Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

I’ll just say one thing—9 out of 10 successful nations in Europe had massive anti-church movements and don't have a Catholic majority. You always hear people bringing up the Czech Republic as this benchmark for America to follow when it comes to industry; they've got a 70% atheist rate. Or how you can start a business in Estonia in three minutes because the bureaucracy is so slick, and those folks are 55% atheist. And don't even get me started on Scandinavia... People love to claim America is the worst in the EU, but we've got a 97% believer rate and a bunch of altar slicks. The correlation is clear as day.

We aren't the absolute worst, but we’re definitely up there. I guess about 78% of people consider themselves religious, and maybe a higher percentage of us does than in places like Poland, Romania, Greece, or Malta.

wiredfalcon2 said:I’ll just say one thing—9 out of 10 successful nations in Europe had massive anti-church movements and don't have a Catholic majority. You always hear people bringing up the Czech Republic as this benchmark for America to follow when it comes to industry; they've got a 70% atheist rate. Or how you can start a business in Estonia in three minutes because the bureaucracy is so slick, and those folks are 55% atheist. And don't even get me started on Scandinavia... People love to claim America is the worst in the EU, but we've got a 97% believer rate and a bunch of altar slicks. The correlation is clear as day.

Faith—or the total lack of it—doesn't actually correlate with how much money a nation has. If that were true, the wealthiest parts of Europe would be Northern Italy, the Netherlands as they are today, or that Czech Republic place I mentioned earlier.

brightpilot6 said:Aren Catholicism—at least in the version curated for the average layperson—and "spirituality," defined as that introspective journey of questioning one's own soul and our collective place in the cosmos, fundamentally at odds with one another? This tension seems to exist within almost every institutional religion, though it feels most acute in this particular one, given how intensely centralized and organized it truly is.

What kind of genuine "process" can actually exist, let alone be necessary, when every detail regarding your life and the universe has already been mapped out through rigid dogma and divine commandments?

One could certainly spend a lifetime agonizing over the logical inconsistencies baked into the doctrine—things like original sin, purgatory, the Holy Trinity, the glaring contradictions between the Old and New Testaments, or those various strange heresies that crop up. But is that really spirituality? To me, it looks more like a quasi-intellectual struggle with impossible puzzles; it’s a series of illogical acrobatics originally engineered for the political agendas of the era, which are now served up to modern believers as profound metaphysical truths that supposedly require deep study and intense immersion just to grasp.

On a side note, I have to hand it to the Catholic Church; it is a masterclass in utility for the ruling classes, providing a toolkit for just about any scenario. It serves dictators and democrats alike, extremists and traditionalists with equal efficacy. It’s a perfect blend, featuring the institution of confession as a sort of "cheat code" for an endless number of lives in a game where the ultimate prize is eternal life. Perhaps we should have seen that coming. It explains quite well why they’ve managed to endure for so long.

Then look at East Asia—that's why the ruling classes there leaned toward Confucianism instead of Taoism. The former is a flawless ideology for keeping the masses in check, whereas the latter leans a bit too much toward anarchy...

Even Napoleon once remarked that religion exists to prevent the poor from killing off the rich...😁

The downside is that when people reject organized religion, they often toss out spirituality along with it. It doesn't have to be all or nothing, like being either an atheist or a Catholic. Why couldn't someone just decide to be a fairy, for instance? 😛

Anyway, this whole debate is basically proof that the quality of soccer in America has hit rock bottom...☕

Let’s get one thing straight: nobody here is out of their minds on heavy drugs, and I clearly missed the boat on the whole music debate ☕

Patrick Martin said:Every religion needs its own infrastructure to actually function. To me, the Church is the backbone of faith—the vessel that carries it. Period. Some random incident involving some jerk priest in some tiny parish isn't the benchmark; that’s just an outlier. It’s a statistical anomaly at best. Given how massive the Church is and how much good it actually does, you guys have no idea. Even just having the freedom to go somewhere, pray, and confess... that matters. Nobody is forcing you to show up. There’s a reason things work this way. For instance, when people face death, there isn't a single soul on this planet who doesn't look for comfort from someone. (Unless, obviously, they get hit by a car and don't have time to turn to anyone 😬 )

Try looking at it this way. Certain customs and unwritten rules just have to exist; they're right there when you need them. Someone mentioned that the Church used to be stronger. Man, back then, the Church was *everything*. Without those foundations and that entire heritage, we’d all be in total chaos right now. I’m certain of it.

The real issue with the Catholic Church is this weird paradox: throughout history, it’s been the primary keeper of knowledge—knowledge that’s eventually going to cost it dearly. The wealthy elites who built their fortunes on that knowledge and technology are going to try to impose their own new standards of behavior. They'll try to manufacture their own politics, all driven by pure arrogance and boredom.

And this whole situation with immigrants? That's the real test. I’m dying to see all you "smart" people figure out how America is going to unify, pull itself together, and stand up against this challenge. I'm genuinely curious to see how it plays out.

Believers love to lean on that "preservation" argument—and sure, it's true they kept historical records alive—but let's be real: they also spent centuries suppressing any science or thought that didn't fit their specific dogma. It raises a valid question—just how much progress was lost in the process of them "protecting" it?

I was reading a debate on this recently, and someone posed the perfect closing question: if the Church were still calling all the shots, would we even have the internet to argue about it today?

Keith Patel81 said:Let’s get one thing straight: nobody here is out of their minds on heavy drugs, and I clearly missed the boat on the whole music debate ☕

Check the politics sub, everyone there is on drugs.

I honestly don't get why religion always turns into such a personal battlefield—everyone just dives straight into the deep end... Why does it have to be so trivialized? People start throwing these random statistics around just to claim that mostly atheist societies are somehow more successful or wealthier than others.

It’s so obvious, too—they conveniently leave out places like Switzerland (where it's 76-24) or even Bavaria (81-19), but then they immediately jump to Scandinavia or Estonia to make their point.

The whole argument is totally bunk.

I guess even Miller would have labeled this as prosperity 🤣

brightpilot6 said:Aren Catholicism—at least in the version curated for the average layperson—and "spirituality," defined as that introspective journey of questioning one's own soul and our collective place in the cosmos, fundamentally at odds with one another? This tension seems to exist within almost every institutional religion, though it feels most acute in this particular one, given how intensely centralized and organized it truly is.

What kind of genuine "process" can actually exist, let alone be necessary, when every detail regarding your life and the universe has already been mapped out through rigid dogma and divine commandments?

One could certainly spend a lifetime agonizing over the logical inconsistencies baked into the doctrine—things like original sin, purgatory, the Holy Trinity, the glaring contradictions between the Old and New Testaments, or those various strange heresies that crop up. But is that really spirituality? To me, it looks more like a quasi-intellectual struggle with impossible puzzles; it’s a series of illogical acrobatics originally engineered for the political agendas of the era, which are now served up to modern believers as profound metaphysical truths that supposedly require deep study and intense immersion just to grasp.

On a side note, I have to hand it to the Catholic Church; it is a masterclass in utility for the ruling classes, providing a toolkit for just about any scenario. It serves dictators and democrats alike, extremists and traditionalists with equal efficacy. It’s a perfect blend, featuring the institution of confession as a sort of "cheat code" for an endless number of lives in a game where the ultimate prize is eternal life. Perhaps we should have seen that coming. It explains quite well why they’ve managed to endure for so long.

🤣 🤣

Surgical precision in this explanation. 🙏

Larry Fox5 said:I honestly don't get why religion always turns into such a personal battlefield—everyone just dives straight into the deep end... Why does it have to be so trivialized? People start throwing these random statistics around just to claim that mostly atheist societies are somehow more successful or wealthier than others.

It’s so obvious, too—they conveniently leave out places like Switzerland (where it's 76-24) or even Bavaria (81-19), but then they immediately jump to Scandinavia or Estonia to make their point.

The whole argument is totally bunk.

Look, I already laid this out when I was talking about comparable nations—you know, looking at scale, cultural spheres, that whole lack of a massive colonial empire history, stuff like that. You can't sit here and bring up Belgium or the Netherlands, talking about how they basically had half of Africa or half the known world under their thumb, and then try to compare them to somewhere like Estonia. That's just not apples to apples. We’re talking about small players here, nations under 30 million people, tucked away in Europe, without a history of carving up continents. You can't compare America to Poland or France either; they're sitting on 60 or 80 million people. So, if you actually look at what we can realistically compare ourselves to, the correlation is pretty damn obvious—societies with heavy religious coloring are economically failing 9 times out of 10. Case closed.

