In the interview below, Fox News Lauren Green is interviewing the author of a new book on Jesus Christ. However, Green appears to be incapable of getting over that academic/author Reza Aslan is a Muslim. While Fox and the other networks routinely interview Christian and Jewish experts on Islam (including highly biased authors), it appears inconceivable that a Muslim would ever write a book on Christianity.
Ironically, Aslan once converted to Christianity and then converted back to Islam. However, it is his current religion that seems to be the stumbling block for Green:
GREEN: This is an interesting book. Now I want to clarify, you’re a Muslim, so why did you write a book about the founder of Christianity?
ASLAN: Well to be clear, 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: But it still begs the question why would you be interested in the founder of Christianity?
ASLAN: Because it’s my job as an academic. I am a professor of religion, including the New Testament. That’s what I do for a living, actually.
The interview repeatedly return to his religion as the most interesting aspect of the interview. It is a highly disturbing interview and a powerful example of how Muslims face double standards in their treatment in the media.
David, No, I would not agree that making it easier for single women to have access to birth control is immoral, sexually or otherwise. It gives them the same opportunities to enjoy healthy sexual activity with the same repercussions as those college boys must deal with.
As for your contentions that Limbaugh was spinning some elaborate joke, i would agree that he was engaging in his trademark sense of humor, which is often cheap, cruel, and underhanded. His style is to deliver outrageous personal insults and then claim he merely joking, and accuse anyone offended by his comments of having no sense of humor, “What, you can’t take a joke?”
There is nothing funny about Limbaugh. His career is built upon pushing boulders down hill, validating the anger and discontent among the alienated in society. His audience does not tune in to learn anything, but rather to receive targets for their resentments. Limbaugh’s gift is to make the most ignorant attitudes sound intelligent. The fact that you listen to Limbaugh is instructive; the fact that you listened to him as he elaborately laid out his “joke” and thought it was funny reflects quite negatively on you.
RTC wrote: “No, I would not agree that making it easier for single women to have access to birth control is immoral, sexually or otherwise. It gives them the same opportunities to enjoy healthy sexual activity with the same repercussions as those college boys must deal with.”
Making women more like men by stripping them of their ability to reproduce is not good. It destroys an important aspect of Gender Diversity. Women have a gift, a natural ability that supersedes any ability of man. They are able to create children with the help of a man. This aspects makes them desirable to men, and removing this ability for the sole purpose of hedonism demeans them, making them less feminine and simply objects of sexual pleasure. Such a system causes men look at women with much less reverence and respect. It causes them to ignore their own responsibility, and it causes them not to look at them as partners necessary for the ability to create life through the institution of marriage. Your inability to see the harm that easy contraception causes reflects negatively on you.
Yes, I had a two hour drive to make and it allowed me to listen to this particular Limbaugh broadcast. Yes, I thought it was funny, and brilliant too. Did you actually listen to it? If not, then causing you to look upon me negatively based upon the gossip you heard about it also reflects upon you in a negative way. I don’t know for sure if you would laugh at it or not, but I think there is a chance you might.
David,
Fish have the capability to obtain oxygen from water…. Snakes go in water too….. Does that make them a fish?
But then again…. We must not drink the same water or air….. I don’t like the venom you spew….
David,
Limbaugh is certainly not too stupid to know that Ms. Fluke was not advocating for herself personally, but for the millions of poor women who need birth control for a number of medical conditions unique to women, as well as controlling whether or not they want to get pregnant. But what if she was. The man is intellectually dishonest, emotionally stunted and a sadist. He is about as humorous as a bad case of scabies.
If you found him the slightest bit amusing, you have a real problem, because only a person with a deep-seated sadistic streak would find that kind of drivel funny. I have not listened to those broadcasts, but did read the transcripts of it and several that followed. Under pressure, in a later broadcast he said he would not call her a slut, but a roundheels instead. Some apology, huh? Forty or fifty separate personal attacks like that on one young female law student, all because she testified before a Congressional subcommittee. That is a moral outrage that makes him no better than the Westboro “Baptist church.”
OS wrote: “I have not listened to those broadcasts, but did read the transcripts of it and several that followed.”
