Showing posts with label beliefnet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label beliefnet. Show all posts

7/3/10

Oy Vey: Evangelical Christians Buy the Beliefnet Internet Site

We are sad to see this happen. Beliefnet was a progressive and pluralistic enterprise. The Times reports:
On June 25, Mr. Murdoch’s News Corporation sold the pioneering religion Web site to the owners of Affinity4, a company run by evangelical Christians and, according to its Web site, is dedicated to “the sanctity of the family.” It is another owner and another incarnation for Beliefnet, an online magazine that has survived since 1999 by nurturing every aspect of our conflicted spirituality....more...

6/1/09

Talmudic Analysis: Is Bill O'Reilly Responsible for the Terrorist Murder of Dr. George Tiller?

By the simplest Talmudic analysis, yes, TV newsman Bill O'Reilly is responsible for the terrorist murder of Dr. George Tiller.

It's almost a syllogism.
1. Anyone who is engaged in the pursuit of killing someone falls into the Talmudic category - "Rodef" - pursuer - and you can kill that person to save the life of the person being targeted.

2. On the air, Bill O'Reilly identified Dr. George Tiller as, "Tiller the Baby Killer" i. e., as a full-fledged Talmudic Rodef who is engaged in killing babies.

3. Thereby O'Reilly gave his sanction to others to kill Dr. Tiller.
Now to be completely Talmudic, you rightfully may reply to this with what appears at first to be a valid counterargument.

You may say - aha - that the abortionist himself is the Talmudic Rodef because he is engaged in killing babies - and it should therefore be sanctioned to kill him.

The weakness of this argument is however dramatic and clear.

The Talmud does not deem a foetus to be a person. Nor does American law. So a doctor who performs abortions cannot be classified as a Rodef.

[Brad Hirschfield on Beliefnet discusses issues related to these arguments in his post, "Killing Doctors Who Perform Abortions: A Jewish Perspective." Psst. We like it better when a writer doesn't give a "perspective" and rather offers greater clarity on an issue.]

Accordingly our decision of law in Talmudic terms must be that Bill O'Reilly bears responsibility for falsely labeling Dr. Tiller a Rodef and for thereby causing his death.

In a further step of Talmudic analysis, it remains to be determined if O'Reilly, after falsely accusing Tiller of being a Rodef, thus leading to his ultimate murder, himself became a Rodef - a pursuer of Dr. Tiller - attempting to cause his death.

If that were the case, it would have been permissible for someone, say perhaps Keith Olbermann, to act against O'Reilly and kill him first before he caused the death of Dr. Tiller.

We are glad that Olbermann speaks up against the O'Reillys of our world and does not go out and commit violence.

We want to make this clear. In this blog - on Talmudic or on any other religious or logical grounds - we do not sanction acts of vigilante terrorist violence.

1/7/09

Times: Chris Walsch is the Grinch that Stole the Cute Christmas Story (and published it on Beliefnet)

The real author accuses Neale Donald Walsch, author of ‘Conversations With God’ of violating a commandment. He admits that the essay about a kindergarten Christmas pageant he published under his name wasn’t his. What a sordid narrative! The real writer named Candy Chand explained.
Speaking of Mr. Walsch, she asked: “Has the man who writes best-selling books about his ‘Conversations With God’ also heard God’s commandments? ‘Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not lie, and thou shalt not covet another author’s property’?”
Apparently not reports the Times. Walsch plagiarized a story about a cute Christmas miracle and published it on Beliefnet.com and got caught and made really lame excuses. Read all about it.... if you dare.

It makes Walsch look like the jerk who stole a heartwarming Christmas tale... oy vey says this Jew. Not a very Talmudic thing to do Mr. Walsch!

4/13/08

Times Book Review: Finding the Faith of the Founders

What do you get when you start with a smart book by Steven Waldman (founder of Beliefnet) and add a smart reviewer such as Richard Brookhiser? You get a great review!

The problem is that (to paraphrase George W. Bush's comment about the US Constitution) a book is just a pile of paper. We can only learn something from the past if we have some respect from those piles of papers.

Here's the review link: 'Founding Faith'

A Christian America? A secular America? Steven Waldman argues the founders had in mind something else entirely.

12/4/07

Murdock Buys Beliefnet: Mazal Tov

To Becky Philips, charter member of Team Tzvee Bikers, and charter producer of the site, mazal tov on the sale of Beliefnet. You surely earned your rewards whatever they may be.

