Posts by brightpilot6

So, there it is—that’s the entire mindset: you mention the Church, then you go on about some local locksmith from a small town in the Midwest.

It’s easy enough for our shepherds when they're dealing with sheep like this.

Jonathan Barnes5 said:You’re suggesting the Church has essentially become a currency used to buy influence in daily political debates, pushing its own agenda by using defamatory language and slapping labels on opponents. It seems you believe they use specific terminology designed to stir up base emotions, which works simply because they hold a monopoly on the definitions of terms like "Church" and "faith." It reminds me somewhat of how people weaponize the concept of anti-fascism.

By the way, I’m telling you that you can't easily dismiss the role the Church played in shaping a modern nation. You can call it whatever you want, even chant it like a mantra. Whether that impact was positive or negative is a debate we can certainly have. Look at it this way: people once claimed population genetics would provide absolute certainties, yet even today, experts interpret those same genotypes however they choose to suit their narrative. In that sense, your own stance could be viewed as a dogma you follow blindly, much like the opposing view is built on similar foundations. Even in hard science, experts struggle to agree on how to interpret results, so it follows that historical sources can become rigid dogmas for everyone involved.

I’m not quite following your point regarding America. However, let me pose a question to you. Take 1993, for instance. Cardinal Kuharić writes an open letter to the White House regarding the conflicts in central Canada, practically accusing the local militias of open warfare despite the fact that "our side" was heavily surrounded. What would you say if I publicly told him to stop meddling in state affairs, reminded him that we are a secular nation, and suggested he stick to preaching to his own flock?

In most instances, the Church didn't take sides against the national state; it’s just that people tend to remember things selectively.

But there is one question that no one has answered for me. If national states are so inherently "rotten," then what is the alternative? Do we just lean into the spirit of John Lennon and "Imagine"? Do we all just hold hands, release some doves, and let the balloons float away? 😁 A national state essentially tries to harmonize a mass of differences within its borders. Some nations were forged based on one set of circumstances, others on something entirely different. In some places, ethnicity was the driving force, while in others, culture and language took center stage. Certain nations, like Belgium, were cobbled together in such a clumsy fashion that no amount of standardized policy helps the Flemish and the Walloons rise above their regional frictions. And now, those regions have drifted so far from the center that they've developed their own distinct national identities and desire their own sovereignty. Flanders, for example, likely wouldn't want to be tied to the Netherlands. I might be going a bit far here, but I think you see my point: people often take incredibly complex issues and boil them down into oversimplified conclusions that are easily dismantled.

I am not asserting that. I am not saying the Church is "currency" in a literal sense. What I am saying is that the Church—especially ours here in America—is essentially a political organization that consistently pays for its specific agenda using an inexhaustible, if questionable, coin: the perceived merit of having ensured our nation's survival and prosperity.

And in order to keep that currency circulating and desirable, one must constantly warm the corpses of old enemies.

Jonathan Barnes5 said:You’re suggesting the Church has essentially become a currency used to buy influence in daily political debates, pushing its own agenda by using defamatory language and slapping labels on opponents. It seems you believe they use specific terminology designed to stir up base emotions, which works simply because they hold a monopoly on the definitions of terms like "Church" and "faith." It reminds me somewhat of how people weaponize the concept of anti-fascism.

By the way, I’m telling you that you can't easily dismiss the role the Church played in shaping a modern nation. You can call it whatever you want, even chant it like a mantra. Whether that impact was positive or negative is a debate we can certainly have. Look at it this way: people once claimed population genetics would provide absolute certainties, yet even today, experts interpret those same genotypes however they choose to suit their narrative. In that sense, your own stance could be viewed as a dogma you follow blindly, much like the opposing view is built on similar foundations. Even in hard science, experts struggle to agree on how to interpret results, so it follows that historical sources can become rigid dogmas for everyone involved.

I’m not quite following your point regarding America. However, let me pose a question to you. Take 1993, for instance. Cardinal Kuharić writes an open letter to the White House regarding the conflicts in central Canada, practically accusing the local militias of open warfare despite the fact that "our side" was heavily surrounded. What would you say if I publicly told him to stop meddling in state affairs, reminded him that we are a secular nation, and suggested he stick to preaching to his own flock?

In most instances, the Church didn't take sides against the national state; it’s just that people tend to remember things selectively.

