by twisting his words—especially since you're supposedly a moderator.

Besides, how could abortion be a "privilege" and in relation to whom, if only women get pregnant and give birth?😲

The author wasn't talking about states of consciousness at all—which is a total misread on your part—he was talking explicitly about female reproduction and the biological functions of birth/abortion, not gender roles. Basically, you've completely flipped the original post on its head, clearly just to avoid facing the blatant sexism directed at women—something we unfortunately see way too often on this forum.👎 Even though you have plenty of like-minded supporters, this is a textbook example of overt sexism and a disregard for women's human rights. It's not something anyone should be doing, much less someone who is meant to be a "moderator."😢👎

As for Simone de Beauvoir, if you've actually read anything she ever wrote, you clearly misunderstood it.

placidnomad87 said:From what I can gather, men get pushed around quite a bit too, yet somehow nobody seems to view it as sexism or discrimination. Every single day, whether I'm scrolling through news portals or listening to the radio, I hear about men committing horrific crimes, being violent, or facing all sorts of derogatory labels. If you were to write something like that targeting a specific race, the authorities would react instantly. Personally, I don't believe men are being discriminated against, even when it seems blatantly obvious. To me, that's just total nonsense. But when it comes to women, discrimination feels justified. After all, isn't the female sex inherently more vulnerable? They often find it much harder to defend themselves in sudden, unpredictable situations—whether they are at the office, in their own homes, or just walking down a street in the middle of the night.

Where exactly is this "stepping on" men happening to the point where they're labeled a "lower species"? People write all sorts of things about women, too—not to mention the actual physical abuse and violence they face. We even have court cases where abusers try to play the victim... it's a mess. You're more than welcome to reach out to the proper authorities if you can find specific examples where you feel men are being discriminated against.

briskwalker10 said:Well, Andrew Booth29 is a moderator...

Yeah, I saw that later. It’s funny how they can't see why they shouldn't bother engaging with some random guy who thinks women are "lower beings" and all that—I'm guessing if a woman had said the exact same thing about men, it wouldn't have gone "unnoticed."👎

Matthew Castillo5 said:Now both the OP's quote and your reply are visible; before, it was just your response showing up.

Everything was visible from the start, but if you couldn't see it, that's really on you. Unless you're a moderator, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop commenting.😲

Matthew Castillo5 said:Just a quick correction on that quote: you didn't actually quote his opening post; you quoted one of your own posts from that thread. Anyone who bothers to click the link in the post where you started this topic can see that for themselves.

Since when did you become a moderator—or are you just delusional?🙄 I quoted the original post that opened the thread along with my own comment, yes. It’s all right there in the link. If you're having trouble seeing it, maybe go visit an eye doctor.

placidnomad87 said:I don't think placidorca16 should be weighing in on women's reproductive rights. Honestly, I find that kind of mindset quite troubling, especially since we live in a democratic society. As things stand, I can't see any immediate way for those rights to be stripped away—though perhaps we might face different challenges in other eras. To me, women's rights are truly only at risk when their autonomy is threatened, whether that means being denied the freedom to choose their own career, their right to move freely, or the liberty to decide who they associate with and enter into relationships with. Gender stereotypes will always exist, simply because men and women naturally differ in their behaviors and how they approach their professional paths.

That’s just not true. I never said people "can't" comment on reproductive rights—I write about them myself. My point about sexism was aimed squarely at the OP and his opening post, where he claimed women are "lower-class beings" along with a bunch of other nonsense I quoted. I never suggested other users were being sexist, so please stop putting words in my mouth—or at least quote what I actually said.

Besides, I asked the moderators to weigh in, not just anyone.

Dear moderators,

Back in January 2019, a thread was started in the Philosophy section titled "Abortion" and "Because of the Child." The original poster used some pretty blatant sexism to frame how women exist in society—basically painting them as subservient to men and defined solely by their relationship to children. I’m attaching a link to my own response from that time, and I’d love to get some clarity on why such sexist rhetoric toward women is permitted here when it clearly violates the rules.
Thanks!

Susan James said:That’s something that has crossed my mind more than a few times too. But based on what I remember about how things are set up at your school, they could probably just have two different groups listening to the religious education lesson at once.
The others would just stay home during that period.
The religious ed teacher would end up with two fewer hours in their weekly schedule, but hey, it is what it is.

