Thoughts on Reza Aslan, Fox News, and Books on Jesus

7/29/2013

I wasn’t planning to write any more about Reza Aslan and the conservative freak out over the fact that a self-identified Muslim (and one-time evangelical Christian) wrote a book about Jesus. Then I saw this awful clip from Fox News’s online program Spirited Debate in which Fox News has a conniption about Islam. Watch and cringe.

The clip begins not with anything about the book, Zealot, but rather that Aslan used to be a Christian before he “converted back to the faith of his forefathers,” with hints of apostasy when the anchor darkly hints that Aslan is questioning “the core tenets of Christianity.” (Faith of his forefathers? For me that would be, what, Greco-Roman mythology?)

Her very first question to him was this: “You’re a Muslim, so why did you write a book about the founder of Christianity?”

The anchor is Lauren Green, the Fox News religion correspondent.

The look on Aslan’s face is priceless as he pauses, seemingly in shock at the brazen ignorance of Green, who I again remind you is the religion correspondent and an actual graduate of a real college. “To be clear,” he replies, “I am a scholar of religions with four degrees, including one in the New Testament and fluency in biblical Greek, who has been studying the origins of Christianity for two decades, who also just happens to be a Muslim. So it’s not that I’m just some Muslim writing about Jesus. I am an expert with a Ph.D. in the history of religions.”

Green’s reply? “It still begs the question, though: Why would you be interested in the founder of Christianity?”

Not only did she incorrectly use the phrase “beg the question” (which refers to a conclusion that is assumed true), she seems ignorant both of the role of Jesus in Islam as well as a fact I thought was obvious: Scholarship involves learning about things other than one’s own personal opinions and beliefs. (Insert Fox News joke here.) That’s why Aslan replied forthrightly that he studied Jesus because “it’s my job as an academic. I’m a professor of religion, including the New Testament.” At this point he was speaking very slowly to try to get the words to penetrate the anchor’s protective helmet of hairspray.

In Islam, Jesus is revered as a prophet, and he appears in the Qur’an by name 25 times to Muhammad’s five. While Muslims do not accept that Jesus was the literal son of God, they do hold that he was God’s messenger and Messiah and will return at Judgment Day to defeat the False Messiah, known in Christianity as the Antichrist. They agree with the doctrine of the virgin birth and hold that Jesus was God’s special creation. They differ only on whether the miraculous child was of divine substance, a question that more than a few Christian groups have also wrestled with. The other major difference is that the Qur’an (4:157-158) holds that God substituted a lookalike for Jesus at the crucifixion, and Jesus was assumed into heaven:

And [they] said, ‘Verily we have slain Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of God; yet they slew him not, neither crucified him, but he was represented by one in his likeness.’ […] They did not really kill him; but God took him up unto himself. (trans. George Sale)

But even this was hardly a new opinion at the time of its composition, nor originally an Islamic one. This was the well-known Gnostic heresy of Basilides, preserved by Irenaeus in Against Heresies:

Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them. For since he was an incorporeal power, and the Nous (mind) of the unborn father, he transfigured himself as he pleased, and thus ascended to him who had sent him, deriding them, inasmuch as he could not be laid hold of, and was invisible to all. (1.24.4, trans. Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut)

The same heresy appears in the Gnostic Second Treatise of the Great Seth, written in the third century as though in the voice of Jesus himself:

For my death, which they think happened, (happened) to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death. […] They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. I was another upon Whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the archons and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance. And I subjected all their powers. For as I came downward, no one saw me. For I was altering my shapes, changing from form to form. And therefore, when I was at their gates, I assumed their likeness. For I passed them by quietly, and I was viewing the places, and I was not afraid nor ashamed, for I was undefiled. (trans. Roger A. Bullard and Joseph A. Gibbons)

If nothing else, such texts make plain that the study of early Christology is important for understanding Islam, which would be a direct and scholarly answer to the Fox News question. But it’s also the wrong answer. Scholarship should not be based on identity, and one’s inquiry ought not to be limited by one’s personal heritage. I am flabbergasted that an anchor for Fox News would question why a professor of religion would be interested in religions other than his own while having no problem whatsoever with Fox News personality Bill O’Reilly claiming special insight into Jesus with his book on the same subject, Killing Jesus, which is described in almost the same words as Zealot. Compare:

Killing Jesus book description

Now the anchor of The O’Reilly Factor details the events leading up to the murder of the most influential man in history: Jesus of Nazareth. Nearly two thousand years after this beloved and controversial young revolutionary was brutally killed by Roman soldiers, more than 2.2 billion human beings attempt to follow his teachings and believe he is God. Killing Jesus will take readers inside Jesus’s life, recounting the seismic political and historical events that made his death inevitable – and changed the world forever.

Zealot book description

Two thousand years ago, an itinerant Jewish preacher and miracle worker walked across the Galilee, gathering followers to establish what he called the “Kingdom of God.” The revolutionary movement he launched was so threatening to the established order that he was captured, tortured, and executed as a state criminal. Within decades after his shameful death, his followers would call him God. […] Zealot yields a fresh perspective on one of the greatest stories ever told even as it affirms the radical and transformative nature of Jesus of Nazareth’s life and mission.

Isn’t it interesting that Killing Jesus is coming out in just two months? It’s almost as if someone at Fox News wanted to make Zealot unpalatable to the network’s key demographic to clear the way for O’Reilly’s book.

44 Comments

Tara Jordan

7/29/2013 06:21:57 am

Who is that botoxed thing with breast implants instead of a brain?.
She makes a really good case for lapidation, she is dumb as a rock.

Robin Swope

7/29/2013 08:00:36 am

I don't think she is stupid or ignorant, just predisposed to her own agenda seeing Aslan's book as another assault on Christianity. In this post Christian era many Christians are a bit paranoid about any perceived threat to the church. It is obvious that she does not know what she is talking about and the actual framework of Aslan's book which is not a new theory; just an expansion on progressive Christian theology that was a product of the 20th century theologians such as Rudolf Bultmann, the Niebuhr brothers and Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

But on another level, why are we surprised that news anchors are ignorant and opinionated? Whether they be liberal or conservative, the majority of new anchors are concerned with their talking points instead of truth and accuracy.

Bill link

7/29/2013 08:40:19 am

What makes this a "Post Christian" era? I can't walk down block without running into one or two. It's no more post Christian than it is post Islam or post Hindu. The only people are know that believe we are witnessing the demise of Christianity or religion in general are members of the religious right that are upset because their "Religion" has evolved with the rest of the culture and they don't like the changes.

Christopher Randolph

7/29/2013 10:36:00 am

Oh but she is stupid and she is ignorant, for a college graduate in general but especially for a 'Religion Correspondent.' Who at this point doesn't know that Jesus was a prophet of Islam?

Would anyone ever ask why a Christian would make any mention of Abraham, for example? Can you imagine this creature incredulously asking a Christian scholar why he was writing a book about any figure in the Old Testament?

7/29/2013 01:21:59 pm

"I don't think she is stupid or ignorant..." just predisposed to stupidity & ignorance.That "thing" manages to use her two functional brain cells to mumble,she is mostly inaudible

DAN D

7/29/2013 09:53:53 am

Another view from MSN and commentary.

http://now.msn.com/reza-aslan-bible-scholar-asked-on-fox-why-he-wrote-a-book-about-jesus

kennethos

7/29/2013 01:24:30 pm

I realize that most people here are expressing a certain amount of vitriol against the Fox News correspondent (including you, Jason, which surprises me somewhat...your research is not nearly so angry at folks), but what surprises me is that an admitted progressive academic, who did his PhD in California, and has presumed spent much of his academic career surrounded by those who share his views....*was shocked and astounded to not receive similar treatment on FOX NEWS.* If a traditionalist or conservative went on CNN or MSNBC, they'd wisely be prepared for a potentially hostile reception. This guy had the "deer in a headlights" look about him. Wail against the host all you want: I'd be curious as to why a "scholar of religion" who speaks about being a professor, and boasts about his scholarship, is so shocked by a rather common question. Isn't he used to student interaction, people asking him questions? (Even perhaps silly ones?) He's very defensive, and apparently not used to people questioning him (which marks him as a very poor academic and scholar....I thought PhD work gave you a thicker skin.) Didn't he practice, or at least rehearse, in anticipation of a book tour (which he's on), of people questioning him as to why he wrote a book? It's not like he was asked a challenging technical question. "Why'd you write the book?" (shocked look on his face...)
Looks to me like amateur hour.