But there is one question that no one has answered for me. If national states are so inherently "rotten," then what is the alternative? Do we just lean into the spirit of John Lennon and "Imagine"? Do we all just hold hands, release some doves, and let the balloons float away? 😁 A national state essentially tries to harmonize a mass of differences within its borders. Some nations were forged based on one set of circumstances, others on something entirely different. In some places, ethnicity was the driving force, while in others, culture and language took center stage. Certain nations, like Belgium, were cobbled together in such a clumsy fashion that no amount of standardized policy helps the Flemish and the Walloons rise above their regional frictions. And now, those regions have drifted so far from the center that they've developed their own distinct national identities and desire their own sovereignty. Flanders, for example, likely wouldn't want to be tied to the Netherlands. I might be going a bit far here, but I think you see my point: people often take incredibly complex issues and boil them down into oversimplified conclusions that are easily dismantled.

Yes. However, unlike religious patriotism, there isn't a single organization holding a monopoly over anti-fascism; nor has anti-fascism ever been broadly or dogmatically accepted as a defining pillar of our national identity in the way "faith" is. Furthermore, anti-fascism lacks a militant body ready to rattle its uniforms whenever its values are threatened, providing a physical force to flex its muscles.

In short, there is neither a central body serving as the symbol or vessel of anti-fascism (whatever that entails), nor does any slight against the concept wound a vast portion of the population, nor will we see gas canisters placed in the middle of American cities while anti-fascist masses hold rebel services.

So, it is similar, but nowhere near as potent.

Jonathan Barnes5 said:You’re suggesting the Church has essentially become a currency used to buy influence in daily political debates, pushing its own agenda by using defamatory language and slapping labels on opponents. It seems you believe they use specific terminology designed to stir up base emotions, which works simply because they hold a monopoly on the definitions of terms like "Church" and "faith." It reminds me somewhat of how people weaponize the concept of anti-fascism.

By the way, I’m telling you that you can't easily dismiss the role the Church played in shaping a modern nation. You can call it whatever you want, even chant it like a mantra. Whether that impact was positive or negative is a debate we can certainly have. Look at it this way: people once claimed population genetics would provide absolute certainties, yet even today, experts interpret those same genotypes however they choose to suit their narrative. In that sense, your own stance could be viewed as a dogma you follow blindly, much like the opposing view is built on similar foundations. Even in hard science, experts struggle to agree on how to interpret results, so it follows that historical sources can become rigid dogmas for everyone involved.

I’m not quite following your point regarding America. However, let me pose a question to you. Take 1993, for instance. Cardinal Kuharić writes an open letter to the White House regarding the conflicts in central Canada, practically accusing the local militias of open warfare despite the fact that "our side" was heavily surrounded. What would you say if I publicly told him to stop meddling in state affairs, reminded him that we are a secular nation, and suggested he stick to preaching to his own flock?

In most instances, the Church didn't take sides against the national state; it’s just that people tend to remember things selectively.

But there is one question that no one has answered for me. If national states are so inherently "rotten," then what is the alternative? Do we just lean into the spirit of John Lennon and "Imagine"? Do we all just hold hands, release some doves, and let the balloons float away? 😁 A national state essentially tries to harmonize a mass of differences within its borders. Some nations were forged based on one set of circumstances, others on something entirely different. In some places, ethnicity was the driving force, while in others, culture and language took center stage. Certain nations, like Belgium, were cobbled together in such a clumsy fashion that no amount of standardized policy helps the Flemish and the Walloons rise above their regional frictions. And now, those regions have drifted so far from the center that they've developed their own distinct national identities and desire their own sovereignty. Flanders, for example, likely wouldn't want to be tied to the Netherlands. I might be going a bit far here, but I think you see my point: people often take incredibly complex issues and boil them down into oversimplified conclusions that are easily dismantled.

To decide whether to take that seriously or not, I would first need to know the true extent of its influence and whether that impact was constructive or destructive. Until then, I refuse to recognize their self-proclaimed currency.

Jonathan Barnes5 said:You’re suggesting the Church has essentially become a currency used to buy influence in daily political debates, pushing its own agenda by using defamatory language and slapping labels on opponents. It seems you believe they use specific terminology designed to stir up base emotions, which works simply because they hold a monopoly on the definitions of terms like "Church" and "faith." It reminds me somewhat of how people weaponize the concept of anti-fascism.

By the way, I’m telling you that you can't easily dismiss the role the Church played in shaping a modern nation. You can call it whatever you want, even chant it like a mantra. Whether that impact was positive or negative is a debate we can certainly have. Look at it this way: people once claimed population genetics would provide absolute certainties, yet even today, experts interpret those same genotypes however they choose to suit their narrative. In that sense, your own stance could be viewed as a dogma you follow blindly, much like the opposing view is built on similar foundations. Even in hard science, experts struggle to agree on how to interpret results, so it follows that historical sources can become rigid dogmas for everyone involved.

