A rant.


I've heard so many people ask the question. Why was this show so damn controversial? Well, controversy is relative.

The real question we should be asking ourselves about the cancellation of "The Book of Daniel" is: Why do we allow right wing bullies who are no better than the al-Qaedas in the world to hijack our society? We've got a real problem in this country. So many people get so pissed off about things like this; on both sides of the issue. The difference between those of us who enjoyed the show and craved more and those people who couldn't see past their desire to cover up their own faults and personal misdemeanors is that we are perfectly willing to take it lying on our backs.

It's not fair. When I found out that the show was canceled, I went on a tirade around my house. Stomping, screaming, throwing things around, and having a heated bitch-fest toward a phantom AFA representative. How can one group of bullies have so much power over what I watch on television? How can one group of bullies be in this much control of my life?

We let them.

Nobody ever stands up to the religious right in this country. Not for long anyway. We always seem to lose the argument against them because they have the audacity to play the God card. They preach this sort of religiosity in all deeds that's somehow able to transcend the human experience and is, quite frankly, impossible to reach and a load of horse crap. When it comes right down to it, they are religious fundamentalists who are so afraid of change and growth in society that they're willing to destroy the progress of that society for their own agenda.

Islamic fundamentalism isn't one-of-a-kind. We have our very own al-Qaeda in America and it's called the American Families Association.

Quite frankly (and possibly naively), I think the bigger threat to life in America is our own religious right. Groups like the AFA have too much say about the way that other people live their lives. They have the gumption to go around divining that the Founding Fathers would have wanted it their way when clearly their way was what the Founding Fathers were trying to prevent. Read the Constitution.

There's this little thing in America called the First Amendment, which protects the right of every person in this country to say what they want to say. Forcing NBC to pull this show (or any network to pull any show), whether or not it was good, based on religious and so-called moral objections to the show's content flies directly in the face of the spirit of the law. I'm not a constitutional lawyer so I couldn't say whether or not it's legal but I'm an American and I know that it's wrong and immoral. I also know that anyone who supported the AFA and groups like them in their campaign to eradicate "The Book of Daniel" from the face of television is fascist, wrong, afraid, and a bully.

Television shows should not be canceled because of the religious right's objections to the content of the show; they should be canceled because of low ratings or poor writing or bad actors or some combination of those things. This show was only the victim of low ratings and I for one believe that it's as much the network's fault for putting it in the Friday night at 10pm slot as it is the AFA getting advertisers to pull their support. The fact of the matter is that everything that happened on the show happens in real life every day. And things that are worse! People like to pretend that the corrupt days of the Borgia Pope are gone. And while it's true that there are no longer orgies in the Vatican, (to quote the musical "Brooklyn") "we've got priests raping little boys, third graders going to school with crayons in one hand and an AK-47 in the other." We've got ministers embezzling money from their congregations to buy yachts, pastors covering up for the likes of organized crime, and the entire institution of Christianity turning a blind eye to the real evils of the world.

My own family is peppered with relationships and incidents similar to the likes of those the show presented. And I guarantee you that I'm not the only one. My grandfather was a Southern Baptist preacher. He was a man of God. He cheated on my grandmother and there are God only knows how many other families out there that he started. My mother and her sisters were molested by one of their "God-fearing" and "good Christian" brothers. He went to prison for molesting them and other children and my grandmother has since forgiven him for his sins against her daughters and the sons and daughters of others. Half of my cousins, who are all "good Christians" have been drug users and convicts at some point in their lives. It's not unreasonable for me to assume that mine isn't the only family out there like this. The Websters were certainly not.

I so often hear people say that they want to be a "good Christian". I so often hear people of power in this country say that they do something because it's the "Christian" thing to do. Well, I'm sorry but doesn't the Bible have something pretty explicit to say about killing? I seem to remember a commandment along the lines of "Thou shalt not kill." Granted I'm by no means a religious scholar or even by any standards familiar with Christianity but I know that one. Nobody seems to have a problem when we go to war with a country on the other side of the world on false evidence and kill thousands of people in the process. And the people in the US are jaded to murder. It happens every day but no one seems to care. And all of these wars predicated on mistakes and stupidity and killings predicated on greed and jealousy still seem to be acceptable in the eyes of "good Christians". "Good Christians" accept these evils of the world and other evils (bigotry, homophobia, rape... the list goes on and on) as long as they don't directly affront their own values or lives. The same "good Christians" by the way that got the show pulled.

The AFA needs to grow up. They need to start focusing on the real problems in the world and not some television show. There's so much worse going on in the world than someone telling the truth about what an American family looks like. We are not perfect yet the AFA and similar groups only want to watch television that tells lies about life and who people are. They don't like to see the truth because, quite frankly, the truth tends to have a shade of ugliness to it that's not unlike the color of puce people turn when they're throwing up. But it's what we need.

We need people to stop sugar-coating real life and lying to us outright about what the real world looks like. There are no families in the world like the Camdens of "7th Heaven". None. But every family in the world can relate to some part of the Webster family. Jack Kenny did a noble and courageous thing by telling the truth about who we are and the feeble-minded and frightened religious right stifled that truth because it struck a nerve.

Nobody seems to complain about the broader content of entertainment except for the AFA and their compatriots. Sure groups like the NAACP and GLAAD have had their share of problems with the way characters of their respective minorities have been portrayed, but for the most part they don't see anything wrong with someone expressing a point of view. And they certainly don't get entire shows pulled off the air because it offends them.

My advice to the AFA and to anyone out there who had a problem with this show truthfully representing this family that happened to be at the center of their religious community is to shut up and move on. How are we supposed to have a free society when everything about our society is censored by this minority group? And why does this minority group get to control all the rest? Maybe God ordained it.

If you've got a problem with a show, don't watch it. It's why God made the remote.

reply

"If you've got a problem with a show, don't watch it. It's why God made the remote."

So then why are you upset Kpsos? You go on this long and well written rant and in the end your arguement collapses because you are recomending that if we Christians don't like the show then turn the channel, which is what we did. God made the remote so do not blame us. Sounds like you are just upset that a good percentage of us used the remote.

So take your tired "turn the channel" arguement and go to your like minded friends and tell them next time for them to "turn the channel" to make up the difference in the loss of Religous viewers.



reply

You missed the point. I applaud those of you that decided you didn't want to watch the show based on its merits rather than the controversy with the AFA. What I was saying was more directed at those types who decided they wouldn't watch the show and that it was in some way morally objectable without ever watching one minute of it.

Now, I'm sure that the people at the AFA watched the first episode. The fact is that they, rather than just deciding to move on to the next show in their big stack, decided to get up in arms about it because it was offensive to them. Well I guess that means that I should get up in arms about shows like "Dancing with the Stars" or "Law and Order" or "CSI" because those shows offend me. Instead I just don't watch those things.

Here's the point: the close-minded, pig-headed mentality of the far right is something that is wide-spread in this country. I don't believe it'll ever go away; it's part of what makes a conservative and quite frankly, it's needed. What needs to disappear though is the attack on things that don't conform to the "holier-than-thou" mind-set. These people use their intelligence and resources to spit in the face of America. They just decide that they're morally superior and everyone else needs to be corrected. That's wrong.

reply

Kypsos,

I understood your point. What I do not understand is the name calling. I am far right and a Christian Conservative but I did watch a episode. The sad fact was that maybe I felt that the outcome of the path the show was taking I felt legitimized the groups, for me, that had organized to oppose this show. Truthfully the AFA was not the group that warned me against this show. For myself it was pure word of mouth.

Now about the "holier than thou" statement. I will say that no side is clean on this one, Conservative or Liberal. I have heard fellow conservatives say somethings that even shook me. In the same instance I have heard Liberals say things that matched the close mindedness of Conservatives step for step. In your post(s) you yourself have taken the road that you way of thinking is superior. This is normal human comunications and transmitting of views. Check your statements:

"What needs to disappear though is the attack on things that don't conform to the "holier-than-thou" mind-set."

then you say of Conservatives...

"and everyone else needs to be corrected"

You can't have it both ways Kypsos. If you take the moral high ground don;'t get upset when another does the same in opposition.