7/29/2013 01:35:52 pm

"...and has presumed spent much of his academic career surrounded by those who share his views....was shocked and astounded to not receive similar treatment on FOX News..".

You made a good point. The anchor is a total idiot but Aslan is way too dogmatic.

Jason Colavito link

7/29/2013 01:48:03 pm

Honestly, reading his book, I don't see much that's new in it. It's pretty much just a summary of mainstream "historical Jesus" scholarship. I doubt Arthur Drews would have done much more than yawn at it.

7/29/2013 01:56:34 pm

I'll say one thing in defense of the anchor (who does not seem to be one of the shining lights of the Fox Network): I've seen numerous anchors on CNN and MSNBC who express similar intellect.
An example comes to my mind: previously, you've mentioned Dr. Mike Heiser, of the Naked Bible blog. I've listened to a number of podcasts he's done, interviews, et al. One of his standard procedures is to spend five minutes describing his academic background, degrees, knowledge, experience, etc., as a way of preparing the audience to listen to him, and accept his "authority" of knowledge. He does this pretty much conversationally, and without a bit of defensiveness.
I didn't hear this with Aslan, which was astounding given all the interviews he's done. I heard somebody expressing a huge load of pretentiousness, very condescending, and shock at being questioned. I get the idea he's done too many soft-ball interviews, with eager, accepting audiences. That does not speak to me of someone ready to say something new.

7/29/2013 01:58:40 pm

One of the issues is that Aslan is inflating his credentials somewhat. See this blog, though note that it is a bit too harsh. His PhD is in the sociology of religion and he teaches creative writing.

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/07/29/scholarly-misrepresentation/

7/29/2013 04:03:32 pm

"One of his standard procedures is to spend five minutes describing his academic background, degrees, knowledge, experience, etc., as a way of preparing the audience to listen to him, and accept his "authority" of knowledge. ... I heard somebody expressing a huge load of pretentiousness, very condescending, and shock at being questioned."

Oh dear.

My internet stalker has accused me of all of this when I've repeatedly answered a political science question of which she doesn't want to hear the objectively correct answer. My great crime has been to point out that my education and employment has been in the political science field.

Only in the US is having degrees and experience in a subject considered something that makes one uniquely unqualified to address the issue.

The idiot was asking a man whose job it is to study religion why he wrote about religion. What else was he supposed to answer? What would you have answered in the same situation?

7/29/2013 01:46:18 pm

The problem I had with Lauren Green isn't that she asked him why he wrote the book; that's a standard question. It's the presumptuous framing of it, with the ignorance it implied. For example, she might have asked "As a Muslim, did your Islamic faith affect your understanding of Jesus?" Instead, she used the language of heresy ("faith of his forefathers"...challenging "core tenets of Christianity" etc.)--and led off with that as the first and most important point! I found that rather shocking. There's nothing wrong with asking about Muslim perspectives on Jesus, but being seemingly unaware that Jesus is an Islamic figure as well as a Christian one was just bizarre.

7/29/2013 01:54:22 pm

Jason,Since we`re dealing with religious controversy,have you read John Boswell`s" Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe"?.

7/29/2013 01:59:59 pm

I did, but it was probably 15 years ago. My memory is a bit fuzzy.

7/29/2013 02:03:13 pm

Jason:
Perhaps she was ignorant; I don't know her background or education. I was floored that a Muslim academic (former Christian?) was unprepared (visibly) for such a question, and flustered so easily. You may have been shocked by her line of questioning; seeing a progressive academic squirm under a line of undergrad level questions was both amusing and frustrating to me.
Like you, I'd enjoy watching a higher level of discourse on the news. Sadly, if we're limited to CNN, FOX, MSNBC, et al, we're bound to be disappointed.

