PeterDavid.net

Hollywood has such a horrendous track record as far as treating Christianity with any respect, I don't blame people for assuming this show wouldn't be any different. Certainly people like Wildmon are idiots, but you're acting like everyone who didn't watch the show fell under his spell. My wife and I didn't tune in not because of the bad press the show got, but because there was no reason to assume this show would be any different than all the others Hollywood has puked out, trying to "cash in" on the success of The Passion (I read in one EW article where a producer was saying "fly-over" people would flock to Da Vinci Code because it was "one of those religious stories, like The Passion").

To answer the last question Peter my best guess is, because we can. I do not understand most of the stupid things we do to each other.
I dont think I ever will.

This is why parts of the MLK episode of Boondocks rang so true. They showed a counterfactual situation in which MLK was merely in a coma until 2000, and then got pilloried for advocating turning the other cheek after 9/11.

For most people, "Christian Forgiveness" means only "Christ should forgive ME".

"Hollywood has such a horrendous track record as far as treating Christianity with any respect, I don't blame people for assuming this show wouldn't be any different."

I do. I mean, to a certain degree I also blame the amazingly crappy timeslot, but yes, I absolutely do blame people for making that assumption. First of all, making assumptions in general is a bad habit ("Never assume...it makes an ass of u and me.") And second, if Christians truly think they're being ill-used by Hollywood, then refusing to sample new shows which the producers swear is respectful simply assures that such series will not survive. You guys are the target audience. If the target audience turns its back without even giving it a chance, then what sort of message does that send to the producers? "Don't bother?"

How will things ever change for the better if people just figure they never will?

By the way, understand that I'm not pointing any finger of blame at you and your wife for the demise of the series, since I'm figuring the odds of your opinion mattering are pretty slim. By "mattering," of course, I mean if you have a Nielsen box. If you don't have a box, then it doesn't matter whether you shunned the series or embraced it.

PAD

Hollywood has such a horrendous track record as far as treating Christianity with any respect, I don't blame people for assuming this show wouldn't be any different.

Yeah, thank God they drove such horrendous portrayals of Christianity like Highway to Heaven, 7th Heaven, and Touched by an Angel off the air because Hollywood always portrays Christians as bumbling fools. /sarcasm

Wildmon's crowing at the cancellation of Book of Daniel makes it clear why the "just change the freakin' channel" argument doesn't work against groups like his. Their ultimate agenda is get everything taken off the air that they don't agree with so that the only view presented is their own.

While Steve's point about Hollywood's track record is true, I have to wonder if you're not confusing the LOUDEST of Christians for the BULK of us. Nothing I heard about the show made me think it was going to be exceptionally insulting to my faith, but there was also nothing making me think that it was worth watching "live" (I buy individual comics, but for most TV shows, I'm a TPB type viewer -- as often as not, I wait for the DVDs). I suspect that most Christians fall into that undecided "Silent Majority" category as well.

I'm neither pleased nor upset that the show was cancelled, but it is annoying whwn anything (TV shows, comics, etc.) is cancelled without getting a fair shot at finding its market.

I watched the two-hour pilot/premier. I thought it was okay, but not so great that I was going to make concerted effort to watch it or tape it if I wasn't going to be home.

I had no problem at all with the depiction of Jesus. It was most of the rest of the characters that were over-the-top. They seemed like exactly the kind of characters that are only found on television. For instance, when the Catholic priest helped the Episcopalian priest find the missing building fund money he told him he had to use a mob-connected construction firm. Yeah, every Catholic priest is mobbed-up. Please. It was a soap opera with the hook being that the main character sees Jesus.

That said, I didn't write any letters of protest or participate in any boycott. I just thought "ehh."

Seeing as my sister is one of those non tolerant uber-christians who never saw this show and was calling for it's axe, like the rest of her church, I couldn't agree more with your statements about the state of the bulk of Christians. See, unfortunately, I hear about this type of thing all of the time, as she never gives up trying to save me...I shouldn't watch this...I shouldn't read that...don't listen to them...It's all the same. Last I checked, I had my own moral compass and it worked just fine. But, the most apt refrence in the bible is a shepard tending to his sheep, because for a large ammout or bulk of christians, that's all they really are...sheep...sheep who do whatever their pastor says...if a movie is bad in their eyes...it's bad in the eyes of their congregation and there is no room for one to make their own determination. So, instead of keeping their ignorance to themselves, they make sure they tell you shouldn't see the movie. They make sure their word is heard. Last time I checked in on one of those little get togethers, the only word that was supposed to matter came from their bible...not from their pastor or religious organization. But all in all, it's too bad as this was a good show, but the outcome was inevitable...just wish the producers would have included flashbacks every few episodes to jesus' crucifiction...would have garnered it atleast a full season probably. But what do I know...I'm going to hell.

Peter, I'll take except with one thing you said -- I don't think it's the bulk of Christians in the country, but the loud, obnoxious bullies. Wildmon certainly doesn't speak for me and I really wish he's stop believing in my God because he's making the rest of us look stupid.

Trust me, I've had more than one run-in with the people you're speaking of, those who take a message of love, forgiveness and hope and twist it into "I'm because I the "right way" but you're so going to Hell because you don't believe the same as me. That means I can treat you badly here on earth because you're not worth anything anyway, because, hey, you're going to Hell!"

Have I mentioned these self-righteous people also feel they get to decide who's a Christian and who's not, so if you don't fit their definition, you fall among the heathen, no matter your personal beliefs.

I enjoyed Daniel and I'm not pleased it was pulled by a network that appears to have no spine as well as flopping around like a dying fish trying to find viewers. Actually, my priest and I have been discussing it the last few weeks; I'm an Episcopalian, so this was our demonination that was being shown. He found it too "soap opera-y" for his taste, but that was his main criticism; as for the rest, we could name people within our diocese whom could have been a model for some of these characters (especially the Senior Warden).

It's a pity it wasn't given a chance to find an audience because I think it would have eventually -- the loud "Christian" bullies who are determined to drive everything they don't agree with off the airwaves notwithstanding.

Sorry but while I agree with the general point of your discussion, the show was just boring. That's why it was cancelled. No one watched it.

I wish this show had been given more time to find its footing.
I am hoping that it might (like so many other network shows) make the move to cablen and find a home there.

I have to disagree with a few points here. First off, and obviously this is strictly a matter of opinion, I thought the show was terrible. Not offensive, just predictable and dull. Jesus was the best part but it wasn't enough. If Wildmon and co spent any effort to get this show canned they were wasting thier time, I knew it was a goner by the end of episode 1.

As for the protests, while I agree the show was nothing to get bent out of shape over, selling drugs to finance a manga comic doesn't make it any less reprehensible to me than if it finances sneaker purchases. I'm glad it was a one time deal but it doesn't say much for the family that their daughter was dealing drugs. Similarly, popping pain killers (and aren't they "downers"?)illegally gets you fired and possibly sent to jail. I know this from family experience. Yeah, it's not as bad as snorting crystal meth but I didn't hear much sympathy for Rush Limbaugh when he got caught taking enough painkillers to sedate a T Rex.

But you are correct that condemning a TV show sight unseen or assuming the worst about it is as contemptable as when it was done to The Passion. Sadly, Daniel just wasn't that good.

Again, I didn't watch the show. I have no idea whether it truly was insulting toward Christianity or not. I'm assuming not, for the sake of discussion.

Since 7th Heaven was mentioned, I feel obligated to say that, given the choice, I'd rather Christians were portrayed the way some have described this show (flawed human beings who aren't perfect and don't believe they're perfect) than the way that 7th Heaven portrays us. Reverend Camden and his family are nice enough people, but I think they're too "perfect", by and large. It makes for boring TV, and it reinforces stereotypes about Christians. Not so much that people see the Camdens and think that's how we are, but they get the impression that that's how WE think we are. if that makes any sense. Speaking for myself, I know I'm flawed. I struggle with temptation daily, and more often than not, it kicks my butt. Christianity, to me, has less to do with being perfect and judgemental toward others, and more to do with relying on the grace of God while trying to emulate His walk while He was here.

I can't believe this, but I am about to use a phrase from Michael Savage.

Sheep-le.

Thats what the majority of evangelical Christians are. Rest assured PAD, most of us are nice people. We don't have rabies, and we read the parts of the Bible about forgiveness and love, and that part where Jesus drove the money changers out for "turning my Fathers house into a den of thieves." ("Pat Robertson, severely pissed off Deity on line one.")

These Sheep-le that pretend to speak for the rest of us are simply people who aren't quite bad enough to join Fred Phelps, but aren't nice enough to show little things like....I don't know....charity? forgiveness? Love?

And, if I might make a proposition....We have called these people "Fundamentalists" long enough. Fundamentalist suggests that they are actually following the Fundamentals of Christianity. (like...uhh..forgiveness? Charity? Love? Bake-sales?) As it so happens, I consider MYSELF a fundamentalist. I believe in Jesus, I believe that he died to save me, and that I am goin' to heaven. I DO NOT notice nothing in there about...say....gay marraige?

I propose that we all try to start calling them what they REALLY are: extremists. Or hypocrites. Or X-treme Hypocrites.

Just my two cents.

PAD wrote:-
What it shows is that the average American is intolerant.

And in other news, water is still wet.

Thank you for the George Burns quote in the mid of all this depressing, awful truth. I hadn't come across it before - wonderfully refreshing.

While I agree that censorship is hardly a valid response (it seems it's the solution of choice for blowhards who don't trust the strength of their own argument or convinction to withstand opposing voices), I have to admit being pertubed myself at the general consensus lately that it's perfectly appropriate to use whatever liberal bias one may have and present it as Christ's viewpoint in order to validate it.