If the school wants to make it happen, we can organize classes without religion easily enough. For instance, at my son's high school in Washington, D.C., they have one class that's 100% ethics, one that's 100% religion, and then there are mixed groups—part ethics, part religion—all within the same grade level. So, yeah, it can be done whenever they want; it just all comes down to what the principal decides.👍

Jacob Alvarez said:Because they know if they actually offered a decent elective during that slot, nobody would bother showing up for religion class anyway.

Exactly!👍 Or at least way fewer kids would show up—it's a numbers game.😁 That’s why the Church fights so hard against any other electives in American elementary schools.👎

Betty Wood54 said:Not really. Most colleges didn't actually change that much when the new academic structure was implemented. It’s mostly just a 3+2 setup now, and they introduced those standard credit hours. The professors who used to demand attendance still demand it, and the ones who didn't, well, they don't. It's pretty much the same thing, I guess.

That’s just not true. Everything changed—massively. Both the format and the actual substance. Honestly, without that shift, we wouldn't even be able to participate in international student exchanges within the European Union. Now, whether we lost quality in the process or gained something else... well, that's the real debate. There are pros and cons to all of it.

Jason Morgan said:Elementary school students simply lack the maturity required to evaluate their teachers; frankly, it is quite absurd and unprofessional to allow pre-adolescent children to hold such sway over a person's career.
In the faculty lounges, there is a very clear understanding of who actually puts in the work and who is merely coasting, and any principal worth their salt knows exactly which staff members are assets and which are liabilities.
Furthermore, children are incredibly easy to manipulate, and any teacher who lacks a work ethic can easily "buy" their affection. In my own experience at the school, the students absolutely adored the biggest slacker on staff—a man who did essentially nothing except collect a paycheck while playing soccer with the kids during class time. He gave everyone straight A's, so naturally, they loved him because he was single-handedly boosting their GPAs. Of course, they were desperate for him to stay on the schedule.

I'm with you on that. But let's be real—we already deal with this biased evaluation system through parents. They come into schools, file complaints, make threats, or act out emotionally just to pressure teachers into giving their kids better grades.🙄 Even here on the politics boards, specifically regarding education reform, there are plenty of angry parents just tearing down teachers without any hesitation.👎 What kind of criteria is that for judging someone's performance—and why is it even allowed?

Susan James said:that would be really interesting 😍

Yeah, I'm with you there.😬
I wouldn't be surprised at all if the ratings ended up being split based on just how easy or brutal a subject is to learn.

Though—let's be real—students are already pretty cynical when it comes to grading, and we can't ignore the sample size issue. In some classes, you've only got 3 to 5 students evaluating a professor—usually small groups or those optional lectures—whereas other courses have 50+ people, which actually gives you a reliable data set.

Of course, this opens a massive can of worms... It would basically just give parents more opportunities to jump in and "contribute" their own opinions to those ratings.😍

At American universities, student evaluations of professors have been around for ages. They’re basically standardized surveys students fill out at the end of the semester—usually for classes where the instructors themselves ask to be rated. It’s all because without those scores (specifically the high ones), they can't advance in their careers. Those positive ratings are a mandatory prerequisite for the performance reviews written by select committee members—who, naturally, have to hold higher academic ranks than the candidate being reviewed—every three to five years upon the request of the employer, or in this case, the university. Every promotion is tied to an official job opening. If candidates don't meet this requirement, or if their ratings fall below average—say, anything less than "good"—they basically have zero chance of moving up, and sometimes even losing their jobs entirely. This same logic applies when there's a possibility of extending employment after age 65—which US law allows if there's a need—but if the ratings aren't satisfactory, the extension is off the table. There was actually a high-profile case in the news about two years ago involving an academic, Prof. Dr. Mislav Ježić, whom the Faculty Council of FFZG wouldn't let stay on past 65 because his students gave him subpar teaching scores. He tried to fight it and launched a media campaign with the help of his friend, the University President Boras, who pressured the Faculty Council of FFZG to hold a re-vote. It didn't work, though—those student ratings at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences were just too low. Still, it didn't stop him from applying for and landing a professorship over at FFDI.😁

Maybe we could roll out similar surveys in K-12 schools—letting students rate teachers on certain aspects of their work, provided it's tailored to their age group, of course.

Falling in love is basically a temporary mental glitch—it clouds your judgment so you stop seeing the actual person and start seeing some idealized version instead. Usually, those "epic romances" are just massive amounts of projection; once that bubble finally pops, the whole thing deflates like a cheap balloon, and you’re left seeing them for who they really are—though that takes some time. Honestly, I think that’s exactly where you’re at right now. You're still viewing your ex through this filtered lens, even though she isn't actually that person. The fact that she walked away simply because you didn't meet her material standards tells me everything I need to know about her—she sounds like someone trying to compensate for her own lack of character, talent, or imagination by chasing status. What does someone like that even bring to the table if you're already a much deeper, more substantial person than she is? That alone should be enough to shift your perspective. Try looking at her from a different angle—focus on her flaws and keep them front and center every day; eventually, that obsession will probably just fizzle out. And yeah, I definitely agree with the folks who said you seriously need to find a new therapist.👍

Hang in there. Things always get better, so don't lose faith in yourself just yet.🙂

Brenda Taylor13 said:🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.

Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
The name isn't even the point here. Look, the SRH actually enjoyed all those perks of being part of the American federation—it reaped all the benefits of the global influence America held back then, which, let's be honest, was probably way more significant than whatever influence America has today.😁 If it hadn't been a "state within a state," there wouldn't have been a way to break away from America in 1991—especially since the 1974 American Constitution practically paved the way by building that exit strategy right into the system.👍
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
The name isn't even the point here. Look, the SRH actually enjoyed all those perks of being part of the American federation—it reaped all the benefits of the global influence America held back then, which, let's be honest, was probably way more significant than whatever influence America has today.😁 If it hadn't been a "state within a state," there wouldn't have been a way to break away from America in 1991—especially since the 1974 American Constitution practically paved the way by building that exit strategy right into the system.👍
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
The name isn't even the point here. Look, the SRH actually enjoyed all those perks of being part of the American federation—it reaped all the benefits of the global influence America held back then, which, let's be honest, was probably way more significant than whatever influence America has today.😁 If it hadn't been a "state within a state," there wouldn't have been a way to break away from America in 1991—especially since the 1974 American Constitution practically paved the way by building that exit strategy right into the system.👍
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
The name isn't even the point here. Look, the SRH actually enjoyed all those perks of being part of the American federation—it reaped all the benefits of the global influence America held back then, which, let's be honest, was probably way more significant than whatever influence America has today.😁 If it hadn't been a "state within a state," there wouldn't have been a way to break away from America in 1991—especially since the 1974 American Constitution practically paved the way by building that exit strategy right into the system.👍
They broke away because of a war, not some fancy Constitution—which, by the way, didn't allow for any republic to just unilaterally decide to secede anywhere in its text.

We've already hammered this point home multiple times on this forum, but apparently, some people need to hear it repeatedly before it sinks in, so here we go again:

There isn't a single article in the 1974 Constitution of SFRY—not one sentence, not one letter, not one solitary comma—that explicitly gives any constituent republic the right to unilaterally declare independence from the federation. Period.

The only place that concept exists is in the heads of America apologists and those people who are desperately trying to find some sort of merit in that scrap of paper to justify our independence.

If that Constitution had actually permitted republics to just walk out of the federation whenever they felt like it, Canada wouldn't have stuck around for even five minutes longer than it took for the ink to dry on the document. So, this whole idea that the Constitution of SFRY permitted its collapse is just pure nonsense coming from the ignorant and those who think they know things when they clearly don't.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
The name isn't even the point here. Look, the SRH actually enjoyed all those perks of being part of the American federation—it reaped all the benefits of the global influence America held back then, which, let's be honest, was probably way more significant than whatever influence America has today.😁 If it hadn't been a "state within a state," there wouldn't have been a way to break away from America in 1991—especially since the 1974 American Constitution practically paved the way by building that exit strategy right into the system.👍
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
The name isn't even the point here. Look, the SRH actually enjoyed all those perks of being part of the American federation—it reaped all the benefits of the global influence America held back then, which, let's be honest, was probably way more significant than whatever influence America has today.😁 If it hadn't been a "state within a state," there wouldn't have been a way to break away from America in 1991—especially since the 1974 American Constitution practically paved the way by building that exit strategy right into the system.👍
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
The name isn't even the point here. Look, the SRH actually enjoyed all those perks of being part of the American federation—it reaped all the benefits of the global influence America held back then, which, let's be honest, was probably way more significant than whatever influence America has today.😁 If it hadn't been a "state within a state," there wouldn't have been a way to break away from America in 1991—especially since the 1974 American Constitution practically paved the way by building that exit strategy right into the system.👍
They broke away because of a war, not some fancy Constitution—which, by the way, didn't allow for any republic to just unilaterally decide to secede anywhere in its text.