7/29/2013 04:06:49 pm

Tara -

'Same Sex' is near the top of my to-read pile! Maybe soon someone will make a gross misstatement about that book and provide an excuse to discuss it.

7/29/2013 04:11:37 pm

"was unprepared (visibly) for such a question..."

Oh I don't think so. I think you just didn't like his answer, which for most reasonable people would be more than sufficient.

I would be visibly shocked that even a Fox News lump would somehow, over a decade after 9/11, express surprise that a Muslim of any sort let alone an American PhD would have some interest in Jesus. You would think that someone called a Religion Correspondent might make time for a rainy weekend perusal of Islam for Dummies some time before going on national TV.

If this is rather too much to expect than perhaps I need to leave the US sooner than I thought.

7/29/2013 02:15:05 pm

Kennethos.
I think I understand the reason behind the animosity towards the anchor.She is quite stupid & to her own disadvantage she is not showing enough skin ;)

7/29/2013 02:17:54 pm

Tara:
LOL...Since I don't watch Fox regularly (much less CNN or MSNBC), I miss most of the "skin" shown apparently. I didn't notice her much, I was too busy gawking at Reza's routine. ;)
(Besides...since when is high intelligence a requirement for being an anchor or talking head on TV?)

7/29/2013 02:41:43 pm

"since when is high intelligence a requirement for being an anchor or talking head on TV...".

I guess I was smart & wise enought to decline Al Jazeera`s offer to work at the Paris bureau ;)

The Other J.

7/29/2013 05:29:56 pm

To be fair, let's say we were talking about a literature professor. Let's say his specialty was, I dunno, 19th and 20th century American literature. Let's say the prof also studied Anglo-Saxon and eventually writes a book on Beowulf, which is in a different language than a 19th or 20th century American idiom.

If the host of a news show who invited the professor on expressed affronted incredulity that the professor dared to write on a subject that wasn't from the professor's native idiom and region, that professor would have a right to be surprised. Because A.) The host (or producer) should have done a little homework, and B.) It's still the professor's field, and given the scope of the prof's academic training, should be adequate preparation to write on the given subject with authority.

But if Fox didn't manufacture a little outrage, they wouldn't have much of a show.

7/29/2013 01:29:29 pm

On the other hand,Non Christians should rely on the same argument to dismiss & stifle any criticism of their respective religions.

7/29/2013 04:17:52 pm

Christopher:
My point is one of "tone." Reza could have patiently explained to a perhaps uneducated (or maybe uninformed) anchor why he's fascinated by the central figure of a religion different from his own; presumably, he's done this before, say, to his own students in the past. This interview could have simply been remembered for embarrassing the interviewer. Instead, Reza did not demonstrate patience, humility, wisdom, etc. (IMHO, at least), standard traits one would hope for in someone teaching at university level with a PhD.
I suppose if I were in his shoes, I would have used anecdotes and experience to answer. In fact, given his background, and an hour's preparation, this should have been an easy appearance for Reza. He's written several books (at least, those noted on his web site... I couldn't find a CV listed there). If I were appearing on CNN or MSNBC, I'd do my best to be polite, respectful, use my experiences to winsomely defend my POV/newest book (in Reza's case), and be as thick-skinned as possible. Why he seems not to have done this is puzzling indeed. (Unless he's that rare holder of a PhD who was never challenged at all in defending his diss?)

Varika

7/29/2013 04:37:14 pm

Uh, kennethos, I rather thought "I'm a religious scholar" was a PRETTY GOOD explanation for why he wrote the book, and it was like the first thing he said. And the last thing he said. "It's my job" was pretty clear, too.

Also, I have to say, I don't know why you think patience and humility and wisdom are "standard traits" for someone teaching at a university. One might HOPE for those traits, but my experience, in four different colleges, has been that you're lucky if you get one of three in any given professor, and that the doctors are the ones LEAST likely to have patience or humility. The last doctor who taught a class I was in threw a fit whenever anyone disagreed with her viewpoint. During DISCUSSIONS, not just during lectures.

In short, I think you're expecting way too much of Reza, and being way too forgiving of the anchor, who clearly didn't WANT an actual explanation, but only wanted him to say "Alright, fine, nobody but Christians should ever write about Jesus."