Just to play Devil's Advocate, if a TV show had a comic book writer named Peter David (I apologize for using you as an example, Peter - but it's your thread) and used him to vocalize comments like, "The Nazi persecution of Jews was warranted," or "Only the stupid and lazy are victimized by capitalism," I would expect Peter to be angry -- not just incensed by the comments, but that the show used his name and likeness to sell them with little concern of his actual perspective.

Of course, I don't know Peter, so I can't speak for him -- which is kinda the point.

Just to use homosexuality as an example, the Bible is very clear in a number of Scriptures as to what its perspective on it is. One has the option of agreeing or disagreeing, but not to superimpose his own perspective as the original, which is done a lot lately -- even by so-called religious ambassadors (which I don't get -- if you're a priest but don't want to present what the Bible says, why are you a priest?).

If you want shows to display human foibles and characters of clay, I'm all for it. But I think it's very dangerous to confuse patience or "Christian Tolerance" with actual endorsement or a complete lack of standards. After all, it's not like the book of Revelation is about sitting in a field of cute bunnies.

Our country recognizes the right to free speech -- but they never said you get to use someone else's right, too.

I'm going to agree with some of the people here. I only watched a little bit of the show and thought it wasn't nearly as good as many of the critics were calling it. Now, however, with Wildmon and others crowing about how they've brought it down, I wish NBC would have at least tried moving it to another time slot or something to give the show another chance.

Since 7th Heaven was mentioned, I feel obligated to say that, given the choice, I'd rather Christians were portrayed the way some have described this show (flawed human beings who aren't perfect and don't believe they're perfect) than the way that 7th Heaven portrays us. Reverend Camden and his family are nice enough people, but I think they're too "perfect", by and large. It makes for boring TV, and it reinforces stereotypes about Christians.

7th Heaven wasn't my thing either, but a lot of people did like it, including my niece. If they were a "too perfect" family, well, that's hardly new in the world of sitcoms and family dramas. I mentioned it only because I'm sick and tired of hearing the whine about how Hollywood "always" portrays Christians negatively.

So, 7th Heaven is bad because they're too perfect and Daniel is bad because they're too flawed.

No pleasing some people, I guess.

For instance, when the Catholic priest helped the Episcopalian priest find the missing building fund money he told him he had to use a mob-connected construction firm. Yeah, every Catholic priest is mobbed-up

IIRC, the priest did make a comment or two to the effect that that his superiors disapproved of his having, & sometimes using, those connections.

======================

The main problem the fundies had with this program was gays. The show's creator / writer is gay, the show has several gays (the way some of them keep switching who knows), & the ones who were gay were accepted not only by their families, but by their church.

They likewise are getting their panties in a bunch because one of the lead actors in "End ofthe Spear" is gay.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48422

=========================

BTW, aren't these the same "Christians" who claim that their the 'persecuted minority' who has 'no say in how things are run'?

I didn't see THE BOOK OF DANIEL. This wasn't for religions reasons -- I'm a fundamentalist Agnostic -- but because it looked like more of the soap opera/every single person has a problem or dark secret series. I didn't have a problem with Jesus appearing: He shows up a lot on RESCUE ME, and Mary Magdalen is there as his girlfriend.

One of the big fears of the Christian fundamentalists (shouldn't that be an oxymoron?) is ANY portrayal of acceptance, or even tolerance, towards the gay community. They believe any view of homosexuality as anything other than evil is endorsement of that lifestyle. So a show where a religious person is tolerant, even accepting, to his gay son? That's wrong and must be destroyed.

I also wouldn't pay too much heed to those claiming they got this show cancelled. Religious nuts claim credit for everything from hurricances to strokes. If the #s were there, THE BOOK OF DANIEL would still be on the air. I've heard complaints and calls for protest to DSPERATE HOUSEWIVES, but that's not going anywhere.

I have to admit being pertubed myself at the general consensus lately that it's perfectly appropriate to use whatever liberal bias one may have and present it as Christ's viewpoint in order to validate it.

I guess it's only okay to use whatever conservative bias one may have and present it as Christ's viewpoint order to validate it.

I would expect Peter to be angry -- not just incensed by the comments, but that the show used his name and likeness to sell them with little concern of his actual perspective.

Not a valid comparison at all. You're talking about using PAD's personal name and likeness to deny the holocast vs. a family that happened to be headed by an Episcopal Priest. Portraying PAD by name as a holocast denier is a pretty solid case of libel whereas, as far as I could tell, the show never claimed to be representative of any particular real individual or family. It was a show about one family's turmoil but because the family happens to be a very religious one, showing them as having some serious problems is somehow verbotin.

Now, admitting, the show was over the top, as few families have that much drama going on all at once, but that's television.

A more valid comparison is the way some Jewish groups tried to get theaters to stop showing the Passion, which I don't agree with either.

If you want shows to display human foibles and characters of clay, I'm all for it. But I think it's very dangerous to confuse patience or "Christian Tolerance" with actual endorsement or a complete lack of standards.

Which I didn't get from the little of the show I watched. I saw a man who had standards and was struggling to balance those standards with his love for his family.

But I suppose if he had simply tossed his gay son and his pot dealing daughter out into the street, Wildmon would have cheered.

I seem to recall reading about some guy who, 2000 years ago, sat down and ate with the sinners and tried to use love to pursuade them to change their ways. Now, what was his name again?

BTW, aren't these the same "Christians" who claim that their the 'persecuted minority' who has 'no say in how things are run'?

It seems that many in the fundamentalist crowd want to play it both ways. They're the persecuted minority when it suits them (ie, the vast but imaginary conspiracy against Christmas), but as soon as a show they don't like is cancelled, they start strutting about the power they have.

I also wouldn't pay too much heed to those claiming they got this show cancelled. Religious nuts claim credit for everything from hurricances to strokes. If the #s were there, THE BOOK OF DANIEL would still be on the air. I've heard complaints and calls for protest to DSPERATE HOUSEWIVES, but that's not going anywhere.

One reason to be concerned is that every victory for them, real or imagined, just encourages them to push even harder on their censorship agenda.

Daniel was getting terrible numbers, but it's also possible that if it weren't for the pressure groups, NBC might have been willing to move it to a better time slot or try to cross promote it more in an effort to give it another chance.

I think we're being a bit general here in that it isn't christians as a whole as much as it is loud ignorant christians. saying most christians are intolerant would be like saying most jews are rich or funny. It's not true. However, it's not surprising that people get the message wrong, after all people are still human prone to mistake and error. Unfortunatly we're still not in an open-minded enough society (through any theological belief) that anyone can feel safe sharing a true vision of their God and understanding thereof. It happened to monty python, it happened to Kevin Smith, it'd happen to Peter David, and it would happen to anyone. But I wouldn't say it was "christians" I'd say it was "people". As I recall there was a lack of support for "Passion" in hollywood and a number of people upset at it's portrayal of the jewish. Ah, to be human.

I think we're being a bit general here in that it isn't christians as a whole as much as it is loud ignorant christians.

But it's the loud, ignorant ones that claim to speak for all Christians while the quiet, thoughtful ones remain too quiet. It's beyond time for someone who isn't a complete fascist to reclaim Christianity in this country.

Amen Peter!

Unfortunately you're "preaching to the choir" here. How to you get those "unenlightened souls" out there to listen?

"What is it about human beings that we constantly create codes of conduct for ourselves with lofty ideals--tolerance, love thy neighbor, judge not lest ye be judged, free expression--and then not only fail to live up to them, but TAKE PRIDE in that failure? It's an interesting question, I think. Too bad shows such as "The Book of Daniel," where such questions might be explored, are being canned."

Well said. On my Coherent Rant-O-Meter, this gets a nine out of ten.

JAB

How to you get those "unenlightened souls" out there to listen?

You don't. They don't want to listen. Because if they did, they might develop the ability to think for themselves, and that is probably their biggest fear of all.

Or maybe it got cancelled because it wasn't especially good and had a really crappy timeslot. The vast majority of TV shows fail, including many far better than this one, so why should it be any different -- or its failure be reflective of anything other than the fact that its ratings declined starkly after a first airing that wasn't very good to begin with? The likes of Wildmon may preen and take credit for this, but the fact of the matter is that if anyone had actually watched the bloody show it would still be on the air. I may as well take credit for the cancellation of Heather Graham's sitcom.

I'm Mormon, [Run, Run For the Hills People! :)] But My feeling based upon the Promos NBC had with the background Music that Jesus' Appearance was going to be played for laughs. Now that may have been what some of the objection was. It was certainly my objection, which is why I didn't watch it. However, I'm sure the main objection was Jesus's presence on a National Television Broadcast Network was blasphemous and criminal enough, especially based solely on the promos. I actually was surprised that My NBC affiliate, which is LDS owned, actually gave it a chance, since there have been a few other shows consigned to after midnight hours, moved to another station, or not shown altogether.

I ulitmately feel that while most Christians found the Presence of Jesus intolerant to them the cancellation was more NBC Promotions's fault, since they gave the impression that Jesus was going to be played for laughs.

But it's the loud, ignorant ones that claim to speak for all Christians while the quiet, thoughtful ones remain too quiet. It's beyond time for someone who isn't a complete fascist to reclaim Christianity in this country.

It isn't the Christians who are acting like the extremists are speaking for them. I find it's generally non-Christians and/or media types who do so.

And Christianity no more needs to be reclaimed from them, than liberalism needs to be reclaimed from the daily kossacks who are vandalizing Amazon.com when someone publishes a book they'd rather burn than see others read. In both cases a small group is making noise but does not represent to vast majority.

PAD -
Aren't Christians supposed to be charitable, tolerant, understanding?

They are?

Most of them are "selective readers". Which means, they read the parts they want, believe the parts they want, and the rest just gets in the way.

Now, while it may only be the vocal miniority that go after tv, books, and so forth, the great majority certainly fall under the selective readers portion of the population.