Owner Steve Waldman announced, "Dear Friends of Beliefnet, As you may have heard, Beliefnet has experienced a major “life event.” We’ve been acquired by Fox Entertainment Group, which is part of News Corp.
This is a thrilling moment for us. As you know, News Corp and Fox own media powerhouses such as Twentieth Century Fox, MySpace, The Wall Street Journal and Fox Network. What you may not know is that they also produce an enormous amount of high quality spirituality content: Zondervan, a Christian book publisher; HarperOne (formerly Harper San Francisco), a leading multifaith spirituality publisher; Harper Collins; Fox Faith, a creator of faith-based films; and the National Geographic Channel, which airs many terrific shows on religious history."

I'm no fan of Fox News so I have my reservations about where things go from here. We hope the new owners will keep their politics and religion separate. But here in the Teaneck Orthodox community that's not one of the American values that has much traction. And if you listen to Fox's Hannity for 5 minutes, you'd have to start an office pool to take bets on how long it will be before the new Beliefnet runs a series on why Hillary is evil according to the eight major religions of the world.

5/6/07

NY Times Lauds Beliefnet and Mazal Tov Becky

The Times extols Beliefnet.com as a tenacious and ultimately successful new media business.

And a big mazal tov to Ms. Becky Phillips - a Team Tzvee founding member and Beliefnet producer - who is getting married today.
May 5, 2007 Talking Business
Keeping Faith in a Venture Built on Faith

“I found the Chapter 11 period exhilarating,” Steven Waldman was saying the other day.

Mr. Waldman, 44, was sitting in his mildly shabby office in Manhattan, smiling from ear to ear. Atop a bookcase next to his desk stood a brand-new Ellie, that oddly shaped trophy that symbolizes a National Magazine Award, which Mr. Waldman’s Web site, beliefnet.com, had won Tuesday night in the General Excellence Online category. This small, independent voice of religion and spirituality, which had been a finalist three times before, had beaten out better-known brands including ESPN, People.com, businessweek.com and Slate.

Beliefnet calls itself a “multi-faith” site, meaning it has sections devoted to every religion, from Buddhism to fundamentalist Christian. It also has areas devoted to health, relationships, inspiration and so on. It produces daily e-mail newsletters and offers a place where like-minded people can create communities.

One of the most powerful such communities, for instance, was begun by a mother whose child died in his early 20s; she wanted to create a place where other parents who had suffered the same awful pain could find support and comfort. Beliefnet is an editorially rich site, with diverse voices, and a nice mix of high-brow thinking and low-brow entertainment. Advertisers have warmed to it.

“It is hard to be both ecumenical and ambitious and aggressive at the same time,” said Newsweek’s editor, Jon Meacham, who has a strong interest in religion and whose magazine once had a business relationship with beliefnet. “Steve has succeeded in that.”

Indeed he has. Mr. Waldman, a former magazine writer and editor, conceived beliefnet in the late 1990s, and has been its guiding light and editor ever since. In March 2002, he also became its chief executive. And in that latter fact lies the story I want to tell this morning. Born during the dot-com boom, beliefnet is a company that by all rights should have died with all the other failed ventures when the bubble burst. That it is still here — and is now thriving — has a lot to do with the fact that Mr. Waldman isn’t just a good editor. He has turned out to be an awfully good businessman as well.

THOUGH I’m not a regular visitor to the site, I’ve been following the beliefnet story for years, largely because the company’s other co-founder, a consultant and a longtime magazine executive named Robert Nylen, is an old friend and colleague of mine. (I’ve also known Mr. Waldman for years, though not nearly as well.) Mr. Waldman had been working at U.S. News & World Report during the brief editorship of James Fallows. He had long had an interest in spirituality and religion and had noticed, both at U.S. News and at Newsweek, where he’d been a writer, that religion covers always did well. (“The old joke was that if you could put the Jesus diet on the cover, you’d have your best newsstand seller,” Mr. Meacham told me.)

When Mr. Fallows was axed in 1998 by U.S. News’s owner, Mort Zuckerman, Mr. Waldman decided it was time to pursue his dream: a magazine about religion, which he planned to call Belief. But as he and Mr. Nylen, who was going to be the magazine’s publisher, made the rounds of venture capitalists, they heard the same refrain: “If you ever decide to turn it into a Web site, give us a call.” Needless to say, they decided to turn it into a Web site.

That decision gave them two things. The first was money; from the fall of 1999 to the spring of 2000, they raised $26 million. And, as Mr. Waldman soon realized, it also gave them more editorial flexibility than they would have had with a magazine. “One of the iron laws of magazines is that you have to have a voice,” Mr. Waldman said. But beliefnet needed many different voices, which was much easier to do online. It could offer interactivity and community. And it could allow people to explore other faiths — or dig deep into their own religion.

