@OracleOutlook's banner p

OracleOutlook

🇺🇸 Fiat justitia ruat caelum

5 followers   follows 2 users  
joined 2022 September 05 01:56:25 UTC 

				
User ID: 359


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
OracleOutlook


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
🇺🇸 Fiat justitia ruat caelum

				
				
				

				

					5 followers  

					follows 2 users  

					joined 2022 September 05 01:56:25 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 359


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for May 17, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Why would I deny a list of ancient miracle healings performed by Apollo?  God loves all His creatures and may bestow on any of us a healing if we try to reach out to Him the way we know how.


Actual people's medical records are not going to be available online in the clear. I'm sorry.  If you're a doctor/researcher you can request them.  Does the Church need to digitize more?  No question there.  Maybe in 100 years a lot of the original copies of witness testimony will be searchable online.  They are working on it, but due to the age of the documents and the fact that many are handwritten it is being done with great care.


For the Catholic Church to recognize a miracle healing in modern times, there needs to be objective criteria indicating the disease before the healing, the healing needs to be spontaneous, and it needs to be complete, no remission.


    

  1. The 1st criterion is that the disease is serious, of unfavorable prognosis.
    2. 

  2. Secondly, the disease must be known and listed by medicine.
    3. 

  3. Thirdly, this disease must be organic, lesional, that is to say that there are objective, biological, radiological criteria, everything that currently exists in medicine; which means that still today we will not recognize cures of pathologies without specific objective criteria such as psychic, psychiatric, functional, nervous diseases, etc. (this does not mean that we cannot cure these diseases
    4. 

  4. Fourth, there should not be treatment to which healing could be attributed.
    5. 

  5. The 5th criterion concerns the moment of healing itself: healing must be sudden, sudden, instantaneous, immediate and without convalescence.
    6. 

  6. Finally, after the healing, there are still two criteria: it must not simply be a regression of the symptoms but a return of all the vital functions, and finally, that it is not simply a remission but a healing, that is to say, lasting and definitive.
    7. 



The existence of objective medical records indicating a disease that can be measured by outside instruments, and then the instantaneous reversal of the disease which is long lasting, is objective criteria and cannot be dismissed as "human cognition, social dynamics, the malleability of memory."


This is an interesting article published by an athiest medical historian who studied the Vatican archives for three years.  Dr. Duffin notes:




What diseases were healed through the intercession of saints? Cancer,
orthopedic, and neurological illnesses were steadily prevalent in all time
periods, but later cases demanded ever-more-stringent proof of diagnosis
with, for example, tissue pathology in cancer, X-ray films in orthopedics,
and imaging scans or nerve-conduction studies in neurology.




She goes on to report:




Further to my surprise, the Vatican does not and never did recognize
miracles in people who eschew orthodox medicine to rely solely on faith.
It strives to consider the latest in medical science; it does not want to be
manipulated by the wiles of sensationalists or the aspirations of the gulli-
ble. Virtually all healing files referred to the treating physicians by name,
even if they did not testify in person. Only two complete files of physical
healings made no reference to physicians: both were from the mid-1750s
in the cause of John of Kanty (d. 1473).34 Doctors crowd these records.

The increasing medicalization of the Western world is evident. From
1800 forward, and across the complete transcripts that I have examined,
the average number of doctors making an appearance in each record
increases from approximately two to seven. The trend is apparent when
expressed either by year of canonization (as shown in Figure 2) or by
year of cure. Prior to 1800, the opinions and actions of physicians were
described by nuns, monks, or priests; perhaps greater credence was
given to witnesses in holy orders, or possibly, doctors were uninvited
or unwilling to testify. By the late eighteenth century, however, attend-
ing physicians were routinely summoned to give in-person descriptions of the illnesses and the care they had delivered. Even in the earliest
records, medical men were mentioned, whether they testified or not.
The same was true for other health providers, including dentists and
midwives.






