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 interest whatsoever in seein Mel Gibson's Passion. From everything I've heard and read, it focuses entirely on the LEAST important part of Jesus' story. But that's just me...

-Rex Hondo-

I'd just like to touch upon a point raised earlier, one which seems to be ignored by many simply because it seems so self-obvious - yet leaves one Fundie claim unchallenged for those who haven't actually read the Christian Bible for themselves.

Yes, the Pentateuch (particularly the Book of Leviticus) does condemn homosexual behavior. It also condemns indoor plumbing (putting the latrine too close to the encampment), seafood, pork, and building a house without a parapet around the edge of the roof. Leviticus itself particularly condemns the abomination of cooking a baby goat in its own mother's milk - a sin mentioned three times, where gay sex only got two nods. (I'm not sure why that's a sin, but there must have been a lot of it going on back then...)

Now, if you want to build your bathroom outside your house, boycott cheeseburgers, and make sure your roof has a low wall around its edge, maybe I'll listen to you condemn homosexuals. Until then, maybe we should listen to the words of Christ Himself, who spoke far more eloquently on the topic of being judgmental of others' behavior than on being gay. ("The beam in your own eye" strike any chords out there?)

Posted by Den at January 27, 2006 11:22 AM
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 never said that. I just said liberals shouldn't do that either.

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.

But that's not my argument. I never claimed (or have) a problem of using a fictional character, religiously inclined or not, as a character in a story. I said that I have a problem with people using actual religious icons in stories merely to sell their point.

I think of myself as a liberal at heart - I just have a problem with liberals using right-wight tactics. If someone created a revisionist story featuring Hitler, and showed him as conflicted and repentant at the end of his life, I wouldn't disagree with the message, but I would disagree with the accuracy of the portrayal.

The Biblical record, whether you agree with it or not, says that God disapproves of homosexuality. Since most people think of Christ as liberal, they construe that to mean Christ is against this thinking, so they impose their views onto Christ. Conservatives have used this tactic, too, and it's deplorable no matter who the offending party is.

Good stories should have a point of view. It helps a story be relevant, and promotes discussion. But using Christ as a mouthpiece doesn't stimulate discussion -- it squelches it, by implying that someone who is considered by many to be the ultimate arbitrator of standards has come down from on high to dictate social policy.

Again, superimposing one's viewpoint over anyone else's is censorship, and the producers of The Book of Daniel doing that to Christ is no different than Wildmon bullying the networks to get the show off the air. I condemn both. All I did was try to present that the producers of this show are guilty ,too.

Also while the approach of the Christian right on this matter is not acceptable, their outrage was a completely forseeable occurance. This same show could have been made if Christ wasn't in it, and it may have had the chance to address a lot of issues, but now won't because it went too sensationalist.

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?

Just conjecture on my part (and not written sarcastically, honest), but I think a lot of people may have been afraid that any overly-tolerant presentation of Christ would have overemphasized the "love," and not the "change their ways" part.

I agree with you, Den. You can't have the latter without the former. But a lot of people, again, from both the left and right, don't like the idea of the latter at all.

REPOSTED FOR QUOTE ACCURACY

Posted by Den at January 27, 2006 11:22 AM
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 never said that. I just said liberals shouldn't do that either.

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.

But that's not my argument. I never claimed (or have) a problem of using a fictional character, religiously inclined or not, as a character in a story. I said that I have a problem with people using actual religious icons in stories merely to sell their point.

I think of myself as a liberal at heart - I just have a problem with liberals using right-wight tactics. If someone created a revisionist story featuring Hitler, and showed him as conflicted and repentant at the end of his life, I wouldn't disagree with the message, but I would disagree with the accuracy of the portrayal.

The Biblical record, whether you agree with it or not, says that God disapproves of homosexuality. Since most people think of Christ as liberal, they construe that to mean Christ is against this thinking, so they impose their views onto Christ. Conservatives have used this tactic, too, and it's deplorable no matter who the offending party is.

Good stories should have a point of view. It helps a story be relevant, and promotes discussion. But using Christ as a mouthpiece doesn't stimulate discussion -- it squelches it, by implying that someone who is considered by many to be the ultimate arbitrator of standards has come down from on high to dictate social policy.

Again, superimposing one's viewpoint over anyone else's is censorship, and the producers of The Book of Daniel doing that to Christ is no different than Wildmon bullying the networks to get the show off the air. I condemn both. All I did was try to present that the producers of this show are guilty ,too.

Also while the approach of the Christian right on this matter is not acceptable, their outrage was a completely forseeable occurance. This same show could have been made if Christ wasn't in it, and it may have had the chance to address a lot of issues, but now won't because it went too sensationalist.

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?

Just conjecture on my part (and not written sarcastically, honest), but I think a lot of people may have been afraid that any overly-tolerant presentation of Christ would have overemphasized the "love," and not the "change their ways" part.

I agree with you, Den. You can't have the latter without the former. But a lot of people, again, from both the left and right, don't like the idea of the latter at all.

Not having seen the show or even heard of it up to this point, I don't really feel qualified to touch on the main point -- but since "Brokeback Mountain" was mentioned earlier, I thought I'd pass along the following.

Earlier today, I thought of what (IMO) would be the title of one of the worst slash fanfic stories ever made. (Or best. I still can't decide.)

"Brokeback Mount Doom."

Maybe a hundred people have already thought of this. But it just hit me today, and I figured a decent portion of the populace here is just warped enough to enjoy the idea. (Yeah, Bill, I'm talkin' to you here.) :-)

TWL

"The Biblical record, whether you agree with it or not, says that God disapproves of homosexuality."

I'm sorry, but speaking as a lifelong Christian, this is simply bunk --- or certainly not supported in the way that most conservatives claim. First let's look where it's conspicuously NOT mentioned...

• Jesus, the son of God, never discusses homosexuality.

• The Ten Commandments, the word of God handed down from on-high, don't discuss homosexuality. (They DO address adultery, however, so it's not like sexual sin is excluded entirely.)

Homosexuality IS mentioned, in the main, only twice...

• Once by Paul. But if you read the text, oddly enough, he's not too keen on marriage either. (Paul essentially believed that the end of the world was coming sooner rather than later, and encouraged people to first and foremost seek a life of focusing on God in preparation for this, only resorting to marriage as a second option.)

• Once in the societal rules chiefly in Leviticus (and some in Exodus and Deuteronomy). Yet those detail a society as it existed quite some time ago. Thus...

If you're going to adhere to the Leviticus notion that homosexuality is bad, then you'd better also adhere to the notion (say) that women have utterly no rights whatsoever and are essentially deemed property. Oh, and that adultering women should be stoned to death. Not the adultering men, of course, good Heavens no. Whether you like it or not, *such features were part of that society*.

So, Sir. If you're utterly convinced that the Bible is against homosexuality, are you also for the notion of stoning adultering women, and that women shouldn't have little luxuries like voting rights? Because I'm sorry, it is abject nonsense to support the "gay is bad" notion without accepting the rest of it.

And again, I say that as a lifelong Christian.

I felt the need to remove any ambiguity about my last post by saying that I am FULLY in favor of women's rights, and merely wished to point out that anyone who tells you "God disproves of homosexuality" is usually highlighting some Bible verses while willfully ignoring others, not bothering to apply much context to the text and generally tossing Christ's message of love, tolerance and compassion out the window.

Along those lines, I apologize --- on behalf of tolerant Christians around the world --- for instances where Christ's message of love gets perverted into one of intolerance.

Paul also said that women should be silent in church and if any of the big words the priest uses confuses them, they're supposed wait until they get home and ask their husbands to explain it to them.

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.

In my case, it was definitely the delivery. I didn't like the movie, okay? Maybe that makes me a heathen in some people's minds, but that's just tough titties for them.

But I don't think it's entirely valid to criticize the film for only showing us some parts of the Jesus Story.

Why? I think it's perfectly valid to criticize something for whatever reason it didn't appeal to you. I realize Gibson was trying to make a point, but I think the importance of why people followed Jesus was completely lost in the movie. Imagine showing this movie to somebody who knew nothing about Christianity or anything about Jesus' ministry. They would come away with this: A guy claimed to be the son of God, some people were offended by that, so they had him tortured to death. Then, we see a five second shot of him walking out of his tomb as an afterthought. Why is any of this important? The movie doesn't answer any of these questions. And yes, I realize he was preaching to the choir and not seeking convests.

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...

All I can say is that I've never seen her on Fox News or any other channel.

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.

And that's exactly my point. Fred Phelps and his family are media whores, but they and other extremists are out there, putting their message and their interpretation of religion in the public forum for all to see.

So, on one side, we have Wildmon, Phelps, Robertson, Dobson, Falwell, and probably a dozen more. On the other side, we have some nun who nobody remembers her name.

Yep, that's "fair and balanced."

The religious has become very media savy and they're out there pushing their message. The fault of the religious left and center is that they've retreated, allowing the right to claim a monopoly on God and faith.

If the media thinks that Dobson, Robertson, and Wildmon speak for all Christians, it's because they are the only ones out there who are speaking to the media.

And that brings us back to my original point.

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 never said that. I just said liberals shouldn't do that either.

At the risk of sounding like a fourth grader after a playgrade fight, they did it first.

