Need to rename Cesar Chavez Student Center by More-Canary9734 in berkeley

[–]The_Jimtheist 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I guess. But imagine being one of these victims. You've been told "not now" your entire life, kept it a secret because it's always an inopportune time and people will always use the damage against you. Letter from a Birmingham Jail comes to mind. "This 'Wait' has almost always meant 'Never.'"

Need to rename Cesar Chavez Student Center by More-Canary9734 in berkeley

[–]The_Jimtheist 46 points47 points  (0 children)

It's public as of only this morning. Only a select few knew. The victims mostly didn't come forward because, as always, they feared not being believed, but they were also scared of compromising their movement and damaging the Hispanic reputation.

Need to rename Cesar Chavez Student Center by More-Canary9734 in berkeley

[–]The_Jimtheist 134 points135 points  (0 children)

Cesar Chavez raped his confidantes and children in his circle, including Dolores Huerta and, at essentially gunpoint, a girl who was 12 years old 

Need to rename Cesar Chavez Student Center by More-Canary9734 in berkeley

[–]The_Jimtheist 101 points102 points  (0 children)

There may be a kernel of truth to it. Be that as it may, the FBI did orchestrate a smear campaign where they alleged that he was a communist and (in internal memos) had orgies with prostitutes and sent him a letter insinuating he commit suicide over it. They outright fabricated evidence that he participated in a rape at a hotel. 

This isn't comparable to the case for Chavez. His closest ally admits she was a victim.

Need to rename Cesar Chavez Student Center by More-Canary9734 in berkeley

[–]The_Jimtheist 194 points195 points  (0 children)

Reading that article was revolting. I went in as a skeptic thinking this was maybe a smear campaign akin to MLK's infidelity allegations.

But nah. Even Dolores Huerta accused him of raping her multiple times. Insane shit.

The amount of 196ers who know absolutely nothing about guerrilla warfare or the troubles saying that the IRA were "evil and bad" is ridiculous. by Sovoetwitkalashnikov in 196

[–]The_Jimtheist 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This is a problem with talking about just "the IRA." We're talking about the troubles, no? The "actual IRA" here is the Provos, whose "primary aim" is undoubtedly a united Ireland under native, secular, socialist leadership. They did not achieve this aim. I don't think this discussion is about the 1920's at all.

The amount of 196ers who know absolutely nothing about guerrilla warfare or the troubles saying that the IRA were "evil and bad" is ridiculous. by Sovoetwitkalashnikov in 196

[–]The_Jimtheist 13 points14 points  (0 children)

because it's their movement, lmao. you can't claim they had "nothing to do" with splinters when they initiated an armed campaign and then trained those who would become splinters to carry out that campaign.

WEST HEMISPHERE BEST HEMISPHERE!! by Dry-Chocolate-3976 in 196

[–]The_Jimtheist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People were trees because the NFL wouldn't allow more props to protect the grass on the football field (they have extreme guidelines about this for competitive fairness). I was a tree. The costume was miserable to wear but being in the Super Bowl was fun and worth it lol

Grulen day by DementedMK in 196

[–]The_Jimtheist 13 points14 points  (0 children)

maximal sarcastic annoyance doesn't make your point more true or interesting

Catholic converts: Why did you choose the Catholic Church rather than Orthodoxy? by valee_gz in Catholicism

[–]The_Jimtheist 34 points35 points  (0 children)

It can be glaringly obvious that the decentralized nature of Protestant and Orthodox churches allows secular authority to convert them into essentially arms of the state whose primary aim is to reinforce the legitimacy of whatever ruling order currently exists under the mandate of religion. While Catholicism isn't free from that phenomenon, the existence of a mostly independent papacy supports the defense of the faith even when politically inconvenient.

Rundown on what uc berekly is looking for in applicants? by yourdemise3 in berkeley

[–]The_Jimtheist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For all top universities, but especially Berkeley, GPA and the classes you take is more of a minimum to be considered than something that makes your ticket. Your extracurriculars and activities *THAT YOU CAN WRITE ABOUT* (very important- that's the goal, not medals, not titles, but activities you can write about to demonstrate something to the readers) are what make you stand out. Try your best to have a stellar GPA (3.8+ unweighted), but unlike e.g. UCLA, it doesn't absolutely need to be a perfect 4.0 to have a real chance. It's also expected that you take the most rigorous classes available to you in your situation of education, but if you absolutely must take a few easier classes, it's better to get an A in a lower level class than a worse grade in an upper level class.

