The False Doctrine Of James Talarico
When political arguments are presented as theological conclusions, don’t be surprised when they are measured against the very scriptures and traditions they claim to interpret.
Last week’s nomination of progressive candidate James Talarico in Texas didn’t just deliver votes—it reinforced what many Democrats now see as a promising political strategy: wrapping progressive politics in the language of faith.
Can you blame them for trying? Democrats lost millions of voters to Trump in 2024. Now, in hopes to capitalize on shifting sentiment, they are peddling their own newfound brand of Christianity through candidates like Talarico, who seem eager to contort biblical teachings to appease modern leftwing sensibilities.
Sacrilegious Posturing
It wouldn’t be the first time Christianity was grossly mischaracterized. History is rife with men who twisted scripture to push a political agenda.
In the ‘80s, Peter Peters founded the Christian Identity movement and promoted racism against Black people. In the ‘60s, Frank Cherry founded the Black Hebrew Israelite Movement and promoted racism against white people.
There was also this little thing called the Crusades. And the Spanish Inquisition. And the Salem Witch Trials. Um, you get the point.
But does past sacrilegious posturing justify Democrats carrying on the same shameful tradition? Is the answer to political extremism cloaked in Christianity simply more political extremism cloaked in Christianity?
Democrats are correct about one thing: Faith and religiosity have largely been ceded to conservatives. Since the dawn of Falwell and the “Moral Majority” in the late 1970s, pollsters would be hard pressed to find an election in which Christians didn’t overwhelmingly support Republican candidates.
This isn’t a good thing. We need balance, not mindless lemmings who vote down party lines. The problem for Democrats is that to regain ground today with any credibility, they would be forced to abandon many of their own core political doctrines.
Among them: Abortion, state compulsion (the heart of every Democrat policy), and gender transition surgeries on impressionable minors, to name a few.
The fact that Talarico won’t acknowledge that many of these policies are incompatible with mainstream beliefs should worry anyone who cares about either politics or faith.
Why? Because advocating such policies means Talarico is either wildly ignorant, dangerously misinformed, or disturbingly manipulative.
Truth vs. Politics
Look no further than Talarico’s sermons. Over the years, he has argued for placing abortion clinics on federal property, suggested that God is “nonbinary,” and repeatedly promoted transgenderism among minors.
Those interpretations may resonate in certain political circles, but they bear little resemblance to the text and tradition most Christians recognize.
Yes, the bible teaches us to love God and care for our neighbors, as Talarico suggests. But it also teaches us that we should speak truth with love.
Truth is not subjective. And when it comes to transition surgery for youth, the truth is a growing number of doctors and researchers now reject the once-popular claim that people can change their biological sex.
Why does this matter? Because over the years, thousands of minors have been encouraged to pursue medical transitions by selfish politicians and activists like Talarico—often without realizing the lifelong consequences (Talarico openly opposed SB14, which restricted puberty blockers for minors).
The result has been predictable. While medicine can alter hormones or physical characteristics, it cannot rewrite the underlying biology that defines male and female.
I agree that compassion for struggling young people is important. But compassion also requires honesty about biology before guiding children down irreversible medical paths.
Talarico’s promotion of abortion also raises a big contradiction. He professes to be a man of faith, yet his position sits in stark contrast to the Sixth Commandment in the Book of Exodus, which plainly states, “Thou shalt not kill.”
Rhetorical gymnastics dressed up as “reproductive rights” may shift the political argument, but it does not change the clarity of the commandment most people of faith recognize.
The truth is abortion rates are grotesquely high in Black and Brown communities. Any preacher who claims to champion social justice should have the guts to grapple honestly with why the practice has become so concentrated to begin with (hint: because people like him love to promote it).
The same problem arises when discussing the nature of God. While politically correct language loves to reinterpret traditional roles, the truth is both Matthew and Ephesians frequently refer to God as the “Father.” Rhetorical gymnastics dressed up as “gender equality” do not change that either.
None of this means political debates cannot evolve. But when political arguments are presented as theological conclusions, don’t be surprised when they are measured against the very scriptures and traditions they claim to interpret.
Compassion and Clarity
To be fair, the temptation to bend scripture toward political ends is hardly confined to one party. The same critique can be applied to politicians like Donald Trump. During both of his campaigns, Trump frequently invoked religious language while arguing for particular policies and appealing to faith-minded voters.
At one point he even hawked his own signature bible (I was repulsed by this too).
Still, not all church goers have been monolithic in their support for Trump. In many ways, some of Trump’s biggest critics have been Republican church-goers, ranging from former presidential candidate Mitt Romney to former Senator Jeff Flake.
This also doesn’t mean Talarico is wrong in all of his sentiments. He is right when he suggests that everyone should be treated with dignity. That we should look after the disadvantaged. That God loves everyone, regardless of who they are.
I also believe this. However, the idea that less popular teachings should be retrofitted to appease the worst inclinations of modern progressivism is sorely misguided.
Likewise, the idea that objective truth should be repressed to avoid hurting feelings only creates more problems than it solves. Difficult social issues should be addressed with compassion and clarity, not pandering and virtue signaling.
With midterms around the corner, it’s no surprise Democrats are attempting a new Texas strategy in the wake of Trump’s reelection—even if it means propping up an untested politician who loves to profess biblical doctrine.
The real question is whether voters who actually know doctrine will find the message convincing.
I appreciated reading this viewpoint since it's very different from my own. The architecture of your logic, however, has some considerable flaws.
Firstly, it has never been a popular claim that people can change their biological sex. No serious person is claiming that. In fact, standards of care indicate that transmasculine folks should still receive cervical cancer screenings since many have body parts that correlate to that medical need. I.e., medical science is indicating a move toward a "If you have it, check it," model. If folks were seriously suggesting they are able to change their biological sex, such indications then wouldn't be necessary.
You're alluding to the lack of RCT related to GAC in minors as evidence that GAC is harmful, but failing to acknowledge that those are very difficult, (and not to mention, unethical), to complete. Gender affirming care, however, is backed up by loads of peer-reviewed research that show both the safety of it, and also the efficacy in patient outcomes (both in physical and mental wellness). GAC includes a host of services -- anything from allowing a young person to wear the clothes they feel comfortable in to accessing hormone blockers to accessing binders, on and on. Surgeries are a valid medical treatment, though I do think there can be some middle ground here (i.e. requiring minors to wait until age 18 to be medically evaluated for a gender-affirming surgery if they so choose).
I agree with your point that truth is not subjective. Disrupting gender binaries in our society might feel concerning to you and to a lot of other folks, but those feelings are not facts. The fact is the vast majority of pediatricians agree that GAC is not harmful and, in many cases, lifesaving. All the major medical societies in the U.S. that provide gold standard of care guidelines all say that GAC is effective and safe for minors and adults. The vast majority of trans folks do not now, nor ever, regret their choices to undergo GAC. There are no, and have never been, any largescale, concerted efforts by adults to push trans and nonbinary identities onto minors. And, perhaps most crucially to this piece, the Biblical justification for anti-trans legislation is pretty shaky (Matthew 19:12, Acts 8:26-40).
I'll highlight what I think is your most important point - compassion IS sorely needed for all folks in our society. I'm a firm believer that if we start there, the real work of a loving community can truly begin.
Yep. Easy to cherry pick scripture to serve your own ends. And you just did that.