I doubt you can understand well from transcripts because they do not convey the tone of the voice, the pauses in between words, etc. Ms. Fluke’s testimony before Congress was made personal by her, because she identified herself as a third year student attending a Jesuit law school. Surely you know that Catholic teaching is that using contraception to prevent pregnancy is immoral. She clearly wants government to prohibit or interfere with the Catholic administration’s religious practice on that issue. To pretend otherwise is clearly dishonest.
I fail to comprehend how you perceive sadism in someone who laughed at Mr. Limbaugh’s analysis. That statement makes no sense to me.
“Limbaugh’s greatest broadcasts”
There’s an oxy(contin)moron for ya.
DavidM.
You have a truly sick sense of humor if you found Limbaugh’s comments about Sandra Fluke humorous.
Do you think women who use birth control are immoral? Did you know that birth control pills are used to treat some medical conditions? Do you care?
Other Reasons to Take the Pill
By Janis Graham
http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/other-reasons-to-take-the-pill
Excerpt:
The Pill isn’t just for birth control: Did you know that it can also protect against certain life-threatening cancers, plus help relieve some painful period symptoms? Here, experts explain the top seven health benefits of taking the Pill and how to make them work for you…
Pill perk #5: Endometriosis relief
Endometriosis, a condition in which uterine-lining tissue grows in other pelvic areas, can lead to scarring, severe pain, and sometimes infertility. The Pill stops the growth of tissue in other areas by reducing the hormones that cause the lining to build up.
Pill perk #7: Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS) relief
While the Pill doesn’t cure PCOS – a hormonal disorder that triggers irregular cycles, excessive hair growth, and acne – it does offer symptom relief to sufferers. Experts recommend women with PCOS take a pill with 30 to 35 mcg of estrogen, since estrogen helps regulate periods, and combats skin problems and unwanted hair growth.
*****
Rush Limbaugh Calls a Female Georgetown Student, Sandra Fluke, a ‘Slut’
Elaine M wrote: “Do you think women who use birth control are immoral? Did you know that birth control pills are used to treat some medical conditions? Do you care?”
Her testimony before Congress concerned people like her, a 30 yr old co-ed, who supposedly could not afford birth control for the purpose of preventing the reproductive consequences of having natural sex.
The analysis was purely logical, about the money being demanded to be paid and the reasons for it to be paid… so single college co-eds attending private universities like GW Law could have more sexual freedom. The analysis involved discussing various reasons why she would need this to be done, and what the primary reason probably really was. Incidentally, George Washington University is an expensive private university started by the same Baptist minister who started the Southern Baptist Convention. It costs a lot to attend there, and the graduates there earn among the highest starting salaries. The narration dealt a lot with why the Democrats chose this woman to champion their cause.
Do I think women using birth control are immoral? Not necessarily, but the proliferation of birth control certainly leads to many immoral consequences. Rush Limbaugh speculated upon at least one of these.
Would you agree that making it really easy for single college girls to have sexual relations with college boys without the reproductive consequences of natural sex would be promoting a sexually immoral lifestyle?
Elaine M wrote: “Other Reasons to Take the Pill”
Did you know that according to Sandra Fluke’s testimony, 80% of the women who needed the pill for medical reasons were able to have it covered under their insurance? The other 20% were judged to be lying about why they needed it. Yes, she was upset about that 20%, but she and everybody else is ignoring the elephant in the room. Rush Limbaugh simply happened to talk about that elephant in a direct and honest way.
Its amusing the back and forth between the conservative and liberals here on which story book has more violence carried out by its sheep. The reality is that the government is more violent than all of them put together. In some cases such violence is carried out because the story book readers were able to get in key positions of governments.
DavidM,
There is finally something we can agree on. There are no Walter Cronkites any more. Chet Huntley, David Brinkley and Ed Murrow are all gone as well. As are their news directors who were real reporters, not entertainers. An era has passed. I don’t think a modern era cable news network would either support them or give them a show. Not enough flash and splash.
Get real,
If You think church defacings is left just to atheists…. I’ll disregard the rest of your postings…
orolee, I’m sorry to hear you have received such bad news. May the burden grow lighter with time.
