What a joke of a network and a shameful performance by the anchor...

Julio3000 said:
You remember incorrectly.

I'm pretty sure I don't. For a while in the old board you were fairly regularly linking to coverage of folks who were doing the anti-Islam circuit. Orianna Fallaci was another one (though not a muslim apostate), although you disclaimed some of her other politics and, like Ali, her atheism.

Wafa Sultan is a woman, and I specifically remember your linking to and cheerleading for her. Something like "Go Wafa Sultan!," with the name hotlinked.

So I'm pretty sure you did, but I could certainly be mistaken. I'm fallible, but I have a reeaaaallly good memory. :-)

Evans gave you the answers you are asking about

Is Fareed Zakaria an affirmative action hire? Is Mehmet Oz a celebrity because of his heritage? Those are the implications. If they're not, then you and the blogger are saying "dog bites man," and I don't get it.

So, it's at best dismissive. If he wants to say that Reza Aslan's scholarship is meh, that's fine. He's better qualified to judge. But in connecting him to the other two guys, he seems to be saying something else. If that something is not viewed as problematic, I don't understand why he wrote it, or you linked it.
Click to expand...

Funny, you'd think that if I was relentlessly pimping folks then I'd remember. I also think you and I have different definitions of "relentlessly pimping."

Also, I'm not sure why you want to be so reductionistic with the last part of Evans blog. He gave a much fuller picture than you act like he does.
 
jpx7 said:
I haven't read Aslan, so I'm stealing this gloss from someone I know from the University who's more acquainted, but most scholars in Near Eastern and Religious Studies fields seem to find him to be a "B- scholar with A+ marketing." Nonetheless: those are the sorts of academics who almost always sell books in large volume and find themselves doing cable-news interviews, so I'm not sure there's much utility bemoaning that "the uninitiated think this is some sexy new thing from an expert in the field" because that's pretty much par for the course.
Click to expand...

That's assessment of him I think is fair. Yet, nevertheless as one with a vested interest in the subject matter then I think it's reasonable for me to bemoan a little. To be honest it's irritating.
 
yeezus said:
Post-christian America?
*** people can't get married, and people can't get abortions because of what people think the Bible says. Those two things come directly from religion.
When a non-christian has even a remote shot at president, then we'll be getting somewhere. I don't care personally if a president is christian or non-christian, but the fact that even a great candidate who's non-christian would have zero shot shows we are far from "post-christian" america.
Click to expand...

Try making a few distinctions.

1. PostChristian =/= no residual or even present influence

2. Saying one is "Christian" =/= being an orthodox Christian

3. Present law of some states =/= the current trends across the nation

4. What you think is getting there =/= Post-Christian

Quit your whining. Smile. Be happy. You are winning.
 
BedellBrave said:
Try making a few distinctions.

1. PostChristian =/= no residual or even present influence

2. Saying one is "Christian" =/= being an orthodox Christian

3. Present law of some states =/= the current trends across the nation

4. What you think is getting there =/= Post-Christian

Quit your whining. Smile. Be happy. You are winning.
Click to expand...

Post christian implies that all religions are equal and christianity doesn't heavily influence things.
I know we are moving away from it as we should, but we are far from "post christian."
 
BedellBrave said:
Yet, nevertheless as one with a vested interest in the subject matter then I think it's reasonable for me to bemoan a little. To be honest it's irritating.
Click to expand...

Sure, it's a bit irritating. But that's like me complaining that the only time Shakespeare is discussed popularly is when some half-assed scholar writes a book wondering if he was secretly eight black lesbian [members of the Tribe of Judah] (or else when there's an insubstantial, glitter-choked Baz-Luhrmann-style adaptation of one of the plays being released in the cinemas). It won't, as they say, change how mustard tastes.
 
jpx7 said:
Sure, it's a bit irritating. But that's like me complaining that the only time Shakespeare is discussed popularly is when some half-assed scholar writes a book wondering if he was secretly eight black lesbian ***s (or else when there's an insubstantial, glitter-choked Baz Luhrmann-style adaptation of a play being released in the cinemas). It won't, as they say, change how mustard tastes.
Click to expand...

I like honey mustard.
 
zitothebrave said:
Quality response as usual. It's like you can't see the plank in your own eye.
Click to expand...

Of course Zito, you know that's not my "usual" type of response. But your "religious folks kill a lot of people" is tiresome. It's such an overgeneralization that's it's not very useful, imho. And it's implied premise - that there are irreligious people - I, as I've noted in plenty of Pulpit threads, discount.
 
jpx7 said:
Sure, it's a bit irritating. But that's like me complaining that the only time Shakespeare is discussed popularly is when some half-assed scholar writes a book wondering if he was secretly eight black lesbian [members of the Tribe of Judah] (or else when there's an insubstantial, glitter-choked Baz-Luhrmann-style adaptation of one of the plays being released in the cinemas). It won't, as they say, change how mustard tastes.
Click to expand...

Indulge me then if you would friend.
 
BedellBrave said:
Indulge me then if you would friend.
Click to expand...

I certainly will — I just think the uninitiated will always believe there are these sexy new things from supposed experts in various field, and more often than not: (a) those texts are going to be reductive retread analyses at best, and (b) those will be the texts that sell and the authors that make the cable-news rounds.
 
I HAVE read the book, and as a fan of Aslan's No God But God, I was disappointed. Too much is given as fact, such as the existence of the Q source, that has other possible, or even more likely, explanations. Alas, there is really nothing new.
 
I don't think we are seeing a post-Christian world so much as Christianity is morphing into something unrecognizable (to pros such as Bedell, and to the loyal opposition such as myself).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top