What that decision didn’t give them was a business model. It was not obvious back then that advertising was going to be the engine that drove Internet profits. So while beliefnet had ad-supported editorial content, it also had a Web hosting service, an e-commerce division and a number of other businesses. None of them generated much revenue, though the company’s backers didn’t seem to care. “The V.C.s kept saying, ‘There’s a new paradigm,’ ” recalled Elizabeth Sams, beliefnet’s executive editor. The point, everyone believed, was to get big fast, to plant the flag as the dominant site in the category.

You know the next part of the story, right? Boom turns to bust, and all the backers who didn’t care about revenue suddenly care about nothing but revenue. They stop handing over checks. Beliefnet goes through several rounds of painful belt-tightening. First go the free lunches and short-lived masseuse, the only two dot-com perks the company ever had. Then the layoffs begin. By March 2002, the company is bankrupt.

There were those on the company’s board who wanted beliefnet to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy — to liquidate, in other words. “We were a bankrupt dot-com with content, which wasn’t cool, about spirituality, which was thought to be non-monetizeable,” said Mr. Waldman.

But he was determined not to give up on his idea. “It was six months after 9/11. I thought, ‘This is not a time for a multifaith religious Web site to go away.” During a contentious climactic board meeting, he argued that the site had one million unique visitors a month, and some steady advertisers, mainly in the dieting and dating category. The board finally agreed to let him take the company into Chapter 11 instead, where it would be protected from creditors while it reorganized, and would at least have a fighting chance.

Here’s what Mr. Waldman did next. He laid off everybody except a core group of five people, including Ms. Sams, and he offered them the following deal. If they would work for minimum wage, he would give them equity in the company to make up for the huge cut in pay they were taking. (Once the company filed for bankruptcy, of course, the original backers lost all their equity.) They all agreed. As Mr. Waldman notes now: “The people who were left were the ones who really wanted to be there and totally believed in it.” They then sold most of the company’s furniture, and even canceled its contract with its cleaning crew. The beliefnet executives cleaned the bathrooms themselves.

Here’s a surprising truth: if Mr. Waldman had succeeded in his original desire to start a magazine, it would surely have gone bust. The fact that beliefnet was a Web site had a lot to do with why it stayed alive. The “pay for performance” ad model, which largely doesn’t exist offline, meant that it didn’t matter to advertisers that beliefnet was in Chapter 11, or even whether it would stay in business: If they ran an ad and viewers clicked on it, that’s all they cared about. And the site never went dark, not for a day.

There was one venture capitalist, John C. McIlwraith of the Blue Chip Venture Company, who also still believed. Though his firm had lost $5 million on beliefnet during the bubble, he put in another $250,000 at a time when the company desperately needed the money.

By the time Beliefnet emerged from bankruptcy six months later, cash flow was positive and growing. And Mr. Waldman and his small staff had learned an enormous amount about their business. “It was in that period that we realized that vitamin ads did well for us, and we realized that health is a big category for us,” he said. So he began doing more health coverage, and soliciting more health-oriented ads.

Ms. Sams recalls the period after bankruptcy as a time when “we had the luxury of limited choices.” What she means is that with money tight, the company had to focus its efforts on what made the most sense; it could no longer throw business models against the wall to see what would work.

In the subsequent four years, beliefnet’s revenue has grown by at least 50 percent annually. Last year, it had $12.6 million in revenue. Its advertisers include giants like Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Disney. And in 2005, it could finally breathe a little: Softbank made a $6.5 million investment. (Softbank and Blue Chip Venture together own a little more than 40 percent of the company; Mr. Waldman and the employees own the rest.) Mr. Waldman did not use the money to get fancier offices. He used it to upgrade the company’s technology.

Someday, beliefnet will probably be sold to a larger company; as Mr. Waldman concedes, Softbank is going to want to cash in with “a liquidity event.” He told me he was fine with that, and why wouldn’t he be? If beliefnet were sold tomorrow, my guess is that it would get somewhere in the range of $100 million.

At which point, Mr. Waldman will probably give up the title of chief executive and go back to being a full-time editor. Which is a shame, in a way. Mr. Nylen, who remains on the beliefnet board, said one thing that most impressed him about Mr. Waldman was his calm nerve. “He’s a skinny, frail-looking intellectual who turns out have a steel heart and gut. He’s the best entrepreneur I know.”

