Here’s the explanation I received from Forbes regarding the post they removed.
****
We took down your evangelical piece. It was way out of bounds — painting the entire evangelical movement with a broad brush.
We also have a policy of not talking about social issues like abortion at Forbes Opinion — only economic policy and politics. We try to keep things data driven.
Also, given your criticisms of Robert Jeffress, you should have reached out to him for comment. As I noted in a recent email, it is extremely important to reach out for comment from anyone you personally criticize in your work.
Let me know if you have any questions about these points.
***
The content is reposted here.
A Google cache of the original Forbes post is available here (thanks, David).
The entire premise in Forbe’s response is the claim the article was “way out of bounds” and that Forbes has “a policy of not talking about social issues like abortion,” only “Opinion – only economic policy and politics.” I’m calling BS on that premise, specifically the glowing contradiction of not talking about social issues, only politics. The entire contemporary conservative movement and Republican Party are built on top of the deal made in the 90s with the Religious Right that politicized abortion and homosexuality for votes.
Now that they have created the reincarnation of Sodom in Gomorrah within that political-religious union complete with its normative values, I hope they don’t expect the rest of us can’t see through that slimy veil. Shame on Forbes for even thinking they could get away with such a deception.
“We also have a policy of not talking about social issues like abortion at Forbes Opinion”
I take it they’re not regular readers of your columns…
Jesus did reference abortion surely.
“See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.”
And the Didache, written by the Apostles, commands the church not to permit abortion, and to reach out to those seeking one to acquire the child.
You’re quoting Matthew 18:10, which is preceded by Jesus putting a child on his lap. Jesus was talking about children, not fetuses, and not once did he discuss “the unborn”.
The Bible speaks of abortion and sterilization for women unfaithful to their husbands in Numbers, so breeding like an animal is clearly not required. “And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.” — Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28 – You’ll notice there’s no condemnation but a REWARD for Lot’s Daughters doping and raping their own father. “Their sons were made Kings!” I guess he-with-the-most-money was able to insert his personal perversion when the Big Book was written. Weird how so many “righteous” are okay with INCEST, yet obsess over abortion.
Chris, has Forbes told you are done completely with them, or is this a one time censorship? Perhaps more importantly, do you even want to post on Forbes again?
Who needs state censorship when we have editors like this!
OT breaking news-WaPo sez that Tillerson is out, to be replaced by Pompeo. I’m only surprised he lasted this long in the job.
Actually I was kind of astounded that Forbes ever signed you on. I’m glad you lasted this long there.
Gee, I wonder why you didn’t reach out to Jeffress for comment on how Jesus said he’s going to burn in Hell. It seems like his response would have really added a lot.
/s
There is a long tradition of censoring religious voices who don’t support conservative distortions of religious teachings, going back to the creation of the anti-abortionist movement in the 70’s (which is not supported by the Bible). You got caught up in it.
You got yanked because you were overshadowing Gerson and the Reagan-Bush folks at The Atlantic he represents. Evangelical influencers and the public are being pressed to sacrifice a few old scapegoats to cleanse the flock and elevate a new group of passably fake “moderates.” That is the real meat of Gerson’s piece: who must go, and who must replace them. Your piece here falls hard on the old regional and racial divisions. Systemic and deep-cutting critique is always a huge threat to the religious right, but this is an especially sensitive time. Graham died. Noll’s postponed retirement conference is happening. Watch what happens at Notre Dame March 22–24 and in its wake.
Gerson’s on WaPo too. Here’s one of his explanations:
“His bullying — his cruelty, crudity and personal insults — is admired because it is directed at other bullies.”
I took some issue with that. Look at who’s been getting the worst of Trump’s cruelty: people like refugees, Dreamers, American Muslims, Gold Star families who are not White. Who are they bullying?
I love the commenters here!
The liberal media strikes again.
Forbes is the exact opposite of liberal media.
That doesn’t even make sense. It’s a lot of ammo for the liberal cause.
Our sarcasm detectors have definitely taken a beating, but I’ll wager good $ that was tongue in check.
Your could also point out that
Of course Forbes publishes opinion pieces expressing a point of view on abortion, when the opinion is from an anti-abortion perspective:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2017/07/23/the-government-shouldnt-force-pro-life-doctors-to-promote-abortion-and-a-federal-judge-agrees/2/#73c3fb474870
https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2017/09/25/will-courts-defend-free-speech-or-forced-speech-to-promote-a-political-agenda/#3566530e56c5
And since when are “social issues” like racism, natalism, sexism, not political topics, which apparently is within their editorial limits?
Well Chris – I suppose you should have “reached out” to Billy Graham as well.
I’m very disappointed in Forbes. I can’t imagine how you must feel. Sheesh.
I wrote a letter to readers@forbes.com —
To the editors:
This email is in reference to the story formerly found at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2018/03/11/why-white-evangelicalism-is-so-cruel
The reason you have the author for yanking the story is this:
“We took down your evangelical piece. It was way out of bounds — painting the entire evangelical movement with a broad brush.
We also have a policy of not talking about social issues like abortion at Forbes Opinion — only economic policy and politics. We try to keep things data driven.
Also, given your criticisms of Robert Jeffress, you should have reached out to him for comment. As I noted in a recent email, it is extremely important to reach out for comment from anyone you personally criticize in your work.”
Point-by-point, this is a ludicrous stance.
1 – We cannot discuss movements without generalizations, nor can we have thought-provoking debate with discussing movements.
2 – We cannot discuss social movements that impact politics and the economy without discussing social issues. These things are inexorably intertwined. Moreover, your claim that this is a policy issue is proven false with a simple Google search of your site — 2140 results for “abortion” from forbes.com.
3 – The author isn’t criticizing Jeffress, he’s quoting him. And I can find dozens of articles of Forbes where someone quotes someone else and characterizes their behaviour without getting their opinion on the topic. Try doing a search on your site for “Donald Trump,” for example.
Honestly, I’ve come to expect better from Forbes than this obvious and cowardly terror of alienating the social conservatives. Show some backbone.
Hip Hip Hooray!
Well said!
Well said, Ben, very well said. Thank you.
What a bunch of cowards.
The question I would have is “If this statement is to be taken at face value, how did this piece get published in the first place?” It amounts to a confession of complete editorial dereliction of duty.
Someone of influence probably saw the article and objected to it. The piece is good work and that was why it was published.
Oh, I agree — I just mean that even as an excuse, it’s damning.
One wonders is the enlightened editor that approved the piece is still in the employ of Forbes….
I agree completely with what Stephen said here: this piece was not removed by the person who sent you that message, it was requested to be removed by someone else higher up who notified the author of that message to have the piece removed and provide you with some excuse for doing so. That this editor is still employed by Forbes is very functional: they need an editor who will take such instruction and carry it out with at least some sense of conviction (although honestly, excuses like “way out of line” are so absurd that they almost suggest the editor wanted his/ her own reasons to sound absurd so that you would understand they were insincere and were motivated by someone else who gave the commands, though that is a bit meta-analytical).
Someone else is pulling the strings here, and not this editor. And THAT is disturbing…. Absolutely.
Mark Twain was also censored. The truth will always make people who profited off of status quo uneasy. Your piece was brilliant and revelent. I have been following your blog for awhile. Thanks for educating me.
That’s B.S.
Opinion is opinion. Your analysis was political and salient, and it really chaps me that Forbes is caving to whomever they’re afraid of. It’s spineless at a time when we need strong journalism and op-ed.
Great piece.
I’d cancel my paid membership to Forbes, but I don’t have one….
I follow their Apothecary Series on healthcare. I was blacklisted from commenting on the blogs posted there. I’m in good company, it appears!
“Also, given your criticisms of Robert Jeffress, you should have reached out to him for comment.”
I wonder if he’d actually have to guts to have an honest discussion of his “interpretations” of Scripture.
I’m one of the “Nones”. It’s been a long time since I’ve been to a Church service, and I don’t claim to be a Bible scholar, but I’m not unfamiliar with the Scriptures either. These people who preach prosperity gospel and make excuses for Trump’s unrepentant sinning are hypocrites, and hypocrites are the one group of people who get the most criticism from Jesus.
Here’s what bugged me about that statement – Go back into the piece and find the criticism. I just quoted him. Simply repeating these people’s statements is an incendiary act.
Trump toadies get indignant constantly when you dare to quote what their dear leader actually said. A pity Forbes isn’t being better than that.
Chris Ladd — Thank you for a very powerful and insightful article. I shared it on my Facebook page and the discussion with comments from diverse people, has been great! I updated my post to provide the new link to your article.
Don’t know what happened to my post, but will say it again: Censorship by religious power groups at its finest.
Chris would be burned at the stake hundreds of years ago, or just shot scant decades ago in the south.
Flash forward to today where they simply trash your reputation….(Or think they have!)
I love the research some of you have done into Forbes principled history on the very issues they cite as “verbotten”. They must have a new editor.