- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 10,453
- Reaction score
- 3,844
- Location
- Louisville, KY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
tecoyah said:I mean....come on, at least KNOW something is offensive to you...before you ban it.
Associated Press
TERRE HAUTE, Ind. -- Television station WTWO is refusing to air a new NBC series that features Jesus Christ as a supporting character.
The station said it would not broadcast "The Book of Daniel," which debuts Friday, because of complaints from viewers.
The show, starring Aidan Quinn as an Episcopal priest who regularly converses with a physical Jesus Christ, has drawn fire from conservative Christians, including the Tupelo, Miss.-based American Family Association.
Duane Lammers, WTWO's general manager, said in a statement posted Wednesday on the station's Web site that he was exercising the station's right to reject network programming.
"I will not allow them to make unilateral decisions affecting our viewers," he said. "If my action causes people in our community to pay more attention to what they watch on television, I have accomplished my mission."
The American Family Association has urged viewers to complain to NBC about the upcoming series, which the group's chairman, Donald E. Wildmon, called "anti-Christian bigotry."
"We expect other NBC affiliates will join WTWO in their decision," Wildmon said.
NBC Entertainment President Kevin Reilly told The New York Times in an interview last month that the show was intended to be thought-provoking.
"Some of the best shows on TV start with the perception of controversy, which is usually not an issue if it's backed by quality," Reilly said.
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060105/ENTERTAINMENT/601050485
I find it backwards, too...Stace said:Am I the only one that finds this a little backwards?
cnredd said:I find it backwards, too...
But since I don't want to publicly agree with you, I won't say it under oath...:2wave:
I could lose my keys to the executive washroom...Stace said:Oh, of course, can't be seen agreeing with a liberal....oh, the horrors....:shock:
cnredd said:I could lose my keys to the executive washroom...
vauge said:I disagree. Putting Christ in human form for me would be offensive unless the content is controlled from a respectfully qualified Christian team. Especially if the char is a leading role. No telling what they would have the character doing. Some folks would believe it in the name of God.
What is silly is creating this type of BS for Television.
Deegan said:I agree, I also wonder if this is not done to deliberately irritate, and then berate Christians, but maybe I am being to sensitive.
Time.com said:Jack Kenny, Daniel's creator, says he set out to tell the story of "a family man, a regular guy who's trying to do good." Making his protagonist a priest raised the dramatic and moral stakes. "A priest's family is supposed to be perfect," he says, "so anything anybody does wrong becomes heightened." As for adding Jesus to the ensemble, he says he did it not for shock value but as an outgrowth of what he was taught growing up as a Catholic (he now considers himself Christian but belongs to no church): that one should have a personal relationship with God.
"It's not the Second Coming," says Kenny. Other characters on Daniel can't see Jesus; no water is walked on. "I don't want it to feel like Daniel is talking to himself, but in a way he is. Jesus represents the best part of Daniel's faith." Dillahunt plays him low-key, without thunderbolts or preaching, like a wry, mildly hip dorm adviser. When Daniel says he takes his pills only rarely, Jesus answers, "Ri-i-i-ight." "Could you put more judgment into that 'Right'?," Daniel asks. "Actually," Jesus replies, "yes, I could."
Catholics believe that Christ was in human form. Is that offensive?vauge said:I disagree. Putting Christ in human form for me would be offensive
Catholics believe that Christ was in human form. Is that offensive?
That's not the point though. The point was that Vauge said that "Putting Christ in human form for me would be offensive". He didn't quantify his statement on the religion.Navy Pride said:The show is about a episcopalian priest, not a atholic.........
shuamort said:That's not the point though. The point was that Vauge said that "Putting Christ in human form for me would be offensive". He didn't quantify his statement on the religion.
Then don't watch it. As a Christian, I would argue that the religious right does a far better job of blaspheming God and Christian Ideals than any Hollywood Producer could ever hope to do.vauge said:I disagree. Putting Christ in human form for me would be offensive unless the content is controlled from a respectfully qualified Christian team. Especially if the char is a leading role. No telling what they would have the character doing. Some folks would believe it in the name of God.
What is silly is creating this type of BS for Television.
Navy Pride said:Well Catholics have taken enough abuse by the left wing media and I think its important to point out that your statement that it was a catholic priest is in error........
My statement never mentioned that it was a catholic priest. It never mentioned the religion of anyone on, around, in, or about, the show.Navy Pride said:Well Catholics have taken enough abuse by the left wing media and I think its important to point out that your statement that it was a catholic priest is in error........
Navy Pride said:Well Catholics have taken enough abuse by the left wing media and I think its important to point out that your statement that it was a catholic priest is in error........
independent_thinker2002 said:Boo hoo for the Catholics. I like the way the left wing media abused John Kerry.
shuamort said:My statement never mentioned that it was a catholic priest. It never mentioned the religion of anyone on, around, in, or about, the show.
Catholics believe that Christ was in human form. Is that offensive?
It has to do with Vauge's statement and Catholicism's belief that Jesus was man. My statement doesn't even mention the show.Navy Pride said:What does the statement have to do with anything if you were not talking about a Catholic priest?
SouthernDemocrat said:Oh yeah, that whole deal about priests molesting young boys sure was quite the smear job. :roll:
Moreover, last time I checked (as someone who is a former catholic), going by the exit polls, about half the Catholics usually vote Democrat. In fact, excluding the last election, usually well more than half vote Democrat. So why would that "liberal media" target them?
Hell, I have been to Midnight Mass before at have been seated behind a row of transvestites. Some of the most liberal parishes I have ever attended were Catholic.
Oh yeah, that whole deal about priests molesting young boys sure was quite the smear job.
Hate is such an ugly thing to build a religion around.Navy Pride said:You would think that all priests were gay and molesting little boys by the way the left wing media portrayed the priest scandal when in fact there were only 1 percent of all priest involved..............
GWB carried the Catholic vote.............
Catholics believe love the sinnder but hate the sin when it comes to gays or tranvestities..........
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?