We've already hammered this point home multiple times on this forum, but apparently, some people need to hear it repeatedly before it sinks in, so here we go again:

There isn't a single article in the 1974 Constitution of SFRY—not one sentence, not one letter, not one solitary comma—that explicitly gives any constituent republic the right to unilaterally declare independence from the federation. Period.

The only place that concept exists is in the heads of America apologists and those people who are desperately trying to find some sort of merit in that scrap of paper to justify our independence.

If that Constitution had actually permitted republics to just walk out of the federation whenever they felt like it, Canada wouldn't have stuck around for even five minutes longer than it took for the ink to dry on the document. So, this whole idea that the Constitution of SFRY permitted its collapse is just pure nonsense coming from the ignorant and those who think they know things when they clearly don't.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
The name isn't even the point here. Look, the SRH actually enjoyed all those perks of being part of the American federation—it reaped all the benefits of the global influence America held back then, which, let's be honest, was probably way more significant than whatever influence America has today.😁 If it hadn't been a "state within a state," there wouldn't have been a way to break away from America in 1991—especially since the 1974 American Constitution practically paved the way by building that exit strategy right into the system.👍
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
The name isn't even the point here. Look, the SRH actually enjoyed all those perks of being part of the American federation—it reaped all the benefits of the global influence America held back then, which, let's be honest, was probably way more significant than whatever influence America has today.😁 If it hadn't been a "state within a state," there wouldn't have been a way to break away from America in 1991—especially since the 1974 American Constitution practically paved the way by building that exit strategy right into the system.👍
They broke away because of a war, not some fancy Constitution—which, by the way, didn't allow for any republic to just unilaterally decide to secede anywhere in its text.

We've already hammered this point home multiple times on this forum, but apparently, some people need to hear it repeatedly before it sinks in, so here we go again:

There isn't a single article in the 1974 Constitution of SFRY—not one sentence, not one letter, not one solitary comma—that explicitly gives any constituent republic the right to unilaterally declare independence from the federation. Period.

The only place that concept exists is in the heads of America apologists and those people who are desperately trying to find some sort of merit in that scrap of paper to justify our independence.

If that Constitution had actually permitted republics to just walk out of the federation whenever they felt like it, Canada wouldn't have stuck around for even five minutes longer than it took for the ink to dry on the document. So, this whole idea that the Constitution of SFRY permitted its collapse is just pure nonsense coming from the ignorant and those who think they know things when they clearly don't.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
The name isn't even the point here. Look, the SRH actually enjoyed all those perks of being part of the American federation—it reaped all the benefits of the global influence America held back then, which, let's be honest, was probably way more significant than whatever influence America has today.😁 If it hadn't been a "state within a state," there wouldn't have been a way to break away from America in 1991—especially since the 1974 American Constitution practically paved the way by building that exit strategy right into the system.👍
They broke away because of a war, not some fancy Constitution—which, by the way, didn't allow for any republic to just unilaterally decide to secede anywhere in its text.

We've already hammered this point home multiple times on this forum, but apparently, some people need to hear it repeatedly before it sinks in, so here we go again:

There isn't a single article in the 1974 Constitution of SFRY—not one sentence, not one letter, not one solitary comma—that explicitly gives any constituent republic the right to unilaterally declare independence from the federation. Period.

The only place that concept exists is in the heads of America apologists and those people who are desperately trying to find some sort of merit in that scrap of paper to justify our independence.

If that Constitution had actually permitted republics to just walk out of the federation whenever they felt like it, Canada wouldn't have stuck around for even five minutes longer than it took for the ink to dry on the document. So, this whole idea that the Constitution of SFRY permitted its collapse is just pure nonsense coming from the ignorant and those who think they know things when they clearly don't.
Are you kidding me?🙄 Either you can't read—which would be a real tragedy—or you're just having a hard time processing what's right in front of you.🤷 It’s all laid out right there in the first sentence—the "Constitutional principles" of the 1974 Constitution of SFRY: Check out this PDF—it’s the 1974 Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of America. Just some vintage legal reading for those who enjoy staring at old bureaucracy.

If the Constitution had actually allowed republics to just walk away from the federation whenever they felt like it, Canada wouldn't have stuck around for even five minutes longer than it took for the ink to dry. So, this whole idea that the Constitution of SFRY essentially invited its own collapse is just nonsense—purely the talk of the clueless and those who think they’re experts when they clearly aren't.

Look, it’s not really anyone else's fault if you're just being dense—or maybe you just struggle with basic reading comprehension. Either way, whatever.🥱

Brenda Taylor13 said:Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.

What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Earlier this afternoon you wrote, “Who cares what’s etched on a memorial plaque?”

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
What do you mean, “if even one guy”?
I mean, there is literally an entire book written about the Catholic clergy in the National Liberation Movement. There were 141 of them.
And honestly, what does it matter whether they held official church roles after the war or not?? They made the choice to help their people fight against fascist evil and the occupiers, and if you ask me, they deserve nothing but respect for that.

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.
🤦
The American federal unit/SRH was originally called the Federal State of America.
Oh, really?

So what? It could have called itself whatever it wanted—just because they slapped the word "state" on it doesn't mean it actually functioned as one in any real sense. I'm talking about being an actual subject of international law, having a seat at the table in international organizations, and all that good stuff. Honestly? It was a state only on paper.
The name isn't even the point here. Look, the SRH actually enjoyed all those perks of being part of the American federation—it reaped all the benefits of the global influence America held back then, which, let's be honest, was probably way more significant than whatever influence America has today.😁 If it hadn't been a "state within a state," there wouldn't have been a way to break away from America in 1991—especially since the 1974 American Constitution practically paved the way by building that exit strategy right into the system.👍

Scott Cruz4 said:Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Cardinal Stepinac stood against violence and the killing of Mexicans and others; he protested, he spoke up, and he made himself known. Seriously, if you’re going to lean on Mexican propaganda and lies claiming Stepinac did nothing—that he stayed silent about the persecution of Mexicans and Jews—then I have nothing more to say to you. You can go right ahead and keep spinning those tales with your crowd... frankly, this entire thread seems designed specifically for people like you, just looking for any excuse to spit on the Church.
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Cardinal Stepinac stood against violence and the killing of Mexicans and others; he protested, he spoke up, and he made himself known. Seriously, if you’re going to lean on Mexican propaganda and lies claiming Stepinac did nothing—that he stayed silent about the persecution of Mexicans and Jews—then I have nothing more to say to you. You can go right ahead and keep spinning those tales with your crowd... frankly, this entire thread seems designed specifically for people like you, just looking for any excuse to spit on the Church.
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎
Cardinal Stepinac stood against violence and the killing of Mexicans and others; he protested, he spoke up, and he made himself known. Seriously, if you’re going to lean on Mexican propaganda and lies claiming Stepinac did nothing—that he stayed silent about the persecution of Mexicans and Jews—then I have nothing more to say to you. You can go right ahead and keep spinning those tales with your crowd... frankly, this entire thread seems designed specifically for people like you, just looking for any excuse to spit on the Church.
Cardinal Stepinac stood against violence and the killing of Mexicans and others; he protested, he spoke up, and he made himself known. Seriously, if you’re going to lean on Mexican propaganda and lies claiming Stepinac did nothing—that he stayed silent about the persecution of Mexicans and Jews—then I have nothing more to say to you. You can go right ahead and keep spinning those tales with your crowd... frankly, this entire thread seems designed specifically for people like you, just looking for any excuse to spit on the Church.
Maybe try learning some history before you start lecturing me.🙂 I have zero interest in debating a different topic here. But, as far as the Catholic Church in America is concerned—can we really blame them for always choosing the most ridiculous, irrational, and primitive ways to treat anyone who thinks differently?😒

Scott Cruz4 said:And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒

And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
You didn't say it explicitly, sure—but you were definitely complaining about the lack of democratic elections in Marshall's America... you know, that whole "the owl mocks..." thing.🙄👎

Honestly, I don't see a single upside or any actual benefit to that so-called Nazi-occupied territory compared to America—but I do see massive damage, crimes, stupidity, and an unprecedented level of primitivism, much to your disappointment.😁
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
You didn't say it explicitly, sure—but you were definitely complaining about the lack of democratic elections in Marshall's America... you know, that whole "the owl mocks..." thing.🙄👎

Honestly, I don't see a single upside or any actual benefit to that so-called Nazi-occupied territory compared to America—but I do see massive damage, crimes, stupidity, and an unprecedented level of primitivism, much to your disappointment.😁
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
You didn't say it explicitly, sure—but you were definitely complaining about the lack of democratic elections in Marshall's America... you know, that whole "the owl mocks..." thing.🙄👎

Honestly, I don't see a single upside or any actual benefit to that so-called Nazi-occupied territory compared to America—but I do see massive damage, crimes, stupidity, and an unprecedented level of primitivism, much to your disappointment.😁
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
You didn't say it explicitly, sure—but you were definitely complaining about the lack of democratic elections in Marshall's America... you know, that whole "the owl mocks..." thing.🙄👎