Iowa Jim: I find it interesting that you lately have made this personal about me
Luigi Novi: An interesting accusation, given that after he stated an opinion, you accused him of "whining" (wording that sounds at least somewhat personal), and even applied a Straw Man argument by referring to things that he had never said.

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.

I just want to say that, since the reference was originally directed at me, I never saw Battle Royale and really didn't get the reference when Bill made it. I'm not sure if he was implying that I should condemn that movie because I thought the gore in the Passion was excessive, but unlike some people, I don't criticize things that I haven't seen first hand.

"At the risk of sounding like a fourth grader after a playgrade fight, they did it first."

Ladies and Gentlemen! Your modern Democratic party policy...

Dark Wesley -
Along those lines, I apologize --- on behalf of tolerant Christians around the world --- for instances where Christ's message of love gets perverted into one of intolerance.

Apology accepted. Now, get out there and drown out the Robertons and Falwells of the world, and we'll all be better off. :)

Bill Handy -
Ladies and Gentlemen! Your modern Democratic party policy...

But IOKIARDI.

"At the risk of sounding like a fourth grader after a playgrade fight, they did it first."

Ladies and Gentlemen! Your modern Democratic party policy...

Yeah, and stupid, too. Copycats rarely work as well as the originals.

I am Christian, almost watched because I was not suppose to, but at the end of the day it did not interest me because it seemed like bad TV. I think the "controversy" was silly. I wish my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ would spen the money and energy they do on stupidity such as this on helping the needy and hurting people in the world. Alas, they would rather blindly follow "professed" Christian politicians than a carpenter from Jerusalem.

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

I meant theatrical release. Sorry, should have been more clear.

"Brokeback Mount Doom."

Well, there were those looks Frodo and Sam exchanged on the mountain... :-)

Dark Wesley -
Along those lines, I apologize --- on behalf of tolerant Christians around the world --- for instances where Christ's message of love gets perverted into one of intolerance.

Apology accepted. Now, get out there and drown out the Robertons and Falwells of the world, and we'll all be better off. :)

I can't afford to begin to match the Falwells and Robertsons - the idea of cheating some old lady out of her pension check in order to finance my television empire sickens me. >shrug

Sorry to have come into this so late, but I just got done working 34 hours in the last two days, and I have to address something Iowa Jim said above, about only watching the show for 15 minutes and then later, doing "research." What, pray tell, kind of research? Seems to me, and I might have a SLIGHT advantage here considering I work in TV and am working on two screenplays, that the appropriate kind of research as to whether or not a show is utter crap is to, you know, watch it.

This whole thing reminds me of the Archbishop episode of The Black Adder. Not that the situation in the episode has anything to do with the Book of Daniel, but the way that those with religious influence will use it to save their own necks more often than not.

Something that's always bothered me about organized religion--there's all these religions out there, and they all claim to be the TRUTH. Yeah. All different. Heck, even two members of the SAME religion will disagree over things because everything you deal with is colored by your own experiences. (Ask me sometime why I think the Prodigal Son story is a load of dingo's kidneys) Everyone follows their own religion. Their own, unique religion. And I really doubt that Heaven is segregated into denominations....

I just realized, this is kind of like the people on Amazon.com slamming George Carlin's "When Will Jesus Bring The Pork Chops" as 'anti-Christian filth'. Only a few admitted they hadn't actually read it, and they mostly said the same thing. What I thought was funny was the people saying they'd pray for George, saying it as if it were some kind of punishment.

As a side note, one of the creators of The Book of Daniel (I think it was creator, might've been writer) was a co-creator of Titus.

Jeeze, I've been without the internet all weekend. My ISP stopped peeing IS. What'd I miss?

*Cough* *Cough* *Original Sin* *cough*
Oh, well, sure, GOD can curse future generations. He's God! He can do anything (except make a rock he can't lift). But I don't think that people can do that and have it actually apply.

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

Not after Columbine, that's for sure. It's one of my top 10 favorite movies of all time.

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.

Hey that sounds like the plot of a really lousy episode of Star Trek...

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

An amazing guy. Check out HANA BI and SONATINE. He was also terrific in the recent ZATOICHI movie.

The manga is THAT horrific? Hey, thanks for the tip, Sasha!

Aahhh... Battle Royale. Haven't seen the movie or read the manga yet, and honestly don't know if I will (or can).

You have to go on the grey market--it's easily available online or at conventions.

I should add that although it is the violent content taht gives the movie it's notoriaty, it is the excellent characterization that makes the movie worth seeing. Producers of crap Hollywood horror movies should take a lesson from this film; it IS possible to make us care whether or not a character dies.

Maybe a hundred people have already thought of this. But it just hit me today, and I figured a decent portion of the populace here is just warped enough to enjoy the idea. (Yeah, Bill, I'm talkin' to you here.) :-)

Well, I'm married to a woman who writes Starsky & Hutch slash fiction so yeah, I found that one pretty funny.

If the media thinks that Dobson, Robertson, and Wildmon speak for all Christians, it's because they are the only ones out there who are speaking to the media.

And that brings us back to my original point.

But I still think it's not accurate. I grant that we can't remember their names but I've seen LOTS of moderate religious folks on TV. If my ISP starts working at home I could try to get some kind of number. You say you haven't seen them and I'm sure you are correct. But they are there.

And not all of the others are actually on TV that much. Phelps is more of a newspaper creation; I can't say that I've EVER seen the guy on the tube. Actually, I have no idea what he looks or sounds like.

I never saw Battle Royale and really didn't get the reference when Bill made it. I'm not sure if he was implying that I should condemn that movie because I thought the gore in the Passion was excessive, but unlike some people, I don't criticize things that I haven't seen first hand.

Oh no, I don't think ANYONE should condemn BATTLE ROYALE. I love that movie. I was more or less just making a joke about how people who acted like THE PASSION was some kind of trailblazer in the depiction of violence have no idea what's out there (DEAD/ALIVE would probably make their heads explode all Scanners-like).

I just realized, this is kind of like the people on Amazon.com slamming George Carlin's "When Will Jesus Bring The Pork Chops" as 'anti-Christian filth'.

The political partisans, right and left, are ruining Amazon.coms reviews function. It's just become a big flamefest. Some websites are even bragging about how well they have poisoned the rating of books by authors they don't like. Shameful.

Just to clarify, I've had no problem finding the Battle Royale manga, and I loved the book, I don't know if the actual graphic depiction of the story is something that I can bring myself to read, as deeply as I as affected by the book. Plus, I'm just afraid it'd be a dissappointment as well... :P

On another previous subject, what I have witnessed of the rare occasions left-of-center religious types DO actually make it onto news shows, the show seems to go out of its way to pick the LEAST telegenic fruitcake they can find.

Oh, and I loved "When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?" That's why I don't read Amazon reviews any more...

-Rex Hondo-

But I still think it's not accurate. I grant that we can't remember their names but I've seen LOTS of moderate religious folks on TV. If my ISP starts working at home I could try to get some kind of number. You say you haven't seen them and I'm sure you are correct. But they are there.

But the fact that just about everyone can rattle off half a dozen rightwing preachers/media whores, but can't remember a single moderate to liberal religious figure off the top of their heads proves that they have a lot of catching up to do.

And not all of the others are actually on TV that much. Phelps is more of a newspaper creation; I can't say that I've EVER seen the guy on the tube. Actually, I have no idea what he looks or sounds like.

Phelps is only the exception. All of the other wingnut preachers are very much creations of the boob tube. Robertson has his permanent TV show while others like Falwell and Dobson are permanent fixtures on the punditry circuit. And even if he doesn't give TV interviews, his group/family still gets plenty of TV time whenever they show up at a funeral with their "God hates fags" signs.

And even though he tends to focus his activities on live protests, newspaper interviews, and the internet, one of his daughters and her kids were making the punditry circuit a year or so ago to promote their message of hate.

Posted by Dark Wesley at January 28, 2006 09:18 PM
"The Biblical record, whether you agree with it or not, says that God disapproves of homosexuality."

I'm sorry, but speaking as a lifelong Christian, this is simply bunk --- or certainly not supported in the way that most conservatives claim. First let's look where it's conspicuously NOT mentioned...

• Jesus, the son of God, never discusses homosexuality.

• The Ten Commandments, the word of God handed down from on-high, don't discuss homosexuality. (They DO address adultery, however, so it's not like sexual sin is excluded entirely.)

So homosexuality isn't listed in the top ten -- but it IS listed in the Mosaic law, isn't it?

For example, Leviticus 20:13

Homosexuality IS mentioned, in the main, only twice...

• Once by Paul. But if you read the text, oddly enough, he's not too keen on marriage either. (Paul essentially believed that the end of the world was coming sooner rather than later, and encouraged people to first and foremost seek a life of focusing on God in preparation for this, only resorting to marriage as a second option.)

Yes, this portion is in 1 Corinthians Chapter 7. Nothing to do with the topic at hand. And, of course, he ENCOURAGED (not imposed) people to consider single life. His wording in Romans 1:24-27 or 1Corinthians 6:9-11 is a lot stronger when speaking of many other behaviors, including the topic that IS on hand.

• Once in the societal rules chiefly in Leviticus (and some in Exodus and Deuteronomy). Yet those detail a society as it existed quite some time ago. Thus...

So, ultimately, what's your point? Except for when it's mentioned, homosexuality isn't mentioned? That's like saying that our law doesn't condemn murder because the murder laws that ARE written aren't in the traffic code.

You may be right, but your argument itself isn't sound.

Besides, there's lot of things that are covered in the Bible. Repeating every single thing in every single chapter is a little redundant, isn't it? Is your argument that a law has to be written a certain number of times before we are to presume the lawmaker MEANS it? Isn't just one time enough?

After all, the Bible condemns adultery. It also suggests that, for the sake of cleanliness, it's not a good idea to defecate inside the camp -- a few thousand years before microbiology suggested the same thing. We haven't discarded all laws that apparently only have social significance when our current social morals change, have we?

I don't disagree in that some of the laws, especially in the Mosaic times, are for a very specific society. I'm just not comfortable in deciding which ones ARE disposable, especially when they're repeatedin the New Testament (which, according to Paul, supercedes the Mosaic law (see the book of Hebrews), which is probably why stonings weren't in vogue in the early Christian era).

In any event, the Bible doesn't seem to have been updated by anyone who would be universally recognized as having the authority to do so. I'm more uncomfortable with the idea that so many people ARE comfortable with rewriting God's message as they feel appropriate.

Again (as I apparently have to keep saying over and over, because a lot of you just refuse to get it) -- I'M NOT CONDEMNING HOMOSEXUALITY -- I'm just saying that the Bible IS, no matter what your personal views are on it.

If you're going to adhere to the Leviticus notion that homosexuality is bad, then you'd better also adhere to the notion (say) that women have utterly no rights whatsoever and are essentially deemed property. Oh, and that adultering women should be stoned to death. Not the adultering men, of course, good Heavens no. Whether you like it or not, *such features were part of that society*.

Again, as I said, I'm not arguing that homosexuality is wrong.

Second, the Bible DOES condem males as well as females when committing what it views as carnal acts (Levitcus 20:10-18), so if your implication is that machismo is an undercurrent of the Bible and therefore nullifies it, you should give it another read.

Plus (again, not to actively support it), one might suggest that actually having God directly among you, and being considered one of his people, should be an active incentive to avoid even the smallest wrong-doing. If you do it anyway, in these living conditions, isn't that just a BIT brazen?

So, Sir. If you're utterly convinced that the Bible is against homosexuality, are you also for the notion of stoning adultering women, and that women shouldn't have little luxuries like voting rights? Because I'm sorry, it is abject nonsense to support the "gay is bad" notion without accepting the rest of it.

And again, I say that as a lifelong Christian.

And again, you need and deserve to have your own views. But you're only a lifelong Christian, not Christ himself, and your statements should be qualified as such.

And again, as I keep saying over and over, I'm not trying to attack or defend homosexuality, or God, or the Bible -- it's an example, not the point. People are continually trying to defend their social views -- that's fine, but they weren't being attacked in the first place.

The ONLY thing that I've been saying from the get-go is that it's improper to re-write a person's argument, whether right or wrong, merely to fit your own. I don't have to defend the Bible's point of view in order to defend that it HAS a point of view (just like I don't have to be black to condemn racism).

The Bible doesn't say ONCE that God approves of homosexuality, and says MANY times that he actively DISAPPOVES. The Bible also says in many Scriptures that Christ shares God's mind (I'll provide the Scriptures later if requested).

You offer no proof of your point, and certainly none to oppose the Bible's; you merely suggest that your view that the Bible's perspective is inappropriate as PROOF IN ITSELF that God agrees with you, which is hardly conclusive.

Everyone here may be right. Everyone may think that God and Christ share their views, or that they at least SHOULD. I don't argue that. All I'm saying is that precedent DOESN'T SUGGEST SO, and it's a little presumptuous to rewrite or insert your views into God's mouth, especially when concrete statements to the contrary are on the record.

After all, directly contradicting the Bible to promote the liberal social cause-du-jour is not much different in principle (although CERTAINLY in practice and severity, no arguments!) than contradicting it while using it as an endorsement for murder (whether the cause is Nazism, a Ji-had or killing abortionists).

If God appears to anyone here, empowers him with the ability to perform miracles to satisfy his credentials (which always happened when a prophet was updating the status quo), then I'll adhere to the Gospel According to X. Until then, your opinions deserve no more weight than anyone else's.

But what I don't get, as you are "a lifelong Christian", is why you take such pride in such an association but are willing to undercut any laws in it that you don't agree with? I'm not saying you're incorrect, but you're the one who brought your belief system up. I've mentioned this earlier, but why call yourself a Christian at all if you apparently have problems with some of the views? Are you saying the Bible is wrong? Then why be a Christian, or what power does it have if you can't believe in it? Or is the Bible the inspired Word of God? Then why do you fight it?

After all, Christ never contradicted the Mosaic law during his time on Earth -- he merely emphasized that the driving motivation behind it, love, was being forgotten in the name of piety and tradition (which, again, both the left and the right are guilty of today). But Christ never said that his love was an endorsement for humans to abandon all of God's standards. After all, doesn't religion suggest that we model ourselves after God rather than the other way around?

But still, this is besides the point.

Ultimately, this is my one and only argument for this thread:

By all means, express your opinions. If you think the Bible's right, say so. If you think the Bible's wrong, say so. That's cool. Just stop re-writing (or ignoring) history, and stop saying that you're speaking FOR God (like the writers of THE BOOK OF DANIEL) or for other people (like Wildmon). Just speak for yourself, and argue your case on its own merits.

If God has something else to add on his own behalf, he can handle it.

Not wishing to get into a huge, tangled and ultimately profitless debate for all concerned, so let me just reply...

>

No, my point is that some conservatives seem to zero in on the verses that mention homosexuality, and willfully ignore the stuff around it. They'll decide to villify homosexuality, but they won't --- oh, say --- claim that adulterers should be stoned. Yet if you read Leviticus, the two points pretty much have equal weight. Ergo, if Leviticus is among your defences that homosexuality is bad, then you pretty much better adhere to the notion that we should, as a society, stone adulterers to death. Funny how few conservatives are willing to stump for the latter point.

Oh, and women are property and you can't eat shrimp either. I'm sorry, but it's in there.

Allow me to repeat myself: "Anyone who tells you 'God disproves of homosexuality' is usually highlighting some Bible verses while willfully ignoring others, not bothering to apply much context to the text and generally tossing Christ's message of love, tolerance and compassion out the window.

Curses... cut and paste didn't work on that last post. Lemmie try again...

"So, ultimately, what's your point? Except for when it's mentioned, homosexuality isn't mentioned?"

No, my point is that some conservatives seem to zero in on the verses that mention homosexuality, and willfully ignore the stuff around it. They'll decide to villify homosexuality, but they won't --- oh, say --- claim that adulterers should be stoned. Yet if you read Leviticus, the two points pretty much have equal weight. Ergo, if Leviticus is among your defences that homosexuality is bad, then you pretty much better adhere to the notion that we should, as a society, stone adulterers to death. Funny how few conservatives are willing to stump for the latter point.

Oh, and women are property and you can't eat shrimp either. I'm sorry, but it's in there.

Allow me to repeat myself: "Anyone who tells you 'God disproves of homosexuality' is usually highlighting some Bible verses while willfully ignoring others, not bothering to apply much context to the text and generally tossing Christ's message of love, tolerance and compassion out the window.

"All I'm saying is that precedent DOESN'T SUGGEST SO, and it's a little presumptuous to rewrite or insert your views into God's mouth"

Gee, that was kinda my point about the whole Christan condemnation of homosexuality, which seems pretty motivated by big, stinky fear while NARROWLY using the Bible to tenuously support what amounts to discrimination, hatred and bigotry.

While I certainly admit that homosexuality is technically mentioned in the Bible as bad, it simply is not, if you actually READ the text and apply some context, deserving of the condemnation that Christians apply.

I find it disturbing, in other words, how many Christians will condemn homosexuality without even reading the Bible or attempting to figure out what it means. If that happened more often, we probably wouldn't even be having this debate. The notion that the Bible condemns homosexuality in the fashion that's usually trucked out is simply off-base.

"I've mentioned this earlier, but why call yourself a Christian at all if you apparently have problems with some of the views?"

You're laboring under the misconception that every Christian has to adhere to the same views. When on Earth did that start? Do we all now have to buy into Pat Robertson's calls for assassination, or that Sharon got his stroke because he displeased God?

I don't have issues with Christian views, but I take issue with Christians who pervert Jesus' message to their own ends. I fail to see the problem with this.

It really scares me when people claim to be acting on behalf of anyone else, but especially when they're acting on behalf of God. A lot of these people are incapable of acting on their OWN behalf, and yet they're gonna presume to act for God. You can use scripture to argue anything you want, but much of it if taken out of the context is much like Lucy going to Linus after she finds the word "Sister" in the Bible and that proves he needs to get her a Christmas present. A person can use Scripture to PROVE to people anything they want, homosexuality is BAD, woman are INFERIOR or PROPERTY, etc. etc. so on and so forth. The people that used to live underneath us had the Christian music playing all the time, statuary all over the place, chuch every Sunday, but they were the LARGEST, SMELLIEST twerps I would ever hope to meet. If you want to live as Christ intended, then firstly, accept those different from you as different, not vile.

"Brokeback Mount Doom."

Well, there were those looks Frodo and Sam exchanged on the mountain... :-)

Oh and don't forget the four hobbits bouncing around on the bed at the end of Return of the King ...

Re: Brokeback Mountain

I'm glad that the movie's doing well.

Of course, when I heard the premise, my first thought was, "Didn't South Park already lampoon this movie in the Sundance Film Festival episode?"

Sans the pudding, of course.

Of course, when I heard the premise, my first thought was, "Didn't South Park already lampoon this movie in the Sundance Film Festival episode?"

I'm going through alot of old episodes right now, and, yeah, as soon as that line about "film festivals being nothing but gay cowboy movies", I couldn't help but think how far ahead of the times Parker & Stone were/are. I mean, that episode is from like the 2nd season, 1997 or so.

But even then, they knew there one day be a movie about gay cowboys. :)

When I first heard Brokeback Mountain, I immediately thought about that episode of South Park. IRRC, Cartman said words the effect that all independent movies are about "gay cowboys eating pudding." I think that was also the title of one of the movies at the film festival, too.

I haven't seen Brokeback Mountain, but does anyone know if they eat pudding in that movie?

Pudding? Uh, no.

What's amazing is that this movie could well earn upwards of 100 million without ever coming close to the number 1 spot. That's a rare thing.

All the folks who are cheering about the cancellation of "The Book of Daniel" as a triumph of Christianity over blasphemy had better pray (he said without a trace of irony) that neither of the Jesus-themed TV series ideas I carry around in my head ever gets into production.
Meanwhile, how do you feel about [adult swim]'s "Moral Orel?"

Paul

What's amazing is that this movie could well earn upwards of 100 million without ever coming close to the number 1 spot. That's a rare thing.

Only if the DVD sales do extremely well. After 8 weeks in the theater, it's only grossed about half that:

http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/boxoffice/weekend/

In contrast, Narnia has been in the theaters for the same 8 week periond and has grossed nearly $280 million. And Underworld:Evolution, which is being almost universally panned, has earned $44 million in just 2 weeks.

Fun with Dick and Jane, another movie considered a real turkey, has grossed $106 million in just 6 weeks.

For all the critical praise Brokeback Mountain has earned, it's numbers are not that impressive.

The Bible doesn't say ONCE that God approves of homosexuality, and says MANY times that he actively DISAPPOVES.

Er, no. The word "homosexuality" appears nowhere in the Bible, and wasn't coined until the 19th century.

What the Bible forbids is "et-zakhar...tishkkav mishkkevei 'isah", litterally "lie down with a man the way a woman lies down." It is unclear to what exact sexual practice this refers (although an argument can be made it refers only to RECEIVING anal sex). Regardless, it is unlikely to refer to modern, androphilic homosexual relationships between coeval men, since such relationships were rare in the ancient world. And it doesn't address sex between women at all.

It's also worth mentioning that this prohibition is just a chapter before the Bible forbids wearing cloth of different fibers...

In the New Testement, arsenokoitai ("bed-men") and malakoi ("flimsy ones") are said not to enter heaven, but, since these words don't appear in a sexual context anywhere else in the pre-Biblical Greek corpus, we have no idea to what these words are supposed to mean. There were plenty of well-attested words for various male-male relationships in Greek, but Paul didn't use any of them.

Listen, homosexual relationships in the ancient world were very different from those that exist today. Wives are no longer treated as property, and likewise it is no longer acceptable for a man to have sexual relations with a boy or a slave. If the New Testament was condemning any sort of homosexual relationship, it would probably have been Greek pederasty, which I'm perfectly comfortable condemning myself. It could NOT have been condemning modern-style homosexual relationships between consenting adult men of the same social class, because such relationships were almost unknown.

And Underworld:Evolution, which is being almost universally panned,

By critics, sure.

But it sounds like alot of people are just enjoying Evolution for what it is: your standard popcorn flick.

I'm a Christian, an Episcopalian, and have watched three hours of THE BOOK OF DANIEL. I have to say, I really dislike this show. Not because of the depiction of Christ talking to the main character (this is actually the only part of the show that I do like), but rather I dislike the show because of it's lack of authenticity.

The show centers around the rector of an Episcopal church and his family -- but I honestly don't believe the writers have ever met an Episcopalian.

Myself, I am a cradle Episcopalian and in my life I have never met a male Episcopal priest referred to as Reverend. Some times female priests are referred to a Reverernds as "Father" seems an odd fit and "Mother" is a term reserved for nuns. "Daniel" is called Reverend Daniel where he should be appropriately referred to as "Father Daniel." He is also dubbed a minister, not a priest. I imagine that this was a creative decision so as not to seem too Catholic.

Speaking of which, I was grossly offended by the stereotype of the Catholic priest being hooked up with the mob.

The show's just badly written.

Anybody remember NOTHING SACRED? ABC ran this series years ago about a Catholic priest struggling with his faith. Beautifully written. Just like DANIEL, it was villified by the religous right and rushed off-the-air.

I wonder why the networks bother?

Aron

Listen, homosexual relationships in the ancient world were very different from those that exist today.

Sorry, that should read: "...homosexual AND heterosexual relationships in the ancient world..."

For all the critical praise Brokeback Mountain has earned, it's numbers are not that impressive.

I'm not sure that's correct. Although the movie has been out for 8 weeks it has been in relatively few theatres. Like WALK THE LINE it has stayed under the radar and quietly scored cosistantly high per screen averages (consider that, per screen, it made more in it's 8th week than UNDERWORLD EVOLUTION did in its second week.

Even if it begins to drop off now, I expect the almost certain Academy Award nominations to give it another boost. Perhaps 80 million is a more realistic final domestic total.

At any rate, with only a 14 million dollar budget it has to be a considered a profitable hit, especially for a subject that most expected would sink it without a trace.

But it sounds like alot of people are just enjoying Evolution for what it is: your standard popcorn flick.

I'll say. Kate Beckinsale in black leather could make even a gay cowboy reconsider his options.

I'll say. Kate Beckinsale in black leather could make even a gay cowboy reconsider his options.

Well, for many, this one might be more about the fact that she gets out of the black leather and into her birthday suit for a scene (albiet, still not actually *showing* anything).

I'm not sure that's correct. Although the movie has been out for 8 weeks it has been in relatively few theatres.

That might partially explain it's overall domestic gross, but I've seen theaters hesistant to run a controversial movie only to embrace it after the initial couple of weeks made it a hit. When Fahrenheit 911 was released, only one small arthouse theater in my town would air it at first. A few weeks later, when it was all over the media, the major multiplexes picked it up.

Brokeback Mountain isn't getting that same kind of buzz.

Even if it begins to drop off now, I expect the almost certain Academy Award nominations to give it another boost. Perhaps 80 million is a more realistic final domestic total.

If past history is any indication, Oscar nominations have little impact on box office receipts.

At any rate, with only a 14 million dollar budget it has to be a considered a profitable hit, especially for a subject that most expected would sink it without a trace.

Sure, being cheaper then Narnia and probably even Dick and Jane (I think 14 million is Jim Carey's asking price now), will make it profitable, but it won't make it gross $100 million.

I'll say. Kate Beckinsale in black leather could make even a gay cowboy reconsider his options.

And there you have the only reason I went to see the first Underworld.

>I'm not sure that's correct. Although the movie has been out for 8 weeks it has been in relatively few theatres.

>That might partially explain it's overall domestic gross, but I've seen theaters hesistant to run a controversial movie only to embrace it after the initial couple of weeks made it a hit. When Fahrenheit 911 was released, only one small arthouse theater in my town would air it at first. A few weeks later, when it was all over the media, the major multiplexes picked it up.

>Brokeback Mountain isn't getting that same kind of buzz.

Ahhhh... the power of homophobia. A good government conspiracy film can be brought into theatres dispite reservations, while two guys kissing... well, a person has to draw a line, right?

"Ahhhh... the power of homophobia. A good government conspiracy film can be brought into theatres dispite reservations, while two guys kissing... well, a person has to draw a line, right?"

Nah, it's just that all the intelligent people already really that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality and thus it's old news.

The only people complaining about homosexuality are the idiot religio-fascists. And the intelligent people already know how full of shit they are.

But you quiet, real christians really newed to start speaking up and getting it into the media that folks like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and George W. Bush do NOT represent christianity...

Nah, it's just that all the intelligent people already really that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality and thus it's old news.

I read on Slate the other day where one of the columnists described Christianity as the "new homosexuality" in Hollywood. That is, ten years ago, if you wanted to be seen as bold and daring you did a show or a movie about a gay character, now in the post-Will and Grace era, they're considered old hate. Now, to be bold and daring to do a show about Christians.

But you quiet, real christians really newed to start speaking up and getting it into the media that folks like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and George W. Bush do NOT represent christianity...

Gee, haven't I been saying that for almost a week on this page now?

The Bible doesn't say ONCE that God approves of homosexuality, and says MANY times that he actively DISAPPOVES.

Er, no. The word "homosexuality" appears nowhere in the Bible, and wasn't coined until the 19th century.

You have to remember that the Bibles we read today are translated from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, and different translators may use a different term that has the same contextual meaning. One Bible translator may use the term "homosexuality," while another may use the more literal "men who lie with men as men lie with women," which is a bit of a mouthful (but certainly not so obscure that a reasonable person one cannot grasp the meaning). Just because the original Bible writers didn't use the English word "homosexuality" doesn't mean that they were confused as to what the practice was.

