All Trick, No Treat

Well, it's trick-or-treat time again, and we're also coming right up on election time in the United States—and every American knows what that means:

Forget about Halloween...now it's time for some real tricks!

It's become a virtual rite of passage for every American generation since the days of the Federalists. First off, let me emphasize that neither side is perfect: Candidates from both parties have made their share of mistakes and said their share of things they probably wish they hadn't.

But anyone who is paying any attention at all knows one thing for certain: The most insidious of those tricks are courtesy of the Democrats. Or the Democratic Socialists of America, or whatever they wish to be called these days (lately I've taken to calling them "Demoncrats" after I see the morning news).

Personally, I have reached the point where I dislike it when religion comes into play in the arena of political campaigning, and the reason is simple:

When it does, it invariably falls far

short of the truth of God's Word and

an accurate portrayal of the gospel.

Sometimes woefully so. And as we shall see, it is also being used for deceptive purposes. But in the campaign of one certain Democratic candidate in the midterm elections on November 3 of this year, we have witnessed a new standard of lunacy—so much so that I felt compelled to break out my flamethrower and crank it all the way up to "Toast."

Although there are currently a few candidates in the midterms who are Muslims and so may espouse things that many average Americans disagree with or are not comfortable with, there is one current candidate who, although he is not a Muslim, is bringing religion into the political conversation in ways that border on the insultingly absurd. Wait...scratch the "border on" part.

Meet James Talarico, who has served as a member of the Texas House of Representatives since 2018 and is currently running as the Democratic nominee in the race for the Texas Senate seat that is up for grabs in the 2026 Senate race in Texas. Talarico is running against Republican nominee Ken Paxton, while Republican Ted Cruz holds Texas' other Senate seat and won't be up for re-election until 2030.

Talarico, who has been dubbed "Talafreako" by President Trump, has been a highly controversial figure in the current Senate race. He went AWOL from about September 26 to October 9, claiming he had the flu—according to Talarico, a "nasty" case of the flu. Yes, the flu. Very nasty. For 12 to 13 days (as opposed to the usual 2 to 3 days). Without a molecule of supporting evidence, such as medical records or documentation of any kind. Hmm...

There is speculation making the rounds that he checked himself into a mental health institute due to a mental breakdown, although proof of that has been equally hard to come by. Of course, Talarico's supporters accuse his opponent Ken Paxton of spreading this as a rumor to hurt Talarico's standing in the polls, but that's par for the course in politics. And then Talarico's team produced time-stamped photos that allegedly show him at home during the time in question in an attempt to quell the MAGA-extremist conspiracy theories.

But here's the thing: Even if those photos of him at home are real and he didn't secretly check himself into a mental health institute during the period in question and really did hide out at home for 12 or 13 days during the final few weeks of a major, hotly contested campaign for a critical Senate seat, what in blue blazes was he thinking?! Even if he was sick the entire time, that would be just about the stupidest, most irresponsible thing a candidate could possibly do—and it could very well end up costing him the election (excuse me while I go find some wood to knock on).

The point is that it would have been a trivial matter for him to stay plugged in and let his supporters know how he was doing, and so on. But no...

He just went POOF and vanished into thin air for some strange reason.

But the highly suspicious air surrounding the highly improbable flu story is not what I'm here to discuss (I mean, if the story is true, then at the very least he needs to fire his campaign manager pronto). The more serious controversy surrounding Talarico is due primarily to some of the theological statements he has made, and what I want to do in this article is discuss some of the things Talarico has said about Christianity and religious topics in general.

I also have a few things to say about believers and voting. It grieves me to hear about the percentage of Christians in America who seem to think it's oh so noble to refrain from voting for any candidate simply because they can't seem to find one who meets their lofty spiritual standards. I don't intend to lecture anyone...I promise. I'll keep it short—just a few hors d'oeuvres for thought.

I also want to discuss something that James Talarico is an absolute master at, and it's far more than a mere trick—it's a brilliant con job that legions of believers all over the country simply fail to see through clearly. It is a devilishly sly bait-and-switch routine, and it never fails to draw roaring cheers and thunderous applause from audiences wherever Talarico delivers remarks.

