1It is possibly for this reason that Liberals have come to be associated with the policy of “open (European) borders” to mass immigration. Being materialists, Liberals may come to associate Catholicism and its heretical Protestant offshoots with certain ethnic groups – in particular the historically successful “Anglo-Saxons”. The annihilation of Christianity, it may be believed, cannot be completed without the break-up of the Anglo-Saxon peoples through the mass immigration into their nations of entire foreign cultures-cum-jurisdictions and the legal oppression of non-actively Liberal natives. (Perhaps because of the underlying purpose here, there appears to be some equivocation among Liberals regarding the desirability of foreign Catholic immigration, for example from Poland.)

2This bluff works by confusing the definition of “Catholic” with that of “good Catholic”. The implication of the argument is that a “real” Catholic performs good works instead of “wasting time” with the Faith and prayer. It is, however, obviously a non sequitur to say that all people who perform good works are Catholics. In order for the word to have any significance, therefore, (i.e., in order to avoid ambiguity) there must be some way to distinguish between a Catholic and a non-Catholic. This distinction centres on belief. A Catholic is someone who has the Catholic Faith. A person who performs good works is just that. A Catholic who fails to perform good works is a bad Catholic. A person who does not hold the Catholic Faith is a non-Catholic. From this it logically follows that one does not have to be Catholic in order to perform good works; but, here is the rub. What one defines as “good” is a metaphysical value judgment, which means that, unless one is completely honest in one's reasoning about reality, it is possible to legitimise any kind of action as “good”. For example, one can dishonestly define a growing human embryo as a “potential metaphysical life” (whence the necessity for the physical intervention of abortion therefore?) in order to support the “justification” of unborn child-killing as a “human right”.

In other words, if one accepts the argument of the inflanking manoeuvre that in order to be “good” one should jettison the “Christian baggage”, one must realise that different baggage – e.g. dialectical materialism or evolutionism – is implicitly being put in its place as the cultural background to the determination of what is in fact “good” for the purpose of that same argument. The question for the proponent of the inflanking manoeuvre is – does your baggage stand up to the test of objective reasoning about reality?

3It has been discussed elsewhere that Christian morality is in fact a value judgment predicated on the truth about the relationship between God and Man. Traditionally, within Christendom, the link between morality and truth has been abbreviated in everyday speech, so that we simply say, for example, “Murder is wrong”. Liberalism has, at present, left this particular ethic (at least partially) intact, so that this short-hand manner of speaking about murder as an objective wrong, rather than a value inference derived from objective truth, is still common.