What should Christians do when neither option upholds their values?

In this episode of Politics for Happy People, Joseph and Ashley examine the theology and worldview of Texas Democrat James Talarico. They argue that Talarico redefines core biblical teachings to support progressive positions on gender, sexuality, and abortion. The conversation also explores how Christians should evaluate political candidates when faced with difficult choices between personal character, policy outcomes, and faithfulness to biblical truth.

Transcript

SPEAKER_02 0:00

And welcome to politics for happy people where we have fun conversations about serious topics. So glad that you are with us once again. And uh gotta start off by saying happy pride. We are now in June.

SPEAKER_01 0:16

Thank you for that, Joseph.

SPEAKER_02 0:18

Do you do you feel proud?

SPEAKER_01 0:21

I well, uh, it depends on the sense in which you mean that.

SPEAKER_02 0:26

In context, maybe you should not. That's right. That's a fair question. Um am I wrong in thinking that Pride Month is a bit more muted? Like every year it's becoming like less of a thing.

SPEAKER_01 0:38

It is. I think so. Yeah. I mean, you s you still have people, you know, wishing people happy pride and and making the statements and things like that, but I think it's less it's definitely less in your face. I feel like I see Especially commercially.

SPEAKER_02 0:53

I see a lot, lot less of it. And and maybe mostly where I encountered it was like social media. It used to be that everybody changed all of their branding and logos to be some kind of rainbow something. And I just I'm still on social media and I just don't feel like I'm seeing that anymore.

SPEAKER_01 1:08

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 1:09

I feel like people are kind of over it. Was that a mood?

SPEAKER_01 1:12

I mean, I think people are have kind of accepted that there are different views on it and they're not going to overcome the people who aren't celebrating pride. Well, yeah, yeah, I think that's a good point.

SPEAKER_02 1:26

I think there was this sense at one point on the left that they were confident all us Neanderthals were about to either die or be converted. It would no longer be controversial, and then they would just celebrate equality uh as they understood that forever and ever and ever, without any kind of opposition or friction. And I think maybe um they've accepted the fact that this is actually a pretty controversial statement. And if anything, they're losing some momentum on some of these issues. So I mean, I I think it's a good thing. I think that it is less in your face because it was really hostile. I remember having a moment, um, I don't know why this one is so clear to me, but like in Spokane, Washington. I don't know if you've ever been to Spokane, Washington. It's right near the it's eastern Washington, almost Idaho, right on the border there. And so it's kind of like rural, small-ish town America. And I was walking, it was like June 1st or 2nd or whatever it was. The streets were lined with pride flags. And in what that has always represented to me is like hostility, lawsuits, like we're gonna bully you. This was in an era where um Baronel Stutzman is uh one of the one kind of the first victims in America of the sexual revolution, a a florist in Washington State, and she had been just harassed and harassed and harassed by the then attorney general, now governor of Washington, and I was kind of helping her fight this stuff.

SPEAKER_01 2:44

And so sweet older lady really, really sweet lady, right?

SPEAKER_02 2:47

And so I'm walking down the streets uh and and I'm just surrounded, not only on like all the all the light posts, but all the businesses had these things, and I felt like I mean the analogy emotionally was like this is what it must have felt like to be in Nazi-occupied Germany, where like every symbol is like antagonistic to you and is like a symbol of I hate you, I want to destroy you. Because that's emotionally how it felt. I just don't see that kind of display anymore. And maybe it's still happening in Seattle this week.

SPEAKER_01 3:19

I don't know, but you're in the south now, so I am in the south. I don't I I mean, yeah, it was it wasn't like that. I I've never had an experience like that here, but I do think it's a little bit more um, it is a little bit more muted now, I do believe.

SPEAKER_02 3:36

So I I think there's a little bit easy come, easy go, and the the mood culturally is changing, and and I think we're all better for it because we've got to stop pretending that we should force everybody to agree with this. Exactly. Or you are banished. So that's not what we're here to talk about um today, but it is interesting because we're all experiencing June. So today we are going to talk about uh James Tallerico, Texas's favorite, lefty, progressive, Christian, and and what he means. Before we get into the depths of that, though, Ashley, you brought up a little story that I wanted to let you tease a little bit. I think we're gonna maybe start some of these conversations with something interesting that isn't that deep. This falls into that category for me. I think it's interesting. I don't know how deep it is, but Ashley, why did this tell us about the story and why it caught your attention.

SPEAKER_01 4:31

Okay, yeah, I saw this this week on social media, you know, things go around. And the Fox News article that reported on it said, Dem lawmakers gripe about the economic violence of not being paid to stay home from work when menstruating. And it was a bunch of women uh who are de all Democrats, so not women representatives. Elected officials.

SPEAKER_02 4:57

They're members of Congress who are females.

SPEAKER_01 5:00

Yeah, yeah. So they held a press conference, they introduced the Reproductive Healthcare Leave Act, um, their flagship bill, and it it provides up to 12 days of uh of paid leave for reproductive health needs, which include abortion and menstrual pain.

SPEAKER_02 5:27

That is so 12 days a year. Yeah. That you get to have on for your abortions, yes, and your time of the month.

SPEAKER_01 5:36

Yes, yes. So and they, I mean, everyone was circulating this clip and talking about it and saying, you know, these women were screaming about y not screaming, but you know, they they held a press conference about how hard it is basically to be a woman and and to have a menstrual cycle.

