[MP-Ryan]

Your daily dose of OMGWTFAMIWATCHINGKILLITWITHFIRE idiocy brought to you by Fox News.

[Lorric]

I don't get it.

[An4ximandros]

Some times, I wish I could reach through the internet with my fist and punch some people in the face. That woman has been added to the list of people I'd probably consider punching if I had that super power.

[SypheDMar]

XD You can tell that she was embarrassed after he said he was a phd when she started to lower her voice and mumble in shame when she started to read the oped quote. His rebuttal was awesome.

It is clear that he understood Faux News enough to insult the audience and the reporter by speaking slowly and reemphasizing his phd status.

[Drogoth]

He pounced on that quick, she barely got a word in edgewise

[Apollo]

1:10 -- wow do you think

Well that was an incredibly disrespectful clip. I'm not particularly fond of Islam, but was it really neccesary to turn the interview into a thinly-veiled attack on his religion? As an atheist I will say that Jesus and his life are points of interest for me as well.

Conservative Political religious close-mindedness at its finest.

EDIT: Made last paragraph more specific.

[Luis Dias]

I still think it's not clear.

I still didn't hear it properly. Come on man, say it again.

I HAVE A PHD! I HAVE A PHD! I HAVE A PHD!


Seriously, Reza has an authority complex.

[Beskargam]

Seriously, Reza has an authority complex.

Not sure if sarcasm. But if not sarcasm, I disagree

[NGTM-1R]

Basically, what we have here is a non-Christian being attacked for a scholarly work on the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Not because of the work, mind, but because being non-Christian he clearly has no right to do this!

...you know, sort of like non-Muslims get attacked sometimes for scholarly works about the Prophet and Fox would defend them vigorously because FREEDOM.

[redsniper]

was it really neccesary to turn the interview into a thinly-veiled attack on his religion?

Well... yeah. Fox has to cater to their audience like any other channel.

[BrotherBryon]

oh Fox news has done far worse than that interview, I don't trust any of the news networks and haven't for years. If you want facts you have to read the associated press, they at least print corrections when they make mistakes. As for attacking a religious scholar who happens to be Muslim for daring to write about a religious historical figure who isn't Muslim it's just shameful.

[SypheDMar]

Seriously, Reza has an authority complex.

Not sure if sarcasm. But if not sarcasm, I disagree

also disagree. It seems to me that he's spelling out to Fox that he's not Muslim writing about Jesus. It also seems like he's treating the people on Fox like children, which made me laugh!

[Dragon]

Also, it's not like Muslims "don't believe in Jesus". They do, in fact, he's considered the second most important prophet in Islam. They do not accept his godhood, but he's as close to God as he could be (Islam is really big on the "monotheist" part, and the Holy Trinity is too big of a departure from that). Jesus is an extremely important person in Islam, and a Muslim writing about him isn't any different than a Christian doing the same. Knowing this, it's really funny to see this "Jesus vs. Muhammad" concept some extremists like to use. In fact, when you look at it, Christianity and Islam are really similar, much more than a lot of people would like to admit. Considering where they came from (starting out as Judaism adapted for Roman and Arab cultures, respectively), it shouldn't be surprising.

[haloboy100]

Basically, what we have here is a non-Christian being attacked for a scholarly work on the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Not because of the work, mind, but because being non-Christian he clearly has no right to do this!

Please.
This isn't an "attack". It's dumb question. It's fox's job to ask ignorant, conservative-birthed questions to people non-WASP/WASC demographic subjects - that's the entire reason they are popular in the states. It's a stupid question with very little offensive rhetoric, at least on the reporter's part.

I mean, sure - Fox was pretty insensitive to the guy in this interview, but what the hell would you expect? It's FOX. I'm pretty sure the only reason the guy is even allowing himself to be interviewed by such a conservative media outlet is to prove how stupid they are.

As far as terrible fox interviews go, this is nothing. IMO it's hardly even worth mentioning. I don't watch Fox much, naturally, but it's in my experience that interviews like this happen all the time.

I mean, hell, it's only perceived as offensive because it's religiously loaded. It's like if George Lucas wrote a book about the history of Star Trek. It's simply counter-intuitive to the average viewer.

[NGTM-1R]

This isn't an "attack".

Questioning the right/ability of someone who has a Ph.D. on the subject to write a book about it is pretty clearly an attack on them, their credentials, and probably wherever they got those credentials. It's openly dismissive of their expertise on the subject when they've done something to establish those credentials, because, you know, Ph.D.

[haloboy100]

This isn't an "attack".

Questioning the right/ability of someone who has a Ph.D. on the subject to write a book about it is pretty clearly an attack on them, their credentials, and probably wherever they got those credentials. It's openly dismissive of their expertise on the subject when they've done something to establish those credentials, because, you know, Ph.D.

It is not a question of right or ability. The word she used was "why". She is questioning the motives, because it is an unexpected occurence, at least to Fox. Your statement is putting words in her mouth.

[NGTM-1R]

The word she used was "why".

This is the man's specialty. Asking why he'd write the book is questioning is ability and his right to do so, because this subject is what he does. Asking him why he did this, questioning his motives, when this is what he does, is accusing him of dishonesty and being unfit to write about the subject.

Never mind that asking him "why did you do this" is parenthetically asking "and not leave this to the real experts you filthy nonbeliever" in this context, which you apparently didn't watch the whole interview if you didn't catch that undercurrent, particularly about the op-ed she started to read off.

Asking him why he does why he's doing something he's made out of a career out of is most definitely an attack, particularly because it is a question about this particular action and not his career as a whole.

[haloboy100]

*snip*

Fox tends to be more stupid and ignorant than they are blatently offensive outside of their talk shows. I don't see the question as one that's intended to have harmful rhetoric, more like one that is in the stance of a double take.

[Apollo]

*snip*

Fox tends to be more stupid and ignorant than they are blatently offensive outside of their talk shows. I don't see the question as one that's intended to have harmful rhetoric, more like one that is in the stance of a double take.

The question here is basically "why would a Muslim write about Jesus". Coming from right-wing Christian pundits, that carries some obvious moral judgement. Look at her thinly-veiled hostility towards him.

EDIT: I wonder if the people at Fox realize that Muslims and Christians worship the same god.

[NGTM-1R]

I don't see the question as one that's intended to have harmful rhetoric, more like one that is in the stance of a double take.

...so I guess the entire context laid out is one that's lost on you? Context matters, as Batts would say.