We should start by saying that we are huge fans of Tablet magazine, one of, perhaps the best magazine in America today. We always read it with interest, and have lost track of how many great insights and reporting we have found there.

Which is why we were, frankly, baffled by a recent piece titled "JD Vance’s Sharp-Elbowed Theology," by Tony Badran, "Tablet’s news editor and Levant analyst."

The outline of the piece is simple: through extremely close (too close) analysis of the text of recent JD Vance speeches, the author pieces together an allegation that "the vice president’s version of Catholicism" is a shocking departure from the traditional ecumenic norms of American political-religious discourse, and instead represents…well, it's not clear what, but the reader is clearly expected to understand the Spanish Inquisition is about to break into his house.

(There is also a lengthy attack on Tucker Carlson which doesn't connect to the rest of the piece for some reason, maybe because the Tablet editor was off that day.)

The problem with the argument is that…everything about it is wrong. In his process of hair-splitting textual analysis, the author confidently informs his readers about nuances of Christian theology that he clearly doesn't understand or doesn't know Wikipedia-level basics about.

It is just embarrassing from top to bottom and, sadly, in order to explain why, we also have to go through it in detail…

Vance styles himself as a theologically based leader, and despite what some secularists might wish, there is nothing strange about American politicians making explicit references to Christianity—going all the way back to the founding of the Republic.

So far so accurate… The slow-motion car crash begins with the very next sentence.

the key in which Vance spoke marked a clear departure from the ecumenical Protestant language in which American politicians have historically couched not only more general references to “God” but also more explicit references to Jesus Christ and Christian faith.

Where to begin? First: truly, the editor was off that day.

Second: ok, Vance does not use the traditional "ecumenical Protestant language" that "American politicians" have "historically" used (a $.02 word like "used" will do better than $2 "couched").

What does he do instead? Ah yes, he takes his cues from his shadowy masters in the Vatican.

Vance is famously a convert to Catholicism, who not only advertises his newfound faith but also has made a habit of peppering his policy statements with references to Catholic teaching and other professions of Catholic doctrine. Vance’s sectarian emphasis represents a departure from established American cultural and political practice—just as his devotion to a Rome-centered globalist version of Catholicism, as opposed to the American-based ethnic churches that defined the American Catholicism of the 19th and 20th centuries, would seem to be at odds with the principle of “putting America first.” In doing so, he eschews the framework of the American Religion for the language of a global institution rooted in the history and culture of a continent that the Founding Fathers were glad to leave behind.

Get it? Again, this is so verbose and convoluted that you have to read it three times, but it is a pretty clear accusation of dual loyalty. Vance is a Catholic who does not hide it, therefore he has "devotion" to a "globalist" Catholicism, which is "opposed to" "American-based ethnic churches", something which is "at odds" with "America First." Instead, Vance shamefully uses "the language of a global institution rooted in the history and culture of a [different] continent." This is the very basic dual loyalty smear that Catholic politicians like Al Smith and John F. Kennedy had to face. It's odd, to say the least, to read a self-professed Jewish magazine throw around dual loyalty libels casually. Note that at this point in the article, zero evidence has been produced to substantiate the smear, so it's a purely gratuitous accusation.

But wait! Here it is! Here's the smoking gun!

In his initial tribute to Kirk last Monday, Vance recited a paraphrased segment of the Nicene Creed, a doctrinal statement adopted at the First Council of Nicaea in 325, then expanded and amended at the First Council of Constantinople in 381.

Again, where is the editor? Pointing out that the Nicene Creed was amended at the Council of Constantinople adds absolutely nothing to the argument.

But more to the point, and this is devastating given that Badran's entire argument hinges on Vance's evocation of the Nicene Creed, nowhere does he mention the very easily-verifiable fact that every single major Protestant denomination in America regards the Nicene Creed as authoritative.

This would include the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the US, and the vast majority of other Evangelical denominations, who are very much "not-Catholic" in style and theology; it would also include every single Mainline Protestant denomination, that is to say the denominations that produced America's historic WASP elite and therefore the unique "ecumenical Protestant language" that "American politicians" have "historically" used.

Martin Luther and John Calvin, the two most prominent architects of the Protestant Reformation, regarded the Nicene Creed as authoritative. All the major Protestant statements of faith, such as the Lutheran Augsburg Confession, the Calvinist Canons of Dort, the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, explicitly cite the Nicene Creed.

Any theologically literate American Protestant would be very surprised—and likely even offended—to hear that it is anti-Protestant or exclusive of non-Catholics for a politician to quote from the Nicene Creed.

It's in fact a perfect example of Vance doing exactly what Badran accuses him of pointedly refusing to do, that is to say, using ecumenical Christian rhetoric, referring to texts and concepts that the vast majority of American Christians, as opposed to any particular denomination, revere or regard as authoritative.

It was striking to us to read this allegation specifically about Vance's tribute to Charlie Kirk, which your writer watched several times because he found it deeply moving. When we watched it, we had exactly the opposite thought to Badran: we felt, approvingly, that its citation of the Nicene Creed and its numerous citations of scripture placed this address exactly in the great American tradition of Christian invocation in political speech.

