That Hope Yet Lives

I have hoped, and lived for hope, and so you may call me Hoffnung.
I have laid my hope with Our Lady, and with Saint Joseph, and with Saint Martin, and with the Holy Catholic Church. Pro-missionary. I have also flabbergasted. Note: I'm pretty inconsistent about tagging.
  • ask me anything
  • submit a post
  • rss
  • archive
  • thathopeyetlives:

    Please pray for the repose of the soul of a member of my family.

    Siiigh. Please pray for the repose of the soul of a different member of my family.

    • 1 week ago
    • 19 notes
  • homoluigi:

    Why can’t we just melt down spent nuclear fuel and mix it with a ton of melted rock to turn it back into ore? Is spent fuel hotter than the original ore? Would it just be politically impossible to spread lightly radioactive rocks back out in an environment where they were originally gathered from?

    Spent nuclear fuel is vastly more radioactive than both fresh uranium and uranium ore.

    Plain old uranium ore is… not harmless, but not terribly hazardous to be around as long as you’re not ingesting it or surrounded by massive amounts of it.

    Spent nuclear fuel is much worse.

    • 12 hours ago
    • 61 notes
  • catchymemes:

    image

    Probably not.

    Straw bales are very heavy and dense. They are stacked up like bricks, pinned together with bamboo or wooden rods, and then they get covered with a dense, hard layer of stucco.

    When finished it looks more like this:

    image

    source: https://sustainablehouseday.com/listing/the-strawbale-house-blackheath/

    Basically, this works well in places where straw bales are available and where the weather is not too wet. It can be a very inexpensive way of building a house that also is extremely well insulated / can store heat.

    (via lordascapelion)

    • 12 hours ago
    • 7693 notes
  • morlock-holmes:

    morlock-holmes:

    zexreborn:

    morlock-holmes:

    collapsedsquid:

    Was listening to a thing on King Charles and his political views, his traditionalist anti-modernist political views weren’t too interesting in themselves but they did address the issue of “disenchantment,” that unlike classic kings and churches the modern world of companies and markets seems very disenchanting, and for him that’s why we need to RETVRN.

    But this does hit on one of my recurring thoughts, why are companies so disenchanting? “They are abusive and exploitative” you say, well I’ve got news for you about kings, churches, and families, being abusive does not stop people from being enchanted. This is one those things that I think we don’t even consider that anyone could be enchanted with them so we don’t think to ask why we are not. (I should say that this does happen a bit at the consumer end but not at the employee end)

    There’s a simple answer and that’s “time,” these aren’t old enough. Maybe in the year 2200 the people will crave a return to the traditional values of Amazon.com.

    Never felt satisfied with that though, and the other answer I’ve had is that, unlike church, family, and king, a fundamental part of how corporations work is firing. You can be cut loose from a family or excommunicated from a church, but this is not core to how those institutions work.

    Don’t really know if this even makes sense to wonder about, but I return to it every once in a while

    I think you’re really on to something there.

    The relationships that characterize, say, an aristocracy are in some sense stable; am aristocrat with no money at all is just as much an aristocrat as he was when he was rich.

    Or, to put it another way, the Catholic Church might excommunicate someone, but the pope is not going to declare that, due to declining profits he is going to shut down the church and he wishes all the former bishops luck in their next religious posting.

    The relationships in business are *all* subject to being dissolved at a moment’s notice the instant that they are no longer profitable, and when you are layed off that’s often a signal of total apathy: what happens to you specifically not only doesn’t matter, it *can’t* matter.

    I would question the premise that the modern world isn’t enchanted. Nike, after all, was the Greek Goddess of victory before it was a shoe company, and Nike the company sought to embody the ideals of victory and athletic excellence in the minds of their customers. They weaved a dense mythology of what their shoes meant and what relation it had to victory, mostly by advertising, including endorsements from people who had attained success in athletics, whose real stories helped to buttress the myth making of Nike’s advertisers. Now, Nike’s shoes are enchanted, in the most literal way possible in the modern world, and you know it because some people are willing to spend several hundred dollars for a sneaker that cost ten dollars to make.

    Right but what happens if the market shifts? That enchantment is called “branding” and it is not done for its own sake but to sell shoes.

    It exists for as long as, and *only* as long as it sells shoes and can be abandoned at any time should it fail to sell shoes.

    One characteristic of the modern world that I don’t know how to quite articulate is that it used to matter what happened to you, as in, you specifically, Bob Smith of 133 Maple Street. The things that happened to you might be caused by your social position and might, in fact, be extremely bad for you but it was important to society that they happened to you specifically.

    Currently it doesn’t really matter what happens to you specifically. What happens to you might be sad or happy but there’s no specific reason why it *should* happen to you and nobody is willing to do much for or against it.

    The bureaucratic global order mitigates against the ever-shifting mirage of the market but it still understands you primarily as a fungible instance of a certain demographic.

    The thing about a cog in a machine is that it usually needs to be there for the machine to function, so people will do a lot to insure that it doesn’t pop out of the machine.

    A better metaphor for our modern situation is the dollar bill. Why should I spend this dollar bill with the dog-eared edge rather than that dollar with the small tear?

    No reason whatsoever. All dollar bills are interchangeable so there’s no sense in tracking what happens to a specific one.

    I think Anton Chigurh made a similar point.

    Another thing is, a religion, say, the Catholic Church, or the Mormons, may well exploit their parishioners but the relationship is fundamentally not really analogous to an employer/employee relationship, and particularly the idea of “useless” parishioners being expelled from places of worship, while perhaps not unheard of, certainly strikes me as a less central behavior than laying off or firing an expensive employee.

    Or, another difference, Churches tend to make money because making money allows them to perpetuate their worship and beliefs; a company like Nike creates a brand because it allows them to make money.

    Honestly the belief that all human interactions can be understood in market terms strikes me as a huge component of becoming disenchanted with the world.

    Tying it back to King Charles, it’s a little notable that this is happening in Britain, a country somewhat unusual for having the aristocracy be really small.

    (he’s not capable of actually solving the problem. He might become capable one day, but right now, he isn’t.)

    One can certainly envision a different history, in which the French Revolution never happened and the fall of the European monarchies never happened and we still did have the struggles that were probably inevitable, but they ended up being resolved very differently.

    • 13 hours ago
    • 138 notes
  • You hear about ridiculously hubristic tech people proposing that we exterminate the biosphere, but it’s somewhat of an achievement honestly that this is now a fringe position.

    It seems that in CS Lewis’s time people often just assumed that the world would one day become 100 percent urbanized.

    • 13 hours ago
    • 5 notes
  • say what you will about leftists, they generally don’t do ridiculous Red Army cosplay.

    • 14 hours ago
    • 1 notes
  • I feel like this “show me a peer reviewed paper that proves God exists” mentality is…

    It’s getting extreme.

    Show me a peer reviewed paper that there is food in your fridge.

    • 14 hours ago
    • 11 notes
  • I am increasingly confused by people describing “granite countertops” as a symbol of pointless, excessive luxury in housings.

    Like… there are definitely less expensive options, but… this is not exactly what I would notice.

    • 14 hours ago
  • A lot of anarchists have the problem of being deeply unserious people, and also just having the fairly common human flaw of assuming things will be ideologically convenient, that efficient, easy to enact programs to support humanity will line up with their distrust of i.e. large institutions, or organizations with clear leaders and the power at least to exclude dissent.

    So you have the whole “bathtub insulin synthesis” mentality.

    And meanwhile, it’s also true that safety codes, especially the really longstanding ones, are very often written in blood.


    However, at the same time, I really think that among non-anarchists, this has lead to something like a defensive idolatry of the institution and a very real inability to understand how our great-grandfathers survived life in the world.

    Some people seem to have this attitude that “you can’t lock the doors on the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory” and “your stairway needs to be built in this very specific, very expensive way that probably the vast majority of all stairways historically would violate” are exactly the same thing.

    And you can be sued for not-doing-something-that-in-theory-you-could-have-done, but you can’t be sued for everything being too expensive.

    • 15 hours ago
    • 1 notes
  • maaruin:

    When in the US elections more results came in over the course of the evening and the count switched from the right-wing candidate to the left-wing candidate, right-wingers said it was fake votes and the left was manipulating the election result.

    When in the Brazilian elections more results came in over the course of the evening and the count switched from the right-wing candidate to the left-wing candidate, right-wingers said it was fake votes and the left was manipulating the election result.

    So now I am wondering, if in the Turkish election more results came in over the course of the evening and the count switched from the right-wing candidate to the left-wing candidate, will right-wingers say the same thing again? Or would it be too unbelieveable when it is Erdoğan instead of Trump or Bolsonaro?

