Political Polemics

I. INTRODUCTION

This morning, I saw this link posted on Facebook. In it, Reza Aslan, a prominent religious scholar, defended his latest book about the historical Jesus in an interview with Fox News. I watched the interview, laughed, cringed, and then felt torn. You can watch the entire ten minute interview here:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/is-this-the-most-embarrassing-interview-fox-news-has-ever-do

On the one hand, I wanted to write a long post about how stupid Fox News looked. On the other hand, I figured it was obvious (to anyone who watched the interview, at least) just how stupid Fox News looked.

But...discipline be danged. I'm in an expansive mood. I'll just yell at Fox directly so that all ten of my loyal readers don't feel that I'm insulting them the way Fox News just insulted Reza Aslan.


II. SUMMARIZED SUBTEXT

For people too busy to watch the ten minute exchange, here's an abridged version, with my own interpretation.

Fox News: Reza Aslan, why would a MUSLIM want to write a book about Jesus?
Reza Aslan: I'm a religious scholar. I write about comparative religion and religious history. It's my job.
FN: Yes, but you're a MUSLIM. And you're writing about JESUS. Obviously you have some kind of horrible jihadist BIAS.
RA: Have you actually read my book?
FN: Well, I have several identical quotes here from Christian clerics who say that you're wrong, wrong, wrong!
RA: Have THEY actually read my book?
FN: And I have even MORE identical quotes from more people saying that your research is awful!
RA: Can you be more specific? Which of my several hundred sources do they dispute?
FN: Well, um, they just say that your interpretation is really skewed. And that you don't just have an agenda, you have a secret, HIDDEN agenda!!! Why didn't you confess that you were a MUSLIM?
RA: It's on page 2. So, obviously, neither your nor any of your staff have even cracked the cover. And you call yourselves journalists?
FN: [Ignores his point and begins foaming at the mouth] But I am here to uncover the truth: what, exactly, is your motivation for writing about Jesus???
RA: He's a fascinating historical figure. Would we be having this conversation if a Catholic nun wrote an article about the Buddha because she was interested in social justice and she thought the Buddha had some good practical ideas about helping the poor?
FN: Well, our time is up. In summary, I win because you're a POOPY HEAD! Thanks for the spirited debate!
RA: What debate? I figured you'd attack me stupidly, and you did. Thanks for helping my book sales!


III. REAL RULES OF ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT

You see, Fox News, to participate in a real debate, you need to do a few things:

1. Study the other side's arguments. At least hire someone to write an accurate summary and then read the summary.
2. Make an effort to see things from another perspective. Acknowledge your own slant, but then step away from rabid reactionism. Reach for dispassion. At least try...
3. Be polite. Assume your opponent has honorable intentions unless you have strong evidence to the contrary.
4. Do actual research to support your own views. Weigh your sources. Learn the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary evidence. Cite sources intelligently.
5. Accept nuance. Embrace it, even!

Now, I acknowledge that what normally passes for a "debate" in this country (i.e. the Presidential spectacle we get every four years) does not actually qualify under the above definition. No wonder people are confused.

In academic circles, though, people can still tell the difference. That was the problem; you, Fox News, were trying to have a political "debate." Reza Aslan was succeeding in being an actual scholar.

The juror in the Trayvon Martin case who said that she voted according to her reading of the law rather than her personal inclinations is a good example of this ability to distance oneself. Another example would be to say "I find abortion to be morally reprehensible, but I understand why it is legal."


IV. A THEORETICAL MODEL

I know you're having trouble with all these new ideas, Fox News, so I'll go the extra mile. I will model a hypothetical debate between a school nurse and myself on the topic of distributing free condoms in public high schools.

Nurse: I'm a mother of two teen-agers. I am seeing some worrying trends in the teen pregnancy rate and STDs. I want to protect all children, including my own. Condoms are a cheap and effective way to do that.
Gail: That is a valid point. If you look at the issue from a purely epidemiological perspective, what you propose is a cost-effective measure. It wouldn't be a silver bullet, because kids wouldn't always remember to use the condoms, and wouldn't always use them correctly--
Nurse: Yes, but even a small change in behavior would yield significant improvements in the public health.
Gail: That's true. I was going to say, from that standpoint, your proposal makes a lot of sense. It also makes sense as a fiscal investment since it would lower health care costs for decades down the line.
Nurse: Exactly!
Gail: I appreciate that you are trying to improve public health and save resources. I respectfully disagree with your method, though, because I'm coming at this from a perspective of morality. I don't want to subsidize behavior of which I disapprove.
Nurse: What can be more moral than saving lives and preventing suffering? Besides, abstinence education doesn't work. Lots of research has demonstrated that [she cites three recent studies], but the religious right refuses to accept that the policy is a failure.
Gail: Unfortunately, I must agree that "abstinence only education" in public schools has not been effective. I think those messages are better taught by parents and religions. That's why I propose the following Libertarian-style compromise: the school system teaches only the biology of reproduction and the legalities of consent. The curricula advances neither a pro-sex nor anti-sex agenda....As part of that compromise, though, we emphasize personal responsibility. We do not hand out free condoms; rather, we say "If you believe you're mature enough to have sex, you should also be mature enough to purchase your own condoms. If you can't handle the CVS cashier, can you really negotiate appropriately with your boyfriend or girlfriend? Whatever you decide, though, you need to solve your problems yourself. I won't do it for you."
Nurse: Well, I still disagree with you. I think kids will engage in sex no matter what, and it just makes sense to make that as risk-free as possible; it benefits everyone. Do you want to get stuck with the tax bill for unwed mothers who drop out of school and go on welfare?
Gail: No, I don't, but welfare reform is a topic for another debate. Perhaps we should "can of worms" that one.
Nurse: Fine. Let me just add that if I can't hand out condoms as the school nurse, I will try to open a free clinic right next door to the school.
Gail: [Politely] Good luck with that. I won't help, but I won't try to hinder you, either.
Nurse: Thanks for a polite discussion.
Gail: Likewise.

You see? You see how polite and reasonable we were? I didn't change her mind and she didn't change mine, but we gave each other plenty to think about. That's the way we should engage in public discussions, Fox News, and you failed miserably.


V. CONCLUSION

I will say that I've never seen Reza Aslan look more annoyed. If he walked into a party and randomly started announcing "I have four degrees and I'm a famous expert!" it would be arrogant and obnoxious. He was sorely provoked, though, and right to defend himself.

On the other hand, he's a very smart guy. He must have suspected something like that might happen, which is probably why he was so much better prepared than the interviewer. And he probably figured that if he was attacked, it would only help his book sales.

Well, his strategy worked. I am totally going to read Zealot now! I read No God but God and really enjoyed it. I have also enjoyed other interviews he's given over the last dozen years.

Ah, I feel so much better now that I've gotten that out of my system. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go write a blog post attacking Jan Shipps and accusing her of pro-Methodist, anti-Mormon bias. Without actually reading any of her articles.

See, if you want to engage in honest academic discussions, you should follow the guidelines above. If you want to score actual political points, though, you need to embrace the hypocrisy.