I see these idiots making fun of the Czech Republic, even though they joined the EU a decade before we did. Their people actually had enough sense to stay rational—they didn't go obsessing over religious fanaticism during the war like some lunatics; they just handled things sensibly and split off from those stubborn Slovaks. Honestly, looking back at where we were in the 80s, the Czech Republic is basically our version of America. Once they finally shook off all that Soviet madness, they just started thriving. They’ve got the lowest unemployment rates out there. Doesn't mean they're New York City, but for us? Yeah, they're definitely the gold standard.

James Anderson5 said:Then look at East Asia—that's why the ruling classes there leaned toward Confucianism instead of Taoism. The former is a flawless ideology for keeping the masses in check, whereas the latter leans a bit too much toward anarchy...

Even Napoleon once remarked that religion exists to prevent the poor from killing off the rich...😁

The downside is that when people reject organized religion, they often toss out spirituality along with it. It doesn't have to be all or nothing, like being either an atheist or a Catholic. Why couldn't someone just decide to be a fairy, for instance? 😛

Anyway, this whole debate is basically proof that the quality of soccer in America has hit rock bottom...☕

Alright, let's lay out the established facts here: Messi is a god, Florentino is the devil himself, you lot are just a bunch of delusional kids, and the rest of us are the sworn protectors of the holy grail. ☕

Why did they part ways so peacefully? Oh wait... they didn't, considering they had those neighbors from the South and that whole Natchertan plan to deal with.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy A30

Keith Patel81 said:Let’s get one thing straight: nobody here is out of their minds on heavy drugs, and I clearly missed the boat on the whole music debate ☕

How on earth can you assume no one is using hard drugs?
Did you even bother reading what Patrick Martin wrote?

wiredfalcon2 said:Look, I already laid this out when I was talking about comparable nations—you know, looking at scale, cultural spheres, that whole lack of a massive colonial empire history, stuff like that. You can't sit here and bring up Belgium or the Netherlands, talking about how they basically had half of Africa or half the known world under their thumb, and then try to compare them to somewhere like Estonia. That's just not apples to apples. We’re talking about small players here, nations under 30 million people, tucked away in Europe, without a history of carving up continents. You can't compare America to Poland or France either; they're sitting on 60 or 80 million people. So, if you actually look at what we can realistically compare ourselves to, the correlation is pretty damn obvious—societies with heavy religious coloring are economically failing 9 times out of 10. Case closed.

I see these idiots making fun of the Czech Republic, even though they joined the EU a decade before we did. Their people actually had enough sense to stay rational—they didn't go obsessing over religious fanaticism during the war like some lunatics; they just handled things sensibly and split off from those stubborn Slovaks. Honestly, looking back at where we were in the 80s, the Czech Republic is basically our version of America. Once they finally shook off all that Soviet madness, they just started thriving. They’ve got the lowest unemployment rates out there. Doesn't mean they're New York City, but for us? Yeah, they're definitely the gold standard.

There’s this theory that countries like the Czech Republic and Poland dealt with much heavier Russian influence, so once they moved past that, there weren't as many holdovers from the old regime sitting in high positions to steer the nation's future in a different direction...

It’s also argued that despite how intense things got during the breakup of America, with those clear territorial claims, a good chunk of the conflict was actually orchestrated to ensure control over social resources, corporations, and property that hadn't been privatized yet. If the war hadn't happened, the former communists wouldn't have stood a chance at winning elections or keeping their grip on power; most would have ended up behind bars. Instead, they just shifted into the major political parties, and if you look at who has been running the show for the last 30 years, you can see exactly who grabbed the lion's share of the wealth and influence...😁

The church is really just the icing on the cake. Throughout history, they’ve always hitched their wagon to whoever wins, which is why even historical figures didn't trust them. Nowadays, they seem to serve a similar role of keeping the public distracted and compliant...

And that idea about Protestantism being the driver for certain regions' progress? That goes all the way back to Max Weber. It’s not a universal rule, but there might be some truth to the influence. Not that being Catholic makes you an automatic failure or being Protestant guarantees success, but there's definitely a connection there...

brightpilot6 said:I haven't made it through the entire thread yet, but I have to ask: has anyone here actually argued that communism could serve as a way to fulfill a person's spiritual needs? It’s honestly exhausting how quickly people jump to conclusions; the moment you dare to touch upon anything even remotely sacred, everyone immediately starts screaming "communism, communism" as if it's some sort of universal reflex. 🤣

If by that failed "alternative" path you mean societies lacking the decisive influence of institutional religions, perhaps we should ask the Scandinavians how they feel now that their social structures have essentially collapsed?

