"It was just like: I want to win the social competition. I want to be better than other people. And I wanted to go to the best school..."

"... so I got into Yale Law School. And I wanted the best jobs, and I wanted to make the most money. But the thing I realized is that this kind of striving had made me pretty hollow. It had made me less interesting than some of the Christians that I know who seemed to have things figured out much better than the 'elites' that I had surrounded myself with. And I just started searching for something that answered the more important questions, like: How do you be a good father? How do you be a good husband? So one way that I would put this is, and this goes back to the personal relationship thing, is, yes, I do think religion serves a socially useful role. I think the evidence is quite clear that people and families that are raised with some sort of institutionalized faith are happier and healthier and more well-adjusted. But I also think: Isn’t that evidence that there’s something about Christianity that’s particularly true? That if these people who believe these things and practice the faith in these ways — I come back to this phrase, I think it’s from the Book of Matthew: 'By your fruits you shall know them.'"

Says JD Vance, quoted in "JD Vance on the Morality of the Trump Administration/I asked the vice president what is Christian about this White House" (NYT).

Truth = what works.

"But, without Mamaw around to guide him, JD lost his faith in God. 'With her gone, no one really cared about my faith, and soon I stopped caring too.'"

"By 2006 'I was no longer, in any real sense, a Christian.' Instead, he took up the winner-takes-all, blessed-are-the-rich philosophy of Ayn Rand, which he summarises as 'stop whining, stop praying, and start working your ass off.' Hers was the materialistic faith he followed through Ohio State University and most of Yale Law School, where they regarded Christianity as 'a weird superstition.' He now thinks his loss of faith was not primarily intellectual, but the inevitable result of transferring his political allegiance to an ungodly liberal elite. 'It was the equivalent of divorce. I was severing myself from my roots.' But then, around 2014, after he’d fallen in love and got married, he began to see that by becoming 'so focused on winning the game of life… I had neglected the deeper truth.'"

From "God, guns and 'Mamaw' — JD Vance’s memoir is part rant, part sermon/In Communion: Finding My Way Back to Faith, the US vice-president explains why the liberal elite pushed him into the arms of the Church — and Donald Trump" (London Times).

The proposed rule would impose "a narrow, culturally specific understanding of family" that "privileges a dominant cultural framework over the lived realities of communities of color and global Christians."

I'm reading "Presbyterian Church faces revolt after proposing clergy must be in monogamous relationships — and critics blame white privilege" (NY Post).

The headline is miswritten. The rule doesn't require a relationship. Clergy can still be single. They just can't have more than one partner. It seems that clergy can have sequential sexual relationships — with no commitment at all — as long as they follow a one-at-a-time approach. 

The Presbyterians on both sides of this controversy are relying on progressivism. Opponents tap into racial critique — that "lived realities" discourse. 

Proponents deploy feminist critique. They're "arguing that the practice of polyamory or polygamy can create 'power imbalances, emotional harm, and spiritual confusion,' particularly for women, children, and historically marginalized persons."

It seems that no one wants to get caught invoking tradition. History is that place where persons were marginalized. It's something to be undone. 

***

I love the stock photo the Post chose to illustrate this story. It's like an ad for fabric softener:

Which one is supposed to be the Presbyterian clergyperson?

"Those words never left my lips."

NYT: “You’ve been talking on your show about whether Trump is the Antichrist”

Tucker Carlson: “I have not said that”

NYT: *plays clip of him saying that* pic.twitter.com/L0sUQnfhpb

— Marco Foster (@MarcoFoster_) May 2, 2026

"Turning the other cheek is for when you yourself are oppressed. I’m not the person raped in a detention camp. I’m not the fisherman executed without trial."

"I’m not a schoolkid blown up or a child starved or a teenage girl abused by the many criminals in this administration. Turning the other cheek when *someone else* is oppressed is not Christian behavior; it is complicity in the oppressor’s crimes."

From the tweets of Cole Tomas Allen, quoted in "WHCD shooting suspect Cole Allen flooded social media with anti-Trump fury: 'you are f–king damned'" (NY Post).

"Why art thou proud, O man? God for thee became low. Thou wouldst perhaps be ashamed to imitate a lowly man; then at least imitate the lowly God."

Wrote Saint Augustine, quoted in "Imitation of Christ," a Wikipedia article I'm reading on the occasion of so much talk about that illustration of Trump in which he is depicted as Christlike.

The Apostle Paul wrote, in Ephesians: "Be ye therefore imitators of God, as beloved children, and walk in love, even as Christ also loved you."

Thomas Aquinas wrote: "Religious perfection consists chiefly in the imitation of Christ."

