I denounce the pope and the Catholic Church for covering up years of rape, torture, and murder across the globe.
To be fair, there was a lot of blatant torture and murder as well.
deleted by creator
called Satan
I mean, that’s kinda misleading.
“Satan” is a NATO reporting term, not a Russian one. And if that’s an RS-28, it doesn’t even apply to that missile; some news outlets called it “Satan II” because an earlier, different missile had “Satan” as its NATO reporting name decades back.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-28_Sarmat
The RS-28 Sarmat (Russian: РС-28 Сармат,[8] named after the Sarmatians;[9] NATO reporting name: SS-X-29[10] or SS-X-30[11]), often colloquially referred to as Satan II by media outlets, is a three-stage Russian silo-based, liquid-fueled, HGV-capable and FOBS-capable super-heavy intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) produced by the Makeyev Rocket Design Bureau.[8] It is intended to replace the Soviet R-36M ICBM in Russia’s arsenal.[15]
That earlier missile, the R-36M that’s being retired, is the one with the NATO reporting name of “Satan”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-36_(missile)#R-36M
The R-36 (Russian: Р-36) is a family of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and space launch vehicles (Tsyklon) designed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The original R-36 was deployed under the GRAU index 8K67 and was given the NATO reporting name SS-9 Scarp. It was able to carry three warheads and was the first Soviet MRV (multiple re-entry vehicle) missile.[4] The later version, the R-36M, also known as RS20, was produced under the GRAU designations 15A14 and 15A18 and was given the NATO reporting name SS-18 Satan.
Iran has a habit of calling the US “Great Satan”, but we don’t care about that. Similarly, it’s hard to see why Russia would place a lot of weight on a foreign reporting name.
And as blessing of nuclear weapons goes…we’ve done similar, had the atomic bomb crews who hit Japan blessed prior to having them drop them. Incidentally, the chaplain who did so wound up going through the footage of the incinerated landscape afterwards, wound up feeling really bad about the whole thing and ultimately became a pacifist.
Father George Zabelka, a Catholic chaplain with the U.S. Air Force, served as a priest for the airmen who dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, and gave them his blessing. Days later he counseled an airman who had flown a low-level reconnaissance flight over the city of Nagasaki shortly after the detonation of “Fat Man.” The man described how thousands of scorched, twisted bodies writhed on the ground in the final throes of death, while those still on their feet wandered aimlessly in shock – flesh seared, melted, and falling off. The crewman’s description raised a stifled cry from the depths of Zabelka’s soul: “My God, what have we done?” Over the next twenty years, he gradually came to believe that he had been terribly wrong, that he had denied the very foundations of his faith by lending moral and religious support to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
“If a soldier came to me and asked if he could put a bullet through a child’s head, I would have told him absolutely not. That would be mortally sinful,” he said.
But in 1945 on Tinian Island in the South Pacific, where the atomic bomb group was based, three planes every minute would take off around the clock, Zabelka said.
"Many of these planes went to Japan with the express purpose of killing not one child or one civilian but of slaughtering hundreds and thousands of children and civilians – and I said nothing. …
As a chaplain I often had to enter the world of the boys who were losing their minds because of something they did in war. I remember one young man who was engaged in the bombings of the cities of Japan. He was in the hospital on Tinian Island on the verge of a complete mental collapse.
He told me that he had been on a low-level bombing mission, flying right down one of the main streets of the city, when straight ahead of him appeared a little boy, in the middle of the street, looking up at the plane in childlike wonder. The man knew that in a few seconds the child would be burned to death by napalm which had already been released.
Zabelka said that 75,000 people were burned to death in one night of fire bombing over Tokyo. And hundreds of thousands were killed in Dresden and Hamburg, Germany, and Coventry, England, by aerial bombing.
“The fact that 45,000 human beings were killed by one bomb over Nagasaki was new only to the extent that it was one bomb that did it,” Zabelka said.
What is the point of any part of this rambling post?
Those have to be the three most propagandized Russian dumbasses I’ve ever seen.
“Churches are not to be touched!” he added.
That would carry so much more weight if churches didn’t touch or otherwise affect people who don’t follow their particular faith.
Or not touch children that were forced to follow their faith.
Or not touch children
Don’t forget this old piece of shit wanted Ukraine to surrender to the orcs. If he is not a ruzzian puppet, he is deeply stupid.
Hey pope, go cry me a river.
Who gives a shit what an old man who plays dress up thinks.
That’s an intra-orthodox dispute that the Vatican has no say about.
No, because it’s state banning the church. As in you know, organisation that have all the armed services in its disposal and can enforce it. Pope see it as dangerous precedent especially that if states starts to ban the churches, catholic mafia organisation will be first on list in many many places. It’s also a textbook religious opression, as defined by basically everyone (except you probably).
Not exactly. It’s a state enforcing a particular administrative jurisdiction. These are all Orthodox churches, literally the same denomination. The Ukrainian church declared its autocephaly so that it is not administratively dependent on the Moscow Patriarchate and that was recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and others (eg the Church of Greece, the Patriarchate of Alexandria). What this move does is Ukraine mandating that churches within its boundaries adhere to the autocephaly. It’s not banning anything, just returning canonical ownership of the physical infrastructure to the canonical administration. This makes sense in the context of a war of national liberation, when the enemy is literally in a position to do propaganda by controlling those churches. Ultimately, this is more like confiscating Russian assets than restricting religious freedom. From the point of view of a believer, the only observed difference will be which particular patriarch is mentioned during mass, nothing else changes dogmatically.