Does the Catholic Church truly hold life, family, and the home as its supreme values, or is that sentiment merely a convenient mask? It seems to me they only champion these principles when it serves their political agenda. When those ideals become inconvenient, the "supreme value" shifts overnight to whatever else is on the menu—be it war, nationalism, or rampant capitalism. They will offer a blessing to tanks if it means crushing certain families, and they’ll favor the sanctity of the home over the welfare of neglected children, provided those children aren't being raised in households that don't align with their specific tastes. Can we really trust a moral compass that turns a blind eye to corruption whenever it's being perpetrated by secular authorities they happen to find agreeable?

They only seem to care about raising children with actual values when they’ve already been given a free pass to subject them to systemic indoctrination. Is it really about family guidance if the groundwork was laid by institutional programming first?

And if you really want to get to the heart of the matter, what matters most is how, for decades now, people around here have consistently sided with those absolute crooks and moral degenerates—the very individuals who work tirelessly to undermine the sanctity of home and family in every way imaginable. It’s almost impressive, isn't it, how they manage to pull off the sheer audacity of selling us a narrative that they are actually the ones defending those very values? 🙏🙏

So, I'm giving you a perfect example just so you can wrap your head around the problem. I'm not gonna sit here like you guys quoting those Western philosophers who cooked up their progressive theories while lounging in comfy armchairs. I'm giving you a fresh example of how things are determined by circumstance.

And honestly, if you haven't lived through these events firsthand, you're probably never going to get why nothing makes sense right now.☕

Noah Ross7 said:Why did they part ways so peacefully? Oh wait... they didn't, considering they had those neighbors from the South and that whole Natchertan plan to deal with.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy A30

Yeah, unfortunately, our fate is decided by others—by the greedy ones, the ones reaching for stuff that isn't theirs, the ones never satisfied with what they've got. We have this "flaw" where we sit right on the border of being satisfied and being completely fed up (the West vs. the East).

Both sides end up getting dragged along by the chaos.

If by that failed "alternative" path you mean societies without the heavy influence of institutional religions, maybe we should ask the Scandinavians how they feel after their social structures collapsed?

Those folks didn't have to walk the same thorny path we did, so even someone like Hitler would've left them be. They were basically the first colonizers of the tech age, and now you're using them as an example? That's not gonna fly.

Plus, they've got their climate and geography protecting them; they're out of reach, yet they still managed to position themselves perfectly for the reasons I mentioned above.

The Church only advocates for life, family, and home as supreme values when it suits their political agenda. When it doesn't, the "supreme value" becomes something else entirely—war, the nation, capitalism, whatever gets them what they want.They'll bless tanks that ruin families if it serves the cause, they'll prefer state-run orphanages over letting kids grow up in homes that don't fit their mold, and they'll turn a blind eye to corruption if it's being pulled by secular authorities they're close to.
They only support family upbringing as a secondary priority, and even then, only if they've already been allowed to systematically indoctrinate the kids first.

And most importantly, for decades here, they've backed the exact same crooks and moral degenerates whose actions tear down the home and family in every possible way. All while somehow successfully selling the story that they are the ones defending those very values.
🙏🙏

Wait, hold up—are you talking about the Orthodox Church?

Look, our own church here in the States is going through its own messy, turbulent era too. And honestly? They’re struggling to find their footing because, let’s be real, if you want any kind of clout or respect, you need a stable government at the helm of the country. Have we, as a relatively young nation, actually had steady leadership that stays on the same page? Not even close.
All it takes is one administration losing its grip on what they were doing yesterday, and suddenly everything goes completely sideways. Just total chaos.

And that’s basically our playbook every time there’s a change in Washington. We’re just too small and too inexperienced to pull off those kinds of high-wire political stunts. We just stumble around. We’re like those pigeons you see in the park—they flutter up for a second, think they're flying high, and then just... bam. Irrationally dive straight into the gutter for no damn reason.

Too many armchair philosophers in such a tiny arena.

James Anderson5 said:There’s this theory that countries like the Czech Republic and Poland dealt with much heavier Russian influence, so once they moved past that, there weren't as many holdovers from the old regime sitting in high positions to steer the nation's future in a different direction...

It’s also argued that despite how intense things got during the breakup of America, with those clear territorial claims, a good chunk of the conflict was actually orchestrated to ensure control over social resources, corporations, and property that hadn't been privatized yet. If the war hadn't happened, the former communists wouldn't have stood a chance at winning elections or keeping their grip on power; most would have ended up behind bars. Instead, they just shifted into the major political parties, and if you look at who has been running the show for the last 30 years, you can see exactly who grabbed the lion's share of the wealth and influence...😁

The church is really just the icing on the cake. Throughout history, they’ve always hitched their wagon to whoever wins, which is why even historical figures didn't trust them. Nowadays, they seem to serve a similar role of keeping the public distracted and compliant...

And that idea about Protestantism being the driver for certain regions' progress? That goes all the way back to Max Weber. It’s not a universal rule, but there might be some truth to the influence. Not that being Catholic makes you an automatic failure or being Protestant guarantees success, but there's definitely a connection there...

I wasn't talking about Protestants specifically, I was talking about people who claim they don't belong to any religion. Regardless, Protestantism is better for economic growth than Catholicism (assuming that's the only difference between two nations) because Protestants believe if you don't look out for yourself, even God won't help you. Meanwhile, Catholics say—just throw all worldly stuff in the trash, it doesn't matter, only the soul counts. Which is, honestly, the worst economic advice ever given.

Faith doesn't drive logic—that's just poorly organized social structures. Faith drives tribalism (closed societies where "us" is all that matters, which leads to corruption and drives away free thinkers who are actually useful to the economy). Faith drives expansionism (and therefore wars). Faith drives blind obedience to authority (killing innovation and the urge to progress). Don't get me wrong, this applies just as much if you swap "religion" for a state ideology like Communism; the mental processes and worldview aren't fundamentally different from your average believer.

Look, societies that aren't religious but live in open democracies are 9 out of 10 times more successful than comparable societies that are heavily religious. Obviously, that's not the only factor—being born in an oil-rich country in the 20th century is a pretty easy way to be economically successful for a while—but looking at the countries I mentioned, less religious societies are undeniably more socio-economically successful.

That's my take. Over and out.

wiredfalcon2 said:Look, I already laid this out when I was talking about comparable nations—you know, looking at scale, cultural spheres, that whole lack of a massive colonial empire history, stuff like that. You can't sit here and bring up Belgium or the Netherlands, talking about how they basically had half of Africa or half the known world under their thumb, and then try to compare them to somewhere like Estonia. That's just not apples to apples. We’re talking about small players here, nations under 30 million people, tucked away in Europe, without a history of carving up continents. You can't compare America to Poland or France either; they're sitting on 60 or 80 million people. So, if you actually look at what we can realistically compare ourselves to, the correlation is pretty damn obvious—societies with heavy religious coloring are economically failing 9 times out of 10. Case closed.

I see these idiots making fun of the Czech Republic, even though they joined the EU a decade before we did. Their people actually had enough sense to stay rational—they didn't go obsessing over religious fanaticism during the war like some lunatics; they just handled things sensibly and split off from those stubborn Slovaks. Honestly, looking back at where we were in the 80s, the Czech Republic is basically our version of America. Once they finally shook off all that Soviet madness, they just started thriving. They’ve got the lowest unemployment rates out there. Doesn't mean they're New York City, but for us? Yeah, they're definitely the gold standard.

You seem to be taking a one-way correlation for granted—the idea that if a society is religiously oriented, it's mostly because that's why it's economically underdeveloped. But why assume that? Research suggests it might actually be more likely that economic underdevelopment triggers higher religiosity. Besides, economic status seems to have more to do with politics, national education, and plenty of other factors. Religion is a set of myths that holds a group together, but the same goes for a nation, a drawn border, or a currency. Every one of these fictions is useful under certain circumstances. In this region, there was the fictional entity of America, which is gone now. There was the USSR, there was the British Empire, and many other things. I think we can agree that developed Western societies weren't all that long ago very religiously active, and some still are. Many of those societies call themselves post-Christian today, but they only became that way after they amassed wealth. Religious stories usually bore wealthy people because they have other preoccupations, mostly economic and scientific. If you're a poor farmer in a remote area, the church is one of your few options for engagement. It isn't black and white; Larry Fox5 made a good point that people in Switzerland, Bavaria, or Ireland are quite religious. And those are standards that many ambitious Americans strive toward. Like I said, these are just stories and myths for identification and collective action for larger groups, and they can have positive effects. You can't really have nations of millions of people without shared myths to bind them. There are objective links like a shared language, but even that is a result of other factors. It starts with ancient myths, and later, modern myths take over. For Americans, history heavily marks that Catholic identity, but that's in the past. Statistics suggest it's gradually fading; younger generations don't care much for those stories. If you're impatient and want Americans to become secular as quickly as possible, I guess you just have to hope they get wealthier before that happens.

Look, nobody’s out here claiming the church needs to run the whole show or be the final word on everything, but let’s get real—it’s a massive pillar of society. Period. We’re talking about the context of our own country here. If it wasn't for the Catholic Church throughout history, there wouldn't even be an American people or an American nation to speak of. Honestly, if you can't wrap your head around that, you shouldn't even be bothering with a serious debate. You can take my word for it or toss it out the window for all I care, but those facts aren't up for negotiation.

So, it really boils down to this: you're either a patriot or you're a globalist. You can't really be both—well, maybe once you've actually made a mark in the economy or established some clout on the world stage, but we aren't even there yet. We haven't even figured ourselves out domestically, let alone internationally. If 80% of the population in America were Catholic, then the path forward would be crystal clear. ☕

Jessica Gonzalez said:You seem to be taking a one-way correlation for granted—the idea that if a society is religiously oriented, it's mostly because that's why it's economically underdeveloped. But why assume that? Research suggests it might actually be more likely that economic underdevelopment triggers higher religiosity. Besides, economic status seems to have more to do with politics, national education, and plenty of other factors. Religion is a set of myths that holds a group together, but the same goes for a nation, a drawn border, or a currency. Every one of these fictions is useful under certain circumstances. In this region, there was the fictional entity of America, which is gone now. There was the USSR, there was the British Empire, and many other things. I think we can agree that developed Western societies weren't all that long ago very religiously active, and some still are. Many of those societies call themselves post-Christian today, but they only became that way after they amassed wealth. Religious stories usually bore wealthy people because they have other preoccupations, mostly economic and scientific. If you're a poor farmer in a remote area, the church is one of your few options for engagement. It isn't black and white; Larry Fox5 made a good point that people in Switzerland, Bavaria, or Ireland are quite religious. And those are standards that many ambitious Americans strive toward. Like I said, these are just stories and myths for identification and collective action for larger groups, and they can have positive effects. You can't really have nations of millions of people without shared myths to bind them. There are objective links like a shared language, but even that is a result of other factors. It starts with ancient myths, and later, modern myths take over. For Americans, history heavily marks that Catholic identity, but that's in the past. Statistics suggest it's gradually fading; younger generations don't care much for those stories. If you're impatient and want Americans to become secular as quickly as possible, I guess you just have to hope they get wealthier before that happens.

Look, if you haven't been following this thread closely, I already laid it out: the first real sign of progress is how much a society hates organized religion. It’s about that massive pivot away from the Catholic Church and the Pope to make room for Protestantism, Lutheranism, or whatever flavor of faith comes next. That whole "anti-establishment" phase—where everyone stops bowing down to the Vatican and starts questioning the absolute authority of the Church—is basically the spark plug for everything else. You distrust the central religious power, then people start getting rich, and eventually, the whole thing just dries up until nobody even cares about God anymore. Simple as that.

Consumerism—you know, that whole vibe where you can actually save up enough to buy some useless luxury junk that only the ultra-rich used to touch—has really only been a thing for maybe two hundred years. And this decline in religion? We’re talking maybe the last century, if that. So, I wouldn't go as far as saying wealth itself is what kills faith. It’s not like there's a direct link between having money and becoming anti-Catholic. Look at guys like Luther or Hus; those were clashes of power, people going head-to-head with the Pope and the central Church authority. That's politics, not just a bank account. Sure, poverty plays a role. When people are struggling, they tend to cling to nationalism and Catholicism because they see it as a sort of shield. But let's be real: most of these people were closeted believers anyway. They spend all year barely acknowledging anything beyond Christmas and Easter, but the second they feel threatened, suddenly they’re "super religious." It’s a performance.

Poverty doesn't turn atheists into believers, and it sure as hell doesn't make Protestants suddenly convert to Catholicism. I didn't see people in Chicago during the Great Recession suddenly finding God and flocking to the local parish just because their bank accounts hit zero. But you know what I do see? I see these "devout Catholics" who, the second things get tough, morph into these ultra-right-wing, anti-immigrant types with pure venom in their eyes. It's pathetic. ☕