New technologies appear in the Vatican records soon after
their invention; the aforementioned Wassermann test, elaborated from
1901 to 1906 to identify syphilis, was used in this 1929 case in its capacity as
a “scientific fact,” equated with venereal disease.46 Medicalization is appar-
ent in the doctors’ words and deeds recorded in many other files. For
example, the stethoscope, first publicized in 1819, was used for diagnosis
in a miracle worked eighteen years later.47 Three cases had been healed of
respiratory ailments in that eleven-year interval where no stethoscope was
used; following this miracle, the diagnosis of most heart or lung problems
entailed auscultation as a matter of course. A thermometer was used in an
Italian woman cured of postpartum fever in 1881.48 Similarly, as tubercu-
losis waxed in importance throughout the nineteenth century, the failure
to demonstrate Koch’s bacillus to confirm the diagnosis was prominent in
medical reaction to a cure effected in 1885, only three years after Koch’s
discovery.49 Photography appeared in a file from 1889.50 X rays together
with fluoroscopy appeared in the miracle files less than five years after
Roentgen’s famous demonstration.51 Blood pressure measurements soon followed.




Also she found many records of proposed miracles being rejected due to insufficient diagnostic criteria:




Testifying in 1908, a Corsican doctor justified his failure to order
a bacteriological examination on the pleural effusion of a forty-nine-year-
old nun during her illness three years earlier; he was forced to the abject
admission that his diagnosis of tuberculosis had been merely “clinical.” With
the benefit of hindsight, the three expert colleagues refused to believe that
the nun’s ailment, though “grave,” had been tuberculosis and, therefore,
beyond a natural cure.62 This disputed healing was not decisive for the pro-
cess of Theophilus of Corte (d. 1740); more evidence was needed.63




This is a funny anecdote:




In 1834, a professorial expert criticized his more humble
colleague’s use of bleeding some nineteen years earlier in the care of a
middle-aged woman with fever; perversely, the supposed medical error
made the cure all the more remarkable in his expert (but anachronistic)
eyes: not only had the woman recovered from her illness, she had also
managed to survive her doctor’s backward treatment.




How severe are these illnesses that are getting miracle claims?




In 1937, an expert physician claimed (quite
wrongly at the time) that X-ray-proven tuberculosis was “axiomatically
fatal” in the face of any treatment, whether natural or supernatural; he
pointed to the patient’s 1926 recovery to insist that the treating physician’s
diagnosis of tuberculosis must have been wrong in the first place.




I recommend reading the whole report, it's quite fun and full of interesting things.  But the point is, the records are being kept in a complete form, the information gathered is as concrete as possible, reviewed by experts in the fields, and much different from some random rumor that could just be hearsay.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for May 17, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Most of the primary resources are not on the internet, so it wouldn't be an interesting discussion.  I could say, "Giovanni Savino's eye was completely blown out in an explosion, Savino has an feeling of a Catholic Saint's presence, then his eye was back.  This is attested to by contemporaneous medical records and interviews with witnesses."  And then someone would want a scan of the medical records, which I do not have.  And so it goes.


If you are a physician or scientist you can contact the Lourdes Medical Bureau.  Its records are open to any physician or scientist who wants to make their own investigation or challenge any particular case recognized as “miraculous.”  They have incredibly stringent criteria and throw out 95% of cases most others consider to be genuine healing miracles.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for May 17, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yeah, I don't really get the blood thing and I'm not the one who brought it up.  When it comes to Catholic miracles, there are a few different types:


    

  1. 

    Miracles of healing or protection, which are generally something we believe God bestows on many of His children regardless of their religious affiliation.  Just done for the sake of benevolence, or because there was something else that person was supposed to do, to live their lives as a witness to others of God's goodness. 
     That said there are some particularly Catholic contexts for certain healings, like Lordes.  Lordes is really the biggest healing miracle site in the world with the best before/after documentation by doctors.
    

    2. 

  2. 

    Miracles related to states of spiritual ecstasy - levitation, visions, trances, etc. A component of very deep prayer that is good for its own sake, the visible signs of which likely are to spur on others to greater commitments to meditation and contemplation.
    

