Show More Religion on TV to Bridge the Cultural Divide

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-stearns/show-more-religion-on-tv-_b_1587054.html

Richard StearnsPresident, World Vision
Posted: 06/11/2012 12:44 pm

Commentators this month have debated whether the HBO program "Girls" exhibits an adequate degree of diversity. Could a show about young women in New York -- especially one that is supposed to be more real and authentic than "Sex in the City" -- really feature only white girls of privilege? The critiques began after just the first episode.

This is an important debate because I believe that television, film, and other media should accurately represent the world in which we live. If we fail to show the diversity of our country on television, we not only exclude our neighbors but we also miss out on discovering and understanding the rich cultures and values they have to offer. I applaud the progress made over the past few decades in increasing diversity in the media, providing a fair and accurate portrayal of our world. I also realize, as the "Girls" debate illustrates, we have a long way to go.

Diversity goes beyond skin color and ethnicity as well. For example, our media has regressed from the 1950s when it comes to portraying religion. If characters of real religious faith were more frequently seen on film and television, we would have a much better chance of bridging our current cultural divides.

I've become a fan of the TV show Blue Bloods, about a New York Irish police family. One of the reasons I enjoy the show so much is because the Reagan family is religious. There is nothing stereotypical about their Catholic faith. The show's writers don't portray faith either as foolish or bigoted. They're simply a devout family. They pray before meals; they go to church on Sunday. Faith is an ordinary part of life.

more at link

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. only if we show the faith healers, speakers in tongue,

and Rev. Dollar begging for more $$ so he can afford his Rolls. I agree that all of this crap should be televised, because if people really knew just how insane some of this stuff was, they'd probably see the light about the whole topic sooner.

[dmallind]

5. I doubt the writer seeks THAT accurate a representation of reality

Even without the egregious charlatanry (which certainly gets plenty of bandwidth on its own shows already thanks) I doubt people looking for a realistic portrayal of religious believers want to show them far more likely to be homophobic and bigoted, which is certainly realistic as every relevant survey shows.

There are plenty of religious characters on tv fiction, almost all portrayed positively. What *I* want to see is an atheist who isn't either a psychological train wreck (typically the emotionally inhuman and deeply damaged genius like House) or doesn't get converted and become happy and whole in 43 minutes just because some believer spouted some trite pablum at him.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

7. great points, DM. Well put.

[daaron]

13. Try "Bones". Or "Numb3rs" for that matter. nt

[laconicsax]

14. There is such a character, though his show hasn't aired since 1994

Jean Luc Picard.

Here's another one who hasn't been on TV since 1999:

Benjamin Sisko

And another who was on TV from 2004-2009 and is returning in a new series later this year:

William Adama

[rrneck]

2. Accurate fiction.

[HockeyMom]

3. I lived it

Irish/Italian Catholic family in NYC. Don't want to be reminded of it, thank you, very much. Moved on, not from the NYC aspect, but all the religion. I will say, though, living in NYC, my friends were of all races, cultures, religion/no religion, at least when when I came of age. Sex and City? No, my life wasn't like that TV show.

[rug]

6. The borough makes the difference.

I grew up in Manhattan and moved to Queens when they tore the buildings down. Different experiences.

[HockeyMom]

8. Young working woman in Manhattan

Moved to Queens as a young married. Yep, totally different places. I did not like Queens at all.

[trotsky]

4. The reason there isn't more religion in our entertainment shows...

is because people don't want it. It doesn't draw viewers, it doesn't attract advertisers. Otherwise it would be there. TV exists to make money.

[HockeyMom]

9. +1

Absolutely.

[HockeyMom]

10. Comparative Religions

That is the ONLY good thing I experienced from Catholic school. Although Catholic school had their own slant to that, i.e., knowning how to debate "other" religions, it does allow kids to learn what other relgions are all about. That is definitely a good thing. Problem for their religion, is that it can cause a young person to question their own religion.

Maybe ignorance IS bliss, if you want blind faithful.

[longship]

11. How much turf should religion get?

The religious are, from my perspective, all over the place. In politics, in smarmy religious TV channels where the hosts beg money from people to enrichen themselves with money from people who cannot afford it, in the other scammers who claim healing powers like Bennie Fucking Hinn, etc.

I like police procedural fiction. But the first time I saw Blue Bloods was the last time I watched it. It seemed to be more like a promotion of Selleck's own conservative, religious politics than anything else. Maybe I am overly sensitive, but I just don't like being preached to.

It is the same, we are going to put religion in your face, that gives rise to Take Me Out to the Ballgame morphing into God Bless America at seventh inning stretches all over the country. Nobody would criticize a fan for not standing and singing for the former; but if you dare ignore the latter you are labelled an unpatriotic evil atheist. I only claim to the latter.

I despise all this because it seems so forced, not natural. There are many all religion channels all over TV in all areas. Why do people think that religion belongs everywhere? Even in fucking baseball games?

Give people a break.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. I threw up in my mouth a little.

Media is so saturated with religiosity that we hardly notice it.