Reza Aslan gets his own religious CNN show

March 10, 2015 • 1:33 pm

Okay, if the Cable News Network (CNN) is really an unbiased and objective news source, they’ll have to counter this program with another. According to MediaIte, the unctuous apologist and atheist-basher Reza Aslan is going to get his very own show. I can’t bear to describe it, so I’ll just copy the announcement:

One day after CNN announced its Kevin Spacey-led campaign docu-series, the cable channel announced two more original series, part of anetwork reorientation away from breaking news coverage and commentary.

The two new shows will be headed by religious scholar Reza Aslan and stand-up comic W. Kamau Bell, and are set to debut in 2016.

Aslan will host a series tentatively called Believer. “In each episode, Aslan will immerse himself into one of the world’s most fascinating faith-based groups to experience life as a true believer,” CNN said in a statement Tuesday. “The series will feature Aslan participating in endurance worship, spellbinding rituals, and unusual rites of passage to learn about rarefied worlds that have been molded by faith and tradition.”

Aslan, a bestselling author, came to cable news prominence during a truly bizarre Fox News interview over his book on Jesus.

There have been other series as well:

CNN plans a dozen of these series over the next year, complimenting original programming by Anthony Bourdain and Mike Rowe. Finding Jesus and Bill Weir’s The Wonder List both debuted last month to salutary ratings.

Really, “finding Jesus”? A show whose website describes it like this:

Finding Jesus discovers fascinating new insights into the historical Jesus, utilizing the latest scientific techniques and archaeological research.

Of course that presumes that there was a historical Jesus. I didn’t watch the blasted thing, but perhaps a viewer did, and can describe it below.

But where’s the “Unbeliever” series to counter Aslan’s apologetics? Would CNN even consider hosting such a series? It’s as if they decided to host a show called “Republican Views” and wouldn’t have one called “Democratic Views.”

I need a shower.

h/t: Jeff

106 thoughts on “Reza Aslan gets his own religious CNN show”

    1. Well CNN has been described as a “Fox News wannabe.” Now they want a bit of some of the religious broadcasting shows that never have Jews or Mormons and definitely not Hindu or Atheist shows. Who would in fact do so?

    1. Similar to couch change, couch Jesus is found in the nooks and crannies of the sofa.

  3. The two new shows will be headed by stand-up comic Reza Aslan and religious scholar W. Kamau Bell,

    Fixed it for you …

  4. If he’s going to immerse himself in different religious experiences, does that mean he’ll be joining ISIS?

      1. Be careful I’ve seen less strident comments than the ISIS, and snake handler one being promoted as “death threats” by those who see themselves as persecuted.

        1. On what (ir)rational basis would Aslan refuse? Surely he wishes to portray himself as ecumenical.

          Caintuck here Ah come!

    3. Well since ISIL or IS as it is called isn’t a religious group. It is a military who happen to be Sunni Muslims, or claim to be. But they were recently ousted out of Tekrit where they had taken months ago. Those that beat them in a fight were the USA, Sunni, Shia, Iran and various non ISIL militia. Kumbia time I’d say.
      [Note that the US didn’t do any fighting directly.]

  5. “Most fascinating faith-based groups”. Contrast this with “most fascinating evidence-based groups”, like civil engineers or veterinarians.

    If the program is truly unbiased, it would have Reza sitting in a corner praying to empty space for its entirety with the claim that he is doing something useful for humanity.

    1. I think that “most fascinating faith-based groups” is a euphemism for groups that hold the most bat-shit crazy beliefs.

      1. Just what I was thinking – it’ll be the religious version of ‘Embarrassing Bodies’, although I might watch it – it’ll give me a weekly excuse to criticize Aslan.

  6. CNN has been reduced to carrying nothing but click-bait and crash stories. They have no credibility anymore.

    2. Except I still watch Amanpour and Fareed Zakaria GPS. I usually find them interesting and they both get some great interviews. I just wish Amanpour wouldn’t gush over the pope so much.

  8. There’s an error in the announcement. Should have read “…and stand-up comic, Reza Aslan…”

    Regarding “Finding Jesus”, the ever brilliant Joe Nickell took them to task over garbage pseudoscience on the Shroud. So if they can’t get this right, why bother with the rest of it. Just more sensationalism, ramping up for the weekend my Facebook feed turns into the snuff film called Easter.

    http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/cnns_finding_jesus_disingenuous_look_at_turin_shroud/, the ever

    1. I watched part of the Shroud episode, but after a prolonged period in which I saw nothing but acceptance of woo, I just found something (anything) better to do. I do not know if they eventually showed it to be a fake.

