You Can’t Vote Democrat and be a Good Christian?

Yesterday someone commented on my Substack, mentioning he was banned on Twitter (among other platforms). The reason?

I was very active with conservative groups debate the most rabid leftists. The message that got me permanently banned from Quora, Reddit, and other social media was this: you cannot vote Democrat and also be a good Christian.Then I backed it up with a dozen political issues the Democrats support that are incomplete opposition to the Bible. Among them being the trans issue, promotion of sex and drugs, sexualizing children in increasingly young ages, gay marriage, polyamory, etc.

My regular group and I would troll Biden and Hollywood types. We were effective at shredding their woke takes.

I’ve heard this argument a thousand times, and it always follows the same pattern: list every Democratic position that contradicts traditional Christian teaching, act like voting for the party means enthusiastic approval of all of them, conclude that anyone who votes Democrat must have rejected biblical authority.

It’s rhetorically effective. It’s also intellectually dishonest.

Voting isn’t a theological purity test where you get to pick the party that perfectly aligns with every biblical value. It’s a prudential judgment about how to best pursue justice and serve the common good in a fallen world with imperfect options. When someone votes Democrat, they’re not necessarily endorsing every plank in the Democratic platform any more than a Republican voter endorses every Republican position.

Maybe they’re single-issue voters who believe protecting immigrant families outweighs party differences on other issues. Maybe they’ve concluded that expanding healthcare access to the poor is a more urgent pro-life issue than abortion legislation. Maybe they see the Republican embrace of white nationalist rhetoric as a disqualifying moral failure, regardless of the party’s stance on marriage. Maybe they believe a candidate’s character—his honesty, his integrity, his treatment of the vulnerable—matters more than his policy positions. Maybe they simply cannot, in good conscience, vote for someone they believe to be a compulsive liar who attempted to overturn a democratic election.

These aren’t cases of Christians abandoning biblical principles. These are Christians wrestling with how to apply biblical principles to complex political realities. They’re weighing competing goods, evaluating real-world consequences, and making difficult moral judgments about which path better serves the kingdom.

Reasonable, faithful, Bible-believing Christians can—and do—reach different conclusions.

But the commenter’s framework doesn’t allow for any of that nuance. He’s reduced Christian faithfulness to partisan loyalty. He’s turned a complex moral decision into a tribal identity marker. He’s so convinced of his position that he got himself banned from multiple platforms defending it, wearing those bans as badges of honor—proof, in his mind, that he’s being persecuted for truth rather than violating platform rules by harassing people.

He’s not an outlier. He represents millions of American evangelicals who’ve been taught that the gospel and Republican politics are so thoroughly fused that voting Democrat equals apostasy. They’ve heard it from pulpits. They’ve absorbed it from Christian media. They believe it with absolute conviction.

I know, because I spent decades in those same spaces. I’ve heard these arguments at church. I’ve had these conversations at family dinners. I’ve watched this certainty calcify into dogma.

And I’m done pretending it’s theologically defensible.

I’m a veteran, pro-Second Amendment, Catholic convert. I’m the father of a gay son, husband to a woman of color whose parents immigrated to this country. I’ve voted Republican most of my life. And I’m sick to death of hearing that “you can’t vote Democrat and be a good Christian.”

I’m writing this as much for non-Christians who’ve given up on people like me as I am for Christians who think I’ve betrayed the faith. But before we go further, I need to tell you something personal.

My wife is Indonesian. We’re in an interracial marriage. And I’ve had Christians quote the Bible to me—more than once—telling me my marriage is sinful. That I’m participating in “white genocide.” That I’m destroying Christian civilization by loving my wife.

My son is gay. And I’ve watched Christians quote Scripture to him the same way other Christians quoted it to me about my marriage. With the same certainty. The same selective reading. The same willingness to weaponize the Bible against people they view as threats.

So when I hear “you can’t vote Democrat and be a good Christian,” I hear an echo of every time someone used the Bible as a weapon against my family. I hear the same interpretive methods that were used to defend slavery, oppose interracial marriage, and subordinate women—methods most Christians now recognize were catastrophically wrong.

“You can’t vote Democrat and be a good Christian” isn’t just wrong. It’s theologically bankrupt. It’s historically ignorant. And it’s doing more damage to the Christian witness than any political party ever could.

Let’s talk about why.

I. The Historical Con: How We Got Here

The claim that Christianity and Democratic voting are incompatible isn’t ancient wisdom—it’s relatively recent political strategy.