    I guess the main question is, what if it goes the opposite way.

    • 22 hours ago
    • 6 notes
  • ocularcannibal:

    thathopeyetlives:

    ocularcannibal:

    rotationalsymmetry:

    discoursedrome:

    thathopeyetlives:

    “we’re both atheists, I just believe in one god less than you” is rarely a good argument. (although it can be with some really facile arguments that tend to just presume theism of some kind).

    it is never a good argument when used to compare a pagan idol to the Lord.

    There is a reason why neopaganism comes at a time of uncertainty and rests on either the reinvention of paganism or on irrationalism.

    idk, most of the rebuttals I’ve heard to this come off as special pleading to me? Like I can see why it’s not persuasive to someone who implicitly or explicitly privileges the quality or origin of their belief over all contradictory ones, but it’s a good encapsulation of the atheist’s approach to the world and, conversely, refutations of that nature don’t contain a lot that could convince someone who doesn’t privilege specific religious alignments in that way.

    I’m not really plugged into the atheist-vs-theist debates so I don’t know how this usually goes, but if I were going to just, like, spitball the main problems with this argument, it’d be a) it’s questionable to what extent you can treat monotheistic and polytheistic gods as being the same type of thing, and b) if a religious person only disbelieves in most gods because of the doctrinal foundation of their religion – if they would believe in many gods if only they didn’t believe in one – that’s a very different sort of disbelief than that of an atheist.

    I mean, yeah, pagan Deities are real and the christian god is clearly made up by people who refuse to accept a complex reality.

    (and/or who want to control other people, in the same way that teachers make up the concept of a “permanent record” in order to scare misbehaving students.)

    I mean, a perfectly good, all-powerful god who made everything? This world? What sense does that make?

    yeah it’s hard for me to see differently than that, tbh. acculturation ig ^_^

    christians ridicule the idea of a god you can touch or live inside of or even have disagreements with; there’s not much fruit in an ‘argument’ there apart from condemning soliloquy, rhetoric in different languages. morally, ethically, practically, even philosophically it’s a neutral - a language & culture

    there’s no argument to be had if no one’s speaking the same language & everyone’s wearing different eyes. I suppose it’s impossible for me to separate it from my own history; it’s possible for me to know that christians really believe believe in their view of things, but I don’t understand it, or really believe they believe it. how do you believe something that is manifestly not so? versus The Grain Grows.

    I grok atheists (the posit, not the culture) way easier than monotheists in general, christians in specific. the stuff monotheists and atheists (seem to tend to) believe about people really discomfits me, though. Where I can’t understand their perspective I really can understand their horror at my view of things. They contradict - they come into conflict. Serious shit. Hard cold immediate impacts, out there in the world.

    In my language through my eyes, it hasn’t taken long for christianity to fuck things up really badly. That isn’t neutral…

    What do you think monotheists believe about people?

    In general, I don’t understand what you’re saying without elaboration.

    (note: This commenter has a lot of horror imagery in their blog.)

    I don’t have to speculate about monotheists believing wholeheartedly that people are fundamentally bad, filthy, lost, in need of punishing. Natural self bad, human body bad & gross & to be controlled tightly by a master, obedience & proscription by the master are necessary, all that stuff - it’s on constant offer. It’s loud!
    Monotheists have a very dim view of humans.
    There are some variances in regional or sectarian practice but that’s a common core of monotheist perspective. It’s maybe a fish in water thing where, if you were reared to that idea, you wouldn’t be able see it as easily.

    It’s an easy observation to note that people aren’t garbage, or angels, or spirits, or dolls (we’re giant apes, that’s plain).

    grim monotheist hatred of the world and its animals is reified daily, minutely. If it was just something I think, we’d all be having a much healthier life! Passages to the contrary can obviously always be produced, but in reasonable logical aggregate & in history, there’s little question what monotheism has to say about the quality of a dog, a pig, an ass, a human being.

    you don’t have to have consciously subscribed to a specific monotheistic group to have been completely conditioned to accept its (to me, bizarre) declarations:
    that we’re not animals, that our natural world is bad, that we’re required to deny ourselves natural well-being - that shit is rank. and ubiquitous. in the shrines & “mono-cult laboratories "services” (obedience rituals) it’s accepted that there are elevated people who The One talks to & tells them how other people should be, that those people are better than the bad non-elevated people, all that stuff. outside the churches, that Elevated Person vibe has carried over.