  10. Copulate my proverbial Doc Martens: that archaeological section’s gonna be short. If they want bovine compost, I’m available for 5 minutes and 30 different ways of saying, “There ain’t no stiff in that there Golgotha.” x

  11. I watched the first episode of Finding Jesus which was entirely on the Shroud of Turin.

    It began by tracing some of the history of the Shroud from when it first “appeared” in the 13th(?)century, explaining that it was believed to be the burial cloth of Jesus. It moved on to the 70s and the first real attempts to study the shroud. At this point, a circular argument was quietly slipped in as it was repeatedly asserted that various markings on the shroud were proof of the reliability of the gospel stories of the crucifixion and ressurection – when, of course, there was no proof at all that this was Jesus’ burial shroud.

    Then the devastating radio-carbon dating was recounted which showed that the shroud dated from medieval times. There was an interesting digression to discuss how the shroud could have been produced, with the suggestion (along with a demonstration) that it might have been a very early photograph produced using a camera obscura.

    However, it couldn’t end there, so instead it ended with a trip to see a second cloth in Spain which is claimed to be the cloth wrapped around Jesus’ head. This cloth apparently had a documented history going back closer to the time of Jesus and supposedly the blood stains on it perfectly match those on parts of the shroud. So we were left with the tantalizing suggestion that perhaps the radio-carbon dating was wrong and the shroud is genuine after all.

    1. That program was as disappointing as the Toronto Maple Leafs.
      And anyone who would take that as investigative reporting would probably be a Leaf fan as well

      That is a wasted hour I will never get back.

      1. I’ve watched some episodes too. I’m always disappointed. I watch quite a few Jesus/Bible/religious documentaries in an attempt to understand believers, and this one is one of the worst.

        1. How less compelling would such programs be had they no underlining melodramatic instrumental music?

          3. No, though this thread is hardly a crowning glory. I’ve usually got apostle full of them by this point, but now I’m coming up with Mary INRI. I wish I hallelujah bit more to go on …

          7. Ask your doctor if Crucifixion is right for you. Seek medical attention immediately of you experience any of the following symptoms: bleeding hands and feet, a solar eclipse, thunder, spontaneous conversion of Centurions, or a resurrection lasting more than 3 hours. The benefits of Crucifixion have not been tested by the FDA, so we’ll just keep asserting them all the same.

            Tried to pun on the “discipline” jibe but my sleep-deprived brain came up,with that one instead. Stupid brain!

    3. That is fascinating the level of shoddy thinking that has to go into a show like that.

      Let’s for a moment grant them all the claims being implied at the end: Jesus was a real historical figure, he was crucified and this shroud wrapped his body.

      What the hell does that have to do with anything? Are they prepared to establish that incarnated deities leave outlines of themselves on burial cloths? Is this supposed to somehow prove the Resurrection? Of course, the Pope and Church would officially say, “No, it does not.” But, they have no problem letting the minions flock to the site and not make it a matter of church dogma and just leave it up to the believers. Of course, there are millions of them around the world who do take it exactly this way, as proof of the divine.

      1. When you have a puzzle and a dire need to make them fit the way you want them to can color those who have no scruples and want to be considered right and famous.

  12. It is times like this that make me glad I live in a place where I can still put rabbit ears on top of my TV. I don’t get cable and never will as most of it is insipid shows like this, political ravings, and such. I can usually find the few good shows online, but if not, there are always good books to read.

  13. …”most fascinating faith-based groups…+

    No faith based group is fascinating.

    Boring, farcical, sad, rediculous, violent and silly yes. But not fascinating.

    1. Remember that in TV programming, “fascinating” is a euphemism for “will generate much advertising revenue.” Farcical, violent, and silly all qualify.

  14. Here’s the thing though. If they show other religious cultures, that could be a positive overall. People who learn more about other religions may start thinking about religion on a universal level (e.g. ‘is my faith the only correct faith?’ ‘Is any religion correct at all or is it hogwash?’

    Who knows? I’m not excited about the other shows you mentioned, but I think the verdict could be out on Aslan’s show. Not that I’m for it either. I don’t watch cable news anyway. It’s usually just BS trash opinion.

    1. That’s what struck me, too. This show could end up being the philosophical version of an “own goal,” in that week after week of watching a gushing host “immerse himself into (a long series) of the world’s most fascinating faith-based groups to experience life as a true believer” could end up undermining the idea that True Believer is a unique and valuable title.

      They’re all true believers in true religions which have very different ideas on what God means and “truth” is. The only thing they’re likely to have in common is the invariant belief that religion, faith, spirituality, and God is very, very important.

      But those who blithely assume that the many competing religions can only show that God values ANY ‘path’ are probably in for a rude awakening. For many people truth is not going to be quite so ecumenical. Instead of driving home the idea that faith is a necessary aspect of the human condition it’s more likely to chip away at the idea. Bizarre religions with endurance worship, spellbinding rituals, and unusual rites of passage are likely to make religion look like random cultural traditions and thus make atheism look like a much more reasonable and attractive common ground

      1. I agree. I think atheism and pantheism/New Age religion are not enemies, but allies. Both undermine dogma and religious authority. Both encourage free thinking and most lean liberal. So I would be tentatively optimistic that this could be a positive.

        1. I disagree. I think pantheism/New Age religions (“spiritualities”) are at their foundation every bit as dogmatic and authoritarian as more traditional religions. Sometimes they are even worse.

          Both discourage skepticism and science-based approaches. Both rely on a mystical, hierarchical view of reality — and this can sit uncomfortably with a liberalism derived from the bottom-up reason-based approach of the Enlightenment.

          The natural ally of one faith-based system is more likely to be another faith-based system — if faith is going to be promoted and defended as an important aspect of transcending our human limitations and progressing towards Spiritual enlightenment. I think neo-pagans and New Agers though are more likely to weave a presuppositional narrative and keep their views to themselves. That can be an improvement, at least for a while.

          1. Interesting. I go to a Unitarian Universalist Church, and it is a mish mash of humanistic beliefs, whether secular or mystical. I haven’t ran across a dogmatic mystic, but I’m sure they are probably out there somewhere. Just hasn’t been my experience.

          2. My experience attending UU is that the politics usually unite the secular humanists and the Spiritual: it’s the “honest search for truth” which is the problem. There’s a divide within the philosophy of the group.

            Re dogmatism: ask someone politely “Might you be mistaken about that? If so, what would change your mind? Would you want to change your mind if you’re wrong?”

            Mystics (and the Spiritual) tend to react to that … badly. “I don’t need to justify myself!” Philosophical and scientific debate on the issue is treated like a personal attack.

            The incapacity to examine one’s beliefs/conclusion rationally and fairly consider alternatives is dogmatism. To the extent that their spiritual views have real-life consequences (ie alternative medicine) there’s usually the same inflexibility brought down.

          3. Re dogmatism: ask someone politely “Might you be mistaken about that? If so, what would change your mind? Would you want to change your mind if you’re wrong?”

            Does that include us Atheists? Of course unlike relgion we can’t be 100% correct. Just the best from experts on what they have found and pieced together. Ours would be with a qualifier.

          4. Yeah, I get what you mean. I think however, that the search for epistemological justification becomes circular at some point. Even critical thinkers use intuition to some degree. I think it’s better to be tolerant, but let people make their own decisions ultimately. By sharing our own perspectives positively, we can win people who are fair minded. By trying to show someone why they are incorrect, we generally run the risk of alienating people. I try to force people to criticize my position first, unless the other person is very dogmatic. I put my ideas out there for everyone else to either listen to, ignore, or criticize. Either way, it makes you look like the good guy, and makes your arguments more attractive.

        2. And Satanism! At least to hear the Fundies tell it, we are the closest of allies!

          Now I’m curious to see if Azlan will get down with the devil worshippers. He absolutely should.

  15. Except for the presence of Reza Aslan (unctuous is a perfect adjective for him), the show sounds interesting. I’m reminded of the religion classes proposed by Dan Dennett. The more that people are exposed to other religions, the more likely it is that they’ll seen their own faith as an understandable cultural phenomenon instead of some of great, mystical revelation.

    3. That seems reasonable. But the spiritual may not detect the problem. To a religious person, I suspect that any other religious experience that is found to be compatible with their beliefs will not be seen to be contradictory their religion.

      What was the saying? Ah, here it is, from Bertrand Russell: “A stupid man’s report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”

  16. will be headed by religious scholar Reza Aslan…

    Which is technically true be cause he is a scholar who is religious. But he’s already been called out on having an academic position in creative writing, not religious studies.

    1. He’s a self-proclaimed religious scholar who thinks that Jesus was just a zealot, but Muhammad was the real deal, channeling the creator of the universe via an angel, and stuff.

      That’s how you play tennis without the net!

    2. I would think that creative writing is the perfect training for a theologian.

  17. For some unknown reason I sat through a double feature of ‘Questioning Darwin’ and ‘Finding Jesus’. I think I lost a few IQ points as a result.

  18. It is about ratings and..well, it is my guess that someone who is atheist (for the right reasons) isn’t going to be that interested in television to begin with.

    This is a bit like the 2008 Presidential candidates declining the “science debate” but doing the “values debate” thing.

    1. “someone who is atheist (for the right reasons) isn’t going to be that interested in television to begin with.”

      Oh… I feel like such a fraud…

      /@

  19. I always wondered what would have happened if Geraldo Rivera found “Jesus”
    in Al Capone’s Vault!!!

  20. But where’s the “Unbeliever” series to counter Aslan’s apologetics? Would CNN even consider hosting such a series?

    Yeah, be careful of that. What do you want to bet that Reza Aslan uses complaints like this to justify making “Atheism” one of his weekly episodes in exploring bizarre sect of True Believers who are — ironically ha ha — just like the religious fundamentalists they supposedly deplore?

    It’s probably already in the works — and possibly one of the reasons for the whole show. I certainly wouldn’t put it past him. Wait for him to call it “balance.”

  22. I used to get incredibly frustrated with the dishonesty of Bill O’Reilly or the vapidness of reality shows and even the programs that air on the history channel. Sadly, I now realize that it is simply a mistake to assume for an instant that there is any purpose whatsoever behind any show on cable television other than to make money. If the various cable networks thought they could make money broadcasting people picking their noses or screaming at the top of their lungs that Barack Obama is a child molester, they would air that show in an instant — no questions asked.

  23. Since the news on cable and broadcast television has now become almost entirely entertainment and very little news, this does not surprise. CNN has poor ratings and new bosses who will do just about anything. You have to be damned desperate to go with Aslan but that is the shape CNN is in. Ted Turner would even be laughing at this.

    Next we’ll have Wolf Blitzer looking for the devil. Or maybe looking like the devil.

  24. endurance worship

    Just guessing but this must be people sitting together in a super-heated hut having transcendent religious experiences – AKA hallucinations.

  26. “in each episode, Aslan will . . . experience life as a true believer.” How can he be a “true believer” in a different religion each episode? Participating in a particular faith’s rituals does not make one a true believer.

    1. Studies have shown that going through the motions and acting “as if” can eventually start to change one’s views, especially if the change is considered a positive or desirable one. The religious have consciously or unconsciously counted on this for years.

      1. That’s right – “fake it until you make it” is an acceptable technique endorsed by a number of religions, and mountebanks.

      2. My mom told me just a few years ago that when she was in college, she just plodded her way through Mass until the “Holy Spirit talked to her.” She just kept going through the motions until she felt something and now she’s blessed with wonderful grace.

        I guess this is why believers are always so paranoid about going out into the world. Maintaining faith at these levels is not only an exercise in self-brainwashing, but a constant need to deny the cognitive dissonance the whole charade brings on if you stop to assess the belief system against reality.

        1. Another major advantage of the “go through the motions until you start to believe” philosophy is that, to the people around you, it looks just like you’re a believer. This helps support the idea that this stuff must make sense, even reasonable people who tend to be skeptical accept it.

          A double bonus, in other words.

    2. You underestimate Reza Aslan’s talent for cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty…

  27. “In each episode, Aslan will immerse himself into one of the world’s most fascinating faith-based groups to experience life as a true believer,”

    It’s a good thing he’s a male. At least he won’t have to experience the dehumanizing many women feel in many religions. Nor will he have to undergo female genital mutilation, or get raped for daring to walk on a sidewalk by himself.

    Somehow I doubt he will be remarking on these aspects of life as a woman in a deeply religious community.

    It’s really all just a bit of a mock up. He’ll never truly believe as they do, nor will he be stuck in a narrow little community, in ignorance and superstition, his entire life bounded by absurd superstitions. He’ll get to go home and do as he pleases.

  28. I can’t imagine a more repulsive turn of events. How can CNN grant air time to this bloviating idiot without at least granting air time to someone like Sam Harris?

  29. Apparently the programmers at CNN have found that Islam needs some positive PR to counter the constant deluge of Islamic sectarian conflicts, terrorist attacks and human rights abuses. And who’s better to communicate to the public that Jihad, women’s right abuses, etc have nothing to do with Islam, than the no. 1 apologist for Islam, Reza Aslan?

    No Islam, but Aslan!

  30. We need Reza standing with the Westboro Baptists screaming that he hates gays and that people that don’t agree with him deserve to be murdered.

    I’m going to just guess that is one of the fascinating bits of religion he’ll stay away from.

  31. Awesome! Now we just need a show about aliens, one about hitler and one about a pawn shop and we’ll have the next History Channel!!

  32. I think we can all agree that the highest aspiration of scholarship is a TV show.

  34. I have some better titles for the Aslan show: “Unbelievable!” “Do You Believe this Sh**t?” and “I Can’t F**king Believe It!”

    Oh, and one more, probably my favorite: “They Can’t ALL Be Right”

    But then, they’d need a different host because Aslan is sensitive to people’s beliefs don’t you know.

    I think for balance, I would pitch a show called “Pfffft!” In which, every week, a different rationalist would be forced invited to watch Aslan’s show, and they could just sit there saying “Pfffft!” It’s really all the counterpoint that is required.

Comments are closed.