In 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided, there was a Republican president and a Republican-appointed Supreme Court majority. Evangelicals were largely silent on abortion, viewing it as a Catholic issue.

What changed?

Politics changed.

By the late 1970s, conservative strategist Paul Weyrich recognized abortion as a galvanizing issue that could bring evangelicals back to the Republican party after they voted for Jimmy Carter in droves in 1976. The Southern Baptist Convention, which had passed resolutions supporting abortion legalization in 1971, 1974, and 1978, suddenly reversed course. Abortion became the litmus test.

This wasn’t theology driving politics. This was politics hijacking theology.

Fast forward to 2025, and we’ve arrived at a place where 85% of white evangelical voters identify with or lean toward the GOP—a 20-point increase from three decades ago. Meanwhile, 44% of Catholic voters identify as Democrats, as do 84% of Black Protestants and 69% of Jewish voters.

Are we really prepared to say that the majority of Black Protestants—the descendants of the American church tradition that fought slavery, Jim Crow, and systemic racism—aren’t “good Christians” because of how they vote?

II. The Conservative Case (Giving Them Their Best Argument)

I won’t strawman the position. Conservative Christians who argue against Democratic voting have real concerns, and they deserve to be heard fairly.

Abortion. For Christians who believe life begins at conception (and I count myself among them), the Democratic platform’s support for abortion rights is deeply troubling. The Bible speaks clearly about the sanctity of human life, and the question of when that life begins matters enormously. This isn’t a trivial concern—it’s a fundamental question about who deserves protection under law.

Marriage and Sexuality. Traditional Christian teaching defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Many Christians believe the Democratic embrace of same-sex marriage and LGBTQ+ rights contradicts biblical teaching. They see these issues as non-negotiable moral boundaries.

Religious Freedom. Some Christians worry that Democratic policies will force them to violate their conscience—whether through healthcare mandates, anti-discrimination laws, or other regulations that conflict with their beliefs.

These aren’t manufactured concerns. They’re genuine theological convictions held by sincere Christians who are trying to vote according to their understanding of Scripture.

But here’s what they miss: The Bible has just as much—if not more—to say about how we treat immigrants, the poor, and the marginalized. And on those issues, the current Republican platform is catastrophically failing the biblical test.

III. The Abortion Paradox: Where Americans Actually Stand

I’m Catholic. I believe life begins at conception. If you asked me my fundamental moral position, I’d tell you I’m pro-life. But I also have daughters, one of them old enough she could, literally any day now, become pregnant.

She’s 11-years-old. We’ll come back to that.

When I say that abortion can’t be the single issue that determines how Christians vote, I’m not speaking as someone who dismisses the value of life in the womb. I’m speaking as someone who shares that conviction but has looked honestly at what policies actually reduce abortion and protect both mothers and children.

Let’s be honest: abortion is the issue. It’s the reason many Christians feel they have no choice but to vote Republican, regardless of every other concern. I understand that. I share the conviction that life in the womb has value and deserves protection.

But here’s what the extremists on both sides don’t want you to know: Most Americans—including most Christians—hold a nuanced position that neither political party represents well.

Where Americans Actually Stand

The polling data reveals something remarkable.

Americans aren’t extremists on this issue. Only about one in five support abortion at any time during pregnancy. Fewer than one in ten support complete bans. The majority—55%—say it depends on the circumstances.

When you drill down into specific scenarios, the American consensus becomes clear:

82% support allowing abortion to protect the life or health of the pregnant person
70% support allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest
66% believe abortion should be limited to, at most, the first three months of pregnancy
63% overall say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, but with restrictions

This is not “abortion on demand until birth.” This is also not “no abortion ever, even for an eleven-year-old rape victim.”

This is a middle ground that recognizes both the value of life in the womb and the complexity of real-world situations where women face impossible choices.

The public abortion debate exists at the extreme ends of public opinion. Only about one in five Americans believe abortion should be allowed at any time during pregnancy and fewer than one in ten believe it should be completely banned.
Barbara Carvalho, Director of the Marist Poll

Most Americans are standing in the middle. But our politics has been captured by the extremes.

The Problem with Both Extremes

The Republican approach in many red states has overshot public opinion dramatically.

Total bans with no exceptions for rape, incest, or the mother’s health? Laws that force doctors to wait until a woman is literally dying before they can intervene? Criminalizing women who seek abortions?