And are you trying to suggest that homosexuality was a rare, unknown, mystifying practice, but anal sex was commonplace? If I read, "as a man lies down with a woman" and my interpretation is made in a vacuum, intercourse is the first thing that comes to my mind, and certainly not anal sex (isn't that why the qualifier "anal" has to appear before the word "sex" in the first place?).

However, one thing we certainly DO see more of today than in years past is people arguing semantics to complicate matters that would otherwise be cut and dry. (I'm surprised Bill Clinton hasn't posted yet.)

As well, people have to remember that, even in the eyes of the early Christians, the laws and rituals written by Moses were closed upon the death of Christ (again, in the Books of Romans and Hebrews). However, since Paul (who was a contemporary of the Apostles of Christ) still included homosexuality as an inappropriate practice (Romans Chp 1, 1Corinthians Chp 6), then just because Christians no longer had to follow the designs provided for the priestly garbs (a ritual) doesn't mean that God suddenly said, "All bets are off" in terms of unclean practices (laws). (After all, are you going to suggest that God intends men to sleep with animals now, too, since that was also outlawed in the book of Leviticus, which you consider to be antiquated? I mean, Paul didn't reiterate that law, but it certainly seems a no-brainer to me.)

If God, Christ, or the Apostles thought Paul was so wrong in his statements, don't you think they would have corrected him (or stopped him) before the Bible was finished?

Again, I'm not arguing against homosexuality. In my mind, consenting adults can do as they please. It just seems that so many people on this board are so intent on proving their liberalism that they're re-writing the Scriptures.

One of my favorite arguments was this one:

While I certainly admit that homosexuality is technically mentioned in the Bible as bad, it simply is not, if you actually READ the text and apply some context, deserving of the condemnation that Christians apply.

"I admit the Bible says it's bad, but if you read the text, it's not deserving of condemnation?"

Look, no reasonable person on this board is trying to suggest that being a homosexual person is synonomous with being a evil, lecherous creature deserving of humiliation, beatings, snide remarks, ostracism, or anything other than being treated like any other human being based on their individual merits. And this isn't a charitable position -- it's their right. In addition, Christ (and by extention, God), is presented as a loving, caring individual who is patient with everyone, and wants to see everyone reconciled with him.

That being said, the Scriptures also show, over and over again, that the patience of God is not absolute, and not just in areas like homosexuality (that just seems to be the hot button on this particular board because of the TV show that started the discussion -- I could have replaced "homosexuality" with "premaritial sex" in all my posts and still have made the same comments). But to me, having a loving God and having a discipling God are completely reconciliable. I can love my son very much, but if he is continually bringing drugs into my home, I may have no choice but to evict him. I may always wish for his return (the Prodigal Son and all that), but for the sake of my family, I may need to set boundaries.

I can't speak for God as to what his problems with homosexuality are (I could make some guesses, but that would be inappropriate, and ultimately inconclusive anyway). These problems are ones I don't share. But the point is, I'm not pretending like some people on this board that the disapproval isn't on record, and certainly not to the point that I'll try to rewrite or play semantic headgames just to justify my personal views. Too many people alter what they consider God's requirements are for them to the point at which they're already met. That's not respect or worship. That's sanctimony.

I mean, this board is going back and forth, not on whether homosexuality is a bad thing, but whether or not the Bible says it is. I would have thought that the latter could be proven more objectively, but I guess I was wrong, which seems weird. (After all, I don't agree with Hitler, but I agree that he existed and orchestrated the Holocaust -- the first is opinion, the second is mere historical recitation, which I thought was the issue above.)

It seems like we could quote five or six different Scriptures, pulled from twenty different Bibles that all contextually say the same thing about this subject, and still we'll have people say, "No, no, that's not what it means." (I won't do that -- it appears that it'll be a waste of time).

I don't know. It may be that liberal people honestly think of themselves as good (I think a liberal thinking individual is someone who is very interested in the rights of others, which is too much a rarity). Liberal people have a respect for the principles in God's word, even if they aren't actually believers. Therefore, if they read things they can't, in their hearts, either agree with or at least reconcile, they feel obliged to impose their own thoughts on the text rather than have to admit to themselves that they might disagree with God on something.

Again, I don't know. I can't, and don't want to, speak for anyone on this. But considering how contentious determining a mere fact is on this board (No value judgments -- Does the Bible condemn homosexuality? Yes or No?) it seem like people are unable to divorce their own opinion from the Bible's, and are so DESPARATE to keep them (at least in their own minds) aligned that they'll cling to semantic arguments (the last refuge of the politician) rather than have to say the words, "God, if these words reflect your feelings, I disagree with you." (Or perhaps it's, "God, if these words reflect your feelings, it means that I have to change to fit you, and I don't want to do that." Or, perhaps most tellingly, "God, if these words reflect your feelings, that means if I don't change, there may be consequences, and I don't want to admit that.)

(As a side note, I actually expected a lot more people to take the argument, "I believe in God, but not the Bible." Of course, people in that camp would have no incentive to protect the Bible's integrity from what they saw to be a misiterpretation. They would have just said, "Yeah, the Bible says it condemns homosexuality. I don't think it's God's word," which pretty much closes that argument.)

In any event, If you read my posts over the course of this board, you'll see that my original point, from the first day, was not that THE BOOK OF DANIEL tried to portray a priest and his family going through some (rather sensationalized) problems, whether or not they included homosexuality. My problem was that the writers actually used Christ as a character in their story to take a stand, whether by his absolution or passivity, on issues that are clearly the writers' own. Obviously, having Christ on your side on these issues gives you some street cred (which is why he was the character chosen), but I would be as disturbed if they used any personage, whether religious or not (they could have used Rudy Giuliani and my agruments would have been substantially the same), without any consideration as to the person's ACTUAL views on the subject, especially when the record suggests that said person might have the opposing view.

Now, to be bold and daring to do a show about Christians.

Bah. To be bold and daring, publish a few cartoons of Mohammod. Then watch your country get bucotted, your people threatened and a former president of the United States leave you out to dry.

Buy Denmark! I, for one, will gladly eat more butter cookies for freedom. It's a sacrifice but freedom isn't for skinny wusses.

curious...the show is canceled already? wow.. I hadn't had a chance to check it out.. I wonder how many episodes they filmed.. maybe the producers could put them out on dvd..

JAMES:

In all seriousness, thanks for at least taking the time to think about all of this. It's more than some people would.

Also, I apologize if my statement that "While I certainly admit that homosexuality is technically mentioned in the Bible as bad..." wasn't worded very properly.

What I meant to say was that whereas male-male sex is technically mentioned, if you apply some context, it actually ISN'T bad as some conservatives will claim. I was trying to say that no... the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality as we recognize it, however much we're told otherwise.

In any case, using the Leviticus societal rules as a defence is always tricky because Christ himself OVERTURNED many of them in the New Testament. Those who rely on the Leviticus verses that mention male-male sex are... gee, zealous rule-counters like the Pharasees. (sp?) Whom Christ actively condemned.

I suppose that was my actual point... the Bible technically mentions male-male relationships, but no, not in the condemnatory fashion you might suppose, and anyone who gets overly reliant on the Leviticus rules is... acting like the Pharasees.

As Christ said (in a nutshell): "Love your God, love your neighbor, love yourself, and even love your enemy. Everything else is details."

As someone who's been just observing the discussion here, let me try to clear up a disconnect which I think may be going on. I think what some have been trying to say about the Bible's stance on homosexuality is that the severity of the condemnation which is actually in the text may have been exaggerated, by those who wish to persecute homosexuals; and moreover, that these persecutors have to pick and choose to make their case work. They are ignoring many other actions which are condemned, in Leviticus or other places - because they are seen as ridiculous or anitquated or whatever - and focusing on this one group. "Oh, well we all know that God doesn't REALLY mean THAT - but every word against homosexuality, THAT'S a severe, literal indictment. We must follow God's will there, 'cause He means it ... but, just ignore that other stuff." If they're gonna claim that the book is "The Word", then how do they reconcile picking and chosing which words they obey? Do they have knowledge about which "words of God" are the literal and which ones are just writers filling space?

(And BOY, am I not saying that we should obey the literal word of the Bible, BTW ...)

Dang it, got all the way to the last few posts before Bill brought up what I was gonna say!

The current Denmark situation is unbelievable.

Anyway, it took me awhile, but I finally figured out what IOKIARDI means.

"It's OK If A Radical Democrat's Involved." That's it, right? Anytime someone thinks he or she is being clever by throwing that out there, that's what it's gonna be in my mind.

And homosexuality, indoor plumbing, shaving, whatever aside, can we all agree that the one thing the Bible says is the basest of evils is an inability to distinguish between "its" and "it's"????

Let's just face it, speaking as a Christian, the Bible says a lot of stuff that is just plain silly. Also, ignoring the questionability of the historical accuracy of many portrayals, being an apostle did not make one immune to having one's own prejudices. To claim that just because the Bible says something, that's God's opinion is, frankly, ridiculous. Every single page of the Bible was written by PEOPLE, predominately men, who had their own agenda to put forth.

So, if some television writer wants to make God or Jesus a character and put his own words in His mouth, bully for him. Religion has been doing it for years.

