trojanchick99
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
So, apparently the NTSB did confirm those names. Unbelievable. Still, they should've figured it out.
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2013/130712.html
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2013/130712.html
Do people actually take Geraldo Rivera seriously? And since he's playing the superficial profiling game, shouldn't his mustache alone render him someone whose opinion is invalid?
Do people actually take Geraldo Rivera seriously? And since he's playing the superficial profiling game, shouldn't his mustache alone render him ...
Fox is essentially Pravda.
Amen to thatThe American media really seems to have an excess number of shitheads, ie. that guy.
As a journalist and author who is Christian I cannot imagine penning a so-called objective biography of Muhammad and then concealing my conflict of interest in national media interviews.
In world history there are no religions more violently and anciently opposed than the crusading, fighting, at times blood-shedding rivals of historic Islam and historic Christianity. Even non-violent Muslims and Christians, like Aslan and myself, understand that we hold aggressively oppositional views—particularly about Jesus. National news coverage of “Zealot” has ignored this conflict of interest.
[...]
My concern is that national media coverage be smart and forthright about this conflict of interest, just as it would be if I—a Christian author and pastor—wrote a book about Muhammad.
Pouring praise onto “Zealot” as new information about Jesus, without explaining its author’s devotion to a combatting religion, is blatant bias. This same bias would be unthinkable if the Christian and Muslim roles were reversed.
Read more: Liberal media love new Jesus book 'Zealot', fail to mention author is Muslim | Fox News
the reviewer sure is worried about Muslims:
He spends an awful lot of time hand-wringing over the ethics behind the writing and promoting of the book, when he could have just said this:
"“Zealot” is a fast-paced demolition of the core beliefs that Christianity has taught about Jesus for 2,000 years. Its conclusions are long-held Islamic claims—namely, that Jesus was a zealous prophet type who didn’t claim to be God, that Christians have misunderstood him, and that the Christian Gospels are not the actual words or life of Jesus but “myth.”
"These claims are not new or unique. They are hundreds of years old among Muslims. Sadly, readers who have listened to interviews on NPR, "The Daily Show," Huffington Post or MSNBC may pick up the book expecting an unbiased and historic report on Jesus and first century Jewish culture. (I will let my Jewish friends address Aslan’s statement on MSNBC that, “there were certainly a lot of Jewish terrorists in first century Palestine.”)"
...and it would have been sufficient.
A number of books have been written questioning the veracity of the historicity of the Gospels over the years, making dubious historical claims about Jesus being married or whatever, using fragments of fragments of fragments of parchments, and then using broad Greek translations. Nearly all of these wind up being discredited or revealed as hoaxes, while modern archaeology continues to find sites of cities that were once thought to be fables. Aslan's book sounds like it's the latest. It's certainly not worth getting up in arms about; it will join the dustbin of history as surely as the others will.
at issue, for Fox, is not Aslan's book or conclusions, but that Aslan is a Muslim.
using fragments of fragments of fragments of parchments, and then using broad Greek translations. Nearly all of these wind up being discredited or revealed as hoaxes, while modern archaeology continues to find sites of cities that were once thought to be fables. Aslan's book sounds like it's the latest. It's certainly not worth getting up in arms about; it will join the dustbin of history as surely as the others will.
Lets not pretend the bibles are well provenanced journals of record; they're far from it. Nor should we pretend archeological finds support anything found in either of those books. And it would be in your best interested to not mention translations.
however, I'm up for pretending the floor is lava and jumping from couch to couch if you are
Sure.
Muslims obviously have a complicated relationship with anyone who dares question their founder, so there is understandably some tension when the reverse is true -- and I'm not sure that cries of "double standard!" aren't entirely inappropriate, and it would be fascinating to watch a roundtable discussion of Muslim and Christian scholars talking about the cultural ramifications of iconoclasm. But that would be asking too much from this particular exchange.
Aslan: Ma’am, may I just finish my sentence for a moment, please? I think that the fundamental problem here is that you’re assuming that I have some sort of faith-based bias in this work that I write. I write about Judaism, I write about Hinduism, I write about Christianity, I write about Islam. My job as a scholar of religions with a PhD in the subject is to write about religions and one of the religions and one of the religions I’ve written about is the one that was launched by Jesus.
Sure.
Muslims obviously have a complicated relationship with anyone who dares question their founder, so there is understandably some tension when the reverse is true -- and I'm not sure that cries of "double standard!" aren't entirely inappropriate, and it would be fascinating to watch a roundtable discussion of Muslim and Christian scholars talking about the cultural ramifications of iconoclasm. But that would be asking too much from this particular exchange.