Below is my column in USA Today on the sudden shift in Democratic campaigns in embracing faith-based politics. It has led to a campaign season that is infused with religiosity and recriminations.
Here is the column:
Across the country, a curious trend is taking hold in the Democratic Party: The left has found God in politics.
As Politico noted most recently, Democrats are running for Congress by leaning on their Christian bona fides. Democrats hope they have found the key to political salvation in states like Texas. However, as Democratic candidates like Texas senatorial candidate James Talarico campaign on their religious credentials, the result has been to insert faith into the broader political debate, which now includes questions ranging from the gender of God to whether Christians have to believe that Jesus actually existed.
The rival views on Christianity by Talarico and his Republican opponent for the U.S. Senate, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, are now being debated by voters. Republicans have long emphasized faith-based politics, and the new Democratic shift has created arguably the most religious-themed election season in modern history.
For a country with strong separation of church and state values, the sudden shift toward religious testimonials is one of the most surprising changes in American politics in decades. The result has been a debate over the character of candidates based on their religious views and associations.
‘Resistance preaching’
Morality and faith have long been part of American politics. However, the November midterm elections at times have sounded like candidates are running for the College of Cardinals rather than Congress.
For more secular voters, the debate has the unnerving sense of a plebiscite of the devout covering church dogma.
For religious voters, it can be equally unnerving as religion is reduced to political sound bites and bumper stickers.
In Texas, Talarico has long leaned heavily on his identity as a seminarian, using religion to support everything from transgender boys playing in girls’ sports (a stance he recently changed) to abortion to immigrants.
His statement that God created six genders (something he also recently walked back) and that God is nonbinary has become a focus of the campaign. In addition to declaring that God is not a Christian, he has insisted that the Bible supports abortion.
Figures such as the Rev. Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Dallas, publicly denounced Talarico as “not a Christian” and “evil.” His candidacy has even led to a new political expression: PINOs, or “pastors in name only.”
Even Talarico’s church, St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church, has drawn intense scrutiny. A member of the church’s clergy allegedly admitted in an undercover recording that most of its members are likely agnostic or atheist. Talarico himself once publicly declared, “I always think of myself as a Christian who hates Christianity.”
St. Andrew’s minister, Babs Miller, appears to say in the surreptitious video: “We have no way of knowing if Jesus really existed, any more than we have of knowing that the original Buddha ever existed. And whether or not Jesus existed doesn’t really matter to me. The fact remains that that message that was delivered by someone named Jesus supposedly and it could have all been made up for all I know.”
The same debate is occurring in other races.
In Iowa, Democrats fielded three ministers to try to wrestle back seats from Republicans, with two remaining after the primary elections.
Lutheran minister Sarah Trone Garriott is under attack for participating in the wedding of a satanist couple. She recounted her role with pride, though saying that she was not sure if she should use a passage referencing Satan to “make them feel more at home.”
Garriott is part of a movement of “resistance preaching” to organize far-left ministers to use religious pitches to support an election blue wave. She contributed to the book “Preaching as Resistance: Voices of Hope, Justice, and Solidarity.” In the book’s introduction, Phil Snider, a self-described “White male cishet pastor” – according to Fox News – explained that “pastors of the resistance” are united in fighting Trump, “White supremacy,” “exploitation,” “greed” and “heteropatriarchy.”
These ministers are part of the same trend I have seen up close in higher education over the past couple of decades as departments veered radically to the left, including divinity schools. A new generation of activist ministers have been groomed in divinity schools that tie faith to liberal activism.
The curious result of resistance preaching on the left is to increase the role of religion in politics.
In fairness to Talarico and his fellow political ministers, they are not calling for greater entanglement of religion. However, they are infusing the Democratic campaigns with a progressive evangelical element.
Historically, heavy use of religious rhetoric by government officials has been seen as suspect in America (though this changed for Republicans starting in the 1980s). Lacing campaigns with religious pitches produces discomfort for many Americans who fear the type of sectarian violence common in other countries. At the same time, seeking to advance faith-based or morality-based policies goes back to our founding.
Thomas Jefferson famously used the term “wall of separation” of church and state in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association to emphasize the need to avoid entanglement of religion with the government. Generations of politicians have been cautious about the same entanglement with politics. Indeed, federal laws have restricted religious organizations, as not-for-profit groups, from directly contributing to political causes.
