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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(Here’s to no one murdering me for this!)

This has been my concern with First Things for a good long while.