    many say “doctor” and “professor” and “profession” without knowing where those words originated, but most still behave as if that person speaks for God, don’t they? can’t be questioned, speaking illimitable Truth. only, they don’t, do they? tell the truth.

    the judgements that believers in a single all-powerful entity mete out on their fellow apes are telling… what they believe Good versus Bad are… also telling. what they think is demanded of us by their god is blatant enough, typical human nonsense: obeisance & the like.

    demanding reverence for their “one” god while not being prepared or capable of showing basic respect to others. what could be more emblematic of the monotheist, really! that winking belief has a different character in each pertinent cult & culture but, it’s not like they’re shy about saying so outright. It’s not just a casual insult, it’s a mantra-style prayer “Only one only one only one” “one is three one is three three in one” “one god the god the one god”.

    kinda rude [shrug]

    believers in a single omnipotent entity that is focused on them don’t need to worry about having harmed the other apes. and since afterlife is going to be a continuation of human body & mind, there’s not reason to feel badly about ruining the earth either - it was always bad anyway!

    those punishment ethics from the Elevated are bad enough to force on a human lifetime, but Eternity?? whoough.

    there’s a lot not to like about monotheism. the reflexive shittiness of monotheists when faced with that basic reality is a powerful sign pointing to the heart of it.

    Special Perfection is a shitty idea. It leads to death and (actual, real, material) horror. Believers in One God are given a tolerance they don’t practice. It sucks that it’s not fair & all, but the real evil of it is the war, the death, the pain and cruelty that monotheism requires of its various cults (the most powerful cults in the world, sadly). Invasion, genocide, & outrageous cruelty on the basis of this belief. WORSE: the genocide is not only framed but experienced as a 'good thing’. like 'charity’ & whatnot.

    there’s a long list of things to really detest about monotheism, if one isn’t part of its cults but is still vulnerable to their control. Unhealthful social practices & violent ethics of monotheists would be a lotta chapters! At least one could just be about the arrogance of monotheism as a naked concept but, what’s the point?

    There’s no rehabbing the monotheist’s behavior against their will, and their vision of God fights against basic decency. There’s no explaining that it’s rude, offensive, unhealthful… to people who believe believe that this lack of conviviality is goodness.
    They believe they sit in judgment over others, that their behaviors & words are justifiable in this external source of all 'morality’. It’s beyond normal delusion, and thirty thousand times more deadly.

    “what I think” they believe is a hope. That is I hope they don’t really believe it, and could be redeemed, could be re-welcomed into the human world. What I think is kind compared to what they tell me they believe about me, every day. I accept that they do believe it, but I won’t condone it or show it (a concept that has proven untrue but more importantly unhealthful) some kind of human respect.

    patriarchy! what a load.

    and yow, but aren’t monotheist patriarchs just perfect messengers of their Father God. Exemplars!

    Whatever an individual adherent experiences, the collective response to monotheist inculcation has been that whole populations turn off the brain and turn up the volume on all their worst habits & fears.

    Believing you know something about ULTIMATE COSMOS beyond the next animal over is foolish, rude, useless, and violent. Convincing them you do is simple predatory tactics.

    Monotheists have a genius for making self-fulfilling prophecies of war and doom, flying free with all the worst self indulgences and crimes against life, followed by hypocritical hand-wringing “tolerance” sermons when called on it, once the No Good Scot attempt fails.

    Nah.

    There’s plenty of conversation to be had there, but it’s not like it’s possible to have it. Not in any fair way! A nonmonotheist is in a constant state of threat from monotheism’s boolean operation.

    This is somewhat remarkable in its combination of condemnations of things that are clearly good or correct to me, and really aggressive claims that I’m almost confused by.

    It’s somewhat reminiscent (though clearly in a very different sense) of reading a Fascist denouncing an ideology of coexistence and justice. The things that we very firmly believe and the things we absolutely deny seem woven very tightly.

    (I will say I’m somewhat confused by the implication that non-Christian monotheists necessarily believe in original sin).


    Just as an example: the overall comments on belief in original sin (it is pretty obvious to me how all of us are broken in a way that we can’t fix ourselves, and how all of us have temptations to evil), that the natural world is bad (really? Not just imperfect?), that we have to “deny ourselves natural well-being” (this is either a flat What, or brings in the thing where many people have a very different idea of well-being than we of the Church), that the priesthood are important and are emissaries to God (correct, and it’s a professionalism thing), that the priesthood represents some kind of generic sense of some people being better than others (clearly not…), Then “not needing to worry about ruining the earth” - what? Why? I’m aware that some people believe this but they’re obviously wrong.

