[Hencredible Casanova]

This is painful to watch. Reza Aslan, an Iranian-American scholar of religions who happens to be Muslim, discusses his new book on Jesus. This is probably the worst interview I've ever watched, and that's saying something. In fact, the vast majority of horrible interviews I've witnessed have been on Faux News (after they've went viral as I don't follow that network).

See for yourselves.

[Vicious]

It's like he's talking to a child.

I believe that interviewer will have to suffer through some rather pointed barbs at the next media cocktail party.

[Tex Pro]

(07-28-2013 11:25 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

It's like he's talking to a child.

I believe that interviewer will have to suffer through some rather pointed barbs at the next media cocktail party.

No, she won't. She will be applauded for calling him out as a Muslim. Fox News is a right-of-center news network.

[Vicious]

Huh? Did you watch the interview?

When she tries to "call him out" he says that his book identifies him from the start as a Muslim and that he has stated this in every interview. There's nothing to call him out on.

She's just repeating over and over that he's a Muslim and getting smacked down every time for failing to attach any guilt by association.

[Tex Pro]

(07-28-2013 11:37 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

Huh? Did you watch the interview?

When she tries to "call him out" he says that his book identifies him from the start as a Muslim and that he has stated this in every interview. There's nothing to call him out on.

She's just repeating over and over that he's a Muslim and getting smacked down every time for failing to attach any guilt by association.

You must not be an American. The whole point of the interview was to call him out, repeatedly, as a Muslim. Fox News is a right-of-center news network. Trust me, she will be applauded for repeated pointing out he is a Muslim.

[luggage]

Switch over to Al Jazeera.

[MrXY]

She treated him in exactly the same way CNN and MSNBC , the New York Times, the Washington Post , NPR and many others have always treated traditional Christians, Republicans, and conservatives in general.
Anyone who complains about this and has never complained about the way conservatives are treated by the establishment media is being hypocritical

[Tex Pro]

(07-28-2013 11:53 AM)MrXY Wrote:  

She treated him in exactly the same way CNN and MSNBC , the New York Times, the Washington Post , NPR and many others have always treated traditional Christians, Republicans, and conservatives in general.
Anyone who complains about this and has never complained about the way conservatives are treated by the establishment media is being hypocritical

True, especially for MSNBC. MSNBC is a mirror image of Fox News. MSNBC is an openly left-of-center news organization and Fox News is an openly right-of-center news organization.

[Kingsley Davis]

(07-28-2013 11:53 AM)MrXY Wrote:  

She treated him in exactly the same way CNN and MSNBC , the New York Times, the Washington Post , NPR and many others have always treated traditional Christians, Republicans, and conservatives in general.
Anyone who complains about this and has never complained about the way conservatives are treated by the establishment media is being hypocritical

So that make it okay then?

[Katatonic]

(07-28-2013 11:59 AM)Kingsley Davis Wrote:  

(07-28-2013 11:53 AM)MrXY Wrote:  

She treated him in exactly the same way CNN and MSNBC , the New York Times, the Washington Post , NPR and many others have always treated traditional Christians, Republicans, and conservatives in general.
Anyone who complains about this and has never complained about the way conservatives are treated by the establishment media is being hypocritical

So that make it okay then?

No it doesn't. I think MrXY was pointing out that while progressives are using that shitty networks flubs as intellectual fodder for their daily reaffirmation circle jerks, they completely ignore what fucking shills they are for their side. Cast the first fucking stone is the gist of it.

That being said, I love this clip. Any time an ignorant apologist gets poleaxed by a little logic, a big shit-eating grin can be seen on my face.

[JayMillz]

Pretty obvious that the person doing the interview had an agenda. It reminds me of the old saying, when you point a finger at someone, there is a finger pointing back at you.

[Aliblahba]

The media is off center to cater to the ignorant, which makes up the majority. People don't watch the "news" form an opinion, but reaffirm what they already or want to believe.

The semi-intelligent watch a number of sources to see both sides of the story to make an opinion.

The truly intelligent (like me) don't watch any of them, because they are all full of shit.

[Statsi]

(07-28-2013 02:04 PM)JayMillz Wrote:  

Pretty obvious that the person doing the interview had an agenda. It reminds me of the old saying, when you point a finger at someone, there is a finger pointing back at you.

'When you point a finger at someone, there are three pointed back at you' is the quote surely?

Guy held his frame and composure really well in the interview. I thought his analogy of 'it's like asking a christian person why they would want to write a book about Islam' to be a little weak though. Maybe 'It'd be like asking a christian builder why he would build a home for a muslim' as in what the hell are you talking about? Building is his job as academic study of religion is mine.

It was very obvious she, and the other commenters, hadn't read his book. It was am embarassing interview to watch.

[BortimusPrime]

I think it's pretty obvious that the interviewee was one of them illegal muslins, and hated the interviewer for her freedom to ask him stupid questions while not wearing a head scarf.

[JayMillz]

(07-28-2013 02:35 PM)Statsi Wrote:  

'When you point a finger at someone, there are three pointed back at you' is the quote surely?

lol, I knew it was something like that and it might even be 4.

[Jeans]

listened to this guys npr interview just the other day. his family moved to america from iran in the late 70s due the changes brought about by the revolution. his parents thought the turn towards theocracy was an abomination, and they did not raise the guy muslim or with any religion or sense of middle eastern identity at all. furthermore, from his early teens and through undergrad, this guy was actually a devout, evangelizing christian, who successfully converted his mother. not sure when he came around to islam....either way, weird he didnt mention any of that on this interview....not that it would have done anything to shit that bitch up anyhow.

[Vicious]

(07-28-2013 03:19 PM)Jeans Wrote:  

listened to this guys npr interview just the other day. his family moved to america from iran in the late 70s due the changes brought about by the revolution. his parents thought the turn towards theocracy was an abomination, and they did not raise the guy muslim or with any religion or sense of middle eastern identity at all. furthermore, from his early teens and through undergrad, this guy was actually a devout, evangelizing christian, who successfully converted his mother. not sure when he came around to islam....either way, weird he didnt mention any of that on this interview....not that it would have done anything to shit that bitch up anyhow.

He likely wanted to talk about his book rather than himself which he probably has to do in every interview.

[InternationPlayboy]

That was painful to watch. Like vicious pointed out, it was like he was talking to a little kid.

And this girl definitely isn't getting applauded for her work. I've seen this all over the Internet today, as a clear mockery of Fox News.

[Tex Pro]

(07-28-2013 06:37 PM)InternationPlayboy Wrote:  

That was painful to watch. Like vicious pointed out, it was like he was talking to a little kid.

And this girl definitely isn't getting applauded for her work. I've seen this all over the Internet today, as a clear mockery of Fox News.

She will get applauded within her Christian conservative circle (again, Fox News is a right-of-center network). The Christian conservatives on the right hate this dude with a passion.

[Cattle Rustler]

(07-28-2013 07:31 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(07-28-2013 06:37 PM)InternationPlayboy Wrote:  

That was painful to watch. Like vicious pointed out, it was like he was talking to a little kid.

And this girl definitely isn't getting applauded for her work. I've seen this all over the Internet today, as a clear mockery of Fox News.

She will get applauded within her Christian conservative circle (again, Fox News is a right-of-center network). The Christian conservatives on the right hate this dude with a passion.

Yup, the dynamics of FOX/NBC is that each have their own little bubble and that is all that matters. She might even get her own show one day! The more off-base you go, the more you are rewarded (just look at Sarah Palin).

Also, FOX is solidly right-winged and NBC is solidly left-wing...they're not center-of-X.

[speakeasy]

This was a great example of how to argue. Maintain your composure, outmaneuver your opponent and give them enough rope to hang themselves.

[MikeCF]

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstth...sentation/


There is a bit of a hubbub in the interwebs about an interview conducted by Lauren Green, religion correspondent for Fox News Channel, with Reza Aslan, author of a new book on Jesus titled Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. Our friend Joe Carter, over at GetReligion, has the basic story. Green launched the interview (available here in full) with a question about why a Muslim should want to write a book about Jesus. A reasonable question, and not a hostile one on its face–but by the end of the interview Green has returned to it in a somewhat more accusatory fashion. As Joe says, the interview is a mess. But as he also points out, Green’s critics are passing right by something far more interesting: that Aslan has misrepresented his scholarly credentials.

In fact, it is Aslan who immediately turns the interview into a cage match by reacting very defensively to Green’s first question. And here is where the misrepresentations begin. For roughly the first half of the interview Aslan dominates the exchange with assertions about himself that seem intended to delay the substance of the discussion:

I am a scholar of religions with four degrees including one in the New Testament . . . I am an expert with a Ph.D. in the history of religions . . . I am a professor of religions, including the New Testament–that’s what I do for a living, actually . . . To be clear, I want to emphasize one more time, I am a historian, I am a Ph.D. in the history of religions.

Later he complains that they are “debating the right of the scholar to write” the book rather than discussing the book. But the conversation took that turn thanks to Aslan, not Green! By the final minute he is saying of himself (and who really talks this way!?) that “I’m actually quite a prominent Muslim thinker in the United States.”

Aslan does have four degrees, as Joe Carter has noted: a 1995 B.A. in religion from Santa Clara University, where he was Phi Beta Kappa and wrote his senior thesis on “The Messianic Secret in the Gospel of Mark”; a 1999 Master of Theological Studies from Harvard; a 2002 Master of Fine Arts in Fiction from the University of Iowa; and a 2009 Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California, Santa Barbara.


None of these degrees is in history, so Aslan’s repeated claims that he has “a Ph.D. in the history of religions” and that he is “a historian” are false. Nor is “professor of religions” what he does “for a living.” He is an associate professor in the Creative Writing program at the University of California, Riverside, where his terminal MFA in fiction from Iowa is his relevant academic credential. It appears he has taught some courses on Islam in the past, and he may do so now, moonlighting from his creative writing duties at Riverside. Aslan has been a busy popular writer, and he is certainly a tireless self-promoter, but he is nowhere known in the academic world as a scholar of the history of religion. And a scholarly historian of early Christianity? Nope.

