The Book Of Daniel According To Shitbrick

Apparently, "The Book Of Daniel" has already been targeted as the latest "attack on Christianity" in my small corner of the world. Shitbrick, my hardcore born-again Baptist beast of a co-worker, and I got into a heated argument about this new TV series just before leaving work. That's when we usually do our part to perpetuate the culture wars.

I should mention that neither of us have actually seen a single episode of "The Book of Daniel", but that didn''t stop us from regurgitating the positions we've absorbed from our respective radio stations; his, Bob Dutko (pronounced Doo-Ko) on the Christian controlled WMUZ "The Light", and mine, a daily dose of secular reasoning on NPR.

Shitbrick contends that "The Book of Daniel" is basically blasphemy (my word not his, but you get the idea) and shouldn't be allowed on the air. He's particularly offended by the reported depiction of Jesus Christ who talks casually with Daniel, a troubled episcopal priest. In fact, Shitbrick actually used the phrase "hippie-dippy" to describe how Jesus is being portrayed. He argued that this fictional depiction of Jesus will confuse viewers of lesser intellect and that if "they" (NBC I presume) want to depict Jesus Christ then they should only do so as he is described in the bible.

I argued that, in this tv show, Jesus is basically portrayed as Daniel's religious conscience and represents his "personal relationship with God", probably much in the same way members of his congregation have personal dialogues with Jesus every day. It's Jesus as Daniel relates to him, not Jesus in a historical context.

But he wasn't having any of it. Jesus should only be portrayed as he is by "the word", and not as Aidan Quinn's personal hippie, confusing the masses about who Jesus really was.

That's when I kinda lost it. I told him I didn't think NBC were the only ones confused about who Jesus really was. In particular, I told him that I had a real problem with hunters who profess be devoted to Christ and his teachings. WWJD indeed. I can't imagine the son of God, sometimes referred to as "the lamb", cutting the throat of same said animal for any purpose, let alone for the sport of it. I also have a problem with pro-war Christians who seem offended by people who want to stop all this senseless killing. Is that how "The Prince of Peace" would act? Would Jesus have a blood-lust for killing Muslims, even if they aren't the same ones who attacked us? Would The Messiah who taught us to "turn the other cheek" start a pre-emptive war and argue that it's a defensive position? Those hypocritical arguments only seem to makes sense to Christians extremists who repeatedly profess to being attacked by the secular world, when it's they who are always on the offensive. "The Book of Daniel" debacle is only the latest example of this bizarre phenomena.

Getting back to the subject of the tv show, I argued that Christians can't and don't control the context in which Jesus is discussed, especially when it comes to an artistic depiction or a dramatic portrayal in a free society with a first amendment.

"That isn't art, " Shitbrick said with disdain. "And yes, this is a free democracy, and in this free democracy Christians are the majority. And majority rules."

"And in this so-called free society we're supposed to have built-in protections from the tyranny of the majority, " I retorted. " And this art is protected free speech no matter how loud the Christians complain!" I demanded.

"But it isn't art!" he boomed louder, as if volume wins arguments. His voice reverberated off the block walls and glass panes in the warehouse, lending sonic weight to his bluster. "Art is the photos I see in National Geographic or the beautiful paintings of scenery I see at a museum," he said with a flowing gesticulation of his hand, as if stroking the beauty of some imaginary country setting. "Art's not a television show that promotes filth at family hour."

I swear I could see smoke trail from his nostrils at this point. But I refused to back down. I've listened to enough of this self-righteous drivel without speaking up.

"This isn't filth," I protested. "It's a fictional drama of a priest who's struggling with his faith! It's about his personal jihad against his own faults!" I piqued him. "How could that offend you?"

"Yeah, a priest who pops pills, who's daughter is selling drugs, whose wife is having an affair, and with gays and everything else disgusting in it!"

"Look at what happened to the Catholic Church. Are you trying to tell me there are no episcopal priests who struggle with their faith and argue with Jesus. It's realistic," I argued. "Hell, you tell me stories about your fellow parishoners that are worse than that!"

One of them, he told me not long ago, had gotten high and fallen asleep on top of her newborn baby, accidentally suffocating the child. After something like that, there's only two options; suicide or salvation. She chose salvation. The pews were filled with these kind of personal tragedies.

"Do you why I know that The Book of Daniel is art?" I paused just long enough for his face to turn a darker shade of red . "I know it's art because we're arguing about it right now - and that's what good art does; it makes you think about the world you live in and question your own conclusions about it."

Unbelievably, Shitbrick argued that art wasn't meant to provoke thought. Not a surprising argument from a hardcore, born-again Christian. After all, these are the same puritans who repeatedly burned books and other works of art over the centuries, and who I'm sure wouldn't have any problem burning DVDs - or the people who produce them.

So as far as Shitbrick is concerned, only Christians should be allowed to tell stories involving Jesus - an only then strictly following "the word". He also argued that if the same type of "artistic portrayal" of Mohammed or The Koran were done in prime time, there would be hell to pay from the muslims, you can bet on it. So Christians have every right to complain about portrayals of Jesus Christ and you can bet they will.

I reminded him that some Muslims tried to abolish a work of art by threatening the life of it's author. A fatwa was issued against Salmon Rushdie back in the eighties when he wrote "The Satanic Verses". They wanted to control the argument too, even if that meant killing the author.

"Well, I guess he shouldn't have been writing about Islam then, should he?" Shitbrick said, satisfied with himself. "Besides, Christians aren't threatening to kill anybody over The Book of Daniel."

"Not yet," I said.