James -
I have to admit being pertubed myself at the general consensus lately that it's perfectly appropriate to use whatever liberal bias one may have and present it as Christ's viewpoint in order to validate it.

And yet you presume to know Christ's viewpoint and how he would think on issues?

You presume to know that, even if Jesus was against homosexuality, that he would condemn these people to Hell? That doesn't really sound like his style, does it?

JamesLynch -
but because it looked like more of the soap opera/every single person has a problem or dark secret series.

How are the ratings for "Desperate Housewives" doing? Or any day time soap opera?

People watch this crap. Even Pat Robertson-wannabe Christians, and they have no problem doing so.

But to touch the subject of religion? Well, shit, better break out the witch hunts.

I think that if Christians were as "tolerant" as Peter wanted them to be, the whole "heaven or hell" thing would've gone out the window a long time ago. Christianity does require judgement calls and "intolerance" and standing against things that the individual considers ungodly.
A perpetual shrug isn't going to suffice.

And why not do it with the pocketbook? We are capitalists, after all. Better that than enact stupid laws that fly in the face of the limited government we once had.

Having said that, given NBC's recent ratings woes, I would've advised against taking action. Let the problem take care of itself. Bring out the big guns for something that's worth it.

-Dave O'Connell

Now I'm not saying that Christains are correct in saying they are unfairly portrayed...but does nayone think that there is any even microscopic chance that there could be a TV show about Muslims where (hold my sides!) the Prophet Muhammad is a character? Anyone? Bueller?

For that matter, if Kanye West dressed up like Muhammad for a Rolling Stone cover I'd shake his hand for the sheer ballsiness of it...of course, I'd probably need a shovel to dig him up before I could do it...

But that will never ever happen. It would be considered insensitive...

Honestly, I only saw about 10 minutes of this show. And to be honest again, I have no idea if what I am going to say has any merit in regards to the previous arguments, as I only skimmed through them. But this is what I feel...

As a Catholic/Christian (non practicing however) I have had more than enough schooling on religion. And as a Christian, we are taught to believe that Jesus lives in everyone, and are supposed to have "conversations" with him. Through prayer, or however. I have no idea the actual intentions of the writers/producers. However, what these morons have now shown me is (and I mean the Christian morons) that if Jesus did actually speak to me, it needs to be approved by them. Because if Jesus is telling me something they don't agree with, I'm going to be in big big trouble.

That is a sad thing, considering none of these people were around when Jesus was. No one actually knows exactly how he lived, or exactly what he said. Everything passed down has some level of human bias to it.

If Jesus appears to someone in a dream (supposedly done many many times in the Bible) and says: I love homosexuals, I just don't like the act of homosexuality (which is what is actually in the bible. Its about the sin, not the sinner)...Christians would tell me I was crazy, and god knows what else.

If Jesus appeared to me in a dream and said: All homosexuals are going to hell...I'd probably be made head of the church.

Thats a sad, disgusting state of affairs. And unfortunately, its how alot of people outside the group, view the group. How is it that a man/god who preached tolerance and love, spawned this current type of attitude?

If a tv show, or movie depicts any type of relationship with Jesus, I cant see that being a bad thing at all.

Den wrote:
So, 7th Heaven is bad because they're too perfect and Daniel is bad because they're too flawed.

To be fair, Den, my opinion on 7th Heaven may not be widespread -- it obviously plays well for some people -- and I'm certainly not one of those who dismissed Daniel because the family was too flawed; the show just didn't interest me.

What a silly, silly comment. On what basis do you conclude that your observation applies to "the bulk of Christians in this country"?

As to the success of "The Passion Of The Christ" (which is what I assume you're referring to, when you refer to an acceptance of the brutal end of the Christ story) and the failure of "Book of Daniel," -- it's all down to marketing. Gibson's movie did gangbuster business because they were _very_ smart and "evangelized" (ho ho) the religious community into getting parishioners interested in the flick.

So why did "Daniel" fail? You can't jump to the conclusion that Christians thought "The show depicts Jesus as a friendly, approachable counselor and we can't abide that." I didn't watch it because I saw all the promos...and they all sucked.

"Meet Daniel! He's a pill addict! His brother-in-law stole millions from his church and was found dead with lots of things jammed up his butt! Plus the brother-in-law's wife has gone gay! And she's sleeping with the brother-in-law's mistress! And whoah...whoah! His own _son_ is gay, too and his daughter's dealing drugs! And it looks like he'll have to do a deal with the Mafia to get the money back! And..."

I don't have the commercial in front of me but that was it, point for point. The show came across as a hopeless mess even before Jesus yelled "Shotgun!" and climbed into the guy's station wagon.

I'd guess that there are lots (and lots and LOTS) more people in America offended by gays than there are Christians offended by the idea of a priest talking to Jesus. And yet "Will & Grace" has made it to eight seasons.

This may be a stupid question, but have the networks in such times ever considered... airing the show anyway?

This is what pisses me off the most about television--they don't have the cajones to stick with their programming decisions. They put this show on the air for a reason, and now they're going to let the bottom line kill it. Quality be damned. The same thing happened to the Clerks cartoon; someone decided it was offensive and they lost a lot of sponsors. Family Guy almost went the same route, (they went for the Hitler joke in the very first episode), but they got lucky and found their audience with Simpsons refugees.

It must be nice being so religious, and thus being so absolutely certain of what is right and wrong. Maybe it's the gay Black Nazi in me, but I always thought the world was a complicated place. And heaven forbid that you portray it that way on television and try to connect it to anything blatantly religious. (Thus we know the secret to Lost's success--implied religion, not blatant. Lost is the perfect example of a show where people see what they want to see and ignore everything else.)

"I may as well take credit for the cancellation of Heather Graham's sitcom."

Ha! (Noone is blaming the intolerance of Christians on that one, thankfully)

And this is the rub. I think Wildmon is taking credit where none is due. Shows are constantly cancelled two or three episodes in due to low ratings. And honestly, I heard about protests, but the opposition to the Passion of the Christ was louder than the opposition to this show.

All of the people I know who were critical of the show (Christian or Otherwise) watched it, and had a myriad of complaints.

The defense that there are other popular shows that are soap operatic is really a non-defense. Lost is popular-does that mean any spooky show set on a remote island should get equal ratings? Or is there a chance that folks who love Lost would find "Can't Be found"(TM) and "Missing in the Ocean"(TM)less than enjoyable?

NBC should have given it more time. But then, you can say the same about Fox, CBS and ABC and any number of shows they shot down after a few scant episodes.

I just don't see proof that Wildmon is the reason the show did not succeed. It got really low ratings and NBC gave up.

Regarding, 7th Heaven - it has lasted 10 seasons and at times it has been the most popular show on the WB. This is the last season because they don't think it is making enough additional money with the cast salaries the way they are. There is probably going to be a spinoff next season on the CW with a subset of the cast. I have watched all the episodes with my daughter. While it does get a bit preachy at times, I don't find the Camdens "perfect". They all get into troubles of one kind or another. If they didn't, it would be hard for there to be any dramatic conflict and the show would have been taken off the air a long time ago.

Neil

I totally agree with you, Peter.

When I first saw the previews for the show, Ithought it not might be up my ally. I didn’t want someone taking potshots at my faith. (notice I didn’t call for it to be taken off the air, only that I wouldn’t be watching it).

Well, I found myself bored on the Friday it premiered and gave it a whirl. I was impressed and thought the depiction of Christ was spot on.

At first, the pastor condoning premarital sex amongst his parishioners bothered me, but than I realized this was an extremely liberal Episcopalian church. A very liberal sect of Christianity.

Jesus never condoned ANY of the behavior that could be considered sinful by ANY sect.

I despise those who say the show was about “pill-popping” priest. He’s flawed! No one’s perfect!!!!

People piss me off.

Hoepfully, the show will find a home on cable or at least the reaming filmed episodes will make their way to DVD.

JOHN!

The show was not given the chance.

Many local networks would not show it because of the complaints. Advertisers pulled out. I believe one of the quotes from the NBC guys was "Thank god for the Mattress King or they would all be NBC commercials."

NBC really had no choice but to pull the plug.

It isn't the Christians who are acting like the extremists are speaking for them.

And that isn't what I said either. I said the extremists claim that they are speaking for all Christians, not that all Christians believe that the extremists speak for them.

PAD,

Nice try. But your analysis is a bunch of baloney. Christians did not kill this program, bad ratings did.

Did I watch it? Yes, for about 15 minutes. As someone who has family who are in ministry, the portrayal was a joke. This was a political show with religion as window dressing.

Did I hate the portrayal of Jesus? Not particularly. I agree that Jesus is far more patient and loving than often portrayed. I think he would have said more at times than he did, but no big deal.

I know this is all about tolerance to you, but think of it this way: If you are aiming for tolerance, you might not push things so far. I think this was too over the top for most people. It didn't ring true. Desperate Housewives gets away with it, but a program rooted in a religious setting has a harder time.

This program would not have lasted even if it had all the advertising in the world. The problem is it was written for a very narrow audience.

Case in point: Will and Grace. It has suceeded, in spite of attempts to derail it. Why? Because even I think it is funny at times. I can only manage about 10 minutes before the sexual references are beyond what I can take, but the show works. I am sure the actors of Daniel are great, and the writer is talented. But I have seen enough and read enough to believe it was too much and too over the top to work.

I happen to love The Vicar of Dibley. Talk about an irreverent and even, at times, heretical show. (The sexual jokes are worse, at times, than Will and Grace.) I can be tolerant. My dislike for Daniel is based on the show, not just that it happens to disagree with my theology.

Bottom line, America takes religion more seriously than perhaps you and some in Hollywood realize. And that is NOT a bad thing. Looked at in the bigger picture, America is more loving because of religion, not less loving. (Just look at the response to Katrina. Churches were often the first there, freely giving food, supplies, and money, without caring if someone was white or black, gay or straight, rich or poor.)