SPEAKER_02 5:56

Well, Ashley, I I admittedly am cautious to say anything about this story because I feel like I would be accused of mansplaining. You seem to have thoughts about it, so why don't you start?

SPEAKER_01 6:09

I just think it's a funny, I mean, I just think it's a very funny take. You know, you've we've had feminists who for years have been saying, you know, women are the same as men, and we can do everything that men can do. And yet, you know, then they hold a press conference, you know. Well, why don't we make it equal to five days off for I don't know what the equivalent is. Well, actually, uh to be fair, I do think that there's Is there?

SPEAKER_02 6:36

Did they did they come up with a an equivalent for the men?

SPEAKER_01 6:41

Yeah, they call it the it's uh the H E R agenda, the her agenda. So it is for women, but they're including vasectomies in here as well. So we can take time off. Yes. If we get a vasectomy.

SPEAKER_02 6:56

So it's very anti-gatal bill, also, because they want to they want to give you time off when you go have your abortion and go give you time off for your vasectomy.

SPEAKER_01 7:05

I mean, I think the the the thing is, I think people do have paid time. I mean, people generally are able to take exactly people are able to take time off you have vacation time for sick like six days, like qualify. The point is you you need more for your for your female needs.

SPEAKER_02 7:24

Every single potential diagnosis, you get your own kind of category of sick leave, right? Right. So pretty soon nobody's working at all because every single day of the year.

SPEAKER_01 7:32

But my point is I just think it's funny that historically women who are more feminists say, you know, women are the same as men, and you know, I and we can do everything men can do, and I don't it's just funny also give us extra time off. Uh exactly. Exactly. This isn't a way to make the the men take you seriously and and give you important jobs, ladies.

SPEAKER_02 7:56

I love the fact that they referred to economic violence. Is that the term?

SPEAKER_01 8:01

Yes. How is it explain that? How is it economic violence to it's I don't it's economic violence against against women to force women to work during their period? I I I don't know. I don't know. I I didn't honestly, admittedly, it didn't go it did I didn't do a deep dive into this situation, but it did it did tickle me this week, honestly. And I can promise you I will never ever be holding a press conference about menstrual menstruation. That's bold.

SPEAKER_02 8:31

No, I yeah, I I uh I mean I I don't know that I've ever heard tried to uh I that I've ever seen a lawmaker try to make that big of a deal about it. Yeah, to your point, yeah, I think we're trying to minimize the differences. This is the opposite of minimizing. This is the opposite of that. Um, let's just not spend all day on that. Yeah. Moving on. Moving on. Speaking of feminism, James Tallerico. Oh my gosh. How's that for a segue? James Tallerico is running for Senate in the state of Texas. He recently prevailed in a primary uh against Jasmine Crockett, which is interesting because she is a far-left black member of Congress. He is in the state house. Um white guy. So are the Democrats in Texas racist? Question mark. Um, that actually is a discussion that happened within the Democratic Party. Oh, okay. Because the white guy beat the black woman to be the Senate nominee.

SPEAKER_01 9:30

That does kind of violate their rules, yeah.

SPEAKER_02 9:32

And and it's a Kamala Harris problem as well, right? At the national level, because she made no progress in an actual primary and was defeated by the white guys. And so are they racist? And of course, the answer to that is no. Um, in those cases, those women just don't happen to be particularly bright. Um, so they lost, I think, on the merits. But those are the rules of the game that they have created. But James Tallerico has emerged, and one of the reasons that James Tolerico is interesting is because he really highlights what he considers to be evangelical Christian bona fides.

SPEAKER_01 10:06

He has Does he claim to be an evangelical? Like does he use that word? Okay, but he's like he's like mainline Protestant, though. That's different than evangelical.

SPEAKER_02 10:18

Uh yeah, yeah. No, you're right. Um, but it's in the family of evangelical. I mean, yes, I I guess depending on how you define those names. And and we will not parse that out today. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 10:28

Okay. But it's PCU, he's in PCUSA.

SPEAKER_02 10:31

Yes.

SPEAKER_01 10:32

Which is more of a mainline denomination. It is a mainline denomination, yes. And that's part of this because they they have some really big theological differences from evangelicals. Or what those people would define as evangelicals.

SPEAKER_02 10:46

He has big theological differences from Christianity.

SPEAKER_01 10:50

He yeah, his positions are definitely beyond the pale.

SPEAKER_02 10:55

But what's interesting about him is that he argues for his far-left progressive policies from an explicitly Christian perspective. Because typically what's happening on the left is you have a bunch of secularists who are saying, your God is a bigot, your God is racist, your God is uh patriarchal, and we don't care what your God thinks because we have progressed beyond your God. James Tallerigo has a different perspective.

SPEAKER_01 11:22

You know what's interesting about that though, Joseph? His pastor, the pastor of James, or what's his name?

SPEAKER_02 11:32

Of the pastor of James Tallerigo?

SPEAKER_01 11:34

Yes, the pastor of James Tallerico, his name is Jim Rigney.

unknown 11:38

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 11:39

He in his church, actually, it is uh understood that I mean they believe that the apostle Paul was homophobic. Yes. So uh I mean it in a way he's saying the same thing as the secularists.

