On July 26, author and religious historian Reza Aslan was a guest on "Spirited Debate", a FoxNews.com webcast about religion hosted by Lauren Green. Aslan was on the program to promote his new book Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. The interview has gone viral and Ms. Green has been heavily criticized. Words such as "the worst", "most embarrassing", and "cringe-worthy" have been used to describe her interview with Aslan. You can watch and see if the criticism is apt or not.
The merits of Ms. Green's opening question regarding why a Muslim would write a book on Christianity is debatable. One could argue that it was designed for those not familiar with Aslan's work. This theory may be giving Ms. Green too much credit though. However, once Aslan gave his response, Ms. Green sounded downright silly when she asked why he'd be interested in the founder of Christianity. If Pamela Geller was on "Spirited Debate" promoting one of her books about Islam, do you think Ms. Green would have questioned why a Christian is writing about Islam?! After watching the interview, it may appear to some as if Aslan wears his academic credentials on his sleeve. However, I think it was unfortunately necessary for him to repeatedly state his credentials because Ms. Green couldn't get off her talking point of whether or not he was qualified to write the book in the first place. As a side note, I'm willing to bet Aslan knows more about Christianity than many of the so-called Christians walking around.
During the interview, Ms. Green read criticisms of the book by two theologians and someone watching the webcast. Nothing wrong with that. However, the interview would have been much better if she also read passages from the book itself and then asked Aslan questions related to them. Ms. Green also accuses Aslan of trying to conceal his Muslim background. At this point she should have stayed down because Aslan easily dismantled her claim.
Until this past weekend, I had never heard of Reza Aslan. However, I think this interview will serve to raise his profile in a positive way because he calmly and eloquently stated his reasons for writing the book. Although I was familiar with Ms. Green's previous work reading news updates on the Fox News channel, with this interview many others are probably seeing her for the first time. The word "inauspicious" comes to mind.
Reza Aslan's interview with Lauren Green has proved to be a win-win for him. In addition to thoroughly schooling Ms. Green, Aslan has seen sales of Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth skyrocket. While it was selling steadily before the interview, as I write this post it is the #1 book on Amazon.com.
18 comments:
This touches directly on a main point of contention between myself and a lot of other Fox-haters (or "dislikers," if "hater" is too strong a word).
I've always viewed them as traditional-value-pushing American Christian, not necessarily uber-right-wing conservative/Republican.
Though I do know people who believe they're one and the same. I do not.
It seems that the qualifications to get a job at Fox include being an outspoken Christian. Even the network's most hardened liberals and progressives are outspoken Christians.
Non-Christians, especially Muslims and atheists, catch hell from the network.
It's something I can stomach on a political level, as I do find there to be a lot of separation between, at least compared to other parts of the world. But the way guys like Silverman and Dawkins are treated by the network makes my stomach turn. The way one atheist fringe group paints the entire picture of atheism makes me clinch my fists.
However, I can't go to bat with equal fervor for another religion treated poorly by the network. And my reasoning there is that I cannot think of or foresee a Muslim network allowing a Christian on to speak about their writing on the Holy Quran.
But I will say I definitely see Fox as a Christian network, and it doesn't surprise me that a host would stumble over herself on a my-religion-is-better-than-yours kick.
Since I'm not religious yet grew up around religious people and religion in general, I've learned to separate people's attitudes about religion vs. their attitudes about other things. After all, looking foolish, self-centered and a bit bigoted is better than banishments, burnings and beheadings any day of the week and twice on the Sabbath.
Wanna see the funniest dressing down of Bill O in history?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcUo9Tk0A-s
Disclaimer: Religious people may be offended by some of Potholer54's material. But it is not vulgar in any way.
After checking back to see if anyone else had commented, I reread mine and wanted to add:
I'm not letting the guy off the hook either. The entirety of the Christian faith is based on Jesus being God/son of God. That belief being challenged does warrant a question of intent, particularly if it's someone of another religion postulating that an entire faith is based on false assumptions.
While others may be too cowardly to ask, only because of the writer's faith, it's not a question that's out of bounds if one subscribes to Christianity and has their god challenged in a book by a person whose religion is, by its existence, in conflict with the other and vice versa.
But these "degrees" and such and "scholars" who view the issue either way are just mythology reviewers any way it's sliced. The only difference is that the Abrahamic religions are still trending, whereas polytheism is not. By the same standard, one could also boast about holding a doctorate covering a "religion" like Raelism or "god" like Oden or Ra. (And they most certainly do boast, but both the man and woman in this video would think they're full of sh1t.)
Comment by Bobbie (via Facebook): One of the most painful interviews I have watched- however he handled it really well.
Don't feed the trolls.
Malcolm, careful, you've got "one of those" spamming your comment section.