Daniel was killed not by a small cabal of Christians. It was killed by its own over reaching attempt to force its political and social ideas on others. (A conservative Christian program that did the same would also have failed because in general people ARE tolerant.)

So quit whining that this show imploded. Its own weight of self importance would have caused it to happen anyways.

Iowa Jim

I think the show was doomed from day one. It was in a crappy timeslot, affliates were refusing to air it, advertisers were pulling out and the fascists were calling for a boycott. On top of that, the plots were over top and it wasn't as good as many critics said it was. Lots of factors contributed to its demise.

I just worry that now that the fascists are claiming victory, what other shows are in their sights.

Gibson's movie did gangbuster business because they were _very_ smart and "evangelized" (ho ho) the religious community into getting parishioners interested in the flick

It was also a baeutiful piece of film, IMHO. Of course, your mileage may vary.

The more I think about it, the more this seems like,once again, people are letting Wildmon and ilk jerk their chains. So he takes credit for a bad show bombing. Hoop dee whoop. If he takes credit for the sun rising I'm not going to close my eyes and pretend it's night just to show him he's wrong. It's like the folks who didn't want to see Narnia because they were afraid that Pat Robertson would be happy. Jeeze. (On the right side of the equation, anyone who avoids Brokeback Mountain JUST because they are afraid that it will make liberals happy if the movie does well...same thing, you're letting others make your decisions for you. Grow a spine.).

"Hollywood has such a horrendous track record as far as treating Christianity with any respect, I don't blame people for assuming this show wouldn't be any different."

Examples? Not that I'd call a made-for-TV movie Hollywood, so let's stick with just entertainment. I can think of plenty that deal with Christians, Christian themes, etc., and deal very respectfully with them. The Aformentioned 7th Heavan, Touched by and Angel are prime examples of well received, respected, and respectful shows with heavy Christian themes. Dogma portrayed the Catholic administration not so well, but a for the actual FAITH, it did what I thought was a really good job of being accurate.

I agree that there's a perception that Entertainment doesn't do a good job, on the whole, or portraying Christians. But show me one religious/cultural/age/regional/sex group that the Entertainment industry does do a good job, overall, of capturing the complexities and subtleties of. This whole so-called "war on Christians" is a farce. Hollywood isn't out to "get" Christians any more than it is out to get anyone.

The only thing that explains such a knee-jerk reaction is intolerance. We've seen it before, with Last Temptation, Dogma, Harry Potter, anything that some Christian group thinks might be a threat to...well, I don't know how they see it as a threat. Maybe they think that if non-Saved see movies that put Christianity in a negative light, their "mission" of Witnessing might be harder.

Which, to my understanding, if you're a true Christian, you would welcome. Walking in Christ's footsteps isn't supposed to be easy. It's supposed to be hard, a struggle, a test, every day. Every single one of Jesus' disciples was martyred.

Jesus did preach acceptance, tolerance, and forgiveness, among many other things. But people get so caught up on their own personal salvation that they forget that Jesus died for the forgiveness of ALL sins. Jesus isn't my personal savior, no more than he is anyone else's. If you believe, you believe that he's the savior of all mankind.

Christians did not kill this program, bad ratings did.

I thought PAD's point was two-fold:

A) some Christians are claiming that they killed the show.

B) Christians didn't bother to give a show before they condemned it.

America is more loving because of religion, not less loving.

Oh humping Satan on a vibrator.

Now America is better than Europe because religion? Apparently you've forgotten about those loving crackpots like Pat Robertson, Falwell, and Phelps. They're quite the loving bunch, aren't they; we'll just conveniently forget that some churches are the first to condemn as well, and all is swell.

You make it sound like religious people are the only people to respond to disasters and stuff, too.

Well, I suppose they would be, because our government acts like a 60 year old man with an erectile dysfunction.

It isn't the Christians who are acting like the extremists are speaking for them.

And that isn't what I said either. I said the extremists claim that they are speaking for all Christians, not that all Christians believe that the extremists speak for them.

Yes but you also said that "It's beyond time for someone who isn't a complete fascist to reclaim Christianity in this country." which, to me made it sound as though you thought that the extremists really WERE the spokemen for religious thought. My point was that Christians pay less attention to these jokers than the non-religious do. To many people with no real religious feelings the Pope and Pat Robertson may seem to have equal weight. That's not the case for the vast majority of Christians.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Some people take this to mean that they can hide their sins by throwings lots and lots of stones.

My point was that Christians pay less attention to these jokers than the non-religious do.

Which would also explain why conservatives haven't paid attention to the hostile takeover of the Republican party by the neocons. ;)

And then the same group gets all pissy when others, such as liberals, stand up for themselves on issues. Go fig. :)

Yes but you also said that "It's beyond time for someone who isn't a complete fascist to reclaim Christianity in this country." which, to me made it sound as though you thought that the extremists really WERE the spokemen for religious thought.

Maybe it would help if you put both sentences together and read them in context. My point is that in this country, there is no counterbalancing voice in the public arena today. I hear religious people tell me all the time that Pat Robertson and James Dobson doesn't speak for them, but why aren't they on CNN and Fox News giving their counter interpretation of the Bible? Whenever there's a talking head show about religion in America, there's Dobson, Falwell, Reed, et. al. talking about what they think all Christians should believe, but I never see any moderate or liberal Christians invited on to these shows.

And don't tell me Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, because I never see them invited to talk about religion on TV. Race, yes. Religion, no.

"Did I watch it? Yes, for about 15 minutes. As someone who has family who are in ministry, the portrayal was a joke."

Not as much of a joke as someone rendering judgment on a series after watching exactly fifteen minutes of it.

And frankly, based upon the views you've espoused here, if they'd had a character in "The Book of Daniel" who was portrayed exactly as you portray yourself here, people would have been complaining about him.

PAD

I'm a Christian. I watched it. Where as I generally enjoy the same programs you review on Cowboy Pete, this on I disaggre on. I just didn't find it interesting. Hey, I watch tv shows, movies, etc. and read plenty of books where I totally disagree with what is said, but enjoy watching and reading because it's engaging, (The Da Vinci Code for example) I would have kept watching TBOD if I thought it was worth it. I didn't.

One of my friends, who is pretty much the complete opposite of me politically and religiously, agreed. He said it was like the OC with Jesus showing up every once and awhile. I had to agree.

(Believe me, dislike of shows like the OC and 90210 is one thing we do agree on! See there's always common ground!)

I think if the show was any good and definately if it had higher viewership, it wouldn't matter how many people protested, it would still be on the air.

I watched the first episode, but didn't really care for. It wasn't the Jesus thing, as that was part that made the show appear interesting enough for me to see what it was like.

What turned me off is that about halfway through the show it started to feel like "Desperate Housewives" to me and I don't really like that show very much.

"I watched the first episode, but didn't really care for. It wasn't the Jesus thing, as that was part that made the show appear interesting enough for me to see what it was like.

What turned me off is that about halfway through the show it started to feel like "Desperate Housewives" to me and I don't really like that show very much."

Exactly!

It was killed by its own over reaching attempt to force its political and social ideas on others

Force? How do shows like this try to force anything on anyone?

Of the many times someone has claimed that a show "forces" an opposing viewpoint on them, no one has ever explained how they are forced to watch the show. As has been said before, if you don't like it, you can change the channel or turn the TV off. NOTHING is being forced on anyone.

If what I’ve heard about the show and those who were outraged about it is true, then it would only serve to prove how the loudest Christians who raise a ruckus are anything but true Christians, and are largely ignorant hypocrites who probably have never truly read a Bible for what it actually says, and what it actually meant, much less the true history behind its writings. It’s funny how such people can claim Christianity as reason for their intolerance.

James: Just to play Devil's Advocate, if a TV show had a comic book writer named Peter David (I apologize for using you as an example, Peter - but it's your thread) and used him to vocalize comments like, "The Nazi persecution of Jews was warranted," or "Only the stupid and lazy are victimized by capitalism," I would expect Peter to be angry -- not just incensed by the comments, but that the show used his name and likeness to sell them with little concern of his actual perspective.
Luigi Novi: The difference being, of course, that Peter is an actual living human being whose historicity is a matter of established empirical fact, as are his views on a variety of subjects, and whose opinions on other matters of which some may have questions may be gleaned by emailing him or posting here. The same does not hold true for Christ, whose historicity is an unanswered question, whose likeness, if he existed in some form or another, was likely not that of a Caucasian man with brown hair, as the show depicted, and for whom different people have different interpretations.

But just of curiosity, precisely which behavior on the show’s version of Christ do some feel did not jive with his depiction in the Gospels?

Iowa Jim: PAD, Nice try. But your analysis is a bunch of baloney. Christians did not kill this program, bad ratings did.
Luigi Novi: Funny, I don’t recall Peter saying that Christians killed. What I recall him saying in his blog entry was his response to those who attacked it (never once mentioning the show’s demise), and in his subsequent post, saying that it was the time slot that served it badly. I also recall him replying to Steve’ post by flat-out making clear that he was not blaming Christians.

Did you only read the first quarter of his posts, or something? :-)

Iowa Jim: Did I watch it? Yes, for about 15 minutes. As someone who has family who are in ministry, the portrayal was a joke. This was a political show with religion as window dressing…. Daniel was killed not by a small cabal of Christians. It was killed by its own over reaching attempt to force its political and social ideas on others.
Luigi Novi: In what way? How can you make this assessment without even watching the entire full episode?

Iowa Jim: I know this is all about tolerance to you, but think of it this way: If you are aiming for tolerance, you might not push things so far.
Luigi Novi: I’m not sure what “aiming for tolerance” means. Shows are supposed to aim to entertain people, and sometimes, you have to push things “too far.”