These policies are wildly unpopular—even among Republicans.

In Texas, a woman named Kate Cox was forced to leave the state to get an abortion after her fetus was diagnosed with a condition incompatible with life. Her doctors said continuing the pregnancy threatened her future fertility. The state attorney general threatened to prosecute any doctor who helped her. She had to flee to New Mexico.

In Idaho, the state’s abortion ban is so restrictive that hospitals can’t recruit OB-GYNs. Two hospitals have closed their labor and delivery units entirely. Women in medical emergencies are being airlifted out of state because local doctors are afraid of prosecution.

This isn’t protecting life. This is abandoning women in crisis.

But Democrats have their own credibility problem. When party leaders refuse to support any gestational limits whatsoever, when they treat late-term abortion restrictions as beyond the pale, they’re also out of step with most Americans. Two-thirds of Americans believe abortion should be limited to the first trimester. Democrats who won’t acknowledge any legitimate concerns about late-term abortion lose the moral high ground.

The rhetoric from both sides makes compromise impossible. Conservatives act as if any exception is moral compromise. Progressives act as if any restriction is patriarchal oppression.

Meanwhile, most Americans are standing in the middle saying, “Can’t we protect both life in the womb AND women facing medical emergencies, rape, or incest? Can’t we have compassion for both?”

I stand with them.

The European Model: What Nuance Actually Looks Like

Want to know what pro-life policy actually looks like? Look at Europe.

France: 14 weeks. Germany: 12 weeks. Italy: 90 days. Even Ireland—Catholic Ireland—figured this out. They allow abortion up to 12 weeks while still honoring the value of life.

These aren’t godless secular societies. These are countries with deep Christian heritage, Catholic majorities, and robust religious communities. They’ve concluded that protecting life in the womb can coexist with providing legal abortion in the first trimester, with exceptions for medical emergencies and fetal abnormalities later in pregnancy.

Meanwhile, the United States has states with complete bans (no exceptions even for rape or the mother’s life) and states with essentially no limits (allowing abortion up to birth for virtually any reason). Both extremes are failures of moral reasoning.

Most of Europe has landed somewhere in the middle—protecting early fetal life while recognizing that pregnant women aren’t incubators with no rights of their own.

We can’t even have that conversation here because both sides have turned it into tribal warfare.

What Actually Reduces Abortion

Here’s the uncomfortable truth that pro-life Christians need to hear: Voting Republican doesn’t actually reduce abortion rates.

Abortion rates declined under both Democratic and Republican administrations over the past three decades, but the decline has been most dramatic in states that expanded access to contraception, comprehensive sex education, healthcare, and economic support for families—policies Democrats tend to support.

States with more restrictive abortion laws don’t have lower abortion rates. They have higher maternal mortality rates and more women either traveling out of state or seeking unsafe alternatives.

What does reduce abortion? Research consistently shows these factors matter most:

Access to contraception. When women can prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, abortion rates plummet. Colorado’s program providing free IUDs and implants to low-income women reduced teen abortion rates by 64% in five years.

Economic security. The Guttmacher Institute found that 73% of women seeking abortions cite inability to afford a child as a reason. Expanding healthcare, childcare support, paid family leave, and economic opportunity reduces abortion.

Comprehensive sex education. States with abstinence-only education have higher teen pregnancy and abortion rates than states with comprehensive sex education.

Healthcare access. When women have access to prenatal care, treatment for addiction, mental health services, and support for domestic violence situations, they’re more likely to carry pregnancies to term.

If you genuinely want to reduce abortion, you need to address why women seek abortions in the first place:

Economic desperation (can’t afford another child)
Lack of healthcare and childcare support
Domestic violence
Addiction and mental health crises
Lack of community and family support

Banning abortion doesn’t eliminate these pressures. It just forces desperate women into dangerous situations.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute found that in countries where abortion is broadly legal, the abortion rate is 37 per 1,000 women. In countries where it’s illegal, the rate is 34 per 1,000—virtually no difference. The difference is that in countries where it’s illegal, women die from unsafe abortions.

Making abortion illegal doesn’t stop abortion. It just makes it deadlier.

The Question of Conscience

Some Christians will say, “I cannot vote for a party that supports any abortion rights, period. It’s a matter of conscience.”

I respect that conviction. Truly.

