I've never been big on "banning" things, and I won't advocate that WDAM pull the show. As Mr. Cameron said, the best tactic is to ignore it.

However, I thought the HA could have interviewed a few more Episcopalians. I have talked to several members of my own Epsiscopal church who found it very offensive, including liberal Democrats (lest you think this is a "conservative" response.) One person I would characterize as quite liberal was asking about the appropriate avenue for writing a complaint.

I see you can't spell it either!

Episopalian faculty member wrote:

---

 as an Episcopalian, I am bothered by this representation of a priest 

---

Some members of all professions, including the clergy, have warts on their noses. That doesn't mean the profession itself is bad.

LVN fan wrote:

---

LVN wrote:
I've never been big on "banning" things, and I won't advocate that WDAM pull the show.
I don't even know what "Daniel" is. A play? A movie? A book in the Bible? A club?

---

As I understand it, it is a weekly TV drama about an Eposcipal minister who is addicted to drugs. His wife is portrayed as being an alcoholic who is addicted to Martini's. The family is "rounded out" by a son (protrayed as a 23-year old Republican who is homosexual), a daughter (portrayed as a 16-year old who deals drugs in school), and an adopted son (portrayed as a 16-year old who is having sex with the teenage daughter of his adopted dad's Bishop). On top of that, his church secretary is portrayed as a practicing lesbian who is sleeping with the ministers sister-in-law behind her husband's back. In order to cope with all of this, the minister has regular "visits" from Jesus, who is portrayed as wearing a white robe and having a beard, and whom the minister actually sees and converses with.

The word "inconcieveable" comes to mind.

That's not too far of a stretch when you consider that the main writer for the show is a man named Jack Kenny. Mr. Kenny has described himself as a practicing homosexual who is "in Catholic recovery", is heavily interested in the teachings of Budda concerning reincarnation, and is not sure exactly how he would define God or Jesus.

I can understand the outcry from the Christians . . . I would feel like I was being attacked, too.

How many ministers (of any faith) have any of us known with family problems on this scale? For that matter, how many people (religious or otherwise) have any of us encountered who had family issues as described above? It's utterly ridiculous.

In that same vein, how would most of us feel if a TV show was produced about a tenured university professor who was addicted to painkillers? One who is constantly sleeping with his female students in exchange for better grades? Whose wife was an alcoholic and is sleeping with the university president so that he can keep his position and not be fired for ethics violations? Whose son and daughter regularly abuse the grading system by breaking into the university's computers in order to change the grades of any student that will pay them?

How would we feel if we learned that it was being written by a high-school drop out who had only stepped onto a college campus once in his life, and that only to attend a football game? A writer whose favorite phrase was, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."?

Silly, huh? I think that we would feel like we were being attacked.

I agree with LVN in that I am not a big fan of banning things either. I think that this "show" is going to die a very quick death due to the very absurdity of it's plot.

Gnome Watcher

And which posters on this thread have participated in said bashing? Me?

And fwiw, the groups you name are not mutually exclusive. For instance, almost all the Episcopalians I know are Southern, some are rednecks, some are charismatic (what you probably mean by "pentacostal") and one at least is living in a trailer in his driveway.

You know what I'd like to see? A show about somebody like Brinkley Morton, who gave up a law practice and a political career to become an Episcopal priest. That would be very engaging.

Voter wrote:

---

NEWS FLASH: there's a lot of offensive stuff out there!

---

And much of it is on college campuses.

Bubba wrote:

---

Voter wrote:
NEWS FLASH: there's a lot of offensive stuff out there!
And much of it is on college campuses.

---

Far less than in most sectors of society, Bubba! Even a besieged ghetto like USM is doing its level best to preserve history, music, art, literature, tradition, discipline, courage, hope, and freedom of inquiry and expression. You do my News Flash an injustice--draft your own!

Bubba wrote:

---

Nobody around here seems to want to admit it. It's always the other person.

---

Bubba, I can tell you're not one of us. If you were one of us you'd know that university faculties are free of bigotry, bias, prejudice, and stereotyping. We are accepting, non-judgmental, and free of bias in every respect. All of us.

"Don't watch it if you don't like it."

That's a pretty feel-good answer.

If you don't like the billboard with a topless woman on it, then just close your eyes as you go by or, better yet, take another route.

If you don't like the fact that stores sell liquor, then don't shop there.

If you don't like the adult movie theater, then don't go there to watch movies.

All of these seem perfectly reasonable, except that they're all wrong.

A community has both the right and the obligation to decide what's acceptable in that community. Communities have decided to ban pornographic material, alcohol, and other objectionable items, and their right to do so has been supported by the Supreme Court.

Such communities are not violating free speech or practicing censorship any more than in the cases where communities vote to ban pornography because the writer/producer/director/actors/whatever of "The Book of Daniel" are still able to have their show seen, just not on the public airwaves of South Mississippi.

What's wrong with the show? It ridicules Christianity. What would the reaction be to a similar show about a Rabbi? "It's anti-Semetic!" How about a similar show about a Muslim cleric? "It's racist propaganda!"

No, this is a line in the sand for Christians. It's become OK to make Christianity the punchline or the bad guy or the hypocrite for too long while at the same time, it's become a violation of Constitutional rights to think bad thoughts about other religions.

