Did you see this astonishing 'interview'?

[kenny]

It is 10 minutes long.
Do try to watch the whole thing, regardless how painful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY92TV4_Wc0&feature=player_embedded

 

[arkieb1]

How to run an interview when you have not actually read or understood the work in question????

 

[kenny]

She said, "We're not just talking about people who disagree with you, many scholars disagree with you as well.

Ouch!!!




So when she interviews scholar/authors with a PhD in oceanography she must ask, "But you live on land sir, why would you write a book on oceanography?"

Faux News!

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/30/us/rel-muslims-newsmakers/

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2013/07/30/pmt-intv-reza-aslan.cnn.html

 

[arkieb1]

I thought he made that point aptly when he said near the end that many Christian and non Muslims have written about Islam and about Muslims. She kind of glossed over that part.

What I thought was odd is she was interviewing only from a set list of quotes and things others have said about the text in question. I actually don't think she herself was or is heavily biased its just a list of questions someone else or she wrote because she didn't have time or couldn't be bothered even skimming the book. I don't think you can aptly discuss let alone refute in detail something you actually haven't read. And he did point that out as well....

It made her look more of a moron than him having to defend himself. I was sitting here thinking bleepers how can you even make judgement calls when you obviously haven't read the book. It's like when a interviewer does a celeb interview and hasn't watched the film they are talking about - if its a smart witty celeb that is usually entertaining as well.....

 

[monarch64]

I just watched the whole thing.

I thought the interviewer was terrible--I'm not a journalist so won't go into why I thought she was so awful.

Reza Aslan made some wonderful points in between the interviewer's completely awful questions.

He reminds me a lot of my husband.

 

[ksinger]

And, (no surprises for Faux News) on top of being an idiot, she's also a massive hypocrite.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/07/29/fox-reporter-lauren-greens-double-standard-on-r/195114

 

[JewelFreak]

Unfair interview -- she is a poor choice to interview a historian, which he is; she is a committed believer in the Bible's infallibility. That's her right, but to get tough on him for writing about the historical situation is talking apples & oranges. His point that plenty of Christians write about Islam is a good one, for heaven's sake. However, she is not a hypocrite -- she has always been up front about her outlook. This is as biased an interview as some you see on MSNBC. BTW, I don't credit a thing on Media Matters with truth any more than you do Fox News. Not an impartial source.

--- Laurie

 

[ksinger]

Unfair interview -- she is a poor choice to interview a historian, which he is; she is a committed believer in the Bible's infallibility. That's her right, but to get tough on him for writing about the historical situation is talking apples & oranges. His point that plenty of Christians write about Islam is a good one, for heaven's sake. However, she is not a hypocrite -- she has always been up front about her outlook. This is as biased an interview as some you see on MSNBC. BTW, I don't credit a thing on Media Matters with truth any more than you do Fox News. Not an impartial source.

--- Laurie

The source has little to do with it. Since I neither watch nor memorize and keep score of anything on Fox News nor MSNBC or any other broadcast news or news-like show, I am trusting that the list of dated FOX pieces Green did on Islam are verifiable should I wish to do so.

I"m not sure why being a believer in the Bible's infallibility should make one unfit to interview a historian, but I'll take your word for it that it makes her unfit, since her own rigid beliefs in that area would probably admit no deviation. I would say she's unfit because she can't even muster up the tiniest effort at impartiality and clearly doesn't understand true academic debate, and clearly did not bother to read the book, which I think is pretty egregious if you're trying to criticize someone's....book. At least do your own critique, rather than simply trotting out what other critics have said.

That said, the point that I was making by posting that list, was that if she, as a committed Christian, can hold forth repeatedly on air about a religion not her own, that it is then highly hypocritical to try to nail someone else for doing the same just because she objects to the direction of it. And that isn't a comment on either religion - although I'm no fan of either - it's simply a matter of fair's fair. Slamming someone for something you do repeatedly is the very definition of hypocrisy in my book.

 

[yennyfire]

Yikes. I almost felt sorry for her! I think that the author was fairly considerate to her, considering that she clearly hadn't read the book and that the "points" she was trying to make made no sense. I wonder if her boss ripped her a new one for that "interview"?

 

[JewelFreak]

I"m not sure why being a believer in the Bible's infallibility should make one unfit to interview a historian, but I'll take your word for it that it makes her unfit, since her own rigid beliefs in that area would probably admit no deviation. I would say she's unfit because she can't even muster up the tiniest effort at impartiality and clearly doesn't understand true academic debate, and clearly did not bother to read the book,

Just what I meant.

--- Laurie

 

[VRBeauty]

This interviewer provides a good example of the word "zealot":

zeal·ot
/ˈzelət/
Noun
A person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.

As an aside, apparently this interview - and the fallout - has significantly boosted the book's sales.

 

[iheartscience]

This interviewer provides a good example of the word "zealot":

zeal·ot
/ˈzelət/
Noun
A person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.

As an aside, apparently this interview - and the fallout - has significantly boosted the book's sales.

Ditto all this, and the bolded makes me giggle. I had seen the author on Bill Maher but wasn't super familiar with him. I am now! Not super interested in this subject matter but I may check out some of his other work at the library.

 

[movie zombie]

she had an agenda, he was a class act.
watched this yesterday and just could not believe she continued down the same path after he kept slapping her back onto it.
I had never heard of the book. sounds like my kind of thing so i'll probably get it.
and years ago I heard an ex-catholic priest but still historical scholar talking about the same topic re jesus. his conclusion was that whatever jesus was doing then he'd be persecuted for today: terrorism and/or threat to the state.

 

[rosetta]

Oh my. Atrocious interview. I must read this book now!

 

[kenny]

Certainly the network's brass, writer/producer share the blame for the questions she posed.

And yes Faux is not the only biased news source.
Both 'sides' have ensured that ignorant polarity is the rule because that sells more ads than intelligent and reasoned discourse.
IMO media is broken today.

I also find it interesting the author focused only on the historical person and the relevance of the chaotic times 2000 years ago.
Unfortunately some people are so invested in defending their religious beliefs that some go bonkers when someone discusses the historical man apart from the religion that others developed after his death.

Kudos to the author for staying that cool.

 

[AGBF]

I also find it interesting the author focused only on the historical person and the relevance of the chaotic times 2000 years ago.
Unfortunately some people are so invested in defending their religious beliefs that some go bonkers when someone discusses the historical man apart from the religion that others developed after his death.

I read the first four entries to this thread and watched the video (in its entirety) early this morning. I was really angry at the interviewer after forcing myself to do so since kenny had suggested that we all watch to the bitter end. She was truly on my last nerve.

I do have one question, and I have no idea whether the author addressed it in his book since I did not read the book. In the interview he did not address the question at all. That question is one which historians have asked for centuries: was there actually one man called Jesus? From the interview it appeared that the author, who is an historian, never questioned the historical existence of Jesus. He spoke of his crucifixion and what it meant as if his existence were a given.

I am not trying to discuss religion here. I, myself, am a Christian. But to me being a Christian is a matter of faith, not a matter of fact.

Deb/AGBF

 

[kenny]

I do have one question, and I have no idea whether the author addressed it in his book since I did not read the book. In the interview he did not address the question at all. That question is one which historians have asked for centuries: was there actually one man called Jesus? From the interview it appeared that the author, who is an historian, never questioned the historical existence of Jesus. He spoke of his crucifixion and what it meant as if his existence were a given.

I have not read his book either, but...
If his book claimed that the man never existed, or there was more than one with that identity I'm sure it would have raised such a ruckus that it would have been mentioned prominently in this interview or one of the others.

 

[0-0-0]

Yikes. I almost felt sorry for her! I think that the author was fairly considerate to her, considering that she clearly hadn't read the book and that the "points" she was trying to make made no sense. I wonder if her boss ripped her a new one for that "interview"?

Considering it's Fox, I think she's likely to get a bonus/promotion! http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/07/30/liberal-media-miss-reality-in-jabs-at-lauren-green-interview-with-zealot-author/

I do have one question, and I have no idea whether the author addressed it in his book since I did not read the book. In the interview he did not address the question at all. That question is one which historians have asked for centuries: was there actually one man called Jesus? From the interview it appeared that the author, who is an historian, never questioned the historical existence of Jesus. He spoke of his crucifixion and what it meant as if his existence were a given.

I am not trying to discuss religion here. I, myself, am a Christian. But to me being a Christian is a matter of faith, not a matter of fact.

