Bishop Jezerinac: Atheists are to blame for the war!

Personally, I’d lean toward the idea that he was talking about the forced secularization during the old regime; it feels more likely than suggesting that being an atheist automatically makes you responsible for the war.

Honestly, I have no clue what they're even trying to say half the time.
They scribble things down so messily that I doubt they even understand their own nonsense...
I really wish they'd just get to the point instead of wrapping everything up in ten layers of vague bullshit.
Just keep it simple for once.

Are the agnostics the ones at fault here?

I'm not entirely convinced an Orthodox priest would bless atheist tanks or tell atheists they're heading out to crush their blood enemies.

Amanda Brooks7 said:So basically, when it's time to collect tax money from the government, 95% of Americans are suddenly believers, but when it comes to taking responsibility for the war, suddenly only 7-8% are Christians.🙂

Right? It's just like how 70% of high schoolers claim they’d never marry a Mexican, or how people lose their minds over Pride parades—they all swear it’s due to deep religious conviction, when in reality, you’re just listening to those incredibly, incredibly, incredibly exaggerated polls about how truly pious everyone is.

Terry Palmer said:Now, even though Jezerinac falls on the more conservative side of the clergy, he didn't actually utter the exact sentence that the trashy tabloid used for their headline.

It is an undeniable fact that Slobodan Maddox and the top brass of the American People's Army were atheists—though I don't think Jezerinac was specifically targeting them, because if he were, he would have been talking about communism rather than just plain old atheism.

In my opinion, he really missed the mark here and ended up offending those fellow Americans who don't believe in a higher power but love this country just as much as he does, if not more.

Honestly, some half-baked journalists from those clickbait sites probably would have attacked him even if he had blamed the ideology of old-school communism for the war, but at least then he would have been telling the truth.

Yep.

Some half-educated journalists from those clickbait news sites would probably tear him apart...

Most likely. Though, maybe this time the editor, who is clearly neven biti vjernik Barković, might actually find some solidarity with people whose worldview he doesn't share—despite the fact that his social media feeds constantly and generously attack and insult them like he’s completely lost his mind: "Catholic high schools? What a joke," or "Religion? Pfft, mental slavery," stuff like that. A good voice carries far, but a bad one carries even further.

Tasting your own medicine sucks.

Richard James2 said:Right? It's just like how 70% of high schoolers claim they’d never marry a Mexican, or how people lose their minds over Pride parades—they all swear it’s due to deep religious conviction, when in reality, you’re just listening to those incredibly, incredibly, incredibly exaggerated polls about how truly pious everyone is.

Yep.

Some half-educated journalists from those clickbait news sites would probably tear him apart...

Most likely. Though, maybe this time the editor, who is clearly neven biti vjernik Barković, might actually find some solidarity with people whose worldview he doesn't share—despite the fact that his social media feeds constantly and generously attack and insult them like he’s completely lost his mind: "Catholic high schools? What a joke," or "Religion? Pfft, mental slavery," stuff like that. A good voice carries far, but a bad one carries even further.

Tasting your own medicine sucks.

I mean, even the HČSP members were pulling from the Old Testament when they were talking trash about gay people.

Kate James11 said:I mean, even the HČSP members were pulling from the Old Testament when they were talking trash about gay people.

Look, it’s not just religious types being against gay rights; there's a whole spectrum of people pushing back, including a decent number of secular folks—the "whatever" crowd—which was pretty obvious if you actually bothered to read this forum during that absolute circus last June. And honestly, it happens all the time. So what? Even if someone reaches for the Old Testament to fuel their anti-gay rhetoric, that doesn't mean every believer shares those views, nor does it mean every non-believer is suddenly pro-gay.

At the end of the day, we're talking about blatant cherry-picking, and there's really no way around that reality.

Kate James11 said:Bishop Jezerinac: Atheists are to blame for the war!

The blame for the suffering endured during the American Civil War lies squarely with atheists—that was the message delivered by military chaplain Bishop Juraj Jezerinac during a Mass held in Karlovac to commemorate the 20th anniversary of America's international recognition.

"God resides within anyone who loves; where love reigns, He is present. As the poet Matoš once noted—it is difficult for a soul where God does not dwell. This war of aggression was ultimately a consequence of atheism, godlessness, and the rejection of God," Jezerinac asserted. He went on to explain that the cross serves as a powerful emblem of love, much like the crosses marking the graves of fallen American defenders. Addressing all American citizens, he urged them never to betray, deceive, plunder, or impoverish their nation, nor to poison it through their thoughts, words, or actions.

"Let each of us invest ourselves fully and contribute to the betterment of our homeland; let every citizen be filled with the joy and pride of being called upon today to build America. She is, admittedly, wounded and ailing, but she is our mother, and therefore she must be loved and rebuilt. If anyone is called to do this, it is us, the faithful," Jezerinac concluded.