    3. 

  3. 

    Stigmata - Wounds of Jesus signifying a closeness to Jesus, which is also joined to His suffering in a special way for the salvation of souls.
    

    4. 

  4. 

    Bilocation/Apparitions - Saints on Earth and in Heaven appear in locations far removed from their physical body.  Just seems nifty I guess, helpful to send a message you couldn't otherwise and receive a prayer request or provide counsel.  
     Often apparitions of Saints in Heaven are tied to a specific message ("increase devotion to X," "A great calamaty will befall if people don't pray," "I am going to clarify a contentious part of doctrine.")  Then the apparition works a sign in the Heavens or on Earth to back up the message.
    

    5. 

  5. 

    Incorruptibility - Saintly bodies don't decompose in the same conditions other bodies do.  This points forward in joyful hope to the world to come.  St. Januarius's blood might be something like this.
    

    6. 

  6. 

    Eucharistic Miracles - Someone doubts the presence of Jesus, suddenly a visible change occurs that demonstrates the truth.
    

    7. 

  7. 

    Miracles where the visible sign persists long after the initial reason for it disappears to history.  St. Januarius's blood might be a sign of this.
    

    8. 



Or it might not be a sign of anything.  The Catholic Church uses miracles as a sign that it is ok to canonize saints.  It doesn't actually like taking a strong position on any specific miracle lest someone's faith be built entirely on that miracle.  People who convert to Catholicism on the force of having an experience at Medjugorje are weird and have difficulty becoming spiritually mature.  Instead, the only miracle that the Church professes as necessary to defend as reason to believe is the Resurrection of Jesus.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for May 17, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yeah, I think a lot of atheists just don't really look into it, or assume religious people don't actually experience scientifically evaluated miracles in the modern age, because it would be really challenging to their worldview.


Scott Alexander did a review of Fatima recently where he almost started to get worried, but then decided that there are other less clear claims of similar "Sun-dancing" miracles, which makes the first, most widely-attested and most inexplicable natural somehow?  Whatever he needs to do to stay sane I guess.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for May 17, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The apostles had a very specific charisim of miracles happening all the time, but there are plenty of miracles that have happened since then and are still happening today.  St. Padre Pio's life is a more modern example of someone who had "apostolic" things happen all the time around him. There's the guy who's leg grew back, the Life of Christina the Astonishing, St. Joan of Arc, that one guy who could fly, etc.  Does dying after consuming the Eucharist for the first time count as a miracle?  I don't know.


It seems to me that there has been no end of miracles and miracle claims in the Catholic Church, though of course the sum total might be large but each individual person might not see one in their lifetime.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for May 17, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Catholic Answers Apologist Jimmy Akin has argued that the Church has declared the 73 books cannon, but that it has not closed the cannon, meaning that other books could still enter cannon if they picked up a following.


But also I think this is one area that no one really found too important to get 100% correct until the proliferation of Bibles with the printing press.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 11, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
A change means that something had a potential to be something else and that potential was actualized (brought into existence where before it did not exist.)  It's the whole argument.


Once upon at time, a High School literature teacher was introducing his students to Shakespeare.  One student skimmed through Hamlet and said, "This story sucks.  It's boring and doesn't make sense."


The teacher rightly responded, "Hamlet is not on trial. You are."


If everyone who has ever made the cosmological argument says, "No, the universe is not an example of an uncaused cause, instead it's in the other category we refer to," then maybe you don't understand the argument at all and should avoid it until you do.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 11, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
An unchanging God is not the same as a "hands-off" God.  Instead, a classical theistic God is at every moment the cause of the existence of everything.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 11, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Except that in the next microsecond, the universe will be different.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 11, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It just means that it is not a thing without potential. The hypothesized God has no potential, the universe does.


I am just answering your question about why God isn't an "exception" to the cosmological argument but rather the cosmological argument describes what would make God different from that which we observe.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 11, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Why can't the universe just be without a beginning, but a supposed god can?