But this is probably because we're just too ignorant of New Testament Greek, unlike Badran, who goes into painfully minute textual analysis of the two citations or paraphrases of the Nicene Creed in two different Vance speeches. The fact that Vance misspoke one word of the Creed during a speech at CPAC is somehow of deep significance (it probably holds the key to who really did 9/11).

Anyway, did you know that in Greek, "of" is "ek" and "and" is "kai"? Badran seems to think it's important. What does that tell us about Vance, or American religion? Nothing at all. But it sure would make Badran seem smart, if you were a complete moron.

Badran makes much of the fact that Vance quoted and paraphrased the Creed rather than recite it entirely, word for word. A naive person would assume that this is because he was giving a tribute address, not a sermon. But that naive person would also assume that the Illuminati aren't putting 5G chips in your vaccines.

His ommission of the phrase "according to the scriptures" ("in Greek, kata tas graphas," Badran very importantly informs us), which some normie would assume is an edition for speed or a mistake in delivery, is instead evidence, to the attuned mind, of a classic anti-Catholic canard, which is the notion that Catholics somehow devalue the Bible or regard it as unimportant. Catholics have fought this demonstrably false allegation for 500 years since the Reformation, but clearly Badran believes it, as presumably he believes every other anti-Catholic libel typically found in Jack Chick tracts.

(Try to keep up, here: Vance ommitted the phrase "according to the scriptures" while paraphrasing from the Nicene Creed; this shows that, as a good Catholic, he thinks the Bible isn't important; while paraphrasing from the Nicene Creed, which we have just been told is this obscure sectarian Catholic text; so the evidence that Catholics don't value the Bible is a Catholic creed which tells believers the Bible is important. Clearly, the logic is airtight.)

It’s precisely the centrality of the scriptures that Vance seems to shy away from, even more than ordinary Catholics might.

Even more than ordinary Catholics! That's clearly a lot. Those ordinary Catholics are pretty clearly untrustworthy, so if Vance is even worse than them, that must mean he's pretty horrible. Spanish Inquisition, I tell you!

What Badran never mentions in his article, which anybody with two minutes and an internet connection can validate for themselves, is that the very speech that he is dissecting includes numerous explicit quotations of scripture, particularly the Psalms and the letters of Saint Paul, putting it firmly in the American "ecumenical Protestant" tradition, since Paul's theology has particular resonance for Protestants, and Psalms, of course, are revered by Jews as well as Christians. Vance didn't just abundantly and explicitly quote Scripture, totally obliterating Badran's argument, but he picked selections that would have been among top picks by quintessential American scripture-quoting political figures like Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King.

There's no two ways about it, here. Badran is simply lying to his readers. He is telling his readers that Vance's address after Charlie Kirk's death is meant to somehow marginalize the Christian scriptures, using some absurdly contrived exegesis of one ommission in a paraphrase of the Nicene Creed, without mentioning that that very address explicitly cites the Christian scriptures numerous times. This is obviously nuts, so rather than trying to contrive some explanation for that inconvenient fact, which would be beyond even his powers of logic twisting, he just lies.

The rest of Badran's article is equally confused, mendacious, misinformed, and sloppy.

(Sample: "in the convert’s new faith, the authority of the Church is made supreme through the concept of the 'apostolic succession,' which is seen not only as undergirding the papacy". First: it's not just new converts who are supposed to believe in apostolic succession, but all Catholics; second: we ordinarily say "apostolic succession" not "the apostolic succession"; third: it would have been nice to explain what that is, rather than just let readers believe it's some obscure Catholic jargon; fourth: in Catholic theology, apostolic succession is not seen as undergirding the papacy but the episcopacy.)

Badran writes that Catholics' belief that the Canon of the Bible (that is to say, which books to include or not, which turns out to be a very complicated and vexed issue) is correct because the Church made the determination is "laughable," which doesn't seem very ecumenical. Intellectual giants such as Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas thought differently, but then again, neither of them was a news editor or a Levant analyst.

Badran is occasionally careful to write that he is merely criticizing "new Catholics" or "Catholic converts" (which already seems like a pretty big and diverse group that one probably shouldn't make sweeping generalizations about), but it is very clear that what he is attacking is Catholic beliefs, period, and he clearly views those beliefs and anyone who holds them as sinister. Which is odd in an article that ostensibly defends an American ecumenical tradition which seeks to embrace those who find moral inspiration in the Bible regardless of sectarian affiliation.

He furiously attacks Catholics' belief that Jesus left the Church with both written scriptures and an oral tradition, which are both equally authoritative, with too many misrepresentations and oversimplifications to keep track of; he seems very invested in the concept of scriptures alone as a self-vindicating rule of faith, and pretty clear on the notion that any other view is some sort of transparent scam. He is, of course, perfectly entitled to his belief, but at that point it's pretty clear that Badran's problem isn't with JD Vance, it is with Catholicism itself. And again, fine: if he wants to be a bigot, that's his prerogative. But why bring the Vice President into it?

And maybe it's not just Catholicism he regards as evil? After all, his arguments (such as they are) that scriptures are self-authenticating would seem to also contradict the Orthodox Jewish belief in the existence of both a Written and an Oral Torah.

So there you have it: according to Tablet magazine, if you find any value in the Mishnah or the Talmud, you're pretty clearly a chump.

What else is there to say about this display of rank bigotry, logical vandalism, and pure deception?

No, I think we're good.