7/29/2013 04:58:56 pm

Varika:
I haven't yet argued with the substance of what he said; there are many thin-skinned scholars out there promoting Historical Jesus material; however, his tone and demeanor (and expectation of that being allowed) are a different matter. My own experience has been that of interacting with scholars who don't mind dissenting viewpoints, and encourage learning thereby. I'm sorry you've had different experiences, where ego and vanity play larger parts (and reduce the actual learning, I wager).
If you read what I've written on this thread above, I haven't defended the anchor. Am I expecting too much of Reza? Maybe. If expecting him to interact with a media personality the way he might with any other interviewer is too much, so be it. Not everyone will be a soft, sympathetic interviewer like Jon Stewart. Some folks might actually challenge him. Or is that too much to ask?

7/29/2013 05:04:27 pm

"My own experience has been that of interacting with scholars who don't mind dissenting viewpoints..."

The anchor isn't expressing an dissenting viewpoint, she's questioning the man's right to write a book. Reza's not the person here who has a problem with differing viewpoints, and he stated that repeatedly in the interview.

"I haven't defended the anchor. ..."

Please!

7/30/2013 10:52:37 am

Why do you think he's interacting with this anchor in a way that's different from any other interviewer he might encounter? I think the problem is that you're expecting him to react like, I don't know, a movie star or a politician. He's reacting like a normal dude, instead. The question this woman asked was rude and insensitive. "You're black. Why would you be interested in writing a book about George Washington/Thomas Jefferson/Queen Elizabeth I/Other famous white person?" "You're a woman. Why would you be interested in writing a book about Michelangelo?" Neither of those questions would do anything but raise a firestorm of protest. If anything, I didn't think Reza got ticked ENOUGH. Personally, I would have responded with, "Well, it's nice to know that you're a bigot, lady. Gods forbid anybody be interested in anything outside whatever prayer book they have in hand, much less trained in it."

In short, she didn't CHALLENGE him, she INSULTED him. CHALLENGING him would mean asking actually INTELLIGENT questions like, "How do you reconcile the material you've written with what your Muslim faith says about the man?" or "Did your early Christian faith influence this work and how?"

Defending the anchor, a list of YOUR OWN quotes:

"I'll say one thing in defense of the anchor"
"Perhaps she was ignorant"
"a perhaps uneducated (or maybe uninformed) anchor"
"since when is high intelligence a requirement for being an anchor or talking head on TV?"

Additionally, you have been spending so much time vilifying Reza that taken as a whole, it certainly comes across as, "Well, it's all HIS fault, he shouldn't be so SENSITIVE!"

7/29/2013 04:56:38 pm

"could have patiently explained"

This is exactly what he did. Repeatedly. You seem to have paid as much attention to the interview as she did to the book. She even claimed on national TV that the man was trying to hide his religious belief even though as he points out he discussed this on the second page of the book.

Either this dingbat didn't read the book or is lying. Or, yknow, both. Who needs to be the slightest bit polite when confronted with that? He had every right in the world to call her an idiot, take the mic off and leave.

"to a perhaps uneducated (or maybe uninformed) anchor"

Why on Earth should either he or the audience expect an uneducated or uninformed anchor? Why do you accept that? I'll add she's clearly not just both but a bigoted and biased blabbing head.

"why he's fascinated by the central figure of a religion different from his own"

Is it still not clear that he was a Christian? Is it still not clear that Jesus is a major figure in Islam?

"Reza did not demonstrate patience, humility, wisdom, etc."

Why should he demonstrate patience? How is that his task? Why shouldn't the interviewer demonstrate sentience?

Why should he demonstrate humility? How is that his task? How is presuming there's something fishy about a Muslim writing about Jesus an example of humility on the interviewer's part?

I don't know what you mean by 'wisdom.' Did the interviewer 'demonstrate wisdom'? How? Why no criticism of that if not?

I can't and won't defend someone against "etc." other than to note it really suggests you're grasping at straws in defending the indefensible.

"I suppose if I were in his shoes, I would have used anecdotes and experience to answer."

Didn't he do both? First he's wrong for running through his educational experience and now you complain that he didn't 'use experience.'