The Universe could be without a beginning, but it is still contingent because it is composed of parts and has potentials.  The universe doesn't have to be what it is now, in fact it is constantly changing.  That makes it contingent, unlike the proposed God.


This is why the proposed God would be perfectly simple, composed of no parts, etc.  Its existence would need to be identical to its essence.  The universe does not match any of these criteria.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 11, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yeah, I think Ethan Muse is one of the more recent ones that began to believe in God due to investigating miracle claims.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 11, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


If something can't come from nothing, why does God exist? And why does that answer not apply to the universe itself existing?




That's not the argument, that's an oversimplification of the argument.  It's not that "nothing comes from nothing" like they sang in the Sound of Music.  It's that everything that begins to exist has a cause.  Or another way of saying it is that everything that is contingent has a reason for being the way it is instead of all the millions of ways it is not.


The argument then is not that God is an exception, but that God is not these things.  God did not begin to exist, and God is not contingent, meaning He couldn't be anything other than what He is, or as the Philosophers call it, God is the/a Necessary Being - necessarily that which He is.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


But this document, like Severus, seems to indicate that they were indeed presbyters, since it contrasts them with bishops.




You're putting too much emphasis on the words used in an isolated area who's tradition began before the terminology was standardized elsewhere.


The point I am making is that if a Bishop Mark came over to Alexandria and ordained 12 "presbyters" who he gave the authority to select and ordain bishops, then Bishop Mark really did ordain 12 bishops.  This rule came from Mark directly when he ordained them, it wasn't something they came up with after their last bishop was dead and they needed a plan.  They then selected one head bishop, or overseer, who then acted as the leader of the church in Egypt.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Severus of Antioch passage




Is it this one?




"It was also customary for the bishop of the city famous for the orthodoxy of its faith, the city of Alexandria, to be appointed by presbyters. Later, however, in agreement with a canon which obtained everywhere, the sacramental institution of their bishop took place by the hands of the bishops."




I would suggest he was wrong, simply because the presbyters were given the ability from a bishop to do what a bishop can do from the very beginning.  He also wrote between 518 and 538, which is far enough from the times that he's hardly speaking from experience here.


It's also striking that there were 12, just like there are 12 apostles.  Were these 12 the only presbyters in all Egypt for the first couple hundred years?  Or were they a council of 12, set apart from ordinary presbyters?  The evidence points more to the latter from what I've seen.  It really does feel like the situation was more complicated and that we cannot draw inferences from this.




f you traced back the ordinations you'd get to people whose episcopal consecration was not done by any bishops




No, because if the bishops who corrected the Alexandrian church thought there was an issue, they would have ordained all those effected.  Like we do with Anglican priests who convert, some may actually have valid orders but we can't rely on it so they often get an ordination from a Catholic bishop when they convert.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Alright I have done some more reading.  Maybe not enough to have a well-reasoned opinion, but enough to have an idea of an opinion.


It's not certain to me that the "Mark the Evangelist" who brought the Church to Alexandria is the same as the author of the Gospel of Mark.  He's called the evangelist because he evangelized to the Alexandrians.


It does seem clear that there was some tradition of what they called presbyters electing an overseer after the previous overseer died.  It's not quite clear how long this lasted, the dates different records give is inconsistent.  At some point, fairly early on (within a couple hundred years) they were told they were doing it wrong and they stopped.  It is certain that St. Athanasius was ordained as a bishop by a bishop, although interestingly enough the Arians slandered him as having been ordained by a presbyter.


That said, I don't know if we're letting language confuse us here.  It is possible the council of 12 "presbyters" were actually ordained bishops, just called by a different name.  Indeed from the beginning of their ordination, according to the legend, they were given the power to elect bishops by the bishop who ordained them.  They were in that sense an episcopal college, with something we would consider an Archbishop - Auxiliary Bishop structure we have today.


