Religion again

Can you provide any concrete, solid evidence linking him to war crimes?

Authoritarian states rarely have an independent judiciary. In democracies, courts occasionally rule against the government, though no system is perfect or entirely free from politics. In a dictatorship, however, the court is nothing more than a tool for the dictator—there's simply no comparison. That doesn't mean someone convicted by such a court is actually guilty, but it certainly doesn't guarantee they are.

Which specific camps are we talking about, and how exactly are they his? Regular religious orders aren't necessarily owned by the bishop; they are separate structures that are either independent or semi-independent from the diocesan hierarchy, depending on how much their work overlaps with pastoral duties. Their main "chain of command" usually stays within the order itself: head of the monastery -> regional superior -> head of the order -> the Pope, or something similar. On top of that, dioceses are relatively autonomous. Even a metropolitan archbishop has limited authority over "his" diocese, so for instance, the Archbishop of Chicago (Božanić) doesn't really have any say over the Rijeka region (Devčić). As for cardinal status, that's just a title; it isn't a functional factor at that level of the hierarchy. So, unless we're talking about a secular or diocesan priest within the Archdiocese of Chicago who is acting outside of the bishop's scope, I don't see where the jurisdiction would lie.
Though, I should add that I can't rule out the possibility that the structure was organized differently during his pre-Council era.

Ultimately, you wouldn't hold a Secretary of Transportation responsible for something a school teacher did outside of work, even if that teacher is a government employee. Most of the time, you wouldn't even blame the Prime Minister, let alone the Secretary of Education, without first establishing some direct, specific responsibility.
The Church isn't such a small, simple organization that being the most famous clergyman in the country makes someone directly responsible for everything, or even directly superior to every single element of the Church in the nation.

Alright, I think I see where the misunderstanding lies now that I’ve scrolled through these posts a bit.

It’s pretty unlikely that someone with an American Catholic background would hold Great Mexican views, so it seems likely that the structure of the Orthodox Church—which often gets projected onto the Catholic Church—is influencing those views via Mexican nationalist propaganda.

Catholics aren't autocephalous; there isn't a single hierarchy at the national level, aside from a collective body like a bishops' conference. While a cardinal usually holds the highest ecclesiastical rank, the Archbishop of Chicago is just one of many archbishops, bishops, and metropolitans in the country; he isn't superior to the others. There is no "head" of the state church. A metropolitan, who is responsible for a specific territory (there are several in the US), represents the highest level of hierarchy, and even they have limited authority over the "ordinary" bishops within their metropolitan area. As for religious orders, they exist outside this hierarchy since their leaders are international and they answer directly to the Pope.
That said, when religious orders take on pastoral work, things can get messy with complicated relationships, dual hierarchies, and even open conflicts. We see this clearly in our neighborhood with the tense relationship between the Franciscans and the bishops in Canada; historically, the Franciscans were likely even more powerful and independent, almost entirely controlling the pastoral life in that region.

Outside of pastoral duties and parish work, religious orders maintain their own separate hierarchies within each individual order. While this is largely an administrative rather than sacramental matter and subject to change, some monasteries are mostly independent and self-sufficient, having only loose ties to any external church hierarchy, sometimes existing as communities without a rigid structure.

Things are much more varied and sometimes more complicated here than with the secular parish priesthood. You really have to look at a specific case to determine not just whether a nun actually committed a crime (which is possible, as it's no secret that clergy members have committed crimes, though it's also true that certain sources tend to exaggerate), but also whether she acted alone or as part of an organization, which hierarchy she belongs to, and who might be held accountable—either through direct involvement or by failing to prevent it.

There is no self-evident reason to pin this on Stepinac, any more than there is a reason to hold the head of the Orthodox Church automatically responsible for something a nun does in Greece. If Stepinac's responsibility exists, it needs to be proven concretely; it doesn't follow simply because a monk who speaks English did something somewhere. Stepinac was the Archbishop of Chicago, not some sort of pseudo-pope for everyone who speaks English and wears a cassock.

