CNN documentary

[Kirran]

Yes, you and I understand that because we're semi-literate on the subject. But often the average Joe 0r school aged child isn't as literate as you or me. As you know, I'm not personally offended by much, but who is to stand up against this kind of thing? He simply doesn't do enough about the disconnect.

I get what you're saying, but I wonder, shouldn't a source like CNN, or a figure like Reza Aslan, be allowed to do a documentary about non-mainstream forms of a religion? I can't see a clear argument that they shouldn't full stop.

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

I get what you're saying, but I wonder, shouldn't a source like CNN, or a figure like Reza Aslan, be allowed to do a documentary about non-mainstream forms of a religion? I can't see a clear argument that they shouldn't full stop.

I think a lot of the concern comes from two things: timing and intent. Journalistic integrity is a thing, and it used to be a thing that people took very seriously because they wanted to be taken seriously, rather than get views for sensationalism. The (apparent - again I have not seen the documentary for myself yet) problem with Aslan's and CNNs depiction is that it is too narrow while claiming to be thorough at the same time. Anyone anywhere can do a documentary about whatever they like, but the audience also reserves the right to be critical of it. No one is saying he shouldn't be allowed to make documentary, but what we are saying is that he should be held accountable for claiming to be doing one thing while actually achieving the opposite. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

 

[Kirran]

I think a lot of the concern comes from two things: timing and intent. Journalistic integrity is a thing, and it used to be a thing that people took very seriously because they wanted to be taken seriously, rather than get views for sensationalism. The (apparent - again I have not seen the documentary for myself yet) problem with Aslan's and CNNs depiction is that it is too narrow while claiming to be thorough at the same time. Anyone anywhere can do a documentary about whatever they like, but the audience also reserves the right to be critical of it. No one is saying he shouldn't be allowed to make documentary, but what we are saying is that he should be held accountable for claiming to be doing one thing while actually achieving the opposite. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

If he is indeed claiming to be doing a comprehensive documentary on Hinduism, and then doing a documentary on Aghoris, that is indeed irresponsible and inaccurate. I just haven't yet seen him claiming to be doing anything other than doing a documentary specifically on Aghoris, not Hinduism.

 

[Vinayaka]

If he is indeed claiming to be doing a comprehensive documentary on Hinduism, and then doing a documentary on Aghoris, that is indeed irresponsible and inaccurate. I just haven't yet seen him claiming to be doing anything other than doing a documentary specifically on Aghoris, not Hinduism.

I haven't seen the documentary either, but I trust HAF, Malhotra, Tulsi Gabbard, and the several high end reviewers and analysts of it. In Malhotra's critique, (which I have watched) its really clear that although it is about Aghoris, he presents is as Hinduism.

He's one sample of an article: Reza Aslan outrages Hindus by eating human brains in CNN documentary

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

I haven't seen the documentary either, but I trust HAF, Malhotra, Tulsi Gabbard, and the several high end reviewers and analysts of it. In Malhotra's critique, (which I have watched) its really clear that although it is about Aghoris, he presents is as Hinduism.

If at any point he says something like, "Aghoris are a sect within Hinduism" - it's about Hinduism, regardless of whether that is the intent or not. Because that little connection is all it takes. Is a documentary about the Pope also about Catholicism? On some level it's going to be viewed that way, regardless of how specific the focus is.

 

[Vinayaka]

If at any point he says something like, "Aghoris are a sect within Hinduism" - it's about Hinduism, regardless of whether that is the intent or not. Because that little connection is all it takes. Is a documentary about the Pope also about Catholicism? On some level it's going to be viewed that way, regardless of how specific the focus is.

I think its far worse than that, but yeah. He also refers to Varanasi as 'the city of the dead'. So is it safe to assume that Kirran went there to die, or that Kirran is actually dead?

 

[Kirran]

Maybe we should get together, watch the episode, and then send Reza Aslan an email with our views on the subject.

 

[Vinayaka]

When he does a documentary on the Muslims who use chains and whips to beat themselves silly, and portrays is as mainstream Islam, I'll be convinced anti-Hinduism isn't his agenda.

 

[Kirran]

When he does a documentary on the Muslims who use chains and whips to beat themselves silly, and portrays is as mainstream Islam, I'll be convinced anti-Hinduism isn't his agenda.

Honestly, dude, I know there are plenty of people who are anti-Hinduism but I really don't believe Reza Aslan is one of them. He may have been irresponsible here, sure, but I've followed the guy on and off for some time and I genuinely don't think he is.

Also, Reza Aslan is a Shi'ite, of sorts, who are "the Muslims who use chains and whips".

 

[Vinayaka]

Honestly, dude, I know there are plenty of people who are anti-Hinduism but I really don't believe Reza Aslan is one of them. He may have been irresponsible here, sure, but I've followed the guy on and off for some time and I genuinely don't think he is.

Also, Reza Aslan is a Shi'ite, of sorts, who are "the Muslims who use chains and whips".

We will disagree then, which is fine. I think there is a range of anti-anything. Some of it is just very subtle, not easily seen, but still there on a subconscious level. Other times, like with Zakir Naik or Par Robertson, it's just far more obvious.

Same too with things like racism. It's so subtle that some well meaning people have it in their subconscious, even though they don't actually know or see it in themselves. Others are right out there.

 

[Kirran]

We will disagree then, which is fine. I think there is a range of anti-anything. Some of it is just very subtle, not easily seen, but still there on a subconscious level. Other times, like with Zakir Naik or Par Robertson, it's just far more obvious.

Same too with things like racism. It's so subtle that some well meaning people have it in their subconscious, even though they don't actually know or see it in themselves. Others are right out there.

I don't disagree with any of that. It's insightful to note it.

I just think Reza Aslan's one of the good ones to be honest.

 

[Vinayaka]

Here's more ... an analysis.

CNN’s Believer: Reza Aslan's show on Hindu mendicants is bigoted no matter how you look at it

An interesting thing about him is that when it comes to ISIS, he makes it very clear that there is no relationship between terrorism and religion. I'm not buying it.

 

[Kirran]

Maybe we should all watch the episode. There is an element of the Hindu media which is a little overprone to furious accusations of bigotry, in my view.

 

[Vinayaka]

The more I read, the more I become aware. Pretty clear he's a Muslim apologist with a clear but subtle agenda. Does the same to Christianity too. Still, I just think its also incredibly poor timing. But we will see if vandalism or name-calling increases or not, I suppose.

 

[Kirran]

The more I read, the more I become aware. Pretty clear he's a Muslim apologist with a clear but subtle agenda. Does the same to Christianity too. Still, I just think its also incredibly poor timing. But we will see if vandalism or name-calling increases or not, I suppose.

This is a dude who's out there supporting same-sex marriages and interfaith marriages etc - I'm not sure what he's supposed to be an apologist for about Islam. I've watched a lot of his stuff, seen a lot of his writings in my time. I don't see where you're seeing this agenda of his.

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

Maybe we should all watch the episode. There is an element of the Hindu media which is a little overprone to furious accusations of bigotry, in my view.

I'll try to see if I can find a stream of it online. If I do, I'll link it here.

 

[Kirran]

I'll try to see if I can find a stream of it online. If I do, I'll link it here.

I couldn't find one earlier - it has only just come out, to be fair.

 

[Vinayaka]

This is a dude who's out there supporting same-sex marriages and interfaith marriages etc - I'm not sure what he's supposed to be an apologist for about Islam.

I've only recently become aware of him at all, because of this issue, and all the news feeds I'm subscribed to. You clearly know more about him than I do.

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

I couldn't find one earlier - it has only just come out, to be fair.

I've found a torrent for it but nothing streaming. If you search for it on youtube you can find a few segments from it, but not the whole thing together.

 

[Kirran]

I've only recently become aware of him at all, because of this issue, and all the news feeds I'm subscribed to. You clearly know more about him than I do.

I imagine you wouldn't get a good view of him from just this debacle!

First came across him when he did a looong interview on The Young Turks ages ago.