Good news: Thousands of faith leaders ask Congress to protect Johnson Amendment

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

More than 4,000 religious leaders have signed a letter urging Congress to maintain the Johnson Amendment, a law barring pulpit politicking that President Trump has vowed to gut.
“As a leader in my religious community, I am strongly opposed to any effort to repeal or weaken current law that protects houses of worship from becoming centers of partisan politics,” reads the letter faith leaders who support church-state separation delivered to Congress on Wednesday (Aug. 16).

To read more:

http://religionnews.com/2017/08/16/thousands-of-faith-leaders-ask-congress-to-maintain-johnson-amendment/

[DBoon]

1. allowing churches in electoral politics cuts both ways

Repeal the Johnson Amendment and you can expect politicians to start shaking down churches for donations.

[guillaumeb]

2. Yes, it would allow them to directly solicit,

as opposed to the current system wherein members can personally contribute.

[AtheistCrusader]

3. 4,000 out of how many?

[guillaumeb]

4. Conduct a survey.

Then make that survey the subject of a post.

[trotsky]

5. You're the one who said it was "good news."

You should let everyone know exactly what your rationale was for calling it that.

If I poll 100 people at random, and 99 of them say Trump is a horrible president, that's "good news," right?

If I poll 1000 people at random, and 99 of them say Trump is a horrible president, is that still "good news"?

[guillaumeb]

7. One hopes that, for the vast majority of readers,

it is understood what is meant when a writer employs an editorial device.

But if some few do not understand, that will not inhibit or reflect on the comprehension of the majority.

[trotsky]

8. I will remember these words.

You will see them again.

[guillaumeb]

10. And are we now clear on the function and purpose of editorial comments?

I ask because this situation has presented itself before this.

Do you understand that by inserting the words "good news", or "bad news", or mixed news", or any such addition, that I am expressing my personal opinion?

I ask because you and others have borrowed this device in titling posts of your own in this forum. This borrowing seems to suggest that you are aware of this device and its proper function. So why the confusion now?

[trotsky]

11. Like crystal.

Because you have just officially undermined your method of judging others who post here - myself included - based on your interpretation of how positive or negative toward religion their posts are.

Thank you for exposing and humiliating yourself once again. It was a pleasure to assist you.

[guillaumeb]

12. It does not sound as if it is clear.

Oh well.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. Good news: Cockroaches will likely survive the impending nuclear destruction of Humanity and most

life on the planet.


yay

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Good news: The surgery was a success, but the paitent died.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. Good news: Paint still holding strong on the wreckage of the Titanic

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Good news: Maginot line intact and unharmed, as Nazis route around through Belgium and the Ardennes

[AtheistCrusader]

18. Good news: Scientists perfect glow-in-the-dark goldfish as asteroid the size of Texas looms above

[trotsky]

31. I am. Not sure if you are.

Quit judging people and keeping a tally of what YOU think their posts are like.

All can speak their opinion here, and NO ONE has to meet some ratio of "good" to "bad" posts to meet your approval.

You need to realize that your editorial comments are just that - your own - and mean nothing to anyone else.

Now, will you stop judging others and making snarky comments about their motivation and agenda? Can we have a breakthrough here, or will you just keep pouring gas on the fire?

[AtheistCrusader]

6. So you have no idea if this is good news or not.

[guillaumeb]

9. Interesting how some do not, or claim to not, understand the purpose of editorial comments.

But to summarize briefly, if a writer inserts editorial comments into an article, or in this case, a post, those comments may be taken to reflect the opinion of the author of the post.

So by this act of editorializing, the poster is personally commenting on the article.

Thus, in this instance, by inserting the words "good news" before the actual title of the article referenced, the post author is giving an opinion.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. And your opinion is based on no facts at all. You have no idea if this is good or bad news.

Let me spell it out. If 4000 support retaining the amendment as is, and that's less than one percent of the whole, that is decidedly bad news.

So, is it good news as you proclaim, or bad news because it's a tiny minority?
You've given me no reason whatsoever to assume this is good news.

How many faith leaders are pushing FOR the weakening of the Amendment?

"Attention passengers and crew. Please assume crash positions as the engines are on fire, and we're spiraling down with a dead stick. Good news though, the windshield wipers still work"

[guillaumeb]

20. It is good news that so many support retaining the Amendment.

If you disagree about that, we are on different sides of this issue.

If one is determined to only focus on the bad, or what one perceives as bad, any news can be framed as bad. If such is your focus, you are of course free to focus on that to the exclusion of all else. But I suspect that most people do not share that viewpoint.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. You see "so many" and I worry because I see "so few".

Do you not understand that?

It's ONLY 4000.

ONLY FOUR THOUSAND.

There are FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION CHURCHES IN THE UNITED STATES.

You now have the opportunity to show that is a meaningful, material number of people, given the rules changes have passed the house, and are impending. Is four thousand enough to sway ANYTHING as the process grinds on?

A shark ate my legs and I'm drowning and bleeding to death at the same time, but good news, I saved $300 on my car insurance by switching to Geico.

[guillaumeb]

23. Do you agree with the 4000 on this issue?

And do you feel that they might hold some influence with their followers?

Or, do you ignore the good news, as it undeniably is, and try to turn the focus to other things?

[AtheistCrusader]

24. i think with only 4000, it's a foregone conclusion they have no impact and will be ignored.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

I don't think they're even a minor inconvenience. If like, 100,000 showed up, that might mean something. That might be impressive. That might be good news.

0.3%? That's actually bad news. That means the vast bulk are either uninterested, or actively supporting the gutting of the Johnson Amendment.

[Angry Dragon]

19. What if the opinion is wrong??

[guillaumeb]

22. Any opinion may turn out to be wrong.

But in the case of this article, the actual point that some seem determined to ignore is that many Christians are in fact supportive of the Amendment. Do you find this to be a bad thing?

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Spin. That's why it's annoying. You're spinning. 4k is not 'many'.

man·y
[ˈmenē]

DETERMINER
a large number of:
"many people agreed with her" · [more]
NOUN

the majority of people:
"music for the many"
synonyms: people · common people · masses · multitude · populace · public · [more]

4k isn't even worth talking about. Statistically indistinguishable from ZERO. 0.3%, assuming every church, synagogue, mosque, etc in America has some sort of leadership figure.

0.3 rounds down to ZERO.

[guillaumeb]

28. And what percent of priests are abusers?

Using your same logic,

Extraordinary figures released by the Sex Abuse Royal Commission on Monday show 7 percent of all Catholic priests were alleged perpetrators of child sex abuse, and the average age of victims was pre-teen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/02/05/catholic-church-under-royal-commission-spotlight_a_21707512/

So using your attempt at framing, this 7% is an inconsequential number. Explain that to the abused children.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. You understand the difference between a whole number and a fraction of a whole number right?

7% is statistically significant, and 3% higher than other professions where adults are in direct contact with children, like Teachers.

There's a HUGE difference between 7% and 0.3%. That's almost 1 in 10, versus 1 in 112.

If 7% of faith leaders showed up to advocate for maintaining the spirit of the Johnson Amendment, that would mean some 32,000+ people.

4000 will be safely ignored. You watch.

[Act_of_Reparation]

32. Begone with your devilry, heathen!

If God had wanted us to understand statistics, he would have put them in the Bible.

[Angry Dragon]

26. I believe churhes should keep out of politics

[guillaumeb]

27. And if many church members agree with you,

that is a point of convergence.

[Angry Dragon]

29. okay