In the end, we are who we are. The only true superior ones are those that take no sides and hold no opinons.

.... goodness I hate them ....kidding .... darn swing voters. :)

reply

Matched? I say they've surpassed them. People like kypsos are quick to hop on the antiRight bandwagon but fail to see that the other is much worse. Remember Hilary Clinton and San Andreas? Or are you conviently forgetting b/c it pains you to admit that your party is capable of such a thing?



Number 1, I order you to go take a number 2.

reply

Well, maybe much worst is ..... I don't know. Its just basically that neither side has a high ground. That is why they can't score slam dunks on things like the Gulf War and Wire Taps. Too many documents show that their hands were not absent but right along side of ours.

Thank God for FoxNews and CNN. Either political side you are on it doesn't matter. By the commerical break both will re-enforce the feelings and thoughts you tuned in with.

reply

I have said before when people start hurdling links and articles as proof of this and that, that it means nothing to me. The simple fact is that there are biased materials out there to support any view you seek to proclaim as truth. I know that this hasn't happened in this thread, but I thought it fit in with the point you are making in your last post lostboys. CNN and FOX News are just the main examples of this. Extremists do in fact exist for all sides of all issues, and no matter what they stand for, they can only be deemed as harmful, not only to others, but to the very cause they so hope to further.

* * * *


OK, so what's the speed of dark?

reply

<<"You go on this long and well written rant and in the end your argument collapses because you are recommending that if we Christians don't like the show then turn the channel, which is what we did.">>

Umm, noo...you did a hell of a lot more than that. Not you personally, perhaps, but groups like the American Family Association who would like to see their own personal vision of what Christianity is become the ONLY one represented on television or anywhere else.

I've been a Christian for more than forty-four years. "The Book of Daniel" was, in my opinion, the most exciting and interesting new show of the 2006 season. Some "Christians" really need to knock off this holier-than-thou Pharisaical attitude. We are all FAR from perfect, and this show was courageous enough to show that. If pressure groups hadn't scared off the sponsors and the show had been given a chance to find its audience, I think it would have lasted.

But thanks to the guerrilla tactics of the AFA we will never know. This was censorship of the worst kind and you cannot escape that fact no matter how you spin it.




Never mess with a middle-aged, Bipolar queen with AIDS and an attitude problem!
><

reply

How are we supposed to have a free society when everything about our society is censored by this minority group?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christianity: 2.1 billion

Islam: 1.3 billion

Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion

Hinduism: 900 million

Chinese traditional religion: 394 million

Buddhism: 376 million

primal-indigenous: 300 million

African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million

Sikhism: 23 million

Juche: 19 million

Spiritism: 15 million

Judaism: 14 million

Baha'i: 7 million

Jainism: 4.2 million

Shinto: 4 million

Cao Dai: 4 million

Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million

Tenrikyo: 2 million

Neo-Paganism: 1 million

Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand

Rastafarianism: 600 thousand

Scientology: 500 thousand

What minority would you be refering to?

reply

You do realize that there's a difference between Christians and Catholics right? I've known several of both groups, and they HATE being grouped with the others. Catholics don't like to be called Christians (a.k.a. Protestants) and Christians DESPISE being called Catholics and will lambaste you over it.

The easiest way to tell the difference? Catholics follow the Pope, while Christians could care less about him. There are other things, of course. Catholics have confession Christians do not. Catholics believe in original sin, Christians do not. Get the picture? So you may wanna split them into two groups and realize that Islam is the biggest religion in the world.

Any which way, NONE of them are a majority, as a majority would mean "more than half". As such, they're all technically minorities, although Islam has a plurality. So the OP's statement is 100% valid.

I hate fundamentalists, they're the scum of the earth.

reply

When it comes to stamping their feet in protest and getting all worked up over things that simply don't matter, you may as well lump Christians and Catholics into the same grouping! They may differ in many other ways, but they stand in unison and rally behind censorship when it comes to anything dealing with homosexuality, just as an example.

* * * *


OK, so what's the speed of dark?

reply

[deleted]

Aww come one E.M.

Tell us how you really feel about us Christians, I mean for the most part.

reply

Catholics believe in original sin, Christians do not.

As a Christian, that's news to me. Unless what you are calling "original sin" is different from what I call "original sin".

reply

[deleted]

Quite frankly (and possibly naively), I think the bigger threat to life in America is our own religious right. Groups like the AFA have too much say about the way that other people live their lives. They have the gumption to go around divining that the Founding Fathers would have wanted it their way when clearly their way was what the Founding Fathers were trying to prevent. Read the Constitution.

And exactly what did you read in The Constitution that would lead you to believe the people can't vote, petition, or say what they believe b/c of their religious beliefs? Seriously, what do you mean by this statement? I'm curious.

There's this little thing in America called the First Amendment, which protects the right of every person in this country to say what they want to say. Forcing NBC to pull this show (or any network to pull any show), whether or not it was good, based on religious and so-called moral objections to the show's content flies directly in the face of the spirit of the law. I'm not a constitutional lawyer so I couldn't say whether or not it's legal but I'm an American and I know that it's wrong and immoral. I also know that anyone who supported the AFA and groups like them in their campaign to eradicate "The Book of Daniel" from the face of television is fascist, wrong, afraid, and a bully.

Ok, now this is confusing. In the previous paragraph you alluded to The Constitution prohibiting groups like the AFA from saying stuff based on their religion. Then, the first thing in this paragraph is refer to "the First Amendment, which protects the right of every person in this country to say waht they want to say". I guess, unless they are saying something based on their religious beliefs??? Is that what you meant?

Now, I know this has been beaten like a dead horse, but, how exactly was NBC forced to pull the show? And, how would protesting a show b/c of "religious and so-called moral objections" fly directly in the spirit of the law? I'm not a lawyer either, but, I can say with great certainty that the 1st Amendment is talking about government not forcing people or organizations to do or not to do religious things. In other words, it wasn't the gov't that told, little less "forced", NBC to pull the plug on TBofD. So, it is hardly unconstitutional for groups like the AFA and others to protest the show based on their religious beliefs. As for the "fascist, wrong, afraed, and a bully", well, I hope your emotions got the best of you when you wrote that.

reply

your argument is flawed. while i agree with the passion behind your argument i can't agree that anything violating the constitution or the bill of rights or any of those documents went down in the whole BoD fiasco.

the afa, stupid as they may be for doing so, has every right to mobilize against that which they deem offensive/blasphemous/unfit for consumption by society. i think what we really need to do as a society as a whole is to adopt more of a live and let live mentality. as i understand it, the afa denounced this show before they had even seen the first episode, a clear example of passion outweighing rational thought and objective (as objective as is possible) examination. i don't have a problem with the afa having a problem with this show but the way they handled their disapproval was completely wrong. i don't want to get into an argument about the merits of the show but all it shows are flawed christians, which we all agree exist in real life, while showing nothing but respect for the christian faith itself. not once did i see a mockery made of religion, only a mockery of certain non-symbolic members of that religion. and *not because* of their religion. thus i'm at a complete loss as to why the show was found to be so vile.

but let's assume for a second that BoD was about a crazy stoner jesus who runs around raping children and flipping off old ladies. let's assume the show really was as offensive to christians as the afa made it out to be. well they have every right, even a duty, to inform their constituents of the content of the show. but even then it's not their place to try to make decisions for everyone else as to whether they should abhor the show or not. indeed if the show is actually as offensive as they tell people it is then they should have no problem even encouraging people to watch it. after all, these are not sheeple they're hearding around, right? if people watch the show, and it offends their sensibilities they'll tune out, right? that's where i think the afa went wrong; just telling people not to watch the show rather than encouraging them to make their own informed decision about it. and a massive tune-out of the show by the people whom it offends is not wrong.

then there's the whole matter of mobilizing against the advertisers. again, totally whithin their rights, but it's still an attempt to stifle speech. i don't have a problem with witholding support for a show that offends you (as long as support was witheld by individual consideration and not coerced by propaganda campaign like i stated above) but actively attempting to kill a show just because you don't like it is absolutely wrong. there are countless shows on television that offend me, entire channels even (tbn, ewtn,...), but i'm not threatening the advertisers on pax and abc family or attempting to get comcast to drop turner broadcasting. i just choose not to watch. and i made that decision of my own accord.

what it comes down to is that if the afa and others like them are really "right" in what they preach then they'll be able to trust those that they represent to make the "right" decision, in this case not watching BoD. running a massive campaign attacking a benign perceived threat reeks of desperation. what were they so afraid people would get out of that show?

i didn't intend this post to be so long but i just sort of kept going. i didn't proof read it either so if it's all over the place or contains huge logic holes, i'm sorry.

reply

jayc50,

Good post. I do have a few things I disagree with though.

indeed if the show is actually as offensive as they tell people it is then they should have no problem even encouraging people to watch it. after all, these are not sheeple they're hearding around, right? if people watch the show, and it offends their sensibilities they'll tune out, right?

