politics

18651 readers

3621 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

273

The California Megachurch Pushing Public Schools to the Far Right (www.thedailybeast.com)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 19 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Ummm.. I do appreciate the article but the title is so weird (it's the actual article title not OP fault really). Below is literally the only mention of a megachurch is this, and it doesn't even name the church or the pastor. It's super strange they made that the focus and not anything in the rest of the article which frankly is all pretty headline worthy for southern California.

Sonja Shaw, who was elected to the Chino Valley Unified School District board of education last November with an assist from a local megachurch and its Christian nationalist pastor

I'd really like to find out who the church and pastor are so I can have the context and be able to look them up further. Maybe someone else knows but my googling didn't turn up much. It might be Calvary Chapel Chino Hills evangelical megachurch, as they were mentioned in another article here**

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago

Yes that is the church

[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago

Anyone more first hand familiar with the politics of Chino Valley? At a glance, it's a solidly blue district and not where I'd expect this sort of culture war grand standing. Feels like an artifact of the weird nature of school boards where usually sleepy off year elections sometimes explode and elect crazies who have a small dedicated groups of voters.

Mrs. Shaw received 51.58 percent of the votes (5,190) and Mrs. Gagnier received 48.42 percent (4,873).

Not to be not alarmed, but seems more like an aberration. There's a good reason why school board candidates tend to run on this:

Mrs. Shaw, who campaigned on parental rights, said her goals include getting the school district back to the basics with reading, writing, and math, teaching age-appropriate curriculum, and ensuring transparency with parents.

And not culture war nonsense. I feel like Cruz and Na have likely avoided too much attention, but tying themselves to a kook who is turning school board meetings into a circus with national attention is a bad strategy going into an on-cycle election in a blue district. Unless they don't want their seats, then maybe it's a great strategy.