It seems like pushing an ideology that actively mirrors a political candidate’s platform - especially if the ideology is shown to change as a party’s platform has changed - should qualify the preaching as political endorsement even without the candidate named.
Of course the US is primarily Christofascist so that’s not how things go, but as a test of applicability it seems common sense to me.
It seems like pushing an ideology that actively mirrors a political candidate’s platform - especially if the ideology is shown to change as a party’s platform has changed - should qualify the preaching as political endorsement even without the candidate named.
Of course the US is primarily Christofascist so that’s not how things go, but as a test of applicability it seems common sense to me.