I’m not quite following your point regarding America. However, let me pose a question to you. Take 1993, for instance. Cardinal Kuharić writes an open letter to the White House regarding the conflicts in central Canada, practically accusing the local militias of open warfare despite the fact that "our side" was heavily surrounded. What would you say if I publicly told him to stop meddling in state affairs, reminded him that we are a secular nation, and suggested he stick to preaching to his own flock?

In most instances, the Church didn't take sides against the national state; it’s just that people tend to remember things selectively.

But there is one question that no one has answered for me. If national states are so inherently "rotten," then what is the alternative? Do we just lean into the spirit of John Lennon and "Imagine"? Do we all just hold hands, release some doves, and let the balloons float away? 😁 A national state essentially tries to harmonize a mass of differences within its borders. Some nations were forged based on one set of circumstances, others on something entirely different. In some places, ethnicity was the driving force, while in others, culture and language took center stage. Certain nations, like Belgium, were cobbled together in such a clumsy fashion that no amount of standardized policy helps the Flemish and the Walloons rise above their regional frictions. And now, those regions have drifted so far from the center that they've developed their own distinct national identities and desire their own sovereignty. Flanders, for example, likely wouldn't want to be tied to the Netherlands. I might be going a bit far here, but I think you see my point: people often take incredibly complex issues and boil them down into oversimplified conclusions that are easily dismantled.

I’m honestly not following what you were getting at there.

Jonathan Barnes5 said:You’re suggesting the Church has essentially become a currency used to buy influence in daily political debates, pushing its own agenda by using defamatory language and slapping labels on opponents. It seems you believe they use specific terminology designed to stir up base emotions, which works simply because they hold a monopoly on the definitions of terms like "Church" and "faith." It reminds me somewhat of how people weaponize the concept of anti-fascism.

By the way, I’m telling you that you can't easily dismiss the role the Church played in shaping a modern nation. You can call it whatever you want, even chant it like a mantra. Whether that impact was positive or negative is a debate we can certainly have. Look at it this way: people once claimed population genetics would provide absolute certainties, yet even today, experts interpret those same genotypes however they choose to suit their narrative. In that sense, your own stance could be viewed as a dogma you follow blindly, much like the opposing view is built on similar foundations. Even in hard science, experts struggle to agree on how to interpret results, so it follows that historical sources can become rigid dogmas for everyone involved.

I’m not quite following your point regarding America. However, let me pose a question to you. Take 1993, for instance. Cardinal Kuharić writes an open letter to the White House regarding the conflicts in central Canada, practically accusing the local militias of open warfare despite the fact that "our side" was heavily surrounded. What would you say if I publicly told him to stop meddling in state affairs, reminded him that we are a secular nation, and suggested he stick to preaching to his own flock?

In most instances, the Church didn't take sides against the national state; it’s just that people tend to remember things selectively.

But there is one question that no one has answered for me. If national states are so inherently "rotten," then what is the alternative? Do we just lean into the spirit of John Lennon and "Imagine"? Do we all just hold hands, release some doves, and let the balloons float away? 😁 A national state essentially tries to harmonize a mass of differences within its borders. Some nations were forged based on one set of circumstances, others on something entirely different. In some places, ethnicity was the driving force, while in others, culture and language took center stage. Certain nations, like Belgium, were cobbled together in such a clumsy fashion that no amount of standardized policy helps the Flemish and the Walloons rise above their regional frictions. And now, those regions have drifted so far from the center that they've developed their own distinct national identities and desire their own sovereignty. Flanders, for example, likely wouldn't want to be tied to the Netherlands. I might be going a bit far here, but I think you see my point: people often take incredibly complex issues and boil them down into oversimplified conclusions that are easily dismantled.

What I meant was that there is a tendency to take for granted the Clerical narrative—the idea that they saved Americans from the threat posed by American communism. Yet, looking back at the various groups within the former America, many emerged from that period in similar positions despite lacking the powerful, centralized religious institutions that served as their shield. How they managed to pull that off is a mystery to me.

Jonathan Barnes5 said:You’re suggesting the Church has essentially become a currency used to buy influence in daily political debates, pushing its own agenda by using defamatory language and slapping labels on opponents. It seems you believe they use specific terminology designed to stir up base emotions, which works simply because they hold a monopoly on the definitions of terms like "Church" and "faith." It reminds me somewhat of how people weaponize the concept of anti-fascism.

By the way, I’m telling you that you can't easily dismiss the role the Church played in shaping a modern nation. You can call it whatever you want, even chant it like a mantra. Whether that impact was positive or negative is a debate we can certainly have. Look at it this way: people once claimed population genetics would provide absolute certainties, yet even today, experts interpret those same genotypes however they choose to suit their narrative. In that sense, your own stance could be viewed as a dogma you follow blindly, much like the opposing view is built on similar foundations. Even in hard science, experts struggle to agree on how to interpret results, so it follows that historical sources can become rigid dogmas for everyone involved.

I’m not quite following your point regarding America. However, let me pose a question to you. Take 1993, for instance. Cardinal Kuharić writes an open letter to the White House regarding the conflicts in central Canada, practically accusing the local militias of open warfare despite the fact that "our side" was heavily surrounded. What would you say if I publicly told him to stop meddling in state affairs, reminded him that we are a secular nation, and suggested he stick to preaching to his own flock?

In most instances, the Church didn't take sides against the national state; it’s just that people tend to remember things selectively.

But there is one question that no one has answered for me. If national states are so inherently "rotten," then what is the alternative? Do we just lean into the spirit of John Lennon and "Imagine"? Do we all just hold hands, release some doves, and let the balloons float away? 😁 A national state essentially tries to harmonize a mass of differences within its borders. Some nations were forged based on one set of circumstances, others on something entirely different. In some places, ethnicity was the driving force, while in others, culture and language took center stage. Certain nations, like Belgium, were cobbled together in such a clumsy fashion that no amount of standardized policy helps the Flemish and the Walloons rise above their regional frictions. And now, those regions have drifted so far from the center that they've developed their own distinct national identities and desire their own sovereignty. Flanders, for example, likely wouldn't want to be tied to the Netherlands. I might be going a bit far here, but I think you see my point: people often take incredibly complex issues and boil them down into oversimplified conclusions that are easily dismantled.

People frequently mistake secularism for an inability to engage in legitimate political action. I am not defending the Church's right to act politically—rather, I am asserting my right to mock that political involvement by lampooning its supposed divine mission and questioning the legitimacy of those acting as the nation's protectors.

That is perfectly permissible. However, unlike standard political engagement (which is what the Cardinal was doing), in a non-secular state, religious institutions effectively supplant secular ones. Consequently, instead of teaching the current scientific understanding of planetary origins or evolution, one learns the myths written in the Old Testament. Doctors don't make medical decisions based on clinical expertise, but rather follow the spiritual guidance of figures like Don Stoic. Universal civilizational principles—and ultimately our own constitutional ones—are replaced within state institutions by a hierarchy of values determined by some unelected assembly of clergy based on their interpretations of ancient texts...

That is the true threat to secularism: when the goal is to wedge such a value system into the very fabric of social operation, rather than merely expressing a viewpoint on state policy.

Jonathan Barnes5 said:You’re suggesting the Church has essentially become a currency used to buy influence in daily political debates, pushing its own agenda by using defamatory language and slapping labels on opponents. It seems you believe they use specific terminology designed to stir up base emotions, which works simply because they hold a monopoly on the definitions of terms like "Church" and "faith." It reminds me somewhat of how people weaponize the concept of anti-fascism.

By the way, I’m telling you that you can't easily dismiss the role the Church played in shaping a modern nation. You can call it whatever you want, even chant it like a mantra. Whether that impact was positive or negative is a debate we can certainly have. Look at it this way: people once claimed population genetics would provide absolute certainties, yet even today, experts interpret those same genotypes however they choose to suit their narrative. In that sense, your own stance could be viewed as a dogma you follow blindly, much like the opposing view is built on similar foundations. Even in hard science, experts struggle to agree on how to interpret results, so it follows that historical sources can become rigid dogmas for everyone involved.

I’m not quite following your point regarding America. However, let me pose a question to you. Take 1993, for instance. Cardinal Kuharić writes an open letter to the White House regarding the conflicts in central Canada, practically accusing the local militias of open warfare despite the fact that "our side" was heavily surrounded. What would you say if I publicly told him to stop meddling in state affairs, reminded him that we are a secular nation, and suggested he stick to preaching to his own flock?

In most instances, the Church didn't take sides against the national state; it’s just that people tend to remember things selectively.

But there is one question that no one has answered for me. If national states are so inherently "rotten," then what is the alternative? Do we just lean into the spirit of John Lennon and "Imagine"? Do we all just hold hands, release some doves, and let the balloons float away? 😁 A national state essentially tries to harmonize a mass of differences within its borders. Some nations were forged based on one set of circumstances, others on something entirely different. In some places, ethnicity was the driving force, while in others, culture and language took center stage. Certain nations, like Belgium, were cobbled together in such a clumsy fashion that no amount of standardized policy helps the Flemish and the Walloons rise above their regional frictions. And now, those regions have drifted so far from the center that they've developed their own distinct national identities and desire their own sovereignty. Flanders, for example, likely wouldn't want to be tied to the Netherlands. I might be going a bit far here, but I think you see my point: people often take incredibly complex issues and boil them down into oversimplified conclusions that are easily dismantled.