The opposition to religious-themed campaigns has been a touchstone of Democratic politics for generations. This historical opposition has now been abandoned to make room for a new generation of political proselytizing clergy. It seems the Democratic National Committee hopes that the wall of separation between the parties on the use of faith-based politics – a wall already breached by the GOP – has now come completely down.
As far-left ministers rally voters to oppose the GOP as a matter of faith, the DNC is apparently singing a familiar song before the critical midterm elections: “Amazing grace! How sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me! I once was lost, but now am found.”
Jonathan Turley, is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Nearly 20 comments on this thread from the same correct-the-record recruit devoted to attacking the Professor and attacking other commenters.
Denominations of the sort to which Talarico belongs have little to do with historical dispensations within the Christian religion as it would have been understood ca. 1960. They have merely inherited the physical assets and the endowment. The sentiments to which they adhere have different idioms of expression, but they are the same sediments.
As Professor Turley points out, both sides are culpable when it comes to religion and politics, and my tribe, the Muslims, are the worst when it comes to theocratic nonsense.
While I subscribe to separation of church and state, the problem is that when one removes religion from the schools, that still does not remove the most obnoxious fanatics: godless utopians. Our educational institutions are covered up in propaganda, overwhelmingly from the left.
So what’s the solution? I’m not absolutely sure, but ridding schools of all norms and values is impossible. There has to be a social baseline. I think traditional American civic values are fine and should be taught–constitutionality, color blindness, etc., but now there’s a problem with even that. The left rejects many of America’s traditional civic virtues. The left has unilaterally vacated all common ground.
Not sure how one avoids a massive showdown when the left is throwing rocks through the Overton Window, and don’t ask the Parisians. They clearly haven’t figured it out.
I agree with the observation about liberal churches. There are a few in my area, and they’re mainly Sunday social clubs for the local snobbery. God has little to do with them, and I’m not worried about the left installing a theocracy. Religion is just another cynical campaign tactic of the left. They don’t mean a word of it
And get ready for it, because our useful idiots commenting on this blog will blame everything on MAGA. MAGA is a reaction to them; they are not a reaction to MAGA. They are not “the resistance;” they are the establishment–sordid media, academia, deep state, and all.
I remember in the 2000 potus campaign that some liberal members of my family would get upset when George W. Bush went into a church and talked about his faith. Their constant criticism was “separation of church and state.”
But they approved of Gore going into liberal churches and talking about why his faith led him to liberal political positions. They never said “separation of church and state” in reaction to those events.
Kansas, the left’s values are all transactional these days.
The contradiction is something they scarcely notice.
Dems and the GOP always have at least one subject in which they are almost universally aligned: Perpetual War, especially focused on Israel and the Middle East.
For warmongers and those with an insatiable appetite to create more orphans and maimed bodies and death and destruction and inflation, Israel is the gift that keeps on giving.
Israel is happy to live in peace with its neighbors. It never wages aggressive wars, only defensive ones. Each such defensive war is existential: win one, win one; lose one, lose them all.
There’s one principle that you can take to the bank: if you want to live at peace with Israel, don’t attack Israel. Simple as that.
Thanks for the fantasy. We’re all enlightened.
Is that extra “a” in your name just a typo for an “h”? Like Ahab, you are consumed by a tragic, single-minded obsession.
Israel wants peace, but its neighbor to the south is intent on its destruction. You are upside down. Israel practices self-defense, and rightly so; don’t attack if you want peace. Like Ahab, you have a blind obsession that you can’t explain; antisemitism explains it best. You want to see all of Israel destroyed for no good reason.
Pastor TD Jakes asks democrats, do you have a mind to change? Woe be unto you.
Bishop TD Jakes – Free Your Mind | GodTube.com
The Bible clearly tells us that Satan is the great deceiver. How is it then that someone who declares himself to be a follower of God could promote the marriage of two people who believe in worshiping Satan? What were the vows? What Satan has put together let no man put asunder? Let only the cleavage of those who have taken this vow be performed by the sword if it is found that total and complete supplication to Satan god is not adhered to. For further requirements please be referred to the Communist Manifesto written by Brother Marx. Brother Stalin’s writings on the scriptures will also be found to be very enlightening. May Satan bless and keep you on your journey.
How is it then that someone who declares himself to be a follower of God could promote the marriage of two people who believe in worshiping Satan?
