I know. I just don't see how it's workable. Atheism is an absence of belief in a deity. It's how it interacts with other aspects of life that matters. So Christian nationalism -which is political, mostly- interacts with atheism, and affects atheists.

I totally get wanting to separate pure politics as a separate topic. But it's not clear to me how it is workable given that a) there are interactions, and b) conversations evolve to encompass additional aspects and topics.

So it is clear that posting about the convict not supporting Ukraine isn't appropriate here (at least not as an opening post). It's not so clear to me when we are talking about religious oppression -such as Christian nationalism- that often strays** into politics, since that is generally the mechanism for such oppression. In many countries, it isn't an issue. Denmark, Sweden, etc...it just isn't an issue. Other nations, including ours, it is very much intermingled. US policy in particular is often shaped by positions/doctrines on religion. I don't think it's possible to draw a bright line between US policy and religion. It's very fuzzy, and some judgment needs to be exercised by the poster. I know I exercise that judgment, even pausing for several moments to figure out where to post a particular subject or article, because the line is fuzzy. I think the OP's second post was in the fuzzy line, but not really over it. Unless you think the entire thread should be on US Policy because it could (and almost certainly would) evolve to include politics at some point. JMHO.


**Strays? Dare I say, inevitably leads to?