I really don't agree with this. Now, I'm going to use an extreme as an illustration, but it is only to prove a point. Basically, you are saying that a group shouldn't protest the Spice Network from being carried by their cable distributor b/c they haven't seen it. For them to protest, they need to watch it first. Then, if they disagree with it, then they can protest. I realize this is a little different, but you get the idea. It isn't always good, or even necessary, to actually see, read, watch, taste, etc. something and then draw your own conclusions.

that's where i think the afa went wrong; just telling people not to watch the show rather than encouraging them to make their own informed decision about it.

That isn't exactly correct. The AFA, to your own admission earlier, didn't just tell people not to watch. They told people what the show was about. Then they encouraged them to not watch and to call stations and sponsors. Still, the people did not have to follow what the AFA said. In fact, I'm sure many didn't. I, for one, just didn't watch. I had no desire. I had heard about 'TBofD' from various outlets and, I wasn't exactly encouraged by what I heard. When I heard people who I tend to disagree saying how great the program is and people I agree with saying the opposite, well, I can kind of draw a logical conclusion, especially by the actual things both sides were saying.

then there's the whole matter of mobilizing against the advertisers. again, totally whithin their rights, but it's still an attempt to stifle speech. i don't have a problem with witholding support for a show that offends you (as long as support was witheld by individual consideration and not coerced by propaganda campaign like i stated above) but actively attempting to kill a show just because you don't like it is absolutely wrong.

Everything you say is true, but, totally, 100% legal and guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. And saying it is 'absolutely wrong' is your opinion, which is legitimate. I'm sure we could find an issue where you'd have the opposite view. And, you'd be within your rights as well, and others would be within their rights to say you were 'absolutely wrong'.

there are countless shows on television that offend me, entire channels even (tbn, ewtn,...), but i'm not threatening the advertisers on pax and abc family or attempting to get comcast to drop turner broadcasting. i just choose not to watch. and i made that decision of my own accord.

Very true. But, just b/c you made that decision doesn't mean others have to make that same decision. Your inaction doesn't mean others have to do the same.

what it comes down to is that if the afa and others like them are really "right" in what they preach then they'll be able to trust those that they represent to make the "right" decision, in this case not watching BoD. running a massive campaign attacking a benign perceived threat reeks of desperation. what were they so afraid people would get out of that show?

That is one of the things they were saying. However, they also want more shows on that have traditional values on tv instead of stuff they don't agree with. And, if they don't, well, then, they will flip the channel. And, if the sponsors support a program they disagree with and don't encourage stations to get more traditional values in their programming, well, then, we won't support your products. Seriously, I don't see a problem in this. The left does this all the time. Look at PETA with KFC. Look at the NAACP with the whole state of South Carolina. Look at Barbra Streisand and her support of GLAAD/GLBT and the state of Colorado. You can go on and on. Both sides do it and fully within their rights, whether you agree with them or not and whether you like them or not. Really, I wouldn't have it any other way.

reply

That is one of the things they were saying. However, they also want more shows on that have traditional values on tv instead of stuff they don't agree with. And, if they don't, well, then, they will flip the channel. And, if the sponsors support a program they disagree with and don't encourage stations to get more traditional values in their programming, well, then, we won't support your products. Seriously, I don't see a problem in this. The left does this all the time. Look at PETA with KFC. Look at the NAACP with the whole state of South Carolina. Look at Barbra Streisand and her support of GLAAD/GLBT and the state of Colorado. You can go on and on. Both sides do it and fully within their rights, whether you agree with them or not and whether you like them or not. Really, I wouldn't have it any other way.


Yeah, but if PETA ever says the whole "Killing Chickens = Holocaust Victims" to me I'll knock that person's block off. The same with if I find one of them standing outside a school where my Niece and Nephew, and my children if I ever have them, go to showing them pictures of slaughtered animals and claiming "mommy and daddy kills them".

Just FYI, my stance on fur, if I eat the meat, I'll use the skin/fur/feathers. I have no problem with goose down, rabbit fur or leather. I eat goose, chicken, duck, quail, and pheasant, I also eat meat, deer, buffolo, and Rabbit. I'm all about using everything to my use, but that's just me.

reply

Yeah, but if PETA ever says the whole "Killing Chickens = Holocaust Victims" to me I'll knock that person's block off.

Yeah, the unfortunate side of free speech sometimes. It allows people to make outlandishly insulting and egregious statements like that.


The same with if I find one of them standing outside a school where my Niece and Nephew, and my children if I ever have them, go to showing them pictures of slaughtered animals and claiming "mommy and daddy kills them".

Pathetic. And why the school didn't do something about it to prevent kids from being exposed to that, I'll never know.

reply

Yeah, but if PETA ever says the whole "Killing Chickens = Holocaust Victims" to me I'll knock that person's block off.

Yeah, the unfortunate side of free speech sometimes. It allows people to make outlandishly insulting and egregious statements like that.


Yeah... you wanna know about outlandish... should have seen the thread entitled ChickyLil on the George W. Bush board... people like her make me physically sick at times.

The same with if I find one of them standing outside a school where my Niece and Nephew, and my children if I ever have them, go to showing them pictures of slaughtered animals and claiming "mommy and daddy kills them".

Pathetic. And why the school didn't do something about it to prevent kids from being exposed to that, I'll never know.


I think the Peta people claim to be on a sidewalk which is public property, but I've heard of schools that have called the cops on them.

reply

Basically, you are saying that a group shouldn't protest the Spice Network from being carried by their cable distributor b/c they haven't seen it.

i know you said you were going to use an extreme example but i don't see how this is at all comparable. everyone knows exactly what porn is all about. no one needs to watch a porn and develop an opinion of the complex characters, storyline, and moral issues being raised before they make a judgement about it. it's usually produced without any artistic consideration at all, it's just there to get people off. BoD was a pretty complex show, especially in the later episodes, and it was created with a story to tell and artistic intent behind it. it was open to many different interpretations and everyone who watched it could take away a different understanding of it. how many pornos can say that? if you're going to actively attempt to get rid a show like this, you need to know what you're fighting.

That isn't exactly correct. The AFA, to your own admission earlier, didn't just tell people not to watch. They told people what the show was about. Then they encouraged them to not watch and to call stations and sponsors. Still, the people did not have to follow what the AFA said.

you're right. and i found this quote from mediaweek.com (the afa's site isn't working at the moment or i would have taken this from them directly) "The AFA said contrary to the show being a 'serious drama about Christian people and Christian faith,' the main character, Daniel Webster, "is a drug-addicted Episcopal priest whose wife depends heavily on her midday martinis."
AFA continues that 'the Webster family is rounded out by a 23-year-old homosexual Republican son, a 16-year-old daughter who is a drug dealer, and a 16-year-old adopted son who is having sex with the bishop's daughter. And at the office, his lesbian is sleeping with his sister-in-law.'"(i'd like to point out here that the daughter dealt pot a few times which doesn't really make her a kingpin or anything, and that the adopted son is sleeping with some other girl. it's the gay son that sleeps with the bishop's niece, not daughter. these could be oversights but it does make it sound like the afa didn't take a very hard look at the show doesn't it.) it seemed like a serious drama about the christian faith and christian people to me. but then that's a matter of opinion so i turn to creater jack kenny's blog from tvguide.com (which i unfortunately cannot find to save my life) who is very sincere about his intention to portray christianity with respect. he says he wrote the show with the intention that the very people who panned it would be the people to whom it would appeal the most. guess he failed. as far as telling people what the show is about, yeah they did that. in the most literal sense. i wish i could find a more detailed description of the show from the afa (if you can, let me know) because they don't allow for the posibility that any of the vices these characters are stuck in or any of the issues they have are dealt with in a way in which they approve. "daniel webster is a drug addicted episcopal priest." yes, yes he is. but the show doesn't condone his actions. should it be deemed offensive merely for portraying drug addiction in the same context as christianity even as drug addiction is condemned?

Everything you say is true, but, totally, 100% legal and guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. And saying it is 'absolutely wrong' is your opinion, which is legitimate. I'm sure we could find an issue where you'd have the opposite view. And, you'd be within your rights as well, and others would be within their rights to say you were 'absolutely wrong'.

but i bet you couldn't find any instance where i wouldn't try to understand the other side's point of view and weigh it against my own before deciding that they're wrong. i may think you're absolutely wrong and even as that's only one man's opinion, at least i didn't make a snap judgement and really tried to look at the situation objectively first. the afa seemed like they jumped on this show wayyy too fast and from what i've read from them about the show, they don't seem willing to admit it could have any merit at all.

Very true. But, just b/c you made that decision doesn't mean others have to make that same decision. Your inaction doesn't mean others have to do the same.

no it doesn't. and i shouldn't expect everyone to behave the way i do. i just have a real problem attacking that which offends me but doesn't affect me and in my own head, i have a problem understanding how others could feel so threatened that they need to mobilize like this. i can't make a logical argument out of this, it's how i feel.

And, if the sponsors support a program they disagree with and don't encourage stations to get more traditional values in their programming, well, then, we won't support your products. Seriously, I don't see a problem in this.

i don't see a problem in it either now that i look back on it so i'm clarifying my stance. i think the reason i'm so opposed to what they did in this case is that this is a tv show. it's entertainment and though you may find it offensive it's still just a tv show. there are so many problems that are so much bigger than a tv show that portrays a priest loving his gay son. if they want to retract support for companies that work to further a pro-choice agenda then fine, i think that's a real moral dilemma and a real issue that, if you feel strongly about it, you should act. i'll do my part by suppoerting companies that provide domestic partner benefits for gay couples. but i'm not going to waste my time writing to the advertisers on the 700 club and neither should they. and before you even say anything, i realize that the idea of a "real problem" is also totally subjective. i'm simply of the opinion that a television show of this nature doesn't qualify.

thanks for posting back. i love intelligent (and respectful) discussion.

reply

thanks for posting back. i love intelligent (and respectful) discussion.

My thoughts exactly. I really enjoy talking, discussing, debating, etc. with people whom I disagree. Maybe I can learn something and maybe I can inform them. Though we may disagree, do it with respect, and no hard feelings. It is people like you I enjoy chatting.

reply

[deleted]

Wow, ya got me all figured out. I didn't really think I needed to respond since I had already stated my opinions on the matters. I guess I could have said them all over again with different words so it would make you happy. As far as answering his questions, he only asked two.

#1 how many pornos can say that?

#2 should it be deemed offensive merely for portraying drug addiction in the same context as christianity even as drug addiction is condemned?

I figured they were rhetorical, but, apparently you didn't. So, I'll respond.

#1 1 outta 10,000. Maybe I should throw another 0 on the end.
#2 No. Not 'merely' for portraying drug addiction in the context of Christianity. But, the whole hodge-podge of overkill in one family. Yes, all families have problems. Yes, every member of every family is a sinner. But, the family portrayed in TBofD is not representative of the problems in a typical Christian family. But, do these exist? Probably. (NOTE: I should have just said, "No".)

As for the AFA, I've never been a member, I've never received a letter from them (at least to my knowledge), and I had never even been to their web site until I started posting on TBofD board. But, hey, technicalities, the generalization you made is much easier to make.

Please, feel free to contribute more to this thread. You have done a marvelous job so far. But, if you make childish, ad hominem statements like last time, don't expect a response. It would be fruitless on my part (which it probably was with this response).

reply

[deleted]

"The AFA used their rights to limit someone else's. How is that right? "

Your side still holds to this vision that the AFA walked down to the set and said turn off the cameras and lock the doors. They didn't do that. The AFA was just one of many groups that helped to get the word and message out to like minded people to boycott. The rights of no one was trampled on this one. In fact it should be a celebration of the right for people to organize. Be they the klan, the black panthers, earth liberation front, NOW, blah blah blah .... The right to organize for change is a right.

I can understand your and others feelings but the AFA and other groups just organized.

reply

In fact it should be a celebration of the right for people to organize. Be they the klan, the black panthers, earth liberation front, NOW, blah blah blah .... The right to organize for change is a right.


I really wouldn't be putting the Klan in the same venue with the AFA if you don't want people to think the AFA are terrorists if I were you. (As for the Black Panthers or the E.L.F. I don't have enough information on them to guess at how they operate. I do know about the Klan though.)

reply

I never said you were a member of the AFA. I said you supported them.

Agreed. But notice, I never said you said I was a member of the AFA. I made it a point to be very careful. What I did say was... But, hey, technicalities, the generalization you made is much easier to make. In other words, you made a statement about the AFA and me saying I supported them "even if they start murdering people". Again, technicalities I suppose.

Now who's generalising? Wouldn't it be a bit boring if the christian family fit your description? But really it's FICTION. It wasn't a documentary.

Being a Christian, being around Christian families my whole life, I don't think it is a generalization to make the claim I made. I'm stating what I witness on a daily basis. But, if you think the family in TBofD is more representative of Christian families, so be it. The fact that you call it fiction on one hand and then say I am generalizing says more about what you believe or want to believe Christians to be.

As for "boring"... You mean it is boring for a family not to have a drug user, an alcoholic, an adulterer, a homosexual, etc.? Well, I would think most families would like to be "boring". I guess that is a generalization though.

The AFA used their rights to limit someone else's. How is that right?

This has been bandied round and round in other threads, but, might as well state it again, as lostboys mentioned in his/her response...

How exactly was someone else's "rights" limited? NBC and the sponsors didn't have to do what the AFA, et al, were calling for. It was their choice to cancel the show. And, TBofD has already shown episodes on the Internet. They can go to cable, pay-per-view, DVD, etc. And, The Constitution doesn't give you a right to an audience. I think either you don't understand freedom of speech or you only want it applied one way, your way. You (NBC) have freedom of speech, but, there are consequences to your speech.

reply

[deleted]

LOL It's you all who want freedom of speech to fit your description. I wasn't the one mad at a fictional TV Show.

You actually make me laugh. Apparently, you don't know what the 1st Amendment says.

Please explain the details to me about how banning a person's creation is justifiable. And what are these consequences? What YOU don't like.

Like I said, no one banned it. NBC chose to cancel it. Others can pick it up. There are many other outlets. And even so, you don't have a right to an audience.

I don't see how it's NBC's fault. They never would've taken it off the Air if you all hadn't of boycotted and sent emails or even death threats.

First, lumping me and other Christians along with those making death threats is just flat out wrong. You know better. Second, do people not have a right to free speech in the form of a boycott, making phone calls telling of their disgust, sending emails telling them of their disappointment, etc.? Because it seems like you do not believe they do.

You didn't allow people to air their TV show on cable. A freedom.

Exactly where did I or anyone else not allow someone to air their TV show. As I recall, they did show several episodes on NBC. And, they can always take it to a cable station. And, once again, freedom to an audience is not a right guaranteed in The Constitution. You really need to understand this since you continue to mention it.

Here it is for your convenience:

Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It's pointless to debate with you. You're coming off as a fanatic to me. I don't know why I'm doing this..

Figures you wouldn't want to discuss this. Your arguments continue to be ad hominem attacks, the number one thing that loses in arguments. (Refer back to the 'death threat' comment.) Not exactly sure how I come off as a fanatic since I think someone can create what they want (Another ad hominem attack). I think if they can get an outlet to show it fine. I think you'll agree to that. But, I also think others have the right to say they don't like that product, refuse to buy/watch that product, and tell others and encourage others to not watch or buy the product. Apparently, you don't think so. So, who is really the fanatic?

One last question. I thought churches taught tolerance?

Exactly where did I say something that was intolerant? Are you saying that if I don't agree with something then I am intolerant? If that is the case, then b/c you don't agree with the AFA and Christians that find TBofD offensive, then I guess you are intolerant. Hm. Funny how that works. Churches are tolerant of people, but, not of behavior that find inappropriate. If you do something wrong, don't expect them to say that is ok and you should keep doing it. Rather, they will say what is right and what is wrong and help you out. But, if you think watching porn is ok and refuse to stop, well, guess what? A church is going to ask you to find a church that would be more suitable to you. If that is intolerant, so be it.

reply

But, if you think watching porn is ok and refuse to stop, well, guess what? A church is going to ask you to find a church that would be more suitable to you. If that is intolerant, so be it.
I hope you're not using porn as being somewhat analogous to The Book of Daniel, because that would be ridiculous. Honestly, I'll never understand what christians found so offensive about this show. It had one of the most uplifting messages around, and it was definitely more uplifting than the Law and Order: Special Victims Unit episodes that replaced it. It was a fictional show that exemplified goodness as well as potential human flaws. Its overall message consisted of tolerance, compassion, and forgiveness. Especially the forgiveness part, and I thought its message was extremely positive.

I agree with you when you say that you exercised your freedom of speech, and that's definitely your right, but to what avail? To protest a show that had a postive message overall? By fighting it, it just reflected back poorly on the christians that supported the AFA, because you elicited a mob mentality against something that did not warrant such a response. It's almost like saying that christians are going to go after any fictional portrayal of christians that isn't up to par for whatever random reason. Which is your right, sure, but it shows deep insecurity within the realms of your religion.

---
http://christian_ethic.livejournal.com/

reply

delusional,

Thanks for the post. No, I was definitely not making an analogy between porn and TBofD. (I knew I should have put that in there.) I was using porn as an example of a sinful behavior that a church would tell you was wrong and that you should stop. If you think it is ok to engage in that behavior, then that specific church would most likely ask you to find a church more suitable to your beliefs. You could easily substitute drugs, adultery, or whatever. I hope that clarifies it.

It's almost like saying that christians are going to go after any fictional portrayal of christians that isn't up to par for whatever random reason.

True, it is "almost like saying...any fictional portrayal", but, they don't do that. And, just to clarify, I have never participated in a boycott. I don't really think boycotts do any good. Granted, there are exceptions.

Which is your right, sure, but it shows deep insecurity within the realms of your religion.

No, absolutely not insecurity on our beliefs. And, I am actually interested in why you'd say that? I've heard that before and haven't ever really asked. How does it show a "deep insecurity"? What we (evangelical Christians) want are more quality programs with more traditional values. Nothing wrong with that.

reply

[deleted]

You don't know how foolish your acting.

Doh. There ya go again.

That admendment does not justify what you did.

Never claimed it did.

No where did it say it was right to use your rights to limit someone else's. Use it for the right cause. Not to limit someone's free speech.

Well, you finally got part of something right. You are correct that it doesn't say "it was right to use your rights to limit someone else's", but, it doesn't say I can't either. But, it says Congress can't. And trust me, I ain't Congress, or the government.

Please tell me how someone doesn't have right to an audience.

So, I guess I can make a make a movie and tell NBC to show it. If they don't, hey, I have a right to an audience NBC! You have to play it.

Show me in The Constitution where you have a right to an audience. Show me where the Supreme Court has said you have an audience. You can't.

Bottom line is this...

If it was against the law to protest, boycott, not watch, or whatever TBofD, then there would be lawsuits all over the place. And guess what, there aren't. I think that speaks for itself your so-called 'right to an audience'.

As for the tolerance. You knew what I meant. Tolerance is taught in Churches. Part of your religion. Do you even follow your own religion?

Wow, didn't know you knew my specific religion. Even after I told you what my church would do, and will do so again later on, you still need to tell me what my religion believes. And, I'm guessing you are not an evangelical Christian, so, we've got a non-evangelical telling an evangelical what they believe. Interesting twist.

So, just so we are absolutely clear, what IS it that you mean by tolerance? Be specific. If you think the church will welcome all people? Yes. Will it accept all types of behavior? Absolutely not. So, if people continue in a behavior they do not believe in, they will tell them to find another church that would fit their beliefs. Why would a church want to keep someone around that is committing a sin and doesn't believe it is a sin and is having an influence on others in the church? Really, define to me what YOU mean by tolerance. I want to know.

BOD wasn't forced upon you. You could've EASILY avoided it. With your example your acting like BOD was forced to be shone in your own church.

I never said it was forced upon me. I did avoid it. I didn't watch it, which I'm gathering is what you wanted me to do if I didn't want to watch it instead of complaining about it to NBC.

You're generalising again. Not all churches mind one of thier patrons who likes porn.

I never said all churches. It was implied that the church I was talking about was the one I belong or similar ones with the same belief systems. And, it was also implied when I said the person would be asked to find another church that would be more suited to them. But, I guess you are implying that there are churches out there that think porn is ok, at least from the "not all churches mind one of thier patrons who likes porn" statement.

"If that is intolerant, so be it."

Again your're not even following your own religion.


Again, a non-evangelical telling an evangelical what their belief system is. Awesome.

And finally. Most of the people didn't even watch BOD. I mean how moronic is that? And you're trying to justify this? And you call me a fanatic?

I didn't watch TBofD. Didn't see any reason to. I heard enough about it before hand. I also have read enough about it on this board. I hope you aren't saying everyone must watch it. And, just to clarify, I never did call you a fanatic. It was you who called me the fanatic. I said, "So, who is really the fanatic"? I'm letting you make that call.

reply

"Please tell me how someone doesn't have right to an audience."

That has got to be the mother of all comments.

reply

[deleted]

Guys the only ones your fooling are yourselves.

Uh-huh.

The first Amendment again does not allow you to use your rights to impose on others.

Last time I checked the government makes and change laws. Not us. Just because they didn't inlude us doesn't mean you can become some vigilante. People will always find ways and loop holes around doctrines and such. You would make a good lawyer.


Seriously, what in the world are you talking about? Vigilante? Interesting use of that word. Anyway, if what you are saying is true, then there would be lawsuits all over the place. And, not just lawsuits, but judgements that would support your claim. However, neither is the case, no pun intended. Please, re-read the 1st Amendment. It is talking about Congress not preventing freedom of speech. I am not Congress, hence, I have the right to speak for or against something, using any means possible, as long as it is peaceful and legal.

No they didn't have a right to a audience. I got a tad bit confused.. But they had the freedom of Airing their show on the Network because they got permission. But now you took that away from them.

Again, huh? Man, if I took it away from them, I must have a ton of power I didn't realize I had. I didn't take anything away from anyone. Good grief. NBC felt it was in their economic interests to drop the show. Whether it was due to ratings or the loss of sponsors b/c of the controversy surrounding the show, it really doesn't matter. Either way, they could have stood their ground and kept the show on the air. It was their choice.

I thought tolerance was a lesson in the Bible? I'm pretty sure Churches preach the Bible........... My defnition for tolerance is respecting the views of others. Which of course you didn't do.

Why ignore this?


Tolerance of behavior, in the Bible? Uh, no. I respect your views, well, maybe not the ad hominem attacks and such. But, I respect where you are coming from. But, I don't have to agree with your views if I think they are wrong or contradict mine. Respecting other people's views and agreeing with them are two totally different things.

What the hell do you mean there was no reason for you to see it? Now that's the mother of all statements.. When you go to the idiotic length of banning a fictional piece of work wouldn't you want to rely something more than just outside sources?

I've never been to Cuba, North Korea, and the like either, but, I'm pretty sure they are oppressive regimes. Guess I shouldn't take outside sources' words on that though, even if we have an embargo on that country. As for banning, to my knowledge, TBofD has not been banned. Like I said...DVD, cable, the Internet, Pay-per-view, etc. Oh, and just to be clear again, the "idiotic length" I went to was not watching it, nothing more.

If you didn't see it yourself how could you have a valid opinion? You're forming your [opinion from descriptions or from other opinions.

First, the previews didn't interest me. Second, I had no reason to see it b/c I had heard what it was about from people whose views I agree and from people whose views I disagree. Both were saying the show was about the same thing, but one had a positive view and the other a negative view. Basically, b/c of their belief system and worldview. For example, take a movie like 'The Patriot'. People who share my views for the most part say it is a very patriotic movie. Great action. People who I tend to have differnet views on life tend to say it is a bunch of flag-waving, America first crap. Well, both are saying the same thing, just in different ways.

So, back to TBofD, I had no reason, nor desire to see it. As for my opinion on this matter, it hasn't been specifically about the show. It has been about people's rights to protest, boycott, speak for, speak against, etc. But, TBofD board has been a great forum to discuss this stuff.

reply

Gandalf,

With respect, you must be out of your mind. You can keep running from it and continue to wrap your sorrows up in your arguement but, the ones you should be mad at for the actual act of pulling this show is the network. Now, you can be mad at the ones that opposed the show, organized and spoke up but it is the networks execs that make the choice to pull the plug or not. It is something that you have to get past your emotions of dislike for the opposition and get to the true fact that they did not have control over the show. In the history of boycotters, the only power they had was with the sponcers of the show and that power was only to say that they would not purchase their products. Even then they didn't even have to say that.

reply

[deleted]

Like I said it's useless to debate with you. I'm finished. The fact that a writer in the land of the free will now feel opressed says a lot. There's not much difference between Cuba, Burma, China, etc and America nowadays.

Again, I ask, who is the fanatic?

I don't know how using your rights to limit someone else's is right. That's what it boils down too whether you like it or not. As soon as NBC let the Show Air on their network that was their privelage. Now you took that away.

Please stop saying it was NBC's fault. You know it wasn't. Their decision to remove it was somewhat provoked... If no complaints or death threats were sent it would still be on the Air.


Again, you obviously do not understand the First Amendment.

But why did a tv show you never even bothered to watch yourself anger you so much? You didn't have to watch it. You had to ruin it for people who did like it. When someone sends a complaint about anything it's either to make it to your liking or to remove it.

I'll say it again, to deaf ears apparently, the only thing I did was not watch the program, just like you just suggested. As for you last statement, that is free speech.

To use your boycotting rights for this is stupid... It's a fictional TV show. There are actually real problems in America. What about the teachers getting paid paltry amounts of money in minority schools? Or Wal-Mart?

That's just a tip of the iceberg on what's wrong in America. While you all are using your rights for a fictional TV show...


Red herring. Look it up. Maybe you can't walk and chew gum at the same time, but, others can.

reply

[deleted]

"I don't understand the first amendment? No where does it say you can use your free speech to impose on anothers rights. Please tell me how you got this idea.
"

You, yourself said you went a bit too far.

"Please stop saying it was NBC's fault. You know it wasn't. Their decision to remove it was somewhat provoked... If no complaints or death threats were sent it would still be on the Air."

Gandalf, as soon as you say that it was "their decision" you have loss your arguement. No matter what provokes them to do that action it is still their choice to execute that action. If you disagree with them get mad at them for crumbling. Also, chances are it was not the complaints directly to NBC that caused them to pull it. More than likely it was the threat that people would not watch it and then when the people did not watch it, the show was done. If I am Ford, GM, Kraft or whatever and I get these communications from people saying we will not watch the show, then I check the ratings and find that they are following through with their threat of not watching. Why would I pay high dollar to run my ads on a show that does not have the viewers? Why, just to make the few folks like yourself feel better?

The fact is that you have to go home knowing that the show was canceled because folks like you could not gather and organize a counter support to offer something to those big companies to make them feel that their advertising dollar would find a audience. The show was canceled because your side failed to act.

Next time fight harder.

reply

gandalf,

please look at what you're typing and try to see the errors in your arguments. i really want to agree with what you say cause the afa are a bunch of utter morons but all these claims that they somehow took away another person's rights are ridiculous. what this comes down to is that the afa acted in a way that utter morons act: moronically. but they were certainly whithin their rights to do what they did (one of the downsides of the constitution is it doesn't outlaw stupidity). no one oppressed anyone. a bunch of insecure people massively overreacted to what amounts to entertainment. and in their zeal to beat back anything that doesn't conform to their ideals they tried to eliminate a tv program that actually preached what they claim to preach. shot themselves in the foot in my opinion.

recap:
afa = stupid
free speech rights = intact
BoD fiasco = event that went even furthur to expose the afa for the idiots they are
free speech rights = STILL NOT VIOLATED

so lets drop it

reply

jayc50,

Thank you. I'm not gonna comment on the AFA and the moronic/idiot statements, but, the free speech aspect you state is exactly correct. This applies to the AFA, NRA, ACLU, PETA, NOW, and even groups that all of us would despise.

Gandolf, I really don't know where you are getting your interpretation of the 1st Amendment. I'm starting to think you are just yankin' my chain.

reply

How does that imply I'm a fanatic? Please tell me.

We are talking about freedom of speech. You are saying there isn't much difference between the likes of Cuba and China and the USA. Figure it out.

I don't understand the first amendment? No where does it say you can use your free speech to impose on anothers rights. Please tell me how you got this idea.

Show me where you have the right to not be offended? You are saying I don't have a right to free speech if it offends you, i.e. the show you want to watch is no longer on tv. How exactly are your rights being violated? And, by Congress? Please, understand the First Amendment. You have exactly zero precedent to back your views.

No you never told me how a tv show can you anger you so much, so how? If it was so bad woudn't you want to see for yourself? Wouldn't you want first hand knoledge before sending in a complaint? But I still don't see why you sent one.. You didn't even watch it and you weren't forced too watch it..

Well, I never said the show angered me. Interesting that you threw that in there though. And, for the umpteenth time, the only action I took in regards to TBofD was not to watch it. Comprende?

Red herring, a news website? What does that have to do with anything? So I'll just repeat what I said.

To use your boycotting rights for this is stupid... It's a fictional TV show. There are actually real problems in America. What about the teachers getting paid paltry amounts of money in minority schools? Or Wal-Mart?

That's just a tip of the iceberg on what's wrong in America. While you all are using your rights for a fictional TV show...


Ok, I said "look it up". In other words, look up the definition of 'red herring'. Apparently you didn't. A red herring is simply to change the subject from what is currently being discussed to something else (usually because you are losing an argument). The topic at hand was freedom of speech. The red herring is changing it to teachers' pay in minority schools and to Wal-Mart.

reply

[deleted]

I still don't know how that makes me a fanatic. I asked you to tell me how but you declined. I don't think you know why you called me that either.

Actually, I never called you a fanatic.

I wasn't being too serious with that statement anyways. But America is getting there with the patriot act and this Bod mess.

Do you even know about the Patriot Act (btw, another red herring). And TBofD "mess" is actually in direct contradiction to what Cuba and China would allow.

Ok you didn't like the show. I thought you filed a complaint against BOD? Isn't that a action?

Yes, that is an action. Problem is, I never filed a complaint. And, I never said I did.

You should've told me the meaning. But what I said I don't consider it a distraction.

That's why I said to look it up the first time, just in case you didn't know. The second time, I did tell you what it meant. Thought I'd just help you out. Regardless of what you think, it was still off topic, hence, a red herring.

If the AFA has so much power enough to influence NBC to pull a TV Show. Why not use it for something useful? I wasn't exactly pointing at you.

They are using it for something useful. Just not what you consider useful. And, their mission isn't to feed the poor, heal the sick, etc. With that said, I am willing to bet that a ton of AFA members belong to other organizations and most definitely churches that do those things.