When God instituted marriage he didn’t limit the institution to believers. Paul says to obey civil authorities, at least unless the law is directly contrary to the law of God (such as requiring the murder of certain people). One adult male and one adult female of any religion getting married is not directly contrary to the law of God.
It’s always the long game . They are starting with Christianity to eventually embrace their up and coming Muslim base
Leftys pandering to the religious and Trump pandering to the free cash crowd? I guess we can come together and resolve our differences. A little something for everyone but the illegals. FREE CASH WINS!
The only reason Turley is bringing this up is to give Paxton a leg up.
Talarico leads Paxton by 1 or two points in every poll.
Not even Trump seems to be helping Paxton much. That’s not good…for Paxton. Even most Republicans hate Paxton.
Got facts?
They are right there buddy. They are even hyperlinked.
reading comprehension problem, X? He was talking about your beginning sentence, “The only reason Turley is bringing this up is to give Paxton a leg up.”
That was presented as a statement of fact, for which he asked for facts.
That isn’t a reading comprehension problem; it is a failure on your part to explain exactly what you meant by ‘Got facts?’
If you want a specific answer, learn to ask a precise question. Perhaps you should sharpen your own communication skills before lecturing others on theirs.
X the Clown, what did YOU “explain exactly” or even mean and what facts did YOU provide to support your asinine comment that “The only reason Turley is bringing this up is to give Paxton a leg up.”
THe one who makes statements is the one who must support them with “evidence” as X likes to call it, as though X even knows what evidence is.
You are still hiding behind the incredibly vague phrasing of your original question, ‘Got facts?’
When your only question is ‘Got facts?’ into a comment section without specifying which part of the argument you are disputing, you are just throwing a tantrum, not asking for evidence.
Do you want evidence for the fact that Turley works for Fox News? Public knowledge. Do you want evidence that Turley wrote a column attacking Talarico right as Talarico pulled ahead of Paxton in the polls? the polls, you are willfully blind. The timeline and the data are right in front of you.
You want evidence that Turley is carrying water for Paxton? Let’s connect the very obvious dots. James Talarico is currently leading Ken Paxton in the mid-October polls. Jonathan Turley—a paid contributor for the highly partisan Fox News network—suddenly drops a column attacking Talarico’s faith while completely ignoring Paxton’s massive corruption scandals.
That isn’t a conspiracy theory; it’s standard media analysis. You don’t seem to have the thing you need most, critical thinking skills. I’m not surprised.
your typical defense, georgie. I burst out laughing. “This isn’t a conspiracy theory; it’s standard media analysis.”
When you can’t answer the challenge, you create new arguments never raised. NOT TO MENTION your new trick learned from this blog that you have started using just in the last several weeks: it’s not this; it’s that.
Try to be a little more original, X. You just keep diggin’ deeper.
Where are your true facts tho? margin of error always works against the left every single time. fact. proved. boom.
the left is about to be surprised yet again by the will of the voters. gonna be juicy screeching.
Oh, so now it’s about the “true facts”? Typing ‘fact, proved, boom’ at the end of a sentence doesn’t magically turn your wishful thinking into reality.
You just proved why it’s a waste of time proving things to you. You’re never going to accept anything as fact because you will keep narrowing it down until it becomes a stupid game.
When your chronic complaint is that a writer did not select the theme you wish for, the problem is not the writer’s. It is your obsessive desire to use that writer as a means to your ends.
When you then continuously condemn that writer as a hack (for not obeying your whimsical desires), you have planted yourself in Dante’s Third Circle — for those who have surrendered reason to gluttony.
Sam,
Well said.
But it seems there are those who want or demand the writer writes what they want.
What is it that you do not understand about the 1st Amendment?
So no one should ever have an opinion about anything? Oh wait, those are covered under 1A too…
What is it you do not understand a writer is free to write what he wants. He does not have to submit to the demands of others who want him to write what they want him to write. That is his 1stA right, to not write as others demand.
UF: TY.
I feel compelled to address Mr. Turley’s reference to “Lutheran” minister Sarah Trone Garriott. There are three major Lutheran synods. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran and the Missouri. Just based on the fact that Garriott conducted a wedding clearly indicates that she is a minister within the ELCA synod as the other two synods reserve the pastoral office for men. ELCA has taken on a more Presbyterian approach to scripture. I believe that the ELCA has gone astray.
The willingness with which the modern left lies and gaslights leaves no room for doubt of their sociopathy. I believe they’re religious like I believe in Bigfoot.