But I would ask: Is it also a matter of conscience to vote for policies that:

Separate immigrant families and deport parents while their children are at school?
Leave millions of children without healthcare?
Cut programs that feed hungry kids?
Ignore the climate crisis that will devastate future generations?
Embrace racist rhetoric that dehumanizes people created in God’s image?
Defend a leader who lies compulsively, defrauds business partners, sexually assaults women, and attempted to overturn a democratic election?

If abortion is a single-issue dealbreaker, why aren’t these?

Here’s the reality: We all choose which evils we can live with. Republicans vote for Trump despite his lies and his attempted coup. Democrats vote despite abortion policy. We’re all making compromises. The question is whether we’re honest about it.

Republicans who vote for Trump despite his character, his lies, his fraud convictions, and his attempted coup are making exactly that calculation. They’re saying, “Yes, these things are bad, but his policies on abortion and judges matter more.”

Christians who vote Democrat despite disagreeing with the party’s abortion position are doing the same thing—they’re saying, “Yes, I wish Democrats would support more restrictions, but their policies on immigration, healthcare, poverty, and racial justice better reflect biblical values.”

Neither choice makes you a bad Christian. Both are attempts to vote faithfully in a fallen world with imperfect options.

A Father’s Perspective

Back to my 11-year-old daughter. She’s beautiful, brilliant, and full of life. The thought of anyone harming her makes me physically ill.

If she were raped tomorrow and became pregnant, I would support her getting an abortion—not because I don’t value life in the womb, but because forcing a child to carry her rapist’s baby would be its own form of violence. Because my daughter’s life, her mental health, her future, her bodily integrity matters too.

If that makes me a bad Christian in your eyes, so be it. But I think it makes me a father who recognizes that protecting life sometimes means making impossible choices in a broken world.

And I refuse to vote for politicians who would criminalize that choice and force my daughter—or any eleven-year-old girl—to give birth against her will.

I also refuse to vote for politicians who cut healthcare for children, who separate families, who demonize immigrants, who embrace white nationalist rhetoric, and who show contempt for truth and human dignity.

Being pro-life has to mean more than being anti-abortion. It has to mean supporting life at every stage—from conception to natural death, from the womb to the immigrant detention center, from the inner city to the nursing home.

And when I look at which party’s policies actually support vulnerable human life across the board, the answer isn’t as clear-cut as the “you can’t vote Democrat and be a good Christian” crowd wants to pretend.

IV. The Biblical Case FOR Democratic Voting

A. Immigration and the Stranger

Let’s start with what the Bible actually says about how God’s people should treat immigrants and refugees.

Leviticus 19:33-34: “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. The stranger who sojourns with you shall be as the native-born among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

Deuteronomy 10:18-19: “He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.”

Matthew 25:35: “I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”

Hebrews 13:2: “Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.”

The biblical command isn’t subtle. It’s not qualified. It’s not “welcome the stranger unless they’re here illegally” or “show hospitality unless it’s politically inconvenient.” It’s an unambiguous, repeated, emphatic command: Welcome the stranger. Love the foreigner. Defend the vulnerable.

Now let’s look at what’s actually happening under the current Republican administration.

Since January 2025, the Trump administration has pursued what experts describe as “the largest domestic deportation operation in U.S. history.” ICE has been authorized to raid schools, hospitals, and places of worship—locations that were previously considered sensitive and off-limits. The administration reversed policies that protected these sanctuaries.

They’ve detained hundreds of thousands of immigrants, many of them longtime residents with pending applications for permanent residence. In one case, a 46-year-old double amputee with a pending permanent residence petition was taken into ICE custody based on a burglary conviction from his teenage years—a conviction he’d been pardoned for in 2010.

The White House posted a video in February 2025 showing immigrants in shackles being prepared for deportation, captioned “ASMR: Illegal Alien Deportation Flight.” They shared footage of handcuffs and chains jingling on airport tarmac.

The bastards turned human beings created in God’s image into fucking social media content.

The administration has deported immigrants to third countries, including South Sudan—one of the youngest, poorest, and most violent nations on earth. Supreme Court rulings in June 2025 allowed these deportations to proceed with minimal notice.

In March 2025, the Department of Homeland Security skipped competitive bidding and awarded two Republican-linked firms $200 million to create anti-migrant ad campaigns praising Trump’s deportation efforts.

This is not biblical hospitality. This is not loving the stranger. This is dehumanization as policy.

My wife is the daughter of immigrants. Her parents came from Indonesia seeking a better life. When I look at these videos of shackled people being treated as props for social media engagement, I see someone’s mother. Someone’s daughter. Someone bearing the image of God. I see my wife’s family.

Can Christians support policies that separate families, deport longtime residents, and treat image-bearers of God as political theater?

If your answer is “yes, because they’re here illegally,” then I have a question: Where in Scripture does God’s command to love the stranger include an exception for documentation status?

B. The Great Replacement Theory and Racism

Here’s something most conservative Christians won’t tell you: Two-thirds of Republicans now endorse some version of the “Great Replacement” theory—the conspiracy theory that political elites are purposefully increasing racial and religious minorities to displace white Christian Americans.

This isn’t fringe anymore. It’s mainstream.

What We’re Actually Talking About

Let me be clear about what I mean by “Great Replacement” theory, because there’s an important distinction that often gets blurred in these conversations.

There’s a legitimate observation: Demographics are changing. Immigration has increased. Political parties do pay attention to demographic trends when building coalitions. It’s factually true that Democrats have pursued policies that make it easier for immigrants to gain citizenship, and it’s factually true that naturalized citizens tend to vote Democratic. Noticing these patterns isn’t racist.

There’s also legitimate concern: Rapid demographic change can strain social cohesion, school systems, housing markets, and local resources. Communities experience real disruption when large numbers of people arrive quickly. Wanting managed, orderly immigration that allows for integration isn’t inherently racist either.

But then there’s the conspiracy theory—and it is racist. The “Great Replacement” theory claims that there’s a deliberate, coordinated plot by elites (often coded as “globalists” or explicitly naming Jewish people) to “replace” white Christians with non-white immigrants in order to destroy Western civilization and permanently cement Democratic political power. This version explicitly frames demographic change as an existential threat to white people and treats non-white immigrants as invaders, diseases, or poison.

Invasive colonization, it’s often called. As if human beings seeking a better life are locusts.

That last version—the conspiracy theory—is what Tucker Carlson promoted more than 400 times on his Fox News show between 2016 and 2021. It’s what prominent Republicans including Elise Stefanik, JD Vance, Blake Masters, and Matt Gaetz have echoed. And it’s what has migrated from French white nationalist circles into mainstream Republican rhetoric.

I know this rhetoric intimately. Because I’ve been on the receiving end of it.

I’m a white man married to an Indonesian woman. And I’ve been told—by Christians, quoting Scripture—that my marriage is sinful. That I’m participating in “white genocide.” That I’m destroying Christian civilization by loving my wife and having children with her.

Let me say that again: Christians have accused me of committing genocide by marrying my wife.

The Rhetoric Has Consequences

Here’s where we need to be absolutely clear: The language matters. And the language has turned dangerous.

When President Trump says immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our nation,” he’s not making a policy argument about immigration numbers or border security. He’s using the literal language of Nazi racial ideology. Hitler used nearly identical phrasing in Mein Kampf about Jews contaminating German blood.

A 2024 UMass Amherst poll found that close to 4 in 10 Republicans believe immigrants are “poisoning the blood of the nation,” that “many are terrorists,” or that they “want to rape, pillage, thieve, plunder and kill American citizens.”

This isn’t immigration skepticism. This is dehumanization.

And dehumanization has consequences. The Buffalo shooter who killed 10 Black people in 2022 explicitly cited replacement theory in his manifesto. The Pittsburgh synagogue massacre was motivated by the shooter’s belief that Jews were orchestrating immigrant “invasions.” The El Paso shooter who killed 23 people at a Walmart in 2019 wrote that he was defending Texas from a “Hispanic invasion.”

These weren’t isolated incidents by unstable individuals who happened to misunderstand conservative immigration policy. These were acts of terror inspired by rhetoric that treats demographic change as white genocide and non-white people as existential threats.

The same rhetoric that’s been used against me and my family.

What the Bible Says About This

The Bible has something to say about how we think about race, ethnicity, and national identity.

Acts 10:34-35: “God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.”

Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Revelation 7:9: “After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb.”

The gospel is radically inclusive. It tears down ethnic barriers. It proclaims that all people—regardless of race, nationality, or citizenship status—are created in God’s image and precious to Him.

The kingdom of God is multiethnic by design. It’s not threatened by demographic change—it celebrates demographic diversity as a reflection of God’s heart for all peoples.

My marriage is a picture of that kingdom. My children—half white, half Indonesian—embody the multiethnic future that Revelation celebrates. And when Christians tell me I’m committing genocide by loving my wife, they’re not defending Christianity. They’re defending white supremacy with a cancerous Christian veneer.

The Question Christians Must Answer

Here’s what I want to ask my fellow Christians who’ve absorbed replacement theory rhetoric:

Can you articulate concerns about immigration policy without treating immigrants as threats, invaders, or poison?

Can you advocate for border security without dehumanizing people who cross that border?

Can you want orderly, legal immigration without treating demographic change as an assault on your identity?

Because if you can’t—if your immigration concerns require viewing non-white people as existential threats to “real Americans”—then your concern isn’t about policy. It’s about race. And that’s incompatible with the gospel.

I’m not saying every Christian who wants stricter immigration enforcement is racist. I’m not saying concerns about border security or assimilation are inherently white supremacist.

But I am saying that when Christians align with rhetoric that treats demographic change as white genocide, when we excuse language about immigrants “poisoning the blood,” when we share memes about “invasions” and “replacements,” we’re not defending Christianity—we’re baptizing racism in religious language.

And I know this because that rhetoric has been weaponized against my family.

White Christian Nationalism Is Heresy

There’s a term for the ideology that fuses white racial identity with Christian identity and treats threats to white demographic dominance as threats to Christianity itself: White Christian Nationalism.

And it’s a heresy.

It’s the same heresy that defended slavery by claiming Black people were cursed by God. It’s the same heresy that defended Jim Crow by claiming God intended the races to be separate. It’s the same heresy that opposed interracial marriage by claiming God forbade the mixing of peoples.

Every generation of American Christians has had to confront the temptation to make Christianity a tribal identity marker rather than a universal faith. Every generation has had Christians who confused their cultural dominance with God’s kingdom.

We’re facing that same temptation now. And too many Christians are failing the test.

The Loving v. Virginia decision that finally struck down bans on interracial marriage nationwide was in 1967. My parents were alive when it was still illegal in many states for people of different races to marry. Christian pastors defended those laws from pulpits. Churches refused to perform interracial weddings. Christians cited Genesis, Deuteronomy, and Numbers to prove God wanted the races separate.

They were absolutely certain they were defending biblical truth and Christian civilization.

They were wrong. Catastrophically, shamefully wrong.

And the Christians who quote Scripture to condemn my marriage today are repeating the same mistake.

The Real Question

So here’s the question: Can Christians support a political movement whose base has been captured by replacement theory rhetoric?

Can we align with a party where two-thirds of voters believe there’s a coordinated plot to replace white Christians with non-white immigrants?

Can we excuse a leader who says immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our nation”? Lie on a political stage in front of tens of millions of people that refugees we gave safe harbor are “eating the dogs, eating the cats, eating the pets”?

Can we share platforms with figures who treat demographic change as an existential threat to white identity?

I’m not saying these issues should automatically disqualify voting Republican. Political coalitions are messy, and we all make compromises.

But I am saying that Christians who vote Democrat because they find this rhetoric morally disqualifying are not abandoning biblical values. They’re prioritizing the biblical truth that God shows no partiality and that all people are created in His image.

They’re refusing to baptize racism, even when it comes wrapped in concerns about “protecting Christian culture.”

And that’s a legitimate, faithful, biblical reason to vote Democrat—even if you disagree with Democratic policies on other issues.

C. Care for the Poor and Vulnerable

Matthew 25:31-46 is one of the most sobering passages in Scripture. Jesus describes the final judgment, where He separates people based on one criterion: How did you treat “the least of these”?

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.
Matthew 25:31-46

The righteous ask, “When did we see you like this?”

And Jesus answers: “Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”

The King James Bible translates it even more directly: “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”

This isn’t a suggestion. It’s not advice for personal piety. It’s the standard by which Jesus says we’ll be judged.

Now look at the policies.

Democratic policies prioritize healthcare access—actual access, not just “get a job with insurance.” They prioritize education funding, worker protections, climate action. These aren’t just policy preferences. They’re expressions of biblical values about caring for the vulnerable.

Before you dismiss this as “socialism,” consider this: John Calvin, the father of Reformed theology and hero of conservative Protestantism, advocated for public loans for the poor, public health measures, price controls on essential goods, and what historians have described as “Christian socialism.” He wrote in his commentary on 2 Corinthians 8:15 that “God wills there be equality and proportion among us, that is, each person is to provide for the needy according to his means so that no one has too much and no one too little.”