And when you see this, you'll appreciate my Halloween-inspired title.

And to anybody out there who actually intends to vote for James Talarico:

If this doesn't change your mind,

then I strongly doubt anything will.

The apple doesn't fall too far from the tree

James Talarico is a Democrat who proudly claims to be a Christian, and he doesn't hesitate to use that claim as a way to connect to average American voters...in his particular case, average American voters in the predominantly right-wing Lone Star State of Texas.

But he has made statements that clearly have grievous problems in regard to traditional Christian beliefs, and that demonstrate with shocking clarity that he has no clue what he's talking about when he talks about God, the Bible, and genuine Christianity. And this is not just Talarico in a vacuum...oh no. This is largely due to the fact that he has grown up under the influence of a "church" with leaders who have led him light years from the truth of God's Word and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Although the old "apple and tree" proverb normally applies to sons and fathers, it can also apply to congregants and pastors...and I'm convinced it does here. So before I get started on Talarico's controversial statements, allow me to introduce you to the leadership of the church he has attended nearly his entire life and that has influenced him to spout such horse hockey in the first place.

Talarico has attended St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Austin, Texas since the age of two, and a quick look at its current leadership will help explain quite a bit about Talarico's warped views of Christianity in general.

Pastor Rev. Jim Rigby:

Talarico openly praises Rev. Jim Rigby, the pastor of St. Andrew's Presbyterian, and gushingly hails him as his spiritual mentor. Here is a quick taste of some of Rigby's theological views:

• Rigby's view of the Bible and Christian doctrine is mostly metaphorical: He completely rejects a number of core Christian doctrines, such as the virgin birth of Christ and the Resurrection, rather than accepting them as established historical fact. According to Rigby, such things are merely symbols used in Scripture that were never meant to be taken literally, and he caustically mocks those he deems foolish enough to take them literally.

• He pushes the "Inclusive Bible" on his congregants, a version of the Bible that has removed all of the traditional gendered terms. Rigby refuses to use male pronouns in reference to God, claiming it is "violence" to suggest that a male personage is more divine that a female one.

• He welcomes atheists to not just attend St. Andrew's, but to join it as members, claiming that having atheists join the church is "not a big deal here." According to Rigby: "If you love humanity and love nature and that's why you hate religion, then we're on the same team." (Yeah...the heretical team.)

• Rigby looks down his nose at evangelical Christians, and has been quoted as saying that most such Christians are "just not that smart." He has also stated that belief in things such as angels, demons, hell, etc. prevent them from engaging in rational thinking. In other words:

He thinks believing the plain text of God's Word makes you stupid.

FWIW: Senator Ted Cruz has criticized Rigby as being a left-wing activist rather than a Christian, and frankly it's hard to find any basis for disagreement.

Here's a timely quote from Rev. Rigby, the pride of the Presbyterians:

You see, God loves us very much, but mindless obedience is VERY important to God, so God decided to barbecue us eternally for the mistakes of our ancestors. But God has a son named Jesus who asked God to abuse him instead. And so God killed Jesus in our place. And we call this story, the "good news." All that matters is that we admit that we are worthless trash, but that Jesus likes us anyway. Oh, and we have to LITERALLY believe Jesus' corpse got up.

— Jim Rigby [Source]

Sorry...I can't comment on this because it leaves me speechless. It deeply saddens me to think that this guy is a pastor at any kind of church anywhere.

Parish Minister Babs Miller:

Minister to the Parish Babs Miller is a chip off the old block at St. Andrew's:

• Miller describes herself as lesbian and non-binary.*

*Note: As best as I can tell, "non-binary" means you're not sure if you are male, female, or a little of both. So I'm a wee bit confused as to how she can identify as both a lesbian (a female sexually attracted to females) and non-binary (unsure if you are male or female). Uhh...Houston, she has a problem.

(By the way, if you're curious about the design of the LGBT flag, see this.)

