In case you haven’t yet heard, Annuntio vobis aenigma magna: the Huffington Post has inaugurated a religion section!
Should it choose to take the Washington Post’s “On Faith” as a model, the project would make about as much sense as pre-Yeltsin Pravda launching a section devoted to capitalism.
The increasingly visible Thomas Peters has registered fierce umbrage at Sr. Joan Chittister being the most “orthodox” contributor on the HuffPo roster. In fairness, my initial scan found others who don’t seem compelled to flagellate religion as a matter of principle. They would include James Martin, SJ, who First Things’ readers will recognize as a favorite of The Anchoress. Unfortunately, these examples hardly lift the scale toward something resembling balance.
The biggest ad on the page I first viewed looked very much like a headline, calling attention to “Religion’s 7 Biggest Lies.” It was impressively high-tech—with a loop of changing images, all of them Christian. Needless to say, it wasn’t generated by Ignatius Press.
The first article I randomly clicked on opened to a column forced to compete with a pop-up featuring a curvy young woman. In a continuous slide-show, the model, with shirt (the product) completely unbuttoned, squeezes her “assets” to varying degrees of amplitude, all on behalf of American Apparel, the Victoria’s Secret for the Polanski set.
In a kind of mission statement, Ms. Huffington declares, “HuffPost Religion will bring you the latest news—in this case about all things religion-related—served up in the HuffPost style. . . . beyond the tired assumption that God is a card-carrying member of one political party or another.”
I too believe God exists beatifically card-free. What I wonder is, just how many thoughtful mortals who do carry cards or views which diverge from something at least akin to the Democrat line, will get fair shake on the site. These introductory impressions don’t inspire much confidence they will.
In any event, the role of yeast is to leaven, not bicker with, the batter. Besides, a case could be made that even a negative engagement of religious faith is better than sheer indifference to it. And, with our current president invoking the deity so often he makes his predecessor look like Barry Lynn by comparison, such indifference seems obliged to defer. In the vigilant meantime, I don’t see the harm in sincerely wishing HuffPost Religion, Godspeed.
March 5th, 2010 | 9:29 am
“I too believe God exists beatifically card-free. What I wonder is, just how many thoughtful mortals who do carry cards or views which diverge from something at least akin to the [Republican] line, will get fair shake on the site. These introductory impressions don’t inspire much confidence they will.”
This has been my concern with First Things for a good long while.
March 5th, 2010 | 10:24 am
My view of “Huffpo” is akin to that of Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos in regard to Muhammad.
(Here’s to no one murdering me for this!)
March 5th, 2010 | 10:32 am
Charlie, look at the Democratic platform and compare it to the Republican platform. The Democrats pride themselves on being the party of death (abortion, euthanasia) and the destruction of the traditional family (homosexual marriage). Republicans are far from perfect, but at least they do not affirmatively identify themselves with death and the destruction of the family. I am astonished that you wonder why FT’s Biblically informed editorial policies, without being overtly partisan, nevertheless naturally align themselves with the latter rather than the former. I mean, Duh!
March 5th, 2010 | 10:35 am
And by the way Mr. Charles Collier, the fact that your comment hasn’t been deleted is a testament to two things.
1) First Things has an infinitely better mission plan and operating ethos than “Huffpo” (hows that for relativism?) There’s far more intellect everywhere on this website and far far less internet violence.
2)First Things actually does live up to a constant and coherent mission plan and operating ethos as opposed to “Huffpo” where content is dictated by political expedience with a leftist flavor. FT publishes content that could validly be cited in support of a “neocon”, “theocon”, “leftist”, “liberal” or any other ideology in between or outside of those but does not explicitly or (in my opinion) spiritually back any of them as Huffpo constantly does with leftist ideologies and public figures.
March 5th, 2010 | 11:52 am
Took a look. The section appears to be a “What We Think Religion Should Be” section. I discovered, for example, that Jesus never said, “Forgive and forget,” but then I already knew that. He spoke in parables not cliches. But I learned that he taught that we need to “rebuke” before we forgive. I always thought the “rebuke” part came naturally, but what do I know. Then I discovered that the article was about sexually abused women. I guess the section is still in development and they are having trouble getting decent articles so they cross pollinate from other sections.
And not to worry, Jacob. The reference is too obscure as the media made clear when they but the Emperor’s words in the Pope’s mouth.
March 5th, 2010 | 2:52 pm
Mr. Arrington,
How effortlessly you demonstrate my concern! Since “Duh!” is evidently your idea of giving alternative views a “fair shake,” I shudder to think of your idea of a raw deal. Abortion and euthanasia are serious issues, to be sure, but so are a whole host of other issues, like unjust wars, torture, catering to the rich, scapegoating the undocumented, Islamophobia, irrational fearmongering against Obama, and so forth. That there is some sort of “natural alignment” between biblical conviction and Republican politics is a view I can understand and respect. But I also understand, respect, and tend to agree more with the view that Republicans are at least as inclined to support intrinsically evil acts when it suits them.
Jacob,
I take First Things a good deal more seriously than HuffPo, precisely because First Things strives to be seriously Christian. However, if you think First Things has no identifiable political slant, you haven’t been reading it long enough. And am I really supposed to be impressed because I wasn’t immediately censored by the First Things Web editors? Let’s set the bar a little higher, please.
March 5th, 2010 | 6:38 pm
Nice to see that the sum opinion here is that evil is bipartisan. That’s obviously true.
All the more reason to starve the beast that rules from Washington and empower the rascals closer to home — in our states and communities.
Those who decry American empire abroad, alas, seem ludicrously enthusiastic about empire at home.
March 8th, 2010 | 12:59 am
Tim,
As Mike Melendez says, “Religion’s 7 Biggest Lies” is actually a PRO-Christian advertisement. It seems to be an evangelical product. I imagine the aim is to draw in atheists and hit them with some good solid doctrine before they realize they’ve been fooled. The intention would seem to be good, but it does strike me as a bit of a bait-and-switch.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact