On February 26, 2021, seeking to further its liberal cause, Politifact presented a fact check (for which it gets checks) labeling a the Facebook statement as false but which in essence means Politifact labels as false,. while also imputing a perverse contextual reason for it which the source did not express.
The statement at issue was one from a Facebook poster, "‘God has no authority in the House of Representatives,’" which was a summation of what Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. said in response to Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla. (who criticized the Equality Act during the House debate, saying it violates Christian beliefs), "Mr. Steube, what any religious tradition describes as God’s will is no concern of this Congress."
Since the Facebook statement was stating in essence what Nadler expressed, I went to Politifact's page which invites us to suggest an item to fact check, suggesting it check itself:
Politifact lists a summary statement as false but which in essence means what Nadler said, while Funke also argues for a justification for it, one which is a partisan perverse interpretation.
Asserting that “What any religious tradition describes as God’s will is no concern of this Congress,” is short for "God’s will is no concern of this government's legislative body" since "any religious tradition" covers all known express revelation of Divine will (and contextually the source was responding to one) while "Congress" includes the House (where the debate too place) as the other branch of the government's legislative body.
Certainly the Facebook post (and social media posts should be the last place you should expect veracity) technically erred in stating "House" (which is where the debate took place) instead of "Congress" and should not have placed its accurate summation in quotes, yet according to your own criteria for fact checking you are supposed to consider whether there is "another way to read the statement"/whether the statement is "open to interpretation" And it should be easy to see that the Facebook caption is expressing what was said in essence.
Moreover, Funke's assertion that Nadler's statement was a reference to the constitutional separation between church and state can only be presumed, while that would be a interpretation in any case. And a perverse one since the First Amendment certainly did mean that the Founders had absolutely no regard for the will of God from any source (es. the Bible so many often quoted), nor that it prevented general affirmation of religion and appeal to its morality, which will so many Founders appealed to.
Thus we rate this statement as MOSTLY FALSE – The statement contains an element of truth (as regards precise words) but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.
But now that you have labelled this essentially accurate statement as false, your MSM friends can shoot down anyone who charges Nadler with saying what he did indeed express.
And which practice of focusing on one technicality in order to impugn the overall truth of statement is consistent with the liberal bias of PF, in contradiction of its professed "commitment to nonpartisanship and fairness."
Finally, we hope you will not reject the expressed will of God for us according to the Bible, of repentance and faith in the Son sent by the Father to be the Savior of the world, (1 Jn. 4:14), Jesus Christ. Thank you.
Here is a picture of the fact checkers: