# Book of Daniel Cancelled; Religious Conservatives Rejoice



## anom (Apr 18, 2005)

link

Religious Conservatives Claim Victory After NBC Pulls 'Book of Daniel'

By Kevin Eckstrom
Religion News Service

Conservative critics are claiming victory after NBC pulled "The Book of Daniel," a racy primetime drama about an Episcopal priest struggling to hold his dysfunctional family together.

NBC officials in New York would not confirm or deny that the show has been cancelled, but the broadcaster's Web site lists "Law and Order" during the Friday 10 p.m. time slot that had been occupied by "The Book of Daniel."A blog on NBC's home page contained an entry from Jack Kenny, the show's creator, who said the show will "no longer be aired on NBC on Friday nights" for "many reasons."

"Whatever the outcome, I feel that I accomplished what I set out to do: a solid family drama, with lots of humor, that honestly explored the lives of the Webster family," Kenny wrote, adding that he was "proud of our product."

The show, which debuted on Jan. 6, had only aired four of its eight scheduled episodes. Conservatives criticized the show's sex, drugs and alcohol and said its depiction of Jesus was disrespectful.

Complaints from the Mississippi-based American Family Association -- to the tune of 678,000 angry e-mails to NBC -- prompted advertisers to pull out. At least 11 NBC stations in six states declined to broadcast the show.

"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," said AFA Chairman Donald Wildmon.

Kenny had hoped the show would survive at least until Feb. 10, when the Olympics will take over for most NBC programming. Kenny had called the "bullies" who sought to kill his show "un-Christian and un-American."

For its part, the Episcopal Church declined to comment on the show since it was not consulted as the show was created.


----------



## anom (Apr 18, 2005)

Not to respond to my own post, but what's with this spate of abrupt cancellations after just a couple of episodes?

It seems like every non-reality summer replacement show is being yanked before I even get a chance to watch them.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Rats, I really enjoyed this.

Burn in hell, NBC, for taking the coward's way out.


----------



## mrowe8 (Dec 29, 2004)

I'm offended by Oprah but nobody seems to care. Now the "religeous" folks are telling me what offends my religion. What is this world truly coming too.


----------



## Jotas (Mar 19, 2005)

There should be no surprise. Whenever there is pressure from a group TV execs usually play tough, then realize it's better to run with their tail still intact.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

The whole free television model is broken.

The viewers need to take over the role of the network execs deciding to make or not make a show. One day the numbers will be high enough that we can review concepts and subscribe to them, then a show can be made just for the subscribers.

No matter how bad some may think a show is, there's others out there who enjoyed it. At the very least you'd think showing the produced episodes wouldn't be that hard. It's getting so it's almost not worth the emotional roller coaster ride of becoming invested in a show only to have some suit cancel it 3 episodes later.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Religious protests aside,
I honestly didn't think that the show was that good.
I watched the two hour opener and didn't really care about anyone except for Daniel. Somewhat.
The parts where he talked to Jesus were decent to pretty good but I felt the rest of the show was trying way too hard to be too over the top.

And considering that it only pulled 9 million viewers in it's first showing, I suspected that it wasn't long for the air.


----------



## The Flush (Aug 3, 2005)

If the show had really good ratings, it would not have been cancelled, regardless of the protests.

I really liked this show, but I gues it was not meant to be. I wish they would at least show all the episodes that have been filmed.


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

The most boring new show this year. Good riddance. :up:

(No, I'm not religious)


----------



## Warren (Oct 18, 2001)

its good thing that I don't run NBC after seeing that press release from them claming they are the ones that caused it to fail. I would renew "BOD" and run it until the actors got bored working on it. Remember spite is the best reason to do anything. 

(Not religious but I hate religious people shoveing there agenda down my throat)


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

The ultimate response that should be used by NBC: bring back *God, the Devil and Bob...*


----------



## JustAllie (Jan 5, 2002)

Sigh.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

justapixel said:


> The most boring new show this year. Good riddance. :up:


You must not watch many pilot episodes.


----------



## tivotvaddict (Aug 11, 2005)

The Flush said:


> If the show had really good ratings, it would not have been cancelled, regardless of the protests.
> 
> I really liked this show, but I gues it was not meant to be. I wish they would at least show all the episodes that have been filmed.


Unfortunately it sometimes takes a while to build good ratings (a la Knots Landing). Shows just aren't given that chance anymore.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

I didn't really care about the show one way or another, but anything that causes religious conservatives to rejoice can't be good for anybody.....


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

JustAllie said:


> Sigh.


So, are the two episodes I have parked on TiVo Galileo worth watching?


----------



## atrac (Feb 27, 2002)

Ivan Shaw, please come back in another series or movie soon....you're a hottie!

/shallow mode off

I enjoyed the show and indeed, I'm not surprised it was cancelled. I was interested in seeing the episode that they skipped about a little girl could also see and talk to Jesus. Too bad I probably won't ever get to now, unless there's a DVD release in the future.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

Had interest in checking this show out but I had a strong feeling it wasn't going to make it so I never bothered watching. Figured it would be a wasted investment of my time. Good call I suppose.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

If this year's cancellations are any indication, network executives are getting far better and judging which shows will and won't be successful, after just a couple of episodes, removing any need to "give a show a chance to build an audience." The only shame in this cancellation is that right-wing wack-o's think they had something to do with it.


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

I'm what you would call mildly religious. And I thought the show was borderline blasphemous. But, I would have thought the same thing had the Jesus character been Muhammad or Buddha. It was making someone's religion into a farce. The main reverend was addicted to pain killers. His wife is a borderline alcoholic. His son is having sex at every turn. His father (a bishop) is having sex with another bishop while his wife is struggling with Alzheimer's disease. His daughter is selling drugs. The main character is in business with the mob. And the Jesus character is way too amused by all of this.

And yes, all of us are flawed. But in reality, Quinn's character wouldn't have been a reverend beyond the second show. Glad to see the show go.


----------



## mec1991 (Nov 5, 2004)

warrenevans said:


> (Not religious but I hate religious people shoveing there agenda down my throat)


 

I feel the same way about liberals.


----------



## JustAllie (Jan 5, 2002)

JYoung said:


> So, are the two episodes I have parked on TiVo Galileo worth watching?


I thought the show had merits. You might like the teenaged daughter's "manga" based on all the people in her life.


----------



## Martha (Oct 6, 2002)

I just set up a season pass for this yesterday!


----------



## TeeSee (Jan 16, 2003)

anom said:


> Religious Conservatives Claim Victory After NBC Pulls 'Book of Daniel'


Victory over what?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

bicker said:


> If this year's cancellations are any indication, network executives are getting far better and judging which shows will and won't be successful, after just a couple of episodes, removing any need to "give a show a chance to build an audience." The only shame in this cancellation is that right-wing wack-o's think they had something to do with it.


If that were true, some of these shows would never be aired once after they were screened for the execs. Or better, they'd never even get a production order for a pilot.

All that's happening is they now expect a show to be a mega-hit in the first week or they abandon it and try another.

Sometimes I don't think they understand that in any given timeslot, somebody will be #3 or #4 in the ratings. You can't avoid it. Either you're gonna waste a whole lot of money trying 20 different things, or you need to find the economics to be satisfied sometimes that your show is #3 or #4 in that timeslot.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

JYoung said:


> So, are the two episodes I have parked on TiVo Galileo worth watching?


Only if you don't mind having the urge to spit out "Burn in Hell, NBC" now and then.

They're entertaining enough by themselves; watch them when you can.


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

I had a feeling about this, so while I've been recording it, I haven't watched it yet. I didn't want to invest several hours of my time only to have it canceled. Guess I can go delete them now.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

bengalfreak said:


> I'm what you would call mildly religious. And I thought the show was borderline blasphemous. But, I would have thought the same thing had the Jesus character been Muhammad or Buddha. It was making someone's religion into a farce. The main reverend was addicted to pain killers. His wife is a borderline alcoholic. His son is having sex at every turn. His father (a bishop) is having sex with another bishop while his wife is struggling with Alzheimer's disease. His daughter is selling drugs. The main character is in business with the mob. And the Jesus character is way too amused by all of this.
> 
> And yes, all of us are flawed. But in reality, Quinn's character wouldn't have been a reverend beyond the second show. Glad to see the show go.


But do you respect the rights of others to find the show entertaining? Do you believe that shows such as this should be taken off the air - regardless of their rating - or do you respect the rights of others to choose as we respect religious people's rights to change the channel?

I'm not religious (obviously), but I found the show very entertaining, and was disappointed when it was cancelled. But after seeing the ratings for the first show, I kind of expected it to happen.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

I know it won't do anything but I just sent an email to NBC to express my disappointment that the show has been cancelled without really giving it a chance.


----------



## f0gax (Aug 8, 2002)

For the last time (not really of course), if you don't like a show don't farking watch it!


----------



## slammy (Jan 21, 2006)

Surely We Can Find "something" More Entertaining Than Trying To Change Or Promote Someones Religion Erroneously! During These Times Of So Called "politicly-correctness" How Is It We Can Leave Religion Out!
If You Don't Agree With Someones Religion Than We Shouldn't Depict It In A Way That Is Incorrect...................


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

slammy said:


> Surely We Can Find "something" More Entertaining Than Trying To Change Or Promote Someones Religion Erroneously! During These Times Of So Called "politicly-correctness" How Is It We Can Leave Religion Out!
> If You Don't Agree With Someones Religion Than We Shouldn't Depict It In A Way That Is Incorrect...................


Differences abound in how people view their own religion, and moreso how people view others.

If you want an interesting take on The Book of Daniel by the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, read http://blog.edow.org/weblog/.


----------



## TeeSee (Jan 16, 2003)

slammy said:


> Surely We Can Find "something" More Entertaining Than Trying To Change Or Promote Someones Religion Erroneously! During These Times Of So Called "politicly-correctness" How Is It We Can Leave Religion Out!
> If You Don't Agree With Someones Religion Than We Shouldn't Depict It In A Way That Is Incorrect...................


It should be depicted any way the producers want to depict it.


----------



## slammy (Jan 21, 2006)

They Do And We See What Happens To All Their Hard Work And Money......"dumped"


----------



## JustAllie (Jan 5, 2002)

What Is Wrong With Slammy's Shift Key?


----------



## The Flush (Aug 3, 2005)

As a Christian, one of the things that I like about BoD is that it shows Christians as the flawed individuals that they are, albeit in an exagerated, over-the-top way. It also shows that these flawed individuals are still good people trying to deal with difficult situations. All Christians are sinners, but God forgives them if they repent. I don't like hypocritical Christians anymore than non-Christians do. BoD shows Jesus as one who can forgive your sins. I wish the show would continue. It's better than anything else on Friday night anyway.


----------



## TeeSee (Jan 16, 2003)

slammy said:


> They Do And We See What Happens To All Their Hard Work And Money......"dumped"


It's a free country. At least it is right now...


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

bengalfreak said:


> I'm what you would call mildly religious. And I thought the show was borderline blasphemous. But, I would have thought the same thing had the Jesus character been Muhammad or Buddha. It was making someone's religion into a farce. The main reverend was addicted to pain killers. His wife is a borderline alcoholic. His son is having sex at every turn. His father (a bishop) is having sex with another bishop while his wife is struggling with Alzheimer's disease. His daughter is selling drugs. The main character is in business with the mob. And the Jesus character is way too amused by all of this.
> 
> And yes, all of us are flawed. But in reality, Quinn's character wouldn't have been a reverend beyond the second show. Glad to see the show go.


Sorry but I have worked in several churches and I live in the greater Boston area. Quinn's character could be a Cardinal here. I have encountered some really screwed up people working in the Christian world. Not that I haven't encountered equally screwed up people in the secular world. None of the things depicted in this show are far from the realm of possibility or reality. Have you even heard about the church sex scandals? There are screwed up people in every walk of life, the problem here is that the hyper religious folks can't bear to admit that anyone in their world could have such problems.


----------



## slammy (Jan 21, 2006)

I Totally Agree With Flush, Even Though There Are Some Flaw'd Aspects To The Show! 
Btw......nothing Wrong With My Shift Key.
"if You Don't Stand For Something, You'll Fall For Anything"....................god Bless All! 
P.s. Not Wanting To Argue, Just Trying To Save A Dying World!


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

slammy said:


> Btw......nothing Wrong With My Shift Key.


On most keyboards it's not attached to the spacebar.


----------



## chavez (Nov 18, 2004)

> There are screwed up people in every walk of life, the problem here is that the hyper religious folks can't bear to admit that anyone in their world could have such problems.


noooo... if you read the post you quoted you'd see the problem was with the 'Jesus' character, not 'Quinn'. Would anyone put on a show like this set in a mosque with Mohammed or Allah as the bemused hippy? I doubt it.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

chavez said:


> noooo... if you read the post you quoted you'd see the problem was with the 'Jesus' character, not 'Quinn'. Would anyone put on a show like this set in a mosque with Mohammed or Allah as the bemused hippy? I doubt it.


But the Jesus character isn't a character at all; it's Daniel's subconscious. That's how the show is giving us insight into what Daniel is thinking rather than vocalizing.


----------



## chavez (Nov 18, 2004)

> it's Daniel's subconscious


it's still a characterization that can be offensive.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

chavez said:


> noooo... if you read the post you quoted you'd see the problem was with the 'Jesus' character, not 'Quinn'. Would anyone put on a show like this set in a mosque with Mohammed or Allah as the bemused hippy? I doubt it.


Here's what I don't understand about the dislike of the Jesus character (and I hope this doesn't become too religious). In the Bible, it was well established that God spoke to his followers. Why is it so hard to believe that Jesus would speak to someone in today's world, especially a man of faith? Is it the sarcasm he displayed? Because there were certain points in the show where Jesus said something to the effect of, "That's not how it works," when Daniel asked him for help?

I'm curious what those who are ranting against this Jesus character thought of the same character in Rescue Me.

And a bemused hippy? Please. I might understand if Jesus were partaking in the daughter's weed. But the Jesus character is portrayed with long hair, a mustache and beard, wearing a robe and sandals. Um, how is that any different from the way he's portrayed in the Bible? If they updated his look and he were wearing tie dye or hemp clothing and ratty jeans I might understand the characterization of Jesus as a bemused hippy. But not on this show.


----------



## JustAllie (Jan 5, 2002)

dswallow said:


> On most keyboards it's not attached to the spacebar.


Maybe the forum isn't letting slammy post in all caps or something?


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

chavez said:


> noooo... if you read the post you quoted you'd see the problem was with the 'Jesus' character, not 'Quinn'. Would anyone put on a show like this set in a mosque with Mohammed or Allah as the bemused hippy? I doubt it.


*nooooo...*If *you* read the post I quoted, you will see that he said Quinn's character couldn't exist in reality. I disagree with that as well as most of the other religious criticism of this show. Hippy? So now all of the current religious depictions of Jesus are blasphemous hippie renderings?


----------



## SparkleMotion (Feb 2, 2004)

The reason you've never seen a movie about Mohammed or Allah is because the Koran decrees it blasphemous to depict them in any manner, be it artistic or otherwise. Anyone making such a movie (or TV show) would have a fatwah issued against them over it.

Apparently conservative christians aren't significantly removed from such actions, despite nothing in the Bible that is analogous.


----------



## chavez (Nov 18, 2004)

> Hippy? So now all of the current religious depictions of Jesus are blasphemous hippie renderings?


technically speaking, yes. but i was aiming more at the character's amused attitude. and I still really don't think you read that post you quoted. I'll help you out...



> ...His daughter is selling drugs. The main character is in business with the mob. *And the Jesus character is way too amused by all of this*.


you completely ignored that in your reply, which is what I called attention to. of course there are messed up people in the clergy. pointing that out is completely irrelevant. the problem is that people can get touchy when you depict their God in a flippant manner.


----------



## chavez (Nov 18, 2004)

> Apparently conservative christians aren't significantly removed from such actions, despite nothing in the Bible that is analogous.


there are passages about graven images in the bible.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

chavez said:


> the problem is that people can get touchy when you depict their God in a flippant manner.


And the problem with that is that the show's makers aren't depicting their God in a flippant manner, they're depicting the priest's impression of their God in a flippant manner, which could very well be what many priests feel. You say there's no distinction, I say there's a very large and important distinction. Not that it would matter to me one way or another.


----------



## SparkleMotion (Feb 2, 2004)

chavez said:


> there are passages about graven images in the bible.


Any with death sentences attached?


----------



## chavez (Nov 18, 2004)

> You say there's no distinction, I say there's a very large and important distinction.


I'm aware of the distinction. I'm also aware that people can get offended regardless of the distinction.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

chavez said:


> the problem is that people can get touchy when you depict their God in a flippant manner.


You mean like suggesting that their God sends hurricanes and floods or strokes to peeople whom He might harbor some minor disagreement with?


----------



## chavez (Nov 18, 2004)

> Any with death sentences attached?


absolutely.


----------



## chavez (Nov 18, 2004)

> You mean like suggesting that their God sends hurricanes and floods or strokes to peeople whom He might harbor some minor disagreement with?


what the hell are you talking about?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

busyba said:


> You mean like suggesting that their God sends hurricanes and floods or strokes to peeople whom He might harbor some minor disagreement with?


Hey now, don't forget meteors and forest fires.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

chavez said:


> what the hell are you talking about?


Pat Robertson.

http://www.gendersanity.com/orlando.shtml


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

chavez said:


> technically speaking, yes. but i was aiming more at the character's amused attitude. and I still really don't think you read that post you quoted. I'll help you out...
> 
> you completely ignored that in your reply, which is what I called attention to. of course there are messed up people in the clergy. pointing that out is completely irrelevant. the problem is that people can get touchy when you depict their God in a flippant manner.


Gee thanks for the help Ace. You think that I didn't read the post just because I didn't mention the one point that ticks you off? Sorry but that was not the point to which I was speaking. The fact that there are messed up people in the clergy is totally relevant as I was speaking to the poster's comment that there is no way that Quinn's character could last in the church. I think you are the one who isn't reading. Since when are Jesus, Mohammed, and Buddha god? I thought they were prophets? Wouldn't god be the old man in the sky? Damn! George Burns must have really pissed you off.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

chavez said:


> I'm aware of the distinction. I'm also aware that people can get offended regardless of the distinction.


So are you going to cancel every television show that someone finds offensive? What if I find a large cartoonish bird offensive because I think its depiction goes against nature? Well, goodbye Sesame Street. Or do we just limit our cancellations based on people's offended levels to those related to religion, or Christianity?

Or, God forbid, do we allow people to make a choice and determine that, while they may not like the show and may find it offensive, that they have the choice to change the channel?


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

serumgard said:


> So are you going to cancel every television show that someone finds offensive? What if I find a large cartoonish bird offensive because I think its depiction goes against nature? Well, goodbye Sesame Street. Or do we just limit our cancellations based on people's offended levels to those related to religion, or Christianity?
> 
> Or, God forbid, do we allow people to make a choice and determine that, while they may not like the show and may find it offensive, that they have the choice to change the channel?


Thou shalt not cast graven images of Big Bird upon the land!

I guess Jim Henson must be getting his!


----------



## chavez (Nov 18, 2004)

> What if I find a large cartoonish bird offensive because I think its depiction goes against nature? Well, goodbye Sesame Street.


get a large enough group of people to agree and you could probably get it done.



> Or, God forbid, do we allow people to make a choice and determine that, while they may not like the show and may find it offensive, that they have the choice to change the channel?


there are lots of choices. you can change the channel, sure. i don't see anything wrong with that. but you can also chose to actively protest it and not support advertisers, etc. and the network has a choice as well, right?


----------



## CharlieB (Mar 13, 2002)

chavez said:


> I'm aware of the distinction. I'm also aware that people can get offended regardless of the distinction.


Please show me where in the constitution is the part that says "you have a right to not be offended".  If you don't like a TV show, don't watch it. Then you won't be offended.


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

serumgard said:


> Or, God forbid, do we allow people to make a choice and determine that, while they may not like the show and may find it offensive, that they have the choice to change the channel?


Better, yet, how about letting whatever interest group voice their opinion about what goes on in society, agree with it or not, and let the networks actually make their own decisions about what they air or don't air, based on whatever criteria they deem relevant. I'd say those things are a little more important that the shows I think should or should not be on TV.

What choice were you deprived of making? By that, I mean a choice that you had any right whatsoever in which ti participate? Obviously, viewers have no right whatsoever to view any TV show.



CharlieB said:


> Please show me where in the constitution is the part that says "you have a right to not be offended".  If you don't like a TV show, don't watch it. Then you won't be offended.


It is just under the "right" for you to be able to watch any TV program you want, and the right to minimize the opinions of others if it interferes with you sitting in front of the box.

Actually, the only real rights at issue are the ones exercised by the group and by the network.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

slammy said:


> Surely We Can Find "something" More Entertaining Than Trying To Change Or Promote Someones Religion Erroneously! During These Times Of So Called "politicly-correctness" How Is It We Can Leave Religion Out!
> If You Don't Agree With Someones Religion Than We Shouldn't Depict It In A Way That Is Incorrect...................


I don't know about that. I am a practicing Catholic and I about rolled on the floor laughing when the "seemingly mob connected" guy turned out to be a Catholic Priest. It was a good joke just like most of the show, except then Jesus would come along and get the sensible lines and inject a little actual spirituality into Daniel's life.

I can understand that some found it not entertaining, did not get that particular brand of humor etc.. But to say it should be taken off the air as sacreligous is just being a pharisee.

and Note it was the advertisers that took it off the air by not wanting to advertise on the show for whatever reasons. All NBC really did was make a financial decision and then spin it to the public.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

chavez said:


> technically speaking, yes. but i was aiming more at the character's amused attitude. and I still really don't think you read that post you quoted. I'll help you out...
> 
> you completely ignored that in your reply, which is what I called attention to. of course there are messed up people in the clergy. pointing that out is completely irrelevant. the problem is that people can get touchy when you depict their God in a flippant manner.


You would prefer that he would be threatening to smite them instead?


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> and Note it was the advertisers that took it off the air by not wanting to advertise on the show for whatever reasons. All NBC really did was make a financial decision and then spin it to the public.


Have anything to support that, Zeo?

Considering that the premier only got 9 million viewers according to Nielsen and the following episodes probably got lower numbers than that (I haven't checked on that yet), NBC had justification based on ratings alone.


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I can understand that some found it not entertaining, did not get that particular brand of humor etc.. But to say it should be taken off the air as sacreligous is just being a pharisee.
> .


I don't think that is even close. To claim that making Jesus a character in a comedy, or turning him into a comedic character, is highly questionable, is in no way being a Pharisee. Not remotely close.

Now, to say that any show that says anything remotely funny about Jesus, or shows a priest that is less than perfect, and the like, should be taken off the air, would be a different story.


----------



## tomr (Oct 2, 2000)

I believe I am a religious person. I support my church. But everyone needs to remember the so-called "Moral Majority" is neither moral nor the majority. 

I haven't seen the show (never got around to checking it out) so I do not have an opinion about the content. I do however believe no subject is taboo and viewers should vote with their remote control. I think all reality shows suck so I don't watch them. More people need to simply change the channel. 

Now excuse me while I go watch the Exorcist and Dameon (sp?).


----------



## The Flush (Aug 3, 2005)

I like this comment from a Episcopal Bishop. He seems quite reasonable.

Blog of Daniel

January 10, 2006
A Bishop Writes
Bishop Dean E. Wolfe of the Diocese of Kansas has written a reaction to "The Book of Daniel." Our thanks to Melodie Woerman, the diocese's director of communications for sharing it with us. Here are the key paragraphs:

"I trust no one believes this could be real life in the Episcopal Church! In short, The Book of Daniel is a sensationalized version of clergy family life, a sort of Desperate Housewives meets Seventh Heaven.

This series is intended as entertainment and not as a serious depiction of modern clergy life. However, as does all fiction, the show expresses truths Christian of all types will recognize. Clergy are real people who need to depend upon God and not their own piety or giftedness. The power of prayer is real. Jesus Christ is a present reality, and real life without God is extremely challenging. These realities are fairly portrayed, and I believe most people will be able to understand the difference between truth and sensationalized fiction or farce.

While some have sought to censor the show, I see no need to contribute to the publicity the show has already received through their efforts. The value of any art form, including television, is found in its ability to communicate deeper truth through drama or comedy. If The Book of Daniel is able to achieve this goal, it will make a contribution to its viewers. If it is unable to achieve this, I suspect it will remain on our television sets a very short while."


----------



## DanaMac223 (May 22, 2005)

All of the morality hoopla asside, the show sucked. I tried to watch it the other night and I just couldn't do it. It didn't get cancelled because the content. It got cancelled because it was lousy.


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

f0gax said:


> For the last time (not really of course), if you don't like a show don't farking watch it!


From the Chicago Tribune:


> The series' ratings had not been great since its Jan. 6 debut, and the low ratings for the Jan. 20 outing of the show were the final straw. According to NBC, no further airings are planned.


Sounds like that's exactly what happened...


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

serumgard said:


> But do you respect the rights of others to find the show entertaining? Do you believe that shows such as this should be taken off the air - regardless of their rating - or do you respect the rights of others to choose as we respect religious people's rights to change the channel?


I didn't say anything in favor of the show being censored or taken off the air. Only that I was glad to see it go. I just really don't think we need a network show that so obviously makes a mockery of a particular religion. I'm glad that there weren't enough people with questionable enough morals to find the show funny to give it good ratings. Humor does not have to be trashy.


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

bengalfreak said:


> I didn't say anything in favor of the show being censored or taken off the air. Only that I was glad to see it go. I just really don't think we need a network show that so obviously makes a mockery of a particular religion. I'm glad that there weren't enough people with questionable enough morals to find the show funny to give it good ratings. Humor does not have to be trashy.


What you find trashy, others might not. What you find to be a mockery, others might not. I thought the show was ok, nothing great, and I consider my morals to be higher than just about any religious person I have ever met. Please do not call my morals questionable just because I don not share your tastes in mythology.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

bengalfreak said:


> I just really don't think we need a network show that so obviously makes a mockery of a particular religion.


Me too, but only because I oppose redundancy.



> I'm glad that there weren't enough people with questionable enough morals to find the show funny to give it good ratings.


Fortunately there were enough people with questionable morals to keep NYPD Blue on the air. We could use more morally bankrupt people like that.

Oh... and just in case I was too subtle for you:


----------



## SparkleMotion (Feb 2, 2004)

bengalfreak said:


> I just really don't think we need a network show that so obviously makes a mockery of a particular religion.


Aren't "we" fortunate to have people who are so ready and willing to decide what "we" do or don't need? I know I could never do it myself!


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

SparkleMotion said:


> Aren't "we" fortunate to have people who are so ready and willing to decide what "we" do or don't need? I know I could never do it myself!


Yes, imagine the system where television entertainment is based on opinions, and people actually voicing them. Silly concept, isn't it? Next thing you know, that'll become a trend in other areas of life. Maybe important areas!

OK... I am off to sign all the Arrested Development petitions, websites, etc.


----------



## SparkleMotion (Feb 2, 2004)

Yes, it IS silly. So silly, in fact, they rely on ratings instead.


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

SparkleMotion said:


> Yes, it IS silly. So silly, in fact, they rely on ratings instead.


Ratings are a part of it - certainly not all of it. Ratings can also be swayed, one way or the other, through publicity. Ratings is, in a way, stating an opinion.

However, the point to which I responded had to do with compliants that someone else is voicing an opinion at all.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

> If that were true, some of these shows would never be aired once after they were screened for the execs. Or better, they'd never even get a production order for a pilot.


I'm sure that occurs, but beyond that, there is nothing that gives an exec better information about how successful a program will be than the buzz during the week after the first episode is aired.



> All that's happening is they now expect a show to be a mega-hit in the first week or they abandon it and try another.


As well they should.



> Sometimes I don't think they understand that in any given timeslot, somebody will be #3 or #4 in the ratings. You can't avoid it.


They shouldn't celebrate it, either.


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

SparkleMotion said:


> Aren't "we" fortunate to have people who are so ready and willing to decide what "we" do or don't need? I know I could never do it myself!


Actually the ratings decided that, as it should be. But the fact that this show didn't make it, gives me a little hope for our future.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

bengalfreak said:


> I didn't say anything in favor of the show being censored or taken off the air. Only that I was glad to see it go. I just really don't think we need a network show that so obviously makes a mockery of a particular religion. I'm glad that there weren't enough people with questionable enough morals to find the show funny to give it good ratings. Humor does not have to be trashy.


People who believe that this show were making a mockery of the priest's religion obviously didn't watch the show; in the first thread about the show, it was even discussed if the priest's religion was even mentioned or if it was intended to be non-denominational (that was cleared up in later episodes).

And don't you dare question someone's morals because they might find something humorous. If the writers write something funny, and the actors nail it and make it funny, and I find it humorous, regardless if it's about your religion, the police, or a schoolteacher, it doesn't mean I have questionable morals - it means I'm open minded enough to not take everything so seriously.


----------



## jones07 (Jan 30, 2001)

DanaMac223 said:


> All of the morality hoopla asside, the show sucked. I tried to watch it the other night and I just couldn't do it. It didn't get cancelled because the content. It got cancelled because it was lousy.


Agreed. I wanted to like the show but it was plan painful to sit through. It was just bad TV. Maybe it needed time to find its footing. But it was not going to get that time with a medium size movement against it. HBO or Showtime would have been a better place for it....maybe


----------



## PeternJim (Sep 25, 2004)

Well, we really liked it and were looking forward to following it. I do wish that they had given it time to find its feet before cancelling it.

Quite a number of shows that I consider to be good, and some that were excellent, had very weak early episodes compared to what they grew into. Star Trek: The Next Generation's first season is still painful to watch, Newhart pretty much sucked, and even M*A*S*H wasn't at first what it rapidly became.

Especially these soap-opera sorts of shows, where everyone needs time to get to know the characters. Why even start showing it if you are prepared to kill it so young? 

Still, I'll miss this one a lot less than Eyes, which died at birth last mid-season, and (sigh) Firefly.

Peter


----------



## joeinma (Jan 11, 2002)

I just don't get why the religious freaks have so much control over what our media does. Anything that THEY deem offensive, they force the networks to drop it. You don't see HBO dropping the Sopranos because some Italian-Americans deem it insensitive. You don't see FX dropping the Shield because real cops don't like seeing cops on tv being "bad" cops. You don't see Scrubs being dropped because it makes doctors looking like idiots. 

The God Squad shouts and the world has to stop for them. What ever happened to turn the other cheek? It's a freaking FICTIONAL tv show only someone with a IQ below 5 would think all members of the God Squad are like what they see on a show. 

It's not just about the show, these ZEALOTS want to control everything this country does. Just the fact that most of the holy rollers in our nation re-elected Bush should tell you how crazy they are! Talk about idolizing false gods!


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

bicker said:


> > All that's happening is they now expect a show to be a mega-hit in the first week or they abandon it and try another.
> 
> 
> As well they should.


Except that historically most mega-hits haven't worked that way. They took time to build there audience. Sometimes pulling fairly mediocre numbers through most of all of the first season.

(Of course, so do many shows that fail to become mega-hits; but none the less, canceling shows because they don't pull 7th season Seinfeld numbers on their initial couple of showings appears to be a sub-optimal strategy)


----------



## jones07 (Jan 30, 2001)

joeinma said:


> I just don't get why the religious freaks have so much control over what our media does. !


Because they vote and write letters. For the most part the "broadcast" media will turn tail and run every time, rather then go face to face with them. And the fact that BOD ratings was low just give them a real real easy way out.


----------



## Bulldog7 (Oct 6, 2002)

joeinma said:


> I just don't get why the religious freaks have so much control over what our media does. Anything that THEY deem offensive, they force the networks to drop it. You don't see HBO dropping the Sopranos because some Italian-Americans deem it insensitive. You don't see FX dropping the Shield because real cops don't like seeing cops on tv being "bad" cops. You don't see Scrubs being dropped because it makes doctors looking like idiots.
> 
> The God Squad shouts and the world has to stop for them. What ever happened to turn the other cheek? It's a freaking FICTIONAL tv show only someone with a IQ below 5 would think all members of the God Squad are like what they see on a show.
> 
> It's not just about the show, these ZEALOTS want to control everything this country does. Just the fact that most of the holy rollers in our nation re-elected Bush should tell you how crazy they are! Talk about idolizing false gods!


 Joe, being one of those ''freaks'' you mentioned I just wonder why the right to express an opinion is only reserved for the ''non-freaks'' in the world. I have the right to speak out just as much as any other person, if this is still a free country. As for the show, I voted against it be not watching it. I thought it was a bad concept and it did not interest me in the least. I feel that is the proper response.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Bulldog7 said:


> Joe, being one of those ''freaks'' you mentioned I just wonder why the right to express an opinion is only reserved for the ''non-freaks'' in the world. I have the right to speak out just as much as any other person, if this is still a free country. As for the show, I voted against it be not watching it. I thought it was a bad concept and it did not interest me in the least. I feel that is the proper response.


See, there's the problem. Your voting against the show by not watching it is exactly what the religious "freaks" should've done. Instead, they bully their way into people's homes and tell them what they should and shouldn't watch. And while they may have the right to protest NBC's decision to air the show, their demand that the show be taken off the air results in advertisers pulling out and NBC not promoting the show and putting it in a bad time slot.

I'm sorry, but in my opinion, the people who tell me that a television show needs to be taken off the air rather than letting the public make their own decisions as to whether or not the show is worthy are just as bad as Pat Robertson saying that Ariel Sharon got what he deserved or Jerry Falwell saying that homosexuals caused 9/11. Call me an extremist, but so are they.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Bulldog7 said:


> Joe, being one of those ''freaks'' you mentioned I just wonder why the right to express an opinion is only reserved for the ''non-freaks'' in the world. I have the right to speak out just as much as any other person, if this is still a free country. As for the show, I voted against it be not watching it. I thought it was a bad concept and it did not interest me in the least. I feel that is the proper response.


Simply by expressing your opinion and voting against the show by not watching it, and by recognizing that's the proper course of action, you have distinguished yourself as specifically *not* being one of the "freaks" to which Joe was referring.

Being religious in and of itself is not what makes one a freak. Being religious and feeling that one's religion gives one the mandate to dictate that something may not be seen on television by anyone, even those who may not follow that religion, *that's* what makes one a freak.

Just thought I'd clarify....


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

busyba said:


> Simply by expressing your opinion and voting against the show by not watching it, and by recognizing that's the proper course of action, you have distinguished yourself as specifically *not* being one of the "freaks" to which Joe was referring.
> 
> Being religious in and of itself is not what makes one a freak. Being religious and feeling that one's religion gives one the mandate to dictate that something may not be seen on television by anyone, even those who may not follow that religion, *that's* what makes one a freak.
> 
> Just thought I'd clarify....


 :up: :up: :up:


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

joeinma said:


> I just don't get why the religious freaks have so much control over what our media does. Anything that THEY deem offensive, they force the networks to drop it. You don't see HBO dropping the Sopranos because some Italian-Americans deem it insensitive. You don't see FX dropping the Shield because real cops don't like seeing cops on tv being "bad" cops. You don't see Scrubs being dropped because it makes doctors looking like idiots.
> 
> The God Squad shouts and the world has to stop for them. What ever happened to turn the other cheek? It's a freaking FICTIONAL tv show only someone with a IQ below 5 would think all members of the God Squad are like what they see on a show.
> 
> It's not just about the show, these ZEALOTS want to control everything this country does. Just the fact that most of the holy rollers in our nation re-elected Bush should tell you how crazy they are! Talk about idolizing false gods!


1. Be careful about taking this political.

2. Because the Religous freaks have done so well in keeping Desperate Housewives and NYPD Blue off of the air.


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

serumgard said:


> See, there's the problem. Your voting against the show by not watching it is exactly what the religious "freaks" should've done. Instead, they bully their way into people's homes and tell them what they should and shouldn't watch. And while they may have the right to protest NBC's decision to air the show, their demand that the show be taken off the air results in advertisers pulling out and NBC not promoting the show and putting it in a bad time slot.
> 
> I'm sorry, but in my opinion, the people who tell me that a television show needs to be taken off the air rather than letting the public make their own decisions as to whether or not the show is worthy are just as bad as Pat Robertson saying that Ariel Sharon got what he deserved or Jerry Falwell saying that homosexuals caused 9/11. Call me an extremist, but so are they.


They "Bully their way into people's homes"? Did I miss a memo? I thought the wrote letters and threatened boycotts. All perfectly legal, legitimate excercises of free speech.

Whenever I read a post like this, there's one thing that stands out: fear. And if the "freaks" are truly as bad as you seem to feel, your fear is another win for them. Instead of being afraid, why not encourage people to take it to the "freaks" on their own terms? Write letters, threaten boycotts. There's nothing wrong with using your powers of free speech and free commerce to try to shape the world into the image that you want.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

doom1701 said:


> They "Bully their way into people's homes"? Did I miss a memo? I thought the wrote letters and threatened boycotts. All perfectly legal, legitimate excercises of free speech.
> 
> Whenever I read a post like this, there's one thing that stands out: fear. And if the "freaks" are truly as bad as you seem to feel, your fear is another win for them. Instead of being afraid, why not encourage people to take it to the "freaks" on their own terms? Write letters, threaten boycotts. There's nothing wrong with using your powers of free speech and free commerce to try to shape the world into the image that you want.


Anytime a religious group pushes their way into the networks and urges either the affiliate or the network to not air a show, they're pushing their way into people's homes, telling them what is ok and what is not ok to watch. They are taking the choice of the people away.

And a television show is not going to change my opinion of the clergy. I have seen enough flawed individuals - either with my own two eyes at the church I grew up in, or in news stories - lead their respective flocks that the idea of a pill-popping priest with kids like his and a wife who drinks isn't that ridiculous. I like to watch shows that feature flawed heroes - The Shield, Rescue Me, NYPD Blue, ER, etc. The Book of Daniel was not much different from these shows. None of those shows were brought down by a powerful industry lobby that didn't like the fact that their particular area of expertise was profiled in a way they didn't like.

And fear? Where did you get the idea I was afraid of anything? I am annoyed, but not afraid. Hey, for all I know, The Book of Daniel got horific ratings because the show sucked. Personally, I don't think that's the case, but who knows? This show could've run after Law & Order and gotten crappy ratings, but the fact remains that it didn't get the chance. I don't know for a fact that NBC put it in a bad timeslot because of pressure from religious groups, but it wouldn't surprise me. Hell, even the announcement of the show's premiere was upstaged by NBC moving My Name Is Earl and The Office and the shelving of Joey.

In the end, it's just a television show. But there are so many shows that are worse for this country than one that they think portrays a priest in a negative light.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

doom1701 said:


> They "Bully their way into people's homes"? Did I miss a memo? I thought the wrote letters and threatened boycotts. All perfectly legal, legitimate excercises of free speech.


A Nazi organization holding a march in a predominately jewish neighborhood is also a perfectly legal and legitimate excercise of free speech. The Supreme Court said so.

I think you'd be hard pressed, however, to categorize it as appropriate behavior.

Simply having the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.

If your only justification for an action is that it is within your rights to do it, then it's time for you to seriously rethink your position.



> Whenever I read a post like this, there's one thing that stands out: fear. And if the "freaks" are truly as bad as you seem to feel, your fear is another win for them. Instead of being afraid, why not encourage people to take it to the "freaks" on their own terms? Write letters, threaten boycotts.


Yes... let's do that.

Suppose somone organized a boycott of companies that sponsored "7th Heaven" and "Touched by an Angel" in order to get them taken off the air. Would that not be completely ludicrious??

