Friday, November 12, 2010

blogs today

Bloggers have raised eyebrows at this article, a dreadful piece of hackery on the Guardian's Comment is Free, which takes exception to Iain Duncan Smith's use of the phrase "that's a sin". Our author draws two earth-shattering conclusions from this: one, that he is a Christian, and two, that his faith affects his politics.
Cranmer is predictably acerbic and defends the political implications of original sin.
The Church Mouse dismantles the journo's argument with forensic anger.


Meanwhile, Suem, among others, is interested to hear that Rowan Williams has apparently decided to suspend the Primates Conference, the zoologically-named gathering of the world's most senior Anglican Archbishops. Apart from revealing that Suem reads the Church of England Newspaper, the most surprising thing about this is that the Conference is one of the so-called "instruments of communion" that are supposed to hold the global Anglican church together. What this says about the proposed Anglican Covenant is anybody's guess.

2 comments:

Pam said...

How is Madeleine Bunting's careful deconstruction Duncan Smith's use of the word 'sin' hackery?

"What is sinful? The fact that foreigners have taken most of the jobs? Or the fact that 4.5 million are not taking the jobs? Or is it the benefit recipients themselves? It wasn't clear."

And what is wrong with pointing out that Duncan Smith is presenting his case as a secular rationalist one, then slipping in the word 'sin' at the end? Either he is using it thoughtlessly - and as a Christian he should know better than to accuse his fellow human beings of sin thoughtlessly - or he has thought it through, in which case he should let us in on his thinking.

I can't see how this constitutes a case for accusing Madeleine Bunting of anti-Christian bias. I certainly don't see any critique that fails to address Ian Duncan Smith's hijacking of the language of religion to propagate his political ideology - as the Church Mouse blog does - as 'forensic!'

Charlie said...

Pam, I think we have a case of "agree to differ" here. The piece didn't seem at all careful to me. It seems to me that a lot of journalism is done by numbers, according to a formula determined by the organ that the journo works for. In this case, the formula is ("Tory politician" + "religious language")/"hint of conspiracy" = 500 words, sorted.
I should say that AH has no party political alleigances, my comment is really that no-one should draw lazy conclusions about things like this. A trade unionist should also be allowed to describe government cuts as "diabolical" without being accused of running a religious conspiracy.