Texas just elected its most vocally religious politician in recent memory. James Talarico, a Presbyterian seminarian who built his campaign around Scripture, became the first Democrat the state has sent to the U.S. Senate since 1988. Days later, Texas Monthly declared that “The Christian Nationalist Agenda Is Dead.” The irony is thick. When liberals bring God into politics on behalf of their preferred social programs, the media welcome it as moral courage. When conservatives invoke the same faith to support pro-life, small-government, and pro-family policies, critics brand it Christian nationalism. Americans can disagree about what Scripture means and how it applies to public policy. Christians on the Right and the Left get it wrong, and they will keep getting it wrong. That’s a debate worth having. But applying the “Christian nationalist” label only to one side is a double standard, not an innocent analysis that just happened to land that way.  It’s unrealistic to expect anyone to make ethical choices apart from his or her deepest beliefs. For people of faith, that’s where the moral framework comes from. Even those who claim no religion live by a set of convictions, whether or not they can trace from whence those convictions came. We all bring our worldviews into the voting booth, and every voter — not just the ones whose conclusions meet with secular, public approval — should have the freedom to do so. That double standard has rarely been more glaring. Talarico was one of 13 seminary-trained Democrats elected on Tuesday, alongside Kansas megachurch pastor Adam Hamilton, who won a seat in the U.S. Senate.  Liberal Christian author Jen Hatmaker, a prominent critic of Christian nationalism, posted on Wednesday that she’d forgotten “what hope feels like” until the results came in, praising the newly elected for speaking the language of the Beatitudes, Isaiah 58, and 1 Corinthians 13.  I disagree with some of the theology these new officeholders have articulated, such as Talarico’s suggestion that all religions lead to God or Hamilton’s view that abortion can be acceptable. But that’s beside the point I’m making. They have every right to carry their faith into public office how they choose — and so does everyone else. With so many who identify as “religious Left” in the Senate now, one might expect the usual critics of religion in politics to be out in full force. But chances are that we will see no CNN documentaries, concerned magazine essays, or fresh warnings about the separation of church and state.  Last year, Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) quoted Matthew 25 on the House floor to oppose portions of a bill that would have cut some Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program provisions. No one accused him of trying to build a theocracy by invoking his faith to change legislation.  Democrats regularly cite Matthew 7:12 — “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” — and Matthew 25:35 — “I was a stranger and you welcomed me” — to make the case for their immigration and economic policies.  Last summer, Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) quoted Old Testament prophet Amos to condemn proposed cuts to Medicaid and food assistance.  I’m fine with them doing this, even if I disagree with their interpretation. So why aren’t they OK with it when Republicans do it? Compare those examples with many involving House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA). When he said on air in 2023 that anyone curious about his views should “go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it,” the response was outrage. Jen Psaki went on MSNBC to label him a Christian fundamentalist. MSNBC’s Sarah Posner called him the most unabashedly Christian nationalist speaker in history. Politico, Time, and Newsweek all ran headlines tying him to Christian nationalism. When conservatives defend positions on borders, life, marriage, and taxes from Scripture, media compare us to theocrats. When liberals do the same on immigration and economics, media hold their actions up as the “right” kind of Christianity.  Critics will say this misses the point. Christian nationalism, they argue, isn’t about Christians who vote their faith; it’s about wanting the government to impose Christianity itself. For example, the push to post the Ten Commandments in classrooms — a real debate.  I agree that specific church-state proposals deserve criticism and comprehensive discussion, but that’s not how critics use the Christian nationalism label in practice. Media branded Johnson a Christian nationalist the moment he said the Bible shaped his worldview, not in response to any particular church-state policy.  And let’s be real: Christian Democrats aren’t actually content to keep their beliefs personal. They too want to see their worldviews pushed into law; that is the entire point of voting for the politicians they did. They want federal law on taxes, immigration, and abortion shaped by their reading of Scripture. That is exactly what Johnson wants. The only difference is the conclusions and who agrees with them.  The tired talking point that “you can’t legislate morality” is simply false. Every law on the books is a judgment about right and wrong. It’s illegal to murder, steal, or cheat on your taxes because those things are wrong, and lawmakers decided to make it official. The question was never whether faith and morality shape our laws, because they always will. The question is whether every citizen’s convictions get equal standing when they do. As American citizens, we all have the right and the responsibility to live, vote, and govern according to what we believe is best, whether we’re liberal Democrats or conservative Republicans. And yes, sometimes one’s version of Christianity seems to fit a little too neatly into one party’s platform. That’s true on both sides. As voters, we can scrutinize it, raise it with our leaders, and point out inconsistencies. What we cannot fairly do is tell one side that bringing their faith to politics is “Christian nationalism” and tell the other it’s simply love and kindness. *** Ericka Andersen is the author of “Freely Sober: Rethinking Alcohol Through the Lens of Faith.” This article is part of Upstream, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.