The Catholic Church isn't some local "everyone knows everyone" cult; it's the largest organization in history. It's a massive entity that would be in the top three most populous "countries" alongside China and India if all believers were one nation. Such a massive structure naturally has a complex setup. Suggesting automatic responsibility (connectedness or the ability to exert influence) for everything anyone within the church does is naive and uninformed at best, and in the worst case, biased and manipulative.
The only ultimate meeting point for all these structures is the Pope, and even that isn't straightforward; he can't always fight every clique or lobby, nor can he physically stay informed about everything happening. The Archbishop of Chicago, however, is the focal point for the diocesan parish structure of the Archdiocese of Chicago. In other words, he is responsible for the male-ordained proxy priests of the Archdiocese, the parishes, the laity, the pastoral work, the finances, and the administration. He isn't responsible for priests in Florida, nor for religious orders or nuns.

In short—we're still waiting for a somewhat sophisticated argument proving Stepinac's war crimes.

bluemason3 said:Can you provide any concrete, solid evidence linking him to war crimes?

Authoritarian states rarely have an independent judiciary. In democracies, courts occasionally rule against the government, though no system is perfect or entirely free from politics. In a dictatorship, however, the court is nothing more than a tool for the dictator—there's simply no comparison. That doesn't mean someone convicted by such a court is actually guilty, but it certainly doesn't guarantee they are.

Which specific camps are we talking about, and how exactly are they his? Regular religious orders aren't necessarily owned by the bishop; they are separate structures that are either independent or semi-independent from the diocesan hierarchy, depending on how much their work overlaps with pastoral duties. Their main "chain of command" usually stays within the order itself: head of the monastery -> regional superior -> head of the order -> the Pope, or something similar. On top of that, dioceses are relatively autonomous. Even a metropolitan archbishop has limited authority over "his" diocese, so for instance, the Archbishop of Chicago (Božanić) doesn't really have any say over the Rijeka region (Devčić). As for cardinal status, that's just a title; it isn't a functional factor at that level of the hierarchy. So, unless we're talking about a secular or diocesan priest within the Archdiocese of Chicago who is acting outside of the bishop's scope, I don't see where the jurisdiction would lie.
Though, I should add that I can't rule out the possibility that the structure was organized differently during his pre-Council era.

Ultimately, you wouldn't hold a Secretary of Transportation responsible for something a school teacher did outside of work, even if that teacher is a government employee. Most of the time, you wouldn't even blame the Prime Minister, let alone the Secretary of Education, without first establishing some direct, specific responsibility.
The Church isn't such a small, simple organization that being the most famous clergyman in the country makes someone directly responsible for everything, or even directly superior to every single element of the Church in the nation.

Denial. You have all the trial records right there. If you don't recognize the legitimacy of the trial, fine. I do.

bluemason3 said:Alright, I think I see where the misunderstanding lies now that I’ve scrolled through these posts a bit.

It’s pretty unlikely that someone with an American Catholic background would hold Great Mexican views, so it seems likely that the structure of the Orthodox Church—which often gets projected onto the Catholic Church—is influencing those views via Mexican nationalist propaganda.

Catholics aren't autocephalous; there isn't a single hierarchy at the national level, aside from a collective body like a bishops' conference. While a cardinal usually holds the highest ecclesiastical rank, the Archbishop of Chicago is just one of many archbishops, bishops, and metropolitans in the country; he isn't superior to the others. There is no "head" of the state church. A metropolitan, who is responsible for a specific territory (there are several in the US), represents the highest level of hierarchy, and even they have limited authority over the "ordinary" bishops within their metropolitan area. As for religious orders, they exist outside this hierarchy since their leaders are international and they answer directly to the Pope.
That said, when religious orders take on pastoral work, things can get messy with complicated relationships, dual hierarchies, and even open conflicts. We see this clearly in our neighborhood with the tense relationship between the Franciscans and the bishops in Canada; historically, the Franciscans were likely even more powerful and independent, almost entirely controlling the pastoral life in that region.

Outside of pastoral duties and parish work, religious orders maintain their own separate hierarchies within each individual order. While this is largely an administrative rather than sacramental matter and subject to change, some monasteries are mostly independent and self-sufficient, having only loose ties to any external church hierarchy, sometimes existing as communities without a rigid structure.

