Funniest Bad Fox News Interview Ever [W:353]

[lolabird]

"Jesus, given the fact that you are the first Christian, why were you so openly critical of the Pharisees, who were Jewish?"

Jesus was not the first Christian.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Jesus was not the first Christian.

I think, by definition, he was. He may have been raised Jewish, but his behavior was based on his teachings of Christianity.

 

[lolabird]

I think, by definition, he was. He may have been raised Jewish, but his behavior was based on his teachings of Christianity.

I disagree according to the teachings of the Bible.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

What's your definition?

Christian - follower of Christ. Did Jesus not follow his own teachings?

 

[Hatuey]

If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad decided to write a book about gays, would you want an interviewer to ask him why?

Wait, you're comparing Aslan to Amedinejad?

Here I'll make it simple for you:

Reza Aslan:

Studies religions in an academic capacity: Yes.
Studies historical figures: Yes.
Studies religious historical figures: Yes.
Has dedicated his life to doing this for a living: Yes.
Gets paid to lecture and write books on the subjects he studies: Yes.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

Studies homosexuality in an academic capacity: No.
Studies figures important to homosexuality: No.
Studies historical figures: No.
Has dedicated his life to studying homosexuality for a living: No.
Gets paid to write and lecture on the subjects he studies: No.

How could you possibly figure that's a reasonable comparison? They're not even close. Unless of course being Muslim is enough to mean you can't write on something. Back to your ridiculous comparison: The fact that pretty every answer on Aslan's question is "Yes", pretty much justifies him writing a book on a religious figure regardless of what religion that other person is from.

Do you know why Salman Rushdie wrote The Satanic Verses, which caused him to have to go into hiding because of death threats. People were killed during demonstrations and over 100 were injured? Would you want an interviewer to ask the question?
I'm not a fan of Fox News, but I am very inquisitive and like to hear all sides.

No. I think for the most part you're uneducated and want to pretend you're not. Now, Salman Rushdie wrote his books. So what? It wasn't an academic work of any sort. It wasn't a book scrutinized for glaring historiographical mistakes. It became popular because Muslims pretty much made it popular. Just as Christians did to Aslan's book by attacking him on the basis of being an "infidel" (to borrow from Muslims) who dared to write about Brad Pitt Jesus.

 

[lolabird]

Christian - follower of Christ. Did Jesus not follow his own teachings?

He was not the first Christian.

 

[Gina]

To ask why a Muslim chose to write a book about Jesus is a valid question, or isn't it?

Of course that is a valid question, but that's not what I was responding to. This is:

Aslan's reply of "I'm a scholar; I've a PhD in Religions," would have caused me to raise an eyebrow because it's not an satisfactory answer since he said he was Christian and converted by to his faith of Islam. The space between the conversion, for me, is a curious one.

Being an academic, is a valid answer. No matter his journey of personal faith, he has the academic bona fides to make that statement and let it be at that. As he said, he is a scholar, a teacher of religions, with two decades of study in religions, who happens to be a Muslim.

/end of that line of questioning.

This thread is about the hectoring he took from the interviewer. She asked that question over and over. Your post I responded to, would seem to be in agreement with her.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

He was not the first Christian.

He was not the first Christian because...

 

[zgoldsmith23]

He was not the first Christian.

Glad you can repeat yourself.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Would you ask a female author why she chose to write about a man's psyche and sexual prowess?

Probably not if she had spent the last couple of decades writing about it.

 

[lolabird]

Wait, you're comparing Aslan to Amedinejad?

Here I'll make it simple for you:

Reza Aslan:

Studies religions in an academic capacity: Yes.
Studies historical figures: Yes.
Studies religious historical figures: Yes.
Has dedicated his life to doing this for a living: Yes.
Gets paid to lecture and write books on the subjects he studies: Yes.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

Studies homosexuality in an academic capacity: No.
Studies figures important to homosexuality: No.
Studies historical figures: No.
Has dedicated his life to studying homosexuality for a living: No.
Gets paid to write and lecture on the subjects he studies: No.

How could you possibly figure that's a reasonable comparison? They're not even close. Unless of course being Muslim is enough to mean you can't write on something. Back to your ridiculous comparison: The fact that pretty every answer on Aslan's question is "Yes", pretty much justifies him writing a book on a religious figure regardless of what religion that other person is from.



No. I think for the most part you're uneducated and want to pretend you're not. Now, Salman Rushdie wrote his books. So what? It wasn't an academic work of any sort. It wasn't a book scrutinized for glaring historiographical mistakes. It became popular because Muslims pretty much made it popular. Just as Christians did to Aslan's book by attacking him on the basis of being an "infidel" (to borrow from Muslims) who dared to write about Brad Pitt Jesus.

Your simplicity astounds me.

 

[Aderleth]

The interviewer asked once, and then she quoted other scholars who were criticizing his book; i.e., John Dickerson and William Craig. He said his 100 notes included scholars who agreed with his theory and scholars who did not agree with him. Islan read the same books as the other scholars and in his own words his said, "Scholarship is a debate about ancient history."