Every show is going to be disliked by some people; that's simply unavoidable. If, for every show, all the people who didn't like that show banded together to pressure sponsors to abandon the show in order to get the show taken off the air, in the end there would be no shows on TV at all.



> There's nothing wrong with using your powers of free speech and free commerce to try to shape the world into the image that you want.


"_Shape the world into the image that you want_"?!?! 

Just reading that gave me chills. That's pretty disturbed, even by internet standards.

Do you allow for the possibility that other people might prefer to live in a world that differs from the one in which image you would choose to shape?

How about you just stick to shaping how you live in the world rather than shaping the world for everyone else?


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

It's pretty hard to boycott taking a show _off_ the air... how can you boycott the absence of something? Unless you decide to boycott the rest of the shows on that network, and that seems very unlikely to get enough traction to make any difference to the network. A boycott only works if there is (at least the threat of) enough people participating to make an impact.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

madscientist said:


> It's pretty hard to boycott taking a show _off_ the air... how can you boycott the absence of something?


I meant to boycott in order to get those shows taken off the air, hypothetically done back when they were on the air.

My wording was ambiguious, I've edited the post to make it less so.


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

busyba said:


> "_Shape the world into the image that you want_"?!?!
> 
> Just reading that gave me chills. That's pretty disturbed, even by internet standards.
> 
> ...


The world you want doesn't have people writing letters and organizing boycotts. You're trying to shape the world into the image that you want by expressing your outrage here.

Like it or not, there's little difference between the religious right and the people expressing the same opinion as you. You want to see a difference--you want to put yourself on a higher pedestal. But ultimately we are all trying to shape the world into the image that we want, and we're just using different methods.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

doom1701 said:


> The world you want doesn't have people writing letters and organizing boycotts. You're trying to shape the world into the image that you want by expressing your outrage here.


I'm not sure what delusions of grandeur you've chosen to diagnose me with, but I haven't for a moment fooled myself into thinking my expression of outrage on an internet chat space will have even a minute possibility of shaping the world in the slightest degree.

If the fundies similarly limited their hysterical rants to online forums, rather than engage in guerilla manipulation of the free marketplace, I would have absolutely no objection whatsoever.



> Like it or not, there's little difference between the religious right and the people expressing the same opinion as you.


They want to dictate my television options. I'm willing to let them watch what they want to watch and only ask that they extend me the same courtesy. If you see that as "little difference", I'm really not sure what I can say to you.



> You want to see a difference--you want to put yourself on a higher pedestal.


They hold themselves as the arbiter of what is appropriate to be put on TV, but *I'm* the one who's putting himself on a higher pedestal?

Oooooookay. :up:



> But ultimately we are all trying to shape the world into the image that we want, and we're just using different methods.


I don't want to shape the world beyond my little corner of it, and only to the extent that my shaping doesn't interfere with the shape of other people's worlds, and vica-versa. This is wildly different from what the fundies are seeking to accomplish.

By the way, were you planning on rebutting my arguments on the inappropriate application of rights or should I interpret the fact that you chose to ignore them as a concession of my points?


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

busyba said:


> I'm not sure what delusions of grandeur you've chosen to diagnose me with, but I haven't for a moment fooled myself into thinking my expression of outrage on an internet chat space will have even a minute possibility of shaping the world in the slightest degree.
> 
> If the fundies similarly limited their hysterical rants to online forums, rather than engage in guerilla manipulation of the free marketplace, I would have absolutely no objection whatsoever.
> 
> ...


Hmm...your post was confrontational, angry, and even a little rude. I agree wholeheartedly with every word of it. :up: :up: :up:


----------



## Jon J (Aug 23, 2000)

It turns out the conservatives didn't really need to object to the show. The viewing public did it for them.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

Jon J said:


> It turns out the conservatives didn't really need to object to the show. The viewing public did it for them.


I wouldn't be suprised if the 'outrage' this show was given caused the network to use the low ratings as an excuse to pull the show without having to admit they pulled it due to pressure to. Perhaps if the 'outrage' wasn't there, they'd have given the show a few more episodes to find an audience.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Jeeters said:


> I wouldn't be suprised if the 'outrage' this show was given caused the network to use the low ratings as an excuse to pull the show without having to admit they pulled it due to pressure to. Perhaps if the 'outrage' wasn't there, they'd have given the show a few more episodes to find an audience.


I think you're reaching here.
NBC is currently in one of their worst years, rating wise.

If anything, the controversy generated would have been more likely to increase the ratings as that has been the case historically.
Based on the previews, I wasn't going to watch it but I tuned in because of the protest, as did a number of people in the original BOD thread.

The fact that it pulled lackluster numbers in spite of the additional publicity only gives them more reason to cancel it.
Because of the bad year they are having, I suspect that they are less inclined to have patience with poor performing shows.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

JYoung said:


> I think you're reaching here.


Agreed. That's why I said 'perhaps'. But notion did occur to me and while it's probably not the case, I still 'wouldn't be surprised' like I said.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

> Except that historically most mega-hits haven't worked that way. They took time to build there audience. Sometimes pulling fairly mediocre numbers through most of all of the first season.


No, not "most" -- rather, just "some" and evidently it isn't considered worth the risk, given the cost of some shows. Again, it appears that network execs have gotten better at determining how successful a show will be based on its early reception.


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

busyba said:


> I'm not sure what delusions of grandeur you've chosen to diagnose me with, but I haven't for a moment fooled myself into thinking my expression of outrage on an internet chat space will have even a minute possibility of shaping the world in the slightest degree.
> 
> If the fundies similarly limited their hysterical rants to online forums, rather than engage in guerilla manipulation of the free marketplace, I would have absolutely no objection whatsoever.


and then


> They want to dictate my television options. I'm willing to let them watch what they want to watch and only ask that they extend me the same courtesy. If you see that as "little difference", I'm really not sure what I can say to you.
> 
> They hold themselves as the arbiter of what is appropriate to be put on TV, but *I'm* the one who's putting himself on a higher pedestal?
> 
> Oooooookay. :up:


So your ranting here about them is done because you know it won't have any affect on things. Yet you still complain. Why are you wasting your time, then, if you don't think you're doing something that will actually _change_ the situation?



> I don't want to shape the world beyond my little corner of it, and only to the extent that my shaping doesn't interfere with the shape of other people's worlds, and vica-versa. This is wildly different from what the fundies are seeking to accomplish.


But even in that you are shaping the world. You are saying that you want a world where everyone can live in peace, as long as they agree with you--or at least don't make a stink about it. But in saying such a thing, you are shaping the world in a way that is against those that might express themselves differently.



> By the way, were you planning on rebutting my arguments on the inappropriate application of rights or should I interpret the fact that you chose to ignore them as a concession of my points?


Concession of what? Pointless arguments in a pointless forum? Sorry, I've got things to do today that actually affect the world. Since you are of the opinion that nothing here changes anything, then why should I feel any different? My opinion here isn't going to change anything either. It's all just bytes floating in the ether.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

doom1701 said:


> So your ranting here about them is done *because* you know it won't have any affect on things.


Not because, _despite_.



> Yet you still complain. Why are you wasting your time, then, if you don't think you're doing something that will actually _change_ the situation?


A) It's fun
2) It's mentally stimulating
iii) It's cathartic

See, I don't need to change other people's lives to make my own better.



> But even in that you are shaping the world. You are saying that you want a world where everyone can live in peace, as long as they agree with you--or at least don't make a stink about it.


I don't need people to agree with me. I need people to keep their disagreements and their stink from infringing on my life. They want my life to conform to their values. I, on the other hand, do not begrudge them their choice of values, I simply ask that they not foist them upon me.

Now, perhaps you want to argue that their values specifically dictate that they must make me live by their rules, therefore my desire to live my life free from their interference directly contravenes their choice of values. I would not dispute that they perhaps feel that way, but I would suggest that that would be a pretty effed up system of beliefs.



> But in saying such a thing, you are shaping the world in a way that is against those that might express themselves differently.


If you think my saying anything shapes anything, you are giving me waaaaaay too much credit. I'm flattered, I really am, but your admiration is misplaced.



> Concession of what? Pointless arguments in a pointless forum? Sorry, I've got things to do today that actually affect the world.


And yet, here you are.... 

You made a choice to argue _some_ of the points here, so expressing a lack of interest strains credulity. I was just wondering if you chose to ignore the points you didn't argue because of an oversight or because you simply had no rebuttal for them.



> Since you are of the opinion that nothing here changes anything, then why should I feel any different? My opinion here isn't going to change anything either. It's all just bytes floating in the ether.


Yeah, pretty much.

And yet again, here you are....


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

busyba said:


> I meant to boycott in order to get those shows taken off the air, hypothetically done back when they were on the air.
> 
> My wording was ambiguious, I've edited the post to make it less so.


Oops; I was ambiguous too: I was actually responding to doom1701 not you...


----------



## RegBarc (Feb 18, 2003)

DanaMac223 said:


> All of the morality hoopla asside, the show sucked. I tried to watch it the other night and I just couldn't do it. It didn't get cancelled because the content. It got cancelled because it was lousy.


Exactly what I was thinking as well. :up:

The pilot impressed me, went downhill from there.


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

serumgard said:


> People who believe that this show were making a mockery of the priest's religion obviously didn't watch the show; in the first thread about the show, it was even discussed if the priest's religion was even mentioned or if it was intended to be non-denominational (that was cleared up in later episodes).
> 
> And don't you dare question someone's morals because they might find something humorous. If the writers write something funny, and the actors nail it and make it funny, and I find it humorous, regardless if it's about your religion, the police, or a schoolteacher, it doesn't mean I have questionable morals - it means I'm open minded enough to not take everything so seriously.


You're wrong on the first count, I watched every episode aired. Not because I enjoyed the show but because my daughter wanted to watch it and I felt the need to balance out some of the garbage that the show portrayed.

And truthfully, some things, religion among them, shouldn't be made fun of. And obviously the show wasn't funny in the first place because the ratings were awful.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

bengalfreak said:


> And truthfully, some things, religion among them, shouldn't be made fun of.


But there's just soooooo much material there!


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

bengalfreak said:


> You're wrong on the first count, I watched every episode aired. Not because I enjoyed the show but because my daughter wanted to watch it and I felt the need to balance out some of the garbage that the show portrayed.
> 
> And truthfully, some things, religion among them, shouldn't be made fun of. And obviously the show wasn't funny in the first place because the ratings were awful.


I guess you aren't much of a South Park fan then? If religion shouldn't be made fun of then it should stop making it so easy to do so. Not that it matters, I don't think the goal of this show was to mock religion.


----------



## TeeSee (Jan 16, 2003)

bengalfreak said:


> And truthfully, some things, religion among them, shouldn't be made fun of.


Do you mean it should be illegal? Or are you saying that people will go to hell for making fun of religion and you're trying to keep them on the path of righteousness, as you define it?

Or do you take personally the fact that things you hold dear are being made fun of, as if YOU are the target? It almost seems to appear that way. No harm is being done. No secrets of national security or anything like that. It's just humor. What's the harm?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

RegBarc said:


> Exactly what I was thinking as well. :up:
> 
> The pilot impressed me, went downhill from there.


I thought the pilot was kinda bad/boring (definitely the first 40 minutes or so) and the show got much better right at the end of the first hour and over the next few episodes.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

bengalfreak said:


> And truthfully, some things, religion among them, shouldn't be made fun of. And obviously the show wasn't funny in the first place because the ratings were awful.


I'm sorry, I just don't buy this. Especially about religion. If something can be done tastefully, I have no problem with it being made fun of. If I find it offensive, I change the channel.

And again, I don't think the intent of the show was to make fun of religion or be funny; it was to show that priests and their families are flawed individuals.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

Figaro said:


> Sorry but I have worked in several churches and I live in the greater Boston area. Quinn's character could be a Cardinal here. I have encountered some really screwed up people working in the Christian world. Not that I haven't encountered equally screwed up people in the secular world. None of the things depicted in this show are far from the realm of possibility or reality. Have you even heard about the church sex scandals? There are screwed up people in every walk of life, the problem here is that the hyper religious folks can't bear to admit that anyone in their world could have such problems.


You read my mind...


----------



## ccooperev (Apr 24, 2001)

dswallow said:


> The whole free television model is broken.
> 
> The viewers need to take over the role of the network execs deciding to make or not make a show. One day the numbers will be high enough that we can review concepts and subscribe to them, then a show can be made just for the subscribers.
> 
> No matter how bad some may think a show is, there's others out there who enjoyed it. At the very least you'd think showing the produced episodes wouldn't be that hard. It's getting so it's almost not worth the emotional roller coaster ride of becoming invested in a show only to have some suit cancel it 3 episodes later.


You, know, when Apple introduced TV shows on iTunes, I scoffed at the idea. Now, when shows like this one that I took a real liking to get cancelled just out of the starting gate, I'm rethinking the pay to view idea. I would pay $1.99 an episode to watch BOD and with 6 million viewers that would probably cover the production costs for the show. Plus, no pressure to cave to special interests groups and cowardly network executives.


----------



## ccooperev (Apr 24, 2001)

TeeSee said:


> It's a free country. At least it is right now...


Are you sure about that?


----------



## captain_video (Mar 1, 2002)

With all of the negative responses in this thread I'm guessing most of them were part of the write-in campaign to NBC.

FWIW, I watched the show and found it mildly amusing at best, although more than a bit far-fetched and could see how anyone remotely religious could take offense to it if taken too literally. My guess is that most of the people that complained about the show did so based on its premise and probably never even watched the show. I think if they had left out Jesus as a living character then the show would not have offended so many people. 

Joan of Arcadia wasn't all that different when you think about it, albeit perhaps a bit less scandalous, and it lasted for many more full seasons and it included a live version of the Big Kahuuna himself. Having members of the church as main characters tossed into the middle of so many things gone wrong was apparently enough to tip the scales for most folks.

I can't say I'm surprised it got cancelled but rather more surprised NBC was dumb enough to air it in the first place. There are some topics that are just taboo for prime-time and should never be broached unless you really feel like alienating your viewing audience. Like I said, I watched it (even had a season pas set up) but I won't miss it now that it's gone. I'd rather see Threshold come back and get a chance to develop the storyline before getting axed.


----------



## ccooperev (Apr 24, 2001)

SparkleMotion said:


> The reason you've never seen a movie about Mohammed or Allah is because the Koran decrees it blasphemous to depict them in any manner, be it artistic or otherwise. Anyone making such a movie (or TV show) would have a fatwah issued against them over it.
> 
> Apparently conservative christians aren't significantly removed from such actions, despite nothing in the Bible that is analogous.


Take this little move: The Message about the life of Muhammad, but does not directly depict The Prophet. I thought it a very good telling of the story of the origins of Islam and a good introduction for Westerners but I understand the Islamic conservatives found it blasphemous.

I guess it comes down that anything that doesn't fit the mold of orthodoxy will get you in trouble. Thats pretty sad.

p.s., whats up with the link thing? it keeps mangling it by substituting ***'s for the domain? it should read tiny url with no space.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

captain_video said:


> Joan of Arcadia wasn't all that different when you think about it, albeit perhaps a bit less scandalous, and it lasted for many more full seasons and it included a live version of the Big Kahuuna himself. Having members of the church as main characters tossed into the middle of so many things gone wrong was apparently enough to tip the scales for most folks.


Joan of Arcadia had just 2 full seasons. Definitely more than Book of Daniel, but characterizing it as "many more" might be misleading.



captain_video said:


> I'd rather see Threshold come back and get a chance to develop the storyline before getting axed.


They aired 9 episodes and hadn't managed to do anything beyond the pilot to imply there would be any story except destroying the "monster of the week." Even the producers had said they didn't know where they were going. How dumb can you get and be given money to create a show?


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

Forgive me, I just skimmed the previous posts, but NBC.COM is going to air ( webcast) the remaining episodes Every Friday? (at least this friday) at 8PM ET.
Does anyone know how many shows have been filmed?


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

TIVO_GUY_HERE said:


> Forgive me, I just skimmed the previous posts, but NBC.COM is going to air ( webcast) the remaining episodes Every Friday at 8PM ET.


That's great, but I don't know if I've got the dedication to watch on a webcast. Now, if they offer them for download on iTunes, I'm there.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

TIVO_GUY_HERE said:


> Forgive me, I just skimmed the previous posts, but NBC.COM is going to air ( webcast) the remaining episodes Every Friday at 8PM ET.


Where'd you see that info? I do see they say "Watch the complete unaired episode" but this seemed to refer to the one they skipped over ... "Revelations".

Great news if it's true, though.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

dswallow said:


> How dumb can you get and be given money to create a show?


Pretty dumb, actually.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

captain_video said:


> I'd rather see Threshold come back and get a chance to develop the storyline before getting axed.


Problem with Threshold was that it needed to develop *a* storyline.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

From TVguide.com


JESUS LIVES! AND APPARENTLY HAS DSL: The Book of Daniel, which had its last broadcast on Jan. 20, will see its remaining unaired episodes unspool on NBC.com beginning tonight at 8 pm/ET, series creator (and TVGuide.com blogger) Jack Kenny tells us. Someone has friends in high places


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

> JESUS LIVES! AND APPARENTLY HAS DSL


WIWJU?

Which ISP Would Jesus Use?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

busyba said:


> WIWJU?
> 
> Which ISP Would Jesus Use?


Wouldn't that be WISPWJU? That way it's almost pronouncable.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

busyba said:


> WIWJU?
> 
> Which ISP Would Jesus Use?


not SBC.com


----------



## mrcoaster (Jan 25, 2002)

The show wasn't my cup of tea at all, but it's a shame that it's gone so darn quick. Worse that the religious nuts are celebrating their "victory." As to the priest's faults....Way back when I had to attend church as a kid, twice I knew priests that had some serious dysfunctional lives. People can hide their heads in the sand, but these things DO happen in real life. Not that this show was supposed to be a documentary or anything.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Well... 8:07PM ET and I can't find anyplace to play the video that's supposedly started 7 minutes ago.

update:

It's on the Book of Daniel page now: http://www.nbc.com/The_Book_of_Daniel/

It's supposed to be available for a week.

Or go to http://www.nbc.com/nbc/Video/asx/Book_of_Daniel/bookofdaniel_105.asx

And then copy the full URL it displays into your browser and it'll open Media Player directly. Gotta do it this way since they're using akamai which might be different for any given user.


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

mrcoaster said:


> Way back when I had to attend church as a kid, twice I knew priests that had some serious dysfunctional lives. People can hide their heads in the sand, but these things DO happen in real life.


Yes, they do happen, but not to the extent that this family was screwed up. And not just this family, but every single character in the show was extremely disfunctional. And to think that the son of God would somehow find all of this amusing is what nauseated me. Like I said, I'm hardly a religious zealot. I've never boycotted anything based on religion, nor have I even written an email to complain about a show. But I found this series extraordinarily distasteful.


----------



## TeeSee (Jan 16, 2003)

bengalfreak said:


> And to think that the son of God would somehow find all of this amusing is what nauseated me.


Is your god a viewer of this show? I thought it was the American TV audience that they were trying to entertain. Your god and your nausea have nothing to do with what "should" be allowed to be shown on TV or not. All you've done is use extreme adjectives to describe how you reacted to this show. Which is totally curable by simply changing the channel.

I'd ask you what your over-reactions to a TV show have to do with anything, or why you watched "every episode that aired" of a show that makes you so ill, but you've set a precedent of running away from my questions. Maybe you overlooked them but them but your avoidance appears suspicious.


----------



## crazywater (Mar 7, 2001)

JYoung said:


> Religious protests aside,
> I honestly didn't think that the show was that good.
> I watched the two hour opener and didn't really care about anyone except for Daniel. Somewhat.
> The parts where he talked to Jesus were decent to pretty good but I felt the rest of the show was trying way too hard to be too over the top.
> ...


Finally some sanity. The show sucked, it didn't have viewers and sponsors were dropping like flys. Yeah, it must have been pressure from religous groups that cancelled it.


----------



## ccooperev (Apr 24, 2001)

dswallow said:


> Well... 8:07PM ET and I can't find anyplace to play the video that's supposedly started 7 minutes ago.
> 
> update:
> 
> ...


Crap! this requires Internet Explorer 5.5 and Windows! blech!


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

ccooperev said:


> Crap! this requires Internet Explorer 5.5 and Windows! blech!


I managed to grab the stream and have a WMV file of it that I'm converting to DivX right now.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

dswallow said:


> I managed to grab the stream and have a WMV file of it that I'm converting to DivX right now.


Why?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

JYoung said:


> Why?


Mostly so I didn't have to watch it in the miniature box on their web site but instead could burn it on a CD and watch it on my 50" plasma screen via my DivX capable DVD player.


----------



## Rob Dawn (Aug 16, 2002)

crazywater said:


> Finally some sanity. The show sucked, it didn't have viewers and sponsors were dropping like flys. Yeah, it must have been pressure from religous groups that cancelled it.


Ummm, why do you think "sponsors were dropping like flys"?
*Because of pressure from religious groups!! * 

I'm a Christian and liked this show quite a bit - although it is a little far fetched having so many problems in a family with a Bishop and a Priest (Vicodin, alcohol, pot-selling, sex, sex, sex). But I wish people would let a show live or die based on ratings!

Rob


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

Rob Dawn said:


> I'm a Christian and liked this show quite a bit - although it is a little far fetched having so many problems in a family with a Bishop and a Priest (Vicodin, alcohol, pot-selling, sex, sex, sex). But I wish people would let a show live or die based on ratings!
> 
> Rob


Come to Massachusetts, that's not far fetched, it's just everyday life!


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Rob Dawn said:


> Ummm, why do you think "sponsors were dropping like flys"?
> *Because of pressure from religious groups!! *
> 
> I'm a Christian and liked this show quite a bit - although it is a little far fetched having so many problems in a family with a Bishop and a Priest (Vicodin, alcohol, pot-selling, sex, sex, sex). But I wish people would let a show live or die based on ratings!
> ...


The first episode pulled about 9 million viewers.
Second episode pulled about 6.8 million viewers.
Third episode pulled under 6 million viewers.
Those are lower than the number that caused CBS to pull Threshold.

No wonder "sponsors were dropping like flys" (sic).


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

f0gax said:


> For the last time (not really of course), if you don't like a show don't farking watch it!


That's why it was taken off the air. Not enough people interested in the subject matter to "farking" watch it. As mentioned before, if the show had appealed to enough people to bring in the cash for the network, the show would still be on the air, regardless of the christian right's protests. As someone who is not religious, I had no interest in watching a show that appears to be nothing more than a petty attempt to mock those who are religious, imo. I have better things to do with my time (sort of).


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Raimi said:


> That's why it was taken off the air. Not enough people interested in the subject matter to "farking" watch it. As mentioned before, if the show had appealed to enough people to bring in the cash for the network, the show would still be on the air, regardless of the christian right's protests. As someone who is not religious, I had no interest in watching a show that appears to be nothing more than a petty attempt to mock those who are religious, imo. I have better things to do with my time (sort of).


The extra viewership from the 9 affiliates who chose not to air it at all could certainly have helped.

It's a shame even 6 million households isn't enough to justify producing and broadcasting a show for the networks.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

The religiously themed show that I was sad about them canceling a few years ago was about a Catholic priest. I don't remember the name but it was a serious good show.


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

sieglinde said:


> The religiously themed show that I was sad about them canceling a few years ago was about a Catholic priest. I don't remember the name but it was a serious good show.


Robert Blake, pre-murdering his wife?


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

dswallow said:


> The extra viewership from the 9 affiliates who chose not to air it at all could certainly have helped.
> 
> It's a shame even 6 million households isn't enough to justify producing and broadcasting a show for the networks.


It is possible that the 9 affiliates broadcasting the show could have helped. However, if JYoung's post concerning the shows ratings are accurate, and 1/3 of the audience that did see the shows premier gave up by the 3rd episode (even with all the free publicity), I would imagine the show probably wasn't going to be a huge hit for the network.

I won't even pretend to know what the big guys at the network do to decide if a show is worth keeping or not, but I will say that only giving a show a couple episodes to find an audience seems kind of stupid to me. You'd think they'd at least try another marketing approach before tossing in the towel.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Raimi said:


> It is possible that the 9 affiliates broadcasting the show could have helped. However, if JYoung's post concerning the shows ratings are accurate, and 1/3 of the audience that did see the shows premier gave up by the 3rd episode (even with all the free publicity), I would imagine the show probably wasn't going to be a huge hit for the network.
> 
> I won't even pretend to know what the big guys at the network do to decide if a show is worth keeping or not, but I will say that only giving a show 3 episodes to find an audience seems kind of stupid to me. You'd think they'd at least try another marketing approach before tossing in the towel.


There's no question that the controversy had people tuning in to see what it's about. Considering how weak the first episode was up till about 40 minute sinto it, I also understand why they ran 2 episodes the first night. It's a shame the first 40 minutes weren't a little more involving, as I'm sure they lost a chunk of viewers just because of that.

I have to really wonder just what sort of numbers a network could realistically expect to see after showing something new for only 2 or 3 weeks.


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

Look, Book of Daniel was a mid-season replacement. Meaning it was never expected to be a huge hit to start with. If it was something the network thought had a real good shot of becoming something, it would have been on the fall schedule. I mean, if you can't beat Inconceivable onto the schedule, you probably aren't going to make it. So the ratings were crappy, and it wasn't worth it for the network to tick off alot of Christian viewers. I'm sure if it got great ratings, they could have cared less about the rightwing being upset with it.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

I just don't understand why people think that this show was making fun of religion. Daniel and his wife are a loving, faithful couple; they aren't fooling around or doing drugs or anything like that. What's the problem? Are you trying to tell me that ministers _don't_ have gay kids, or kids who get involved with selling drugs, or kids who are promiscuous? I don't see how any of that is "making fun of religion". Yes, obviously having _all_ of those things in one family is a bit much, but it's television.

The only possible things I can see that would be objectionable are Daniel's father's affair, which I'm sure also happens in real life, and the portrayal of Jesus. Is that it? It seems a pretty anemic reason for all this uproar.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

madscientist said:


> Daniel and his wife are a loving, faithful couple; they aren't fooling around or doing drugs or anything like that.


Well, except for Daniel constantly popping vicodin.
And the strong implications that the Mrs. is a lush....


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

madscientist said:


> Daniel and his wife are a loving, faithful couple; they aren't fooling around or doing drugs or anything like that.


Well, except for Daniel's constantly popping vicodin.
And the strong implications that the Mrs. is a lush and being flirtywith her brother in law....


----------



## goMO (Dec 29, 2004)

but how is that offensive to the church? 

they're people with issues, just like everyone else. he happens to be a priest. the offense, or issues, imo, are generic, and family related, not religion-related. but god forbid that these people are of the cloth, then it gets personal and let's sweep it under the carpet (or into the closet. 

Daniel deals with it by having Jesus there for support. that's a problem? I thought it was kinda nice...


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

goMO said:


> but how is that offensive to the church?


It's the church. It gets offended. That's what it does.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Note that there was no public assumption made about the program House aiming to depict all medical doctors as addicts.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

bicker said:


> Note that there was no public assumption made about the program House aiming to depict all medical doctors as addicts.


And you could argue that 'House' is a religious show too, since most doctors think they're god.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

goMO said:


> but how is that offensive to the church?
> 
> they're people with issues, just like everyone else. he happens to be a priest. the offense, or issues, imo, are generic, and family related, not religion-related. but god forbid that these people are of the cloth, then it gets personal and let's sweep it under the carpet (or into the closet.


(Old reactionary mode)
Priests and clergy should be role models, just like that nice, young, Rev. Camden on Seventh Heaven...........
(/Old reactionary mode)


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

JYoung said:


> (Old reactionary mode)
> Priests and clergy should be role models, just like that nice, young, Rev. Camden on Seventh Heaven...........
> (/Old reactionary mode)


Priest's should be just what they are in reality, flawed humans. Doesn't the church think that only god is perfect?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Figaro said:


> Doesn't the church think that only god is perfect?


I think they say that the Pope is infallible, but other than that, yeah.


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

busyba said:


> I think they say that the Pope is infallible, but other than that, yeah.


You can fill the Pope up with air? Isn't that redundant?


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

madscientist said:


> I just don't understand why people think that this show was making fun of religion. Daniel and his wife are a loving, faithful couple; they aren't fooling around or doing drugs or anything like that. What's the problem? Are you trying to tell me that ministers _don't_ have gay kids, or kids who get involved with selling drugs, or kids who are promiscuous? I don't see how any of that is "making fun of religion". Yes, obviously having _all_ of those things in one family is a bit much, but it's television.
> 
> The only possible things I can see that would be objectionable are Daniel's father's affair, which I'm sure also happens in real life, and the portrayal of Jesus. Is that it? It seems a pretty anemic reason for all this uproar.


Again, the reason Christians are up in arms about this show is mostly about the Jesus character. And mainly the fact that he seems very amused about all of the very anti-Christian behaviour going on. I mean Jesus didn't really laugh when they were gambling in the temple now did he?


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

> I mean Jesus didn't really laugh when they were gambling in the temple now did he?


Only when he came out ahead.


----------



## Figaro (Nov 10, 2003)

bengalfreak said:


> Again, the reason Christians are up in arms about this show is mostly about the Jesus character. And mainly the fact that he seems very amused about all of the very anti-Christian behaviour going on. I mean Jesus didn't really laugh when they were gambling in the temple now did he?


Ummm...nobody knows what Jesus really did or whether he really even existed.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Figaro said:


> Ummm...nobody knows what Jesus really did or whether he really even existed.


Excuse me, we're talking about religion here, please stop trying to inject reason into the conversation.


----------



## RegBarc (Feb 18, 2003)

Figaro said:


> Ummm...nobody knows what Jesus really did or whether he really even existed.


Well, I think he's historical existence is established pretty well.

As for his religious existence...well...that's for another forum.


----------



## anom (Apr 18, 2005)

RegBarc said:


> Well, I think he's historical existence is established pretty well.
> 
> As for his religious existence...well...that's for another forum.


This conversation does sound a little familiar....

Still, there are no independent records of the existance of Jesus, just what's in the bible, and a lot of what's in the bible is inconsistent with the historical record; for example, that census that was taking place, forcing Joseph and Mary to go to Bethelehem? No other record of it anywhere. Not to mention the inconsistencies between the four gospels.

My personal opinion is that the accounts in the New Testament are enough to conclude that he at least existed, but its far from an accepted historical certainty.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

JYoung said:


> Well, except for Daniel's constantly popping vicodin.
> And the strong implications that the Mrs. is a lush and being flirtywith her brother in law....


He's not an addict. Not yet. He's got a small dependency issue, but he's not out of control. He was using Vicodin for legitimate medical reasons, and there's nothing strange or unusual about getting some level of dependency on it. That's why they don't let you take it for too long. Now, maybe later in the series he would have had a big problem with it but it's nothing unusual yet.

As for the wife, the alcohol problem I'll grant you, but again she's not out of control with it (yet): we don't see her driving drunk or being abusive or hiding or sneaking liquor or anything like that.

The brother in law thing was harmless.

But I know you agree with me on all this anyway 

As for the Jesus depiction, I just don't understand why people are taking that so seriously. Isn't it obvious to _everyone_ that this character is not supposed to be depicting the actual son of God? This isn't _Revelations_ for goodness' sake! He's a figment of Daniel's imagination: Daniel's conscience if you will. To get upset because Jesus is "too flippant to be God" is utterly ludicrous, IMO.

But, whatever.


----------



## Trebor1 (Apr 29, 2004)

There is zero evidence that a real person known as Jesus ever existed.

Many now believe he is a composite of a number of self proclaimed prophets of that time.

The concept or message of a Jesus is real.........it was considered new age thinking in that day and point in history.most people of that time thought him a fool and idealist.He was an image created to encourage the down trodden of the day to resist and endure the roman occupation and dominance of thier culture.


----------



## The Flush (Aug 3, 2005)

Figaro said:


> Priest's should be just what they are in reality, flawed humans. Doesn't the church think that only god is perfect?


It's OK for me to pick on my brother, but no one else better do it or I'll kick your ass.

Same thing applies to the church's complaint's about this show.

For the record, I'm a Christian who enjoyed this show and wish it had not been cancelled.


----------



## SparkleMotion (Feb 2, 2004)

anom said:


> Still, there are no independent records of the existance of Jesus, just what's in the bible, and a lot of what's in the bible is inconsistent with the historical record....


The Muslims will be surprised to learn that you've just removed one of their accepted prophets from the Koran (or Qu'ran if you prefer).


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Getting a little off topic here, but wouldn't this show be a great run for the new iTunes service? I mean, selling it after it's been cancelled may provide a decent test run for a new opportunity for the show (or at least the remaining episodes) to make NBC some money.

I'm not excited about watching the episode over a streaming webcast, even if I can do it whenever I choose. But I travel a lot, so I'd have no problem putting the shows on my iPod and watching them on the plane. I'm just curious why the show hasn't been offered on iTunes thus far.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

serumgard said:


> Getting a little off topic here, but wouldn't this show be a great run for the new iTunes service? I mean, selling it after it's been cancelled may provide a decent test run for a new opportunity for the show (or at least the remaining episodes) to make NBC some money.
> 
> I'm not excited about watching the episode over a streaming webcast, even if I can do it whenever I choose. But I travel a lot, so I'd have no problem putting the shows on my iPod and watching them on the plane. I'm just curious why the show hasn't been offered on iTunes thus far.


You can use a program like SDP (http://sdp.ppona.com/) to download the Windows Media stream as a WMV file that can then be played back at your leisure (or converted to some other format).


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

dswallow said:


> You can use a program like SDP (http://sdp.ppona.com/) to download the Windows Media stream as a WMV file that can then be played back at your leisure (or converted to some other format).


Thanks for the link. I'll definitely have to check that out.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

Trebor1 said:


> There is zero evidence that a real person known as Jesus ever existed.


"Zero" is a pretty small number. Surely there's _some_ evidence, even if you don't find it compelling. Though, ancient history would lose many figures whose existence we for granted, if we required absolute proof of their existence.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

madscientist said:


> He's not an addict. Not yet. He's got a small dependency issue, but he's not out of control. He was using Vicodin for legitimate medical reasons, and there's nothing strange or unusual about getting some level of dependency on it. That's why they don't let you take it for too long. Now, maybe later in the series he would have had a big problem with it but it's nothing unusual yet.
> 
> As for the wife, the alcohol problem I'll grant you, but again she's not out of control with it (yet): we don't see her driving drunk or being abusive or hiding or sneaking liquor or anything like that.
> 
> ...


Well, except for the fact that Daniel essentially stole his son's vicodin perscription.


I agree with you with the Jesus portrayal. I rather liked that part.
I guess those who protest feel that Jesus should have been threatening Daniel with eternal damnation.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

JYoung said:


> I guess those who protest feel that Jesus should have been threatening Daniel with eternal damnation.


One would think that that particular quota had been met by now.


----------



## Trebor1 (Apr 29, 2004)

{"Zero" is a pretty small number. Surely there's some evidence, even if you don't find it compelling. Though, ancient history would lose many figures whose existence we for granted, if we required absolute proof of their existence. }

i stand by the original observation...there is no evidence that Jesus the person ever existed and there is evidence that biblical Jesus the person, never existed.

e.g.
Nazareth,where Jesus and his parent(S) where from,was not a city.It was a cemetery.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

This is best read in the context of this discussion. It exemplifies the real issue behind this show having been attacked as it was.

Religion: Love the Film, Hate the Sin? Christians Debate.
Newsweek

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11078560/site/newsweek/

Feb. 6, 2006 issue - Chad Allen: former drug-using teen heartthrob, lapsed Roman Catholic, gay activist and ... Christian missionary. The choice of the openly gay Allen as the lead actor in "End of the Spear," a new Christian-made movie about the real-life story of a son who makes peace with an Amazon tribe that killed his missionary father, has created a dilemma for moviegoers who want to support the movie's message, but not its messenger. "This story is perhaps one of the most precious, well-known mission stories of the last century," says Jason Janz, an assistant pastor in Colorado who brought attention to the issue on his fundamentalist blog, SharperIron.org. "I believe it was bad judgment to cast one of Hollywood's foremost gay activists in the leading role." But, at the same time, other religious leadersincluding Jerry Falwell, who has publicly preached against homosexualsare encouraging their congregations to see the movie.

The schizophrenic response from the Christian community is a blow to the movie's producers, who were hoping for a unified "Passion of the Christ"-type turnout. "It's disappointing," says Jim Hanon, the film's director and co-writer. "Especially because the message of the story is that you should reach out in love to people you disagree with."

When the movie's producers offered the part to Allen, who currently attends a Christian congregation, they didn't know he was gay. (The producers aren't exactly the target audience for The Advocate, which put Allen on the cover when he came out in 2001.) Ultimately, the decision to leave Allen in the role was left up to the man the movie is based on, Steve Saint, since Allen was set to play Steveand his slain fatherin the film. "My dad was my hero, and the thought of someone playing him that advocates that lifestyle made me very uncomfortable," says Saint. "But I realized it wasn't for me to condone or to condemn what Chad does or doesn't do. That is God's prerogative. And I feel that God had his hand in setting up this complex scenario for Chad to play this part."

Not everyone agrees that Allen is God-sent. Janz recently got more than 100 pastors to join him in signing a letter to the movie's producers saying that they couldn't in good conscience support the film. There is, however, one upside to having Allen in the movie. "I'm absolutely sure we're having people check it out that never would have gone to a 'Christian' movie," says Allen. "I went with 30 of my close friends, and we walked away having these amazing spiritual conversations together." Which is exactly what both Saints were trying to do in that Amazon jungle.


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

Trebor1 said:


> There is zero evidence that a real person known as Jesus ever existed.
> 
> Many now believe he is a composite of a number of self proclaimed prophets of that time.
> 
> The concept or message of a Jesus is real.........it was considered new age thinking in that day and point in history.most people of that time thought him a fool and idealist.He was an image created to encourage the down trodden of the day to resist and endure the roman occupation and dominance of thier culture.


In your rant, you go from "there is zero evidence that a real person known as Jesus ever existed" to "most people of that time thought him a fool or idealist". Which is it? Did he never exist or was he a fool?


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

dswallow said:


> This is best read in the context of this discussion. It exemplifies the real issue behind this show having been attacked as it was.


Truth be told, the gay character in Book of Daniel was the least of my worries. Up until the moment that he jumped in the sack with the girl in the back seat of the car, I thought he was the most moral of all the characters in the show. And I chaulked that up to the confusion he was probably feeling about discovering that he's gay. Although, I can same with some degree of certainty that the shows creators would eventually have made him more and more depraved as time went on.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

bengalfreak said:


> Truth be told, the gay character in Book of Daniel was the least of my worries. [...] Although, I can same with some degree of certainty that the shows creators would eventually have made him more and more depraved as time went on.


You mean even more depraved than just being gay? Wow!


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

Man, I just get home after a LONG day at work at see this!

I need to remind everybody that the discussion of religion is not allowed on this forum. Please do not debate whether God, Jesus, or anybody else existed or should be believed in.

If this conversation cannot stay on the topic of television and whether a protest shut this show down and whether that is an acceptable way to deal with a situation - I will close this thread.


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

busyba said:


> You mean even more depraved than just being gay? Wow!


No, I mean the fact that he's admittedly gay and then has sex in the back seat of a car with a girl. Depraved as in having sex casually, depraved as in doing it in the daytime somewhere you could be seen, depraved as in doing it with a sex you purport (sp?) to not be attracted to.


----------