SPEAKER_02 11:58

Like, you know, well, he is saying conservative.

SPEAKER_01 12:01

Yes. He's just somehow also saying that that he is he is of this religion, religion, even though it's it's homophobic.

SPEAKER_02 12:11

It it is yeah, and and there's some there is that that is a a common position within leftist Christianity is that the apostle Paul is a really bad guy, but Jesus is a really great guy. And that's that's they try to distinguish that's common.

SPEAKER_01 12:28

Liberal Christianity.

SPEAKER_02 12:29

Yes, yes, Jesus good, Apostle Paul bad. And yeah, I'm not speaking for everybody who would identify in that camp, but yeah, that that's a common position. Does it make any sense?

SPEAKER_01 12:39

No, it doesn't make sense when he wrote the majority of the New Testament.

SPEAKER_02 12:43

How do you 11 books?

SPEAKER_01 12:44

13. I think it's 13. And wait, so can't can you explain that to me? I mean, because in my mind, I'm thinking to myself, okay, the Bible and Christianity are are are one, and and this is this is the text that God has given us that human authors wrote, but is divinely inspired and is without error. And you know, why would we pay attention to it at all if we did not believe that?

SPEAKER_02 13:14

Well, and and that is that is the question, because when you when you're dealing the the the conclusions for the secularist and the progressive Christian is always the same. They always reach the same conclusions through slightly different means. Because the secularist says that we don't care what your Bible thinks, we don't care what your spaghetti monster in the sky says to you in your you know hallucinations, because they reject the premise that there is a God who is in charge, and so we're gonna do whatever we want. That's why we're progressives for some reason. They progressive Christians don't want to leave the Christian part. Right. And so they basically say all of the parts that we find troublesome in the Bible because it doesn't allow us to do whatever we want, we just assume doesn't actually apply. So the Apostle Paul was really a bad guy, and the the kind words of Jesus are really how we are gonna define Christianity. So they I think not unlike the nation of Israel who fashions a golden calf and worship the golden calf that they made, progressive Christianity invents a God that doesn't actually exist, certainly not from Scripture, and they say this is the God that we really like. We're gonna still use Christian terms like Jesus and God because it's familiar to us, but it is not the same God, which is why I say progressive Christianity is not actually Christianity. So James Tallerico and every secularist reach the same conclusion on all the issues, because where the Bible is complicated, they just say he'll they'll default to some version of, well, it's debated, people, you know, scholars can't agree, therefore we can't really know. The Bible is so confusing. So the best that we can do is use our intentions in our heart and do what we think is best, which is always affirm everything. That's the s that's the progressive Christian.

SPEAKER_01 15:08

Yeah, I don't find that to be a logical position. I don't know.

SPEAKER_02 15:11

Logic has nothing to do with it.

SPEAKER_01 15:12

Okay, but it's it is a illogical position.

SPEAKER_02 15:15

I think secularism is much more logical.

SPEAKER_01 15:17

Absolutely. At least consistent. If the Bible isn't holy, um, why are we listening to it at all? We should.

SPEAKER_02 15:25

That's that's right. If if the Bible is not true, if God does not exist, the Bible is it's irrelevant. You can value it if you want to, but it cannot be authoritative if it's false.

SPEAKER_01 15:34

But it's true. The question becomes are people going to by this illogical logic, are people going to be won over by James Tallerico's version of Christianity? Is this going to help him get elected?

SPEAKER_02 15:55

Well, the the interesting part about James Tallerico is he actually he presents like one of us. When you he he's a smart guy, I think he's probably actually a kind guy in his personal interactions. And one of the reasons it's an effective deception is because he is not he is not obviously a crazy communicator of this message. And when he talks, he seems likable, and you seem like a nice guy, and I bet you're a great neighbor and all of those things, right? And um you know, it's it's basically like the Disney princess that lies to you. It's like they they soften you up with, oh, I like you, I think you have good intentions, and so I'm inclined to believe the thing you say. James Tallerico does not come with a pitchfork and horns and a tail, and it it's easy to recognize those messengers as as problematic. And so the reason he's a he's an effective messenger, I think, and there's there's some concern politically, is that people will be um more impacted by the messenger than the message itself. But that's and that's a very real human weakness.

SPEAKER_01 17:02

That's you hit the nail on the head, though. It's like he looks nice, he looks very inoffensive, but he says some really weird things. So let's get into some of those. And we have a clip. Can we go ahead and play that, Eli?

SPEAKER_00 17:15

I listened to 15 hours of testimony on this bill. The worst part for me was the number of Christians who used scripture to justify hurting children. Even on this floor today, a member tried to justify a hateful amendment in the name of God's law. So let's talk about that. The first two lines of the Bible, the first two lines in Genesis use two different Hebrew words to describe God. One is the masculine Hebrew noun for divinity. The second is the feminine Hebrew noun for spirit. God is both masculine and feminine and everything in between. God is non-binary.

SPEAKER_01 18:12

It makes me laugh that he's up there saying these ridiculous things like he's so serious and he says it so authoritatively, you know, God is non-binary.

