BrohanDavey

quote:

---

Superboy? DC gonna be pissed.

---

Speaking of, the latest Marvel/DC crossover “Spider-Man/Superman no. 1” just dropped today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of “Superman vs. The Amazing Spider-Man,” the first-ever Marvel/DC crossover. The latest issue has 26 variant covers.

Ranch dressing and sour cream.

So do the Protestants that love Zionism and subscribe wholesale to everything that the modern nation-state of Israel does still think this is some kind of faith-based alliance, or are people finally seeing it’s just politics dressed up as religion?

That analogy only works if you flatten everything into a cartoon.

The issue people are raising isn’t “France shouldn’t defend itself”—of course a nation has a right to defend itself against real threats. The issue is whether every action taken in response is justified, proportional, and morally defensible, especially when it involves large-scale civilian harm.

Your hypothetical conveniently removes all the complicating factors that exist in real life: (1) decades of historical conflict; (2) disputed land claims; (3) civilian populations caught in the middle; and (4) questions about proportionality and long-term strategy.

People aren’t criticizing because they think a country has no right to defend itself—they’re questioning how that defense is carried out and whether it crosses moral lines.

Also, invoking “lobbies” or “control” is a distraction. Most Americans support allies when they’re under attack. What people debate—and should debate—is whether U.S. involvement aligns with our interests, our values, and basic principles of just war.

A better framing is this:

“You can support a country’s right to defend itself while still scrutinizing its actions and opposing policies that harm civilians or escalate conflict unnecessarily.”

That’s not hypocrisy—that’s applying consistent moral standards instead of blind loyalty.

quote:

---

Growing up protestant, I can say we don't think much about you at all.

---

Every now and then someone confidently declares that Protestants “don’t think about Catholics,” only to immediately write several paragraphs about Catholics. The irony usually goes unnoticed by the person making the claim (you).

The idea that Catholics obsess over Protestants while Protestants ignore Catholics is one of those comforting myths that collapses the moment you look at the history of Protestantism itself. Protestantism literally begins with a protest against the Catholic Church. Martin Luther didn’t nail the 95 Theses to the door of the Wittenberg church because Catholics were irrelevant to him. John Calvin did not write the Institutes of the Christian Religion in order to ignore Catholic theology. The English Reformation did not dissolve monasteries and execute priests because Catholics were “cute but not to be taken seriously.” Entire Protestant confessions of faith—such as the Westminster Confession—contain long sections explicitly written to refute Catholic doctrine.

So the claim that Protestants don’t think about Catholics is absurd. Protestantism was born in reaction to Catholicism and has spent five centuries defining itself against it.

quote:

---

We think your need to put a man between a person and God is ridiculous

---

Another familiar talking point is the idea that Catholics “put a man between a person and God.” This caricature is repeated so often that many Protestants like yourself assume it must be true.

It isn’t.

Catholics believe exactly what Christians have believed since the first century: Jesus Christ is the one mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5). The Church teaches that priests act in persona Christi when administering the sacraments, meaning they serve as instruments through whom Christ Himself works. In other words, the priest is not a barrier between you and God; he is part of the sacramental system Christ established.

Ironically, Protestants who mock this concept usually have no problem asking their pastor to pray for them or seeking spiritual counsel. Once you understand that Christianity has always had ministers, bishops, and sacramental authority, the accusation collapses.

quote:

---

This country was founded on Protestantism. Our Founding Fathers didn't trust Catholics because they were worried about loyalty to the Pope instead of the country. Protestantism is the religion of America, whether you like it or not.

---

Then there is this lame inevitable historical claim: America was founded on Protestantism. This is one of those statements that sounds convincing until you actually read the Founding documents.

The United States Constitution—the highest legal authority in the country—contains no reference to Protestantism whatsoever. In fact, Article VI explicitly states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” That clause was written precisely to prevent the kind of sectarian exclusion that you, the commenter, seem to admire.

The First Amendment goes even further by forbidding the establishment of any national religion. If the Founders wanted the United States to be a Protestant nation, they had every opportunity to say so. They deliberately chose not to.

And the idea that Catholics are somehow incompatible with American loyalty has been thoroughly disproven by history. Catholic Americans have fought and died in every American war—from the Revolution to the present day. Entire military units, such as the Irish Brigade in the Civil War, were overwhelmingly Catholic. The suggestion that Catholics are secretly loyal to the pope and only the pope is a 19th-century nativist conspiracy theory that should have been buried with the Know-Nothing Party.

quote:

---

You remind me of State fans trying to act as if they are as relevant as the flagship university.

---

Comparing Catholics to a lesser university trying to compete with a flagship school might feel clever, but it accidentally exposes another problem: historical perspective.

