Talarico's bots are appearing on social media

It's not too surprising that traditional Christians are flummoxed by some of the preaching of James Talarico, and that social media posts concerning his "theology" continue to appear. But I am starting to see some comments on legit pages that seem to be from sources which post little or no content of their own. They have few followers or "friends". They only challenge posts from right-ish points of view.

An unsophisticated example concerning the war in Iran would be:

Jesus loves a bomb.

But there are more sophisticated challenges to posts concerning Talarico from these sites which seem dedicated only to criticism, suggesting that those who disapprove of his theology are mean or perhaps even bad people. For example, the conversation between Jesus and the Samaritan Woman at the Well was demonstrating that Jesus was sent to expand the covenant between God and the Jews to other people. It was about Social Justice. Forget the complexities about "living water", salvation and all.

Additionally, Talarico's special affinity for trans children is a lot like Jesus talking to the Samaritan woman. Social Justice.

.@JeffcoSchoolsCo allegedly has 61 males on the girl’s sports team

SIXTY ONE

Wtf pic.twitter.com/Gotdin5TqX

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 13, 2026

Come to think of it, there was a lot of Social Justice stuff in the Old Testament. How dare you question Talarico for talking about Social Justice in a religious way?

Best not to interact with these bots, I think. But there's an election coming up.

Partial Review of the Talarico Story

Back before the primaries in Texas, Ace reported that Stephen Colbert lied when he accused CBS of censoring him because he was interviewing James Talarico, a candidate for the upcoming senatorial Democratic primary race in Texas.

Talarico kept the lie going, blaming Trump for trying to silence him. The real story was that the Democrats for trying to silence his primary opponent, Jasmine Crockett.

Anyway, this ploy seems to have been successful, garnering lots of contributions for this guy. In addition, he was interviewed by Joe Rogan, who suggested that he should run for president in 2028. And then there was a long interview by Ezra Klein, included in this report by Mary Rooke: Rising Star James Talarico's Soothing Voice Will Lead Lambs To Slaughter

Good article.

Democratic Texas Senate candidate James Talarico presents himself as a Christian who prays, quotes Jesus Christ extensively, and grounds his politics in faith. However, on several defining moral issues, he does not submit his political ideology to scripture; instead, he reinterprets or ignores scripture to genuflect to his true “god”: far-left orthodoxy.

Talarico, a Texas state representative and self-proclaimed Presbyterian, discussed his supposed Christian faith in a New York Times interview with Ezra Klein released on Tuesday. During which he spoke reverently about God, scripture, and his prayer life. Overall, he defined his faith as trust and acts of love. But there’s an argument to be made that Talarico is not truly Christian but rather a devout practitioner of radical left ideology wrapped in Christian symbolism. . .

Talarico’s interview makes it clear that he doesn’t believe that Christianity is a faith that transforms ideology, but rather that an ideology can selectively reinterpret or override scripture and Christian dogma to remain unchanged. This suggests that his operative authority is not Christ, scripture, or doctrine, but leftist ideology, which is then clothed in Christian language. In this way, he becomes the wolf in sheep’s clothing, leading others to follow down this treacherous path. . .

Probably the most insidious example of this is when Talarico explains his political views on abortion using the Blessed Mary. In the interview, Klein plays a clip from Talarico’s appearance on the “Joe Rogan Experience.”

Talarico cites Mary’s consent at the Annunciation, when she exclaims, “Let it be done to me according to your word,” as a biblical foundation for so-called reproductive freedom and a woman’s absolute autonomy over her body. . .

And Klein thought that this would be a fine example, too, I guess.

Talarico’s public presentation of Christianity exposes that his true faith is in human autonomy, sexual liberation, and state-mediated economic equality, with Jesus recast as a mascot for those causes rather than the Lord who demands repentance and transformation.

His calm voice and boyish face aid in this endeavor. They are powerful rhetorical assets that make his presentation of far-left positions feel disarming, sincere, and authentically Christian rather than ideological or confrontational. This makes listeners less likely to categorize him as a partisan activist and more likely to see him as a sincere young believer simply sharing his faith. . .

More at the link.

Here's an interesting re-interpretation of scripture: "Don't tell me what you believe. Show me how you treat other people and I'll tell you what you believe."

I thought that judging people's hearts was God's job.

One of his public prayers included: "the Quran calls you Peace, the Gita calls you Destroyer, the Dharma calls you Truth"

There's some traditional, Bible-Belt Christianity that most people would recognize.

Some of the people who like Talarico are sincere

I ran across excerpts from a post by a Christian guy who had opened up a dialogue with progressive Christians who took Talarico seriously.

Tyson Zahner: "My last post about James Talarico's progressive Christian theology generated hundreds of conversations. The most interesting ones were with progressive Christians themselves… sincere, thoughtful people who love Jesus and genuinely believe they're following Him more faithfully than the traditional church has.

After engaging in several of these conversations, I noticed a pattern underneath every progressive argument…
I'll start with their core move…
Every conversation came back to some version of this: "Jesus summarized everything as love God and love your neighbor, and that overrides the harder moral teachings."

But I see two problems here.

One is simply a breakdown in what we mean by "love". Progressive Christians tend to hear that word and translate it into merely compassion, empathy, and understanding… which then becomes affirmation, tolerance, and acceptance. By that definition, any moral boundary starts to feel unloving.

But that's not the biblical definition. Thomas Aquinas defined love (agape) not as mere emotion, but as a conscious decision to "will the good of the other" which sometimes means saying the hard thing, not the comfortable thing. . . .

And here's why it's so hard to argue with progressive Christianity… In my previous post I mentioned Jonathan Haidt (a social psychologist who is not religious, not conservative, and has described his own political leanings as liberal). Haidt wrote The Righteous Mind about why good people are divided by politics. His research isn't about theology. But it explains why progressive Christianity is so effective and so persuasive to so many.

His core finding was this: conservatives draw from a broader moral palette including care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity, and liberty. Progressives weight care and fairness far above the others.

In chapter 12, Haidt himself wrote: "When I speak to liberal audiences about the three 'binding' foundations — Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity — I find that many in the audience don't just fail to resonate; they actively reject these concerns as immoral. Loyalty to a group shrinks the moral circle; it is the basis of racism and exclusion, they say. Authority is oppression. Sanctity is religious mumbo-jumbo whose only function is to suppress female sexuality and justify homophobia."

Progressive Christianity does the same thing theologically. It elevates the care and fairness dimensions of Jesus's teaching above everything else… then treats anyone who draws from the other moral foundations as a Pharisee.

The result sounds like pure love. But it's a narrowed moral vision that has quietly set aside half the palette and declared the remaining half to be the whole gospel.

In one of my conversations, a self-described progressive Christian told me plainly: "The vast majority of progressive Christians aren't against border enforcement, traditional marriage, or institutional order. The difference is we don't see those as moral issues."

That's not underweighting those foundations. That's removing them from the moral category entirely which is exactly the pattern Haidt describes. . .

Do you know anyone who follows the progressive Christian pattern?

Christian Nationalism

James Talarico is really against "Christian Nationalism" as defined by the left at any given moment, but he doesn't hate the people:

James Talarico on building a coalition with white nationalists:

“What if we found the courage and the vulnerability to do the difficult work of building a movement based on radical love that could create solidarity between latinx…a movement so powerful it could even liberate… pic.twitter.com/0DpWj8yUvC

— José (@josecanyousee) February 23, 2026

Question: Are these people "Christion Nationalists"? Taxpayers pay for their theological positions.

Remember when Southwest Key, Catholic Charities USA, and Endeavors, all non profit organizations, received about $5.6 billion of tax payer money under Biden from 2021-2024 to help facilitate illegal immigration?

Their CEOs made millions of dollars in salaries and most of their… https://t.co/Mhe59wUZfF

— Green Beret Nap Time (@GBNT1952) March 11, 2026

Weekend

The Week in Pictures: Schroedinger’s Ayatollah
Is he alive or is he dead? When it comes to the new ayatollah, the answer is ultimately Yes. If he is alive, it won’t be for long. Who wants to tell him?

Sadly, I don’t have any memes yet for Judge Lawrence VanDyke’s amazing dissent at the 9th Circuit Friday. (If you haven’t heard about this, see the third item here.)

Hope you have something nice planned for this weekend.

This is the Thread before the Gardening Thread.

Last week's thread, These Mullahs are serious!

Comments are closed so you won't ban yourself by trying to comment on a week-old thread. But don't try it anyway.

posted by K.T. at 11:13 AM

| Access Comments