For release: 03/10/26
Using religion to win votes
By Cal Thomas
Tribune Content Agency
Democrats have had trouble in recent years attracting conservative evangelical voters, who mostly vote for Republicans. In 2000, former Vice President Al Gore gave it a try. He failed badly when he said the first instance of pollution in the Bible is when “Abel’s blood cried out from the ground” after his brother Cain murdered him. Gore said this meant Abel’s blood had “defiled” or “polluted” the ground, rendering it incapable of yielding crops. Not exactly.
Now comes Democrat James Talarico, the Democratic nominee for the Texas Senate seat currently held by Republican John Cornyn. Talarico is giving it another try.
This time his appeal to religious voters is more subtle. The media refers to Talarico as a “Christian” and “seminarian.” No one should question the legitimacy of another person’s faith, but as Jesus warned: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:15-20)
A visit to Talarico’s campaign website displays his “fruits” on several issues, all of which could be held by a secular progressive. Curiously (or maybe not) there is no mention of his views on social issues, other than a statement that might be regarded as ideological and theological pablum. Talarico opposes school choice and vouchers which allow the parents of public school children, especially poor children trapped in underperforming schools, to get a good education in private schools. The teachers’ unions oppose school choice and contribute heavily to Democrat candidates who share their view.
Talarico also believes in “climate change,” though that issue has sharply declined among voter priorities.
Now about the seminary he attended but from which he has not yet graduated. Not all seminaries are the same. Some deny central doctrines of the Christian faith, including the Virgin Birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the authority of Scripture and the miracles, among other things. Some attempt to marry the world’s secular agenda with the “kingdom not of this world.”
Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary is affiliated with the Presbyterian Church USA, considered by many to be a theological and politically liberal denomination. On their website, in addition to a “Green Seminary” declaration, there is this: “Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary affirms the God-given dignity of all persons and recognizes persons of all faith traditions to be uniquely created in God’s image. The Seminary welcomes people of all races, cultures, abilities, sexual orientations, gender expressions, and socioeconomic status to learn and study at this school of the church.”
That sounds very inclusive and an example of how the world thinks, but Scripture teaches the Gospel is exclusive; meaning, in order to be saved from the fires of Hell one must repent of one’s sins and receive Jesus Christ as Savior. That has been Christian doctrine for 2,000 years. There is nothing on the seminary’s site and nothing I have discovered on Talarico’s site that reflects these central doctrines.
The most important question for voters to consider is what difference Talarico’s proclaimed faith makes on his policy positions? Many liberal Democrats link whatever faith they claim to have to government programs and spending. Talarico does that when he says we don’t live in a left-right country, but in a top-down one. It’s the old Robin Hood-Democrat playbook. Again, a secular progressive who never went to seminary (and some people who did) could affirm what Talarico believes.
Texas voters should not be fooled because “not everyone who calls me ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of Heaven.” (Matthew 7:21) Or perhaps the U.S. Senate.
Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribpub.com. Look for Cal Thomas’ latest book “A Watchman in the Night: What I’ve Seen Over 50 Years Reporting on America” (HumanixBooks).
(C) 2026 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.
You misread theology, hermeneutics, and political reality.
First, the appeals to Al Gore and James Talarico rest on sloppy exegesis. The Gore anecdote about Abel and soil is a quirky historical aside, not a doctrinal claim. More importantly, this piece treats poetic or pastoral language as if it were a confessional test. Theology is not a multiple-choice quiz where a candidate must repeat a catechism to prove political fitness.
Second, the column repeatedly conflates inclusive theological commitments with secularism. Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary affirms the imago Dei for all people and welcomes persons of many backgrounds. That is not a denial of core Christian convictions. It is a robust reading of Scripture that takes Jesus seriously when he loves the neighbor, feeds the hungry, and welcomes the stranger. To suggest that affirming human dignity equals repudiating the gospel is to misunderstand both history and doctrine. Reformed and progressive traditions have, for centuries, held to the doctrines of Christ, the resurrection, and Scripture while also insisting that Christian ethics require justice, mercy, and welcome.
Third, the writer misuses Matthew 7. Citing “beware of false prophets” and “not everyone who calls me Lord will enter the kingdom” as a litmus test for political sincerity is a category error. Those warnings are aimed at spiritual poseurs who claim divine authority to exploit others. (Christian Nationalism anyone?) They are not tools for disqualifying politicians who vote for public schools, climate action, or social programs. Suggesting otherwise collapses the difference between claiming divine lordship and being a politician whose faith shapes public policy.
Fourth, the piece assumes that faith must always map onto a narrow set of social positions, notably school vouchers and a particular account of salvation. (A very narrow account that contrary to the author’s assertion, does not have a 2000 year old history. The church has never been univocal on the matter. I would suggest that the author’s views on this are very provincial. Like many Christians, he assumes the teaching of his particular denomination or congregation is absolute and then conflates being wrong with being unfaithful.) That ignores the legitimate theological reasons why Christians support public education, environmental stewardship, and economic policies aimed at the common good. To say a candidate who opposes vouchers is therefore un-Christian is to make partisan policy into confessional orthodoxy. In other words, it is to commit the error the author tries to lay on Talarico: using theological language to further the interests of political wants.
Finally, voters are entitled to ask how faith forms policy. Responsible public theology welcomes that question and offers reasons rooted in scripture and tradition for pursuing justice and care for the vulnerable. But theological literacy matters. If we are going to use scripture to adjudicate public life, we need careful exegesis, historical awareness, and charity toward sincere differences among believers rather than a narrow “my dogma trumps all other dogmas” reasoning.
If the column’s author really wants to help voters discern religious authenticity, start with honest theological engagement rather than caricature. Promote informed debate about how faith informs policy. Invite candidates to explain how their theology leads them to pursue the common good. That is a service to both religion and democracy. I get it: Op-Ed is primarily about leveraging the language of outrage for clicks and revenue, but do so more honestly, aware of your own limits. You know, the whole Dunning Kruegger cycle. In other words, stay in your lane.
P.S. And if you’re going to use scripture as proof text, why not something more germane to Jesus’ own ethic? Say Matthew 25? Seems like most of the American theological landscape has never heard these words of Jesus, which is the only time in scripture that Jesus levies a standard for salvation or condemnation. “41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, you accursed people, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44 Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or as a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it for one of the least of these, you did not do it for Me, either.’ 46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Or even Micah 6:8, upon which Matthew 25 is founded:
“He has told you, mortal one, what is good;
And what does the Lord require of you
But to do justice, to love kindness,
And to walk humbly with your God?”
Or even the summary of all the law and prophets by Jesus himself in Matthew 22: But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer (or op ed writer?), asked Him a question, testing Him: 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.”
Can you tell me what I must do to be saved? And by the way those early Presbyterians were not theological liberals. Have you heard what Talarico believes about God and abortion. Checkout these soundbites from World Radio’s podcast.
It wilkl come as no surprise that I disagree with yiour disagreement.https://www4.wng.org/Cal-Thomas-Scripture-for-progressives.mp3