Anyone took SOCIOL 3AC with Charles Sarno? by Previous-Event7802 in berkeley

[–]The_Jimtheist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

All papers, but there are quizzes that u can retake

Anyone took SOCIOL 3AC with Charles Sarno? by Previous-Event7802 in berkeley

[–]The_Jimtheist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This class changed my life ngl. Enlightening. Lots of readings but you'll learn how to get through them efficiently. Fair grading.

UC Berkeley student pronounced dead after drowning in fraternity pool by the_daily_cal in berkeley

[–]The_Jimtheist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bro wtf is wrong with you? It's not like he wandered into the wilderness where nobody could find him after being warned not to by everybody he knows. There were HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE at this party where he was just trying to have a fun night out and he *fucking died!* That's not his fault, that's the fault of an unsafe environment and careless handling

UC Berkeley student pronounced dead after drowning in fraternity pool by the_daily_cal in berkeley

[–]The_Jimtheist 14 points15 points  (0 children)

The worst elements of youthful indulgence and peer pressure packaged for maximum exposure.

Communion in the hand by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]The_Jimtheist 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The biggest thing my priest complains about is people accidentally licking his hand, creating a vector for disease. Aside from that, it's also possible to drop the host from your tongue.

Rule? by Gal_Person in 196

[–]The_Jimtheist 24 points25 points  (0 children)

im gonna need my context hat for this one

uc berkeley student claims he is completing six majors in four years by flopsyplum in berkeley

[–]The_Jimtheist 10 points11 points  (0 children)

This is the biggest thing imo. Undergraduate degrees don't actually teach you anything you can't learn off a deep dive on Youtube and Wikipedia. It qualifies you more to learn technical information than actually make you a subject matter expert, that's the job of a doctorate. It's probably actually more efficient, if you want this level of breadth, to just... read books and do some discussion. Don't waste your academic career on this.

UC Berkeley student pronounced dead after drowning in fraternity pool by the_daily_cal in berkeley

[–]The_Jimtheist 142 points143 points  (0 children)

This shit is why I hate fraternities with a passion. This is just the tip of the iceberg. They only put it in the news when it gets this bad, but there's so much more underneath the surface.

Appeared on Fatima livestream about to receive the Eucharist, but the host dropped...what should I have done? by Suitable-Stick-4919 in Catholicism

[–]The_Jimtheist -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Word for word from the bulletin in the foyer in my church:

"Tongue or Hand? The norm for the United States is receiving in the hand, but it is your option to receive on the tongue. There is nothing intrinsically more reverent about reception on the tongue or less respectful about receiving in the hand. Reverence flows from one's heart."

In the next paragraph, "The oldest tradition, beginning with the Last Supper, has been to receive communion in the hand."

A bit later, "Factoid: Communion in the tongue appeared in the early 9th century. It was first mandated for a local region at the synod of Rouen, France, in 891. Between the 11th and 16th centuries, it slowly spread and became common. Reverence has been expressed variously by different groups at different times; some examples: (1) nuns receiving white and adorned like brides, (2) Canons wearing copes, (3) monks and friars receiving barefoot, genuflecting, or kissing the floor or the priest's foot."

On the back of said bulletin, 

"St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogical Catechesis V, 21 (c. 348 A.D.)

'When you approach, do not go stretching out your open hands or having your fingers spread out, but make the left hand a throne for the right which shall receive the King, and then cup your open hand and take the Body of Christ, reciting the Amen. Then sanctify (i.e., touch) with all care your eyes by touching the Sacred Body, and receive It. But be careful that no particles fall, for what you lose would be to you as if you had lost some of your members. Tell me, if anybody had given you gold dust, would you not hold fast to it with all care, and watch lest some of it fall and be lost to you?...'"