Abraham Kuyper, another towering figure in Reformed thought, denounced laissez-faire capitalism as “inimical to human well-being, material or physical, out of tune with Scripture and contrary to the will of God.”

The idea that caring for the poor through government policy is somehow “un-Christian” would have baffled these theological giants.

Where do I stand on public healthcare and other social programs? It’s complicated. But I do absolutely believe we, as a society, have a moral imperative to give aid to the least of these among us.

D. Truth-Telling and Integrity

Proverbs 29:2: “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when the wicked rule, the people mourn.”

Proverbs 29:4: “By justice a king gives a country stability, but those who are greedy for bribes tear it down.”

Proverbs 29:12: “If a ruler listens to lies, all his servants are wicked.”

Character matters. The Bible is unequivocal about this. Leaders who lie, who show contempt for truth, who use their power to enrich themselves and punish enemies—these are wicked rulers, regardless of their policy positions.

The current Republican standard-bearer has been convicted of fraud, found liable for sexual abuse, indicted on charges of election interference and mishandling classified documents, and openly attempted to overturn an election he lost. He’s shown contempt for constitutional constraints, threatened to prosecute his political opponents, and praised authoritarian leaders around the world.

This isn’t partisan hyperbole. These are documented facts.

You can argue that Democratic policies are wrong. You can believe their positions on abortion or marriage or economics are misguided. But you cannot argue that the man leading the Republican Party embodies biblical standards of character and integrity.

And if character matters—if how we treat truth matters, if how we wield power matters—then Christians have every right to say, “I cannot support this man, regardless of his party’s platform.”

V. The Tempest in a Teacup: When Rhetoric Outpaces Reality

Let’s address some of the specific issues conservatives point to when making their case. Because here’s the thing: when you actually look at the data, many of these “existential threats” turn out to be manufactured crises designed to generate outrage rather than address real problems.

Trans Athletes in Women’s Sports

This has become perhaps the most prominent culture war issue of the past few years. Conservatives warn of biological males dominating women’s sports, destroying decades of Title IX progress, threatening the safety of female athletes.

The reality?

NCAA President Charlie Baker testified in December 2024 that out of more than 500,000 college student-athletes, fewer than 10 are transgender. At the K-12 level, Save Women’s Sports—a leading organization advocating for bans—identified only five transgender athletes competing on girls’ teams in school sports nationwide.

Read that again: Five. In the entire country.

You could fit them all in a Honda Civic. But we’re passing 745 bills to address them. That’s 149 bills per athlete. That’s not policy—that’s performance art.

Trans people make up less than 0.002% of U.S. college athletes. As of March 2025, over 745 anti-trans bills have been introduced in state legislatures to address a “problem” involving fewer athletes than you could fit in a minivan.

Meanwhile, female athletes face significant barriers in sports that have nothing to do with transgender inclusion: inequitable facilities, pay, and marketing; abusive coaches; and racist, sexist, and homophobic harassment.

Where’s the Republican legislation addressing those issues?

“Trans Violence” and Mass Shootings

After any high-profile shooting, a familiar pattern emerges on social media: claims that the shooter was transgender, suggestions of a “pattern” of trans violence, calls to restrict gun rights for trans people.

The facts tell a very different story. The Gun Violence Archive documented 5,748 mass shootings between January 2013 and September 2025. Of those incidents, five involved confirmed transgender shooters—less than 0.1% of all mass shootings.

Transgender people make up less than 2% of the U.S. adult population but are four times as likely to be victims of crime. According to a 2023 U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center report analyzing mass public attacks from 2016-2020, attackers’ backgrounds were 96% men, 3% women, and 2% transgender.

Mass casualty shootings perpetrated by someone identifying as trans or nonbinary are rare, and in fact, those groups are far more likely to be the victims of violence.

So when conservatives claim there’s an epidemic of trans violence, they’re either lying or haven’t looked at the data. This isn’t a real problem—it’s a manufactured narrative designed to demonize a vulnerable population.

Immigrants and Crime

“They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” Remember that? The claim that immigrants—especially undocumented immigrants—are driving up crime rates has been a staple of conservative rhetoric for years.

The data systematically demolishes this narrative.

Between 1980 and 2022, the immigrant share of the U.S. population more than doubled, from 6.2% to 13.9%, while the total crime rate dropped by 60.4%. The violent crime rate fell by 34.5% and the property crime rate fell by 63.3%.