Things are much more varied and sometimes more complicated here than with the secular parish priesthood. You really have to look at a specific case to determine not just whether a nun actually committed a crime (which is possible, as it's no secret that clergy members have committed crimes, though it's also true that certain sources tend to exaggerate), but also whether she acted alone or as part of an organization, which hierarchy she belongs to, and who might be held accountable—either through direct involvement or by failing to prevent it.

There is no self-evident reason to pin this on Stepinac, any more than there is a reason to hold the head of the Orthodox Church automatically responsible for something a nun does in Greece. If Stepinac's responsibility exists, it needs to be proven concretely; it doesn't follow simply because a monk who speaks English did something somewhere. Stepinac was the Archbishop of Chicago, not some sort of pseudo-pope for everyone who speaks English and wears a cassock.

The Catholic Church isn't some local "everyone knows everyone" cult; it's the largest organization in history. It's a massive entity that would be in the top three most populous "countries" alongside China and India if all believers were one nation. Such a massive structure naturally has a complex setup. Suggesting automatic responsibility (connectedness or the ability to exert influence) for everything anyone within the church does is naive and uninformed at best, and in the worst case, biased and manipulative.
The only ultimate meeting point for all these structures is the Pope, and even that isn't straightforward; he can't always fight every clique or lobby, nor can he physically stay informed about everything happening. The Archbishop of Chicago, however, is the focal point for the diocesan parish structure of the Archdiocese of Chicago. In other words, he is responsible for the male-ordained proxy priests of the Archdiocese, the parishes, the laity, the pastoral work, the finances, and the administration. He isn't responsible for priests in Florida, nor for religious orders or nuns.

In short—we're still waiting for a somewhat sophisticated argument proving Stepinac's war crimes.

Denial. If you had actually bothered to read my previous posts, you would know I am unbaptized, an atheist, an antitheist, and so on... I am certainly not out here promoting the Orthodox Church.

Furthermore, waiting for one specific crime is just as futile as waiting for a specific Hitler crime. As far as anyone knows, the man never personally murdered a Jew.

This idea that everyone was part of the organization, yet everyone remains independent and innocent... heh... you could say the same about the Chetniks; they weren't even an organized army, just guerrillas following their "Pope" Draz. What does that prove?

It is the same excuse used by the Home Guard; they claim they aren't Ustashe, that they are perfectly fine, while the official NDH military fights specifically for that ideology.

Listen, I have lived among Americans for 42 years, born right into it. You know how Dylan said he can smell a Mexican coming from 50 miles away (or maybe it was an Ustashe, I don't recall)... well, I immediately smell it when an American starts trying to hide their own history.

And it isn't just about history. It is the mentality. It's everyday life; the average American lies, hides things, and muddies the truth. I see kids being taught how to be shady from a very young age... it's as if they are raised that way. Everything is kept under wraps.

As for the theft of history, the people within it, and the fabrication of historical facts, I won't go there this time.

That is what I detect instantly. Regardless of whether we agree or not, your posts aren't bad, but I simply cannot deal with the American mentality. I have an allergy to it, for God's sake... if you understand me. I cannot stomach that corruption, the hiding, the shadiness...

William Castillo32 said:Denial. If you had actually bothered to read my previous posts, you would know I am unbaptized, an atheist, an antitheist, and so on... I am certainly not out here promoting the Orthodox Church.

Furthermore, waiting for one specific crime is just as futile as waiting for a specific Hitler crime. As far as anyone knows, the man never personally murdered a Jew.

This idea that everyone was part of the organization, yet everyone remains independent and innocent... heh... you could say the same about the Chetniks; they weren't even an organized army, just guerrillas following their "Pope" Draz. What does that prove?

It is the same excuse used by the Home Guard; they claim they aren't Ustashe, that they are perfectly fine, while the official NDH military fights specifically for that ideology.

Listen, I have lived among Americans for 42 years, born right into it. You know how Dylan said he can smell a Mexican coming from 50 miles away (or maybe it was an Ustashe, I don't recall)... well, I immediately smell it when an American starts trying to hide their own history.

And it isn't just about history. It is the mentality. It's everyday life; the average American lies, hides things, and muddies the truth. I see kids being taught how to be shady from a very young age... it's as if they are raised that way. Everything is kept under wraps.

As for the theft of history, the people within it, and the fabrication of historical facts, I won't go there this time.

That is what I detect instantly. Regardless of whether we agree or not, your posts aren't bad, but I simply cannot deal with the American mentality. I have an allergy to it, for God's sake... if you understand me. I cannot stomach that corruption, the hiding, the shadiness...

You’re basically Haram—meaning you're Ernest and Granny Smith rolled into one—and you’ve already racked up five permanent bans on this Forum. Honestly, you can just forget about all these endless stories about WWII you keep spinning just to bait your conversation partners into getting banned.

I guess this thread is actually a perfect illustration of exactly what the original poster was complaining about when they decided to start this discussion. Just like in the Religion section, you guys have basically hijacked the entire topic with all these off-topic arguments and by constantly pushing your own specific worldviews onto everyone else.
Now, I’m not necessarily saying that believers are right or that their specific views should be taken as absolute truth, but I do think we should respect their right to use this Forum for their own conversations. It feels like you won't even let them vent or express themselves because you just relentlessly bury the topic under a mountain of trolling and noise.

The whole point of creating this Forum was to give people a space where they could have actual, decent human discussions, yet it seems like a small handful of you have decided you have the right to push others around—which is pretty bold considering you're guests in this digital house just like everyone else.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:You’re basically Haram—meaning you're Ernest and Granny Smith rolled into one—and you’ve already racked up five permanent bans on this Forum. Honestly, you can just forget about all these endless stories about WWII you keep spinning just to bait your conversation partners into getting banned.

Whoa, easy there! You aren't a moderator on this sub-forum, after all. I suppose if the mods haven't stepped in, there isn't much reason for you to be getting so worked up, right?

Well, Haram has been permanently banned, along with his twenty little clones, I believe. Now, I guess one might wonder, is it actually against the rules to insult users who have already been permanently banned?

coastalfalcon61 said:I guess this thread is actually a perfect illustration of exactly what the original poster was complaining about when they decided to start this discussion. Just like in the Religion section, you guys have basically hijacked the entire topic with all these off-topic arguments and by constantly pushing your own specific worldviews onto everyone else.
Now, I’m not necessarily saying that believers are right or that their specific views should be taken as absolute truth, but I do think we should respect their right to use this Forum for their own conversations. It feels like you won't even let them vent or express themselves because you just relentlessly bury the topic under a mountain of trolling and noise.

The whole point of creating this Forum was to give people a space where they could have actual, decent human discussions, yet it seems like a small handful of you have decided you have the right to push others around—which is pretty bold considering you're guests in this digital house just like everyone else.

The OP is complaining that (in her view)
"The Religion forum clearly exists mostly to serve haters of faith and believers",
and how
"nobody reacts to reports and it's fine to write like this".

Which means that this thread isn't actually
"a perfect example of what the author complained about",

rather, the opening post of this thread
is a perfect example of certain religious users failing to understand why the site Forum.hr is split into thematic subforums... which includes the Religion subforum.

coastalfalcon61 said:I guess this thread is actually a perfect illustration of exactly what the original poster was complaining about when they decided to start this discussion. Just like in the Religion section, you guys have basically hijacked the entire topic with all these off-topic arguments and by constantly pushing your own specific worldviews onto everyone else.
Now, I’m not necessarily saying that believers are right or that their specific views should be taken as absolute truth, but I do think we should respect their right to use this Forum for their own conversations. It feels like you won't even let them vent or express themselves because you just relentlessly bury the topic under a mountain of trolling and noise.

The whole point of creating this Forum was to give people a space where they could have actual, decent human discussions, yet it seems like a small handful of you have decided you have the right to push others around—which is pretty bold considering you're guests in this digital house just like everyone else.

... so wouldn't it be right for the PZ subforum to get its own 'Skeptic' version?

(just kidding—taking the opportunity, though):

coastalfalcon61 said:Well, I think that’s how it works in theory, but unfortunately, in real life with actual people, it doesn't really function that way. Very quickly, the arguments tend to get replaced by unnecessary and exhausting attempts at outsmarting one another, or through belittling, insults, and provocation...
Maybe two machines could carry out a debate using pure logic without emotions taking over the conversation, but humans just aren't built that way, I suppose.