But your're in with the morons.

And there ends the last vestiges of your credibility.

reply

[deleted]

Of course I know what the patriot act is. Anyone that fits Bush's definition of a terrorist then get's terrorized.

In other words, you actually don't know.

I only have one question since I can't seem to ask the correct ones.. You keep weasling out of them.

Actually, I've answered all your questions. Even when you accused me of something I didn't say or do. As for weasling, go read your previous posts and my previous posts. I think that should clear it up as to who is weasling.

What exactly are you doing? Are you supporting or trying to justify the actions of thousands of people who didn't even watch the show and then complained about it?

I support some of their actions. They didn't actually boycott anything, but, if they did, I'm not too keen on boycotts, so I probably wouldn't have supported that. As far as justifying their actions...only from the standpoint that their actions were purely legal (sans the kooks who made death threats).

Doesn't matter I have one more question. Did the definition of fanatic remind you of someone?

Yeah, someone who attempts to defend their beliefs with misinformation, misunderstanding, name-calling, and red herrings. Hm. Who could that be?

reply

[deleted]

Weasling out....you are having so much difficulties with your arguement. You have been backed into a corner so bad that your making the arguements to attempt to find fault with the AFA, not because of this issue now but because they aren't using their influence on other issues. It is a shame because you don't hear people argueing that PETA isn't using its power to influnce North Korea and Iran to drop their nuclear weapons operations. Or why the NAACP isn't addressing the bombings in Mascow. Or the NOW groups to address the global warming trends around the world.

You have to stick with the issue before you, not cry because they are not addressing other issues. I have seen this arguement a lot here on IMDB, people bringing in other issues that only slightly tie into the movie that is supposed to be discussed. For example, folks that hated Narnia because it had a Christian based story but then they wanted to drag in arguements about gays and lesbiens, the Crusades and a ton of other issues that werent even mentioned in that movie.

I admire ytour spirit to fight on but your legs are shakey and you need to quit and fight another arguement another day.

reply

You have to stick with the issue before you, not cry because they are not addressing other issues. I have seen this arguement a lot here on IMDB, people bringing in other issues that only slightly tie into the movie that is supposed to be discussed. For example, folks that hated Narnia because it had a Christian based story but then they wanted to drag in arguements about gays and lesbiens, the Crusades and a ton of other issues that werent even mentioned in that movie.


Part of the Narnia argument that I can tell is this: The Chronicles of Narnia are children's stories that near the end of the books kinda sleghammer the "Christian Message" home. That's my personal opinion that a lot of non-Christians on the Narnia boards share. My personal reaction to the sleghammer of the "Christian Message" is to read only the books that don't annoy me with it. Other people's reaction to that is to raise hell.

The people that raise hell are then confronted with some of the more agressive of the Christian Faith who claim that the "Christian Message" is the only good and moral thing the world has and if it wasn't for that we'd still be sacrificing children on full moons or something (BS in my opinion). The more agressive of the Christian Faith also claim that Christians have never hurt anyone, which then has the non-Christians bring up the Crusades and how intolerant a lot of Christians can be (we have some people like that on this board and I'll admit that I can be pretty b*tchy towards Christians when I want to be). And the more agressive ones cry foul when the Crusades are brought up.

But here's some cold hard facts:

The Crusades DID happen, Religion was part of the reason for it.
Christians can be as intolerant as many other religions and Faiths.

There IS a backlash against Christianity from non-Christians specially now because of the whole Political Correctness thing.

There IS a backlash against anything non-Christian from Christians in answer to the first backlash.

They might not be nice, but it's true. We're all fighting for our own little piece of America where we can have our Faith be recognized and respected and when someone tells us that our Faith is wrong and that America is a Christian only country it pisses people off. I'm sure that Christians feel the same way when non-Christians get better than thou on them.

Book of Daniel's not the first show that's been attacked. I mean, "Buffy: The Vampire" has been attacked by Christian orginizations like the AFA and by Wiccans for "showing Witchcraft in the wrong light". The Harry Potter Books and Movies have been attacked for "teaching kids Witchcraft" by the Christian Right, and for "Not riding the brooms correctly" by the Wiccan Right. "Xena" was attacked for all the Subtext on the show, "The Craft" for showing Witchcraft or showing it wrong, same with Practical Magic.

Even "Lord of the Rings" gets attacked by all sides, and here's the kicker about LotR IMO. The game Dungeons and Dragons, which a LOT of people have blamed along with the White Wolf games for being the reason for Columbine (BS IMO again) is a role playing game based off of "Lord of the Rings". Lemme show you.

D&D Classes:
Ranger = Aragorn
Fighter = Borormir
Mage = Gandalf

D&D Races:
Halfling = Hobbits
Orcs = Orcs
Elves = Elrond, Gladriel and the rest of the Elves.
Humans = Humans

The creators of D&D read LotR and made a game based off it, yet a lot of people blame this game to be the root of all evil while saying LotR is one of the best written works of fiction they ever read. Kinda weird huh?

Book of Daniel got pulled off the air for two reasons: Low Ratings, and pressure from the AFA. IMO, the Pressure from the AFA kept the advertisement down to nill and turned a lot of people who could have brought up the ratings away. But they weren't the main reason and they shouldn't be idiotic enough to claim they were the soul reason for it. If anything, they were the reason BoD was put on the map.

As for the low ratings, Fridays is TV show Suicide, and from what I've heard, not the best made show (I never saw so I can't make a judgement on it.)

But seriously, the AFA should NOT take the credit for the BoD to be pulled off the air, and the AFA should NOT take all the blame for it.

I will warn you though... you tell me that you Prayed to God and he pulled the show off the air for you... and I'll be a very sarcastic young woman towards you. But then again, that's just me.

reply

_________________________________________________
The Crusades DID happen, Religion was part of the reason for it. Christians can be as intolerant as many other religions and Faiths.
_________________________________________________

I will not argue that point but Narnia did not deal with the Crusades or simular. I can see this debate on the messageboard of Kingdom of Heaven because the story was about the Crusades. Same with that Spear movie, if you want to get there. Narnia was not about the Crusades, the same as Book of Daniel did not deal with the Crusades. Personally I feel it is people that already have a axe to grind with Christianity and they are sorta "one trick ponies". They only have one attack, the crusades. I think if children from the Sunday school decided to have a bake sale or a car wash to raise money for charity all those type of people would see is little kids in Knight Templers clothing washing cars with the blood of muslims. My apologies for being so graphic. The Narnia messageboard went into a flame war that I had never seen the likes of on the net. Then the entire debate was hijacked by a few folks that were homosexuals that did not seem to care about the movie as much as they cared about just fighting with Christians. Even when gay Christians tried to talk to them it did not matter. Only thing that mattered was that there was a Christian movie and despite their objections, it did great in the box office.

__________________________________________________
Harry Potter Books and Movies have been attacked for "teaching kids Witchcraft" by the Christian Right,
__________________________________________________

Yes there are a few Christian right groups that vocally argued against Potter, but I remember that before Pope John Paul passed away he stated that he had no issues with Potter.

SkeksisGirl I do like your style though.....you ran straight down the middle with your post attempting to give voice to all sides.

reply

I will not argue that point but Narnia did not deal with the Crusades or simular. I can see this debate on the messageboard of Kingdom of Heaven because the story was about the Crusades. Same with that Spear movie, if you want to get there. Narnia was not about the Crusades, the same as Book of Daniel did not deal with the Crusades. Personally I feel it is people that already have a axe to grind with Christianity and they are sorta "one trick ponies". They only have one attack, the crusades.


The Crusades are a big part of History, just as the Holocaust, Civil War, and World War is. It's usually the first thing people come up with to answer "when have Christians ever killed anyone for not believing as they do?"

On the flip side, I had a co-worker who had a second job, her boss was Jewish and he refused to buy a German car and was rude to my co-worker because she had German blood in her. His excuse for his treatment of her is the Holocaust. I'm not a huge fan of the Holocaust, I can't physically watch any movies about it without puking, but I know that not all Germans are Nazi's. Hell one of my best friends is technically the perfect Ayrian (sp?), blond hair, blue eyes, tall and she thought that Hitler's ideas were wrong.

I think if children from the Sunday school decided to have a bake sale or a car wash to raise money for charity all those type of people would see is little kids in Knight Templers clothing washing cars with the blood of muslims. My apologies for being so graphic.


That would make an interesting story, I must say though. But hell all I'd see is a bunch of kids washing cars pretty cheaply. But then on the flip side, you would see the militant Christians, who feel that all other religions in the US need to leave, could see a non-Christian car wash for charity as a bunch of heathans running around naked with blue paint and the blood of sacrificed babies. Where as someone like you might see it as a bunch of kids washing cars pretty cheaply.

The day before yesterday, I was working and a guy came in to sell shirts for a Christian charity. I didn't buy one for several reasons. One of them being that I personally don't feel comfortable wearing a shirt that says "love Jesus" on it or promotes a Christian orginization when I am not that religion, the second that when at work we do not take solicitations from other groups, and the last one, and technically the more important matter, I had no money to give. But again, that's just me. I politely told the man no, he gave me a brochure to look over for when I did have the money and if I did want to donate and left. I wasn't rude, that just gets me nowhere.

The Narnia messageboard went into a flame war that I had never seen the likes of on the net.


I think "The Passion of the Christ Board" was worse than the Narnia boards unless it was after I stopped going on the Narnia ones. I know there was like one girl that was being intolerant to the extreme that she attacked EVERYONE no matter their faith.

Then the entire debate was hijacked by a few folks that were homosexuals that did not seem to care about the movie as much as they cared about just fighting with Christians. Even when gay Christians tried to talk to them it did not matter. Only thing that mattered was that there was a Christian movie and despite their objections, it did great in the box office.


The fact of the matter that C.S. Lewis is a devout Christian and wrote the books to show children Christianity should be a moot point. I've seen Narnia, twice, in the theater, and I'm Pagan. I LOVED the movie, I thought it was fantastic and the Christian imagery in it was very low key. I don't care who thinks that Aslan's sacrifice and ressurection on the stone table is supposed to be an alagory for Christ. I've read so many stories where people come back from the dead that to me, it's a staple of fantasy. Hell, I'm a Highlander fan, I'm a Xena and Hercules: The Legendary Journeys fan. The amount of times that Xena, Hercules, Iolaus, Methos, Duncan, and Connor MacLeod have come back to life numbers in the hundreds. Does it mean they are all Christ figures because of it? No. Even in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, they have a Phoenix show up. If anything is the perfectness of death and rebirth or death and ressurection, it's a phoenix.

Narnia is a good fantasy story, those that cry foul because it's a Christian based book need a hobby. Just like those that cry foul for Harry Potter teaching Witchcraft need a hobby. Both books have the same message "Good moral people usually win out in the end", they just go about it differently, in Narnia, usually the tide turns when Aslan shows up and saves everyone's butts (IMO), and in HP, the kids get themsevles into trouble and get themselves out of trouble by their wits, luck, what they learned, and lives they have touched. The difference in my opinion, Narnia keeps having the kids need rescuing by Aslan, and in Harry Potter, the kids rescue themselves. But again, it's my opinion, it doesn't mean I am 100% right about it.

Yes there are a few Christian right groups that vocally argued against Potter, but I remember that before Pope John Paul passed away he stated that he had no issues with Potter.


Why should he? Most the kids in the books were Christians, they celebrated Christmas and the so called "witchcraft" in the books is a load of rubbish.

SkeksisGirl I do like your style though.....you ran straight down the middle with your post attempting to give voice to all sides.


I have this thing about fairness, it can be a lot of trouble for me since I want the world to be 100% fair to everyone... and it's not. ::Shrugs.:: Forgive my long windedness, I just have a lot to say.

reply

I hadn't seen it on the DVR in a while, so came here to see if it had been cancelled. It's a pity, too, because if people could see past the end of their noses, they would have realized that it wasn't mocking Christianity at all... if anything, it showed that most church-going folk are real people just like the folks next door.

It was nice to see Aiden Quinn again. Too bad the idiots got the show nuked.

reply

I agree with you Spiritus, it is not mocking christianity at all, or any religion for that matter. I saw this show as just showing that EVERYONE has their own problems. But too many christian families are too up tight for anyone to dare say that their preachers may have problems. I'm a christian and I have no problem with this show.

reply

[deleted]

Rain85, I would check out a more active board, ie The Da Vinci Code board and/or Passion of the Christ... it seems this board is pretty much a ghost town compared to those... and I think you should call your paper "The United States of Jesusland."

---
Hilarious: http://community.livejournal.com/christian_ethic/335.html

reply

[deleted]

Referring to the original post:

I don't think the Camdens are that great of a family either. My family stopped watching the show because the christians weren't trying to act like Christ.

reply

*sigh* me hates america *sad face*

whats ironic is america was founded by people running away from England.. because of religious persecution. Didn't really do much good in the long run did it ? Religion will always cause issues and problems - confrontations - but my only suggestion is to keep religion and goverment seperate. Totally seperate. Too bad the guys who came up with constitution aren't around today, they seemed pretty cool (albeit a bit anti UK lol)

The AFA wants christian >Everything<. A christian country, for christians. Thats wrong - so i'm gonna stick with anyone criticising the orginisation; They are wrong by default. American shouldn't be about that.

Oh and if you really want to learn what the AFA is about, sign up for their newsletter.

I signed up under the name *beep* (censored purely for IMDB)

reply

I can only add (somewhat facetiously) "AMEN" to those who bemoan the fact that this country has been hijacked by intolerant 'religion' addicts who feel compelled to frog-march everyone down the aisle of their particular denomination. This administration and its minions, who have exploited, and been exploited by the extreme religious reich, have finally convinced me that religion is essentially a marker of mental illness, and the more deeply involved a person is, the more serious their illness. Those who insist on blathering on and on about their 'religion' are indulging in public religious masterbation, in my opinion. The correlation between this type of hyper-emotional religion and sexuality are not incidental. Why do you think a particular experience is referred to as 'religious ecstasy'? These sick-o's have been so twisted that they think sexuality is evil, so they displace those emotional needs onto their 'religion'. My mother used to say that an empty wagon rattles the loudest. Those whose lives are so devoid of positive, creative, intelligent content feel that if they spout constantly about their 'Christianity' it will make up for their shallow, hate-filled lives. It is time to expose them for what they are. Truly spiritual, and spirit-filled people have no need to condemn or proselytize. They see everyone as being on a path toward completion, and understand that it is not necessary for everyone to take the same path in order to arrive at the same destination. It is only those who secretly fear that they are 'unacceptable' whose fear drives them into ever-increasing condemnation of everyone else's path.

reply

Whoah. Sure religion CAN be bad. Everything CAN be bad. Because of it's nature it could be utterly horrible and destructive, yet also a powerful force for "good". Saying people who follow a religion are mentally disabled is particularly offensive (though hey, if a christian wants to say your gonna suffer endless torment for not loving jesus, you can say what you like!) - and as a somewhat spiritual person myself I can only agree halfheartedly. I beleive the act of "worship" is unhealthy. No-one should worship anything. When you start worshipping something you have sacrificed a part of yourself that's too important to give up.

"Truly spiritual, and spirit-filled people have no need to condemn or proselytize. They see everyone as being on a path toward completion, and understand that it is not necessary for everyone to take the same path in order to arrive at the same destination. It is only those who secretly fear that they are 'unacceptable' whose fear drives them into ever-increasing condemnation of everyone else's path. "

Mucho agreemunto !

reply

While I do have no interest in the religious portion of this argument, I can say that the AFA is a dominative, dictorial, controlling group against nearly every quality show on television.

And I hate them for that.

That is all.

reply


Reality and religion have always been at odds never more so then right now! The bible is full of contradiction and things that most "Christians" would rather forget. Bigotry, infanticide, slavery, etc. are all supported by biblical text, and most believers would rather not discuss it!

Thanks for your insightful comments!


"Today's religion is tomorrow's superstition!!!"

reply