Fox news funny

[Plu]

Just copying this over from another site. It's kinda funny and sad at the same time.

This is Reza Aslan, a scholar of religion and religious history. As a part of his promotional tour for his new work, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, Aslan appeared on Fox to be interviewed by anchor Lauren Green. In maybe the most cringe-worthy piece of conversation ever recorded on the network, Green can't seem to get past the idea that a Muslim scholar would want to write a book about Jesus - who as you may know is something of a standout historical/religious figure across many nations and creeds. But hey, what do I know, I slept through history class.

[youtube:20ayc7ko]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY92TV4_Wc0[/youtube:20ayc7ko]

[Shiranu]

Oh nice, I hadn't seen the full interview, just the opening bitch slap from Reza.

His book on liberal Islam looks pretty interesting, I've been wanting to go read it at B&N.

[surly74]

The same host interviewed a Christian who wrote a book on Islam...interestingly she didn't ask him why he did it or thought that was strange.

The thing that amazes me, and its probably because I have a conscience but I know when I'm being unfair and an asshole. I typically don't like it and have a hard time justifying it. I'm amazed at how she keeps going on and on about it.

[Krisyork2008]

Oh my god. That made my day already. That girl literally had nothing after his first statement.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

"Oh Hai, so you've written a book about Jésus. Why, my Muslim? You're a muslim!"

"Yeah but I'm a scholar of religion who also happens to be a Muslim. It makes no difference"

"Yeah but TERRORISM!! And you're brown! Jesus wasn't brown"

"Again, I'm an academic who writes on the history of religion. I'm not giving an Islamic perspective on Jesus*, I'm writing to inform and fuel debate in academia"

"BUT YOU'VE GOT A BOMB!"

"Wut? "

*SEE: Shoe's post above mine.

[WitchSabrina]

Since when is Jesus the 'founder of christianity"?  Um.............. hate to be a stickler for details But some of his followers did the "christian" thing - aka started a religion AFTER jesus was dead and gone.  Instead of defending himself the dude should have just buried her from her first question. :rollin:

[SGOS]

Not sure what her motivations were in that interview.  Two possibilities some to mind.  First, she was handed an impossible outline to follow by her news director:  "This guy is a Muslim writing a book about Jesus.  Let's rip him a new one."  That would be the traditional FOX way of handling the topic.  Second, she simply didn't know the difference between scholarship and religion, and became flustered when it was explained to her.  I tend to think it was the Fox news agenda.  But it could have been something else.

The Library of Congress is filled with scholarly works, many devoted to various religious topics.  I'd guess that majority of those were written by westernized Christian Scholars, and no one has bothered to get their underwear in knots when an academic scholar who happens to be a Christian writes a historical book about the Buddha.

Yeah, I think it was the FOX news agenda, and it's likely that a good portion of the FOX audience still had a wonderful time getting all worked up over the audacity of this academic Muslim scholar, who if he were a real Muslim, would have spent his time making bombs, beating his wife, and aimlessly wandering around in the desert.

[Shiranu]

My biggest take from it, looking at it through Fox-Goggles, is that this was just further evidence of how rude and snobby the "intelligentsia" is towards your average American. You'd have to be biased to see it this way, but I can see how they could see him as  having come across as a real asshole and stuck up, horn totter... but that's ignoring the fact that he was simply trying to explain his job and qualifications because she ignored it several times.

[Colanth]

Not sure what her motivations were in that interview.  Two possibilities some to mind.  First, she was handed an impossible outline to follow by her news director:  "This guy is a Muslim writing a book about Jesus.  Let's rip him a new one."  That would be the traditional FOX way of handling the topic.  Second, she simply didn't know the difference between scholarship and religion, and became flustered when it was explained to her.  I tend to think it was the Fox news agenda.  But it could have been something else.

If you watch her, and listen to the undertones when she speaks, I think you'll see that she's pretty fervent in what she's indicating she believes - that a Muslim writing about Jesus has some ulterior motive, or doesn't know what he's talking about.  (She didn't get nasty enough to be sure which one is driving her.)

She has a single point, and can't even follow him when he phrases the same answer in a way that sounds as if he's not following her lead this time.

I don't agree with his conclusions (or even his basic premise), but they sent an infant with a rattle into a gunfight.

Seen from the viewpoint of the dittoheads who constitute Fox's intended audience, she probably demolished him.  And that's all Fox wants - tune in to their show and buy their sponsors' products.  It's not as if they care whether she actually has a clue what her interview is about, as long as their audience is entertained long enough to watch the commercials.  For their purposes, she could have told the audience who he was and why (in Fox's opinion) he wrote the book, and they wouldn't have needed him at all.

Her "motivation"?  To run the interview and cash her pay check.  I don't think she's capable of any greater "motivation".  She's just a pretty face who draws the audience in to watch.  Fox "news" doesn't need anything more.

[SGOS]

If you watch her, and listen to the undertones when she speaks, I think you'll see that she's pretty fervent in what she's indicating she believes - that a Muslim writing about Jesus has some ulterior motive, or doesn't know what he's talking about.  (She didn't get nasty enough to be sure which one is driving her.)

