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.