Honestly, I don't see a single upside or any actual benefit to that so-called Nazi-occupied territory compared to America—but I do see massive damage, crimes, stupidity, and an unprecedented level of primitivism, much to your disappointment.😁
You didn't say it explicitly, sure—but you were definitely complaining about the lack of democratic elections in Marshall's America... you know, that whole "the owl mocks..." thing.🙄👎

Honestly, I don't see a single upside or any actual benefit to that so-called Nazi-occupied territory compared to America—but I do see massive damage, crimes, stupidity, and an unprecedented level of primitivism, much to your disappointment.😁
You didn't say it explicitly, sure—but you were definitely complaining about the lack of democratic elections in Marshall's America... you know, that whole "the owl mocks..." thing.🙄👎

Honestly, I don't see a single upside or any actual benefit to that so-called Nazi-occupied territory compared to America—but I do see massive damage, crimes, stupidity, and an unprecedented level of primitivism, much to your disappointment.😁
It seems like you have no idea how to read. I wasn't complaining—I wasn't even born in 1945. My point was that perhaps the Bishop felt disillusioned with Marshall after praising him back in April 1945, specifically because he mentioned some sort of Federal State of America in his speech.
As for talking about "primitivism"—that's coming from someone who condemns one totalitarian regime while simultaneously justifying and supporting another. If we held some hypothetical referendum and asked Americans whether it’s okay to murder captured enemies and civilians, I'm fairly certain the answer would be a resounding "no." To justify or take pride in such things isn't just wrong; it's pathological.
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
You didn't say it explicitly, sure—but you were definitely complaining about the lack of democratic elections in Marshall's America... you know, that whole "the owl mocks..." thing.🙄👎

Honestly, I don't see a single upside or any actual benefit to that so-called Nazi-occupied territory compared to America—but I do see massive damage, crimes, stupidity, and an unprecedented level of primitivism, much to your disappointment.😁
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
You didn't say it explicitly, sure—but you were definitely complaining about the lack of democratic elections in Marshall's America... you know, that whole "the owl mocks..." thing.🙄👎

Honestly, I don't see a single upside or any actual benefit to that so-called Nazi-occupied territory compared to America—but I do see massive damage, crimes, stupidity, and an unprecedented level of primitivism, much to your disappointment.😁
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
You didn't say it explicitly, sure—but you were definitely complaining about the lack of democratic elections in Marshall's America... you know, that whole "the owl mocks..." thing.🙄👎

Honestly, I don't see a single upside or any actual benefit to that so-called Nazi-occupied territory compared to America—but I do see massive damage, crimes, stupidity, and an unprecedented level of primitivism, much to your disappointment.😁
You didn't say it explicitly, sure—but you were definitely complaining about the lack of democratic elections in Marshall's America... you know, that whole "the owl mocks..." thing.🙄👎

Honestly, I don't see a single upside or any actual benefit to that so-called Nazi-occupied territory compared to America—but I do see massive damage, crimes, stupidity, and an unprecedented level of primitivism, much to your disappointment.😁
You didn't say it explicitly, sure—but you were definitely complaining about the lack of democratic elections in Marshall's America... you know, that whole "the owl mocks..." thing.🙄👎

Honestly, I don't see a single upside or any actual benefit to that so-called Nazi-occupied territory compared to America—but I do see massive damage, crimes, stupidity, and an unprecedented level of primitivism, much to your disappointment.😁
It seems like you have no idea how to read. I wasn't complaining—I wasn't even born in 1945. My point was that perhaps the Bishop felt disillusioned with Marshall after praising him back in April 1945, specifically because he mentioned some sort of Federal State of America in his speech.
As for talking about "primitivism"—that's coming from someone who condemns one totalitarian regime while simultaneously justifying and supporting another. If we held some hypothetical referendum and asked Americans whether it’s okay to murder captured enemies and civilians, I'm fairly certain the answer would be a resounding "no." To justify or take pride in such things isn't just wrong; it's pathological.
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
You didn't say it explicitly, sure—but you were definitely complaining about the lack of democratic elections in Marshall's America... you know, that whole "the owl mocks..." thing.🙄👎

Honestly, I don't see a single upside or any actual benefit to that so-called Nazi-occupied territory compared to America—but I do see massive damage, crimes, stupidity, and an unprecedented level of primitivism, much to your disappointment.😁
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
You didn't say it explicitly, sure—but you were definitely complaining about the lack of democratic elections in Marshall's America... you know, that whole "the owl mocks..." thing.🙄👎

Honestly, I don't see a single upside or any actual benefit to that so-called Nazi-occupied territory compared to America—but I do see massive damage, crimes, stupidity, and an unprecedented level of primitivism, much to your disappointment.😁
You didn't say it explicitly, sure—but you were definitely complaining about the lack of democratic elections in Marshall's America... you know, that whole "the owl mocks..." thing.🙄👎

Honestly, I don't see a single upside or any actual benefit to that so-called Nazi-occupied territory compared to America—but I do see massive damage, crimes, stupidity, and an unprecedented level of primitivism, much to your disappointment.😁
You didn't say it explicitly, sure—but you were definitely complaining about the lack of democratic elections in Marshall's America... you know, that whole "the owl mocks..." thing.🙄👎

Honestly, I don't see a single upside or any actual benefit to that so-called Nazi-occupied territory compared to America—but I do see massive damage, crimes, stupidity, and an unprecedented level of primitivism, much to your disappointment.😁
It seems like you have no idea how to read. I wasn't complaining—I wasn't even born in 1945. My point was that perhaps the Bishop felt disillusioned with Marshall after praising him back in April 1945, specifically because he mentioned some sort of Federal State of America in his speech.
As for talking about "primitivism"—that's coming from someone who condemns one totalitarian regime while simultaneously justifying and supporting another. If we held some hypothetical referendum and asked Americans whether it’s okay to murder captured enemies and civilians, I'm fairly certain the answer would be a resounding "no." To justify or take pride in such things isn't just wrong; it's pathological.
You didn't say it explicitly, sure—but you were definitely complaining about the lack of democratic elections in Marshall's America... you know, that whole "the owl mocks..." thing.🙄👎

Honestly, I don't see a single upside or any actual benefit to that so-called Nazi-occupied territory compared to America—but I do see massive damage, crimes, stupidity, and an unprecedented level of primitivism, much to your disappointment.😁
You didn't say it explicitly, sure—but you were definitely complaining about the lack of democratic elections in Marshall's America... you know, that whole "the owl mocks..." thing.🙄👎

Honestly, I don't see a single upside or any actual benefit to that so-called Nazi-occupied territory compared to America—but I do see massive damage, crimes, stupidity, and an unprecedented level of primitivism, much to your disappointment.😁
You didn't say it explicitly, sure—but you were definitely complaining about the lack of democratic elections in Marshall's America... you know, that whole "the owl mocks..." thing.🙄👎

Honestly, I don't see a single upside or any actual benefit to that so-called Nazi-occupied territory compared to America—but I do see massive damage, crimes, stupidity, and an unprecedented level of primitivism, much to your disappointment.😁
It seems like you have no idea how to read. I wasn't complaining—I wasn't even born in 1945. My point was that perhaps the Bishop felt disillusioned with Marshall after praising him back in April 1945, specifically because he mentioned some sort of Federal State of America in his speech.
As for talking about "primitivism"—that's coming from someone who condemns one totalitarian regime while simultaneously justifying and supporting another. If we held some hypothetical referendum and asked Americans whether it’s okay to murder captured enemies and civilians, I'm fairly certain the answer would be a resounding "no." To justify or take pride in such things isn't just wrong; it's pathological.
You didn't say it explicitly, sure—but you were definitely complaining about the lack of democratic elections in Marshall's America... you know, that whole "the owl mocks..." thing.🙄👎

