I’m sorry if this question sounds harsh, but there’s no other way to phrase it: What the hëll is wrong with the bulk of Christians in this country that if Jesus is depicted as loving and accepting, that portrayal is stoned into oblivion, but if he’s depicted as being beaten and tortured to death, THAT they come flocking to watch by the busload?
“The Book of Daniel” was an incredibly good program that was quick-fried by people who, for the most part, hadn’t seen it or refused to see it. Critics and commentators loved demonizing concepts such as that the titular minister “popped pills” without bothering to mention it wasn’t speed or uppers or downers but pain killers…an addiction he was wrestling with rather than being glorified. Or that his daughter “dealt drugs,” without bothering to mention that it was a stupid mistake she was busted for in the first five minutes of the show, and she quickly gave it up, and that she was doing it to raise money to publish her own manga comic since she was really an artist. Nor did anyone ever bring up the many scenes where the family was shown as a loving, caring group who never hesitated to display that love for one another.
But what really drew fire was the concept of Jesus as a patient sounding board for the frustrated Daniel. If they’d only bothered to actually WATCH the program, rather than allow blowhards to make up their minds for them, they’d have seen a depiction of their savior that’s probably the most heart warming and loving version of divinity since George Burns explained, “I didn’t create the universe in six days. Actually, I thought about it for five days and did it in one. I work best under pressure. But my days aren’t the same as yours, y’know. When I got up this morning, Sigmund Freud was in medical school.”
Sample the triumphant words of Donald Wildmon: “This shows the average American that he doesn’t have to simply sit back and take the trash being offered on TV, but he can get involved and fight back with his pocketbook.”
No. What it shows is that the average American is intolerant. So much so that he couldn’t JUST make the decision to try a program for himself and, if he didn’t like it, change the channel or even, God forbid, turn off the TV and read a book. No, the average American had to do everything possible to make sure that OTHER average Americans couldn’t judge for THEMselves by organizing and driving a series off the air. Of course, what most burned their biscuits was Jesus being depicted as being tolerant of sinners or even (gasp) gays. If Jesus had been shown as condemning all aspects of sin and assuring Daniel that his gay son was doomed to hëll, THAT they might well have supported.
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.
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.
PAD
• 
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 bìŧçhìņg 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 dámņëd 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. Hëll, I’d jump for joy if someone would just punch out that British prìçk 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 fûçkìņg 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 Ðìçk 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 dámņ 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 bášŧárd 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 pørņ. 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.
Ðámņ, 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 dámņ 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 dámņëd 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 áššhølëš…
If we apply Occam’s Razor, then the ‘áššhølë’ 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.