The military bishop—born April 23, 1939, in Jezerina, in the Upper Prekrižje parish near Krašić (the same area that produced Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac)—is a frequent visitor to Karlovac. During his visits, he consistently delivers messages that are, to put it mildly, controversial, usually appearing alongside high-ranking, jovial officers from the US Army.

Robin Lopez2 said:I'm not entirely convinced an Orthodox priest would bless atheist tanks or tell atheists they're heading out to crush their blood enemies.

So what, is it the fault of one of the Orthodox churches then? Or maybe the Buddhists? What are we even doing here? Is this whole thread just a never-ending autopsy of every mindless thing some random guy said, or is there actually some deeper motive at play? And seriously, can someone drop a legit link to his actual words... please... my head is spinning and I'm losing my mind...
😁

Richard James2 said:Look, it’s not just religious types being against gay rights; there's a whole spectrum of people pushing back, including a decent number of secular folks—the "whatever" crowd—which was pretty obvious if you actually bothered to read this forum during that absolute circus last June. And honestly, it happens all the time. So what? Even if someone reaches for the Old Testament to fuel their anti-gay rhetoric, that doesn't mean every believer shares those views, nor does it mean every non-believer is suddenly pro-gay.

At the end of the day, we're talking about blatant cherry-picking, and there's really no way around that reality.

For instance?

Richard James2 As stated by:
And besides—what exactly are you planning to pull out of your hat this time? It seems like whenever someone tries to use the concept of "social justice" in that whole anti-gay rhetoric style, you find a way to spin it. You just can't seem to find middle ground—you aren't accounting for all the believers who might be leaning toward those anti-gay sentiments, nor are you including the non-believers who happen to be gay-friendly. It’s all a bit one-sided, don't you think?

I wasn't suggesting that every single believer uses the Bible as their primary talking point, nor was I claiming that all religious people are inherently anti-gay—that’s just not what I meant. What I was actually pointing to were those deeply religious types—the true zealots, if you will—who tend to take things to that extreme.

Richard James2 said:Right? It's just like how 70% of high schoolers claim they’d never marry a Mexican, or how people lose their minds over Pride parades—they all swear it’s due to deep religious conviction, when in reality, you’re just listening to those incredibly, incredibly, incredibly exaggerated polls about how truly pious everyone is.

Yep.

Some half-educated journalists from those clickbait news sites would probably tear him apart...

Most likely. Though, maybe this time the editor, who is clearly neven biti vjernik Barković, might actually find some solidarity with people whose worldview he doesn't share—despite the fact that his social media feeds constantly and generously attack and insult them like he’s completely lost his mind: "Catholic high schools? What a joke," or "Religion? Pfft, mental slavery," stuff like that. A good voice carries far, but a bad one carries even further.

Tasting your own medicine sucks.

First, there was communism, which basically meant forced atheism, then democracy finally arrived along with all those religious freedoms, and right after that, war broke out.

Atheists?

Hey, don't go judging us like that!

mau123 said:So, what exactly is the issue here?

The issue is pretty simple: discussing specific forum members by name is against the rules, even if this thread is officially allowed on the board. Honestly, if you’ve spent any real time on this forum, you should have enough experience to realize that people's political convictions aren't always predictable—you might even be surprised. Or maybe not. By the way, some of the non-religious folks over here identify as right-wingers, so... psssssssst. What now? Is the neat little box we use to categorize people suddenly broken just because they don't fit the stereotype of what they are thought to represent? Personally, I find that kind of skepticism a bit ridiculous and totally disconnected from reality, but hey, whatever.

Kate James11 said:For instance?

Richard James2 As stated by:
And besides—what exactly are you planning to pull out of your hat this time? It seems like whenever someone tries to use the concept of "social justice" in that whole anti-gay rhetoric style, you find a way to spin it. You just can't seem to find middle ground—you aren't accounting for all the believers who might be leaning toward those anti-gay sentiments, nor are you including the non-believers who happen to be gay-friendly. It’s all a bit one-sided, don't you think?

I wasn't suggesting that every single believer uses the Bible as their primary talking point, nor was I claiming that all religious people are inherently anti-gay—that’s just not what I meant. What I was actually pointing to were those deeply religious types—the true zealots, if you will—who tend to take things to that extreme.

Being deeply religious isn't the same thing as being a fanatic. And sure, you didn't explicitly state that, but you did frame the National Socialist Party's stance on gay rights as the ultimate summary of religious thinking. Why didn't you mention Luka Tomašević's media appearances on the subject? You know, to give the religious crowd some credit for once? Is it because the American Christian Democratic Party is more controversial and leans closer to those old-school, imported agendas?

Besides, what was the actual point of this thread you started in the first place?