I am quite comfortable with the language being something that needed to be worked out over time. I would be sad if they missed out on apostolic succession for a few hundred years but God has a way of making things ok. I don't have certainty on which was the situation at Alexandria but it doesn't really pose a problem to me.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
No, it refers to the blood.


We participate in the Eucharist by taking part in the holy sacrifice of the mass, which has both species. Actually receiving the Eucharist in either species was historically done sparingly.


It does not bother me for people to make mistakes, but also I would want to see the scholarship before saying more


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The SSPX will be schismatics soon, from what I heard. I don't have a huge opinion one way or the other.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Overblown.


The "heresy" was in a private letter, not a teaching document meant to bind the whole Church.  The statement was confusing at best and could have been interpreted more charitably.


Pope Honorius, responding to a letter sent to him to clarify Christ's natures, steered the Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergius, away from Nestorianism, but ended up writing a couple of very confusing lines:




Wherefore we acknowledge one Will of our Lord Jesus Christ, for evidently it was our nature and not the sin in it which was assumed by the Godhead, that is to say, the nature which was created before sin, not the nature which was vitiated by sin.




Other passages in the letter are orthodox. Pope Honorius' letter to Sergius did not authoritatively declare the faith of the Roman Church, did not claim to speak with the voice of Peter; it condemned nothing, it defined nothing. It is not what Catholics consider infallible; it does not bind the Church to anything.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Do you think the passage mandates communion in both kinds?




Yes and no.  Yes, the sacrifice mandates the Eucharistic celebration needs both kinds.  No, it is not necessary to receive both kinds, or even one kind, in order to participate in the sacrifice.




have you looked into the early history of the Alexandrian succession at all?




No, and it doesn't really bother me if that was the case.  But would you like to share a good summary?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think Greek and Russian Orthodox is probably too limited to describe the sees that split off, for example, there's Coptic Christians who I think have communion with the Greeks.  There's also Oriental Orthodox and East Syriac Church which as far as I know have Apostolic succession.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I could leave the Church or preach contrary to the truth and the Holy Spirit would not immediately strike me down or silence me like Zechariah the father of John.  I do not believe the same could happen to the Pope.  He is protected, or perhaps cursed, from promulgating error.  He is the first among bishops and teaching/authority is more proper to him than it is to me.


@Corvos you have it mostly right except I would deny that genuine supernatural authority was only given to Peter.  It was invested in every apostle, and other sects with apostolic succession have valid sacraments and the ability to continue those sacraments in perpetuity.  They are just guilty of the sin of schism if they also reject unity with the bishop of Rome.  (The bishop of Rome is also guilty of schism to the extent that he has committed fault in this sorry turn of events.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Baptism:


I don't know if you would consider them Protestants, but there are groups that just outright reject Baptism or use invalid formulas (like the Mormons).  It's not uncommon for Baptists to hold off on baptizing a child until well after what Catholics consider the age of reason (around 7 years old).  This seems to be at least risky behavior to me if you have the Bible and see that Baptism is part of dying with Christ and entire households were baptized together in the New Testament.


Eucharist:


I take Jesus seriously when he says (Jn 6:51–55.):




"And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink."




It seems to me that the Eucharist is one of the few things Jesus calls out as tied to salvation in a very real way.  Again, if you don't have the Bible I don't think you'd be held accountable to it, but we're talking about people who do and then don't have valid Eucharistic celebrations, or any Eucharistic celebration at all.


Obedience:


Obedience to superiors is a virtue that modern man has rejected.   There is a very traditional idea that a wife should listen to her husband, a man should obey his liege, a Christian should follow his pastor and bishop in all things but sin. From what I have seen and experienced, it seems Jesus really cares about this to the point where many have been saved through the humility found in obedience.  If you need a Bible verse instead of private revelation, Romans 13 is a good start.


Apostolic succession - Episcopal succession.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
To be in the Body of Christ.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
My understanding is the US tried to arm the protestors, but the Kurds kept the weapons.  The protestors were not armed.