• Like Rigby, she also rejects fundamental biblical doctrines such as the virgin birth and the Resurrection.

• Miller trashes the idea of substitutionary atonement (i.e. that Jesus died for our sins), and claims that we can't be sure if Jesus even existed (something agreed upon by the majority of secular historians).

• Miller trashes the God of the Bible as "a vengeful, killing-people kind of God."

The question of Jesus' existence: In spite of many differences of opinion on related issues, there are several basic facts that virtually all scholars of antiquity agree on: Jesus was a real Jewish man known to be a religious teacher who was crucified in Jerusalem during the reign of Roman Emperor Tiberius during the governorship of Pontius Pilate in Judea. These experts in ancient history consider these historical facts. On the other hand, the idea that Jesus never existed is an eighteenth-century invention with no historical precedent whatsoever. In other words, it is a modern myth (read: lie).

So she's clearly in the same league with Rigby. These two church "leaders" are Talarico's heroes, and he openly praises them and cites their influence on him.

He said what?!

But back to James Talarico and some of the controversial statements he is credited with making. Actually, Talarico manages to inject these and other radically unbiblical ideas into almost every speech and conversation, but the following four gems stand out as being fairly representative of some of the Bible-mangling nonsense that has characterized his life and his campaign.

1. God is non-binary.

I basically gave up trying to get a clear, straightforward definition of the word "non-binary" on the Internet, so I finally threw in the towel and went with something nice and simple: If someone says they are non-binary, they don't strictly identify as a male, female, or transgender—they are basically unsure where they stand in terms of gender and acknowledge as much by saying they are "non-binary."

Well, that's fine and dandy for people who are too confused to know whether they are a boy or a girl, but how is this connected with the God who created all genders (both of them)?

Simple answer: It isn't.

First off, God doesn't really have a "gender" to begin with...He created them, remember? So no, He's not male or female. He is a Spirit, and throughout Scripture we see a Creator God who blends all the best qualities of what we tend to think of as male and female in a perfect, spiritual fusion:

He is a King who rules, demands

obedience, and fights for His people.

He also loves His children, and is quick

to extend mercy, grace, and forgiveness.

Now, if those two statements happen to describe your real father and mother, you are indeed one blessed individual. But to borrow the term "non-binary" to describe the God of the Bible is just plain foolishness, and does nothing but drag God down into the world's oh-so-modern cesspool of gender stupidity.

All James Talarico is doing is lamely trying to use God in the silliest, most insulting manner possible in order to score some points to enhance his popularity with the woke, gender-obsessed crowd.

So even if you do consider yourself non-binary (God forbid), don't fall for it.

2. A Christian who hates Christianity.

Yes, James Talarico actually said "I think of myself as a Christian who hates Christianity." I mean, how unchristian is that, right?

But it is true that many people have taken this remark and made much of it in the absence of any context. You know, like...

"HA! James Talarico says he hates Christianity! So how in the world can he be a real Christian, right? C'mon...gimme a break!"

But that's not fair, is it? No, it's not, and so I'm not going to do that. Whaddya say we take a quick look at the context in which Talarico made the above remark so we can make a more informed, impartial judgment, OK? So...here's Talarico's remark in its original context:

Yeah, and that's, you know, I always think of myself as a Christian who hates Christianity, right? [There's the problem phrase.] And, like, I always get drawn back into it [so he hates Christianity, but keeps coming back to it for some reason...but why?] because nowhere else, in no other political philosophy, in no other economic theory, do I find anything as truly radical or revolutionary [so that's what he's looking for: something radical and revolutionary] as the teachings of that barefoot rabbi [i.e. Jesus], right? [So he's looking at other political philosophies and economic theories for something better than Christianity, and he's just not finding it...darn the bad luck.] Which I think, as you mentioned, Dr. Robyn, you know, look a lot like, you know, the teachings of the Buddha and from other great mystical traditions. [He's amazed that even the teachings of Buddha the Great can't quite top that barefoot rabbi!] But I can't find anything wherever I look that really is quite the same inversion of values that I think we need, right? [He hasn't found any worldly wisdom that can top Jesus, at least not yet...but he gives you the impression that he's willing to keep looking!]

(emphasis & [comments] added)

— James Talarico, from an episode of Activist Theology [ Source]

So James Talarico doesn't really hate Christianity, it's just that he's spent a lot of time and effort searching for something better. In other words:

Talarico lumps Christianity in with the all the other religions, philosophies, and belief systems in the world, and Christianity (at least his twisted view of it) seems to be the best fit for his political progressivism. Wow...

I've heard more powerful testimonies

at Jack in the Box drive-up windows.

Not sure about you, but that would be my informed, impartial judgment.

3. The Annunciation and reproductive consent.

In Luke chapter 1, the Archangel Gabriel visits Mary in Nazareth and tells her she is going to conceive and give birth to a Son, and that she is to name Him Jesus. Although Mary is initially a bit confused because at that point in time she and Joseph have not yet consummated their marriage, she obediently submits to the LORD's will and accepts what Gabriel tells her as fact:

30And the angel said to her, Fear not, Mary: for you have found favor with God. 31And, behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and bring forth a son, and shall call his name JESUS. [Note that the Gabriel is telling Mary she will conceive...not asking her if she would like to conceive. Her conception is at no point offered to her as a choice she is free to accept or decline. It is the LORD's will—done deal. And Mary was certainly not considering rejecting the idea of conceiving a son...at first she just didn't quite understand how this would come about since was still a virgin.] 32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give to him the throne of his father David: 33And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

(Luke 1:30–33 AKJV / emphasis & [comments] added)

38And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it to me according to your word. [Mary's "choice" is simply to obey the word of the LORD, and has nothing whatsoever to do with this notion of "reproductive consent." Her conception was a preordained fact.] And the angel departed from her.

(Luke 1:38 AKJV / emphasis & [comments] added)

This announcement by Gabriel of the fact that Mary would give birth to the Messiah is known as the Annunciation, and here is what James Talarico had to say about it on a Joe Rogan podcast:

But I say all this in terms of in context of abortion because before God comes over Mary, and we have the incarnation. God asks for Mary's consent, which is remarkable. I mean, go back and read this in Luke. I mean, the angel comes down and asks Mary if this is something she wants to do. [Uh, James, I actually did go back and reread this carefully in Luke just to make sure I hadn't missed something...and just as I suspected, you are a LIAR! Gabriel NEVER "asks" Mary if she would be "willing" to give birth to Jesus...he simply tells her she will conceive and give birth to the Messiah, and she submits to the will of God. And at that moment (or perhaps shortly thereafter...the Bible doesn't specify precisely), Mary miraculously became pregnant through the power of the Holy Spirit.]

And she says, if it is God's will, let it be done. Let it be. Let it happen. So to me, that is an affirmation in one of our most central stories that creation has to be done with consent. You cannot force someone to create. [Yes, but nobody "forced" Mary to conceive and give birth. James, you're the one who needs to go back and read this again! You've forgotten something (or more likely never knew it in the first place): Giving birth to the Messiah was the ultimate dream of every fertile Jewish woman in Israel at that time. In other words, assuming refusal was even on the table, there wasn't a woman in the entire nation who would have refused!]

(emphasis & [comments] added)

— James Talarico, from an episode of The Joe Rogan Experience [Source]

Talarico talks as if Mary had the freedom to exercise her personal "reproductive consent" and make the decision to not get pregnant (or to get an abortion), but instead she agreed to go along with the pregnancy idea. In other words, he spins this as if Mary actually had the right to choose whether or not she would allow the Holy Spirit to cause her to conceive. You know, the whole "My body, my choice" spiel. And to women who engage in pro-abortion activism and who defiantly chant and carry signs bearing this slogan, this is my reply:

You say "My body, my choice."

What about your baby's body?

What about your baby's choice?