-Rex Hondo-

LUKE:

Thanks for expressing all of that so concisely. That's precisely what I was trying to say, only sloppily so at times.

LUKE:

Thanks for putting all of that so concisely. That's exactly what I was trying to say, only more sloppily so at times.

Dark Wesley

"It's OK If A Radical Democrat's Involved." That's it, right?

Close, but no trip to Havana for you.

Anytime someone thinks he or she is being clever by throwing that out there, that's what it's gonna be in my mind.

You keep thinking that.

In the mean time, be sure to cheer on the monkey tonight when he's on tv.

I also think Luke's comment is virtually unassailable. Nicely said, man.

Posted by Rex Hondo at January 31, 2006 05:35 PM
Let's just face it, speaking as a Christian, the Bible says a lot of stuff that is just plain silly. Also, ignoring the questionability of the historical accuracy of many portrayals, being an apostle did not make one immune to having one's own prejudices. To claim that just because the Bible says something, that's God's opinion is, frankly, ridiculous. Every single page of the Bible was written by PEOPLE, predominately men, who had their own agenda to put forth.

-Rex Hondo-

As I mentioned earlier, this was a position that I actually expected to see more prominently on this thread.

I think that most of us posting on the thread were working under the unspoken stipulation that, of course, one would have to first prove that the Bible was God's word before one could use it to examine God's stance on various issues, but that it was a topic too large for even this thread to handle.

That being said, I have to ask this question (and not to attack you, Rex, honest-to-goodness -- I'm actually curious) -- how can a person say that he is a Christian (i.e. - he adheres to the Christian body of faith), yet immediately undermine the only body of writings that claims to the canonical "manual" of that faith? Please be clear -- I'm not asking that to imply hypocrisy; I'm literally asking this one question with no value judgments attached: Once one disowns the Bible, does anything else even exist that can serve as the foundation of (specifically) Christian faith? Where did (or can) one go to come up with a belief system that one can effectively call "Christian" once one disavows the Bible?

My questions are framed, not based on the conclusion that the Bible is, by definition, the Word of God and the ultimate guide to Christ, but that there just doesn't seem to be a "Number Two" on the list to move down to. I mean, isn't that kind of like saying that you love the Star Wars universe except for the stuff George Lucas was involved with? Literally -- what else is there?

(Or do you use the term "Christian" to mean one who appreciates and endeavors to adopt the principles as acknowledged that this "Christ" fellow taught ([hmph, hmph]-- seemed like a good chap), but not necessarily one who follows Christ himself?)

Again, honestly, Rex, I'm not attacking you or trying to make you "defend" your position. This is literally just something that I can't work out and I'd really appreciate your comments on the subject.

"I've learned that there are three things never to discuss with people: religion, politics, and the Great Pumpkin."

Linus

All things considered, this thread has been pretty civil throughout. I just wanted to personally say that I've really enjoyed reading people's comments -- it's important to sometimes go into those "taboo" subjects so that other people open up your mind and make you think about what YOU think. And most of us generally know the caliber of comments we're going to get from visitors to this site, so I just wanted to say, "Thanks, guys."

That being said, if you want to stay on my good side, don't bring up that $*#$ing Great Pumpkin.

That show was blasphemous. I'm glad it's gone.

America and the world needs to repent.
Christians only want to save you from hell, nothing wrong with that.

Everyone should believe in something higher than themselves.
http://www.repentamerica.com/index.htm

Well, I certainly believe you're higher than me. Much higher than anyone I've ever known, as a matter of fact...

(Okay, it was a cheap shot, but you were all thinking it! You know you were!)

James, don't worry about it. Believe me, you're being much more civil and open-minded than I've come to expect of people in general.

While I've come to a place in my life where I have very little use for organized religion, I still consider myself a Christian because I still endeavor to follow Christ's example and teachings. (Admittedly, usually falling woefully short) Most of the rest of what a great many Christians tend to focus on is, in my humble opinion, extrainious details, and not really relevant to the core message anyway.

Hope that clears it up. I'll spare everyone a long-winded enumeration of my, shall we say, differences of opinion with "The Church."

-Rex Hondo-

Thanks for the kind words, Rex.

Now, as to "Repent America,"

Posted by Repent America at February 1, 2006 10:29 PM
That show was blasphemous. I'm glad it's gone.

America and the world needs to repent.
Christians only want to save you from hell, nothing wrong with that.

I would say to this comment that it's a good thing when any individual takes an active role in promoting what they feel to be a good cause, including the spread of Christianity. Most of us (me included) have lost the activist spirit, and we just try to interact with as few people as possible in their day, making as few waves as possible

That being said, a large body of activist Christians are becoming a bit pious and confrontational in their message, and that's NOT a good thing (or even a Christian thing, if you want to get down to it).

Matthew 10: 12 - 14 12 When YOU are entering into the house, greet the household; 13 and if the house is deserving, let the peace YOU wish it come upon it; but if it is not deserving, let the peace from YOU return upon YOU. 14 Wherever anyone does not take YOU in or listen to YOUR words, on going out of that house or that city shake the dust off YOUR feet.

"Shake the dust off your feet." If people aren't interested, LET IT GO.

When you read the Scriptures pertaining to the Christian missionary work, it's always about getting God's message out -- making it available without shoving it down someone's throat, and without shutting up every person you disagree with. I mean, if you believe in the redemptive power of God's word, why are you so afraid of other people's thoughts? Are you afraid you can't make a positive case for it on its own merits? More importantly, why waste time shutting people up that could be better spent spreading a more positive message?

And what does it say about your Christian "love" for people when you just want them to listen to what you say but have no interest in honestly sitting down with them, to help them reconcile and understand what they're hearing so that they can make the best application of it? Is it because you might have to listen to THEM?

Secondly, Jesus was not afraid to discuss ideas in a rational way with people that might be inclined to be on the other side of the fence (John Ch 3).

Third, God made us in his own image. That means two of the things he gave us were free will (so that we could CHOOSE to be his servants as opposed to robotically serving him), and a sense of justice.

And sometimes, that sense of justice may make us question God in matters wherein we do not perceive his will clearly. Moreover, precedent shows that God does not disapprove of such questioning if done in a respectful way.

Many right-wing Christians make a lot of the story of God destroying Sodam and its depraved populace. However, they don't make a lot of the fact that, just before God did so, Abraham made a point of saying that it didn't sit right with him. God had to reassure him that He was not rash or indelicate with his judgments -- he would not destroy righteous people along with wicked ones for the sake of expediency (Genesis 18:20-33), and, in fact, made provisions to rescue the righteous residents of Sodom from harm.

Many good people recognize the rights of others to do things that they may, themselves, do not agree with, things that they feel God may have a problem with. We may certainly vocalize these things, respectfully. If we feel our spirituality is at risk, we may feel it necessary to pull away from these others. But ultimately, any problems God has with anyone is between THAT PERSON and GOD. Enough of us have plenty of "rafters to take out of our own eyes" to worrry about other people's "splinters."

That being said (and just to play the other side of the fence), sometimes "being a good person" isn't quite enough. I'm sure that not every single person on the Earth during Noah's day was a complete degenerate. However, the way to save themselves from the flood wasn't just by being a good person, but by actively casting their sides with God by actually GETTING ON THE ARK.

Sometimes being a good person is not about being quiet, but about being vocal. (Doesn't it say something when the AFI chose Atticus Finch as cinema's greatest hero? Peck was hardly confrontational, but by no means passive.)

Liberal and moral are not always the same thing. Sometimes the liberal thing (respecting other's rights) means letting them do their own thing, which can often mean self-indulgent behavior (which is not a human crime, but is often immoral, which doesn't score points with God). For example, eighteen year-olds may have the "right" to engage in premarital sex. However, considering the dangers and reponsibilities that can come from it (and not just pregnancy and STDs, but even the emotional havoc sex can reak in an immature relationship), exercising their rights isn't necessarily the GOOD thing for them.

And just because we let people do what they want doesn't immediately mean that we have to condone their behavior. There's a sector of (for want of a better term) "right-wing liberals" out there that enforce the view that acceptance of other people's rights has to include, not just tolerance, but active agreement with others' choices. Sometimes these liberals can be more hardcore and unyielding than the worst conservative.

And sometimes, we don't say what we think, not because we want to be liberal, but because we're afraid to start a confrontation by appearing NOT liberal.

The first comes from strength of character. The second comes from weakness of character.

Doesn't it say something about what our society has become in that who we currently perceive to be the biggest morons in our society are not the people who smoke five feet from the entrance of the doctor's office, the people who go into the express lane of the supermarket with a full cart of groceries, the people who park right in the traffic lane in front of Wal-Mart rather than an empty space in the back of the parking lot? No, the people who get our dirtiest looks are the ones that ACTIVELY CALL THEM ON IT.

We've become a society so afraid of its liberals that we'll even defend a person's right to be INCONSIDERATE. What does THAT say?

So, ultimately, every time we have to make a decision for ourselves on these social issues, it's really important to figure out, not just WHAT we think, but WHY. It might mean the difference of whether we have strong people or weak people, a strong society or a weak society, and (included only because it's been a component of this thread) people acceptable to God or people rejected by him.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060202/ts_nm/religion_denmark_cartoons_dc_14;_ylt=Aqy_UoTIj0pTC4rBDhcpsgVZJ_wA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

I'm thinking about this whole flap about the Mohammond cartoon and in a way, this is plus for Bush. Finally, someone else in the world has gotten every Muslim nation pissed off at them instead of us.