    • 1 day ago
    • 69 notes
  • maaruin:

    thathopeyetlives:

    maaruin:

    During the middle ages a king’s or emperor’s coronation would contain gifts to the common people. Like literally throwing coins into the crowd. So I say each citizen of the Commonwealth Realm should be given £1000 as a show of King Charles’ III generosity.

    Unfortunate fact:

    Various negative outcomes related to this, such as inflated expectations, limited supplies, and riots provoked by those problems, have been a factor in at least one revolution.

    Which revolution are you thinking about?

    I can certainly see those problems arising, but I would think in most cases a monarchy that takes care to display the king’s generosity is less susceptible to revolution than one that doesn’t.

    Russian Revolution.

    (via maaruin)

    • 1 day ago
    • 10 notes
  • centrally-unplanned:

    Conservatives Win All the Time
    Understanding one of the founding myths of the New Right
    richardhanania.substack.com

    Richard Hanania is one of my poster child writers for the “he is an complete idiot and also very smart” genre. I disagree with him on virtually everything, particularly core beliefs, but he nonetheless is an actual critical thinker who will come up with and explore interesting ideas, and so he is valuable to follow for exposure to good discussion from a world you are otherwise not gonna touch (and for a good laugh the other half of the time).

    This is definitely one of those posts - the US right (not that the left is immune to this by any stretch, this is just about the right) is so infused with an instinct towards perpetual victmization that it becomes easy to buy into their own framing that the Right has been losing front after front in the culture war. This is the foundational premise of The Cathedral, the Moldbug-coined New Right tenet that “Cthulhu Always Swims Left” aka the left’s structural advantage in controlling ~institutions~ means that in status-quo modernity culture will shift left over and over, endlessly…and therefore you need to violently overthrow the state and purge the corrupt neoliberal bureaucratic order to realize the will of the silent volke embodied in a CEO-Monarch to turn back the tide. Anyway, Hanania does a good job of pointing out that its really kinda bullshit. Tons of our culture has turned right over the past decades; gun control, education, and economics are the big topics that he mentions, and of course more exist, and its been a result combinations of public opinion shifting and the power of the state implementing agendas, aka normal politics.

    Some of this is a bit of an overstatement - victories on like abortion for example haven’t shifted minds, but instead exploited the US’s ludicrous legal system to back-door legislative reform through the courts, its not a replicable experience in many other contexts or any other country. But the point overall stands, which gestures at the real problem - the only topic where the New Right’s analysis ‘holds up’ is onthe sexual revolution and queer rights, revealing a movement irrationality obsessed with the sex front of the culture war. Here Hanania stumbles into his stupidity on why the right hasn’t been successful fighting this, not really grappling with the fact that for example gay marriage is just really popular, this is a bottom-down fundamental sea change in how people view sex and society’s role in policing it.

    The mistake The Cathedral devotees make in analyzing society is that they take a single sip from a branch of the river of History and assume they have drunk it dry; Society swam left from 1950 to 1980, and the New Right cannot help but obsess endlessly over that transition as The Future. Note how common this is - so many people harken to “the 1950’s” as the steady-state idyll of American society, the American economy, identify as 'traditional’ everything from holiday songs to food recipes that were all invented around this time and have no older origin than that. Its all myths, and The Cathedral is an extension of that trend - by identifying US society in 1950 as a centuries-old continuity of tradition, it sees the changes of the ensuing decades as a radical discontinuity, and therefore a terrifying new normal.

    It is wrong the same way nostalgia-memes are wrong; history never had a steady state, and people’s ideas of even the 1950’s themselves are primarily myth. Turns out historical conceptions of queer relationships have varied widly across time and space - none have been as progressive as today, but societally sanctioned spaces for queer relationships are legion. There has never been a steady state on sex and society.

    But! Modernity *is* different from the past, and certain things have changed irrevocably - there is a verison of The Cathedral that is true. Technology & economic development have radically changed how we lived, from a society of farmers and their rulers to a society of urban professional workers. Cultural norms around sex & society varied all over the place; but (to radically simplify, there are a bunch of other factors) marriage for children to work the farms was near-universal, it was a structural necessity culture was built upon. This was a harsh limiter on sexual norms - said marriage for children needed to undergird it. That limiter is gone, forever, today. To not dive into it because its not the focus, with the limiter gone I don’t think the 'sexual revolution’, feminism, and queer rights is going to revert in a major way in the future.

