[akira2501]

> The Moonies have woven themselves into the American right wing

Our First Amendment specifically allows for freedom of association and religion. This used to be seen as an attribute, now it apparently has become cause for open prejudice.

> The Epoch Times is Falun Gong's "media outlet" and it sponsors and shapes a lot of content online. It's all bankrolled by Shen Yun performances too.

This is an intentionally misleading representation of the organization and it's structure, which combined with the above, seems designed to besmirch the papers reputation and reporting without actually addressing either in any meaningful way.

If the sword cuts both ways then your assessment is suggestively identical to the CCP position on the organization and on the religious views of it's founders.

[Aloha]

How is it intentionally misleading?

It's a newspaper given away for free in paper form, frequently.

I don't believe the Epoch Times to be a credible news source, in the same way that RT is not one. That doesn't mean its not a news source worth looking at on occasion.

I'm also skeptical of Falun Gong, first as a generally non-religious person, and then because they dont seem to like LGBTQ people very much - and I'm very much a member of that community.

I feel everyone ought to have a right to practice their religion in peace, however when the practicing of your religion potentially impacts the secular word, I get concerned - I generally believe in a strong separation of church and state, and anyone who starts to encroach on that, puts my hackles up.

[hutzlibu]

"however when the practicing of your religion potentially impacts the secular word, I get concerned - I generally believe in a strong separation of church and state, and anyone who starts to encroach on that, puts my hackles up."

But you cannot really separate personal believe from political stance. So religious believe will always influence the secular world. Meaning religious people will vote and lobby for people and organisations sharing their point of view.

[kergonath]

> But you cannot really separate personal believe from political stance. So religious believe will always influence the secular world. Meaning religious people will vote and lobby for people and organisations sharing their point of view.

Sure. It’s not exactly what’s discussed here, though. We’re talking about Reagan and Bush (and Abe and others) coldly using propaganda machines backed by extremist cults for influence campaigns. It’s far beyond the same pushing the agenda for which they were explicitly elected, which happens to be backwards on a lot of levels but is at least genuine and open.

These organisations also cause concerns of foreign interference, considering their links with political parties and powerful politicians abroad.

There have been similar issues in Europe with extremist parties bankrolled by Russia to destabilise local political systems, which does not have any religious aspect. The problem is not the religion, it’s the structures, their objectives, and how they work and corrupt.

[throwaway128128]

The First Amendment says that religion and government should remain separate. I have the right to freely observe that some religions are aggressively testing that boundary more than others.

But, "intentionally misleading"? Can you please explain the ways I've mislead people? Here are some essays which go into the claims in more detail.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/stepping-into... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/24/technology/epoch-times-in...

As for The Epoch Times' reputation, its slant is immediately obvious upon reading the paper or seeing YouTube ads for it.

[rufus_foreman]

>> The First Amendment says that religion and government should remain separate

That's not what it says.

The US can't officially be Catholic. Nor can it officially be Protestant. That's what the first amendment says.

[hutzlibu]

Well, I am not a american, but as far as I understand it, it does say it.

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws that: regulate an establishment of religion; prohibit the free exercise of religion;"

Any incorporation of religious organisations into the state fabric, would be an "establishment of religion". So of course open religious people can be part of the government. But the government may have no favourite religion it subsidizes, teaches in schools etc. or prefers in any way.

[LegionMammal978]

In practice, the Supreme Court has intepreted the First Amendment as implying full separation of church and state; for instance, school prayer is forbidden [0], even if it's voluntary and non-denominational.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_prayer_in_the_United_...