SPEAKER_02 18:25

In full disclosure, he has recently walked from those statements. He did an interview with CBS News it now. Where he basically said, Oh, I was being provocative. He sounded pretty sincere at the moment. I think the reality is he's realized that message does not pull well in Texas. And now that he's trying to be elected as the U.S. Senator from Texas, he's like, Oh, no, of course not, God's not binary. Um, but I think he actually I I think what we just heard there is what he actually thinks. Because in 2021, that message that was 2021, right?

SPEAKER_01 18:55

Or at least he thought it was an argument that was somehow uh going to help him in that moment, you know, to I mean, he said people are using scripture to harm children. And what he meant by that is that conservative Christians such as you and such as I are being hateful and judgmental towards these poor little trans children by telling them, no, actually, you are a boy. Correct. And God didn't make you wrong. No, actually, you you are a girl, and God didn't make a mistake when he made you. That's what he means when he says we're using scripture to harm trans kids. Um, and then he makes this ridiculous claim that God is non-binary. So we should, so yeah, absolutely we should chemically mutilate and surgically mutilate these children. I mean, it is honestly, I'm sorry, but we have to laugh at that speech because it is so absurd that even he knows it now. Um, there's so much.

SPEAKER_02 19:57

I still think that's what he believes, but he knows it's not good politics.

SPEAKER_01 20:00

So who knows what he believes, though? I mean, take the example, even a lesser, sillier example, the whole meat issue. We are our campaign has decided we are a vegan campaign. You know, that's like the progressive virtue signaling position. And then again, he walked that back too. He said, This campaign is run on Texas barbecue. The whole thing just stinks of, you know, put your finger up in the wind, whatever's gonna get me elected right now, in this moment, I am gonna say, who knows what this guy actually believes at all.

SPEAKER_02 20:37

Well, that and that's not new in politics, of course. You've seen a lot of people talking about it.

SPEAKER_01 20:41

This is a this is wild, though. This is some wild swinging.

SPEAKER_02 20:44

Well, yes and no, because I mean he he is a he's a real believer on the left. He just happens to be running for the Senate in Texas, right? He's not run if he was running for the Senate in Massachusetts, he wouldn't have walked anything back because he wouldn't feel like he has to. He would just be his quote unquote authentic self, and the people the voters of of a blue state would love it. He's running in Texas, so he feels like he has to. He just is smart enough to do polling and his campaign. But Ashley, I want to for a moment, let's deal with the argument on the merits. Okay. Is why is God not binary? Is is God a male? In your judgment? How would you handle that? Because God is not a person, God does not have sex organs.

SPEAKER_01 21:30

Well, this g this goes back to my view of scripture, which consistently throughout the Old Testament and the New Testament refers to God as specifically male. Um and it actually, you know, God does have characteristics that are more of the feminine, but he himself is a male.

SPEAKER_02 21:55

In what sense is he male?

SPEAKER_01 21:57

Well he's God is God is a person. God.

SPEAKER_02 22:02

Jesus is a person. Jesus was a person. Jesus is God. He became a person.

SPEAKER_01 22:05

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 22:06

Is God a person?

SPEAKER_01 22:06

I don't Yeah, oh yeah, absolutely.

SPEAKER_02 22:08

God is a person in He's not a human.

SPEAKER_01 22:11

He is a person, though. He has personhood. He has a being thoughts and um desires and and he he loves. Yeah, God is a person.

SPEAKER_02 22:20

I'm gonna quickly get out of my depth in this conversation. Because I I don't, I mean, it it's raising a lot of questions that are that are interesting to me. But of course, God does describe himself in particular ways, and I refer to him as himself, because he refers to himself with male pronouns in scripture, and that's how you know the the nation of Israel referred to God, and so I'm willing to accept that. And and there is a bit of irony in in the preferred pronouns crowd, some of them at least, the only person they will not agree to use preferred pronouns for is God, as a way of making a political statement, right? But I mean the element of truth that he made in kind of talking about how God describes himself in Genesis and using both the masculine and the feminine is that I think it is true that male, men and women, we are incomplete without each other, right? That's why God created marriage, and we are both reflections of God. Men and women are both created in the image of God. Yes. And so we both manifest, reflect, contain parts of his character. The conclusion that we should rightly guffaw at is God is non-binary, because that has really huge current cultural significance that certainly cannot apply. It doesn't mean God is confused about things and he is like he can be whatever he, although God kind of can he be whatever he wants, he is what he is. All right. I d I don't know. But he is not non-binary in the sense that everybody today understands that term for sure. And so that's what we can categorically reject, but um I do think there's i it's worth recognizing for the actual, you know, problematic members of the patriarchy, and it's a much smaller number than I think we think, is that both men and women are created in the image of God, bear his image and reflect it.

SPEAKER_01 24:13

Yeah, God God has characteristics that are um reflective of the feminine, what we think of as feminine characteristics, but he himself is a person who is male. He is not non-binary, and that was an absolutely ridiculous argument to make. Okay, let's talk about some of the other weird things that he has said. Um he has said, I love the trans children. Um, when asked, what what do you love, you know, besides.

SPEAKER_02 24:49

He went out of his way again.

SPEAKER_01 24:51

He said, I love the trans children. Um, okay.

SPEAKER_02 24:54

Well, Jesus loves them too. He just doesn't define them that way.