Then there's the 15th century best-seller "The Imitation of Christ," by Thomas à Kempis.

Of course, I'm not saying Trump has been living up to this standard. I am only questioning those who seem to be saying that there is something blasphemous about equating a human being to Jesus Christ. The standard seems too high, and yet it has been tradition in Christianity to speak in terms of that standard. The name "Christian" contains the thought that we are called to be Christlike.

Here's a good C.S. Lewis passage, speaking of Christians as "little Christs":

The real victim is Jasmine Crockett.

I'm reading "The Colbert-CBS spat is about overregulation/Keeping the equal-time rule in place is a political choice" — gift link. That's by the Editorial Board of The Washington Post.

I remember writing about FCC regulation when I was a law student — I graduated in 1981 — and even back then the argument was made that times have changed and the basis for regulation — the scarcity of the airwaves — was being overtaken by technology — then, cable TV. I remember using the phrase "based on a future that has not yet arrived," because cable TV was expensive and it wasn't even available everywhere. But now, it's 45 years later, and the FCC is still pressuring broadcast media avoid the most egregious sort of political imbalance.

The equal-time rule hasn’t been vigorously enforced in recent years, reflecting its obsolescence. But as with many outdated business regulations, Congress hasn’t bothered to revoke it.

"You've gotta learn to get more pleasure!"

A Super Bowl ad for a product called...

"Many of my Christian friends have asked me to find Jesus before I go. I’m not a believer, but I have to admit the risk-reward calculation..."

"... for doing so looks so attractive to me. So here I go. I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and look forward to spending an eternity with Him. The part about me not being a believer should be quite quickly resolved; if I wake up in heaven, I won’t need any more convincing than that. I hope I’m still qualified for entry."

Wrote Scott Adams, just before dying.

It's an impressive mix of intelligence, respect, humor, and honesty. He implicitly concedes that he doesn't really believe, but anticipates instant arrival in a state of true belief if he finds himself waking up in Heaven. He acknowledges that that form of belief might not count as sufficient, but he expresses hope. And he did have that part where he incanted the key phrase: "I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior." That might be what it takes, and it's worth the risk — no risk. It will make some of his friends feel better, and if there are others who don't like it, they can take comfort in his assurance that he's not a believer. 

ADDED: In the preceding post, Paul Zrimsek said: "His support for Trump probably means he's been darned to Heck, and that Phil, the Prince of Insufficient Light, is poking him with that big spoon now." That nudged me to find this:

"Althouse takes boxing day pretty seriously."

Said Old and slow in last night's open thread, "Sunrise — 7:13." It was only the second post of the day. The first, "Tea with Larry," at 9:29 a.m., was also an open thread. It consisted of 2 photographs and the single sentence, "It's a no-news Saturday, the day after the day after Christmas."

It was the day after the day after Christmas. But it was not Boxing Day. Boxing Day is the day after Christmas, and there were 5 posts on Boxing Day. So what was this day after the day after Christmas? Do we call it nothing but the day after the day after Christmas (or, if we say Boxing Day, the day after Boxing Day)?

It is the Feast of St. John the Apostle and Evangelist. Those who have grown weary of the Christmas holiday might turn to the Feast of St. John the Apostle and Evangelist for fresh inspiration.

But now it is December 28th. Is it a back to normal day? Will scanning the headlines in the usual way yield blog posts with the natural flow that is my long custom? If not, is it a day with a name — like Christmas, Boxing Day, and the Feast of St. John the Apostle and Evangelist — a day we might observe with special activities?

It is a special day, but it's a day I wouldn't want to focus on: It is the Feast of the Holy Innocents:

The Feast of the Holy Innocents was one of a series of days known as the Feast of Fools, and the last day of authority for boy bishops. Parents temporarily abdicated authority. In convents and monasteries the youngest nuns and monks were allowed to act as abbess and abbot for the day. These customs, which were thought to mock religion, were condemned by the Council of Basel (1431). In medieval England children were reminded of the mournfulness of the day by being whipped in bed in the morning; this custom survived into the 17th century....

"Nigeria’s foreign minister, Yusuf Maitama Tuggar, said the strike was a 'joint operation' targeting 'terrorist,' and it 'has nothing to do with a particular religion.'"

"Without naming Isis specifically, Tuggar said the operation had been planned 'for quite some time' and had used intelligence information provided by the Nigerians. He did not rule out further strikes, adding that this depended on 'decisions to be taken by the leadership of the two countries'.... The strike comes after Trump in late October threatened to send his military intervention in to Nigeria 'guns a-blazing' over what he said was a failure to stop violence targeting Christian communities. In a diplomatic turnaround earlier this week, Trump handed Nigeria a $1.6 billion aid package in exchange for the protection of Christians...."