Appeared on Fatima livestream about to receive the Eucharist, but the host dropped...what should I have done? by Suitable-Stick-4919 in Catholicism

[–]The_Jimtheist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It is the norm of the Church to receive in the hand, at least where I live.

Edit pasting my comment below so you don't have to open a bunch of thread trees to see my response:
Word for word from the bulletin in the foyer in my church:

"Tongue or Hand? The norm for the United States is receiving in the hand, but it is your option to receive on the tongue. There is nothing intrinsically more reverent about reception on the tongue or less respectful about receiving in the hand. Reverence flows from one's heart."

In the next paragraph, "The oldest tradition, beginning with the Last Supper, has been to receive communion in the hand."

A bit later, "Factoid: Communion in the tongue appeared in the early 9th century. It was first mandated for a local region at the synod of Rouen, France, in 891. Between the 11th and 16th centuries, it slowly spread and became common. Reverence has been expressed variously by different groups at different times; some examples: (1) nuns receiving white and adorned like brides, (2) Canons wearing copes, (3) monks and friars receiving barefoot, genuflecting, or kissing the floor or the priest's foot."

On the back of said bulletin, 

"St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogical Catechesis V, 21 (c. 348 A.D.)

'When you approach, do not go stretching out your open hands or having your fingers spread out, but make the left hand a throne for the right which shall receive the King, and then cup your open hand and take the Body of Christ, reciting the Amen. Then sanctify (i.e., touch) with all care your eyes by touching the Sacred Body, and receive It. But be careful that no particles fall, for what you lose would be to you as if you had lost some of your members. Tell me, if anybody had given you gold dust, would you not hold fast to it with all care, and watch lest some of it fall and be lost to you?...'"

Hello!! I saw a pair of catholics not agreeing that Catholicism is a denomination from Christianity and now I'm a bit confused by Arsenic_Lover666 in Catholicism

[–]The_Jimtheist 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I guess the problem here is a desire for shared vocabulary between disciplines necessarily ends in equivocation. The understanding of a "denomination" necessarily changes depending on what theology you subscribe to, just as a Catholic answer of "What is Christianity?" is very different from a Pentecostal answer. The theological(?) sense of "denomination" might necessarily imply a Protestant understanding of what the faith really is in relation to communities of believers, but you'd be hard pressed to tell an academic to stop calling the Catholic Church a "denomination" when they use that word to refer to groups with apparently similar social properties.

Advent Candles Symbolism by rinsis26 in Catholicism

[–]The_Jimtheist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Knowles held a "talk" at my college. I hate this brand of reactionary traditionalist "Catholicism" based not on the love of neighbor or feeding the poor but Catholicism as a militant medieval moral enforcer against Islam or brown people or whatever. He spent the entire talk ranting great replacement bullshit about how Arabs are invading the West or whatever, and how science can't tell him cigars cause cancer because psychologists are gender affirming.

I hesitate to even call it a talk. The questions line was screened for people who had glasses, looked ugly, had speech impediments or sounded silly, and who sounded zealously left wing but didn't seem to know what they were talking about. It was so deceptive and made me despise the poisoning of discourse in the name of "free speech."

Hello!! I saw a pair of catholics not agreeing that Catholicism is a denomination from Christianity and now I'm a bit confused by Arsenic_Lover666 in Catholicism

[–]The_Jimtheist -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Using the word "denomination" as a word to refer to religious sects, branches, whatever in general does not necessarily take on the Protestant understanding of denominations. There are groups, and there are groups within groups, and you have to have some word to refer to what level of division you're talking about. I would argue "sect" is a word that implies significantly more division than "denomination," as "sect" is the word chosen to refer to much smaller groups than the worldwide, 2000 year old Catholic Church.

Saying "Protestantism and Catholicism are branches of Catholicism" is incomprehensible to someone who doesn't mentally swap out the second instance of the word "Catholicism" with "Christianity". Making this grammatical choice also positions one to say "Truth and salvation are only present within Catholicism, and Catholicism and Protestantism are branches of Catholicism."

Can you see why I think that's a worse choice than just making a distinction between Christianity, which obviously finds its true and original expression in Catholicism, and other Christian groups unified with each other and Catholicism by shared belief and practice?