SPEAKER_01 24:57

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 24:58

And that's the part of that. Jesus loves the kids who are struggling with an identity crisis. Of course. James Tallerico wants us to want wants to communicate is that if you love these children, you will agree with them, you will affirm their feelings, you will lie about their identity, right? And and that's really where there's a difference uh in in the understanding of what love is between James Taller Rico and those who would claim to be Christian progressives and God. Because 1 Corinthians 13, which is the chapter that defines love. Love is patient, love is kind, it's pay it's long suffering, keeps no record of wrongs, all of those things, right? Then you get to verse 6, and it says, Does love does not rejoice in iniquity, but it rejoices in the truth. Yes. Right? And and that's where the definition of love between James Tolerico and God uh part ways. Right. Because he would say there is no such thing as iniquity if it makes you happy, if your feelings want you to do that. And God is being very clear that love does not allow us to celebrate things that God does not celebrate, which back to the beginning of our show, welcome to Pride Month, right? The entire month of pride exists to celebrate things. God says you cannot celebrate that. And so that is not loving, because God's definition of love is you don't rejoice in iniquity, but you rejoice in the truth.

SPEAKER_01 26:18

Yeah. I know that's exactly right.

SPEAKER_02 26:20

So he loves the tr the sense in which he does love the trans children is very different than the sense in which James Tallerico wants us to love the trans children.

SPEAKER_01 26:28

Right. And and his point is that we don't love them since we are right, like we we don't since we're not affirming their that delusion of who can switch genders.

SPEAKER_02 26:42

And and the the lesson for us is to understand into in in order to not be affected by the the the James Tolericos of the world is that we have to have confidence in the fact that we are loving people the way God wants us to, not the way that James Tallerico wants us to. Those are very different. We have to know the difference, we have to recognize the difference, and we have to have confidence in the fact that I'm gonna love people the way God wants me to. That's right. Not necessarily the way they want me to. Which includes telling the truth. Which includes telling the truth.

SPEAKER_01 27:11

Right. Okay, let's do one more.

SPEAKER_02 27:13

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 27:13

He said that uh Christianity is a feminist religion, and that to be a Christian means you would be actually pro-choice, not pro-life. And he and I didn't completely understand his argument, but he made this argument twice. He's made it in one of his like sermons, and he also said it on um the Joe Rogan show. But he he said that, and tell me if I'm getting I'm mischaracterizing. Yeah, he well, he which I don't know how that exactly relates to abortion, but but he he basically said that Mary had to consent to the Immaculate Conception, to uh, you know, becoming the mother of Jesus. She had to consent when the angel came and and told her the news.

SPEAKER_02 28:08

And therefore, yes his logic, women have the right to abort any pregnancies they have if they don't want to give the consent that that Mary gave. So it's up to the woman. I think that's his logic.

SPEAKER_01 28:18

Okay.

SPEAKER_02 28:19

Couple things.

SPEAKER_01 28:20

There's there just are logical flaws in that.

SPEAKER_02 28:23

Christianity is feminist. Let's start there. Okay. Okay, because that's the first part of his statement. And as with every good deception, there's an element of truth to this. Because Christianity did introduce the idea that women are the same as men. First century Christianity, right? Women couldn't own property, they were they were literal possessions. In most cases, there were some exceptions, some did own property, but for the most part, women were second-class citizens in a very literal sense of that word. It was Christianity that introduced into that culture the idea that we should not expose our daughters because girls are less valuable and just leave them out to die in the elements because we don't want girls, we want boys, which was a very common cultural practice in Roman civilization. And it a little bit later, the Christians did the same thing in India, where they said, no, we're not going to burn the women on the funeral pyres of their husband because they still have value independent of their husbands. They're not simply a possession of their husband. So pre-Christianity, the world believed that men were more valuable because men could do things women couldn't do. They were clearly stronger. All of those things, right? So they built up this value system. And it is Christianity that interrupted this might makes right, rules of the jungle kind of kind of ethic.

SPEAKER_01 29:53

Which is something that modern women just cannot even imagine. I mean, cannot even understand how how we've never experienced that.

SPEAKER_02 30:04

And so we owe it to Christianity, the fact that we do have now have this sense that women do have the same value as men because they are also created in the image of God. And it it's it's precisely the same reason that you know people with disabilities also have human rights, even though there are certain things they cannot do. They are still made in the image of God. And frankly, this is the reason why we don't like abortion because Christianity is feminist. It's that we oppose abortion because our value comes from our nature, not our capacity. It doesn't matter how small you are, it doesn't matter how young you are, it doesn't matter how old you are, it doesn't matter that you there are certain things you can't do, you have value simply because you're created in the image of God. And we have Christianity to thank for that, which is the reason why women now have rights that they didn't have in first century Rome. But it's also the reason why, you know, we actually don't kill our children, where Jerem James Tolerico is saying, Oh, Christianity is feminist, therefore women have the right to kill their children if their children are in.

SPEAKER_01 31:03

Never mind the fact, and I will go to my grave saying this I abortion is bad for women. True. Abortion harms women. So there's another logical flaw there.

SPEAKER_02 31:15

But James Tolerico's idea that what we see in scripture is Mary consenting to a pregnancy, and somehow she had the right to just veto God because God just defers to the, you know, the moods or preferences or opinions of women is exceedingly difficult to justify.

SPEAKER_01 31:36

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 31:36

He's done a lot of He after all is God. Theological She was just submitted to his will.