Deb/AGBF

I think you'll find his AMA interesting. http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1jal04/i_am_reza_aslan_scholar_of_religions_author_of/cbct5la?context=3

[–]Slagathor91 2460 points 1 day ago*
Is there any hard evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed? I think many people just take it for granted that he existed and that the Bible itself is more than enough evidence. Is there anything else?
edit: Thank you for the gold, stranger. I am truly honored.
permalink
[–]GretchenG 609 points 1 day ago
In that same vein of thought, is there hard evidence that Muhammad existed? Which religious figure has more physical evidence?
permalinkparent
[–]RezaAslan 1229 points 1 day ago
Good question. We have a good deal of writings about Muhammad from his followers and his detractors that suggests that the man himself was a real person who started a movement sometime around the beginning of the 7th Century AD. But as with Jesus, these are not historical documents. They are mainly testimonies of faith written by communities of faith many years after the events they described. So we are left to cull whatever historical information we can get from them by analyzing their claims in the light of what we can know about the history of the time.
That's what separates studies of Jesus from studies of Muhammad: we have a LOT more information about Jesus' world (thanks to the Romans) than we do about Muhammad's
I did my best to reconstruct Muhammad's world in my first book No god but God.

 

[JewelFreak]

Unfortunately some people are so invested in defending their religious beliefs that some go bonkers when someone discusses the historical man apart from the religion that others developed after his death.

Kudos to the author for staying that cool.

+1

 

[AGBF]

I think you'll find his AMA interesting.

I did, thank you, thbmok. In fact, I found the whole site fascinating. I don't know, "reddit" and had never heard of an "AMA" except the "American Medical Association". This was like finding a long thread about books on Pricescope, only not knowing the names of the posters. There was more give and take than there is if one simply reads books reviews and comments on Amazon. (I don't actively search for sites on which to discuss books, which is probably why I am so woefully ignorant. But maybe that's not the reason; maybe I am just dim. At any rate, thank you.)

Deb/AGBF

 

[movie zombie]

[quote="AGBF|1375292258|3493801........ But to me being a Christian is a matter of faith, not a matter of fact.

Deb/AGBF
[/quote]


deb, this is exactly what the ex-priest historian I mentioned above said! his historical study is/was separate from his "faith" and as such didn't need reconciling or even apology.

 

[Karl_K]

I do have one question, and I have no idea whether the author addressed it in his book since I did not read the book. In the interview he did not address the question at all. That question is one which historians have asked for centuries: was there actually one man called Jesus? From the interview it appeared that the author, who is an historian, never questioned the historical existence of Jesus. He spoke of his crucifixion and what it meant as if his existence were a given.

I am not trying to discuss religion here. I, myself, am a Christian. But to me being a Christian is a matter of faith, not a matter of fact.

Deb/AGBF

I am not trying to discuss religion either, but to deny Jesus existed would be against the teachings of the Quran interestingly enough.
It is really interesting to look into what it says about him.
It presents a different view of him of course but does actually present many things about him that is in today's Bible.
However there are several very bad interpretations on the net of what it actually says so be careful what sources you give weight to.
Look for sources with direct translations and references.

 

[athenaworth]

Yikes. I almost felt sorry for her! I think that the author was fairly considerate to her, considering that she clearly hadn't read the book and that the "points" she was trying to make made no sense. I wonder if her boss ripped her a new one for that "interview"?

Considering it's Fox, I think she's likely to get a bonus/promotion! http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/07/30/liberal-media-miss-reality-in-jabs-at-lauren-green-interview-with-zealot-author/

Jesus, did they even watch the same interview we just did?

 

[AGBF]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/07/30/liberal-media-miss-reality-in-jabs-at-lauren-green-interview-with-zealot-author/

Jesus, did they even watch the same interview we just did?

I hadn't clicked on that link until I read your comment about it, athenaworth. The Fox news spokesman is saying what the interviewer said: that only a Christian, someone who believes in the divinity of Jesus, has the right to write a history of him. Dr. Aslan's question to the interviewer went unanswered both by her and the Fox news spokesman: does no Christian, therefore, have the right to write a history of Islam? What about Buddhism? Hinduism? Judaism? Where will it stop?

AGBF