Green asked him directly twice in the first minute of the interview, then quoted John Dickerson, who is a journalist and evangelical pastor with no PhD's in anything according to both his website and his wiki page, and who had (not coincidentally) recently written an attack piece against Aslan for Fox news (which falsely asserted that Aslan had been hiding his religion from the public - an assertion later brought up by Green). And while William Lane Craig actually does have a legitimate academic background on the subject of religion, he's also a noted evangelical whose focus regarding the new testament is to vehemently argue in favor of Christian doctrines like the resurrection (also to "call out" famous atheists like Richard Dawkins). Not at all shockingly, both of those people were also fixated on why a Muslim would write about Jesus, which is what both quotes were about.

She then followed up the quotation of "scholars" by quoting some random dude on the internet who attacked Aslan for religious bias without any support whatsoever.

So basically the entire interview was about Aslan's religion, and unsubstantiated allegations of bias stemming therefrom.

And you're defending this?

 

[lolabird]

Of course that is a valid question, but that's not what I was responding to. This is:



Being an academic, is a valid answer. No matter his journey of personal faith, he has the academic bona fides to make that statement and let it be at that. As he said, he is a scholar, a teacher of religions, with two decades of study in religions, who happens to be a Muslim.

/end of that line of questioning.

This thread is about the hectoring he took from the interviewer. She asked that question over and over. Your post I responded to, would seem to be in agreement with her.

She quoted criticisms form other scholars and Aslan replied to their quotes.
Since Aslan read the same books as the scholars, his book is his view of Jesus, and I've heard and read many viewpoints.
Aslan believes Jesus wanted to make the rich poor and the poor rich, which undoubtedly has spurred criticisms from all around.
Thanks to the Fox News interviewer, Aslan's book is now number one, and Aslan is fast becoming a celebrity.

 

[lolabird]

Green asked him directly twice in the first minute of the interview, then quoted John Dickerson, who is a journalist and evangelical pastor with no PhD's in anything according to both his website and his wiki page, and who had (not coincidentally) recently written an attack piece against Aslan for Fox news (which falsely asserted that Aslan had been hiding his religion from the public - an assertion later brought up by Green). And while William Lane Craig actually does have a legitimate academic background on the subject of religion, he's also a noted evangelical whose focus regarding the new testament is to vehemently argue in favor of Christian doctrines like the resurrection (also to "call out" famous atheists like Richard Dawkins). Not at all shockingly, both of those people were also fixated on why a Muslim would write about Jesus, which is what both quotes were about.

She then followed up the quotation of "scholars" by quoting some random dude on the internet who attacked Aslan for religious bias without any support whatsoever.

So basically the entire interview was about Aslan's religion, and unsubstantiated allegations of bias stemming therefrom.

And you're defending this?

Is Reza Aslan's view of Jesus above reproach? Must a person possess a PhD in order to question the validity of what a religious scholar is espousing?
I'm very inquisitive, and I like to hear and read all sides of an argument before I make a decision.
Can you honestly say that you are not curious as to why a Muslim would choose to write about Jesus? You have no questions whatsoever?
The fact that Aslan has a PhD and has read the same books as countless other scholars is reason for you to believe his words is gospel?

 

[lolabird]

Probably not if she had spent the last couple of decades writing about it.

Wow!
Evidently I am the anomaly on this website because I would question a man who has written a book about a woman's psyche and sexual prowess no mater how may decades he had spent writing about it.
Reminds of a panel of men who sit in judgment of women's healthcare, and pass laws requiring them to undergo transvaginal ultrasound procedures, or try to define when rape is legitimate.
Maybe you can readily accept another person's viewpoint because of their credentials, but I'll always have questions.

 

[Aderleth]

Is Reza Aslan's view of Jesus above reproach? Must a person possess a PhD in order to question the validity of what a religious scholar is espousing?

No, and no. But to characterize someone who isn't an expert on the subject as such is fraudulent.

I'm very inquisitive, and I like to hear and read all sides of an argument before I make a decision.

And Lauren Green's interview prevented you from doing so by failing entirely to actually address any of the arguments in the book in favor of focusing on attacking the guy who wrote the book. Wanna hear about what's actually in the book? Check out one of Aslan's other interviews, or read a review. Fox News is not interested in helping you to form an opinion about the contents of the book, and that's pretty obvious if you look at the interview honestly.

Can you honestly say that you are not curious as to why a Muslim would choose to write about Jesus?

I might be if I hadn't already been told over and over again that he's a scholar of religion with a particular fascination about the life of Jesus.

The fact that Aslan has a PhD and has read the same books as countless other scholars is reason for you to believe his words is gospel?

Repeat after me: we never got to hear any of his words in that interview, because Lauren Green had absolutely no interest in discussing the contents of the book; she was only interested in attacking the person who wrote the book. You'll note that only about 2 minutes of the interview actually contains descriptions of what the book is about, and Green actually cuts Aslan off in order to press him more on his religion.

 

[Tucker Case]

Jesus was not the first Christian.

So, that begs the question, why would a Christian choose to write about some Jewish radical?

 

[mak2]

They can.

Why shouldn't everybody be allowed to write a book on every topic?

 

[lolabird]

No, and no. But to characterize someone who isn't an expert on the subject as such is fraudulent.



And Lauren Green's interview prevented you from doing so by failing entirely to actually address any of the arguments in the book in favor of focusing on attacking the guy who wrote the book. Wanna hear about what's actually in the book? Check out one of Aslan's other interviews, or read a review. Fox News is not interested in helping you to form an opinion about the contents of the book, and that's pretty obvious if you look at the interview honestly.



I might be if I hadn't already been told over and over again that he's a scholar of religion with a particular fascination about the life of Jesus.



Repeat after me: we never got to hear any of his words in that interview, because Lauren Green had absolutely no interest in discussing the contents of the book; she was only interested in attacking the person who wrote the book. You'll note that only about 2 minutes of the interview actually contains descriptions of what the book is about, and Green actually cuts Aslan off in order to press him more on his religion.

What I glean from your replies is that you abhor Fox News, and you are not tolerant of anyone who disagrees with your opinions.
As I said earlier, I'm not a fan of Fox News, but I do listen to all sides before I make my own conclusions.
At least you admitted that you would question why a Muslim would choose to write about Jesus. I can't understand why most people won't admit the same.
I, too, am fascinated about the life of Jesus, and most likely I will buy Aslan's book.
I have a masters degree, not a PhD; however, I'll continue to think for myself and make my own conclusions, which I'll never consider to be fraudulent because I'm not an expert.

 

[lolabird]

So, that begs the question, why would a Christian choose to write about some Jewish radical?

Have you read the Christian's book?

 

[Aderleth]

What I glean from your replies is that you abhor Fox News, and you are not tolerant of anyone who disagrees with your opinions.

Then you weren't reading very carefully.

As I said earlier, I'm not a fan of Fox News, but I do listen to all sides before I make my own conclusions.

Get this through your head: in this context, Fox wasn't presenting a "side," it was mounting an attack. If they were interested in an honest debate about the subject of the book, that would be just fine. They didn't do that.
Let me repeat that, because apparently it's not sinking in, despite the fact that it's been explained to you by several people more times than I can count: Fox at no point demonstrated any interest at all in what the book was actually about, nor did they even attempt to argue for or against the contents of the book. What they did do, in a spectacularly failed manner, is repeatedly attack the writer of the book on the basis of his religion.

At least you admitted that you would question why a Muslim would choose to write about Jesus.

Yeah, I don't think you understand the nature of my reply. I'd question why anyone would write a book about anything, if I didn't already know anything about their background. Asking why a Muslim scholar of religion would write about a scholarly religious topic is beyond stupid, and demonstrated (among other things) that Green was too lazy to do any basic research into the subject of her interview.

I, too, am fascinated about the life of Jesus, and most likely I will buy Aslan's book.
I have a masters degree, not a PhD; however, I'll continue to think for myself and make my own conclusions, which I'll never consider to be fraudulent because I'm not an expert.

Good for you. While you're thinking for yourself you might consider engaging in some critical analysis of what's being presented to you. You might avoid mistaking failed propaganda for honest debate.

 

[Tucker Case]

Have you read the Christian's book?

Why would that matter for me, when you don't think it matters when someone asks such a question of aslan? It's a valid question either way, no?

 

[cabse5]

Yeah, news organizations don't generally get praise for failing to murder people. That's kind of a given.

Al Jazeera?

 

[lolabird]

Then you weren't reading very carefully.



Get this through your head: in this context, Fox wasn't presenting a "side," it was mounting an attack. If they were interested in an honest debate about the subject of the book, that would be just fine. They didn't do that.
Let me repeat that, because apparently it's not sinking in, despite the fact that it's been explained to you by several people more times than I can count: Fox at no point demonstrated any interest at all in what the book was actually about, nor did they even attempt to argue for or against the contents of the book. What they did do, in a spectacularly failed manner, is repeatedly attack the writer of the book on the basis of his religion.




Yeah, I don't think you understand the nature of my reply. I'd question why anyone would write a book about anything, if I didn't already know anything about their background. Asking why a Muslim scholar of religion would write about a scholarly religious topic is beyond stupid, and demonstrated (among other things) that Green was too lazy to do any basic research into the subject of her interview.




Good for you. While you're thinking for yourself you might consider engaging in some critical analysis of what's being presented to you. You might avoid mistaking failed propaganda for honest debate.

You really need to learn to control your hostility. Why not allow Reza Islan to be your role model?
Proselytizing your beliefs to someone who chooses not to follow does not make me a propagandist.

 

[lolabird]

Why would that matter for me, when you don't think it matters when someone asks such a question of aslan? It's a valid question either way, no?

That's for you to discern, not me.