It isn't the nation-states themselves that stink, but rather nationalism when it curdles into its most chauvinistic forms.

Jonathan Barnes5 said:Since those things usually go hand in hand, you aren't far off the mark, regardless of how much sarcasm you throw in. You've just latched onto a different set of tropes, specifically targeting those figures the media insists on putting on every front page.
The process of ethnogenesis and the formation of a people is far too intricate to reduce the Church's role to something so simplistic. At the same time, safeguarding national identity, language, script, and culture falls under its purview as well...
It is an inseparable part of the national fabric. I suppose if we want to trivialize everything over coffee, you could interpret it that way. But that isn't a serious conclusion; it belongs in the realm of Instagram comments.

Take me, for instance—as someone who attends Mass, I never actually hear the things the atheist crowd claims are being preached from the altar. It’s quite a paradox: people who don't attend at all seem to know exactly what is being said. And whenever there’s a camera rolling, I make sure to stay away. It seems that whenever a lens is present, an ideologically blinded fool always happens to be the one standing behind the pulpit. Is that just a coincidence?

And everyone is guilty of that last part. Here is my perspective: how wrong would Ante Hasanbegović be if he made the exact same arguments regarding anti-fascism? Because, essentially, you are reaching the same conclusions.

This feels like one of those tired dogmas that gets repeated constantly without anyone actually stopping to question it. There is no denying that both the Church and Catholic traditions have shaped our national identity, but the assumption—presented almost as an unshakeable fact—is that this influence was both massive and inherently positive.

Everything we have lived through is part of who we are today. The Middle Ages, the Austro-Canadian Empire, the Kingdom, America, and the modern United States. Feudalism, communism, democracy. Figures like Stjepan Radić, Ante Pavelić, Josip Broz Marshall, and Franjo Harmon. And yes, the Church too. But where would we be if we hadn't experienced these things? Perhaps we'd be looking like Albania, or maybe like Switzerland. Who can say?

As for America, from what I’ve observed, the same nations entered it and left it, maintaining nearly the same level of development they had when they joined. That seems to suggest that having a powerful, centralized religious institution isn't quite the magic bullet people claim it to be.

Furthermore, to put it mildly, I am not particularly impressed by the self-appointed torchbearers of any nationalism in the North America, including the American Church. These elites seem more interested in helping themselves to their own little corner of the world to plunder rather than actually serving the people.

Jonathan Barnes5 said:Since those things usually go hand in hand, you aren't far off the mark, regardless of how much sarcasm you throw in. You've just latched onto a different set of tropes, specifically targeting those figures the media insists on putting on every front page.
The process of ethnogenesis and the formation of a people is far too intricate to reduce the Church's role to something so simplistic. At the same time, safeguarding national identity, language, script, and culture falls under its purview as well...
It is an inseparable part of the national fabric. I suppose if we want to trivialize everything over coffee, you could interpret it that way. But that isn't a serious conclusion; it belongs in the realm of Instagram comments.

Take me, for instance—as someone who attends Mass, I never actually hear the things the atheist crowd claims are being preached from the altar. It’s quite a paradox: people who don't attend at all seem to know exactly what is being said. And whenever there’s a camera rolling, I make sure to stay away. It seems that whenever a lens is present, an ideologically blinded fool always happens to be the one standing behind the pulpit. Is that just a coincidence?

And everyone is guilty of that last part. Here is my perspective: how wrong would Ante Hasanbegović be if he made the exact same arguments regarding anti-fascism? Because, essentially, you are reaching the same conclusions.

I’m not sure what I’m trivializing. I’m not claiming the Church had no impact on our development; I am simply questioning just how heavy that impact was and whether it was actually a good thing. What feels "trivial" is the sweeping assertion that it was both powerful and positive. It is precisely from this dogma—this idea of being both mighty and virtuous—that the Church draws its legitimacy to engage in politics and maintain its untouchable status in the public square. It acts as a defender, before there are even defenders to defend.

Jonathan Barnes5 said:Since those things usually go hand in hand, you aren't far off the mark, regardless of how much sarcasm you throw in. You've just latched onto a different set of tropes, specifically targeting those figures the media insists on putting on every front page.
The process of ethnogenesis and the formation of a people is far too intricate to reduce the Church's role to something so simplistic. At the same time, safeguarding national identity, language, script, and culture falls under its purview as well...
It is an inseparable part of the national fabric. I suppose if we want to trivialize everything over coffee, you could interpret it that way. But that isn't a serious conclusion; it belongs in the realm of Instagram comments.