In 2020, immigrants were 60 percent less likely to be incarcerated than the U.S. born. Undocumented immigrants are arrested at less than half the rate of native-born U.S. citizens for violent and drug crimes and a quarter the rate for property crimes.

Even more specifically: Throughout a seven-year period (2012-2018), undocumented immigrants had the lowest homicide arrest rates, averaging less than half the rate at which U.S.-born citizens were arrested for homicide.

Not only is crime not going up, it’s continuing a downward trend as immigration continues to grow. In fact, research at the city level suggests that increases in immigration can be associated with declining homicide rates.

So when President Trump claims he’s deporting immigrants to reduce crime, he’s doing the opposite. Deporting immigrants can actually lead to more crime because it removes valuable community members who contribute to social cohesion.

Drag Queen Story Hour

This has become conservative shorthand for “Democrats want to sexualize your children.” Social media is filled with outrage about drag queens reading to kids in libraries.

The reality? Drag Queen Story Hour is a program started in 2015 where drag performers read children’s books at some public libraries, bookstores, and community centers. As of 2020, there were 50+ official chapters internationally. The U.S. has over 17,000 public libraries. Even if every chapter held events at multiple libraries, we’re talking about a tiny fraction of libraries offering this as one optional program among hundreds.

Parents can choose whether to attend. It’s not mandatory. It’s not curriculum. It’s not a Democratic Party platform plank. It’s a local library programming decision, just like whether to host a knitting circle or a chess club.

But here’s what’s telling: conservatives have made this optional library program into a supposed existential threat to children, while remaining largely silent about:

The actual documented abuse crisis in churches and religious institutions
Child poverty rates in red states
Inadequate funding for child protective services
The gutting of programs that feed hungry children

Where’s the moral panic about the one in five American children living in poverty? Where’s the outrage about kids going hungry in the wealthiest nation on earth?

No, we’re supposed to believe that the real threat to children is a drag queen reading “The Very Hungry Caterpillar” at an optional library program that a tiny percentage of families choose to attend.

This isn’t serious moral reasoning. It’s culture war theater.

The Pattern Here

Notice what’s happening? Conservative rhetoric focuses on rare, statistically insignificant issues—trans athletes, trans violence, immigrant crime—and amplifies them into existential threats. Meanwhile, actual problems that affect millions of people—healthcare access, poverty, climate change, income inequality—get dismissed as “socialism.”

This isn’t serious policy analysis. It’s fearmongering designed to generate votes.

And when Christians uncritically absorb this rhetoric and repeat it as biblical truth, we’re not defending the faith. We’re spreading lies that harm vulnerable people.

The Bible has something to say about bearing false witness. It also has a lot to say about what happens when we prioritize protecting our own power and privilege over caring for “the least of these.”

VI. What the Bible Actually Says (and Doesn’t Say)

Here’s what’s crucial: The Bible never endorses a particular economic system, tax policy, or immigration law. It gives principles—care for the poor, welcome the stranger, pursue justice, show mercy, walk humbly. How those principles translate into specific policies is a matter of prudential judgment, not divine revelation.

Romans 13 tells us to respect governing authorities because they’re instituted by God to restrain evil and promote good. But Acts 5:29 reminds us that “we must obey God rather than men” when human authorities demand we violate God’s commands.

This creates a tension, and that tension is good. It means Christians should be engaged in politics but never fully at home in any political party. It means we should advocate for policies that align with biblical values while recognizing that reasonable Christians can disagree about which policies best achieve those goals.

The danger comes when we conflate kingdom and country, when we tie the gospel to a political party, when we make voting for a particular candidate the test of authentic faith.

As one pastor put it: “The Gospel should never be tied to a politician or political party. We should never give the impression that one party or another is the ‘Christian party.’”

Period. Full stop.

VII. When the Bible Gets Weaponized: A Pattern We Must Recognize

I want to show you something about biblical interpretation. Because the methods Christians are using today to say “you can’t vote Democrat and support LGBTQ+ rights” are the exact same methods Christians used to tell me I shouldn’t have married my wife.

Let me show you the pattern.

Selective Biblical Interpretation: How Similar Methods Are Used to Oppose Both Interracial Marriage and LGBTQ+ Relationships

Both arguments follow remarkably similar patterns of biblical interpretation that prioritize specific verses while ignoring broader context, cultural background, and the overall arc of scripture.