From "US strikes Isis in Nigeria to protect ‘innocent Christians’, says Trump/The attacks on Islamic State were conducted with the co-operation of Nigeria after the US president threatened to go into the country ‘guns a-blazing'" (London Times).

"If you’re 30 years old... there’s a sense of nihilism that’s growing.... And this nihilism, [Charlie] Kirk understood...."

"Of course, I only had an hour-and-a-half conversation with Charlie, but where it seems to me to have fallen short with Turning Point USA and the MAGA movement is they don’t have a prescription to actually address the real and substantive issues — but they sure as hell identify the problem."

Said Gavin Newsom, interviewed by Ezra Klein, in "The Contradictions of Gavin Newsom" (NYT)(audio and transcript at Podscribe, here). Kirk had been a guest on Newsom's podcast, and Klein wanted to know what Newsom had learned from Kirk.

Klein pushed back: "Well, isn’t that a prescription? If I were to try to boil it down: tariffs, a closed border and Christianity?"

Instead of taking on Klein's idea that the right does offer solutions, Newsom seized on that last word —Christianity — and tumbled into personal storytelling mode:

"Across the country, the ancient tradition of Orthodox Christianity is attracting energetic new adherents, especially among conservative young men."

"They are drawn to what they describe as a more demanding, even difficult, practice of Christianity. Echoing some of the rhetoric of the so-called manosphere, new waves of young converts say Orthodoxy offers them hard truths and affirms their masculinity.... Many of the young Americans new to the pews have been introduced to Orthodoxy by hard-edge influencers on YouTube and other social media platforms.... Orthodoxy 'appeals to the masculine soul,' said Josh Elkins, a student at North Carolina State University who was chatting with other young men.'The Orthodox Church is the only church that really coaches men hard, and says, "This is what you need to do,"' said Mr. Elkins, 20.... Some converts report approvingly that Orthodoxy has a more masculine feel than other traditions. Priests, who must be male and can marry, often have large beards and big families. Orthodoxy asks practitioners to make sacrifices like fasting, rather than offering them emotional contemporary music and therapeutic sermons, which critics describe as the typical evangelical megachurch experience...."

From "Orthodox Church Pews Are Overflowing With Converts/'In the whole history of the Orthodox Church in America, this has never been seen,' a priest said about the surge of young men drawn to the demanding practice of Christianity'" (NYT)(gift link, because there's much more to the article, many photographs, and a torrent of negativity in the comments section).

Typical comments over there: "Wearing gilded robes and kissing gilded books is masculine? Having an imaginary friend that you follow rules for is masculine? These guys are desperate for meaning and will bend over backwards and forwards for it. Anything but actual self reflection and growth." And: "What a sad spectacle. Real Orthodoxy is rooted in actual cultures, like Serbia or Georgia or Armenia, and for good or bad you can find an authentic culture there. What this article describes is a ridiculous Youtube phenomenon."

Profound and multidimensional disrespect.

It is weird to me that these people don't see the irony of honoring "marginalized communities" by making a beautiful historical building really ugly. https://t.co/j7GEtCFsMY

— JD Vance (@JDVance) October 10, 2025

One of the comments over there: "I haven't seen a single person yet mention that this isn't real graffiti. These are carefully pasted vinyl stickers that will be taken off in a couple months when the exhibition ends. They obviously didn't permanently deface a sacred building."

Good thing they were carefully pasted. They could have been carelessly pasted. And it could have been real spray paint. It's hard to imagine any religion but Christianity inviting and celebrating this kind of humiliation. 

"The convention is one of the many ways that monks around the country are working to demonstrate the modern relevance of a religion that some young people see as old fashioned, esoteric and..."

"... relegated to secluded mountaintop temples.... ... Buddhism faces a particularly steep challenge in South Korea, where Protestantism, a branch of Christianity, overtook it to become the most popular religion for the first time in the latest census. In South Korea and some other Asian countries, Christianity tends to be associated with modernity and rationality, while Buddhism and folk religions are often seen as more old-fashioned, Professor Chia said. Some young people at the Busan expo said they were trying to shake that idea. South Koreans tend to see the religion as one that is for older people and can only be encountered at 'temples deep in the mountains,' said Ju Yeo-jin, 30, a vendor selling casual streetwear style clothing and accessories, wearing a pageboy cap over her short bleached hair. 'The Buddhism I’ve experienced is fun and cool. I want to convey that feeling.'"