Take me, for instance—as someone who attends Mass, I never actually hear the things the atheist crowd claims are being preached from the altar. It’s quite a paradox: people who don't attend at all seem to know exactly what is being said. And whenever there’s a camera rolling, I make sure to stay away. It seems that whenever a lens is present, an ideologically blinded fool always happens to be the one standing behind the pulpit. Is that just a coincidence?

And everyone is guilty of that last part. Here is my perspective: how wrong would Ante Hasanbegović be if he made the exact same arguments regarding anti-fascism? Because, essentially, you are reaching the same conclusions.

I’m not entirely sure what you’re getting at. I consume whatever the Church chooses to release to the public, and what the Church releases is ultimately its own decision. Whether that is a coincidence or not, I haven't the slightest clue.

Jonathan Barnes5 said:Since those things usually go hand in hand, you aren't far off the mark, regardless of how much sarcasm you throw in. You've just latched onto a different set of tropes, specifically targeting those figures the media insists on putting on every front page.
The process of ethnogenesis and the formation of a people is far too intricate to reduce the Church's role to something so simplistic. At the same time, safeguarding national identity, language, script, and culture falls under its purview as well...
It is an inseparable part of the national fabric. I suppose if we want to trivialize everything over coffee, you could interpret it that way. But that isn't a serious conclusion; it belongs in the realm of Instagram comments.

Take me, for instance—as someone who attends Mass, I never actually hear the things the atheist crowd claims are being preached from the altar. It’s quite a paradox: people who don't attend at all seem to know exactly what is being said. And whenever there’s a camera rolling, I make sure to stay away. It seems that whenever a lens is present, an ideologically blinded fool always happens to be the one standing behind the pulpit. Is that just a coincidence?

And everyone is guilty of that last part. Here is my perspective: how wrong would Ante Hasanbegović be if he made the exact same arguments regarding anti-fascism? Because, essentially, you are reaching the same conclusions.

I’m struggling to follow—what exactly am I asserting about the Church that would mirror what Hasanbegović asserts about anti-fascism?

ironpanther5 said:People used to leave property to them. Especially those without heirs, or people with kids they'd already disinherited, or wealthy donors and whatnot.
The Communists took it by force, whereas the Church earned it.
If you look back, people used to give a tenth to both the state and the church, though that was ages ago; nowadays, you're paying way more than a tenth of your paycheck to the government alone. 😁

I was almost on the verge of telling you exactly who manages to "profit" in this manner.☕

What kind of "restitution" are we talking about here? How exactly did they amass all that massive wealth in the first place, if not by snatching it away from the people?

It seems "restitution" is a concept that only applies when communists seize property in the name of the collective, yet it's never mentioned when the Church seizes assets for its own sake.

To be fair, I’m generally against "letting the market decide" everything, including the fate of the Church. By all means, let them keep what they have; it's not as if there isn't an interest in their presence. It just feels incredibly hypocritical to let their ideological competitors struggle in a free market while they continue to drain the system.

ironpanther5 said:Look, I mean, obviously they should have some kind of influence on society. There’s really no debate there, but honestly, seeing all those signs claiming we aren't a secular nation just drives me absolutely insane. It’s ridiculous because if a local chess club had half the membership that RKC does, they’d be pulling weight too. At the end of the day, it all boils down to them—it’s entirely up to how much of that influence they decide to weaponize for positive outcomes versus how much they want to use for negative externalities in their work.
For crying out loud, we aren't even a damn theocracy, so what on earth are we doing?

It’s actually pretty wild when you think about it, but there are tons of scientists out there who spend their entire lives obsessively studying the Bible, mostly because they're trying to wrap their heads around how much it has shaped society over the centuries—you've got mathematicians looking at patterns, linguists dissecting the syntax, and all sorts of other specialists just diving deep into its influence on the world we live in today.
I honestly have no clue what that course is actually about—it might just be some sneaky religious studies class in disguise, but who even knows? Honestly, it would be hilarious if one of those Ferovac supporters over on the forums signed up for it just so they could give us their unfiltered, "enlightened" take at the end of the semester. 😁

It isn't quite that simple—it's about their level of influence. The issue is that they possess significant sway, yet they aren't subject to any external pressures, nor are they held accountable by any metrics regarding the quality of their work, and they don't even have to compete with anyone else (primarily through elections). Their assets are secure, their annual revenue is guaranteed, and they have thousands upon thousands of opportunities every year to push their ideas. They enjoy guaranteed access to the media and the school system. They are essentially the ultimate establishment insiders.