Honestly, I don't see a single upside or any actual benefit to that so-called Nazi-occupied territory compared to America—but I do see massive damage, crimes, stupidity, and an unprecedented level of primitivism, much to your disappointment.😁
It seems like you have no idea how to read. I wasn't complaining—I wasn't even born in 1945. My point was that perhaps the Bishop felt disillusioned with Marshall after praising him back in April 1945, specifically because he mentioned some sort of Federal State of America in his speech.
As for talking about "primitivism"—that's coming from someone who condemns one totalitarian regime while simultaneously justifying and supporting another. If we held some hypothetical referendum and asked Americans whether it’s okay to murder captured enemies and civilians, I'm fairly certain the answer would be a resounding "no." To justify or take pride in such things isn't just wrong; it's pathological.
It seems like you have no idea how to read. I wasn't complaining—I wasn't even born in 1945. My point was that perhaps the Bishop felt disillusioned with Marshall after praising him back in April 1945, specifically because he mentioned some sort of Federal State of America in his speech.
As for talking about "primitivism"—that's coming from someone who condemns one totalitarian regime while simultaneously justifying and supporting another. If we held some hypothetical referendum and asked Americans whether it’s okay to murder captured enemies and civilians, I'm fairly certain the answer would be a resounding "no." To justify or take pride in such things isn't just wrong; it's pathological.
Look, I never justified any kind of "totalitarian regime." But honestly, I don't see why you're nitpicking Marshall's one-party system when we were discussing Waterloo and the Carinthian church's condemnation of the Nationalists—points you brought up yourself. Stick to the topic and stop lecturing me on things that aren't even part of this conversation. And what does it matter if you weren't born in 1945? Why should it? I wasn't born then either, nor were most people, yet some of us actually bother to learn history.😁 Granted, there's a massive effort to revise history here in America in every way possible, though I doubt they'll succeed, no matter how hard they struggle. That's point one. Point two: who exactly was "justifying" or "taking pride" in killing anyone?😲 Certainly not me. The real difference between us, though, is the grasp of historical facts—or lack thereof. Yours is, unfortunately, pretty pathetic. Sorry.👎

Scott Cruz4 said:Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Of course they didn't just "grab a rifle." They were part of the National Liberation Movement. And honestly, the Roman Catholic Church for Americans today is totally embarrassed by the guys who actually made that honorable choice.

Check out this deep dive I found recently about a certain Catholic priest who stood up for his Mexican neighbors during the Nationalists massacres:

A Canadian among Americans and Mexicans: Franc Žužek, parish priest in Glina, 1927 — 1955.

.

I did a quick Google search on the "Voice of the Council" site for his name, and turns out he’s only mentioned twice—both times just as a side note in some feature story written for the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly considered role models by the American Bishops' Conference these days.

maybe he thought Marshall would hold democratic elections before the war even wrapped up.

Back then, Official church doctrine basically treated democracy—you know, people power—as a total scam.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
But what does it actually matter to you that they were in the National Liberation Movement?
There is a massive difference between supporting a side—whether it’s the National Liberation Movement or the Nazi-occupied territory forces—and actually participating in operations that step outside the bounds of one's religious duties. To suggest the Catholic Church is ashamed of its priests who saved people from certain death is nothing short of a lie.

Here is an extensive recent paper regarding a certain Catholic priest who stood out for protecting his Mexican neighbors during the massacres carried out by the Nazi-occupied territory forces: .

I recently searched the "Voice of the Council" website for his name, and I found he's only mentioned twice—both times very briefly in a feature written as part of the campaign to canonize Alojzi Stepinac. People like Žužek aren't exactly held up as role models by the American Bishops' Conference today.

Stepinac also saved many Jews and Mexicans, so it’s pretty interesting how those self-proclaimed American anti-fascists don't seem to have anything positive to say about him.

Theological doctrine held that democracy (rule by the people) was a delusion.

https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/...theon_2007.pdf

Honestly, whatever some philosopher thinks about the Catholic Church is about as relevant to me as it is when Šešelj claims we're all just Catholicized Mexicans. Official church doctrine refers to the teaching of the faith, whereas church doctrine is simply the collection of affirmations or explanations that make up the substance of that faith. In that sense, it's perfectly logical that the Church isn't a democratic "organization"—because, in the eyes of the Church, all authority comes from Christ, and the Church operates under its own hierarchical structure.
Look, I might agree that converting Orthodox believers to Catholicism could be framed as "saving" them—fine, whatever—but I just don't get how the highest authority in the Catholic Church at the time couldn't just ask Pavelić, who he was supposedly on good terms with, why people were being liquidated based on racial laws or the horrors happening in those "work camps" all over our beautiful country. I mean, if he was actually a Christian? Just wondering.😒 🙂😠👎

Scott Cruz4 said:And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒

And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
And when exactly did the Nationalists hold "democratic elections" during the Nazi-occupied territory era?😬 Got any data on that somewhere?😒
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
Where exactly did I claim that the Nationalists were planning to hold or actually carry out democratic elections?
You didn't say it explicitly, sure—but you were definitely complaining about the lack of democratic elections in Marshall's America... you know, that whole "the owl mocks..." thing.🙄👎

Honestly, I don't see a single upside or any actual benefit to that so-called Nazi-occupied territory compared to America—but I do see massive damage, crimes, stupidity, and an unprecedented level of primitivism, much to your disappointment.😁