Thus, Talarico pushes the idea that all women should have the right to avail themselves of such "reproductive consent" and ought to be able to get an abortion if and whenever they choose. And if you deign to disagree with his views on all this, he makes you feel as if you are going against Scripture in some way—which you obviously aren't. This is beyond absurd...

This is a sickening perversion of

God's Word intended to mollify

the woke crowd for a few votes.

And that pretty well sums up what James Talarico is all about.

4. God is not a Christian.

This is a bit deceptive, because read in a literal sense, it is absolutely true:

Excuse me?! Of course God isn't a Christian! How on earth can God be a sinful human being who has responded to the conviction of His own Spirit, and believed in repentant faith in the fact that His own Son died to pay the penalty for His sins (what sins?!) on the cross 2,000 years ago? Huh?!

But that's not what Talarico meant when he said it. He said this three years ago in a sermon he delivered at his home church (St. Andrew's Presbyterian in Austin), and here is the context of the remark:

Do we really think God would make all these beautiful people with all their beautiful traditions for no reason at all? There are so many pathways to the sacred. [There is one.] The Islamic mystic Rumi said, "Every religion has love, but love has no religion." [As if we should feel compelled to place the smooth-sounding but misinformed blubberings of a Muslim mystic over and above the prophetically confirmed Word of a Creator God...right.] God is so much bigger than our human categories. God is not a Presbyterian. God is not a Christian. [There's our line.] God is not a noun at all. [Yes, James, He is.] God is a verb. [No, James, He's not.] God is not a being. [Yes, James, He is.] God is being itself. [A fuzzy furball...see remarks below.] God is love, and that's why Jesus is against anything that gets in the way of that love between neighbors, including religion. [Yes, God is love—Scripture states as much. But He's also a Triune Being who sacrificed the life of His Son to save you from your sins, unlike anything taught in any of the false religions Satan has ever invented in order to blind men's minds to the truth of the gospel (such as Islam, as believed by your mystic Rumi).]

(emphasis & [comments] added)

— James Talarico, from a sermon delivered in October 2023 [Source]

"God is being itself." The reason Talarico spits out fuzzy furballs like this is to schmooze people into believing God is nothing more than some impersonal cosmic force that inhabits and inspires all religions, so it doesn't matter which religion you choose because they all lead to the same God.

But they DON'T!! Allow me to stir your pure mind to remembrance that it's actually a misnomer to even call Christianity a "religion," because religion by definition is one's way of reaching up to whatever god one has chosen (read: invented) and trying to make oneself more satisfactory to that god in the hopes of obtaining a more pleasant afterlife.

The gospel, on the other hand, absolutely flips this on its head and rips it inside out. Biblical Christianity teaches that the one true, Creator God reached down to a world of fallen sinners, and sacrificed the life of His sinless Son to give us a way to be spiritually reconciled to Him for eternity. And all man's religion does is clearly demonstrate the fact that we can never reach up to Him because we are sinners born with a sin nature, and that makes it impossible for us to ever reach His standard, which is absolute perfection.

Religion says there are many ways to

reach up to God, and all are equally valid.

The gospel says something very different.

False religions invariably speak of love and acceptance and following their rules in order to do our best to please an incredibly loving God. Which we can't and never will due to two little details they manage to overlook:

1. Man has a sin nature, and all have sinned.

2. God is perfectly holy, and that's His standard.

Oops. The gospel says there is only one way, and it's in the opposite direction:

The biblical gospel that encapsulates

the fundamental tenets of Christianity

is God's way of reaching down to man.

The gospel of Jesus Christ communicates to a world of fallen sinners what an infinitely holy God did in order to make it possible for us to have our sins washed away and to be spiritually reconciled to Him for eternity.

What Talarico is doing is "elevating" God to what many people (religious and non-religious) are strongly inclined to believe: that God is just some great, mysterious cosmic force (not unlike the Force of Star Wars fame) that we should feel free to approach in any number of different ways...whatever way fills us with the peace and spiritual comfort we all seek.

And all those Bible-thumping, fire-and-brimstone fools just got it wrong.

This is religious pluralism, and it invariably sounds great and appeals to a broad range of people. But it is a lie from the pit of hell—and it is one of Satan's greatest masterpieces. All it effectively does is drag the truth of God's Word into a pit of satanic lies and compares them in a glowing manner. And hey, they may have a gutted version of Christianity coming out on top! YAY!

But by comparing Christianity with the false religions of the world as if they could in fact be so compared (even if done in a way that favors Christianity), understand that in reality Talarico is mocking God and His Word.

And all I can say has already been said as well as it can be said:

Christianity endures plenty of mockery from the enemies of Christ. It needs no mockery from its self-identified teachers.

— Joshua Arnold, senior writer at The Washington Stand [Source]

A few words about voting

As I said at the outset, I am grieved when I hear about how many Christians simply choose to not vote—and the reason why is no real mystery:

They are looking for candidates who model Christian values to a degree they find satisfactory...and just not finding any.

I am convinced that the feeling some believers have down deep is that if you tell another Christian who you voted for, that person is liable to say something along the following lines:

"You mean you voted for him?! Tsk tsk tsk...didn't you know he's divorced and his son has a drug problem?!"

And that other Christian will walk away with a diminished view of you, as if the Christian character of the person you voted for serves as an indirect reflection on your Christian character. I am convinced that many Christians, perhaps subconsciously, hold to the following errant principle:

The quality of the moral virtues of the

the candidate you vote for reflects

the quality of your moral virtues.

In other words, when you tell people who you voted for, you are in effect advertising something about yourself...so your candidate of choice had better be a shining star of Christian morality, right? Well...good luck with that.

Of course, people didn't vote in Jesus' day—Israel was under the control of the Roman Empire. But one verse that often comes up when people talk about Christians and voting is from Paul's first letter to Timothy:

1I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2For kings, and for all that are in authority; [that would include today's elected officials] that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. [That's the goal.]

(1 Timothy 2:1–2 AKJV / emphasis & [comments] added)

In other words, we are to pray for our leaders so we might live "a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty." Personally, I don't find it too terribly difficult to connect this verse with the idea of voting. Pardon me for taking liberties with what the Bible says, but you could certainly interpret this verse in the following manner:

Vote for candidates whom you believe will do the most to make it possible for us to "lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty."

Well, that's great...but what are you supposed to do if neither candidate really impresses you all that much? What if there is no candidate that stands out in your mind as being one who will make much progress toward helping us "lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty"?

Then what?

Stay home and not vote at all? I certainly can't call it a sin, but I strongly believe it's far better to get out and vote—and here's my reasoning:

Let's say you are faced with the choice of candidates A and B in an election. But neither A nor B really impresses you as being a shining beacon of Christian morality and virtue (one's been divorced, the other's had an affair, whatever). So, you muse, how can I possibly vote for either one of these candidates and compromise my Christian principles?

Well, OK...but stop and think for a second: One of these two candidates must be a little bit worse than the other—one of them must be a little more of a shady Schweinhund than the other. So look at their platforms and track records and decide who is the worse of the two candidates...

And then vote for the other guy.

Consider: If you don't vote at all, all you are doing is helping the worse candidate win the election—and why would you want to do that? For example, I openly admit Talarico's opponent Ken Paxton isn't exactly Ronald Reagan reincarnated, and so you may not be too excited about voting for him. But I would think of it this way:

Talarico is clearly the worse of the two,

and so a vote for Paxton, as imperfect

as he may be, is a vote that will serve to

help keep Talarico out of the Senate.

And that's definitely a good thing. Again, not trying to lecture anyone—just sharing some thoughts.

Oh, and if someone at your church asks you who you voted for, just say:

"I did what every Christian should do:

I voted for the second worst candidate."

And let them figure it out.

The trick

Lastly, I want to discuss a devilishly sly technique that James Talarico is an absolute master at, and he has been bringing it to bear with masterful skill in many speeches during his 2026 Senate campaign.

