Indiana NBC Affiliate Rejects 'Book of Daniel'

newsmax.com ^ | Wednesday, Jan. 4, 2006 3:35 p.m. EST

[InvisibleChurch]

NBC affiliate WTWO in Terre Haute, Indiana, has become the first station to announce they will not be showing "The Book of Daniel.”

"We expect other NBC affiliates will join WTWO in their decision,” said American Family Association (AFA) Chairman Donald E. Wildmon.

He also said that NBC is having trouble finding sponsors for the show. AFA says it has been notified by several companies that they have no plans to sponsor the show.

"It appears that NBC will be forced to fill the available ad spots with ‘distressed merchandise’ ads which are sold at pennies on the dollar of the going rate, and with ‘make good’ ads which bring in no money to the network,” Wildmon said.

Wildmon said that other NBC affiliates, bombarded with hundreds of phone calls protesting the manner in which Christians and Christianity are depicted, will refuse to carry the program. "We are tired of NBC’s anti-Christian bigotry,” he stated.

The program’s main characters include Daniel Webster, a drug-addicted Episcopal priest; his alcoholic wife; his son, a 23-year-old homosexual Republican; his daughter, a 16-year-old drug dealer; a 16-year-old adopted son who is having sex with the bishop's daughter; his lesbian secretary who is sleeping with his sister-in-law; and a very unconventional white-robed, bearded Jesus who talks to the priest.

According to media reports, the show is written by Jack Kenny, a practicing homosexual who describes himself as being "in Catholic recovery,” is interested in Buddhist teachings about reincarnation and isn't sure exactly how he defines God and/or Jesus. "I don't necessarily know that all the myth surrounding him (Jesus) is true,” he said.

[Okies love Dubya 2]

I got the Band of Brothers DVD for Christmas.

I'm jealous!

[Lexinom]

"I don't necessarily know that all the myth surrounding him (Jesus) is true,” he said.

That statement speaks volumes - not so much the sacreligious nature of the statement as the logical fallacy. He begins with ambiguity, "I don't... know", then assumes the conclusion - the very thing about which he is uncertain - is that Jesus' works were a "myth."

A more logically correct and hence credible sentence would be "I don't know if the events in the Gospels are true."

Conclusion: this is a fellow with a confused and muddled view of religion whose opinion deserves little if any weight.

[gondramB]

I've read several articles and can't really tell what the show is about other than a priest with problems.... I've got the the Tivo set to record it so I can see what all the fuss is about. It didn't look that interesting from the previews but all this new publicity has me curious.

[thulldud]

Keep practicing, Jack. Maybe you'll get it right in the end.

Unfortunate turn of expression, that.

[alice_in_bubbaland]

LOL! Good one, very snarky! :)

[MEGoody]

Never even heard of this show. Apparently, they hadn't spent much money on 'hype' for it yet.

[dfwgator]

I give the show 3 weeks, tops.

[InvisibleChurch]

Who is denying anyone free speech?

[Mr. Lucky]

No one is as ignorant of the constitution as you pretend to be.

[MEGoody]

I thought we were in favor of free speech.

Of course, and freedom of speech includes the right to send letters to TV stations.

[gondramB]

"Never even heard of this show. Apparently, they hadn't spent much money on 'hype' for it yet."

The AFA efforts are giving it more publicity that it got any other way....kind of ironic.

[FormerLib]

Hmmm, I can't name a single show from back then that "had a sheet wearing arab character acting either sinister or comical."

Care to list a couple of dozen?

[A Texan]

They have the to show what they want, we have the right not to watch it and inform their sponsors that to be associated with a show like this will cost them our business.

There is nothing wrong with that.

This has nothing to do with free speech.

[colorado tanker]

That series is sooooo good!

[snarks_when_bored]

My work here is done. *grin*

[TheBigB]

"Free speech", by which I take to mean the Constitutional guarantee of same, applies only to Governmental involvement. The Government saying to NBC, "you cannot market nor air this show" would fall under such a concern. Private citizens using their own initiative to make their opinions known to both the network and any potential advertisers are in fact exercising their right to "free speech."

Knowhutimean?

[subterfuge]

"Seriously, my husband & I already decided not to watch the show anyway."

Wow. Thats some tough talk there. The head of NBC's parent company will be crushed.

[I Like Lincoln]

Sure we do. It's probably going to be stupid anyway and never get shown again. It's one thing to speak out against it, it's another to demand it never be shown. What's to be scared of?

[SouthernFreebird]

Keep practicing, Jack. Maybe you'll get it right in the end.

Getting it in the end is where he is going wrong...