Dark Wesley, James -

I just felt I should say thank you for the compliments - very kind! Glad if my comment was of use.

Luke

I know the CBLDF has enough on its plate right here in this country but I wonder if they will take a stand on this. I guess editorial cartoons are a separate issue.

I have to give the French, German, and other European newspapers that have stood in solidarity with Denmark over this a great deal of credit for guts and balls. Question--Will Newsweek or Time or any American newspaper/magazine follow suit?

Whenever some avant garde artist does some sad little mocking of Christianity and acts like it's all so cutting edge and controversial, I have to laugh. Wow, what's gonna happen, you get a harsh letter from the president of the Catholic League? Take on radical Islam, tough guy, then you'll get your props.

I have to give the French, German, and other European newspapers that have stood in solidarity with Denmark over this a great deal of credit for guts and balls.

I agree.

I mean, I really do laugh at the notion that Christians in this country are somehow oppressed or something, when the freedom to give the finger to the other side goes both ways in this country.

But Islam? Man, I'm really starting to wonder about alot of those folks (ie, the ones in the Middle East). Not only are these people some of the most oppressed in the world, you can't say or do a single thing that might insult their culture, or they'll go ape-shit on you.

And I say culture, because things like this I think go far beyond a simple religious belief.

You're right, it's something much more than just religion. Witness the fact that, in an effort to drum up even MORE hysteria, some of the people attacking Denmark are fabricating additional cartoons and claiming that they were among the ones originally published. So they are creating NEW blasphemies--hardly the actions of a true believer.

"I have to give the French, German, and other European newspapers that have stood in solidarity with Denmark over this a great deal of credit for guts and balls. Question--Will Newsweek or Time or any American newspaper/magazine follow suit?"

Not if they have the same parent company owners as the TV networks. The news tonight showed the followers of Islam storming buildings and making threats to bomb churches over this but started the story out by pointing out that they wouldn't air any of the strips on their program. This was NBC. This is the same news program that never blinked about showing scenes from The Passion of the Christ, The Last Temptation of Christ, Jesus Christ, Superstar and every gay man marching along in a pride parade and dancing in front of a church as the gay Christ. This is the same news network that has shown clips of God on TV as depicted on The Simpsons. But they can't show these strips because they may offend.

I would like to think that NBC is a lone example of this but damned near all the nets seem to be taking this stance. This is PC gone braindead beyond all repair.

Or maybe it's fear that these guys would bomb the crap out of their studios whereas the "extreme" Christian wingnuts wouldn't?

I meant that to have quotes up there so that it read....

..."the followers of Islam"...

Just to be sarky about their true nature.

Not if they have the same parent company owners as the TV networks.

Did you catch the bit during the NBC report that one of the newspapers that reprinted the cartoons, in Europe, is owned by an Egyptian? And that said owner fired the editor afterward?

This is the same news network that has shown clips of God on TV as depicted on The Simpsons.

Uh, no, The Simpsons air on Fox, not NBC. Now, maybe the local NBC affiliate in your town has aired reruns of the Simpsons, but that's not the same as NBC itself airing them.

But Islam? Man, I'm really starting to wonder about alot of those folks (ie, the ones in the Middle East). Not only are these people some of the most oppressed in the world, you can't say or do a single thing that might insult their culture, or they'll go ape-shit on you.

I really hate to say this, but this is just further evidence that much of the Middle East is still stuck in a Medieval-Era mindset and really isn't ready for western-style democracy.

PROLOGUE: WRITTEN AFTER THE BODY OF THE POST

(I've re-read this post, and I already feel it's too harsh. This was more about me venting than anything else. I feel like a lot of innocent people are going to feel targetted, and feel the need to respond. All I can say is, the single thing that I hate right now is just THIS MESS that we're all trapped in, and I just wish all of our respective leaders could pull their heads out of their Cowboy/Ji-had asses and start some concessions based on the premise of looking out for the little guy, the OTHER guy, rather than just themselves. All sides need to come together, and no side seems willing to, and I don't think it's going to change anytime soon without some serious bloodshed.)

Posted by Den at February 3, 2006 12:38 AM

But Islam? Man, I'm really starting to wonder about a lot of those folks (ie, the ones in the Middle East). Not only are these people some of the most oppressed in the world, you can't say or do a single thing that might insult their culture, or they'll go ape-shit on you.

I really hate to say this, but this is just further evidence that much of the Middle East is still stuck in a Medieval-Era mindset and really isn't ready for western-style democracy.

I'm kinda on your page on this one, Den -- reluctant to say something that isn't "politically correct," but it's hard to ignore something that isn't just WRITTEN on the wall, but plastered up in Day-Glo Graphiti Paint.

I used to try to say to myself that the Muslim culture just happened to have its more-than-proportional share of crazies (and certainly more than its fair share of problems that could MAKE the average citizen a little crazy) but that most of them just wanted to get through their days like everyone else. But when the majority of these "everyday citizens" voted in a terrorist organization to be the new Palestinian leaders, I had to wonder if I was giving them too much credit. Sometimes, you have to call a spade a spade.

Of course (which plays into the thread here considering the Christian right's attack on the Book of Daniel), while the reaction of the Muslim world is completely outrageous, it was also a predictable one. In addition, the Muslim world could use more than a little criticism, but I don't think they share the Western sensibilities to see a political cartoon as a serious form of expression -- we see it as symbolic shorthand, but I could understand an outsider as seeing it as trivializing and undermining, and a better choice for the message could have been chosen.

Plus, we have to remember that the Islamists are mad, not just because of the commentary, but because of the depiction of Mohammed, which is completely forbidden in their culture. To use one of their sacred symbols in such a fashion isn't critical commentary -- it IS an insult, and insensitivity like that isn't going to make things better.

All I can say to Denmark and the rest of the European Union defending them is, "I think you are saying is right, but you should have been smarter saying it. And when this maelstrom calms down, I just hope you think it was worth it."

So, if I felt pretty strongly about my culture, I might be angry, too.

Although there is an easily-defined line between righteous indignation and campaigns of hatred, rioting and terrorism. And the angered Muslims out there might want to stop thinking about their anger and start thinking about what prompted these commentaries. Because, you know, acting in the unflattering way your society has been depicted because you aren't flattered by the way your society has been depicted really won't bring much sympathy from the rest of the world.

You know, as bad as the U.S. as been in terms of its hypocrisy, I still know of no other nation in the world where its citizens (and sometimes, members of its own government) are willing to look to themselves if blame is to be assigned.

I'm sorry if this comes out as extremist (and it could just simply be my own lack of exposure, and certainly this bad news day doesn't help), but when I read of any nation (not just Islamic) having problems with foreign policy, it's always the other nation's fault. And COMPLETELY the other nation's fault.

That's simply not rational thinking, but I don't think the radical Muslims see this.

To those people who think the West is on a campaign to destroy your way of life and annihilate your entire race (and if you don't think it, I'm obviously not talking about you -- you and I have no problems), I'd like to give a response, if I may (and by all means, fellow posters, take issue with me if I don't speak for you):

We don't hate Islam. We don't hate Islamists. It's not about the fact that you're Islamic to US. It's about the fact that you're Islamic to YOU.

(And here's the part where I'm going to be hypocritical - I just took the Denmark press to task for this, but, in for a penny ...)

We hate crazy people. We hate people who take no responsibility for their own actions. We hate people who think specifically targetting innocent people for maiming and murder is a valid form of political expression. We hate the people who kidnap citizens off the streets, who throw grenades into schools, who will throw fleeing girls back into a burning building to retrieve their veils, who hijack planes out of the air, and we hate those who do all those things, or approve of those who do them, and have the unmitigated GALL to considered themselves the repressed.

We hate when people are butchered and condemned to poverty by their own leaders, leaders who manage campaigns of hatred from the safety of their palaces, who are willing to hide among you when their actions promote international response, making you collateral damage in fights you had nothing to do with. We hate that you think these leaders love you, and that you must defend their "honor" in ways that are dishonorable.

We hate that you continue to do these things, when it's obvious that it doesn't make things better for anyone, including yourself. You still don't get the things you want. You actually get LESS respect in the world than before. We hate the fact that you do these things, not for a purpose, but out of spite.

We hate the facts. You hate US.

Are the West blameless in your problems? Probably not. But a lot of your problems with the global landscape are more geo-political than personal, and while the West have contributed to it, it's more about the nature of economics and our successes rather than a deliberate, targetted campaign. The world scope is so complex that it could not even have been PLANNED, much less manipulated with any real precision.

Not to mention that many of your own cultual decisions have, by conscious choice, limited the intellectual resources of your people, making it difficult for you to compete with the rest of the world. I mean, is there a single problem you have that is completely your own fault?

And speaking of hatred as official policy: the last world leader we had that made the extermination of another race into a political agenda is currently considered the most villified individual in history (funny, although he probably hated you, he thought a lot like you). Do you think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Khaled Meshaal deserve to be seen more charitably? Besides the fact that "they're on your side," what makes these men any better than Hitler?