Catholicism existed for 1,500 years before Protestantism appeared. Every Christian Bible used by Protestants was canonized by the Catholic Church. The doctrines of the Trinity and the nature of Christ—foundational beliefs for all Christians—were defined at councils convened by the Catholic Church.

If we are going to use the university analogy, Protestantism would be less like a flagship institution and more like a collection of splinter campuses that broke away from the original university while continuing to use its textbooks.

The deeper issue is insecurity disguised as bravado. Protestantism, by its nature, is fragmented. There are tens of thousands of Protestant denominations worldwide, many of which disagree on fundamental questions of doctrine, authority, and even the meaning of baptism and communion. Without a central teaching authority, the result is endless theological division.

Catholicism, by contrast, maintains the same sacramental structure, apostolic succession, and doctrinal framework it has preserved for two millennia.

That continuity is precisely why Protestant polemics so often circle back to Catholicism. You cannot explain Protestantism without referencing the Church it separated from.


TLDR:

Catholics do not need Protestants to legitimize their faith. The Catholic Church predates every Protestant denomination by over a millennium and traces its authority to the apostles themselves.

So when someone claims that Protestants “don’t think about Catholics,” yet feels compelled to write paragraphs attacking Catholicism, the contradiction speaks for itself.

You don’t spend that much energy dismissing something unless, at some level, you know it matters.

The entitlement that some, if not most, of our elected and appointed officials possess is loathsome.

“I have always been allowed on the dirt based on the county’s relationship with the rodeo, regardless of wristband,” Hidalgo wrote in the letter. “Nobody has ever told me I needed a special pass to access the dirt.”

She’s not above the rules. The article said the chute ticket cost $425. Certainly someone who had suite tickets could afford that if she wanted to sit in the chute area.

“These days, not only are we fighting a war abroad, but some people, mostly white men, have felt emboldened to treat others, particularly Hispanics, with physical force,” Hidalgo wrote. “I don’t travel without my passport anymore. Many of us do, especially those of us who are not white-passing.”

The pièce de résistance: doesn’t get her way so she cries racism.

Get fricked where you breathe, Your Honor.

quote:

---

I always assumed consent couldn't legally be given by an unconscious person.

---

Correct. Louisiana’s aggravated rape, simple rape, and sexual battery all involve consent and being able to give consent.

Louisiana criminal law follows a simple rule: Consent requires the ability to knowingly and voluntarily agree. A person who is unconscious, asleep, or otherwise incapable of awareness cannot legally give consent.

Louisiana courts generally treat unconsciousness as automatic incapacity, meaning: (1) no consent can legally exist; and/or (2) the act is non-consensual by definition.

quote:

---

Chad504boy

---

quote:

---

what is their stance on preventative pedophilia?

---

That’s a pretty weak straw-man. The quote you’re responding to is about preventive war between nations under international law, and instead of addressing that, you jumped to an unrelated outrage topic, which no doubt causes justifiable outrage. But it’s not an argument—it’s a deflection.

Also, the premise of your jab is wrong. The Catholic Church explicitly condemns sexual abuse of minors and punishes it under its own law. See Canon 1398 §1 of the Code of Canon Law (2021 revision):

“A cleric who commits an offense against the sixth commandment with a minor… is to be punished with deprivation of office and other just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case warrants it.”

In plain English: sexual abuse of a minor is a grave canonical crime that can get a priest removed from ministry and permanently laicized. If someone were to assess the Pope’s and relevant dicasteries internal disciplining and having an issue with them not being severe enough in internal discipline, that’s one thing, but it’s not like the Church does not condemn that behavior amongst a whole host of other sinful behaviors.

But more importantly, your comparison doesn’t even make sense. The Vatican comment is about whether sovereign states can justify launching wars based on hypothetical future threats—a question from just war theory and international law. Clerical abuse is an individual criminal offense handled under criminal and canon law. Completely different categories.

So, instead of trying to derail the conversation with a cheap “gotcha,” you could try engaging the actual point. Otherwise, it just looks like you didn’t have a response—so you changed the subject.

The previous altercation provides context regarding the altercation where Pretti died.

Even if ICE wants to use Pretti’s previous confrontation to argue something about his behavior or threat level:

(1) It could be introduced under narrow legal theories (perception, context, pattern of behavior), but
(2) It generally cannot be used simply to show he had a violent nature or “deserved” the outcome.
(3) Prosecutors (in a criminal defense by agents) or civil plaintiffs will challenge it vigorously as prejudicial rather than probative.

The admissibility and impact would ultimately be decided by the judge under Federal Rules of Evidence and case law about prior bad acts, relevance, and fairness. Regardless, he FAFO’d.

quote:

---

ColoradoAg

---

Says the guy who’s never celebrated a football national championship in his lifetime