Iowa Jim: Bottom line, America takes religion more seriously than perhaps you and some in Hollywood realize. And that is NOT a bad thing. Looked at in the bigger picture, America is more loving because of religion, not less loving.
Luigi Novi: Some individuals are. Some are not. You could just as well look at the intolerance of some people who use religion to justify that behavior, and conclude the opposite is true. Me, I think some people are more loving because it’s the type of person they are and others are not for the same reason. Religion has little to do with it. Religion provides framework that the loving can use to explain their actions, but that only happens if the person or persons in question are inherently inclined to behave that way. The same holds true for those who are not religious at all.

Slightly related to this topic is this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060124/od_afp/italyreligionoffbeat_060124195309.

Luigi is being unreasonable.

(That'll look interesting to casual browsers looking at the Last Day Page! :))

Seriously, I don't see how this could work legally. If Cascioli is successful, then will people not be able, under the law, to assert their own opinion, even to fellow believers of their same religion, who may already believe the same thing?

While the distinction between Jesus as a mythological figure whose existence is a matter of faith and the question of whether Jesus was a historical figure whose existence can be empirically established may be a subject on which both believers and non-believers should be educated, I don't see how referring to him as such in a parish newsletter is any of this guy's business. I mean, how, if this guy's an atheist, how did he even get a parish newsletter? What does he care what they say to one another? Aren’t such things fundamental to their faith? Me, I am far more disturbed when the media does not make mention of the debate over Jesus’ historicity, or the problems with the assertion that he was historical, because they are ostensibly fulfilling a service to public, have massive and instantaneous influence on that public, and are ostensibly supposed to be reporting or speaking about such matters objectively. But this is a private organization. I mean, if an archaeologist spoke about his belief in the existence of the city of Troy in an archaeology magazine or newsletter prior to that city’s discovery in the 1870’s, would Cascioli believe him to be “abusing popular gullibility”?

The issue of the historicity of Jesus is an issue for which people on both sides have arguments that they put forward, and right now, I don't think non-believers like Cascioli can say anything beyond "We don't know one way or the other if he was historical. There is no extra-Biblical, contemporary evidence for his historicity, so he may have existed, or may not have, or may have been a construct based in part on someone real." I don't see, therefore, what Cascioli's problem is with someone who takes one position because of his faith, and refers to it to his fellow parishioners.

And even if Cascioli believes that Christians are "gullible," then wouldn't he agree that their "gullibility" existed long before they read the newsletter, since they're presumably full-fledged members of the parish? Haven’t they pretty much made they own choice in the matter, by not only choosing their own belief system, but by joining an organization for that belief? I mean, if the law/Cascioli concede that their gullibility is “popular”, then how is that the parish’s fault? Really now, by the time a newsletter is sent to a parishioner who presumably already has a strong belief in Jesus’ historicity, hasn’t the Gullibility Ship already sailed?

I guess this is just one of the bizarre aspects of the Italian government/legal system about which I’ve come to learn.

>It was killed by its own over reaching attempt to force its political and social ideas on others

Isn't that why Christ was killed?

I often wonder about that too, Michael. People often complain that Hollywood is "forcing" this or that view onto them, but they never seem to understand the counterargument: "if you don't like it, don't watch it." Which, oddly enough, worked in stopping The Book of Daniel.

A lot of it is just bitching because they don't like what they see. I see similar attitudes expressed in gaming groups where people complain that Wizards of the Coast is "forcing" them to buy additional gaming supplements every month. Well no, unless armed thugs are coming into your own and making you buy the books at gun point or forcing you to sit and watch a particular show, no one is forcing you to do anything.

What people with this mentality are really upset about is that a company is doing something they don't like instead of catering to their particular demands. They can't stand the fact that there are people who might hold a different point of view then they do. In their minds, companies should always cater to their demands, not someone else's, even if the company could make more money doing it the other way.

It was also a baeutiful piece of film, IMHO. Of course, your mileage may vary.

I thought it was beautifully-shot, and I admired Mel Gibson's determination to make the movie he wanted to make. I thought that overall, though, "Passion Of The Christ" missed the point. It was a very pre-Vatican II take on the Gospel of John: "Jesus suffered and suffered and suffered for you people...and this is the thanks he gets?!?" :)

The more I think about it, the more this seems like,once again, people are letting Wildmon and ilk jerk their chains. So he takes credit for a bad show bombing. Hoop dee whoop. If he takes credit for the sun rising I'm not going to close my eyes and pretend it's night just to show him he's wrong.

Exactly right. I fear that there's a cycle to these things:

1) Controversial movie/TV show/whatever is announced.

2) Fill-In-The-Blank takes extreme umbrage and announces massive boycott/response.

3) Movie/TV show/whatever fails, for any of a million reasons but almost certainly not because of Mr. F-I-T-B.

4) Mr. F-I-T-B gleefully and naturally takes credit for the failure.

5) Opponents of Mr. F-I-T-B fill the media with tongue-clucking essays about what a shame it is that American businesses keep listening to people like him. What a damned shame, that Mr. F-I-T-B has such awesome power. How terrible, that with merely the threat of a boycott, Mr. F-I-T-B has the power to crush anything he dislikes.

5) This reaction is noted at some level and the end-result is that Mr. F-I-T-B's delusionally-imagined power and influence is just one step closer to being Actual power and influence.

"Book of Daniel" was cancelled because it wasn't a concept that could easily grab people in one show, it didn't have the faith of the network, it failed to do explosively well on its first couple of outings, when the writing was on the wall nobody at the network was willing to stick up for it the way that executives stood up for "Cheers" and "Seinfeld"...and for all we know, The Powers That Be wanted to free up that time slot for something else, a surer-thing like another "Dateline" show (cheap to produce and guaranteed to return modest but consistent ratings).

It's more exciting to cast yourself as the Sole Voice Of Reason In A World Gone Mad -- whether you're Reverend Wildmon or someone who complains about his ilk's so-called Influence -- but you can be a far more effective agent of change if you take a broader view.

People often complain that Hollywood is "forcing" this or that view onto them, but they never seem to understand the counterargument: "if you don't like it, don't watch it."

Actually, the correct counterargument is "Watch or buy something you DO like." Or if you're an artist or producer, "MAKE something that you do like and get others to buy it."

It's as if they don't trust the free market to work here.

I thought it was beautifully-shot, and I admired Mel Gibson's determination to make the movie he wanted to make.

I have to agree with Stan Marsh on the Passion. It's a two hour snuff film.

And no, I don't care that it's "the way it was" in terms of how Christ suffered. Again, to paraphrase South Park, movies are supposed to be entertaining and there's nothing entertaining about watching a guy being tortured to death.

I agree with Andy I. (And not just because he makes his living writing about Macs, as I do)

For myself, I watched the first episode. It was so over-the-wall that it was bordering on the silly. I liked the premise, and the acting was first-rate, but the storyline was so contrived it lost my interest.

NBC does get some things right. Just look at Earl. Best comedy in years, IMHO. But they blew this show, not just for bad promos, but also for a terribly contrived storyline.

"Of the many times someone has claimed that a show "forces" an opposing viewpoint on them, no one has ever explained how they are forced to watch the show. As has been said before, if you don't like it, you can change the channel or turn the TV off. NOTHING is being forced on anyone."

That's exactly what happened here. People didn't like it, so they turned it off. And I think that was what Jim was saying-it thrust it views upon the viewer in a way they could not get past, so they gave up on it and turned it off. I don't think Jim was trying to argue that he was not able to turn off his TV on a show he did not like...he did that (and faced ridicule for it, oddly enough).

On the other hand, to get back to PAD's original point, many of the show's critics, like Wildmon, were people who condemned the show before the first episode aired, never watched it, never would to watch it and yet still wanted it taken off the air just so no one else could watch it.

There's lots of shows I hate. Hell, I'd jump for joy if someone would just punch out that British prick on American Idol. But obviously, there are many people who like that show and keep watching it. I don't try to deprive other people from enjoying a show they like because I understand that my TV comes equiped with buttons that I can use to change the channel even, heaven forbid, turn it off so I can go read a book.

Honestly? I think you're reading too much into this and buying the line of the Wildmons who are trying to claim victory. He stampedes against shows frequently, and then likes to claim success when anything gets cancelled.... as though most shows don't get cancelled. (I can imagine him saying "it only took us a little more than a decade, but we finally drove NYPD Blue off the air.")

Were there some people who didn't sample it because of the controversy. Probably. Were there also some who sampled it because of the controversy? Just as probably, I'd say.

But it was a midseason launch, on a night when many folks aren't home, and as someone who had no problem with the controversial aspects of it I found it watchable but not great - obviously, your experience varied, but all in all it was a matter of taste. With the exception of its not airing in a couple smaller markets, its failure doesn't have to be ascribed to Christian folks any more than the failure of, say, Eyes. It outlasted Emily's Reasons Why Not by a fair percentage, and that didn't have any righteous indignation push against it. Daniel scored its best ratings in the Knoxville area, not generally considered a hotbed of antiChristian efforts.

You are a very, very good man, Peter, and the world would be a better place if there more people like you.

Book of Daniel was a good show. I only saw the pilot (I missed the other episodes), but it was smart and entertaining, if a bit awkwardly written in some scenes.

But, hey, look at this way: Heather Graham's show was canceled after just ONE episode, without any help from the Moral Minority. I'm not sure what we're meant to learn from this, other than that it could have been worse for Book of Daniel.

I thought the show started a little slowly, but found it enjoyable enough to give it some time to find it's footing. Unfortunately, I had a sinking feeling from the beginning that it was probably doomed, especially after I heard about network affiliates refusing to air the show. THAT really burned my butt. Taking the choice out of the viewers' hands completely, as if they didn't have the ability to change the fucking channel.

-Rex Hondo-

I have to agree with Stan Marsh on the Passion. It's a two hour snuff film.

Only if one believes that the actors really got killed.

Again, to paraphrase South Park, movies are supposed to be entertaining and there's nothing entertaining about watching a guy being tortured to death.

It's not as entertaining as watching a bunch of 10th graders put on an island with exploding collars that will detonate if, at the end of 3 days, they haven't killed each other off until only one survives in a horrific bloodbath of epic proportions. But not every movie can aim that high.

Anyway, I liked it a lot, but as I said, your mileage may vary. To some it's a 2 hour movie about a guy being tortured. to some Moby Dick is about a nut chasing a big fish, to paraphrase Harlan Ellison. I'm planning on watching Abel Ferrara's MS 45 tonight so I'm not one to judge.

I think it would have had a better chance if they put it on the WB right after 7th Heaven. The Moral Minority might have said, "Its on the WB? Do people still watch that station? Lets find a show on a major network to ban."

I think the issue is..

There are people like Wildmon that rather ban something first without even seeing it.

Not whether or not Book of Daniels is a good show or not. The viewers would have decided that. The affiliates that didn't air the show didn't give it that chance.

(Also, for all we know. Jesus is up there saying, "Look Dad, I'm in another show. Been a bit slow since my South Park appearances."
"You've been cancelled, Son." "What? By whom?"
"The Christians." "..Jesus Christ!)

it thrust it views upon the viewer in a way they could not get past, so they gave up on it and turned it off

If one has the option to change the channel or turn the TV off, nothing is forced or thrust upon the viewer.

From Dictionary.com:

Force, the most general, usually implies the exertion of physical power or the operation of circumstances that permit no options

Thrust - To force on an unwilling or improper recipient

As far as The Passion of the Christ, I don't think that Gibson is intentionally anti-Semitic as his father is, but I question his reliance on Anne Catherine Emmerich's The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, particularly the "His blood [is] on us and on our children!" line, which he left in the film. That line clearly is anti-Semitic, not to mention stupid, since it's the kind of thing that would be said by someone with consciousness of guilt, and not by someone who just did something that they felt was right. That Mel Gibson would remove that line's subtitle, but leave the audio in in Aramaic, is inexcusable, IMO.

Only if one believes that the actors really got killed.

My point is, the violence was too graphic for my tastes. I've watch Jesus of Nazareth and The Greatest Story Ever Told and got that he suffered greatly w/o having to see him get whipped until his ribs were exposed, thank you. I realize that was his "vision" of story, but I've always felt that there's more to the story of Jesus then just a guy being tortured to death. You know, all that stuff he talked about when he was live about loving your neighbor, helping the poor, and all that other sissy stuff that no one wants to hear anymore.

I think it would have had a better chance if they put it on the WB right after 7th Heaven. The Moral Minority might have said, "Its on the WB? Do people still watch that station? Lets find a show on a major network to ban."

Well, given that they're merging with UPN, apparently targeting only viewers under 30 is not a viable strategy after all.

I'm sure Wildmon would have tried to ban this show if it was on the Food Network.

I think the issue is..

There are people like Wildmon that rather ban something first without even seeing it.

Bingo!

Personally, I didn't like the show, so I don't care that it was cancelled. I just don't want someone else deciding what is fit for me to watch.

For those who did like Daniel, NBC will be showing the unaired episodes online at nbc.com--hopefully a trend that other networks will consider with shows cancelled before their time.

*sigh*

See, this is why I'm an atheist.

KSNW in Wichita caved in to something like 300 e-mails and phone calls, as was announced the morning of the day before the pilot aired. By Thursday night, the affiliate had received even more protests -- from people lambasting them for taking away their right to make up their own minds about the show. KSNW, at that point, decided to air the show after all. It just shows that the rest of us *can* be heard over loudly vocal Moral Minority.

Now, I chose to watch the pilot myself, to make up my own damn mind. The only character in which I couldn't find any reason to dislike *was* Jesus... Daniel himself is also likeable, but hapless, but the rest deserve to be smacked once or twice. Well, save for Daniel's mother, of course. I was appalled by the "selling drugs for manga creation supplies" aspect, mind you. Just another thing for the Fundies to grasp onto, manga=drugs. Oh, that's right, they didn't watch, but STILL...

I'll take the comparisons to a soap-opera one step further -- this series a live studio audience away from being Soap! The only other thing keeping it from being a compete rehash is that this show is meant to be more drama than comedy.

My conclusion is, while I really won't be going out of my way to watch the show anymore, I wouldn't be requesting a change of channels if it happens to be on. Oh, and the Fundies don't have any reason to gritch. Like usual.

Hello Peter, first time poster. Huge fan and I felt compelled to post. I'm a Christian man, father of three who has enjoyed your work for some time (heck, I still have a lot of your Comic Buyers Guide articles in polybags) and I want to reinforce some points - Wildmon and Robertson and his kind no more represents me any more than Jesse Jackson represents a black man or woman in America today. Wildmon is taking "credit" for a show being cancelled and is an... well, I won't type what I want to type but it would not be kind. The TV business is REALLY unforgiving right now and the promos did this show no service (just as some movie trailers give away the plot points of the film, the ads made the show look like a Desperate Housewives rip-off with Jesus and I think they did not work). Anyway, intolerance exists in all groups and Wildmon is a high-profile example of this. PLEASE don't look at him as typical. As I have (thankfully) seen by some of these comments, he is the exception not the gold standard we hold ourselves up to and against - that is, of course, Jesus, who ismore tolerant than almost all of us, as we are all imperfect and needing redemption.

As far as The Passion of the Christ, I don't think that Gibson is intentionally anti-Semitic as his father is, but I question his reliance on Anne Catherine Emmerich's The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, particularly the "His blood [is] on us and on our children!" line, which he left in the film. That line clearly is anti-Semitic, not to mention stupid, since it's the kind of thing that would be said by someone with consciousness of guilt, and not by someone who just did something that they felt was right. That Mel Gibson would remove that line's subtitle, but leave the audio in in Aramaic, is inexcusable, IMO.

Whatever one thinks of the line, it isn't just from Emmerich's book. It's Matthew 27:25. And any interpretation that claims that by "children" all Jews are to be forever condemned is just an interpretation and rather easily refuted, I should think. (For starters Matthew himself and pretty much all of the early Christian leaders--as well as Christ himself--were Jews.). Although I don't know this for sure, it sounds to me like a phrase one would use in the same way that "I swear on my children's lives" is today--by saying it the crowd was affirming in the strongest way possible that they believed that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy and worse. And at any rate, under no dogma that I ma aware of can one condemn future generations for sins they have not committed. It doesn't work that way.

Now I realize that logic has no coinage in arguing with anti-Semites and perhaps Gibson should have kept in mind how the line has been abused throughout history and used to justify hatred against Jews (why Italians got left off the hook I don't know). You know, since Jesus had to die for our sins and all maybe instead of burning Jews they should have thanked them for our salvation. It might have confused them to have medieval peasants thanking them profusely for a job well done but considering the alternative...

My point is, the violence was too graphic for my tastes. I've watch Jesus of Nazareth and The Greatest Story Ever Told and got that he suffered greatly w/o having to see him get whipped until his ribs were exposed, thank you. I realize that was his "vision" of story, but I've always felt that there's more to the story of Jesus then just a guy being tortured to death. You know, all that stuff he talked about when he was live about loving your neighbor, helping the poor, and all that other sissy stuff that no one wants to hear anymore.

No, I appreciate that it wasn't for all tastes. I'm amazed it did as well as it did, frankly. But I don't think it's entirely valid to criticize the film for only showing us some parts of the Jesus Story. It's like criticizing THE MOTORCYCLE DIARIES for showing us a young idealistic Che Guevara without also showing us what a murdering bastard he became. (And some right wingers made that exact complaint).

Hey, does anyone know what programs Wildmon and co are trying to get axed? I tried to find out but couldn't find any thing on his dreary site. The only boycott was against some video stores for selling porn. My guess is that they have been too embarrassed by the shows they pick lasting too long so they just wait until the get canceled and then claim credit. When Desperate Housewives leaves the air 3 or 4 years from now they'll issue a press release claiming another notch in their belts. I think Andy got it right, only I'm not even sure they take the risk of organizing an official boycott.

Whenever there's a talking head show about religion in America, there's Dobson, Falwell, Reed, et. al. talking about what they think all Christians should believe, but I never see any moderate or liberal Christians invited on to these shows.

Den, I thought about this for a while. I don't know about the other stations but Fox (Which is probably the one I'd be watching during those increasingly infrequent times I look for news on TV) often has left of center religious folks on. Usually it's over some specific issue--the death penalty in particular. There's that Nun that they made the movie about...

And that's the sad thing. I don't know her name. But I know Fred Phelps. And Fred Phelps doesn't deserve to have his name known. In a just universe he would be a total nonentity. It's not that he's a leader, it's not that he has a large following (His "church" is just his family, at least the ones who haven't fled and are now getting extensive therapy to undo the damage of a life spent with this hateful nut). But we know him, don't we, and to Fred that's all that matters. Sad on a few levels, not the least of which is that we are all encouraging him to continue by paying him heed.

But for Jesus to display tolerance of sinners...for Wildmon to display tolerance of other Americans rather than organize to drive quality shows off the air? Can't have that, no, no. Because...well, because why, exactly? Aren't Christians supposed to be charitable, tolerant, understanding? I was pretty much sure that was part of the teachings.

Christians are.

Wildmon isn't.

Ergo, Wildmon is not a Christian. QED

I have to agree with Stan Marsh on the Passion. It's a two hour snuff film.

And no, I don't care that it's "the way it was" in terms of how Christ suffered. Again, to paraphrase South Park, movies are supposed to be entertaining and there's nothing entertaining about watching a guy being tortured to death.

Movies aren't supposed to be entertaining, they're meant to be engaging. (E.g. SCHINDLER'S LIST, THE SMARTEST GUYS IN THE ROOM, APOCOLYPSE NOW, etc.)

And if you cannot connect with a film, it may not necessary mean it is a bad film objectively speaking. It may just mean you're not inclined to like the subject matter or delivery.

And if you cannot connect with a film, it may not necessary mean it is a bad film objectively speaking. It may just mean you're not inclined to like the subject matter or delivery.

Yeah, but that still doesn't explain Alexander or Battlefield Earth. :)

Never saw the show, never wanted to. I was just never interested. I heard the premise and just shrugged. Then, I never liked "Touched by an Angel", either. "7th Heaven" was good early on - when it was just a cute, family drama-comedy. After a few years they became a "message" show and we lost interest.

These days, "24" is about the most interesting thing on TV as far as I'm concerned. "West Wing" has been canned after this season, which probably should have happened after season 4 or 5.

"Desperate Housewives"?? Why bother.

At least there's still reruns of "Whose Line" on ABC Family.

And if you cannot connect with a film, it may not necessary mean it is a bad film objectively speaking. It may just mean you're not inclined to like the subject matter or delivery.

Yeah, but that still doesn't explain Alexander or Battlefield Earth. :)

Well, those actually were bad films . . .

I DID see "The Book of Daniel"... and it was a decidedly mediocre show. My issue wasn't with the portrayal of Christ, actually (he was the best thing about it)... my issue was that it simply wasn't any good. Being controversial really isn't enough; it helps to have convincing drama and comedy also.

Hrm.. like others I thought the show was just stupid. Dull, repetitive, and trying to hard to be current. Misusing "buzz" words and such. Not very good show at all.

If the show had been any good, it probably would have survived. If it rains tomorrow, and I go out and take credit for ruining a picnic, will all Christians be condemned for that to.

I'm reading this thread, and just waiting for someone to say "most Christians are ok... I even have a Christian friend... I just don't want them dating my daughter, or living in my neighborhood".

I am an Evangelical pastor who did not have a chance to watch Book of Daniel. It looked like something I might enjoy, but I've been burned by hollywood coming up with great series' that take faith seriously, and them getting canceled right away. I didn't want to lose another show I'd like. Back in the Nineties, when I was about to head off to seminary, a show came on entitled "Nothing Sacred" The Religious Right were up in arms about it because supposedly it had a priest having an affair in the pilot. That is not at all what happened in the pilot, though, cause I saw it. It showed a priest thinking about having an affair and choosing not to. The show then went on to talk about real spiritual issues and present the priest as a real person dealing with real life. It was canceled. I have to agree with PAD, here. Christians need to learn to think for themselves a bit more. I tell my congregation not to take my word as gospel, check it against scripture, check it against what else they've heard. I also suffered through seeing "The Passion". I found the movie excruciating, and when I saw it a second time (with a church group) I walked out for the scene in the middle that was just too much for me to take. The scary thing is that there were members of my church who went to this who hadn't seen a movie in the theater since the 60s because movies were evil, but they loved "The Passion". My confirmation students (jr highers) wanted me to take them to it and I refused. And the idea that "The Passion" would be a good evangelistic tool completely defies any reasoning to me. Anyway... I'm rambling. PAD- Thank you for this sight. I always enjoy your comments, and I hope you know that there are some of us in the Evangelical church who are as disappointed by what is done in our name as you are.

Damn, I wish I had known this a few years ago. I could have shown Wildmon all the parallels between Clark Kent and Jesus. Maybe "Smallville" could have been given a merciful quick death.

Oh, and I didn't watch the show either. One, I'm an agnostic; and two, I'm afraid I'd be waiting the whole show for Jesus to pull out a straight razor and start slicing up prostitutes. ;)

I didn't watch "Book of Daniel," so I can't comment on the show's quality or lack thereof, but when I saw the commercials for it, I was reminded of "Joan of Arcadia," in which a young woman was given assignments by God, in a different guise, each week. Why wouldn't the religious right object to that (and, since the show lasted two seasons, it wasn't taken off due to moral reasons, but rather a precipitous ratings drop in season 2), since the idea of God presenting Himself in the form of, for example, a teenager, a homeless person, a gardener, a garbageman, etc. would seemingly be more offensive than an image of Jesus in his traditional depiction?

PAD:
“What is it about human beings that we constantly create codes of conduct for ourselves with lofty ideals--tolerance, love thy neighbor, judge not lest ye be judged, free expression--and then not only fail to live up to them, but TAKE PRIDE in that failure? It's an interesting question, I think.”

It is an interesting question indeed. What is also interesting (frightening perhaps) is that I think I have an answer.

Elitism.

I believe that elitism is just part of the human condition. We always have to be better than someone. In how much money we have, in where we live, in our use of language, in our taste in music and art, in the beer we drink, whether we serve wine from a bottle or from a box, whether we drive Chevy or Ford, whether we shop Wal-Mart or (shop smart) shop S-Mart, whether you’re a Crip or a Blood, and even, at times, whether we believe in God this way or that way or not at all.

In one way or another everyone is elitist in their view of this or that.

As an extension of that elitism it becomes obvious (at least to ourselves) that we are the Great Authority on Subject Matter X and those that we dispense our long sought after knowledge too ought to be damn well grateful that we have come to save them from themselves.

Of course there are times when they don’t know what’s good for them and we have an obligation as the Great Authority on Subject Matter X to act for them in the form of threats, boycotts, letter-writing campaigns, and general condemnation of All Things Not Us.

Naturally different people have various levels of control over such free floating snobbery. I’ve been known to Spread The Wisdom on occasion (gee, you think?) and it can get pretty damned thick! So I figure if it’s in me there’s just as much chance that it’s also in you, Luigi, Den, Rex, Sasha, X-ray, Jonathan, Glenn, Bill, Bobb, Craig, some guy called Delco, X-ray, Fred, Roger, and even the quiet lady who sits in the back of the theatre. It’s in everyone to some degree.

Just another part of the human condition that must be overcome.

Than again, maybe some people are just assholes…

If we apply Occam’s Razor, then the ‘asshole’ theory is most likely correct.

Regards,

Mitch

It's not as entertaining as watching a bunch of 10th graders put on an island with exploding collars that will detonate if, at the end of 3 days, they haven't killed each other off until only one survives in a horrific bloodbath of epic proportions.

Bad day teaching, Bill? ;)

And at any rate, under no dogma that I ma aware of can one condemn future generations for sins they have not committed. It doesn't work that way.

*Cough* *Cough* *Original Sin* *cough*

"most Christians are ok... I even have a Christian friend... I just don't want them dating my daughter, or living in my neighborhood"

Well, in most places it is the opposite. Just replace "Christian" with "bhuddist" "Muslim" or "Atheist/Agnostic" and you will get the prevailing view in America.

See, there are quite a few Christians on this board, we just don't feel compelled to shove it down our friends and fellow-posters throats like many on the Religious Right seem compelled to do.

Quite frankly, my own relgious faith, while deep, is hardly Canon....but I figured if the Religious Reich got to pick and choose the cruel and nasty parts of the Bible, I could just pick the nice ones.

TO GODZINA:

The George Burns quote Peter used was from the movie "Oh God." (like 1977 or so, with John Denver) If you ever get the chance, it's a real tickle.

I was reminded of "Joan of Arcadia," ... Why wouldn't the religious right object to that

Actually, I did see one fundy complain that the show wasn't 'preachy' enough. Basically she said that while it was a good, clean show with a positive approach to God & religion, there wasn't enough of the God character laying down moral laws.

=================

What a lot of these self-proclaimed Christians need is a refresher of Matthew 6:1-8.

1
"(But) take care not to perform righteous deeds in order that people may see them; otherwise, you will have no recompense from your heavenly Father.
2
When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.
3
But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing,
4
so that your almsgiving may be secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.
5
"When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.
6
But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.
7
In praying, do not babble like the pagans, who think that they will be heard because of their many words.
8
Do not be like them. Your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

Posted by James Carter:

"Bad day teaching, Bill? ;)"

He's referring to Battle Royale, a violent, satirical, and quite excellent Japanese film from a couple years back. Probably won't ever get a release in this country.

He's referring to Battle Royale, a violent, satirical, and quite excellent Japanese film from a couple years back. Probably won't ever get a release in this country.
------------

If by "this country" you mean the US, it's been availible for some time, as have the manga and a book version.

David

As mentioned earlier, the lead actor in "The End of the Spear" is gay. He is also an outspoken gay activist. A local "religious" television station is refusing to run the ads for TEotS. Let's take this to its logical end.

All you so-called "Christians" must now give away all your Earthly possessions, take off all your clothes, and walk naked into the forest (or corn field if yoy live in Iowa).

Why? Because the actor is gay, you shouldn't see the movie. One of the cameramen may be gay, so you shouldn't watch any of the movies he has worked on. The director's neighbor has a nephew who may be gay. He works as an accountant for a lumber company, so you can't live in a house that has wood in it. That guy who lives down the street from you? The one who works for the local grocery store? He might be gay, therefore you can't eat any food from the grocery store. Carried to its logical extreme, you can't use anything that might have been worked on, touched or used by a gay person. Therefore, you must become naked and live in the forest so you don't come in contact with anything that may contain gayness.

But be careful while you are in the forest. Kit Carson may have shat in that forest at one time.

James posted:
"Just to use homosexuality as an example, the Bible is very clear in a number of Scriptures as to what its perspective on it is. One has the option of agreeing or disagreeing, but not to superimpose his own perspective as the original, which is done a lot lately -- even by so-called religious ambassadors (which I don't get -- if you're a priest but don't want to present what the Bible says, why are you a priest?).