The FOX anchor is a buffoon, I am surprised they allow her to still host a show or read from a tele prompter because apart from being ignorant she is somewhat illiterate [not entirely true, but you understand the point]. My guess is she is intimate with the Producer, otherwise how else does a bimbo get to keep her job. It really reduces all the intellectual and hard working women in the industry to see an idiot [if you have a better word then substitute it there] still on air. I am not horrified by what she said, I am merely surprised at how she maintains her self image on screen. Either she is virtually so thick she can just manage the alphabet or she is self absorbed. Either way like 1000’s of viewers, I would not waste my time watching her again.
Bill Dewell wrote: “The FOX anchor is a buffoon … she is somewhat illiterate… she is virtually so thick she can just manage the alphabet… I would not waste my time watching her again.”
Your reaction seems a little extreme to me, Bill. She had a poor interview. So what. She was looking for an answer she didn’t get, so she ended up repeating herself, causing the guest to repeat himself. This doesn’t mean she is incapable of conducting a good interview. If your standard was applied to all newscasters who interviewed guests from a different philosophical bent, there would be none left. We don’t have any Walter Cronkite’s anymore. 🙂
OL,
I knew I should have bought Kool Aid stock when it was low. Have you noticed, there seems to be a high demand for it around here lately?
Funny about the notion Christians are not terrorists. My first immigrant ancestor on my Mother’s side got out of France in 1629 just one jump ahead of Richelieu’s goons. An estimated 100,000 Huguenots were rounded up and murdered in some very creative ways by the Christians of the day who thought they worshiped Christ in the wrong way. The St. Bartholemy’s Day massacre of1572 resulted in somewhere between 5,000 and 30,000 people being killed by good Christians. In Paris, about 25,000 were rounded up and murdered. No one knows the final death toll, but the hundred thousand number seems reasonable, given what we know. About a half million people fled France because of the Christianist religious terrorism, my 10x great grandfather being one of them. The Christian church has a LOT of blood on its hands. We could go back to the Inquisition if you like. That was an exercise in Christian terrorism too.
Then there was that little matter of the Crusades. We in the West are still reaping the fallout from that social and religious disaster.
“oh? where have these christians been blowing up people in acts of religion based terrorism?”
Every time one of them pushes the button to launch a bomb from a drone and kills civilians. Just because they are wearing uniforms and following orders doesn’t lessen the terroristic killing — we just call it legal.
fox responds
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/07/30/liberal-media-miss-reality-in-jabs-at-lauren-green-interview-with-zealot-author/
Liberal media miss reality in jabs at Lauren Green’s interview with ‘Zealot’ author Aslan
http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_terrorist_attacks
Do not even try to compare christian groups to the above muslim groups. Im not even Christian btw. But im not ignorant enough to defend the muslim faith when they have so many of their people blowing up innocent folks.
btw those isolated rare events do not even remotely compare to the muslim terrorist bombings that happen every single day.
the ira-england thing was about the only possible comparison and that hasnt been active for 20 years really.
i wonder how many churches have been burned by atheists versus christians bombing non christians. Care to compare the two? Yeah didnt think so.
want to know who the future terrorists will; be? Progressives planting bombs in churches. Buncha damn nazis
Yeh, DavidM, what OS said. You took a major step off the reality curb and you’re reeling around in the middle of Crazy St. with that last post.
RTC wrote: “You took a major step off the reality curb…”
I can only surmise that neither you nor OS actually listened the broadcast. It was truly one of Limbaugh’s greatest broadcasts ever. He slowly analyzed who Sandra Fluke was and why the Democrats chose her to be their poster girl for the issue of taxpayer funded contraception. For a very long time, he never applied any labels at all. I’m sure many listeners were shouting their own labels at the radio, wanting to know exactly what was in Limbaugh’s mind before he actually said it. It was one of the most original and brilliant analyses I had ever heard on the Sandra Fluke cultural phenomena. No other broadcaster was brave enough to make such a logical and coherent analysis that was for the most part completely devoid of emotion. What is sad is that so many on the left are so emotionally invested in their brand of political correctness, that they could not comprehend his brilliance. Instead they chose the path of expressing hatred for Limbaugh, which continues to this day. At no time did Limbaugh ever express hatred for Sandra Fluke.
DavidM,
You are a lot sicker than I thought. Get help.