I would guess that to be true.  I don't think FOX hires actors to play anchor people.  I think they probably have to demonstrate some kind of conviction about the FOX agenda.  It is after all an ultra conservative source of opinion.

And I'm sure she impresses the FOX audience.  But I thought the guy explained his position rather well.  For obvious reasons, he was on the defensive.  What I did like about the way he handled it was the way he just accepted his role:  "OK, you want to put me on the defensive.  Then I'll respond by defending my qualifications and position as an academic."  He seemed comfortable with that, which I thought was unusual.  I have no idea of how he portrayed Jesus, although the title of the book, Zealot, suggests a negative image, but titles are sometimes deceiving.

My secondary reaction was an inner chuckle over having a discussion about a religious icon that doesn't have any solid evidence for his existence in the first place.  Everyone assumes he existed, but the only source is the Bible, which I've come to disregard as highly unreliable over the years.

About a year ago, I remember an interview that centered on the existence  debate (I can't remember where).  The person being interviewed was indeed a Biblical scholar, but his main defense for existence was that "most Biblical scholars believe Jesus existed."  His secondary argument (which I also can't remember details of) was that (big paraphrase coming up) "no one could have made this up because the Gospel details seemed like they couldn't have been made up."  

Walking on water?  Coming back from the dead?  What seems not made up about that?  Was there a man named Jesus who claimed to be a god?  Who knows, really?

[Shiranu]

I have no idea of how he portrayed Jesus, although the title of the book, Zealot, suggests a negative image, but titles are sometimes deceiving.

Actually, quite the opposite. From the interview he did with John Oliver on TDS, it portrays Jesus as a historical person and what his role would have been; political threat to the Romans who cared about the poor and needy, a working class guy who as his time as a carpenter saw the discrepancies between the rich building rich homes and palaces at the nearby capital of Galilee (that I don't want to slaughter the spelling of). He also talked about how the books of the Bible were not written for a Jewish but a Roman/Western audience, and were not meant to be taken as a 100% historical truth but folk-lore like any other religion and that the Jewish Jesus most likely would find the modern Christian completely foreign to his train of thought.

Here is part 1 of the video, its about 13 minutes all together. I really enjoyed it, it starts getting more professor-y on Part 2.

[youtube:2q7c5zb3]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYOm_GrzFVI[/youtube:2q7c5zb3]

I have been really impressed by what I have watched of his, I knew I recognized him from some where (a previous Daily Show episode awhile back).

I don't agree with his conclusions (or even his basic premise)...

Out of curiosity, what don't you agree with? His views on the nature of the Testaments (story's rather than truth), the existence of a person named Yeshua in (He calls it Palestine, though it wasn't yet Palestine in the time of Jesus... about a hundred years too early), or...?

Going to bed, so I promise I will check when ever I get back on :P.

[Colanth]

Out of curiosity, what don't you agree with?

Starting with his basic premise that Jesus was a real person, and going to his conclusions that events attributed to Jesus occurred in the first third of the 1st century.  There's a name for this that I can't remember now (memory is the second thing to go when you get old) that refers to "backfilling" history - invent a "Yeshua" who "was" the reason for Christianity in the 4th century, then make up stories about "his" life in the 1st century.

There was a sky-godlet probably in the 1st century who was Paul's "Yeshua", but that's not the Yeshua whom Constantine and the First Council of Nicaea created in the 4th century.

(He calls it Palestine, though it wasn't yet Palestine in the time of Jesus... about a hundred years too early), or...?

The Romans didn't call it the Province of Palestine until about 135 CE, but it had been referred to by similar names for at least 1,000 years prior to that.  ("Philistine" is an earlier form of the name.)

[Cheerful Charlie]

Just copying this over from another site. It's kinda funny and sad at the same time.

This is Reza Aslan, a scholar of religion and religious history. As a part of his promotional tour for his new work, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, Aslan appeared on Fox to be interviewed by anchor Lauren Green. In maybe the most cringe-worthy piece of conversation ever recorded on the network, Green can't seem to get past the idea that a Muslim scholar would want to write a book about Jesus - who as you may know is something of a standout historical/religious figure across many nations and creeds. But hey, what do I know, I slept through history class.

[youtube:2o3kfr0m]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY92TV4_Wc0[/youtube:2o3kfr0m]

Will the Faux talking heads now abstain from commenting on Islam,  not being either Moslems nor experts on Islam?    Nahhhhh!

Cheerful Charlie

[LikelyToBreak]

I got the "removed by user" on the above YouTube videos.  But, I did some searching and found this: [youtube:2rarbytv]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt1cOnNrY5s[/youtube:2rarbytv]
Maybe it will work for a while.

It seems to me that the news babe doesn't think anybody who isn't a Christian scholar can be objective.  After all, Christians don't bare false witness and others do.   :-&

[AllPurposeAtheist]

You people! Always bashing FOX, the most trusted, fair and balanced news source on FOX! If it weren't for FOX we wouldn't even know Jesus was from Missouri and that the US constitution was written by Billy Graham. Get a grip already! :shock: