Was the interview really that bad?

[Windseeker]

This thread is now about dogs.

wearing socks.

[carlimac]

I can pretty much guess who will not read this. I usually take Glenn Beck with a healthy amount of..."Well, that's Glenn Beck..." He says himself he has ADD and he's hard for me to listen to. But this time, it looks as if the proof is in the pudding. It appears that Mr. Aslan is either very confused about himself and who he is, or he's trying to pull a fast one. And he seems to have plenty of support from some not so illustrious groups. I don't know if I could come up with the identical conclusion Glenn Beck has, but he has highlighted some pretty incriminating quotes by Aslan that show he's not simply obssessed with Jesus in a scholarly way. And some facts about his career that don't seem to add up to how Aslan has portrayed himself in the media.

Who is Reza Aslan? Glenn exposes his progressive record – Glenn Beck

Edited August 1, 2013 by carlimac

[Bini]

Me. I can't listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O'reilly. Reading a transcript might be less painful but I doubt it :)

[carlimac]

Me. I can't listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O'reilly. Reading a transcript might be less painful but I doubt it :)

Slightly less painful.

[jerome1232]

Me. I can't listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O'reilly. Reading a transcript might be less painful but I doubt it :)

I have that problem, everything should have a transcript. I can stomach reading it much better. Plus, everybody in the house doesn't have to wonder why I'm listening to some maniac rant on youtube.

[carlimac]

I have that problem, everything should have a transcript. I can stomach reading it much better. Plus, everybody in the house doesn't have to wonder why I'm listening to some maniac rant on youtube.

This is the transcript.

[carlimac]

In reading just a little more I found an article that I won't even link here. It described some Twitter exchanges Aslan has had with people who have questioned him on his career credentials and his website and a few other topics. His replies are full of vulgar language and insults. Mr. Aslan is emerging more and more as narcissistic and hypocritical as well as dishonest.

The only reason I'm at all invested in this is because from the get go, from the first time I watched the interview I sensed something disingenuous in Mr. Aslan. Then I kept reading the opposite in the media and even here on this forum. So what's wrong with me? Was I getting the wrong signals from my gut? Turns out I wasn't. And this author needs to be exposed for who he really is.

Go ahead and read the book anyone who disagrees with me, but be aware that it's very much akin to studying anti-Mormon literature that we've been encouraged to avoid. His book is anti-Christ literature.

[LittleWyvern]

Go ahead and read the book anyone who disagrees with me, but be aware that it's very much akin to studying anti-Mormon literature that we've been encouraged to avoid. His book is anti-Christ literature.

This conclusion combined with Glenn Beck's monologue deeply worries me.

First, yes, I did read the transcript. Most of Beck's arguments seemed to be geared toward making Aslan look as "different" and therefore as "other" as possible. There were very few stereotypical conservative enemies that Beck didn't try to fit Aslan into, most of them unjustified. What I'm most worried about is the way Beck decides to pin the "dishonest" label on Aslan:

VIDEO

Reza Aslan: I do not believe that Jesus is God, nor do I believe that he ever thought that he was God or that he ever said that he was God.

Okay, got a problem with this one, because Jesus made it very clear that he was. He was either God, the son of God, or the Messiah. He’s in the God circle there. And I don’t care how far you get away from it, if you read the Gospels, it’s pretty clear that’s who he’s saying he is. It’s one of the reasons why everybody wanted him dead. He refers to himself as I Am, which is the holy name of God, at least four times. In Mark, Jesus is asked, “Are you the son of God? And he says “yes.” Well, that seems like it’s pretty clear. So why would a religious scholar make such an easily disprovable claim?

The string of dishonesty seems to be a pattern here.

So, Aslan is dishonest because... he believes in the Islamic view of Jesus. Aslan's quote up there is wholly unremarkable for a Muslim to say. Beck then refutes Aslan's claims with the Gospels in the Bible (and if you've paid attention to what I said about the Injil you'll know why that's ridiculous), and then decided what he believes about Jesus trumps Aslan's beliefs because... well, I guess because that's what's in the Bible. Beck then goes on to list other things that Aslan says that are fairly standard Islamic beliefs, shows how they conflict with Christian beliefs (shocker!), and then uses that as a conclusion that Aslan is lying. The rest of Beck's monologue follows this same trend: Aslan is a bad person because he's not a fan of Israel (whoa! Stop the presses!), Aslan is a bad person because he likes the Muslim Brotherhood (wowza!), and so on. These reasons for labeling Aslan with all the names Beck chooses to use boil down to "Aslan is a Muslim. His beliefs about Jesus aren't the same as mine, therefore he's a lair and dangerous to this country."

Don't you see how damaging that logic is? Past the almost nativist streak in Beck's message is a dangerous conclusion of "different therefore bad." It worries me that statements of belief get labeled as "incriminating quotes." How many times have we as Mormons been labeled a cult or evil because our view of Jesus doesn't match the view of most Christians? I could quote some Bible verses that make us look different too. This same logic that Beck is using is also used to label Mormons as dangerous and wrong. The same logic that you use to say that Aslan's book is "anti-Christ" would also label the Book of Mormon as "anti-Christ" (because some things in it disagree with some doctrines in mainstream Christianity). This sort of reversal is already starting to happen in the comment section of Beck's transcript:

"Make no mistake, he is a progressive radical above all else. He wants to change our understanding of history and our relationship to God to create social change." Wait. Glenn Beck. Are you talking about Reza Aslan? Or are you talking about Joseph Smith? I don't think you have an ounce of credibility recanting what is historically accurate, considering the founder of your religion created an entirely different history for North America (including fabricated people groups and tribes that have been entirely disproven by archeology).

This is why your conclusion deeply worries me and why I've participated in this thread so much. I don't think we should participate in this kind of thing, because we risk using the same kind of tactics those who are anti-Mormon use. If we are to oppose the work of anti-Mormons, we must show the example of religious tolerance and respect.

[MarginOfError]

Does it also strike you as odd, Wyvern, that Beck works very hard to tie Reza to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood (hyper-conservative) and then label him a "progressive radical?"

[carlimac]

First of all, Glenn Beck is talking about the dishonesty or at the very least, the misrespresentation of his "degrees". I can't see where he meant that different means dishonest. I agree that different doesn't always equal bad. Being Muslim doesn't automatically make you a bad person and nowhere do I get that sentiment from what Glenn is saying. I don't think he believes that.

But you have to dig deeper than just "different". Mr. Aslan is a Muslim Brotherhood supporter? Well that's different than me but what exactly does the Muslim Brotherhood stand for and what is their agenda? The are all for sharia law. Well what is that and how does it affect peoples lives? Yes they've done some charity work but they have also beaten and killed women for minor infractions of their laws. ( going without a burqua in public for example).

Same for the other groups this man is associated with or funded by. If he is closely associated with them, is he just taking their money but doesn't really think like they do or does he agree with what they stand for? I looked up all the groups Glenn mentions and I'd have to do a ton more research to understand them and to decide if what they are up to is good or bad. My initial reaction is that Glenn is maybe a little off base and uptight about some of them. But I think that before you can make a sweeping generalization that "different isn't bad", you need to investigate and compare some of the ideals of these groups to the Gospel. Does what they stand for conflict with my personal beliefs? What DOES Mr. Aslan stand for? How can I trust him when he says that he wrote this book purely for the academic interest of it?

Maybe it's not necessary to know much about the author when reading a novel or a book about the history of the Swiss Independence Day (which is today by the way. Did you know that?), for example. But I think that when reading a history of our Savior, it's pretty important to know what's in the mind and heart of the author. When he says that he became very angry and resentful and turned away from Christianity...well is this book likely to be just purely an academic work? Uhhh...ya just gotta wonder.

Sure he can write an academic book that might be enlightening as far as what life was like in Jerusalem in the year 10 AD. He can paint Jesus in any fashion he'd like. But is reading this book going to encourage one's testimony of Christ's divinity? Or is it going to introduce seeds of doubt? We need to ask ourselves "is that even important to me?" Can I read this book objectively if the author himself lost his testimony of Christ?

I guess my biggest complaint about the man is the bullying and disdain he exhibits towards anyone who disagrees with him. The vulgar language and abuse he uses when communicating with his dissenters out of the media limelight is enough to persuade me to not take anything he writes seriously. (Touche Dravin)

[carlimac]

Does it also strike you as odd, Wyvern, that Beck works very hard to tie Reza to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood (hyper-conservative) and then label him a "progressive radical?"

I'm really surprised you can't see the connection in the two and understand what he means.

[Dravin]

I guess my biggest complaint about the man is the bullying and disdain he exhibits towards anyone who disagrees with him. The vulgar language and abuse he uses when communicating with his dissenters out of the media limelight is enough to persuade me to not take anything he writes seriously. (Touche Dravin)

Thank you for acknowledging the wit or appropriateness of my earlier comment.

[bytor2112]

What's so bad about being anti-Muslim?

Muslims have done little in my opinion to separate themselves from what or why many see the dogmatic adherence to clerics that decent Muslims say pervert Islam. So, am I I anti-muslim...no not really. But I certainly do not trust them nor do I care to see them take a foothold in America.

Bini and MOE and LW and the rest of the more advanced tolerant crowd can gleefully enjoy those various shades of grey that they perceive neanderthals like Windseeker, Carlimac and even the warm and fuzzy Bytor are unable to see through our intolerant glasses.

I am of the opinion that Islam is dangerous and does not lead to a fullness of joy in this life or the life to come and do think we would have a safer and better world without Islam.

[carlimac]

. Muslims have done little in my opinion to separate themselves from what or why many see the dogmatic adherence to clerics that decent Muslims say pervert Islam. So, am I I anti-muslim...no not really. But I certainly do not trust them nor do I care to see them take a foothold in America.

Bini and MOE and LW and the rest of the more advanced tolerant crowd can gleefully enjoy those various shades of grey that they perceive neanderthals like Windseeker, Carlimac and even the warm and fuzzy Bytor are unable to see through our intolerant glasses.

I am of the opinion that Islam is dangerous and does not lead to a fullness of joy in this life or the life to come and do think we would have a safer and better world without Islam.

I am not anti-Muslim either. There are some really wonderful tenets of their religion and some really nice Muslim people. And yes, a Muslim could totally write an academic history of Jesus. I'm just wary, especially of the radical jihadists. I don't like the idea of them getting a foothold in our country either. I believe the Muslim Brotherhood would like nothing more than to do just that. (Not that every member of the MB is a violent jihadist. I honestly don't know. But they don't have a clean as a whistle track record for non-violence either.)

The problem with some of these progressive groups like the Pink whoevers is that they are anti-military. As dear as their cause is for spending less on military and more on education and care of the poor is that if they had their way, our country would be much more vulnerable without that military presence, like a big fat bullseye for Muslim countries that don't much like America.

[LittleWyvern]

Does it also strike you as odd, Wyvern, that Beck works very hard to tie Reza to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood (hyper-conservative) and then label him a "progressive radical?"

Oh, it's worse than that. Trying to map Aslan's views on Islamic jurisprudence to American political labels is like trying to fit a round peg into a square hole that's on the Moon.

Does what they stand for conflict with my personal beliefs? What DOES Mr. Aslan stand for? How can I trust him when he says that he wrote this book purely for the academic interest of it?

(snip)

But is reading this book going to encourage one's testimony of Christ's divinity? Or is it going to introduce seeds of doubt? We need to ask ourselves "is that even important to me?" Can I read this book objectively if the author himself lost his testimony of Christ?

Look, I'm not trying to get you to agree with Aslan or even like the guy. All I'm trying to say is that we should be very careful about who we term "anti-Christ" (as your logic for labeling Aslan anti-Christ would apply to all Muslims, but I'll trust you when you say you're not anti-Muslim for now), and try to avoid using arguments to discredit someone else's beliefs as wrong or "incriminating" that would also label our beliefs as wrong or incriminating. We can't actively oppose anti-Mormonism and then turn around and use anti-Mormonism's same weapons to bludgeon another person's faith. This isn't (at its core) about politics or law, it's about respecting other faiths, even if they disagree with us.

Muslims have done little in my opinion to separate themselves from what or why many see the dogmatic adherence to clerics that decent Muslims say pervert Islam. So, am I I anti-muslim...no not really. But I certainly do not trust them nor do I care to see them take a foothold in America.

I am of the opinion that Islam is dangerous...

--> This.

Edited August 2, 2013 by LittleWyvern

[bytor2112]

irst of all, Glenn Beck is talking about the dishonesty or at the very least, the misrespresentation of his "degrees". I can't see where he meant that different means dishonest. I agree that different doesn't always equal bad. Being Muslim doesn't automatically make you a bad person and nowhere do I get that sentiment from what Glenn is saying. I don't think he believes that.

But you have to dig deeper than just "different". Mr. Aslan is a Muslim Brotherhood supporter? Well that's different than me but what exactly does the Muslim Brotherhood stand for and what is their agenda? The are all for sharia law. Well what is that and how does it affect peoples lives? Yes they've done some charity work but they have also beaten and killed women for minor infractions of their laws. ( going without a burqua in public for example).

Pshh....you should realize that the mention of Beck or anyone who may think somewhat like him will bring derision and "concern" by the more erudite brethren who feel a stronger kinship to Rachel Madow and her twin brother...

[carlimac]

Pshh....you should realize that the mention of Beck or anyone who may think somewhat like him will bring derision and "concern" by the more erudite brethren who feel a stronger kinship to Rachel Madow and her twin brother...

I was pretty well aware that it would cause some "concern".

[carlimac]

Look, I'm not trying to get you to agree with Aslan or even like the guy. All I'm trying to say is that we should be very careful about who we term "anti-Christ" (as your logic for labeling Aslan anti-Christ would apply to all Muslims, but I'll trust you when you say you're not anti-Muslim for now), and try to avoid using arguments to discredit someone else's beliefs as wrong or "incriminating" that would also label our beliefs as wrong or incriminating. We can't actively oppose anti-Mormonism and then turn around and use anti-Mormonism's same weapons to bludgeon another person's faith. This isn't (at its core) about politics or law, it's about respecting other faiths, even if they disagree with us.

--> This.

It's so frustrating to try to reason with folks who put words in my mouth and meanings to my words that just don't fit.

Again, that "anti" word. Anti means against. I'm not saying Aslan is "the Anti-Christ". I specifically didn't capitalize it for that reason. I'm saying in most basic terms that he simply doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ. On the other hand Aslan does like Jesus- thinks he was bold and charismatic. Cool. Like a buddy.

Show me where I ever discredited the beliefs of Muslims. I am well aware that they don't believe in the divinity of Christ, nor do Jews or Buddhists and many others. They can worship " how, where or what they may" and I have no problem with that. That's what makes me such a lousy missionary. If someone is happy in their church, well who am I to try to persuade them to change?

But I do have a problem when someone, who says he became resentful towards Christianity, writes and tries to peddle a book about Jesus called "Zealot" and then calls it an objective, academic history about Jesus of Nazareth. Yes he has incriminated himself as being unable to write a completely neutral book about the history of Jesus. I would bet that most devout Christians who knew anything about the author just wouldn't bother with it. They know it's full of biased opinion rather than truth.

Are we supposed to be so PC, so open minded and accepting of all people- so loving and tolerant that we swallow their bunk without the slightest question of what they are serving us? Whoa! Sorry! Not going to happen. I'm just calling a spade a spade. The guy more than discredited himself when he first opened his mouth on Fox News. I could sense instantly that he was padding his resume or something. It was just so phony. Then to find out he is in the habit of verbally abusing people in his Twitters- well that sealed it for me. He is no serious intellect and I lost the rest of my respect for him. This has very very little to do with his Muslimness (in respect to his religious beliefs). It has everything to do with not being trustworthy, respectable or believable as an academic or an author of non-fiction.

Edited August 2, 2013 by carlimac

[carlimac]

And furthermore, now that you have me really steamed, what I have concluded about that Fox interview is that Lauren Green probably knew a lot about Aslan. Her mistake in the interview was not being too rude or embarrassing or not PC enough. It was in letting the guy off too easy!

[LittleWyvern]

Again, that "anti" word. Anti means against. I'm not saying Aslan is "the Anti-Christ".

Sorry, I meant to type "Aslan's book," not "Aslan."

Are we supposed to be so PC, so open minded and accepting of all people- so loving and tolerant that we swallow their bunk without the slightest question of what they are serving us? Whoa! Sorry! Not going to happen.

Again, I'm not trying to get you to agree with Aslan. Think whatever you want about him, I'm fine with that. I'm just trying to say we should be careful to not dislike Aslan because he is a Muslim or believes in Islamic beliefs and decide he's a liar or dangerous just based off that.

[carlimac]

Sorry, I meant to type "Aslan's book," not "Aslan."

Again, I'm not trying to get you to agree with Aslan. Think whatever you want about him, I'm fine with that. I'm just trying to say we should be careful to not dislike Aslan because he is a Muslim or believes in Islamic beliefs and decide he's a liar or dangerous just based off that.

I never ever did. If a Buddhist or Wiccan or whatever was a converted Christian, then became disillusioned and resentful toward Christianity and went back to being Buddhist, then decided to write an "academic" book about Jesus, I'd feel exactly the same. Skeptical!!

[Jenamarie]

I never ever did. If a Buddhist or Wiccan or whatever was a converted Christian, then became disillusioned and resentful toward Christianity and went back to being Buddhist, then decided to write an "academic" book about Jesus, I'd feel exactly the same. Skeptical!!

But Jesus is still a part of his faith. He didn't abandon belief in him all together, just the Christian understanding of Him. Jesus is revered as a Prophet in Islam. Why would he write a book to degrade a Prophet?

[carlimac]

But Jesus is still a part of his faith. He didn't abandon belief in him all together, just the Christian understanding of Him. Jesus is revered as a Prophet in Islam. Why would he write a book to degrade a Prophet?

Who knows?

[TheMusicTheory]

Who knows?

You seem to be having just as hard a time as the interviewer understanding that Jesus is a prominent figure in the Islamic faith...and thus it makes perfect sense for him to write about it. I'm sort of baffled where the confusion lies, to be honest.

[carlimac]

You seem to be having just as hard a time as the interviewer understanding that Jesus is a prominent figure in the Islamic faith...and thus it makes perfect sense for him to write about it. I'm sort of baffled where the confusion lies, to be honest.

You must not have read the whole thread. I explained my views on this very clearly.