I just don’t share them. My point was more to highlight the rarity of Talarico in blending his Christian faith with his politics in a manner that results in a liberal rather than Christian nationalist platform.
Mainline denominations are the most liberal, and are thus the most likely source for Christians running as Democrats. Talarico is a Presbyterian, while Hamilton in Kansas is a Methodist; both denominations are now LGBTQ-affirming.
Thanks for clarifying! I’m with you in that I don’t share Talarico’s religious views but I asked because I wouldn’t say I don’t agree either.
I feel like he applies the teachings he’s learned from his faith without the evangelizing. I don’t get there’s a sense he’s trying to get people to jump into his religion but more he’s using his faith to try and communicate through action how people can be more caring and decent to one another.
Hamilton in Kansas is a Methodist; both denominations are now LGBTQ-affirming.
Well it’s a little more complicated than that when it comes to Methodists I think as they recently had a schism over this. So it depends on which side he falls on.
Hamilton remains the pastor for the largest UMC church (rather than Global Methodist) in the U.S., so I expect that he would have left the UMC during the schism if he were against it. This article by him seems to reflect a pro-LGBTQ position.
I mean it doesn’t erase an entire holy book full of problematic insanity, but sure why not.
Edit: huh… Interesting to write an entire article about how Christians got the Bible wrong when it comes to LGBTQ+ without once mentioning Leviticus at all, let alone Leviticus 18:22 or Leviticus 20:13.
Yeah man, I guess if you just ignore the parts that are pretty explicitly anti-homosexual, then yeah I guess the book isn’t anti-homosexual. Kind of a tautology, no?
Ultimately, it comes down to which Christians are willing to accept that the Bible is a product of the culture of its time and which view it as infallible. Voters in the latter category—not an insignificant number in the Bible Belt—are far harder for the average Democrat to reach; the best chance of doing so is with candidates like Talarico, to whom they can perhaps relate better than a candidate like AOC.
It’s not ideal, but as long as Christianity continues to have the influence that it does in the U.S., it’s better if people in the Bible Belt were led by progressive Christians like Talarico than evangelical Christians.
Ultimately, it comes down to which Christians are willing to accept that the Bible is a product of the culture of its time
A major aspect of Jesus and his teachings were very very anti-establishment. Like it was the entire point. It’s why they killed him. Talking shit about slavery would 100% have fit his alleged M.O. (who knows, maybe he did and the authors, translators, and editors of the Bible chose to remove it. This is assuming he existed in the first place but that’s a separate discussion)
It’s just so disappointing to see so many people accept this about their religion. We need to do better.
Edit: I forgot we were talking about LGBTQ, not slavery. I got my problematic Christian beliefs mixed up when replying. My bad.
I don’t share them, and have an automatic mistrust of anything “Christian” anymore. If I lived in Texas, I’d vote for Talarico as the lesser of two evils, but I’d be holding my nose to do it, just like I did with Hilary Clinton.
Do you disagree or are you saying you don’t share them?
I just don’t share them. My point was more to highlight the rarity of Talarico in blending his Christian faith with his politics in a manner that results in a liberal rather than Christian nationalist platform.
Mainline denominations are the most liberal, and are thus the most likely source for Christians running as Democrats. Talarico is a Presbyterian, while Hamilton in Kansas is a Methodist; both denominations are now LGBTQ-affirming.
Thanks for clarifying! I’m with you in that I don’t share Talarico’s religious views but I asked because I wouldn’t say I don’t agree either.
I feel like he applies the teachings he’s learned from his faith without the evangelizing. I don’t get there’s a sense he’s trying to get people to jump into his religion but more he’s using his faith to try and communicate through action how people can be more caring and decent to one another.
Well it’s a little more complicated than that when it comes to Methodists I think as they recently had a schism over this. So it depends on which side he falls on.
More info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Methodism
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/04/793614135/united-methodist-church-announces-proposal-to-split-over-gay-marriage
Hamilton remains the pastor for the largest UMC church (rather than Global Methodist) in the U.S., so I expect that he would have left the UMC during the schism if he were against it. This article by him seems to reflect a pro-LGBTQ position.
Ok. Good for him then I guess.
I mean it doesn’t erase an entire holy book full of problematic insanity, but sure why not.
Edit: huh… Interesting to write an entire article about how Christians got the Bible wrong when it comes to LGBTQ+ without once mentioning Leviticus at all, let alone Leviticus 18:22 or Leviticus 20:13.
Yeah man, I guess if you just ignore the parts that are pretty explicitly anti-homosexual, then yeah I guess the book isn’t anti-homosexual. Kind of a tautology, no?
Ultimately, it comes down to which Christians are willing to accept that the Bible is a product of the culture of its time and which view it as infallible. Voters in the latter category—not an insignificant number in the Bible Belt—are far harder for the average Democrat to reach; the best chance of doing so is with candidates like Talarico, to whom they can perhaps relate better than a candidate like AOC.
It’s not ideal, but as long as Christianity continues to have the influence that it does in the U.S., it’s better if people in the Bible Belt were led by progressive Christians like Talarico than evangelical Christians.
A major aspect of Jesus and his teachings were very very anti-establishment. Like it was the entire point. It’s why they killed him. Talking shit about slavery would 100% have fit his alleged M.O. (who knows, maybe he did and the authors, translators, and editors of the Bible chose to remove it. This is assuming he existed in the first place but that’s a separate discussion)
It’s just so disappointing to see so many people accept this about their religion. We need to do better.
Edit: I forgot we were talking about LGBTQ, not slavery. I got my problematic Christian beliefs mixed up when replying. My bad.
I don’t share them, and have an automatic mistrust of anything “Christian” anymore. If I lived in Texas, I’d vote for Talarico as the lesser of two evils, but I’d be holding my nose to do it, just like I did with Hilary Clinton.