Importance of accurate direct quotes even when accurately expressing what was said: Fact checking Politifact.com: Jerry Nadler didn’t say ‘God has no authority in the House of Representatives’ (Daniel Funke)

On February 26, 2021, seeking to further its liberal cause, Politifact presented a fact check labeling the Facebook statement as false, and indeed, even though what was expressed by the quote is accurate, as a direct quote it is not.

The statement at issue was one from a image (https://static.politifact.com/politifact/photos/Screen_Shot_2021-02-26_at_12_29_39.jpg) from a Facebook poster, with the statement "God has no authority in the House of Representatives,’" over Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., which was an accurate summation - but not accurate as a quote - of what he expressed 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."

As a summary statement this indeed means what Nadler said, yet Funke simply asserts Nadler didn’t say that. What should be provided is 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) yet again, while it should be easy to see that the Facebook caption is expressing what was said in essence, placing it in quotes means it should be just what he said. As regards the veracity of what the FB post expressess, since according to Politifact's own criteria for fact checking they are supposed to consider whether there is "another way to read the statement"/whether the statement is "open to interpretation," they could have better clarified that it's False attribution refered to the FB postas direct quote, not what it expressed.

Moreover, Meanwhile Funke's asserts that Nadler's statement was a reference to the constitutional separation between church and state, which would be a perverse interpretation of the First Amendment, since it certainly did not 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 evidenced.

Thus while the FB image is a technically false quote, the statement expresses what was said, and which Politifact fails to confirm. And which practice of focusing on one technicality in order to impugn the overall truth of a statement is consistent with the liberal bias of PF, in contradiction of its professed "commitment to nonpartisanship and fairness."

Finally, I hope Funke 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 link to a picture of the Politifact fact checkers;

https://static.politifact.com/CACHE/images/politifact/photos/PolitFact_group_photo_-_Feb_2020_-_resized/fab8deeae7522a2abccd6c74580e1224.jpg