Texas Democrat James Talarico, who is now seeking a seat in the state Senate, made waves during a 2021 podcast appearance where he openly declared that he “hates Christianity” even as he called himself a Christian.
The remarks came during an episode of the Activist Theology podcast, hosted by queer theologian Dr. Roberto Che Espinoza and Reverend Anna Golladay, in which the group discussed faith, politics, and the supposed moral duty of the political left.
Talarico’s choice of words struck many as both shocking and revealing.
“I always think of myself as a Christian who hates Christianity,” he said, summarizing what he framed as a conflict between his faith and the institutions that represent it.
WATCH:
For a man who preaches moral reform in politics, that statement suggests a worldview untethered from the scriptural foundation most Christians recognize.
The Democrat candidate argued that the political left must “take up the helm of morality,” claiming that conservatives have long dominated moral language in public debate.
“We have ceded moral language to the right for the past, what, 40 or 50 years,” Talarico said.
He insisted that Democrats should do a “better job” at leading with their own values, defining morality not through traditional faith but through politically progressive ends.
In a typical liberal twist, Talarico even tied his support for abortion to his interpretation of Christianity.
He pointed to the biblical story of the Virgin Mary, claiming her consent to be the mother of Jesus somehow justifies abortion access.
To faithful Christians across Texas, this interpretation is not only unorthodox but blasphemous.
During the conversation, Talarico revealed his disillusionment with the electoral process itself, questioning whether democracy could solve what he called moral and environmental collapse.
“I’ve had doubts about whether electoral politics, which I love and believe in, is up to the task, especially in a time of climate change,” he said.
He mused dramatically that mankind could soon face extinction if moral change does not come quickly.
Espinoza, identifying herself as a trans man and “queer activist theologian,” claimed that the nation suffers not only from a “spiritual crisis” but a “theological crisis” linked to what she described as systemic racism and oppressive structures rooted in Christianity.
Using the fashionable academic jargon of the left, she argued that most U.S. policy is shaped by “white-bodied” theology, equating biblical moral tradition with racial inequality.
According to Espinoza, even basic decisions such as “where we buy our coffee” carry theological implications, framing everyday choices as moral warfare against allegedly oppressive systems.
It is the worldview of intersectional activism taken to its logical extreme, where even a morning coffee run becomes political theater.
Talarico responded to this type of thinking with approval, saying he draws inspiration from what he called the “radical” teachings of Jesus, which he equated with the philosophies of Buddha and other “mystical traditions.”
“In no other political philosophy or economic theory do I find anything as truly radical as that barefoot rabbi,” he said.
By blending diverse spiritual ideas together, he portrayed Christianity as one interchangeable faith among many, erasing any sense of truth or absolute moral authority.
This soft relativism has become all too common among Democrats who still claim to be people of faith.
They use religious language as a cultural prop while rejecting the Bible’s actual moral standards.
For Talarico, it seems easier to reinvent Christianity in a progressive image than to stand on centuries of biblical teaching.
He continued by accusing his own party of ignoring what he called moral foundations.
“My colleagues on my side of the aisle aren’t attempting to do that,” he said.
Instead, he lamented that Democrats stay trapped in what he described as a “neoliberal framework” focused on productivity and revenue rather than moral renewal.
Yet his version of morality sounded more like identity politics wrapped in spiritual language than an appeal to eternal truth.
Espinoza, who moved from California to the South after Donald Trump’s election to promote “culture shift,” touted her faith activism as a way to “birth” a new theological movement.
She argued that Christian structures are “dominant systems” that must be overcome rather than preserved, inviting listeners to “opt out” of traditional institutions and “live a generative, imaginative life.”
That brand of utopian idealism may sound appealing in the world of activist seminars, but it bears little resemblance to historic Christianity.
At a time when voters are looking for leaders with conviction and clarity, Talarico’s statements reveal just how deeply confusion runs within progressive faith politics.
By claiming to “hate Christianity” while embracing leftist moral relativism, he joins the growing chorus of Democrats who want the language of religion without the obedience of faith.
Texans who still cherish biblical values can be sure that this kind of moral reinvention serves politics first and God last.