The interview with Aslan by FAUX NOOZ talking hairdo was cringe-inducing.
Aslan converted to Christianity, then back to Islam. So he definitely knows what he's writing about, plus the fact that he has spent his academic life studying religions.
He is perfectly qualified to question Jesus's divinity--even some Christian faiths do--but from the reviews of the book I've read, that's not the point. According to the reviews, he's presenting arguments and ideas that are not necessarily new, but still controversial.
It's never a bad thing to have people question their beliefs.
Josh: I used to consider Fox as being a conservative channel. However, when looking at how the channel for the most part turned a blind eye to GWB's reckless spending, I started referring to them as a Republican outlet. If I had to rank Fox in terms of the ideology they favor, I'd say they were Republican first, Christian second, and conservative third.
As for any hardened liberals/progressives who are Fox contributors, a few come to mind such as Sally Kohn, Alan Colmes, Jehmu Greene, and Ellis Henican. Do you consider them to also be outspoken Christians? I'm asking because although I don't recall any of them being outspoken Christians, I no longer watch cable news on a regular basis so I can't be sure.
By the way, thanks or sharing the O'Reilly takedown clip. That was pretty funny.
Shaw: Thanks for pointing out that Aslan's religious (being a former Christian) and academic backgrounds qualify him to raise questions about Christianity. If more people questioned religion instead of just accepting it on faith, we'd be in a much better place.
As for the troll, my note above the comment box lets them know what's going to happen. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same person using multiple names. We'll never know because they don't have the guts to be upfront about who they are.
Josh: One more question. If not the ones I listed above, which hardened liberals on Fox do you consider to be outspoken Christians?
I agree with your criticism of Fox News. It applies to MSNBC just as strongly.
I was a fan of Fox News several years ago. This kept eroding over time. But it is not replaced with becoming a fan of MSNBC. The characteristics I have come to dislike Fox for are present in MSNBC also.
Shaw: Those toads have been hopping over to this blog for some time. I didn't see any troll comments here, though, in this post. I don't think Josh is one. Did you think he was?
I've heard Juan, Beckel, Powers (and nearly every other person on Fox News in general when I've watched) speak about their faith.
Not that I have issue with that. Most of the world is religious, it just seems that all of Fox is Christian.
There are three things I watch on Fox on occasion. O'Reilly, Red Eye, and interviews of atheist topics. And the religion comes pouring out when something like a mysteriously crossed beam is in the news, when the holidays roll around, and other instances where an atheist is in the news for something.
I don't know of one person there who isn't Christian, or Jewish and touting "Judeo-Christian values" and willing to say Merry Christmas.
...
An issue that you and/or Shaw could address if you want:
With things like videos that surfacing supposedly putting Islam in a bad light, or when their Prophet is being drawn or talked about, these issues seem to sway the other way politically.
Those mean, bigoted Christian right-wing loons who can't leave Muslims alone.
And now it's the same. Very catch-22ish.
I mean, to the point where the administration went to great lengths to blame what appears to be a terrorist attack on Islam being insulted through art. And as far as I know, the guy's still in jail who made it.
I'm not accusing either of you of coming down crooked on the issue. I don't know where either of you stand on those. But much of the same media and many of the same people tearing this woman apart seem to be very hypocritical.
Some strange stuff I've been reading on the web regarding this. Odd standards, even for those already inclined to be dishonest.
If she had wrote a book "examining" the life of Muhammad, even if it were supposedly not intended to be insulting, wouldn't that warrant a question of intent?
I don't buy the "scholar" angle for religions. I'd have to buy the "scholar" angle for Bigfoot, UFOs and Loch Ness too.
I don't put stock in guesswork when it comes to assigning qualifications.
But, as a former Christian myself who now decided to write a book questioning the accepted view of Jesus in Christianity, wouldn't someone be right to ask me why I wrote it?
Why is a one faith questioning another faith such a big deal? A question that itches at me, as I know how the entire world reacts if there's even a perceived insult aimed as Islam.
dmarks: I slightly disagree with your assessment of MSNBC. While I don't like the fact that they hired people like David Axelrod as contributors, the way MSNBC differs from Fox is that they don't make it a habit of spreading fear and misinformation. Another issue I have with Fox is their false claim of being fair and balanced. MSNBC isn't perfect, but even on their worst day they are better than Fox.
By the way, Shaw was referring to a troll who goes by the name "Big Ham Bone". They made a silly comment yesterday and I deleted it.
*With things like videos surfacing...
That "that" snuck in there and makes my head hurt.
