Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

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.

Well, it does influence things. Just look at how much taxpayer money gets funneled into the church, and then consider how little oversight we actually have regarding how that public money is spent.

brightpilot6 said: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?

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.

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. 🙏 🙏

ruggedjackal46 said:Well, it does influence things. Just look at how much taxpayer money gets funneled into the church, and then consider how little oversight we actually have regarding how that public money is spent.

Honestly, I’d just pull the plug on all subsidies across the board.
Now, here is the real question—and I am asking this seriously because I genuinely don't know the answer, not because I'm trying to make excuses for sending our hard-earned money to Vatican City. 😁
If we suddenly stopped paying those amounts to the RKC, would the American government be on the hook for massive payouts for property that was nationalized after World War II? Or did they already walk away from those claims, or are they still coming after us regardless of the public funds they collect every single season?

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.

We were joking because it's honestly absurd how much purely Catholic content is being shoved into institutions that have absolutely nothing to do with faith.🤷

And no, religious studies isn't the same thing as those humanities electives that drift away from electrical engineering or computer science. Those courses—take chess, for instance—are still grounded in scientific methodology or logical thinking. Biblical theology, taught strictly from a defined Catholic perspective, doesn't qualify as "just another humanities elective" because neither its subject matter nor its approach has anything to do with actual science.

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.

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. 🙏 🙏

Just look at who has become a major player in our national politics—some absolute ridiculous character with Hitler-esque facial hair. What is wrong with this country? 🙏

ironpanther5 said:Honestly, I’d just pull the plug on all subsidies across the board.
Now, here is the real question—and I am asking this seriously because I genuinely don't know the answer, not because I'm trying to make excuses for sending our hard-earned money to Vatican City. 😁
If we suddenly stopped paying those amounts to the RKC, would the American government be on the hook for massive payouts for property that was nationalized after World War II? Or did they already walk away from those claims, or are they still coming after us regardless of the public funds they collect every single season?

Personally, I wouldn't abolish Church subsidies. People pay taxes to the state for things where the social value far outweighs the market price—things like healthcare, education, culture, and even faith. Spirituality is something people need, and it should be accessible to everyone; it shouldn't depend on market forces or be limited only to those who can afford to pay a premium. That is exactly why we have a state and a tax system: to ensure that.

That said, there needs to be full transparency regarding those subsidies, and the funding must be tied to specific purposes.

As for the property issue, the whole thing smells to me like yet another massive shake-down where the government and the Church just split the loot fifty-fifty.

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.

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.

brightpilot6 said: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.

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?

ruggedjackal46 said:We were joking because it's honestly absurd how much purely Catholic content is being shoved into institutions that have absolutely nothing to do with faith.🤷

And no, religious studies isn't the same thing as those humanities electives that drift away from electrical engineering or computer science. Those courses—take chess, for instance—are still grounded in scientific methodology or logical thinking. Biblical theology, taught strictly from a defined Catholic perspective, doesn't qualify as "just another humanities elective" because neither its subject matter nor its approach has anything to do with actual science.

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. 😁

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.

brightpilot6 said: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.

I’m with you on that, which is why we really ought to cut them off from public funding altogether. If stripping them from the budget meant settling up for seized assets—which, let's be real, usually can't be returned because they've already been repurposed for something else—we could settle the debt through a negotiated agreement at the very end of the whole saga. But most importantly, it wouldn't be some annual handout.
Then, they'll actually have to put in the work using their own money, whether that comes from parishioners' donations or whatever people pay for Mass or service.
They’ll finally be useful to society because they'll be forced to actually serve their congregations. I mean, if they managed to survive the collapse of America, they can certainly handle the US.

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.

brightpilot6 said: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.

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. 😁

Just getting things moving 🧐

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. 😁

Look, you have the course description, which is pretty straightforward. It’s basically a religion course that isn't even trying that hard to hide its true nature.

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.☕

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. 😁

Some guy from the forums who took the course told me it's basically just a massive joke most of the time. 😁

Which really begs the question: if this course has been sitting at a major tech university for decades, why is everyone just finding out about it now?

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. 😁

It seems people here tend to overlook the fact that before the era of America, Ante Pavelić also "nationalized" a massive chunk of property. Even today, Jewish organizations are seeking restitution for assets taken during that time, yet our lawmakers conveniently "forgot" to include that period in any restitution laws.

I can't shake the feeling that the Church actually walked away with the biggest slice of that first wave of nationalization—and if you really crunch the numbers, they likely ended up being the primary beneficiaries of all that Communist seizing.

Anthony Jackson2 said:It seems people here tend to overlook the fact that before the era of America, Ante Pavelić also "nationalized" a massive chunk of property. Even today, Jewish organizations are seeking restitution for assets taken during that time, yet our lawmakers conveniently "forgot" to include that period in any restitution laws.

I can't shake the feeling that the Church actually walked away with the biggest slice of that first wave of nationalization—and if you really crunch the numbers, they likely ended up being the primary beneficiaries of all that Communist seizing.

Regarding your first point, you're spot on about the Jewish community. It’s pretty ironic that instead of returning what was stolen, the Communists just let the thieves keep the loot.
As for your second point, I honestly don't buy it; I think you're being a bit too generous to them. The period under that collaborationist nightmare was far too short for the Church to have truly milked the situation like that. Most of the seized assets—businesses, shops, factories, and apartments—belonged to Jewish families, and it would've been nearly impossible for the Church (aside from maybe some real estate) to manage or flip all that property effectively. And even if they had managed it, everything ended up in the hands of the Communists eventually anyway.