Bringing’ Out Our Johnson

It’s early days, but watching the new Speaker on Hannity last night, I found myself fantasizing about Bygone and Hapless somehow…disappearing, and leaving him President for the next year. From what I’ve heard so far, it would be glorious. No that’s too strong. It could be …um,as Carter would’ve said, “adequate”.

But here’s what I wanna ask you, polymaths: have you noticed that it’s perfectly okay to own to being a Catholic, but it’s NOT okay to profess yourself a Christian?
My Catholic friends believe there is a lot of discrimination against Catholics, but I think they’re living in the distant past, before JFK’s ascension. As a dyed-in-the -wool Prot, I know it used to exist, but not for a long time now. It was OK for Kerry, it’s ok for Pelosi, OK for Bygone, to proclaim that they are Catholic. They’re even kinda admired for it.
But this morning I can’t read anything about Johnson without encountering a mention that he is [gasp!] a self-proclaimed “Christian”.

To me it seems almost like people assume you “can’t help” being a Catholic. It’s like being a Jew in that way, and it’s fine to say you are Jewish as long as you don’t support Israel. (In fact, it’s great in the Left’s view: such quisling Jews “prove” support of Israel MUST be misguided: even the JEWS don’t support it!)

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I conclude that it’s ok to say you’re Catholic precisely BECAUSE, (just as with proclaiming you’re racially Jewish) the Catholic church doesn’t really stand for anything any more.

……but then, neither do any of the American Protestant sects, as far as I can tell. Id be skeert of Johnson myself if he proclaimed he was Presbyterian! Or, for that matter, Lutheran or Methodist, until he made clear to which side of the schisms in those bodies he adheres. I mean, saying you’re Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, doesn’t even necessarily mean, any more, that you believe in the divinity of Jesus! And surely, THAT is the sine qua non of being Christian.
So, if you ONLY say you’re “Christian” that’s threatening to the Left, because it means you have at least ONE unshakable, non-negotiable, anti-cultural relativism belief?
Am I right, dear polymaths?


As you say, it depends on what “flavor” of Christianity one adheres to. And I note that when a fairly conservative Pope, Pope Saint John Paul the Great, held St. Peter’s throne, Catholics were looked at askance. Now that there’s a Pope for whom the question, “Is the Pope Catholic?” is a real question, not a joke, Catholics (again, of a certain stance) are a-ok.

I can’t speak to most of the Protestant sects anymore, since I left the Protestant world for the Holy Orthodox Church some 26 years ago.


My humble opinion is that militant Cultural Marxists have learned from Nazis quite well. They’ll come for Catholics soon enough. Here’s a video about the totalitarian strategy from a bygone area when such strategies could have still been snuffed out:


It’s really fascinating to see how a well-run religious community can grow far beyond its traditional (ethnic) audience at this Serbian Orthodox monastery:

It’s also fascinating how monasteries specialize, for example in dog training:


“Religion” is the question most men ask, but many don’t answer. It is a distilling of the soul that leaves little to argue over morally or ethically.

As a consequence, it is hated by the modern left, just because it leaves no moral or ethical question open for discussion. Yet all of the left is made up of such questions.


The left has largely grown on top of Christian values, but by now they’ve now become rootless, increasingly inbred and self-referential.


Not quite following. ?Do you mean FROM Christian values, or DESPITE Christian values.


Yes, thank you! I’ve been saying this and writing about it for years: Christianity primes us to heed the call of the WEF for deprivation, scarcity, abject equality.


Nay. The teachings to practice personal privation and to care for the needy don’t in any way apply to our duty to use our talents to provide for ourselves and our community obligations. It is OK to have and use money wisely, but we are warned that dangers lurk in overreliance on it as an idol in and of itself. Anything overindulged in presents opportunity for sin. I can’t speak for all Christians obviously, but the good Catholics I grew up with and live with don’t subscribe to the aims of the WEF, and see it as a communistic intrusive danger.


Hum. At first glance, or first hearing, yes perhaps. But while moderation and sacrifice are held as virtuous, deprivation of others is not held so, by any means, nor is enforcement of scarcity to others. As usual, the weak of mind, or those tempted to larceny, are attracted by the buzzwords, but normies soon veer away from WEF and other calls to bad behavior.

The line between charity and larceny is bright, but even a bright line can be obscured with effort or ignored with laziness.

The abject equality business is considered a horror show on several grounds, such as the venerable William Penn stance that he will kneel to no king except to the Lord Himself; no man shall be abject to any other man. Equality before the Lord presents obligations as well as rights, such as the obligation of intellectual humility and respect of the rights of others, even if a man has a super great idea about how to order everyone else around for a terrific good cause.

Too bad all that has been largely thrown over.


As far as I know, in the New Testament there is no encouragement to the faithful to accumulate possessions or wealth, or even to be provident. “take no thought for the morrow, what ye shall eat, what ye shall wear…”.
Nor is there any exhortation in the NT to have children (which is puzzling since marriage is the only aspect of quotidian life about which Jesus opines in detail.) Fortunately the Church jumped in with both feet to plug that gap, or the faith woulda died out like a doomsday cult.
What we learn about wealth in Sunday School is that it’s okay to be rich, as long as you don’t really like it. But, if you aren’t willing to give it all up, that’s how you know you ARE too fond of it, like the rich young man in the Gospels.
It’s the opposite of the Old Testament, where God rewards His favorites with wealth, power, and numerous progeny.
This is just an observation; I’m not saying it should be otherwise.


[quote=“TrinityWaters, post:9, topic:3916”]
but the good Catholics I grew up with and live with don’t subscribe to the aims of the WEF, and see it as a communistic intrusive danger.

I have an eccentric view of charity and I agree with Hypatia.

As I drive down the road, I come upon a traveler that is in need of help. I stop and help. The traveler is appreciative and views his fellow human in a better light. I get a warm feeling for helping. Soon the religious organization asks for charitable donations. They build a hospital in the community. Those that gave see the result and know they made a direct impact. Those in the community that are helped by the hospital appreciate the religious organization that built it, but the actual charitable individual is obscured and not thought of by those they helped. The appreciation has moved from the individual to organizations being good. The religious organization then starts to fund what they believe is charity. Help the poor in some far off place. Now there is a complete disconnect between the individual s who provided and received charity. Now the organization is deciding who and what needs help. I don’t consider this charity. Then the religious organizations decide that being taxed by the government is the equivalent of charity.

There is a difference between individuals that make up an organization and the organization. Do you think the Catholic hierarchy has the same view as the individuals you know? I highly doubt it. They are meeting with the leaders of other organizations such as the WEF and together decide what is good and what is bad.

My eccentric view of charity is that contributing to society and your community is often best done by doing good work. In the agrarian age, if a farmer had a great harvest they could give food away to help others. Because of the disconnect I explained above and because there is a disconnect due to population density (not knowing your neighbors), I think it is better for many to contribute via their skill sets. As an extreme example: I would rather Elon Musk use all his financial strength and talent to continue forward in his endeavors than to have any go to philanthropy.


Very good point - charity-financial packaged products are about as useful to the stability and health of humanity as CDOs for the economy.

I’d just like to agree with @Hypatia that a religion is not a bag of independent pieces of advice: it’s a memeplex - a set of memes selected upon as a whole. It’s very easily destabilized by cherry-picking.


“I’d just like to agree with @Hypatia that a religion is not a bag of independent pieces of advice: it’s a memeplex - a set of memes selected upon as a whole. It’s very easily destabilized by cherry-picking.”

Note that to your last point, most pastors/priests today use a small subset of verses to preach from. It is almost as if most of the NT (and OT for that matter) don’t exist.


This is quite likely why there was such opposition from the established church at the time of the Reformation to the idea that believers could read and interpret the Bible by themselves without the intermediation of authorities entitled to instruct them in the magisterium.

This doctrine remains. From the article linked above:

According to the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church , the task of interpretation is vested uniquely in the Pope and the bishops…


And now, instead of residing in Rome, the magisterium can be found in silicone (sic) valley with canons at NPR, WPost and NYT.


I’m told that Catholic priests get the themes from the center, which then they adapt for the audience.

Now, there’s been an erosion of religion, with fewer folks entering the profession, worse quality, even less money, etc. It’s a vicious circle for religion, as much as it is a winning circle for the Big Tech ecosystem as @civilwestman points out just above here.


This is hardly surprising. Most men want to believe they are gods, so it is inconvenient to believe there is a Supreme Being, despite the accumulation of data showing otherwise. It’s a bit like the old Nietzsche joke.

Man ought to accept the data and get on with life trying to decide just how this Supreme Being affects them. Religion is my answer, but others may have different ones. Sooner or later one finds out. In my schema, it won’t go well for the Silicon Valley types mostly. YMMV.