I have tried to contact HQ regarding this fora. Cant access

Are you saying religion is not political?

I am saying what I said. No more and no less. Why do you (and some others) so often take out of a post what you would like the poster to have said instead of what the words say? Is it so that you can then use the corrupted version to further your own rhetoric? Or is it a version of that interview answer, "I am glad you asked me that . . . " which goes on to make some other point entirely which has no connection with the question.

Substitute religion for politics, and how many would post if they knew they would get a hellfire sermon in return?

The whole point is that religion (not faith) is politics. Like Jen I am not sure what you're are saying here (and that is said quietly and politely). Feudalism, for instance was able to continue because of the ideology of the then view of religion. As soon as you start saying you are right and nothing other than your views can be - both followers of Brexit and Christianity have done this - you have an ideology and you have politics.

You brought it up Elegran. Did you think no one else might see it differently?

Why do you (and some others) so often take out of a post what you would like the poster to have said instead of what the words say?
That has often puzzled me too Elegran, why posts are often misconstrued.

Perhaps separating News and Politics would mean that it would not happen so often, as posters could chat about something in the news without political views being introduced.

Not misconstrued Jalima just not agreed with. I am really beginning to see a much louder voice from those who cannot deal with that.

Sorry, Elegran, there were not that many more words. I just wanted you to clarify what you meant.

Are you suggesting that religion is not political?
Is that better.

I think you twisted what I asked.

As two people seem to be puzzled by my post (Jalima, did you understand it?) I shall expand it a bit.

On the topic "Religion" (or even "News and Religion" if you want a direct analogy to this topic) how many would post if they knew they would get a hellfire sermon in return for a mild observation? There would be posts from ardent believers and even more ardent sceptics, but the middle-of-the-road majority would leave them to it.

Not misconstrued Jalima just not agreed with.
but wouldn't someone then say 'sorry, but I don't agree with what you posted'? I think 'this'.
which is fair enough, absolutely, I agree.
However, turning around someone's post to mean something different to what they actually said is quite different.

... and? I am still not sure what conclusion you are drawing from that other than that you see politics and religion as very different. What is the equivalent "hellfire" sermon you are presumably thinking happens on politics and news threads?

Equally, I certainly feel I definitely been sermonised about religion on GN. Usually by those who believe only they are right - something they often have in common with their political views.

Staying with religion for a moment, there are many who see the good face of religion and its bad face, and who can see that many of those who have gone overboard either for or against it see only the face they choose. Evangelists for either side push hard to get conversions, and assume that the "uncommitted" are either irrevocably ranged against them (so are "the enemy" to be fought) or are ignorant heathen barbarians who will be won over if they repeat their slogans at them often enough.

As the evangelists are unlikely to change their allegiance, it would be a waste of effort for the middle-of-the-road to argue with either, and their ears get bruised from the sermons or rants of believers sceptics - so they stay away in droves.

In case the analogy is unclear, that happens on the political threads too. The enthusiasts can say that it shouldn't, but that is the reality.

I don't agree that it has been 'turned round' Jelima but perhaps you can explain why you think it has been. I am happy to be corrected.

I just didn't share the view it seem to offer.

Yes, I understood Elegran's post (I hope) but I don't really understand your response to it djen, sorry, as it didn't seem (to me at least) at all what Elegran was saying.

But if you needed to ask the question in order to clarify it in your mind, then that's fair enough.

Not particularly in this instance Gracesgran, but on some threads.

GG2 You don't recognise the hellfire political sermon? I think the non-recognition could be part of what so many people comment on about the political posts.

Are you a mind reader, jalima? You seem to know what elegran meant when she was talking about it being on a religious thread instead of a political thread.
I didn't.
I was asking for clarification, that's all.
7 words, just a simple question, and I got a sermon.
How can you not understand a simple question?

Jesus was certainly very political.

Are you a mind reader, jalima? You seem to know what elegran meant
I didn't read her mind, I just read her post

Jesus was certainly very political.
He certainly was!

Well I understand what Elegran is saying.

That is a statement not an opinion by the way.

Me too.

And me.

So how about giving us your interpretation, Chewbacca, MissAdventure and Pogs. We are not playing Spartacus on here surely? Sometimes explaining in a different way makes things clearer (or not) but just telling us you get it is about the least helpful you could be.

I think I have made it as clear as I can at 11:43:28. Over and out.

I got what you were saying Elegran. Crystal clear.

Crystal clear to me too. I think some people are "doing a Cathy Newman"

Perhaps not everyone gets metaphors and analogies. I wonder whether Jesus had trouble with people not being good at transferring the meanings of his parables to other situations?

Maybe that is a question for a religious thread