Thread: Fox News "interviews" Reza Aslan. Most embarrassing interview by Fox yet?

Originally Posted by SourceSkills

ANNNNDDD let the incredibly long posts arguing points commence! :P

Much Like AE, I read his posts in the entirety.

Originally Posted by SapiensErus

Can you show where it regurgitates anti-Christian rhetoric? Or are you just regurgitating talking points you have heard, or is it a prejudiced assumption on your part?

My money is 100% on the latter.

Originally Posted by CivilWars

I may not always agree with Soy, sorry old habits die hard, but it is quite difficult to argue against him because he does not fall prey to the "I am right because I said so" philosophy that plagues so many around here. There are others who share this trait, but he is one of the pillars.

Lol I love to argue you must know this by now :P. Even when i am wrong I still argue because it's fun.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4.

Originally Posted by CivilWars

I may not always agree with Soy, sorry old habits die hard, but it is quite difficult to argue against him because he does not fall prey to the "I am right because I said so" philosophy that plagues so many around here. There are others who share this trait, but he is one of the pillars.

Is that a dick joke?

Originally Posted by SourceSkills

Lol I love to argue you must know this by now :P. Even when i am wrong I still argue because it's fun.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4.

I am well aware. My point is that Soy brings more to the table than "You should totally pre-order BF4 because some dude on Twitter who may or may not actually work for EA pinky promised integrated VoIP would be included. Don't worry about the facts that nothing 'official' has been stated, or that they have boned all of us at least 3-4 times already.", and usually along the lines of face-melting facts that can't be countered with the standard "my dad can beat up your dad" retort.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

I think what Ira meant was that Fox doesn't really interview guests but that they interrogate them.

i.e they always have an agenda and they run with it.

I believe the same can be said of all the MSM outlets. Of course the agenda is different, but they all do it to varying degrees.

Originally Posted by CivilWars

I am well aware. My point is that Soy brings more to the table than "You should totally pre-order BF4 because some dude on Twitter who may or may not actually work for EA pinky promised integrated VoIP would be included. Don't worry about the facts that nothing 'official' has been stated, or that they have boned all of us at least 3-4 times already.", and usually along the lines of face-melting facts that can't be countered with the standard "my dad can beat up your dad" retort.

Someone's using faction mag stabs to make a point.

Originally Posted by DJ Mr. White

Is that a dick joke?

Originally Posted by SpecOpsScott

I believe the same can be said of all the MSM outlets. Of course the agenda is different, but they all do it to varying degrees.

Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow do it for example but not all.

I've never seen Wolf Blitzer or Charlie Rose pull that shit.

Originally Posted by SapiensErus

Can you show where it regurgitates anti-Christian rhetoric? Or are you just regurgitating talking points you have heard, or is it a prejudiced assumption on your part? I have read it. It is a dry, historical analysis. I enjoyed it and learned a lot. I would suggest that it actually paints the historical Jesus as a man of the people fighting for what he believed in, but was persecuted by the Romans as an enemy of the state. Which I think is what most people believe. The debatable points are about scholarly material, who said what and where in a specific discussion; who was actually present for some event, etc.

The problem with the interview is not that it is "choppy," but like you just demonstrated, the producers and hostess assume it is anti-Christian; it is absolutely not. It is dry, scholarly history. The only questions she has are about his Muslim background. She also says that some people disagree with him. A little research on her and the producers part would have unearthed the debatable historic data and she could have mentioned them as points for discussion. But because they assume that it is anti-Christian propaganda, they are just trying to have a "gotcha" moment. At one point she asks him what his conclusions are. He responds with discussion of how crucifixion is a punishment the Romans reserved for those they deemed traitorous, or enemies of the state, and then proceeds to discuss the etymology of the word bandit which is how the Romans described Jesus' comrades. The hostess clearly becomes bored as none of this is the anti-Christian rhetoric she assumed would be there so she interurupts to ask why he never mentioned he was Muslim (another attempt to imply he is writing propaganda and concealing his intent). He responds that the introduction, on page 2 of the book discusses his background. He further mentions that in every single interview he has had, it has been mentioned.

Fact: It is not Muslim, anti-Christian propaganda. it does not even go near that; when I read it, he seemed to take great pains to avoid an appearance of that, probably with the worry that people would make assumptions because of his religious affiliation. The hostess and producers did not know that the book is not what they assumed, they did no actual research, and they attempted to call him out as writing Muslim propaganda. If you watch the video he does mention that his wife is Christian, and his brother in-law is an evangelical pastor. He is not writing from a religious bias.

I am speculating now, but I would suspect that like most people his affiliation with his religion is a cultural anchor, one of familiarity and identity, and he is probably more agnostic than Muslim. Most Christians I know, regardless of denomination have a much more agnostic opinion whether they realize it or not. Few are at the extremes... The assumption by those religious individuals is that like they, he must also be fanatical, and thus his work is that of a Muslim, not a historian. He certainly appears to identify with his academic roots more than his religious roots.

Well, having spent 4 years or so of my life living about an hour away from Mecca, going through studies of Arabic culture and Islam (required learning for anyone going to school in Saudi Arabia, even Hispanic American Christians like myself) I have a pretty solid understanding of the Qur'an and its teachings, and what most muslims have been taught regarding the life of Jesus. I think maybe you come from a place of not understanding the author or the religions being discussed. Forgive me if I'm wrong about that but I am only going on what you said. The book goes through the same points that any Imam in the 70's would have to describe Jesus. It's an old, old narrative that capitalizes on the ignorance of people on the subject of Christianity or Jesus Christ, and it directly attack's Christ's divinity. Muslim bias abounds in the "historical" narrative and many, many things Aslan purports as facts are simply false.

This is a common thing that Muslims do regarding Christianity; in fact it's more than a bit shocking that this particular book has been touted by the MSM as some kind of authority on the life and times of Christ, because it's so clearly not. I can't tell you how many times I've seen Muslims who don't understand Christianity or have a limited understanding of it have said in my presence, with the same authority and a dismissive wave as though anyone else who doesn't think what they think just has to be wrong, the same kind of bullshit that Aslan says in his book. It is this same spirit of superiority that I got from what Aslan wrote and also interviews I have seen with him. He claims to be an expert on a subject he clearly is not an expert on, unfortunately, but this happens all the time in Arab culture. People get away with this with sheer, brazen arrogance in the middle east, because the average uneducated person sees a muslim scholar using flowery language and saying big words and assumes they must be right. Here in America, Aslan won't be so lucky because people in the know on the subject (including some Muslims) will certainly question his narrative. I imagine that eventually we will see Christian scholars point out the fallacies and factually inaccurate things in this book in a clear way that will explain it all for us... But I am not that guy - too busy.

Here's some more on Aslan:

The Twisted World of Reza Aslan | FrontPage Magazine
I'd say Islam is a bit more than a cultural anchor to him if he's calling terrorists or terror supporters moderates.

NPR’s curiously biased quest for the historical Jesus
More to know about the NPR interview.