"this should have been an easy appearance"

... because the interviewer shouldn't have used her poxy little platform to clumsily Muslim-bash from her throne of stupidity.

"I'd do my best to be polite, respectful..."

Why? (And how is that not what you saw?!) Why should anyone have to be polite and respectful to someone who is trying to bash you on national TV?

"Why he seems not to have done this is puzzling..."

Has the man done anything lately that isn't 'puzzling' to Muslim-bashers?

Anyone wanting to see how to handle a Rupert Murdoch outlet interview should go to YouTube and watch George Galloway savage the Sky News morons.

7/29/2013 06:21:22 pm

I blame it on a bad casting decision.Lauren Green is not up to the task,Ann Coulter would have done a better job.She is a Christian crypto Nazi "intellectual" & she doesn't believe in the Darwin theory of evolution.

tubby

7/30/2013 05:41:23 am

Ahhhh.. so Reily has his own book coming out. That might be partly to blame for Fox's response to Aslan. Looking at this interview it's pretty clear that their 'outrage' that an outsider/apostate would publish a book about a subject they don't think he's allowed to discuss even if it's his field of expertise is a large component too.

B L

7/30/2013 08:50:24 am

News anchors are notoriously ignorant people. Often the person in front of the camera knows nothing of the subject matter, and instead relies on teleprompter dictated talking points. One has to be overly pushy in reiterating what the teleprompter says when one is unable to debate intelligently on an unfamiliar subject.

FOX News is not the only culprit. I recently heard an MSNBC correspondent blame Detroit's recent financial collapse, a problem decades in the making, on Republican policies while seemingly completely unaware that Detroit has not had Republican leadership since the 1960's.

If both conservative and progressive media outlets would agree on reporting the news instead of creating it, then things might be better for all of us.

7/30/2013 08:53:37 am

As an aside, I overheard a portion of Glen Beck's radio show this morning. He claims that he is going to blow the lid off of Reza Aslan's book on tomorrow's show. He hinted that Aslan is backed by some pretty shady characters, and that the book is agenda driven rather than a true scholarly account. It might be interesting to hear this side of the discussion. I'm seriously thinking of tuning in for once.

7/30/2013 12:20:58 pm

Detroit hasn't had Republican leadership, but the state has, and Gov. Rick Snyder has instituted a policy of emergency management whereby any city he deems to be an emergency case is taken over by an appointed official to help right its financial failings. Of course there are problems with that -- for one, it means the democratically-elected officials are ousted from their representative positions, and Snyder's hand-chosen person gets to take over the entire city. So much for representative government. Another problem is that much of the emergency management has consisted of taking public assets and selling them off to private owners, to either very little or no benefit to the municipality. Detroit was something like the 3rd or 4th city to be put under emergency management, well before the latest news that it's gone broke.

According to the Detroit Free Press, emails have been uncovered that show the very emergency manager instated by the governor to help Detroit avoid bankruptcy had previously stated that he thought the city should go bankrupt -- which makes him a very unlikely candidate for the job, unless you actually want to the city to go bankrupt despite proclamations to the contrary. So if you recently heard someone on the news accusing Republicans of having a hand in Detroit's current financial crisis, it was probably related to all that.

7/31/2013 02:52:10 am

So Rick Snyder, the three year Governor of Michigan, is responsible for Detroit's decades long financial decline. I stand corrected. FOX News IS the only biased news outlet. :)

7/31/2013 03:10:48 am

I checked a map and it turns out that Detroit is located in the United States of America. A bit more research reveals that is the level of government that makes most of the financial decisions for people who live in cities like Detroit.

7/31/2013 04:21:29 am

Hey everybody, listen up....Christopher has a map and is capable of a "bit" of research. Now, carry on.

7/31/2013 06:23:17 am

"Christopher has a map and is capable of a "bit" of research."

Already that puts me ahead of Scott Wolter.

So, do you have any response to the actual point, that places like Detroit exist within a (literal) larger context, with most of the financial decisions affecting us made at the national and state level?