What are the lies? Talarico is leading Paxton because he’s resonating with a lot of folks a lot more than Paxton is. He’s always used his faith as a counter to Paxton’s ‘flavor’ of Christianity which is more hypocritical and obviously un-christian. Adultery, Fraud, getting impeached by his own party, giving false witness…etc.
Talarico merely pointing this out and exposing the fragility of Paxton’s supposed Christian bona fides as pure hypocrisy is fair game.
James,
Believing in Bigfoot has more credibility.
Democrats will adopt any . . . religion to include Satanism, if they think it will get them a few points in polls
So those on the right don’t wear their Christianity on their sleeves, Upstatefarmer? Let’s be real.
The religious right has spent decades using faith as a golden ticket for votes, building an entire platform out of culture wars and selective morality. Their religious principles are entirely transactional.
Nothing proves this more than watching millions of conservative Christians completely look the other way regarding Donald Trump’s un-Christian life. They happily ignore the adultery, the absence of a personal relationship with Jesus, and a total ignorance of scripture. They effectively sold their souls for political influence rather than following the savior they preach about.
The real punchline is that when Talarico uses actual scripture to point out this exact hypocrisy, Turley throws a tantrum about Democrats ruining the ‘wall of separation.’ I guess the rules are simple: faith belongs exclusively to the GOP, and anyone else quoting the Bible is an existential threat.
“Believing in Bigfoot has more credibility.” So you actually believe in Bigfoot huh? What about Santa Claus, that too?
@Upstate
It really does. And again lends even less credence to the whole ‘MAGAT’ thing. It actually cracks me up when historically, and it is well documented, that throughout history the aristocracy, from whom some of these clods are descended, were notorious for their inbreeding to keep their bloodlines ‘pure’. All it did was create generational insanity.
As for the satanism, yup. If anything looks like an advantage to these fools, they’ll take it without any ethical considerations whatsoever. They know most free thinking people abhor them, and they cannot win elections honestly, hence the antics. Would be pathetic, sad, and hilarious were not the consequences so currently dire.
Notice how “Anonymous” can’t actually counter a single fact listed here? No defense for Paxton’s corruption, no defense for the uncertified school chaplains, and no explanation for why Turley stays silent on the right-wing war against the ‘wall of separation.’
When you have no real arguments, all you can do is throw playground insults, project, and yell ‘delusion!’ Thanks for proving my point. Talarico is using actual scripture to expose the hypocrisy of the Christian right.
X, a question, what facts are you talking about? The stuff you post is full of nonsense, so why bother reading. You have no credibility, you’re just an anon doing what you accuse others of doing.
So show how and why you think it’s nonsense. Offer a counter. You’re not offering an argument. I am.
You claim to use facts, then prove “your facts” are indeed facts. Pretty simple right? BTW, your “arguments” are nothing more than insane diatribes.
LOL! You’re not “Hullbobby” and you’re not “James” anonymous. It’s obvious.
Besides, you can find out if my facts are facts by doing a little research yourself. You are smart, aren’t you?
Let’s see, you produced “the facts” based on what? Research? That research you state one should do, did you already do your research? Then you should have problem producing it as proof yours is accurate. Those are your words, not anyone elses’ right? Funny how you never claim to be credible in your rants.
Imagine having the entire internet at your fingertips and still being too lazy to do a light Google search. I had no idea basic fact-checking was such a struggle for you. My sincere condolences.
We have AI and search engines for a reason—they are incredibly useful for finding information, assuming you aren’t completely allergic to a little work. My facts are correct. If you’re desperate to prove me wrong, feel free to use a source you actually trust and look it up yourself. Go ahead, give it a try.
Now why should anyone have to prove your alleged facts George? Many here wonder why you can’t produce a single fact with a source? Why should anyone have to prove you’re not lying? Obviously you can’t prove it yourself because you can’t. Considering you’re a pathological liar …
Funny that you mention AI. You’ve been caught using AI quite a lot here, you even admitted it.
I don’t need to ‘prove’ I’m not lying when the entire internet is right there to show I’m telling the truth. If you lack the basic, baseline capability to verify a public Marist poll or a Supreme Court docket on your own device, that is a personal hurdle, not my problem.
And yes, I use AI to help organize and clean up my text. It’s a fantastic tool for efficiency. You should try using it sometime; it might actually help you look up the facts you seek before you comment next time.
Does Relying on AI Weaken Your Critical Thinking? What the Research Shows
“The research that has accumulated since 2025 points to a consistent pattern: the more people offload their thinking to AI tools, the lower they tend to score on measures of critical thinking, and the effect is strongest in the youngest, heaviest users.”
https://realworldiq.com/trending/does-relying-on-ai-weaken-your-critical-thinking-what-the-research-shows
Dropping a link about a decline in critical thinking while completely failing to read the actual article is a masterclass in irony.
If you actually read the piece, you’d know it says AI isn’t poison—it’s a lever. The danger only applies to people who use AI to completely replace their brains because they don’t understand how it works.
When you understand the tool, you don’t let it think for you; you use it to execute your own researched ideas faster and more clearly. I supply the verified legal precedents, the historical timelines, and the real polling numbers. The AI just handles the formatting. If you can’t tell the difference between active cognitive tool-use and passive reliance, that’s a failure of your own critical thinking, not mine.
The trick to using AI effectively is understanding what you’re reading and applying it in conjunction with your own thinking. It’s a very effective tool. It also enhances critical thinking and makes it more efficient for those who know how to use AI effectively.
You clearly have used AI to completely replace your brain. It is that obvious.
Anon has bouncing off walls all day long and now you’re frothing at the mouth X trying to shut him down. And failing.
If you did any research garnering facts, then you should have no problem producing them. You are a notorious liar so it would help with credibility.
Again, Google and AI are your best friends. Do a little work and find out for yourself. It’s not hard at all.
Yeah X, “do a little work and find out for yourself. It’s not hard at all.”
Does Relying on AI Weaken Your Critical Thinking? What the Research Shows
“The research that has accumulated since 2025 points to a consistent pattern: the more people offload their thinking to AI tools, the lower they tend to score on measures of critical thinking, and the effect is strongest in the youngest, heaviest users.”
https://realworldiq.com/trending/does-relying-on-ai-weaken-your-critical-thinking-what-the-research-shows
See? that was the counter and you punted. get used to this sort of losing.
This is not me
This is not me.
@Anonymous
No, pretty sure that is you. Or yous, as the case may be. Go blow.
Hey George can you prove what you claim are “facts” are in fact “facts”?
He’s noticeably quiet eh?
Nothing is new about Paxton. He was reelected in a statewide race. Everything was out there, analyzed, blown out of proportion, aa considered by the informed electorate. Talarico is unvetted by the public at large and is now attempting to change his stripes. That is a massive difference and something the electorate has a right to be educated about.
Talarico isn’t using scripture to expose anything except his own bias and poor education. Listening to him is just hilarious. There are references in scripture for those who choose to twist it and misrepresent it. Hint: none of it is good. That’s Talarico in a nutshell.
“Right-wing ware against ‘wall of separation’. That wall listed in a single letter written by Jefferson? That phrase that no one even knew about until a JFK staffer dug it up so JFK could give a speech to the Democrats when he was running against LBJ so they would feel comfortable voting for a catholic? That wall? We could also look into the much more voluminous writings of the founders, or even the Declaration of Independence that recognizes the role God (or the “Maker” as mentioned in the DofI) plays in our lives and our government. There is no “attack”. You’re just throwing out talking points and buzzwords.
As always, keep it up! You are the best GOTV for the GOP on this website!
“We could also look into the much more voluminous writings of the founders [sic] . . .”
You mean like the Constitution? How many times does the word “God” appear there? Hint: Less than one.
Claiming Ken Paxton was ‘considered by the informed electorate’ ignores the fact that his own Republican colleagues in the Texas House impeached him because his corruption was too severe to ignore. Winning a hyper-partisan state election doesn’t erase federal indictments, whistle-blower lawsuits, or security fraud charges—it just proves some voters prioritize a party letter over basic ethics.
Calling James Talarico ‘unvetted’ is factually absurd. He is a prominent state representative who has spent years in the public eye, openly debating policy and his faith. You claim he is ‘twisting scripture,’ but you haven’t provided a single theological argument to disprove him. He uses direct biblical text to call out leaders who use religion as a political weapon while ignoring the actual teachings of Jesus.
You can claim James Talarico is ‘unvetted’ and ‘twisting scripture,’ but his message is clearly resonating with the public. Talarico is a trained seminarian who is successfully exposing the hypocrisy of right-wing politicians who weaponize faith. You can ignore Paxton’s multi-million dollar legal scandals all you want, but Texas voters aren’t ignoring them—which is exactly why Talarico is currently leading him in the polls.
You tell them X! All that information is out there! Just because you say those things and do not provide any factual data to back up your claims does not make them untrue! They are just jealous of how smart you are! You are the smartest person you know! You tell them! So what if you use Google and AI to make your points even if sometimes AI contradicts itself and the responses make no sense! So what!
Narcissist much?
Turley acts as a protector of “secular voters” who might find religious talk unnerving. Because, apparently Democrats for some reason using religion as part of their campaigns or arguments is…new? It’s a natural reaction to Christian extremists and zealotry from the right which has been historically a part of the Republican Party since the ‘Moral Majority’ emerged a few decades ago.
And yet…He remains silent on Christian nationalist groups who openly declare that non-Christians and secular Americans are less legitimate citizens who shouldn’t participate in public life. Because they are not real Christians and only real Christians are real American citizens.
It’s like Turley criticizing the fire department for using water, while completely ignoring the arsonists who started the fire. Talarico’s faith is not an aggressive push to turn America into a progressive theocracy; it is an effort to counter the Christian narrative from an authoritarian far-right movement that seeks exactly that.
Here we go again, crazy george spewing insane gobbledygook again.
Turley claims activist ministers are forcing religion into spaces where it doesn’t belong to push an agenda. Which is ironic since it’s the most common thing with those on the right, the Christian zealots and extremists like Pete Hegseth, Paxton, and many others.
Talarico is not using faith to attack secularism; he is using the teachings of Jesus as a theological shield against the far-right. The deep irony is that Turley attacks the candidate who is trying to save the boundary of church and state from being entirely overrun by the right.
George claims activist ministers are forcing religion into spaces where it doesn’t belong to push an agenda.
Sure George, you tell em.
The overarching irony of Turley’s critique lies in his attempt to scold Democrats for violating the “wall of separation”, while entirely ignoring the exact mechanisms of his subjects’ campaigns.
Turley complains that introducing religion into politics reduces faith to “political sound bites” and breeds sectarian division.
Turley fails to apply this standard to Talarico’s opponent, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has routinely used fundamentalist rhetoric to shield himself from severe corruption scandals, criminal indictments, and a public divorce. You know, one involving adultery. Plus let’s not forget Paxton and the Governor who also use Religion in politics like a weapon have been using Islam and scare mongering about Sharia law. Why? Because they have nothing else to campaign on besides culture war and religious grievances as issues.
The overarching irony of X’s childish critique lies is that its all childish nonsense without rhyme or reason, aka delusion. As usual.
Turley frames the sudden influx of religious rhetoric from Democrats as a cynical, unprovoked attempt to “find God” purely to secure a blue wave. He entirely leaves out that Talarico’s faith-forward campaign is a direct, defensive response to the massive rise of Christian nationalism on the American right.
Turley treats the separation of church and state as a boundary Democrats are suddenly breaching. He omits the highly publicized efforts by Texas Republicans to legislate Christian dominance—such as forcing public schools to display the Ten Commandments, replacing school counselors with uncertified chaplains, and diverting public tax dollars to private Christian schools. He’s ’forgetting’ that the Christian right has always been dominated by religious zealots bent on Christian dominance and as an absolute authority on American morality. James Talarico is proving to be an effective counter to that view by being an actual Christian, a Christian even gets the respect of atheists, an accomplishment the right has never been able to do.
Talarico, a Presbyterian seminarian, does not use religion to advocate for a theocracy. A key distinction from the more nutty type of Christianity of the right. He explicitly uses his faith to argue why church and state must stay separate, stating that Christian nationalism is a “cancer on our religion” that warps the actual teachings of Jesus to consolidate wealth and political power. He’s shown the Christian right its hypocrisy by using the bible itself and the words of Jesus. Which has made him a target of the right and why Turley is specifically targeting Talarico, because Talarico is being effective.
George X frames the sudden influx of religious rhetoric from Democrats as a response to the massive rise of christian nationalism on left as cynical?
There fixed it.
The First Commandment says: “I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Doesn’t sound to me like the Democrat Party Platform.
You crazy fascist christians need to get your collective heads out of your collective arses and smell fresh air.
Anonymous,
Thank you for proving my point.
And what point was that?
Mary,
Thank you for proving my point.