    Which will permit the right, as long as it stays maniacally obsessed with the idea that people don’t have 1950’s sexual morality anymore, to claim that they Always Lose. This is why Hanania stumbles, making the opposite mistake - seeing the failure to fight the sexual revolution as just a failed southern offensive in comparison to a successful northern attack on the front of education. The real trap is to not understand that culture is not freely malleable, only some of it is 'up for grabs’ from the perspective of activists. Within the new status qup equilibrium of modernity, shifts right and left are not only possible but inevitable - but the rules of game have to be understood. Hanania may have only gotten halfway there, but props to him for opening my eyes to the contradiction.

    But how do we actually reverse the sexual revolution?

    Forget the 1950s, how do we undo the perversions of five centuries?

    • 1 day ago
    • 197 notes
  • I have been thinking about Far Cry 5 again.

    (this time with extra realism)

    • 1 day ago
  • celestial-citrus:

    inthefallofasparrow:

    burnedgirlrising:

    kittenchomp:

    image
    image
    image

    @ladygobpire

    (via irishironclad)

    • 1 day ago
    • 36009 notes
  • arcenciel-par-une-larme:

    terichio:

    siryouarebeingmocked:

    ricwulf:

    hominish0stilis:

    hominish0stilis:

    sonia-marmeladova:

    cantankeroussob:

    Christian man ejects cops from the church who are there to enforce covid lockdown tyranny. One man with sheer force of personality and faith just sent 8 cops slinking away in shame, that is interesting.

    “Covid lockdown tyranny”

    “Sheer force of faith”

    You mean a man rudely yells at some cops who were asked to do their job by enforcing what are probably local ordinances — you know, against the teachings of Aquinas and Augustine who both say to follow the law?

    Inb4 some libertarian puts a bootlicker meme here because they can’t formulate a coherent response

    Jesus told me you’re a bootlicker

    By the by this is not shocking coming from someone who spins Christianity as Marxism-friendly dogma

    I’m not religious but I can’t help but come to the realization that this person isn’t Catholic because they believe in god - they’re “Catholic” because they worship the state and see scripture as a convenient excuse to do so by proxy. “God says follow the law so I guess I gotta deep throat the boot! Bummer! Shoot! Anyway here’s why Jesus says you should follow communism guys!”

    > You mean a man rudely yells at some cops who were asked to do their job

    I guess that Sonia there is gonna defend the Nazi’s that were “just following orders” then, right?

    What a horrible argument. 

    > you know, against the teachings of Aquinas and Augustine who both say to follow the law?

    So when the law is de facto prohibiting your faith, you should follow it? Sounds retarded.

    image
    image

    You mean this St Augustine? The one I took as my confirmation saint? Doesn’t sound like he’d be much of a fan of unjust laws or the enforcement thereof. As I recall he and Aquinas made a bigger deal of the Eternal Law and the Natural Law as opposed to the laws of political powers.

    Side Note - Our faith grew from the blood of martyrs. Christianity was considered a dangerous cult by the Roman Empire. You don’t tend to get brutally murdered just following orders and pulling out faith when it is convenient. But that’s what happened. And people have believed so sincerely that they would die or be incarcerated for their beliefs.

    Don’t get me wrong - I’m well aware of the church’s position on masks, social distancing and the vaccine (it’s more charitable and moral to get it despite the abominable use of embryonic stem cell lines, this being because all human life has an inviolable human dignity conferred by God our creator) and went ahead and got the Pfizer pair out of my potential options as it and Moderna were the least morally objectionable. We follow the local laws and ordinances out of a charitable love for each other as best we can.

    But I have a hard time passing judgement here when 1) We never see what the situation is inside - we only see him casting the cops out.

    2) We don’t know what local laws and ordinances are in effect in that church’s parish locale at the time of the video.

    Hopefully this might be considered that coherent response you alluded to.

    NEVER LET THEM FORGET WHAT THEY DID IN THE NAME OF “SCIENCE”.

    I really am not going to just stand by people attacking sonia marmeledova

    though I also am not opposed to criticism / disagreeing with sonia marmeledova

    (via animeandcatholicism)

    • 1 day ago
    • 3046 notes
Next page
  • Page 1 / 1967