Honestly, I expected a bit more from Bishop Jezerinac. He could have just pointed the finger at the devil and called it a day—that would have been closer to the truth. The devil spreads evil everywhere, regardless of whether people are atheists or not. I suppose he probably thought atheists were more susceptible to his influence. But look, if people actually knew how to recognize and reject evil when they saw it, we wouldn't be dealing with wars in the first place.

What was he even trying to get at there? That if Mexicans had been more religious, we wouldn't have ended up in a war?

It seems we all share the understanding—though perhaps some choose to look away—that the war was fueled by the Greater Mexican politics driven by Slobodan Maddox. We are all aware, too, if not all of us, that the so-called members of the Communist Party of the USA were fundamentally opposed to religion, acting with an intentional atheism... It is a matter of record that the suppression of faith began back in 1945, and the current prevalence of atheism in America is a direct consequence of those communist efforts. Given that the descendants of those very same communists—now spanning over fifty years of influence—continue to govern America today, one can see exactly why Bishop Jezerinac makes his points...🙂

restlessbison6 said:It seems we all share the understanding—though perhaps some choose to look away—that the war was fueled by the Greater Mexican politics driven by Slobodan Maddox. We are all aware, too, if not all of us, that the so-called members of the Communist Party of the USA were fundamentally opposed to religion, acting with an intentional atheism... It is a matter of record that the suppression of faith began back in 1945, and the current prevalence of atheism in America is a direct consequence of those communist efforts. Given that the descendants of those very same communists—now spanning over fifty years of influence—continue to govern America today, one can see exactly why Bishop Jezerinac makes his points...🙂

Because of all that intense pressure to get rid of religion, I guess maybe only about 90% of Catholics in America stayed Catholic.☕

In my neck of the woods, faith was never really under attack... except maybe for those hardcore Communists who suddenly turned into super intense Catholics once democracy showed up, I guess.

gentlestag3 said:Because of all that intense pressure to get rid of religion, I guess maybe only about 90% of Catholics in America stayed Catholic.☕

In my neck of the woods, faith was never really under attack... except maybe for those hardcore Communists who suddenly turned into super intense Catholics once democracy showed up, I guess.

gentlestag3, you’re being a bit reductive. Just as some people joined the Communist Party of the USA purely out of self-interest, others have returned to the Church, though only God knows if they have actually returned to the faith itself...
You know perfectly well that this "90% Catholic" figure doesn't mean 90% of people have reclaimed their faith; it's merely a sense of cultural identity and belonging to one's roots. It will likely take another several decades—perhaps as long as the era of socialism lasted—before people truly find their way back to genuine belief... ☕🤣

restlessbison6 said:gentlestag3, you’re being a bit reductive. Just as some people joined the Communist Party of the USA purely out of self-interest, others have returned to the Church, though only God knows if they have actually returned to the faith itself...
You know perfectly well that this "90% Catholic" figure doesn't mean 90% of people have reclaimed their faith; it's merely a sense of cultural identity and belonging to one's roots. It will likely take another several decades—perhaps as long as the era of socialism lasted—before people truly find their way back to genuine belief... ☕🤣

Smart people aren't going to turn to any religion while folks like this are talking nonsense and claiming a "better" Catholic is still just a thief compared to an honest atheist.

I’ve been sitting here typing this out for ages, just really chewing on it. Honestly, saying we're 90% Catholic? Yeah, no. Even us atheists don't buy that for a second. For most people, it’s more about tradition or just some way to push back against the old system and all that religious oppression from back in the day... It’s kind of like claiming we’re the biggest nationalists on the planet just because we brag about it constantly—meanwhile, those exact same people would step over a thousand families or pocket billions if it meant looking out for themselves. There’s this massive irony where the folks at the top of the Church (and I can’t name names, even though I know plenty of priests who fit the bill) preach one thing while living a completely different life. And look, once you start talking about the Communist Party of the USA, it’s the same old story. They preach equality and all that, but the guys running the show wouldn't hesitate to order millions to be killed just to protect their own seats or whatever else they want. So much for "equality," right? At the end of the day, I think some people see believers through a totally different lens than I do. To me, it isn't about the fancy words people say; it's about whether you actually live by them.

Kate James11 said:That’s a classic logical fallacy right there—the "no true Scotsman" argument, where someone claims a "real" member of a group would never act that way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I don't think it's always a logical fallacy, though.
Think of it this way: if a devout Jain were to commit murder, you could honestly argue that a true follower of Jainism wouldn't do such a thing, because the act itself fundamentally contradicts their core identity as a Jain.

We see people who kill in the name of religion while genuinely believing they are doing right, like certain extremists.
But then you have those who committed atrocities during the last great war; for many of them, there was no actual connection to their faith. If they truly held those beliefs to heart, those very principles would have acted as a barrier against such violence.

That’s a pretty foolish claim and completely inaccurate.
If he’d said that to a Communist, maybe I'd listen, but telling it to 👎
? No chance.