Did the City of Detroit make international trade decisions affecting auto makers? Did the City of Detroit set wage laws for Michigan or for the US? Does the City of Detroit control state and national level taxation and expenditure? Do American cities control the decisions at the state and national level that local property taxation will be the way we fund (or not) our schools?

As pointed out to you by Other J, Michigan has controlled the city (and others) by 'emergency management.'

I guess when Berlin got wrecked in 1945 it was the mayor's fault...

7/31/2013 09:03:07 am

Oops! Not sure what happened to the end of this thread, but see my response down the page a few steps.

charly bear

7/30/2013 02:56:01 pm

As to any TV "news anchor", there has not been a single one of even average intellect since Huntley died and "unca" Walter retired.
TV anchors are just glorified news readers. They are NOT journalists in any decent definition of that term. They are over paid, under educated, makeup laden clowns for the amusement of those who foolishly "think" that US TV "news" informs them.

7/30/2013 06:14:56 pm

Reza Aslan on the Lapham's Quarterly podcast
http://tinyurl.com/lcf4abv

7/31/2013 08:40:35 am

I concede. I will not argue your comment about Scott Wolter. In fact, we almost became friends there for a second.

However, I think city council members nationwide would be surprised to hear that their positions are primarily ceremonial.

I'm being snarky here, but Detroit citizens do indeed have reason for alarm if the many incarnations of our Federal Government over the last 50 years, both Republican and Democrat, have specifically targeted their city for a slow death. That would not be fair, especially when other large metropolitan areas under perennial progressive control are thriving....Chicago, Illinois and many cities in California come to mind.

I agree with The Other J. on at least one point. Representative government is a must, and the way the current governor is handling the situation deserves to be reviewed and debated. Where we differ on this subject, and I may be misunderstanding The Other J. here, is that blaming a third year governor for the past 50 years of fiscal irresponsibility seems like a thin argument to me.

Joe

7/31/2013 04:04:18 pm

Not to be argumentative, but I think that you are expecting an intellectual conversation during the interview, but that is not realistic when you consider the intention of both parties.

If you really think about the host, she is an employee of FOX News and despite anyone's objection. They are knowledgeable of their core demographics and I am sure that she approached the interview knowing how the questions will be received by her audience. So she might come off as brash but I think that was her intent. To try and get a rise by the author and appease the core audience that in general are conservative and possibly have a slanted and uninformed view on the Muslim faith.
But you need to also look at the authors perspective. An accomplished professor that wrote a book about Jesus. In general this book would fall into the background of so many other books written about the history of Christ. However if he is a Muslim author that wrote about Jesus, he is now an Author that is getting interviewed by all the cable channels. When he appears on Fox News he knows the audience of the channel and I am sure expected this type of questioning. By looking shocked and upset he is creating the controversy I am sure he increased his book sales.

I am not questioning the quality of the book or his credentials. But by creating a controversy he is increasing he exposure and the number of people interested in his books. I am sure that this is the total goal by the publisher and possibly the author.

7/31/2013 04:18:10 pm

I also wanted to comment about everyone's opinion about the situation in Detroit. I grew up in Michigan and lived in Metro Detroit for several years. I am not an expert on all aspects of Detroit politics but have been informed on the Detroit over the years.

To point at the federal and state government and think that they are responsible for the down fall in Detroit is ridiculous. To ignore the states lack of expanding the industries in the state is also irresponsible. But the bulk of the fault has to fall on Detroit and specifically the Detroit city council. Ever since the riot in Detroit during the 60's there has been an exodus from the city proper. Since that time the city has been losing population but have maintained or increased the level of city services.

This is a recipe for a disaster, it has taken several decades to see the effect of keeping service levels growing without the tax base to pay for it. At this point there are entire neighborhoods with only a couple of residents in the neighborhood but the city needs to maintain normal services for this abandon neighborhood without the residents to pay for it.

Beside that the city has made poor decisions in selling non essential assets and attracting companies to the city. They have been adversarial to outside companies and investors to the city and now the city is paying the price.

As I have said I used to live in the metro area but had to move to DC for better career opportunities for my wife and myself. There are thousands of examples of people moving of Detroit for the same situation, this has been going on for decades and people wonder why Detroit is unable to pay its pension obligations.