Optional page text here. The Beast's Lair: The Book of Daniel

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

The Book of Daniel

I'm not going to fly into the theological debate concerning this show, there are plenty of other blogs where you can read all about that.

But here is my thought: Do you think this show would have been made if instead of an Episcopal priest we had a prophet of Islam and instead of Jesus in the car we had Muhammad?


Blogger Leege said...

Personally, I think a similar show about Islam might be interesting. However, I probably won't watch Daniel because of any faith, but on the suspicion it might not be that good of a show.

Keep up the interesting work. From what I've read you're one of the most level-headed believer bloggers I've seen out here in a long time.

January 10, 2006 3:41 AM  
Anonymous Rexwilder said...

In my opinion it would not have been made. But not for religious reasons, but because the networks would never believe a show about Isalm and Muhammad would get the ratings or the advertisers they would want.

I've gotta admit, I think the concept of having "Jesus in the car" is a good one. The idea of having an actual dialogue with Jesus shown (realizing, of course, that you could be dealing with Daniel's own internal thoughts, the appearance of Jesus is simply a conceit to show Daniel's attempt to wrestle with the issues). I think the concept and the show is actually interesting, if they just back off the craziness of everyone around him a little.

January 10, 2006 12:29 PM  
Blogger The Beast said...

I should have been more specific in my post. Let's take away the concept of whether it is a good show, the ratings angle, etc. My interest is not if an Islam based show would go over well with the public, I was wondering if television would do it because of the fear of offending Muslims.

January 10, 2006 12:40 PM  
Anonymous Chao said...

Absolutely not. And if they did there would be ACLU jumping in to defend them, and the media would be going on about how horrid it is to discuss Muslims in such an offensive way.

The show sounded interesting to me at first because the talking to Jesus idea was a nice concept, but the rest of the issues going on are offensive.

Daniel is having an affair
His wife is an alcoholic
His son is homosexual
and there is something with the daughter that I forget. We are talking a massive dysfunctional family here.

January 10, 2006 2:25 PM  
Anonymous Rexwilder said...

It is too dysfunctional, I agree. If they want the show to continue, they will need to address that I think (although how many neighborhoods are really like the Desparate Housewives one either?).

As to the Islam angle, putting aside TV ratings, sponsers and such (i.e. reality), I don't think it would be made either, because you can always do things that have the potential to poke fun at, or even offend, "yourself" (in this case meaning that the vast majority of Americans have a Christian heritage) but you cannot due the same types of things to others(for example, racial-type statements that are fine to be made "internally" but cannot be made about other races).

On a similar note, I think Christians would generally be much more up in arms if a Islamic county made Daniel rather than a Islam show due to the same type of concern (i.e. its not being made for legitimate entertainment or thought-provoking reasons but simply to make fun of Christians).

January 10, 2006 4:59 PM  
Blogger The Beast said...

Interesting point you make about poking fun at "yourself." But don't you think it's true that America is working to avoid that reality? It seems we want to have our cake and eat it too.

In other words, even if you hate the phrase "Christmas War", the fact is that American companies, etc are encouraged to say Happy Holidays, and by doing so are saying "hey, we are not going to identify ourselves as a group of primarily Christians. We want to be seen as open and equal to all faiths."

But then, we will use the fact that we are primarily Christian as a way to allow a show like Daniel to air. It just doesn't seem consistent.

January 10, 2006 8:08 PM  
Anonymous Rexwilder said...

As you know, lack of consistency is my pet peeve from religion, to politics, to law, etc., so I certainly agree with that general feeling...however, I'm not sure that your references are the same things (that we are a Christian heritage nation is beyond dispute, how you want to implement that...(Happy Holidays vs Merry Christmas) or in other ways is a different issue it seems to me). For example, its "Christmas" and "Merry Christmas" to me, but I work with a number of Jews who I know don't celebrate Christmas but are going to be home with their family during the time off from work and I don't think its denying Christmas (or that we are a nation of a majority Christian background) for me to wish them a Happy Holidays as I walk out the door.

January 10, 2006 10:19 PM  
Blogger The Beast said...

I think we have found our point of difference. Even if it doesn't "deny Christmas" to wish them a happy holiday, the fact is that we are using the word holiday instead of Christmas to avoid placing one faith over another. But forget Christmas, the act of removing the ten commandments, prayer in school, all the classic things we hear about exists because we are saying that it is not fair to label this nation with one particular religion. But then, it is fine to "make light" of Christianity because we all understand that basically, this is a Christian nation. Weird.

January 10, 2006 11:40 PM  
Anonymous rexwilder said...

No. Not to place one faith over another, but to recognize our differences. They don't wish me a Happy Hanukkah because I don't celebrate it, and I don't wish them a Merry Christmas because they don't celebrate it. As to 10 Comm. etc., again I think a different issue under the 1st Amendment...and I purposefully didn't say a "Christian nation", I said a "Christian heritage nation" meaning that the vast majority of Americans have a Christian heritage. That is a fact. The issue of whether we are a Christian Nation or not is different. That is debatable and depends on your defination fo what a "Christian Nation" means.

OK. That's it for me. Til the next blog. :)

January 10, 2006 11:50 PM  
Blogger The Beast said...


To me, it doesn't matter how you word it. To say we "recognize our differences" seems to just be another way to say we are tolerant and mindful of one another.

Thanks for the comments.

January 11, 2006 2:04 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home