I'm reading "Is South Korea’s 'Buddhistcore' Aesthetic a Fad or a Spiritual Awakening? Young South Koreans are buying Buddhist merch. Monks and experts hope the buzz will translate into deeper engagement" (NYT).

I think Americans associate Buddhism with modernity and rationality — but not because of expos and "merch"! To me, it seems modern and rational to retreat to a temple deep in the mountains. Maybe to young people the religion of one's own region will always seem "old-fashioned" and based in tradition. Just imagine people from elsewhere looking over and perhaps it will seem newly modern. Or what the hell, buy a "red heart-shaped magnet reading, 'Sentient beings I love you'" or "key chains of the Buddha in neon and with hearts for eyes, and streetwear-style T-shirts with slogans like 'Shut up and meditate.'" Maybe that will work.

"The critics of Christian nationalism sometimes argue that it is a political movement using the language and symbols of religion in order to win elections."

"But the events of the past week have proved that this is a genuinely religious movement and Charlie Kirk was a genuinely religious man. The problem is that unrestrained faith and unrestrained partisanship are an incredibly combustible mixture. I am one of those who fear that the powerful emotions kicked up by the martyrdom of Kirk will lead many Republicans to conclude that their opponents are irredeemably evil and that anything that causes them suffering is permissible. It’s possible for faithful people to wander a long way from the cross."

Writes David Brooks, in "We Need to Think Straight About God and Politics" (NYT).

Charlie Kirk was a genuinely religious man... but Charlie Kirk is the one who was killed. He is no longer alive in this world and capable of acting or speaking to us. He is now as usable as political people want him to be. 

Brooks speaks of the danger that "many Republicans" will use Kirk to establish that "their opponents are irredeemably evil and that anything that causes them suffering is permissible." I suppose anything is possible, but I would think that Christians are the last to call other people "irredeemable." And it seems to be the left who have been falling prey to the ideation that their opponents are "irredeemably evil." Maybe what you fear in others is the very thing you yourself tend to do.

"In the two weeks since Kirk’s killing, pastors across the country have reported a spike in attendance usually reserved for Christmas or Easter."

"Social media has been filled with testimonies from young people turning to Christianity for the first time, with even atheists saying they are reconsidering their position on religion. Pastors have coined a term for the religious revival galvanised by Kirk’s death: the Charlie effect.... In Irvine, California, a 20-year-old student named Bryce Bohorquez filmed the overfilled parking lots outside Oceans Church, where he is a longstanding member. 'Charlie Kirk, look what you did. No parking. Everyone wants to come now. Amen,' Bohorquez said in the video, which has been viewed more than three million times...."

From "The Charlie effect: how a political murder sparked a religious awakening/The shooting of Charlie Kirk has led to a wave of Christian fervour across social media. Even atheists claim to have been converted" in the London Times.

By the way, look at this insane and distracting distracting ad the London Times had right in the center of the page, right after the words "God's way of reminding us to live for him":

Live for him... indeed.

Love your enemy/hate your enemy — What did Trump really say at the Charlie Kirk memorial?

I see the headline in the NYT, framing Trump's statement in the conventional anti-Trump manner: "'I Hate My Opponent': Trump’s Remarks at Kirk Memorial Distill His Politics/President Trump has been fueled by grievance and animosity over the course of his political and public life."

Is Trump a hater? I'm not going to sift through everything he's done "over the course of his political and public life," but I will read the transcript of his speech — which I listened to live — and zero in on the part about hating his adversaries, which is getting attention from his adversaries, as I presume he knew it would:

Where in traditional/social media is alarm being raised about "Christian nationalism"?

AI responded to my question with a concise, well-formatted chart:

"My husband Charlie — he wanted to save young men just like the one who took his life.... That young man — I forgive him."

"I forgive him because it was what Christ did and is what Charlie would do."

Erika Kirk forgives the man who murdered her husband:

"My husband Charlie...he wanted to save young men just like the one who took his life...that young man...

I forgive him.

I forgive him because it was what Christ did and is what Charlie would do." pic.twitter.com/Pd1yGRMRVw

— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) September 21, 2025

That was the strongest moment of the 5-hour memorial, the widow forgiving the murderer — because it is what Christ did.

The other exceptionally strong statement of Christianity came from Marco Rubio:

Marco Rubio summoned his inner Father Mike Schmitz and explained the entire story of salvation history in under 90 seconds.

🙌❤️🔥✝️ pic.twitter.com/W7ZO11CjQ3

— Bree Solstad (@BreeSolstad) September 21, 2025