Edit: and these are all internally orthodox politics. The Vatican commenting on it is as absurd as, say, the Egyptian Coptic church making pronouncements about the Pope’s dismissal of cardinal Burke. That’s an internal Catholic matter, other churches don’t have a say. This is an internal orthodox matter, the Vatican should stay in their lane. But then again, the Vatican not staying in their lane has been the original reason of the 1054 schism to begin with, so this isn’t that surprising.
High quality post.
It’s a state enforcing a particular administrative jurisdiction.
It’s state banning religious organization no matter how many rounds of mental gymnastic you do
These are all Orthodox churches, literally the same denomination. The Ukrainian church declared its autocephaly so that it is not administratively dependent on the Moscow Patriarchate and that was recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and others (eg the Church of Greece, the Patriarchate of Alexandria).
This has nothing to do with the matter
What this move does is Ukraine mandating that churches within its boundaries adhere to the autocephaly. It’s not banning anything, just returning canonical ownership of the physical infrastructure to the canonical administration.
Gold medal at mental gymnastic. This is just setting up state supported religion and opressing those not adhering to it.
This makes sense in the context of a war of national liberation, when the enemy is literally in a position to do propaganda by controlling those churches.
Finally you say something with substance, unfortunately for you this substance jut offer a more or less valid reason for state opression, not making the opression disappear.
Ultimately, this is more like confiscating Russian assets than restricting religious freedom.
Oh damn, so having anything at all to do with Russia now justifies literally everything
From the point of view of a believer, the only observed difference will be which particular patriarch is mentioned during mass, nothing else changes dogmatically.
Sure, it’s only religion, known as least important and trivial issue ever. Read yourself again what you just wrote here.
and these are all internally orthodox politics.
It’s not when a state comes in and bans and confiscates. Afaik Ukraine is secular state, it does not have state religion so why it does everything to look like it have one.
The Vatican commenting on it is as absurd
I mean sure Vatican shouldn’t throw any stones when the topic is religious freedom, but again, it’s clear case of religious opression.
as, say, the Egyptian Coptic church making pronouncements about the Pope’s dismissal of cardinal Burke
Bizarre and missed comparison. More apt would be if Egyptian Coptic church expressed concern over US state banning and confistating US catholic church (or any other non-Coptic church in US).
But then again, the Vatican not staying in their lane has been the original reason of the 1054 schism to begin with, so this isn’t that surprising.
Good thing you mention 1000 years old history! Makes your erlier dismissal of any concern over the organisation and worldy manner of denomination even funnier and more detached from reality. I’m sure there was no issues with antipopes or friday prayer names ever, after all “nothing else changes dogmatically”
I did not say you’re flat out wrong, I said “not exactly”. What you call “religious oppression”, I see as “administrative jostling”. Sure, the choice of which patriarch to mention at mass can be a huge issue, I’m from the Balkans, I know exactly how ugly it can get, but even that is “church politics”, not “religious persecution”. This is a political, not a dogmatic issue. It’s not sunnis persecuting shias, it’s not catholics vs protestants. The pope vs antipope analogy is actually a good one. Like I said, this is an internal matter of a single denomination. It’s a power struggle, not a theological debate. Which is why I don’t see that as religious persecution, there is nothing “religious” about the struggle, they’re not debating the natures of Christ, the Filioque or predestination or whether the twelfth Imam is the Mehdi. It’s about who gets to be the boss of this or that church building.
Is the state meddling with religious affairs? Sure. Should it not be in a perfect world? Sure. But this is how church and state intertwine in our neck of the woods. Same thing happened between the Ottomans and Greece 200 years ago, between Greece and Bulgaria 100 years ago, between Serbia and Macedonia more recently, and so on and so forth. This is how nationalism and Orthodoxy have been intertwined since the collapse of the two empires that used to control them in the past, the Ottomans in the south and the Russian Empire in the north. In this context, the Ukrainian state is countering the meddling of the Russian state that has already completely weaponized the Russian church. The Russian church has been functioning as the long arm of the Russian state for a while now. This is not some group of believers being persecuted for wearing the wrong type of hat or crossing themselves with two fingers as opposed to three, it’s competing nationalisms. Reducing all this context to “religious persecution” is kinda ridiculous.
This is precisely the kind of mess that will be healed with pan-orthodox synods once the wars are over. Has happened before, will happen again.
PS.
having anything at all to do with Russia now justifies literally everything
You’re ascribing to me a russophobia that I just don’t have. I’m not “justifying literally everything”, I’m giving context to a religious power struggle.
PPS. I’m not downvoting you.
WTF man. I thought that guy was at least going to bring better things for that stupid religion.
The news source of this post could not be identified. Please check the source yourself. Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
Cool, if you have nothing to say, then please don’t say anything.
FYI this is a right wing Christian news site that, according to their About Us page, was founded in 2004, in response to Pope John Paul II’s call for a “New Evangelization."
God damn, John Paul II was too far left for them?