SPEAKER_01 31:41

Yeah. He's he's done a lot of theological gymnastics here to make this sort of um Franken Christianity that like that j you know justifies his progressive political stances.

SPEAKER_02 31:57

If anything, she was submitting to a pregnancy that she did not plan for.

SPEAKER_01 32:02

An unplanned pregnancy.

SPEAKER_02 32:05

It is the most unplanned of pregnancies, in fact.

SPEAKER_01 32:08

True.

SPEAKER_02 32:09

You could not have a less planned pregnancy than Mary's pregnancy. To me, according to your will, was the response. And somehow he's managed to turn that whole narrative into, yeah, abortion is good.

SPEAKER_01 32:22

Yeah, it's messed up. Yeah, it's it definitely is messed up.

SPEAKER_02 32:25

But let's talk about another part of this campaign and why it becomes complicated. Because you and I agree, and hopefully we've established uh somewhat here that James Tallerico's version of Christianity is not actual Christianity. James Tallerico, though, is running as the Democrat in Texas, and that's a surprise to no one. One of the layers of this whole thing is who his opponent is, Ken Paxton, the current attorney general in Texas, who's running as a Republican, who has a very conservative voting record, but he's got a whole bunch of scandals in his life and in his political career as well. He's been investigated for uh security fraud, uh indicted, in fact, for securities fraud. Um, he has um had affairs, he's been through in a divorce. He actually there was an attempt to impeach him in the Texas House.

SPEAKER_01 33:19

Was that over the securities fraud?

SPEAKER_02 33:21

Yes. Okay. Um in in the bribery, obstruction of justice, abuse of his office, a bunch of a bunch of charges uh from the Texas legislature. He was acquitted. And, you know, you just note that he was acquitted. There was some concern about the way in which he was acquitted and whether that was actually a real trial. His wife was actually a member of the tribunal that tried him because she was part of the state the Texas legislature.

SPEAKER_01 33:45

I did not know that.

SPEAKER_02 33:46

I mean, so there's a bunch of things going on there. He is not an ideal candidate from a uh uh from a moral perspective.

SPEAKER_01 33:55

But he defeated John Cornyn, who was the incumbent. He's yeah, the current senator from me has has been in office for many, many years. So how did that happen? Well an ideal in s in the sense of morally that that's how that happened.

SPEAKER_02 34:13

It happened.

SPEAKER_01 34:14

Is that is it as simple as that?

SPEAKER_02 34:15

Oh, 100%. Yeah, okay. John Cornyn had been elected as a senator. I mean, how long has John Corner been there? Um six-year term. I mean, is it 18 years maybe? 12, 18? That sounds about right. So I think maybe 18 years. He's been the senator from Texas. And um, you know, he is, from my perspective, not one of the most conservative. From a purely political perspective, Ken Paxton is a better elected official than John Cornyn in terms of how what their voting record is, in my judgment. But Ken Paxton has all of this baggage. John Cornyn does not have that. John Cornyn, I mean, Trump endorsed Paxton, and I think that's why he prevailed. And so the question this raises in my mind that I want to discuss with you here is Talo Rico is a nice guy, it seems, doesn't have all these scandals. I'm comfortable referring to him as a heretic, lies about Christianity, whether knowingly or not. I'm not going to vote for that guy. But then you have, on the other hand, the alternative now that is presented, and and we seem to be facing this dilemma often, is a guy, good voting record, questionable character.

SPEAKER_01 35:28

How should that be handled? Well, I'm certainly not voting Democrat. I could tell you that right now. Um, I mean, I I think I I think I thought where you were gonna go is between John Cornyn and Ken Paxton.

SPEAKER_02 35:44

That to me is we we've crossed that.

SPEAKER_01 35:46

Right, but we're past that. I mean, yeah, I mean, good point. We're past that now.

SPEAKER_02 35:50

And yeah, and Texas was wrestling with that, and they did have that debate, but now the the voters have made that decision. Right. Because they had voted for John Cornyn statewide many times, but they have also voted for Ken Paxton many times because he was the he was elected statewide as the attorney general. So they've they're used to voting for both of them when they had the choice to make. The voters preferred Paxton, and I think Trump had a lot to do with that. But now that that decision has been made, you again have a binary choice between candidates that most of us would probably describe as imperfect.

SPEAKER_00 36:18

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 36:18

Ken Paxton, good voting record, dubious character, James Tallerico seems to be scandal-free, lousy theology. I'll disagree with his votes much of the time. What's the right way to navigate that? Is this just Trump Biden again?

SPEAKER_01 36:36

Well, I do think we first encountered this question of how much do we care about the morals and the traditional standards that we've had morally for candidates? And when I say we, I think I mean Christians, evangelicals, uh, in 2016 with Trump. I think that's the first time, at least in my lifetime. Um, I mean, you can take it back to Bill Clinton and all of that. But I think as as Republicans, uh, the first time in my lifetime that we've really wrestled with this was with Trump because he had all sorts of problems, right? Um with women and yeah, yeah. And and he did, it was it was controversial, but by and large, he did receive the support of evangelicals. And I think that's that is reflective of the fact that the positions, the platforms of the two different parties are just so far apart now that um most Christians and and many even that aren't Christians on the right simply want to vote for someone who is aligned with them policy-wise.

SPEAKER_02 37:52

And sometimes it's as simple as don't trans the kids, guys. And and I wanna I wanna frame this. Um you you mentioned Clint Clinton in the 90s. I'm older than you. I don't know how much you remember Bill Clinton campaigns.

SPEAKER_01 38:09

I mean, I was young enough that my parents were definitely not wanting me to know what the story and what was going on. And I remember them kind of whispering, oh, you don't need to know about that.

SPEAKER_02 38:17

I'm gonna assume everybody knows about Clinton, many Bill Clinton's many problems, but the conservative Christian world, in which I was very much kind of a member as a you know, growing up in the 90s, was very comfortable saying Bill Clinton is morally disqualified, we cannot vote for him. Heard that over and over and over and over again in various ways. Fast forward to 2016, and you know, now we're dealing with a different way in in 2026 in Texas, they are. Was it wrong for conservative Christians to say Bill Clinton was morally disqualified? Now, a lot of would not vote for him just on policy alone. Oh, I disagree with his policy, which is very different than saying you're morally disqualified. Was it wrong for conservative Christians to say he is disqualified morally? Or is it now wrong to say um we can vote for Trump because he's the you know, he's the lesser of two evils, Ken Paxton is the lesser of two evils, which is the or as many have done, is the is the Christian position to abstain? Abstain from voting? Yes, and and there I know many who have done that in these cases, who who they they look at the choice of Kamala Harris and and Trump and say, you might be disqualified for different reasons, but you're both disqualified. I'm voting either third party or I'm just not voting in this race. And they have done that as a matter of conviction. What is the right response to this? Do we have we now entered a world where we just accept the fact that people are are flawed and we vote for policy, even if they're terribly flawed people? Or is it a moral obligation of Christians to demand better and withdraw our support until we get better?

SPEAKER_01 40:13

I mean, I think we do need to demand better, but I don't think that excludes voting. Personally, that's my opinion. I don't I wouldn't go so far as to say if someone abstained from voting, that was, you know, like a sinful choice or something like that, if that's how you feel led. But I my opinion is we we do need to vote. Abstaining from voting is kind of, I mean, it is, I mean, when you throw away your vote, it's kind of uh like a vote for the other team almost. Um yeah, in a in a very real sensation. And and I mean, I I do think the reality is sometimes we come upon these situations where we're choosing, you know, the least bad option. Um I I mean, look, people are all flawed and sinful. And I do think a big thing to take into consideration is when there are concerns about a candidate or an elected official official, how does that person respond? You know, do they take responsibility? Do they apologize? Is there some semblance of honesty there about their flaws um or their their We'd like to see that? Right. Well, and that's why that's I mean, and that was kind of the point I was trying to make about Talerico. It's like this guy just to me looks like he's lying, you know, like he's just saying whatever people want to hear.

SPEAKER_02 41:38

I actually think he believes it.

SPEAKER_01 41:39

Well I think he's I think his retreats are lies, but I I I think I think his original statements are my point is I think that you know, in the social media age, we have we do have a lot more information about people, um, I think. Uh and uh a lot more I think comes to light now. Uh there's a digital trail. Um we we we're gonna talk today about um platinum and that whole situation. Um there's there's more out there. Um and I think wrapping up what I'm trying to say, I do think we should vote. That's my opinion. I do think sometimes it's the lesser of two evils. I do think for me, a big honesty is a big part of it, you know, if you have flaws, if you have things in your past that you regret. Like there's gonna, there are hardly any people out there who are gonna be running for office that have nothing, you know, in their past. And and it is hard to run for office and to go through all of this. I mean, who who doesn't have things, you know, that they regret? I think it's different if there are ongoing situations and repetitive situations that don't seem to be if it's a current scandal. Exactly. Well, if it's, you know, if it's and this again, this goes to back to the honesty piece, right? Like if you're gonna be honest and you're gonna take responsibility for something that you regret, then that is part of the definitions of you're actually repenting of it and you want to go a different way. If you're continually lying and denying, like, sorry, but you're probably gonna be on the same path. And it does matter. People's moral character does matter. The way that you treat, if you're married, the way that you treat your spouse, I believe, says more about you than almost anything else. And so, yeah, it does actually, it's not separate from the way in which you're going to um to to govern or to legislate. It's not. You can't, you can't separate the two things. And so that's why we do have to demand better and yet realize in a fallen, sinful, broken, chaotic world, sometimes the two options that we have really just aren't, neither one is stellar.

SPEAKER_02 43:54

And a lot of people would argue, and I and I think there's validity to the argument. That when you vote in an election where the both of the candidates are flawed, you are not demanding better. You are just contributing to the status quo.

SPEAKER_01 44:07

Well, I don't I don't agree with that. I think there are other ways to get involved and to demand better. And I don't I don't think I completely disagree. I mean, look, when you have the the the platform of of the radical left and the things that they want to do, I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with throwing away your vote.

SPEAKER_02 44:27

Well, as a three-time Donald Trump voter, full disclosure, I have basically reached that same conclusion, right? And he's not a guy who um has acknowledged his multiple flaws and repented of them and asked people to forgive, you know. If anything, I mean, I re I remember I don't know how serious he is ever about anything, but have I ever asked for God? I've never asked God for forgiveness for anything, because basically I don't have anything to ask for forgiveness for me.