I am glad the backlash has occurred. I hope that piece of trash show never airs again anywhere.

Standard Bearer wrote:

---

It's become OK to make Christianity the punchline or the bad guy or the hypocrite for too long while at the same time, it's become a violation of Constitutional rights to think bad thoughts about other religions.

---

Precisely. That was my point. And some university faculties are not immune.

We saw The Book of Daniel last night. Accidentally found it while scrolling the tv channels. There was nothing offensive about it. It's nothing more than a highly publicized soap opera. There was more potentially offending material in last night's Jay Leno monologue which contained some marvelously funny jokes about Baptists [to paraphrase Jay, a Baptist preacher found in a same-sex relationship won't be fired unless he dances with that partner]. Our fellow Baptists and others will see the humor in that. One of the leading Christian comedians makes jokes about Baptists on national television and nobody is offended. Sure, there was sex, drugs, and corruption depicted in last night's boring edition of The Book of Daniel, but such is the nature of soap operas. I don't understand what's the big deal. Our experience with that particular soap opera is, of course, limited to only one episode.  

So, we Episcopalians in South Mississippi ain't too happy about this one.

---

As a cradle Episcopalian (and native Southerner), I'm in no way, shape, or form offended by this program. And that's the great thing about the Anglican faith, eh? We don't require lock-step agreement on all issues. . .

I'm not saying this TV show is fabulous. . . it's pretty silly, in fact -- and silly as any other drama out there on TV right now. But I don't understand why everyone's knickers are in a twist about this program. I agree with Gnome Watcher's earlier post. If this show was about a physician or some other professional, no one would give it a second thought.

I've seen plenty of priests (both those I observed while growing up and a number of my friends who entered the priesthood -- male and female alike) struggle with drug addiction, children using/selling drugs, homosexuality, death of children, affairs, and so forth. Heck, the first priest I remember at my home church was convicted of embezzeling (sp?) church funds! Why should an Episcopal priest (or anyone else) be portrayed as being above all these events?

Now, what is mildly annoying is the liberties the writers have taken with the church organization. It's as annoying as portraying all psychologists as Freudian, all lawyers as evil, and all ER as high trauma. Why are there two active bishops in one diocese? How could a priest unilaterally choose a construction company for a project without the approval of the vestry?

And, finally, I don't see how the show is ridiculing Christianity -- I'd say the opposite -- the major characters seem to be loving family full of the spirit of nonjudgmental acceptance we're supposed to have for each other.

Don Wyldmon and his nutty folk up in Tupelo are doing more to keep this show on the air than the merits of the program. I agree with the other posters who have written if you don't like it, turn it off. I'm highly offened by the lady with the pink hair who sits on the gold throne on channel 40 or 41 and I'm highly offended by Kirk Cameron's anti-evolution programs on the same channel. Guess what I did -- put on the channel skip so I wouldn't have to see them any longer.

Ecce Quam Bonum wrote:

---

As a cradle Episcopalian (and native Southerner), I'm in no way, shape, or form offended by this program. And that's the great thing about the Anglican faith, eh? We don't require lock-step agreement on all issues. . .

---

Ecce quam bonum . . . et quam jucundum habitare fratres in unum.

Well, as I suggested, one person's offense is another person's mild amusement.

I'm just glancing back at the board as I move into the consistently wonderful text of Milton's Paradise Lost--much more interesting fare, I imagine:

So both ascend
In the Visions of God: It was a Hill
Of Paradise the highest, from whose top
The Hemisphere of Earth in cleerest Ken
Stretcht out to the amplest reach of prospect lay.

Scholarship has its rewards . . .

Jameela

This discussion about the controversery surrounding The Book of Daniel reminds me of the 1960 movie adopted from a Sinclair Lewis novel - Elmer Gantry. The movie depicts Elmer Gantry, played by Burt Lancaster, as a lying, philandering, drunk, greedy, hypocritical, womanizing, Baptist fundamentalist evangelist photographed in compromising positions by Sister Sharon Falconer (played by Jean Simmons) whose "needs" Elmer Gantry is all too willing to fulfill and who participates with "The Reverend Gantry" to make their religious endeavors a lucrative MIDAS-like business. The cast of characters even includes a minister's daughter-turned-prostitute. Some of the supporting scenes were taken from Billy Sunday's actual sermons (for the benefit of you youngsters, let me say that Billy Sunday was the evangelist mentioned by name in the song "Chicago" as the man who "...couldn't shut Chicago down."  The movie Elmer Gantry makes The television series The Book of Daniel look like a children's story. The decadance, depravity, and sordid picture of the Elmer Gantry/Sister Sharon Falconer brand of religion in the movie Elmer Gantry was not much different than in the current television series The Book of Daniel, but there was no nationwide move to ban Elmer Gantry in Boston. From my perspective, it was a great movie. It received two academy award nominations (best picture, best actor). The name "Elmer Gantry" has become a common household name. The television series The Book of Daniel, on the other hand, is a fourth tier soap opera that will probably be justifiably forgotten very soon. I can't imagine anyone watching a second in the series once they've seen one. We've been sitting here trying to figure out why Elmer Gantry was so well received while The Book of Daniel has created a national furor. Any ideas?