Ms. Sams described him as “a very understated leader; he’s not a rah-rah cheerleader.” But, she added, his passion is palpable, and in both good times and bad, he never lost sight of his mission.

As I was preparing to leave his office, Mr. Waldman took me down a flight of stairs and into a conference room, where he showed me some hideous orange chairs. “We had these chairs in the old days,” he said with a wry smile. “They’re so ugly that when we were selling the furniture nobody would buy them. We kept them and they became an emblem. They remind us to remain humble.”

Everyone should have a boss like that.

11/19/06

Kuo Confused: Fasting Means Giving up Food - not Politics

Former Bush appointee David Kuo says Christians should forego politics for a while - a period of fasting. Why? Because Bush has lied to the Christians and made them look like fools.

David, you are confused. Fasting is a religious act wherein one gives up the life supporting sustenance of FOOD in order to atone for sins or to purify one's soul.

Abstaining from involvement in right-wing conservative politics has nothing to do with "fasting". You seem to be trying to make it seem like your decision to resign from the White House has some religious significance. Well, it does not. You had a job. Now you do not. It has nothing at all to do with the religious ritual of giving up FOOD for a period of purification.

Your confusion is profound. Political jobs are not religious jobs. Politicians are essentially immoral and never tell the truth. Religious leaders are supposed to be truthful and moral exemplars.

How could you not see the difference? Quitting or being fired from a political job at the White House is not a religious event. Your distortion of both religion and politics does no good for anyone. And your misuse of fasting for a metaphor to explain your job change does no good for anyone.

Here is the conclusion of what David Kuo said on the Times Op-Ed page last week:

Beliefnet.com’s post-election online survey of more than 2,000 people revealed that nearly 40 percent of evangelicals support the idea of a two-year Christian “fast” from intense political activism. Instead of directing their energies toward campaigns, evangelicals would spend their time helping the poor.

Why might such an idea get traction among evangelicals? For practical reasons as well as spiritual ones. Evangelicals are beginning to see the effect of their political involvement on those with whom they hope to share Jesus’ eternal message: non-evangelicals. Tellingly, Beliefnet’s poll showed that nearly 60 percent of non-evangelicals have a more negative view of Jesus because of Christian political involvement; almost 40 percent believe that George W. Bush’s faith has had a negative impact on his presidency.

There is also the matter of the record, which I saw being shaped during my time in the White House. Conservative Christians (like me) were promised that having an evangelical like Mr. Bush in office was a dream come true. Well, it wasn’t. Not by a long shot. The administration accomplished little that evangelicals really cared about.

Nowhere was this clearer than on the issue of abortion. Despite strong Republican majorities, and his own pro-life stands, Mr. Bush settled for the largely symbolic partial-birth abortion restriction rather than pursuing more substantial change. Then there were the forgotten commitments to give faith-based charities the resources they needed to care for the poor. Evangelicals are not likely to fall for such promises in the future.

Don’t expect conservative Christians in politics to start to disappear, of course. There are those who find the moral force of issues like abortion and gay marriage equal to that of the abolition of slavery — worth pursuing no matter what the risks of politics are for the soul. But the advocates working these special interests may, I think, be far fewer in coming years than in years past. Gay marriage was a less mobilizing force in 2006 than it was in 2004. In Arizona the ballot measure to outlaw it was defeated. The South Dakota abortion ban failed.

We will have to wait until 2008 to see just how deep this evangelical spiritual re-examination goes, and how seductive politics will continue to be to committed Christians. Meanwhile, evangelicals aren’t flocking to the Democratic Party. If anything, they are becoming more truly conservative in their recognition of the negative spiritual consequences of political obsession and of the limitations of government power.

C. S. Lewis once warned that any Christian who uses his faith as a means to a political end would corrupt both his faith and the faith writ large. A lot of Christians are reading C. S. Lewis these days.

8/23/06

Becky Phillips: There Are Too Atheists in Foxholes

Anonymous writes to us about our Team Tzvee charter member, Becky Phillips, "Becky has a short article in Newsweek's Periscope section. The article also appears on beliefnet."

There are no atheists in foxholes," the old saw goes. The line, attributed to a WWII chaplain, has since been uttered countless times by grunts, chaplains and news anchors. But an increasingly vocal group of activists and soldiers—atheist soldiers—disagrees. "It's a denial of our contributions," says Master Sgt. Kathleen Johnson, who founded the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers and who will be deployed to Iraq this fall. "A lot of people manage to serve without having to call on a higher power."

Steven Colbert makes the matter funny -- suggesting that we stuff our foxholes with Atheists... and more.