this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2026

332 points (98.0% liked)

Not The Onion

21714 readers

1540 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

332

Christian right calls James Talarico "demonic" — for quoting Jesus (www.salon.com)

submitted 13 hours ago by resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/48166923

James Talarico has been found guilty of quoting Jesus. The sentence he uttered, according to right-wing media, was “demonic” and “blasphemous,” exposing him as a “fake Christian.” Talarico is running for the U.S. Senate in Texas on a platform The New Yorker recently described as basically the New Testament. One Newsmax host accused him of using fake Bible passages.

The passages in question are familiar ones, found in Matthew 22 and Matthew 25. Love God and love your neighbor. Feed the hungry, heal the sick, welcome the stranger. They are, in fact, in the Bible.

The right’s attacks on Talarico aren’t about him, or at least not entirely. They’re about a much older argument — one progressive Christianity has been losing in public for 50 years — about whose version of the faith gets to count as real. The answer to that question has consequences far beyond any Senate race. When Christianity becomes a tool of power rather than a challenge to it, it doesn’t just damage the church. It destabilizes democracy. We are watching that happen in real time.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

Hmm neither article actually gives us the controversial quotation, just gets right to the apologetics.

Don't read the article, upvote if you like the sentiment I guess, but it's a waste of time to read.

[–] molehill_siesta@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

https://www.texasobserver.org/senate-james-talarico-presbyterian-christianity/

References a Colbert appearance, quoting and linking:

Talarico often says he learned from his Baptist preacher grandfather that Christians “follow a barefoot rabbi who gave us two commandments: Love God and love neighbor—because there is no love of God without love of neighbor.” That’s a reference to Matthew 22:36-40, one of Talarico’s go-to, and definitely non-“fake,” scripture passages. And as Talarico told Stephen Colbert, it has radical implications: We are to love our neighbor “regardless of race or gender or sexual orientation or immigration status or religious affiliation.”

Another of Talarico’s go-to Gospel passages, Matthew 25:35-40, directly links love for Jesus with care for the hungry, the stranger, and the imprisoned. For many evangelicals, this passage refers mainly to a future end-times Tribulation. For Talarico, by contrast, it is manifestly current and intensely political. Here’s how he deploys it in the Colbert appearance:

“For 50 years, the religious right … convinced a lot of our fellow Christians that the most important issues were abortion and gay marriage … two issues that Jesus never talked about. Jesus in Matthew 25 tells us exactly how you and I and every one of our fellow believers [are] going to be judged and how we’re going to be saved: by feeding the hungry, by healing the sick, by welcoming the stranger.”

[–] eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 7 hours ago

Awesome, thanks.

[–] Davel23@fedia.io 39 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

The passages in question are familiar ones, found in Matthew 22 and Matthew 25. Love God and love your neighbor. Feed the hungry, heal the sick, welcome the stranger. They are, in fact, in the Bible.

Not only is it in the article, it's quoted in the post above.

[–] eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 12 hours ago (4 children)

That's not a quotation, that's a paraphrase. What did Talarico specifically say that people reacted to? Was it the actual verses? If so, which translation (using a modern-language translation alone could draw that condemnation from some commenters).

It quoted Talarico, at a different event, saying "Politics is just another word for how you treat your neighbors", but that's not the thing they were reacting to.

I'm curious to know specifically what he said that pissed people off, because the details are important when you're popcorning monotheistic textual sectarian religious spats.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 hours ago

If so, which translation (using a modern-language translation alone could draw that condemnation from some commenters).

Yeah I'm sure Fox News is hotly debating the merits of Hebrew vs Aramaic vs Greek.

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

using a modern-language translation alone could draw that condemnation from some commenters

You're hinting that it's in some sense invalid to quote the New Testament in some other language than Greek or something?!

I think you want to scrape the bark off two trees in the hope that once you're done people won't see the forest.

[–] DaleGribble88@programming.dev 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

There is a pretty significant portion of America Christians who believe than any translation besides the 1611 King James version of the Bible is blasphemous, nevermind that they are probably reading the 1769 version, but what matters is what think is the 1611 version.

[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 13 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

So what's your position, that there's a possibility that he did say something demonic and its all being misconstrued to make people "feel good?" For someone who's so interested in 'just asking questions,' you don't seem very interested in finding answers.

The article links to the sources of this controversy in the very first paragraph by the way.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

RTFB[ible]. It says which passages were quoted; look them up yourself if you're that fucking worried about it!

At least, that's what you would do if you were actually "curious" and not concern trolling.

[–] eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I went to Episcopal school and Matthew is the only book I actually liked. But ok sure.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 11 points 10 hours ago

Then why were you even asking when you already knew?

Your bitching was like complaining about a footnote citation because they didn't copy and paste the entire referenced work into the middle of the article for you.

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 0 points 7 hours ago

It literally links to BibleGateway. Or did the first three paragraphs make you so cross that you stopped reading then and there?