What about that Ph.D.? As already noted, it was in sociology. I have his dissertation in front of me. It is a 140-page work titled “Global Jihadism as a Transnational Social Movement: A Theoretical Framework.” If Aslan’s Ph.D. is the basis of a claim to scholarly credentials, he could plausibly claim to be an expert on social movements in twentieth-century Islam. He cannot plausibly claim, as he did to Lauren Green, that he is a “historian,” or is a “professor of religions” “for a living.”

[InternationPlayboy]

Yeah, this dude did a great job holding his composure. He didn't dish out any personal attacks and made her make herself look dumb. Hats off to this homie.

[eradicator]

(07-30-2013 02:01 AM)MikeCF Wrote:  

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstth...sentation/


There is a bit of a hubbub in the interwebs about an interview conducted by Lauren Green, religion correspondent for Fox News Channel, with Reza Aslan, author of a new book on Jesus titled Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. Our friend Joe Carter, over at GetReligion, has the basic story. Green launched the interview (available here in full) with a question about why a Muslim should want to write a book about Jesus. A reasonable question, and not a hostile one on its face–but by the end of the interview Green has returned to it in a somewhat more accusatory fashion. As Joe says, the interview is a mess. But as he also points out, Green’s critics are passing right by something far more interesting: that Aslan has misrepresented his scholarly credentials.

In fact, it is Aslan who immediately turns the interview into a cage match by reacting very defensively to Green’s first question. And here is where the misrepresentations begin. For roughly the first half of the interview Aslan dominates the exchange with assertions about himself that seem intended to delay the substance of the discussion:

I am a scholar of religions with four degrees including one in the New Testament . . . I am an expert with a Ph.D. in the history of religions . . . I am a professor of religions, including the New Testament–that’s what I do for a living, actually . . . To be clear, I want to emphasize one more time, I am a historian, I am a Ph.D. in the history of religions.

Where exactly were his lies though?

His phd is in "Sociology of Religions' is in the Religious Studies Department at UCSB(my alma mater) and NOT sociology and "history of religions' is an approach at the ucsb to studying religion. Saying that he has a phd in 'history of religions" is 100% accurate, is it not?


He also has a Master of Theological Studies degree from Harvard Divinity School, and his undergrad BA in religion from santa clara university. I would say those are pretty good qualifications to write a book about christ, aren't they?

Mikecf, the guy that you are quoting this article from is totally off base.

Quote:

Later he complains that they are “debating the right of the scholar to write” the book rather than discussing the book. But the conversation took that turn thanks to Aslan, not Green! By the final minute he is saying of himself (and who really talks this way!?) that “I’m actually quite a prominent Muslim thinker in the United States.”

Aslan does have four degrees, as Joe Carter has noted: a 1995 B.A. in religion from Santa Clara University, where he was Phi Beta Kappa and wrote his senior thesis on “The Messianic Secret in the Gospel of Mark”; a 1999 Master of Theological Studies from Harvard; a 2002 Master of Fine Arts in Fiction from the University of Iowa; and a 2009 Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California, Santa Barbara.


None of these degrees is in history, so Aslan’s repeated claims that he has “a Ph.D. in the history of religions” and that he is “a historian” are false. Nor is “professor of religions” what he does “for a living.” He is an associate professor in the Creative Writing program at the University of California, Riverside, where his terminal MFA in fiction from Iowa is his relevant academic credential. It appears he has taught some courses on Islam in the past, and he may do so now, moonlighting from his creative writing duties at Riverside. Aslan has been a busy popular writer, and he is certainly a tireless self-promoter, but he is nowhere known in the academic world as a scholar of the history of religion. And a scholarly historian of early Christianity? Nope.

What about that Ph.D.? As already noted, it was in sociology.

again, his phd is in sociology of religion which is in the religious studies department at ucsb, using a method of study called 'history of religions'.

Quote:

I have his dissertation in front of me. It is a 140-page work titled “Global Jihadism as a Transnational Social Movement: A Theoretical Framework.” If Aslan’s Ph.D. is the basis of a claim to scholarly credentials, he could plausibly claim to be an expert on social movements in twentieth-century Islam. He cannot plausibly claim, as he did to Lauren Green, that he is a “historian,” or is a “professor of religions” “for a living.”

He writes a lot of books about religion. To get hired as a professor, you have to be getting your work published. He has a lot of books published about religion and gets work as a professor of creative writing. Saying that he is somehow unqualified to be called a 'professor of religions' is preposterous because he is currently hired as a professor, and got that job by publishing a lot of books, mostly about religion and has degrees in religion and creative writing.

I am never surprised to see people sticking up for faux news, but I am a little surprised when I see it on here.

[Teedub]

That was painful to watch. I echo Ali's statement.