u/Blue__Northen_Star

You know who you are.

My Religion subject books from my younger years would have you believe that the church is all sunshines & rainbows who only knows how to preach about Jesus love this & peace be upon that, but after I did some of my own researching, I found-out about "Things The Catholic Church does not want you to know about", so to speak.

For Example:

- The Books at school never taught is that past popes & cardinals used to have secret marriages or at least bastards or how The Catholic Church was manipulated. Like by the Borgias, for example.

- They never taught us why exactly The Roman Catholic Church & The Eastern Orthodox Church broke apart.

- They didn't teach us how older Christians used to be anti-simetic and would exclude, discriminate against, target & bully Jewish people.

- They didn't teach us why The Protestant Reformation even happened, The Counter Reformation, The Council of Trent, etc.

- They didn't teach us about the full scales of The Crusades. Just "Old Christian warriors go to war for Jerusalem lol."

- I literally had no idea what the heck some prayers were talking about. Once I read a prayer to St. Thomas More before I even knew who the guy was and there was a line that said, "You lost your head for refusing to acknowledge the king as Head of The Church instead of The Pope." and I was like, "Wtf???" "What happened to St. Thomas More? What king is this prayer talking about?" I had to find-out about King Henry VIII later-on. ON MY OWN RESEARCH!!!!

- The Reconquista.

- The power players like Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, Bishop Stephen Gardiner, Bishop John Fisher, Cardinal Richelieu, Bishop Cranmer, etc.

- Questions that could inspire critical thinking like: "Should priests & churchmen be allowed to get involved in politics especially if they are good at politics and have the talents for it?"

- They didn't teach us about The Rosary & The Divine Mercy Chaplet and why they're so important, what their histories were, how they came to be, etc. They just had us say Hail Mary and For the sake of his most sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world over and over and over again.

The effects?

The Rosary & The Divine Mercy Chaplet never stuck to anyone of my peers because to us it was meaningless, boring, choresome & repetitive. No value, depth, personal bond & closeness to those recitations, etc. My peers ditched these 2 time-consuming prayers as soon as possible.

- The Little Office of The Virgin Mary.

- The context, stories & meaning behind The Angelus & The 3 O'Clock Prayer to The Divine Mercy.

- The Book of Hours.

- What to do during a saint's feast day.

- Michaelmas.

- Lent's context, meaning and relevance. Why we should care about it, imitate it, etc. I was just told, "Oh just don't eat meat for 40 days and try to fast, lol." Well they didn't literally say "lol" but you get what I meant. They were dismissive and more "Let's just get this overwith."

- They didn't teach us about The Era of The 3 Popes. I had to learn that from an ATHEIST who wasn't afraid to call-out Church History.

- They didn't teach us about corrupt popes in history so as to learn from their mistakes. They always presented the pope as, "He is the father of all Catholics and we should all pray for him, support him and be respectful of him! (⁠◍⁠•⁠ᴗ⁠•⁠◍⁠) ❤️" again as though everything were fine.

- I also find The Catholic Church to be somewhat totalitarian because criticizing The Pope is banned in certain Catholic communities both online and IRL.

- In my observation, the church was also somewhat self-contradictory/back peddaling/inconsistent because they'd preach "The Pope is infallible!" then say "Oh he can make mistakes he's not perfect!"

They said the papacy has an unbroken chain from At. Peter himself, alright.

They just didn't say some of the popes were shit.

- The popes literally cannot be impeached.

- When pope francis was alive, I noticed how he would always keep 1 foot in the door of Orthodox Theology while preaching about things that the church already established were sinful. For Example: When pope francis visited singapore, he preached, "All religions lead to God" which completely contradicted Christ's words at John 14:16, which stated: Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" (NIV) and pope francis would also repeatedly say, "Being gay isn't a crime." instead of saying "Being gay isn't a sin." because Church Doctrine established that it was because of 1 Corinthians 6:9 - 10 where it stated: "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor revilers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (NIV).

What pope francis was doing, in modern terms, was that he was trying to change the software of The Catholic Church without actually damaging the hardware, because even though popes are traditionally unimpeachable, exemptions can be made if they start altering core doctrines officially, so pope francis was - rather cowardly - playing both sides. He was making love to globalist views while remaining in the seat of power in the spiritual realm. Had pope francis officially declared "All religions lead to God.", he would've been in breach of John 14:16 which could've triggered his impeachment due to heresy but because pope francis was just saying it instead of actually changing the doctrine, he could claim plausible deniability of "I didn't technically do that."

He couldn't fully commit to one side. He was obviously on the side of the world, but didn't wanna lose his seat of power in the spiritual one. It's like seeing a hoe stay with a faithful man who pays her bills while going-out with the handsome popular jock who's just gonna pump & dump her when she's boring now.

Fricking "Thou shalt not question the master" bullcrap.

Everything I mentioned above, I had to research myself 😮‍💨 because the gosh damned church who was supposed to be the one teaching us about it couldn't be f-cking bothered.

A common argument I hear about why abortion isn't murder is "Well it's just a clump of cells". And then there's the whole "Abortion is murder" thing.

So my compromise is that abortion should be illegal if the fetus already has likea heartbeat or something like that. Like in the 4th month and beyond?

When stories like, "White Christian man from The UK tells black muslim immigrant to leave", such stories would be dismissed as islamophobia, intolerance, bigotry, etc. But I do find it odd how they ignore it when muslims don't like each other and/or do the exact same things.

For Example:

• turkey is 99% muslim. Out of all the muslim countries in the world, turkey has the highest amount of refugees (4 million people, most of whom are fellow muslims) and anti-immigration beliefs are spreading.

• lebanon & jordan host tremendous amounts of syrian and palestinian refugees and are economically & financially overwhelmed.

• palestinian refugees literally started the lebanese civil war decades prior where they encouraged muslims to go around killing lebanese Christians.

• palestinian refugees literally tried to overthrow the jordanian government & monarchy and mind you they're both muslims.

• The wealthy arab nations (saudi, abu dhabi, etc.) have all refused to be signatories of The UN's refugee convention thingies. They can deport illegal immigrants - even fellow muslims - freely.

• arab muslims have expressed shame at the way their fellow pakistani and bangladeshi muslims behave in The UK.

• iran & pakistan both have millions of afghan refugees, and the refugees face discrimination there and en masse deportations.

• Despite presenting itself as a democratic country, turkey actively stifles Christianity. turkey also does not have an Orthodox Christian Seminary to train the priesthood, bans Christian missionaries, there's almost no Christian in the turkish government's upper echelons of power and the moment an abbot (Leader of Monks) dies, they can seize the monastery and do with the other building & monks as they please.

• When the hagia sophia was briefly a secular museum, muslim guests could go around the whole building with 0 restrictions but non-muslim visitors - especially Christians - were heavily restricted. Isn't that... "non-inclusive" or "exclusionary"? "Our fellow muslims can go around freely but anyone who's not a muslim can't"?

• ahmad mulakhil, a 23-year-old afghan asylum seeker, was convicted of raping a 12-year-old girl. The attack happened just months after he arrived in the UK. He had been housed in a luxurious hotel in Nuneaton.

• I also find it odd how they don't seem to blame the taliban government, like, "It's your fault why there are so many displaced afghans in the first place! If it weren't for you, they wouldn't have had to leave their homeland to start with!"

• Back at 2025, a British sikh man named Harman Singh Kapoor hang-up a sign that said, "Proudly we don't sell halal food here." (or something to that effect). Then 100 muslims in London protested and harassed him outside of his restaurant and when he tried to defend himself by showing a sikh ceremonial dagger, the muslims called the police on him and fake reviewers left 1-star reviews on his restaurant + accusations of racism. Objectively speaking: Since sikhs are the smaller minority in Britain, doesn't that make them the victims and British muslims the bigots?

White Christian vs. muslim = "Oppressor vs. oppressed" → bigotry.

· muslim vs. sikh = "Minority vs. smaller minority" → inter-community tension, not systemic racism.

This feels like a convenient excuse to shield muslims from accountability.

muslims are not a monolith. They are divided by:

· Sect (sunni vs. ahia vs. ahmadiyya).

· Ethnicity (pakistani vs. arab vs. somali vs. bangladeshi).

· Theology (conservative vs. progressive vs. secular).

When muslims discriminate against ahmadiyya muslims (who are often persecuted and denied burial rights in some UK mosques), or when shia and sunni communities clash, it is rarely framed as "bigotry." Instead, it is called:

• "Sectarian tension."

• "Cultural differences."

• "Internal community matters."

Activists avoid calling it "islamophobia" because the perpetrator is muslim, and the victim is muslim. To label it bigotry would require acknowledging that muslims can be oppressors too—which undermines the "oppressed minority" narrative and the biased belief that muslims always gotta be the victims but never the a-hole.

Sometimes, bigotry accusers just feels kess like, "Let us strive to alleviate all societal sufferings & prejudices equally!" and more like "Whose suffering can be more trendy for my twitter feed & affirm my biases?"

I don't think bullying people in their name is what palestinians would want.

Which is why sweden's "open door to refugees" program failed spectacularly.

Queen Catherine of Aragon was King Henry VIII's first wife but because they had no living sons, he sought to get away from her, but Queen Catherine did produce 2 sons but they just didn't live.

Henry, Duke of Cornwall at 1511 and a son Queen Catherine miscarried at 1513 after The Battle at Flodden Field after the Scots invaded while King Henry was away at France.

What if both of them had lived? Asides from Princess Mary (1516) having 2 big brothers, that is.

So when religious people say things like, "It's a sin in my religion to be gay/eat meat/masturbate/get tattoos, etc. You're being a sinner." etc., a common response from the people being attacked is, "I never signed-up for your religion. If it's a sin in islam to eat pork, then that's your choice but I'm not a muslim so that law doesn't apply to me. That sounds like a you problem."

So then if that's the logic then people who never signed-up for liberal beliefs should also be immune from your labels.

It's homophobic to dislike gays? It's islamophobic to dislike muslims? It's fatphobic to be hostile towards fat people? Well tough luck I never signed-up for liberal labels.

So it goes both ways.

If "I never signed-up for your belief system = Your labels don't apply to me", then...

This person has been blocked by multiple people yet is still capable of commenting on others' posts. This person is arrogant and is always in denial when his favorite factions (liberals, leftists & palestine supporters) do something wrong. "No we don't do that! You're just lying about it to be pissy about it!" nyeh nyeh nyeh blah blah blah.

He is toxic, arrogant & invasive who has no respect for other people's boundaries and never listens to anyone who corrects him.

But have no worries, my dear citizens! I have already begun drafting a report and will repeatedly keep on reporting this person to the reddit developers until they do something about it.

Wish me luck!

Mods, if you read this post, pls do something about that person.