Josh: Beckel, Williams, and Powers hardened liberals? I'm sure it comes as no surprise that I wouldn't put these three in that category. They are more like what we call Fox liberals. :-)
As I alluded to in the post, I have no issue with Ms. Green asking the initial question about Mr. Aslan writing a book on Christianity. However, once the question was asked and answered, she should have moved on to something else. Perhaps asking Mr. Aslan a question about a passage from the book. If a Christian wrote a book about Islam and appeared on the program, I doubt Ms. Green would have questioned their intent.
I am aware of that standard.
Real liberals hate Fox, they don't appear there. Or, if they do, they just throw a monkey wrench in the programming. Like the girl I seen yesterday who just screamed over the conservative during the entire interview, and when asked to be quiet, her response was, "What? Democrats aren't allowed to speak on Fox?" lol Gotta love politics sometimes. Ingrates. And I'm sure it works in reverse if I could stomach watching MSNBC.
....
I agree that the pounding of the question was just ridiculous. It was too much like bickering over religions to me. But the guy also didn't answer the question so much as he immediately attempted to rub her face in shit, like "how dare you ask me that."
I still don't know why he wrote it. And I would like to. His being qualified isn't a "reason." And other religions existing proves that Christianity has some conflict out there, so rehashing invented evidence from thousands of years ago has to play into a bigger "reason" for doing so, no?
And I agree that she probably wouldn't care one iota about a Christian who wrote a book about Islam. But I just don't see where a Christian writing a book about Islam wouldn't still be called many of the same names by the same people who attacked this woman.
Not defending her; just not cool with separate standards for religion. And especially so amongst many of my atheist brethren who were dismissing her as a Christian bigot while conveniently ignoring that Aslan is also religious and may very well have wanted to dismiss and/or insult Christ. So I have to put those fakeists on blast. They remind me of the uberprogressive feminists whose answer for solving rape and patriarchy is "become a feminist." No plan, just join and feel better.
Malcolm said "the way MSNBC differs from Fox is that they don't make it a habit of spreading fear and misinformation. "
They are no different in this at all in this specific regard. The degree to which someone falsely perceives a difference is proportional to their blind ideological bias: the degree to which they excuse fear/disinformation coming from "their side". Objectively, on their worst day, MSNBC is no better than Fox. Or even worse, if you look at the Pew study. The ideological blinders used to be on me, for this comparison. I have moved beyond that, and it is clear that you have not.
Great point on Fox News' slogan, though. I completely agree.
dmarks: Ideology doesn't have a damn thing to do with it. If it did, I'd never call out MSNBC when they are in the wrong.
Josh: I don't know if it's a matter of real liberals not appearing on Fox because they hate it or they aren't being asked. For example, I can't see Fox asking Cenk Uygur to appear these days. However, according to his Wiki page, he has been on Fox. I looked, but couldn't find any details/a clip of his appearance(s).
I believe Mr. Aslan answered the question. Maybe it wasn't to yours and Ms. Green's liking, but he answered it. If he exuded a "how dare you ask me that" attitude, I think that can be attributed to Fox's history of anti-Muslim bias. Had he been asked that question on another channel, he may have approached it differently. Then again, he may not have been asked that question because the interviewer wouldn't have assumed any ulterior motive for Mr. Aslan writing the book.
In a bit of a side note, Mr. Aslan has been rather easy on her in at least 2 interviews after this incident. He's attributed her behavior to the likelihood that there was a producer yelling in her earpiece. While this may be true, Ms. Green does have a brain. If the producer was pushing her to keep going with her line of questioning, she could have ignored him/her and worked it out with them post-interview.
I don't care in the long run about these religions constantly on the hunt for "evidence" which puts the other in doubt.
But what amounts to "because I can" isn't really an answer for anything for me.
It's like talking to Sheldon Cooper.
If that honestly answered the question for others and they're not just picking at it because it's Fox, right-wing and/or Christian, then so be it.
What gets me is how these things become political, and like I mentioned, it especially irks me when the so-called atheists I know and associate with (and some I don't) and used to respect choose political sides on it to spite their supposed standards of logic and inquisitiveness and requiring a higher standard of intellectual honesty.
dmarks pushing his ridiculous Fox Nooz/MSNBC equivalency again, I see. It's the fallback position for all Cons. When it is (painfully) obvious that their side is guilty of a crime the next play is to say "they all do it". And he plays the superiority card too... claiming that he has "moved beyond" partisan allegiances, while clearly Malcolm has not. We don't buy it dmarks.
He thinks nonsense like this buys him credibility when he refers to a Republican-lite presidents like Clinton and Obama as Liberals *snicker*.
Josh: Below is a link to an interview which might interest you.
Reza Aslan interview with Cenk Uygur
Dervish: For those who believe Fox and MSNBC are equivalent, I have to wonder if they've ever watched either network on a consistent basis.
Post a Comment