Here is a typical example that Talarico has been spouting not just in the current campaign, but for the last several years:

You can't call yourself a Christian and deny health care to the sick. You can't call yourself a Christian and cut food stamps for the poor. You can't call yourself a Christian and reject the stranger seeking asylum.

—James Talarico, quoted in a number of speeches [Source]

"So vote for me!" And the crowd erupts in roaring approval.

I openly admit that I didn't spot this right away. It's subtle and it slipped by me at first, although I did sense that something just wasn't quite right. But when the true nature of what Talarico was doing finally hit me, I immediately coined a new nickname for him—even better than Trump's "Talafreako":

My new moniker for him is "Talatricko."

So let's take this apart and see what makes this trick tick.

Throughout the Bible, the responsibilities of individual people are spoken of in a myriad of places and in a myriad of contexts. Individual believers are commanded to be the salt and light of the world. We are to demonstrate the love of Christ to others, and treat others with kindness, mercy, compassion, generosity, forgiveness, fairness, etc. In a nutshell, we are to treat others the way we would want to be treated. This is in so many places in Scripture I scarcely know where to begin: the Golden Rule, the Prodigal Son, the Good Samaritan...it's all over the place.

But the responsibilities of the leadership of a nation are not the same! The Bible teaches that the leaders of a nation are responsible for administering justice, protecting the weak and powerless, and ruling with integrity and without favoring the rich or the powerful. They are to defend the poor and oppressed, punish those who do evil according to the law, and ensure that laws are enforced and applied fairly and impartially for the general welfare of the entire nation. Also, they will be held accountable to God for how they treated the people they governed.

As you can see, these are apples and oranges. And there's the trick:

Conflate them in a subtle manner that suggests they are the same thing.

First of all, let's consider the cold, hard reality of the situation:

• "You can't call yourself a Christian and deny health care to the sick."

If you are a Christian voter, is it your personal responsibility to maintain comprehensive health care programs that can provide medical care to the entire country—medical care that may exclude procedures that are considered too expensive in spite of their established efficacy?

Of course not—that's the government's responsibility.

• "You can't call yourself a Christian and cut food stamps for the poor."

If you are a Christian voter, is it your personal responsibility to maintain and operate food stamp programs to assist low-income people who are struggling to provide food for their families, and determine who qualifies for such assistance and who does not (as well as vigilantly and methodically weed out the rampant fraud)?

Of course not—that's the government's responsibility.

• "You can't call yourself a Christian and reject the stranger seeking asylum."

If you are a Christian voter, is it your personal responsibility to determine which individuals from what parts of the world are qualified to seek political asylum within the United States and to grant, withhold, or revoke such asylum based on the facts of each individual case—facts that may well render such asylum unmerited and/or inadvisable?

Of course not—that's the government's responsibility.

Denying health care to the sick sounds cruel.

Cutting food stamps for the poor sounds inhumane.

Rejecting the stranger seeking asylum sounds unmerciful.

They all sound bad, and that's the entire point. When Talarico makes these statements, the obvious suggestion is that these are all things his opponent wants to do as a member of Congress...which prompts the unspoken question:

Are you gonna vote for him

and let him get away with that?!

As the average person listens to Talarico say these things, they feel a twinge of self-righteous indignation. Their inner voice says:

"Good heavens, I would never do that! That's awful!"

If you as an individual person actually could deny health care to a sick person, or could take away a poor person's food stamps, or could refuse asylum to a stranger (which you as an individual person cannot do on all counts) and you did so for no good, justifiable reason, you would certainly be an evil person. And you would certainly fall far short of the Bible's standard for Christians, who are called to be the salt and light of the world.

So if you actually did such things,

calling yourself a "Christian" would

make you a consummate hypocrite.

And this is where things get a bit jumbled in the minds of many people. For example, a person hears Talarico say "You can't be a Christian and deny health care to the sick," and the monologue going on in their subconscious might drift along something like this:

"I'm a Christian, and Talarico's opponent apparently wants to deny health care to sick people! That's terrible! So if I vote for that guy, it makes me feel like I'm kinda sorta the one who wants to deny health care to those people! But according to Talarico, that means I can't be a Christian! But I am a Christian, and so I need to prove that by voting for Talarico and not for his heartless opponent!"

Cha-ching...and the crowd leaps to their feet and roars with approval.

And that's the heart of the trick:

Talarico doesn't clearly differentiate between the responsibilities of individual people and the responsibilities of the government—as you absolutely must according to any species of logic or reason. And the result? A sly trick that misleads people into believing he's the only true Christian candidate on the ballot...and that if you're a Christian, you simply must vote for him.

Instead, these very different responsibilities are being conflated and blended together to concoct a subtle, guilt-inducing short circuit of thought that leaves listeners cheering for James Talarico, the candidate who, unlike his opponent, would never do any of those bad things he mentioned (nor would you, because you're a Christian, by golly, and you're gonna prove it by voting for Talarico and not that other guy).

Game, set, match.

GO. VOTE.

Well, I certainly hope you got more treats than tricks on Halloween. But the trick James Talarico is playing on voters is a humdinger, and it seems to be working pretty well for him judging from some of the celebrity endorsements he's been getting recently from various Hollywood types. O-o-o-h...

As for Hollywood stars, I say: "Lemme get this straight—you make a living pretending to be somebody you're not...and you've got advice for me?!"

But when you see the kind of tricks Talarico is playing on voters, many of whom are good Christian people who sincerely want to see what's best done for the Great State of Texas—not to mention the United States of America, it makes you realize that you really can't trust this man...at least when it comes to God, the Bible, or real Christianity. All of which he blathers on about in ways that clearly reveal he knows virtually nothing about any of the three.

Walkin' it back: Lately I see Talarico has been trying to walk back some of his controversial statements. You know: "Oh, I really meant this" or "This is what I was really trying to say..." And it doesn't take a genius to figure out why: He knows he has to paste over some of his absurdly unchristian statements that people are beginning to pick up on with some other candy-coated contortions before the election in order for his trick to complete its mission. He needs for people to continue focusing on his paper-thin veneer of phony Christianity so they will be fooled into seeing him as the shining Christian star he so desperately wants them to see him as. So in reality, these last-second walk-backs are holding up a big sign for Talarico that reads:

"YOU CAN'T BELIEVE A WORD I SAY!"

And indeed you can't. As you can clearly see, "All trick, no treat" genuinely applies to him. But I want to encourage you to GO. VOTE. Whatever state you live in—I'm not just talking about Texas here. Again: It's not a sin, but there is no compelling reason to simply not vote.

In case you flunked civics: Please understand that whether or not Christians should vote has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of the separation of church and state. "Separation of church and state" simply means the government has no right to influence or control our choice of religion or our methods of practicing said religion. Americans not only have the right to vote and become involved in politics, they have a civic responsibility to do so...especially when that government is in some way failing to uphold what most Christians would consider fundamental moral principles.

Like, say, failing to protect the integrity of women's sports by foolishly allowing biological men to compete against women. Like indoctrinating innocent children to question their biological gender and then ruining their bodies and lives (often without their parents' knowledge or consent) under the noble guise of "gender affirming care." Like leaving the borders wide open so millions of illegal immigrants can flood in from God knows where and take full advantage of our myopic and misplaced largesse.

Not to start in on the flag-waving or anything, but voting is our God-given right that has been preserved and protected by legions of brave, patriotic men and women over the last 250 years, so I just feel as if we should take advantage of it and use it to do our small part in pointing America in the right direction, and avoid seeing it veer off course into even greater error.

One last thought. Now, I am not a Christian nationalist...I am reluctant to start down that road because in my experience it is typically fraught with doctrinal error. Of course, it has reached the point where "Christian nationalist" is a perjorative term used by people who don't even know what it means.

I'm a sinner saved by grace who loves

his country—nothing more, nothing less.

Straight ahead—black and white. And even though the days when God will do so are drawing to an end, forgive me if I go ahead and say it anyway:

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

From Greg Lauer @ A Little Strength—NOV '26: "All Trick, No Treat"

Older Post