Um, James, the Bible is also VERY clear on the consumption of pork products as well, yet I somehow don't recall reading Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and crew boycotting fast-food establishments for selling sausage biscuits. Until these self-righteous hypocrites and their followers are willing to follow EVERY SINGLE RULE presented in the Bible, they do not have any right to "pick and choose" which rules they expect the rest of us to live by.
What is so utterly contemptible about these blowhards is they willingly seem to ignore CONTEXT. The Bible was written and compiled over a span of centuries (the compilation as it stands now dates from the early 4th century, and is NOT fully inclusive of all the Jewish and early Christian texts and manuscripts). It's suffered through innumerable translations which have led to misinterpretations of what was originally intended. Many serious Biblical scholars note the homosexuality (a word, by the way, which didn't exist until the late 19th century) that's referred to involves male prostitution at temples dedicated to fertility deities. Even the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is not really about homosexuality (as anyone who really reads the full account would know); it's about the "wicked cities of the Plain" to be destroyed, yet even then, God is willing to spare both cities if only 10 good men can be found. (For crying out loud, God destroys two cities because of homosexuality, yet allows the sin of incest to go unpunished? Yeah, *that* makes sense.)
You, as a private individual, are fully within your rights to live by whatever code of rules you wish to. That, however, doesn't give you the right to force your code on others who don't accept them. And, the last time I checked, the Bible is not part of this country's LEGAL code.

"When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others."

This is an actual line out of the Bible? And if so, from which version?

As I don't have cable I dod not see the show. So this comment is totally off topic. I think Iowa Jim is the anti-Peter David, and if we were willing to live with out Peters works we could build a huge containment generator and place Peter and Jim into it. I believe that that once this has been done upon collideing the two would simply destroy each other creating enough energy to power the earth for generations to come! Or destroy the planet....

JAC

"The George Burns quote Peter used was from the movie "Oh God." (like 1977 or so, with John Denver) If you ever get the chance, it's a real tickle."

It really is a wonderful film (a sequel is supposedly in production for this year featuring Ellen DeGeneres in the George Burns role.)

My favorite moment is when God is answering an assortment of questions posed by the greatest theological minds while John Denver's character is taking down the replies. And one of the exchanges is:

DENVER: "What is the true meaning of life?"

GOD: Life is like a cup of tea. (pause, then reacting to Denver's expression) Nah. I better not go for laughs.

PAD

Hey, PAD reading these right now. Hi PAD!

JAC

I think the show's problem was, it cut out two major audiences. First off, it eliminated anyone who isn't interested in a program involving Christian religion (including me). Second, it eliminated anyone who was interested in a program involving the Christian religion, but wanted a more traditional take.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with a non-traditional take, but the reality is that's just not what a large segment of the Christian audience wants, and everyone knows that. So, the show basically squeezed itself out of existence.

In the end, it came down to ratings; if the ratings had been strong, nobody would have cared what the protesters said.

(a sequel is supposedly in production for this year featuring Ellen DeGeneres in the George Burns role.)

When "Oh, God" first came out, I remember some mild protest about George Burns "daring" to play God. I didn't really understand it, since I had seen the movie and thought he played the part well.

Now, I hear this and can't help but think: How can Ellen DeGeneres dare to replace George Burns?

I guess there's a lesson in there somewhere......

He's referring to Battle Royale, a violent, satirical, and quite excellent Japanese film from a couple years back. Probably won't ever get a release in this country.

Featuring Beat Takashi, perhaps better known on this side of the pond as Vic Romano on Spike TV's "Most Extreme Elimination Challenge".

If by "this country" you mean the US, it's been availible for some time, as have the manga and a book version.

True, but there almost certainly will not be a theatrical release like RAN or ZATOICHI and there still hasn't been a premium cable broadcast or a US DVD release.

And for the record, the manga is absolutely appalling. No, really. It's utterly horrific.

I can't wait for the next one to come out. :)

it thrust it views upon the viewer in a way they could not get past, so they gave up on it and turned it off

"If one has the option to change the channel or turn the TV off, nothing is forced or thrust upon the viewer."

Fine. It *presented* it's views...etc, etc.

""When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others."

This is an actual line out of the Bible? And if so, from which version?"

Book of Mathew, Chapter 6 verse 2. Here's a link to an online version -

http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Matthew+6&book_id=9&version1=31

"Sheep" who condemn people or things sight unseen, based on the opinion of someone whose view they respect, come in every political stripe and religious/non-religious affiliation. It's a shame, but it is, I'm afraid, reality.

1I half to admit, I never watched the show. Not because of any prejudice, but because I didn't have time. However, from what I gather, as a lapsed Christan myself I think most Christans don't want a loving forgiving Jesus.
I take that back: THEY WANT JESUS TOO FORGIVE THEIR SCREWUPS. But on the flip side, they want Jesus to bodyslam everyone else for their short comings.
Basically, the religious right are Gou'ald and thier followers want to be Ja'Fa
So let's take the moral high ground and forgive those who trespass against us. If they try to tell us what to do with our lives, let's not vote for them.

"As I don't have cable I dod not see the show. "

Uh James, it was on NBC, a major network, not a cable channel. Good show, but awful time slot

I don't know if anyone's posted this yet...

If anyone is interested in seeing the unaired episodes of the show, NBC is playing them on their website.

This is an actual line out of the Bible? And if so, from which version?

My copy of the Bible, which has this line, is "revised standard version, second edition". as for the posting above, I copied & pasted it from http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew6.htm. (I wasn't about to type all that manually)

Book of Mathew, Chapter 6 verse 2. Here's a link to an online version

Well, I must say, that line alone makes me chalk up another point for the Arguments Against Religious Texts.

Too bad many Christians are just as hypocritical as that line says others are.

Here's a great comparative resource of eight different Biblical translations. This is specifically for the verse above:

http://bible.cc/matthew/6-2.htm

And frankly, based upon the views you've espoused here, if they'd had a character in "The Book of Daniel" who was portrayed exactly as you portray yourself here, people would have been complaining about him.

And which views would those be? I find it interesting that you lately have made this personal about me.

Let's step back for a moment and look at this from the opposite side and deal with the actual show by using an example of an alternative. Imagine a show called "A Letter from Donna" had just been launched.

Donna, the lead character, struggles with an eating disorder. But she was abused as a kid, so we (genuinely) feel some sympathy for her struggle.

Her husband actually cares for her. He has forgiven her affair with a neighbor, and has done everything he could to win her heart. Which just makes her feel more guilty because she knows she is not worthy of his love.

Her son has studied the evidence and is convinced that evolution is absurd, that the universe itself screams it was inteligently designed. He is now battling the school board to get ID taught in the high school.

Donna's brother is an ex-gay. Not one who secretly still wishes he was gay, but one who has actually completely changed, is now happily married, and has 3 kids. He leads a ministry that shows love to homosexuals, accepting them where they are while offering an alternative to those who wish to become heterosexual.

Oh, and I forgot. She is the president of a local chapter of NOW, wanting to further abortion rights, but her daughter has become a member of an abortion alternative group. They don't shoot abortion doctors or blow up clinics. They just help women who choose not to have an abortion to get the health care they need to have a healthy baby, and teach them how to raise the child.

Imagine that show aired for 3 weeks and had abysmal ratings. You would laugh your head off if I complained it was a conspiracy in Hollywood to keep any decent, "God fearing" programs off of the air.

Yes, I only watched 15 minutes. But I did my research. Today you can read full synopsis of plots online. No, it is not the same as seeing it, but you can get a good idea of some major plot lines in the show if it is a decent summary. Based on what I saw and what I read (from multiple sources), the Book of Daniel was as stacked for a "left wing" agenda as my imaginary show would be stacked for a "right wing" agenda. (

The reality is, this show was on life support when it started. NBC didn't order a full slate, they put in in a horrible time slot, and even referred to it in ways that suggested it was a limited series. It would have taken a ratings explosion to have kept this show on the air.

This had nothing to do with how Jesus' was portrayed. This had everything to do with an agenda. There are shows that have an agenda and pull it off well. More power to them. But this one was a failure. Giving it more time would not have changed a thing.

Iowa Jim

"As I don't have cable I dod not see the show. "

Uh James, it was on NBC, a major network, not a cable channel. Good show, but awful time slot

Actually bladestar, my name is Jeff. Where I live we are pretty much strangled by cox cable. The antenna reception sucks so I don't bother with it. I therefore kind of lump the two together when speaking about it as "cable" Sorry for being unclear. Eitherway I pretty much don't see things till they are on dvd.

JAC

As mentioned earlier, the lead actor in "The End of the Spear" is gay. He is also an outspoken gay activist. A local "religious" television station is refusing to run the ads for TEotS. Let's take this to its logical end.

All you so-called "Christians" must now give away all your Earthly possessions, take off all your clothes, and walk naked into the forest (or corn field if yoy live in Iowa).

Why? Because the actor is gay, you shouldn't see the movie.

I saw "End of the Spear." It was a great movie. I highly recommend it.

I did know Chad Allen was openly gay before I saw it. And I am a "so called" Christian. Didn't bother me in the least. I have highly recommended that others see this film.

Yes, a few Christians are making this an issue, but not most.

Truth be told, PAD should actually be trumpeting this movie. It's central message is that the cycle of violence only leads to more violence. It is only when you stop that cycle that the killing ends. And yet this movie is being promoted my many of the same Christians who support Bush and the war in Iraq. If PAD is looking for irony, can't get much better than that.

Iowa Jim

Aahhh... Battle Royale. Haven't seen the movie or read the manga yet, and honestly don't know if I will (or can). The book was wonderful, though. A perfect example of something that is intriguing, and a wonderful read, but not "enjoyable," per se. Like Schindler's List. I think EVERYBODY should have to see that movie at least once.

That being said, I have NO