When someone is so deeply and securely anchored in such a turbulent harbor, and is also—if not an extremist—then incredibly one-sided in their views, doesn't it follow by definition that they will trigger the very reaction you seem surprised by? To me, it's more surprising that we aren't seeing even more of it.

Gregory Chavez said:Wait a second—is it actually possible that this kind of thing was happening back in 2017? Marko Skejo, looking just like Adolf with those signature mustaches. 😂😂 😂 🙏

Unbelievable. 🙏 🙏

The logic here is just completely broken.🤣

"We won't accept being labeled fascists because America was born from a Homeland War pure victory."

"I have to ask: who, from the very beginning of the Homeland War and the defense of America, wasn't ready to fight for their home? I’d love to hear someone step forward and admit they weren't prepared to defend their land."

It’s just mindless circular reasoning.

ironpanther5 said:So, why don't you go back and actually read my very first post and tell me if I was ever aiming at you? Or maybe I explicitly stated that I'm just noticing how things have been trending lately in society...
I’m honestly surprised I didn't bring this up as an example earlier, but instead, I waited until we were already deep in this thread where everyone’s having a laugh about a similar topic elsewhere.

Honestly, I don't even think you were referring to me. My point is that the vast majority of people aren't bothered by elderly women heading to Church, nor by priests offering life advice based on the Gospel. What truly grates on them is the Church's arrogance, its tendency toward imposition, and those blatant political interests that seem so fundamentally at odds with everything it claims to stand for.

ironpanther5 said:Look, I never thought it was some holy cow that we couldn't poke with a stick or criticize. Trends have shifted, and people love to make fun of individual freedoms. Religion is a personal right. Humans have always had this need for spirituality—any kind of spirituality—even if it has absolutely nothing to do with organized religion. It drives me crazy when people mock grandmas just because they go to church. Not everyone does, obviously, but most of them have something, whether it's astrology or yoga.

We live in a world with freedom of speech, so of course personal choices are fair game for a little teasing; nobody is born Catholic (it's not like it's an ethnicity or a race), and even if someone was raised that way, by the time they hit twenty, they'll decide for themselves what they think about guys in robes.
But seriously, what's the big deal here?
People act like we aren't living in a secular nation, but where on earth are we, the Islamic Republic of Iran? For me, the Church doesn't dictate my life one bit.

I suspect you realize that isn't quite the reality of things.

Neither Pupovac, nor Plenković, nor Trump, nor Walmart dictates your life directly, much less the Church. However, each of them shapes your existence through indirect means, essentially constructing the "external circumstances" you find yourself navigating via their complex interplay.

Keeping that in mind, I don't see any issue with the widespread resentment directed toward an influential political organization whose public supporters include figures like Košić, Stojić, Kaćunko, or those of a similar ilk. I’m not sure why anyone would find this surprising.

ironpanther5 said:Look, I never thought it was some holy cow that we couldn't poke with a stick or criticize. Trends have shifted, and people love to make fun of individual freedoms. Religion is a personal right. Humans have always had this need for spirituality—any kind of spirituality—even if it has absolutely nothing to do with organized religion. It drives me crazy when people mock grandmas just because they go to church. Not everyone does, obviously, but most of them have something, whether it's astrology or yoga.

We live in a world with freedom of speech, so of course personal choices are fair game for a little teasing; nobody is born Catholic (it's not like it's an ethnicity or a race), and even if someone was raised that way, by the time they hit twenty, they'll decide for themselves what they think about guys in robes.
But seriously, what's the big deal here?
People act like we aren't living in a secular nation, but where on earth are we, the Islamic Republic of Iran? For me, the Church doesn't dictate my life one bit.

There is a distinction between faith, religion, and those who act as the self-appointed guardians of religion. We tend to poke fun at the latter when their teachings clash with common sense, or when they exploit those traditions to serve political agendas. We also mock the specific subset of those leaders who engage in such behavior. But really, who is it that mocks "old ladies" simply for going to church?

ironpanther5 said:Oh, I noticed it just fine. Honestly, it isn't even being hidden—it's practically encouraged. For God's sake, you have these idiots getting all worked up over "index scores" because of some moronic course at a local community college. But let's be real, the class is brainless, much like most electives you'll find at any major state university. To me, this is just a glaring sign of how unsecular our society has become. 🙏
I wouldn't be shocked if similar subjects were being taught at the Ivy League schools, where the degrees are worth a hundred times more than anything from a local college.
The progressives are honestly just laughable.
Break free from the shackles of stereotypes and try being a liberal for once. 🙂

