Justice Department sues Georgia for voting laws that target black voters

[Toni]

Actually, whether or not a pastor from a church runs for political office does not indicate that the church is partisan. It is an indication that that particular individual is politically active.

Derec was obviously referring to Raphael Warnock, a minister at a Southern Baptist Church in Derek's state of Georgia. I mentioned that James Lankford of Oklahoma was also a Baptist minister. Lankford is Republican and conservative. Warnock is Democrat and in Derek's opinion, probably an extreme leftist. So, here is an indication of two Baptist ministers holding national public office but for different parties and of very different political bent. Those two individuals are politically active. That does not mean that their churches are partisan.

This is a tangent, but what would make a church partisan, if the leaders of the church holding political office within one of the two major parties is not sufficient to call it partisan?

That's an interesting question. In the US, there is a strong separation of church and state. Churches generally do not take strong political positions, aside form some hot button issues (abortion rights, LGBTQ rights) but more recently, some have (see the Catholic church denying Biden communion) and some people think that churches who express strong political opinions should lose their tax exempt status. I think they have a point. Organizations are generally strongly proscribed from engaging in political activity if they wish to maintain their non-profit status (not taxed). I know that was a huge issue when I was very active in the local PTA. We were not allowed, as an organization, to advocate FOR or AGAINST school referendums to raise capital for new buildings, for example.



I posted a couple of articles about partisanship and churches. Mostly, churches do not overtly support any political party. Sometimes, they do take positions on political issues: Abolition, voting for women, Civil Rights, abortion, LGBTQ rights, are issues that some churches address/have addressed. Do people vote along the same lines as their church indicates on such issues? Not so much in the US.

It is unfortunate and true that affiliation with some church and/or military service is highly desirable if you wish to have a political career in the US. It is interesting to me that so many extremely devoutly religious people saw Donald Trump as very religious when he rarely attended services at all except as a PR stunt and rather famously marched across the street to a church for a photo op, holding a bible upside down for his picture. To me, there were all kinds of wrong things about that, the least of which is whether or not Trump was a hypocrite for pretending to be religious for a photo op. But that's a bit off topic. I will say that I would find it as objectionable no matter what politician did that sort of thing.

In the US, churches have long been centers for community life. Aside from church services, and sometimes schools, churches often provide day care (which may or may not be faith based, depending on church--and most church schools welcome students from other faiths to attend), relief for those in need due to poverty or disasters, serve as meeting places for a variety of community groups, religious based and not.

Churches and schools are often chosen as polling places in the US because they are generally located within communities and otherwise serve as community centers. My own polling place is in a nearby church. Despite the fact that that particular church, as a denomination, tends to be fairly conservative, I have felt absolutely zero pressure or influence from the church to conform my political beliefs to those of the church.

As far as Warnock goes, I do know some people were very divided about whether or not they could support him because of his religious affiliation. I don't really know much about Lankford.

 

[Elixir]

In the US, there is supposed to be a strong separation of church and state.

FIFY
In fact, churches have become blunt instruments with which to either encourage voter suppression or to encourage voting, depending mostly on the color of the congregation.

 

[laughing dog]

If you think I am sadistic or stupid or power-grasping, I don't know what to tell you. I cannot imagine anybody in my life would imagine that of me.

I didn't say that. Instead of using your imagination when reading posts, try just reading them with comprehension.

You said I appeared that way. I told you I am not that way, nor do I appear that way to family and friends.

No, I did not write that you appear sadistic or stupid or power-grasping.

I responded to your post 93 which contained "Most of my friends are left wing and I don't think their thinking is sadistic or stupid or power-grasping." with "I see, you just appear that way in your posts here." "That way" clearly refers to left wing thinking is sadistic or stupid or power-grasping.

 

[ZiprHead]

No, I don't. Most of my friends are left wing and I don't think their thinking is sadistic or stupid or power-grasping.

I see, you just appear that way in your posts here.

I'm waiting for him to say he has a trans friend.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes: observing someone handing over water is exactly as subjective as determining the motives of the person doing the handing over.

Really this is not rocket science. You observe what is actually happening. If someone wearing a VOTE FOR _____, or is talking about a candidate, etc.., then it is a violation. If someone who is dressed like a regular person and says nothing but hands a bottle of water, then it is fine.

Exactly. It's not a problem. While not everyone will hear what's being said enough would--anyone trying to electioneer in a situation like that would soon be caught.

 

[Metaphor]

You said I appeared that way. I told you I am not that way, nor do I appear that way to family and friends.

No, I did not write that you appear sadistic or stupid or power-grasping.

I responded to your post 93 which contained "Most of my friends are left wing and I don't think their thinking is sadistic or stupid or power-grasping." with "I see, you just appear that way in your posts here." "That way" clearly refers to left wing thinking is sadistic or stupid or power-grasping.

What you wrote did not mean what you think it meant-your sentence should have read "you just appear to think that way in your posts here".

I don't think I've ever called the left in general sadistic or stupid or power-grasping, and if it appears that way to you, that might be your own prejudice against me.

 

[Metaphor]

No, I don't. Most of my friends are left wing and I don't think their thinking is sadistic or stupid or power-grasping.

I see, you just appear that way in your posts here.

I'm waiting for him to say he has a trans friend.

Why?

 

[laughing dog]

You said I appeared that way. I told you I am not that way, nor do I appear that way to family and friends.

No, I did not write that you appear sadistic or stupid or power-grasping.

I responded to your post 93 which contained "Most of my friends are left wing and I don't think their thinking is sadistic or stupid or power-grasping." with "I see, you just appear that way in your posts here." "That way" clearly refers to left wing thinking is sadistic or stupid or power-grasping.

What you wrote did not mean to me what you think it meant-your sentence should have read "you just appear to think that way in your posts here".

IAdded 2 words to make your statement accurate. I realize it makes you feel better to blame your misinterpretation on me, but, as usual, your hyper-sensitivity made you jump to a blatant misinterpretation.

I don't think I've ever called the left in general sadistic or stupid or power-grasping, and if it appears that way to you, that might be your own prejudice against me.

My opinion of your views is based on the content of your posts. I suspect my opinion is not unique - something you might want to think about before you start flinging more accusations.

 

[Metaphor]

your hyper-sensitivity made you jump to a blatant misinterpretation.

Um, no. Get a third party to evaluate your sentence and see if they agree that your sentence was unambiguous.

 

[laughing dog]

your hyper-sensitivity made you jump to a blatant misinterpretation.

Um, no. Get a third party to evaluate your sentence and see if they agree that your sentence was unambiguous.

Please either get help with your obsession to never be wrong or fuck off.

 

[Metaphor]

your hyper-sensitivity made you jump to a blatant misinterpretation.

Um, no. Get a third party to evaluate your sentence and see if they agree that your sentence was unambiguous.

Please either get help with your obsession to never be wrong or fuck off.

Okay luv.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm waiting for him to say he has a trans friend.

Why?

If you're serious, then

 

[KeepTalking]

your hyper-sensitivity made you jump to a blatant misinterpretation.

Um, no. Get a third party to evaluate your sentence and see if they agree that your sentence was unambiguous.

Oh hi, third party here.

As is often the case with the English language in written form, it was a sentence that could have been interpreted in two different ways. My initial read, given the context, was just the way laughing dog indicates he meant it. After your response, I did realize that if one squinted at the sentence in the correct way, with the intent to be offended by it, that it could be interpreted in the way you seem to have read it.

 

[Rhea]

Actually, whether or not a pastor from a church runs for political office does not indicate that the church is partisan. It is an indication that that particular individual is politically active.

Derec was obviously referring to Raphael Warnock, a minister at a Southern Baptist Church in Derek's state of Georgia. I mentioned that James Lankford of Oklahoma was also a Baptist minister. Lankford is Republican and conservative. Warnock is Democrat and in Derek's opinion, probably an extreme leftist. So, here is an indication of two Baptist ministers holding national public office but for different parties and of very different political bent. Those two individuals are politically active. That does not mean that their churches are partisan.

And while it’s true that America is supposed to have separation of church and state, it remains true that a lot of people who are religious hold office, and many of them do not make their churches partisan, while there are also many churches whose leaders don’t hold office that are, indeed, partisan.