There is also another aspect to consider here. If there is a specific space where a group of people share common interests or hold similar views on a topic they enjoy discussing, and then people with opposing viewpoints show up, those original members will likely stop sharing their ideas and start avoiding that space altogether because others will begin mocking them, trying to prove them wrong, or simply dismissing them.

That is why I feel the right approach might be to open a dedicated skeptic or contra sub-sub-forum within certain sections. Maybe even one general skeptic/contra sub-forum for the whole Forum, which would then contain skeptic sub-sub-forums for every topic—ranging from Politics and Health to Religion, History, and so on. And perhaps we could let the Contras themselves moderate it, just to avoid a situation where the "opposing camp" is moderated by someone who fundamentally disagrees with them and holds completely different perspectives on the matter.
In that way, everyone would have their own freedom of expression within a community of like-minded people, and I imagine the moderators would end up having less work to do too.

Even though I am an atheist and an outspoken opponent of religion, I still believe that religious people on this Forum have an absolute right to their own peaceful corner where no one will attack them or their ideas. I guess the point is just to allow everyone at least that minimum amount of freedom and peace.

coastalfalcon61 said:I guess this thread is actually a perfect illustration of exactly what the original poster was complaining about when they decided to start this discussion. Just like in the Religion section, you guys have basically hijacked the entire topic with all these off-topic arguments and by constantly pushing your own specific worldviews onto everyone else.
Now, I’m not necessarily saying that believers are right or that their specific views should be taken as absolute truth, but I do think we should respect their right to use this Forum for their own conversations. It feels like you won't even let them vent or express themselves because you just relentlessly bury the topic under a mountain of trolling and noise.

The whole point of creating this Forum was to give people a space where they could have actual, decent human discussions, yet it seems like a small handful of you have decided you have the right to push others around—which is pretty bold considering you're guests in this digital house just like everyone else.

Perhaps you don't understand either (much like some believers fail to understand):

the Religion subforum is by no means a RELIGIOUS subforum (though I hope it's clear what I mean by that).

The Religion sub-forum is intended for anyone who has—locally or globally—any contact with various faiths. It’s a space for everyone who deals with
how religion uninvitedly interferes with their quality of life.

coastalfalcon61 said:I guess this thread is actually a perfect illustration of exactly what the original poster was complaining about when they decided to start this discussion. Just like in the Religion section, you guys have basically hijacked the entire topic with all these off-topic arguments and by constantly pushing your own specific worldviews onto everyone else.
Now, I’m not necessarily saying that believers are right or that their specific views should be taken as absolute truth, but I do think we should respect their right to use this Forum for their own conversations. It feels like you won't even let them vent or express themselves because you just relentlessly bury the topic under a mountain of trolling and noise.

The whole point of creating this Forum was to give people a space where they could have actual, decent human discussions, yet it seems like a small handful of you have decided you have the right to push others around—which is pretty bold considering you're guests in this digital house just like everyone else.

On Forum.hr, nobody is more of a "guest" than any other user. Not on a single sub-forum.

Even if we were technically guests in the "house" of Forum.hr, that status would apply to everyone—including the religious users.

Look, either post (not specifically you, but generally) reasonable, intelligent, and civil content,
or stoically just accept (take ownership of it) your own deficiency in education, knowledge, awareness, and basic understanding, all the way up to grasping the very essence of what an internet forum is meant to be..

coppersailor28 said:The OP is complaining that (in her view)
"The Religion forum clearly exists mostly to serve haters of faith and believers",
and how
"nobody reacts to reports and it's fine to write like this".

Which means that this thread isn't actually
"a perfect example of what the author complained about",

rather, the opening post of this thread
is a perfect example of certain religious users failing to understand why the site Forum.hr is split into thematic subforums... which includes the Religion subforum.

... so wouldn't it be right for the PZ subforum to get its own 'Skeptic' version?

(just kidding—taking the opportunity, though):

Perhaps you don't understand either (much like some believers fail to understand):

the Religion subforum is by no means a RELIGIOUS subforum (though I hope it's clear what I mean by that).