SPEAKER_01 44:53

That's like part of his charm, though. You're like, at least you're not lying to me, you know.

SPEAKER_02 44:58

He says what he but that's I mean, that's the opposite of contrition, right? Yeah, um yeah. And and so I have uh we've this is not a new debate in America, of course, and Texas is just dealing with it in a slightly different um way now. But we have to continue to wrestle with this, and yeah, we want better. But my goodness, when I when I think about that vote back in 2016, um, which was which was act genuinely difficult for me at that moment. When I think about how different the world would be if Hillary Clinton had been elected, the different Supreme Court, everything they would have done policy-wise, that the Supreme Court would have never been in a position to strike down, our world would be so much worse. And maybe we'll do a show at some point and just go down the line of religious freedom, the impacts on abortion, the impacts on school choice, the impacts on parental rights, right? If it that was a a true pivot point for America, well, the parallel universe in which Hillary Clinton won that race is not a one. It's not one that I ever want to live in. So do I regret it? Not for a second. Does that mean I am overlooking the multitude of weaknesses that I that I see have seen from him over the last 12 years? No, I think I'm clear-eyed about those, but boy, do I not regret it.

SPEAKER_01 46:18

Well, Joseph, you were you were in politics in 2016. That was oh yeah, I mean, that was before I even ventured close to the political world. Yeah, and I realized that.

SPEAKER_02 46:30

Whatever you were doing in 2015, 16.

SPEAKER_01 46:32

It was a totally different life. A totally different life. And I I remember, I clearly remember I was struggling so much with the fact that Donald Trump was the Republican nominee. And I I just was, I mean, I really was. I was sick about it. I did not like him, I did not want to vote for him. Um at that point in time. Did you I did?

SPEAKER_02 46:56

You did.

SPEAKER_01 46:57

Oh yeah. Oh, yes, I did. Okay, so I'm telling the story. Oh, yeah. So I remember watching the debate between him. I don't, it's not a skeleton. I don't regret it. I I I'm I'm very happy with that choice. Um, he, yeah, I remember the debate between him and Hillary Clinton, and they were talking about abortion. And she just said it. She said she was fine with abortion all the way through pregnancy. And I just remember thinking, it was like, you know, in life when you have those moments of just like total clarity, like you're confused about something, you're you're bothered by it. Um, I've never voted Democrat ever. And I was like, what am I gonna do? Like, what am I gonna do now that Donald Trump is the nominee? Like, and and I just it was in that moment I had this like it was like total clarity. Like, you gotta vote for Donald Trump. You have to. And honestly, ever since then, I've had a piece about it and I've been able to reconcile in my mind, you know. Do I agree with everything that he does? No. Um, am I thankful for him? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_02 48:04

Oddly. I know. It's a weird relationship I have a moment with that guy.

SPEAKER_01 48:10

It is.

SPEAKER_02 48:11

You know, I we were gonna get into Graham Platner in Maine, and there's a bunch of stuff, but I think we're out of time.

SPEAKER_01 48:15

Yeah, I think so.

SPEAKER_02 48:17

So, you know, there's a lot more. This issue isn't going away.

SPEAKER_01 48:20

Um, because there's nothing new under the sun.

SPEAKER_02 48:23

And and there's always gonna be, you know, I'm I'm a total depravity guy. I don't know if that I'm a total tulip reformed person.

SPEAKER_01 48:31

I don't think you are.

SPEAKER_02 48:31

But I do believe total depravity, and that includes my political candidates who are all very very much um susceptible to to sin, and and that's the reality of our world. And we do want better, right? I mean, in and virtue is possible, good character is possible. And we should also take this moment to just note there are really good people in office who really are people of high character. Because we always hear the the bad stories and and and the the the good people don't get the attention. And so, for those who might feel a calling to this, you do not have to soil yourself in unethical, immoral behavior to serve in this arena. And and I I'd be happy to introduce you to a lot of people who are doing it the right way. So it is possible, it's just hard. And so we want people to know that it can be done right, that there are good people. We don't just retreat from the system because it's difficult. Um but we are gonna continue to have to wrestle with the reality that everybody's imperfect.

SPEAKER_01 49:32

Well, and we can hold the tension of this person is flawed, but also they're doing some good things, and there's there's good to see there. There's there's good and bad. There's good, there's good and bad.

SPEAKER_02 49:44

Um, there's uh I will forever be grateful for all the people who were involved in making sure Hillary Clinton was not the president of the United States in 2016. So eternal gratitude here on politics for happy people. That's one of the things on my hardest days. I just, you know, go to my happy place, close my eyes, and think about how much worse it could have been if she had won that election in 2016.

SPEAKER_01 50:08

Thankfulness, Joseph.

SPEAKER_02 50:09

It is absolute thankfulness, the mercy of the Lord. So we'll leave on that happy note for me today. Thank you, folks, for being with us here on Politics for Happy People. We are so glad to have you uh part of the conversation. Make sure that you like and subscribe wherever you have found us. And if you give us a great review, that helps us make new friends. We're grateful for that. Reminder that new episodes drop every Tuesday and every Friday. So find the next one as soon as it comes out. We'll see you next time here on Politics for Happy People.