But believe me, quite a few of us have our OWN issues with our boss and how he attacked Iraq. We're angry when our governments sponsor thugs for political office merely to support policy (some of the leaders you are so attached to were recipients of these "concessions"). We're angry when our governments turn a blind eye to corporations that abuse child labor, and are in turn abused by immoral Boards of Directors that loot the savings of honest people. We're angry, not just that we were lied to, but that many people have suffered and died who may not have had to.

You know why we have regret? Because we have compassion for people who aren't us. It doesn't excuse our actions. We acknowledge the rights of innocent people to exist without repression. A forum is necessary for righteous grievances, even when we're the guilty party.

But many of you have little compassion for anyone, not just of other races, but among your people. And you have NO excuse for that. You vocally ANNOUNCE that you deny others' right to exist. You do not allow any forum for your sins against the rest of the world, although you'll proclaim far and wide about everyone else's failings.

Why are you so surprised, then, that we have to make our own forum against you?

And in these forums, the people of the world (including the media of Denmark, who have little to do with you and therefore little bias to manipulate their perspective) are trying to show that they have little patience for such inconsiderate behavior.

But you, apparently, have even less.

But if your methods are so condonable, then I ask you this: what does it say about the "Western Evil" in that we don't use your own tactics against you? More importantly, what do you think would happen if we did?

To be completely, 100 % blunt: Stop acting like a bunch of spoiled, childlike, tantrum-throwing narcissists. Grow up. You live in the world you live in. Starting making the best of it, because the rest of the human race isn't going away, and we shouldn't have to.

If you want change in the world, then that's fine. But start by trying to make things BETTER. Or, at least, stop trying to deliberately make things WORSE.

And so far, the single worst thing you're doing is this: you're making the world find it harder and harder not to hate a bunch of people who may share the same race as you, but have nothing to do with you. And you're undermining any potential friends that these people could make, until the only people they will even be able to go to is you.

Found this link posted elsewhere this morning: Depictions of Mohammed

It's ALOT of pictures, so be warned if you're on dial-up. I think it includes the cartoons that everybody's making a fuss over.

Either way, they're getting pissy over a cartoon of Mohammed (I haven't looked at them), and they expect the world to follow their view and belief of self-censorship.

Sorry, but that doesn't fly in my book.

"But if your methods are so condonable, then I ask you this: what does it say about the "Western Evil" in that we don't use your own tactics against you? More importantly, what do you think would happen if we did?"

To play devil's advocate:

It says that the "Western Evil" is weak, and lazy, and doesn't have the courage of its convictions and is "sick" and crumbling (that's how they see it at least)

"What would happen if we did?"

Large tracts of the Middle East would be smoking, glowing, un-inhabitable craters. We have nukes, and if we were to use terrorist tactics, we'd have used them long ago. "What's that, the Ayatollah took American hostages? Nuke 'em!"

Your diatribe is meaningless to them, in their eyes (much like in Dubya's vacant stare), GOD is on their side!

They are the oppressed, fighting against the "Western Evil". THEY are the in the right in their eyes. And as far as their actions "undermining and potential friends those of the same race" could make, that's part of the point.

If they can make "Westerners" hate others whose only conection to the terrorists is that they happen to be the same race (American Taliban or Timothy McVeigh anyone?)(Well, the only person who can "make" you hate anyone is YOU), then that marginalizes those non-terrorists, and when they find the "Westerners" have turned against them solely based on race, it makes the whole American "All people are individuals and equal" into a HUGE LIE and drives them into the embracing (and probably booby-trapped) arms of the terrorists, who use that hatred as a recruiting tool.

"If you want change in the world, then that's fine. But start by trying to make things BETTER. Or, at least, stop trying to deliberately make things WORSE."

THey don't see it as making the world worse, they see it as battling to make the world better, in THEIR God's vision.

The people who share the same race but aren't on their side are generally viewed as traitors, and you know the standard, even American, punishment for Treason, right?

Bladestar, you illustrated the primary problem with the "true believer" mentality. Once you're convinced that God is on your side because you've found the secret handshake into heaven AND that everyone else is not just misguided, but evil and a tool of the devil, you can justify any sort of action no matter how heinous.

This type of mentality was common in Europe during the middle ages and resulted in the crusades and the inquisition. For the most part, western civlization has moved away from this way of thinking and has accepted tolerance of a diversity of thinking as keystone for a just and free society*. Unfortunately, this mode of thinking is still common enough in the middle east to make all the "democracy is the march" rhetoric meaningless. Failure to acknowledge this mentality lead to what happened last week: Absolute shock on the part of Condi Rice that a terrorist organization could win an election over control of the Palestinian Authority.

*There are, of course, exceptions to this even in our society.

Plus, we have to remember that the Islamists are mad, not just because of the commentary, but because of the depiction of Mohammed, which is completely forbidden in their culture. To use one of their sacred symbols in such a fashion isn't critical commentary -- it IS an insult, and insensitivity like that isn't going to make things better.

It is but so what? They have made it almost impossible to NOT insult them. I would be more sympathetic if their rules applied to all but they feel free to mock Jews and Christians in the vilest ways possible--the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was made into a miniseries, blood drinking rabbis and all--so they lose the right to be outraged.

When it gets to the point where, if the reports are true, the Egyption governemnet refused to allow Israel to help locate the victims of last night's ferry disaster...good lord. They'd rather die than risk being saved by a Jew. This is beyond simple hatred; it borders on psychosis.

So far only the NEw York Sun has printed a few of the cartoons but there are rumors that the LA Times is planning to. I'd love to see an effort by blogs to show them but it would have to be massive--I don't want someone like PAD to do it and become a target. If everyone does it...well, they can't kill us all.

According to Michelle Malkin, who has been all over this, ABC News and Fox have shown some of the cartoons but CNN and NBC specifically said they would not, out of fear of insulting Muslims. My ass.

Meanwhile, a painting of Osama Bin Laden as Christ has made some Christians so angry they (issued a Fatwa? Bombed a mosque? Attacked an Arab) wrote letters complaining about it. The differences couldn't be more obvious. (And hey, kudos to the artist. How edgy!)

Now, to be bold and daring to do a show about Christians.

Bah. To be bold and daring, publish a few cartoons of Mohammod. Then watch your country get bucotted, your people threatened and a former president of the United States leave you out to dry.

And now a current US administration as well.

[shakes head]

You know, all things considered, its nice to have something that both sides of the aisle can agree on for a change even if it does mean having a bunch of jihadii raging at us.

And now a current US administration as well.

Well, the state department actually. Not at all the same thing.

that said, it's still shameful and, though I hate to say it, it won't surprise me if the administration does make a statement every bit as misguidedly appeasing as what the State Department did.

http://www.michellemalkin.com/ has a number of photos from a protest in Britain today, including such signs as "Be prepared for the REAL holocaust" "Behead those who insult Islam", "Butcher those who insult Islam", "Slay those who insult Islam", "Massacre those who insult Islam", "Annihilate those who insult Islam", "Exterminate those who insult Islam", "Give SUCH a pinch to those who insult Islam" etc. ACtyually, looking at those signs closely it looks like they were all written by the same person but anyway...

I might have some small sympathy for those offended by the cartoons if they A- did not immediately CONFIRM the impression that Muslims are prone to violence by calling for the murder of the people who wrote them (as well as those who just happen to be from the same country) and B- did not live in countries that routinely portray Jews in a manner that would cause the editor of Der Stuermer to blanche.

F*** 'em if they can't take a joke.

I might have some small sympathy for those offended by the cartoons if they:
a) did not immediately CONFIRM the impression that Muslims are prone to violence by calling for the murder of the people who wrote them (as well as those who just happen to be from the same country) and;
b) did not live in countries that routinely portray Jews in a manner that would cause the editor of Der Stuermer to blanche.

As tough as it is to say it, sometimes it's RIGHT to say the other guy is wrong.

I can't argue with a single thing Bill's just said.

Mr. David, I am horrified by what you have done in this thread, because you have negated one of the major reasons that it is important for creators such as yourself and Priest to talk honestly with the fans: to eliminate the blame game when a project ends.

What creators like you and Priest have been saying is that fans should not start placing blame because they do not know a fraction of the real reasons why a project ended. It is in your self-interest because it is simply bad for creators if you become the target of the blame game and thus your careers take an undeserved hit for events that are mostly out of your control.

The ending of Book of Daniel doesn't say anything about any group. There are plenty of United States network television shows that simply are not allocated the resources to have any realistic chance of breakout success, just as there are plenty of comic projects at Marvel and DC that are not given the resources to succeed relative to what the companies are pushing as the major event.

Just look at this thread. What kind of dialog has been achieved. Do you really want to spend your time talking with anyone on either side of the debates here. What exactly have you learned that is interesting or helpful. Come on, this is your own site. You don't see ranting idiots being egged on to spew flames with Neil Gaiman on his web site.

John Phamlore,

What the hell are you blathering about?

If you don't want to have a discussio, the STFU and don;t post, but come here and tell people they can't discuss something just because they haven't probed the situation's rectum and run CAT scans on it first.

A very good dialog has been achieved. If you don't like, then don't it.

John Phamlore,

What the hell are you blathering about?

If you don't want to have a discussio, the STFU and don;t post, but come here and tell people they can't discuss something just because they haven't probed the situation's rectum and run CAT scans on it first.

A very good dialog has been achieved. If you don't like, then don't read it or bitch about others talking about it.