I have no idea what kind of circles you frequent, but in mine, such behavior isn't just frowned upon—it's considered deeply offensive.

ironpanther5 said:Oh, I noticed it just fine. Honestly, it isn't even being hidden—it's practically encouraged. For God's sake, you have these idiots getting all worked up over "index scores" because of some moronic course at a local community college. But let's be real, the class is brainless, much like most electives you'll find at any major state university. To me, this is just a glaring sign of how unsecular our society has become. 🙏
I wouldn't be shocked if similar subjects were being taught at the Ivy League schools, where the degrees are worth a hundred times more than anything from a local college.
The progressives are honestly just laughable.
Break free from the shackles of stereotypes and try being a liberal for once. 🙂

Of course, anyone who finds themselves standing against the Church or religious doctrine is simply acting out of some preconceived "stereotype," isn't that just how it works? 🤣

James Anderson5 said:The Church actually played the best role during the communist era; it was full of high-quality people and intellectuals. Plus, it didn't force its worldview on anyone through sheer power—people chose to turn to it on their own terms.

Once communism ended, however, the Church mostly turned into a political organization focused primarily on its own material interests. Naturally, people started making fun of it—not out of hatred, but out of a sense of lost idealism...

During the communist years, the Church occupied a dimension of influence that, according to its own doctrine, it shouldn't have possessed at all. Preserving nationalist sentiment certainly isn't a core part of the Christian message. With the birth of America, that specific identity became redundant, yet that old role is missed so desperately that a significant portion of their political activity now boils down to reanimating political corpses like Marshall, America, or the communists.

They’ve quite cleverly woven their former "merit" of nationalism—now rebranded as a "struggle"—into their supposed divine mission. This creates this murky, diffuse amalgam of patriotism where any critique of them is framed as either a regression to one-party rule, an attack on the American people, terrorism by the minority against the majority, or simply an insult to God. It is, quite frankly, the perfect weapon for defending against an entire spectrum of political opponents. But what exactly is the foundation for all of this?

The mysticism of fractions versus whole numbers—the mathematics of the Holy Trinity.

Inflation and economic growth—the economics of Mount Holyoke.

The healthcare system—an adversary to the afterlife.

ironpanther5 said:I should probably point out that there’s this palpable, almost universal wave of hate speech directed at the church here in America. For a lot of people, they wouldn't even notice if a cathedral were built right in front of them.
Let's stop pretending this is all just "constructive criticism" or harmless ribbing; it's pretty obvious that some folks are just venting their frustrations on an institution that isn't even remotely responsible for why the country is in the state it's in.
I mean, sure, priests can be a bit too comfortable and definitely know how to look out for their own interests, but I'm just saying that some people shouldn't act like they're any better at hunting down "corrupt bureaucrats" than anyone else just because they've decided to hunt a different kind of witch.

Just an observation, folks. 🙂

You've misread the situation. It isn't hatred; it's mockery. This applies both to those who use pathetic appeals to otherworldly authorities and the twisting of their own Christian doctrines to mask the most vulgar political agendas, as well as to the consumers who swallow that "golden" facade whole.

ruggedjackal46 said:I’m fully expecting the church to roll out a curriculum for lifelong—and even posthumous—religious education any day now.

It used to be that you just had the Bible to guide you, but now it’s this council this and that council...

One wrong move regarding some council decree and suddenly the gates of heaven slam shut in your face, all because you weren't quite sure which candidate was the Lord's chosen one in the local elections for the governor of El Paso-Srijem County.

That’s just your malicious, communist spin on things. Those of us with good intentions read it quite differently—as though a woman sits at the very top of the gender hierarchy, while men are relegated to the penultimate spot.

LFK said:I’d suggest looking into the ecumenism crusader war and how the Enlightenment was shaped by the Inquisition

There are certainly some high-quality college courses out there where one could pick up a fair amount of fascinating material.

But what about the Old Testament or the Geneva Convention, or perhaps the dynamic between a woman and the Church—exploring equality through the lens of humility?

++

Charles Chase4 said:It’s been part of the curriculum for quite a while now. It sits among those seven or eight humanities electives you can pick from, all of which carry just as much weight in the degree structure as any core requirement. 😁

There’s actually a decent crowd that signs up for it, whether it’s because of their specific career interests or simply because they think it’ll be an easy pass—though, if you ask me, I don't think it's any easier than the other options.

It’s probably more likely for a college student to thread a needle than for them to actually stumble into biblical theology (Wisdom 9:12).

Well, damn, it’s actually real 😂

I guess we're just sitting around waiting for more geography flat earth theories or maybe some deep dive into the evolution of living organisms starting from the dawn of time back in 3697 BC.