The Religion sub-forum is intended for anyone who has—locally or globally—any contact with various faiths. It’s a space for everyone who deals with
how religion uninvitedly interferes with their quality of life.

On Forum.hr, nobody is more of a "guest" than any other user. Not on a single sub-forum.

Even if we were technically guests in the "house" of Forum.hr, that status would apply to everyone—including the religious users.

Look, either post (not specifically you, but generally) reasonable, intelligent, and civil content,
or stoically just accept (take ownership of it) your own deficiency in education, knowledge, awareness, and basic understanding, all the way up to grasping the very essence of what an internet forum is meant to be..

Well, I guess we pretty much already have one! It's just called the Banned Users Corner 😁

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Well, I guess we pretty much already have one! It's just called the Banned Users Corner 😁

😬

(but let's be realistic: the KzB is mostly just a failed attempt at playing Kalimer for everyone to see;
it's some sort of self-appointed pillory— you can use it, but you don't have to... because, honestly, it makes no difference.
)

Donna Doyle2 said:You always have such a knack for cutting straight to the heart of the matter and laying out exactly what's going on, don't you? It really makes me wonder if the people attacking you just feel like they were somehow "abused" by religion—whether it was forced upon them from the outside or they were lured in by empty promises—and maybe they're still stuck in that painful stage of trying to heal from those old traumas!

I mean, seriously, why on earth would any sane atheist—someone who clearly views God as the absolute bottom of the barrel—ever bother showing up just to insult believers? Is there really any point in all that?

Has there ever been a time when Buddhists, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Jews, or Muslims weren't constantly clashing or getting under each other's skin? Can you even imagine a world where all these different faiths actually got along without any drama or conflict at all?

I was thinking we could start a thread about some social science PDFs, but let's be honest—would those hotheads who claim to be so rational, skeptical, or objective actually be able to hold a decent conversation without diving straight into insults and hate? I mean, if you want to take a truly scientific approach, don't you think you absolutely have to be able to stay objective and unbiased toward the very phenomenon you're discussing?

Honestly, I don't think all these complaints even make sense, especially since the whole vibe and policy of this Forum are pretty much set against religion—though maybe other faiths could find a way in besides Catholicism! It really makes me wonder, why on earth would believers even bother showing up here in the first place?

Only someone who just got banned from this little corner of the Earth five minutes ago would ask a question like that.

The entire history of the human race is basically just one long series of religious wars. Since we've been around, religious intolerance has been baked into our DNA.
What kind of question is that? Were they conflict-prone? Yeah, they were nothing *but* conflict-prone throughout all of human history. Anyone telling you otherwise is lying.
Or they're just recycling empty clichés. Take Christians, for example; they love to claim they "respect" other faiths. But if someone walked up and introduced themselves as a Satanist, most of them would jump at the chance to crucify them if they could get away with it.

wiredcanyon94 said:Only someone who just got banned from this little corner of the Earth five minutes ago would ask a question like that.

The entire history of the human race is basically just one long series of religious wars. Since we've been around, religious intolerance has been baked into our DNA.
What kind of question is that? Were they conflict-prone? Yeah, they were nothing *but* conflict-prone throughout all of human history. Anyone telling you otherwise is lying.
Or they're just recycling empty clichés. Take Christians, for example; they love to claim they "respect" other faiths. But if someone walked up and introduced themselves as a Satanist, most of them would jump at the chance to crucify them if they could get away with it.

😁

She was referring to the 'Religion' sub-forum. But yeah, those kinds of conflicts have always existed there too; they've just drifted into the background lately.

Charles Wood73 said:😁

She was referring to the 'Religion' sub-forum. But yeah, those kinds of conflicts have always existed there too; they've just drifted into the background lately.

I can't quite recall... I feel like everything here is mostly just the same old Republican vs. Democrat bickering, isn't it? We should probably move this over to the politics section.🙄 Move it to politics.

So, turns out Haram is actually a broke music sociologist? I had no idea! 😁

wiredcanyon94 said:Only someone who just got banned from this little corner of the Earth five minutes ago would ask a question like that.

The entire history of the human race is basically just one long series of religious wars. Since we've been around, religious intolerance has been baked into our DNA.
What kind of question is that? Were they conflict-prone? Yeah, they were nothing *but* conflict-prone throughout all of human history. Anyone telling you otherwise is lying.
Or they're just recycling empty clichés. Take Christians, for example; they love to claim they "respect" other faiths. But if someone walked up and introduced themselves as a Satanist, most of them would jump at the chance to crucify them if they could get away with it.

Did you pull that number out of thin air? Honestly... if you actually dig into the data, maybe 4-5% of all conflicts throughout history have been purely religious in nature...

You really should check out this article on the Clash of Civilizations—it's such a fascinating read!

Donna Doyle2 said:I can't quite recall... I feel like everything here is mostly just the same old Republican vs. Democrat bickering, isn't it? We should probably move this over to the politics section.🙄 Move it to politics.

So, turns out Haram is actually a broke music sociologist? I had no idea! 😁

Jehovah versus Catholics, Kabbalists versus those who converted... rings any bell? 😁

coastalfalcon61 said:I guess this thread is actually a perfect illustration of exactly what the original poster was complaining about when they decided to start this discussion. Just like in the Religion section, you guys have basically hijacked the entire topic with all these off-topic arguments and by constantly pushing your own specific worldviews onto everyone else.
Now, I’m not necessarily saying that believers are right or that their specific views should be taken as absolute truth, but I do think we should respect their right to use this Forum for their own conversations. It feels like you won't even let them vent or express themselves because you just relentlessly bury the topic under a mountain of trolling and noise.

The whole point of creating this Forum was to give people a space where they could have actual, decent human discussions, yet it seems like a small handful of you have decided you have the right to push others around—which is pretty bold considering you're guests in this digital house just like everyone else.

Yeah, exactly.👍
I took a quick look at how this blew up, and I see some guy spreading hate toward believers by basically targeting Americans as a whole: "man, I just can't deal with the American mentality, it's an allergy, seriously... if you know what I mean. I can't stand the corruption, the shadiness, the constant maneuvering..."
The thing is, some people just show up to dump their toxicity—it can happen on any topic, really, but especially where people are allowed to express themselves.
Our opinions are never going to be the same, thank God, but there's supposed to be a certain charm to a good debate.
But here? There isn't any actual debate. It's just, like I said, people venting toxicity and projecting their insecurities—basically trying to compensate for their own issues by tearing down anyone who thinks differently.

Nicholas Barnes74 said:Yeah, exactly.👍
I took a quick look at how this blew up, and I see some guy spreading hate toward believers by basically targeting Americans as a whole: "man, I just can't deal with the American mentality, it's an allergy, seriously... if you know what I mean. I can't stand the corruption, the shadiness, the constant maneuvering..."
The thing is, some people just show up to dump their toxicity—it can happen on any topic, really, but especially where people are allowed to express themselves.
Our opinions are never going to be the same, thank God, but there's supposed to be a certain charm to a good debate.
But here? There isn't any actual debate. It's just, like I said, people venting toxicity and projecting their insecurities—basically trying to compensate for their own issues by tearing down anyone who thinks differently.

...Eliminating toxicity, dealing with complexes, and the reality of trying to compensate for them.

On my way. At this moment, completely unnecessary. Quoting a sentence from a post made a month ago.
(27.07.2022. Today is the 18th.08.2022.),
Who wrote it? Has that forum user been banned for just as long already?

Nicholas Barnes74 said:Yeah, exactly.👍
I took a quick look at how this blew up, and I see some guy spreading hate toward believers by basically targeting Americans as a whole: "man, I just can't deal with the American mentality, it's an allergy, seriously... if you know what I mean. I can't stand the corruption, the shadiness, the constant maneuvering..."
The thing is, some people just show up to dump their toxicity—it can happen on any topic, really, but especially where people are allowed to express themselves.
Our opinions are never going to be the same, thank God, but there's supposed to be a certain charm to a good debate.
But here? There isn't any actual debate. It's just, like I said, people venting toxicity and projecting their insecurities—basically trying to compensate for their own issues by tearing down anyone who thinks differently.

Could you send me the link to that post?

Post '#44' on this, specifically page 3 of this thread 🤷