Well, yes, Bill did point out that Christ is rarely, if ever, mentioned on the show and therefore cannot be considered a specifically Christian show.
Hey, anyone else remember “Picket Fences?” The catholic priest and protestant minister were major characters, as was the jewish lawyer, agnostic sherrif, etc. Although it didn’t neccesarily deal with religious issues, it frequently had characters expressing opinions based on their religious beliefs.
I think this one was Nothing Sacred, which I really liked. The Christmas one was great, all three priests ended up in jail for trying to protect some illegal immigrants and the nun, who I believe was in charge of the religious education program, officiated over Christmas Mass. I was disappointed when it got cancelled. Shockingly, my father watched it, too.
I once read (I believe either on this board or over in a.f.c-a) a particular TV series referred to as “Touched by the Good Fairy.” “Touched by an Angel”, like most of the recent New-Age Angel Fad – are, angellologigally, quite un-Judaeochristian.
One thing about “Christian” shows in mainstream TV, is that to this day, the majority of the population is composed of mainstream christians for whom their religion is a private matter they feel no need to wear on their sleeve in public. This obviously neutralizes most shows about people in their workplaces and in their relations with people outside their family. This population group is also strongly NON-proselytist.
Insofar as shows where people take strong moral positions on issues on which it is hard to take it, it takes a pretty good writer to come up with a screenplay where this happens WITHOUT becoming preachy OR casting someone as “the villain.” Let’s say a doctor who stands firm and refuses to assist death to someone who is really terminal and in pain – how do we end the show with the audience’s approval, other than by “preaching”, or by demonizing the family of the patient?
jrd
JRD makes a good point…also there have been plenty of shows that have included moral/ethical issues incorporating religious themes that related to the story line…one of my favorite shows that did this on a regular basis was St. Elsewhere
ricksummon wrote:
However, the show portrays a decidedly Christian model of God, guardian angels, and the afterlife.
It’s probably easier for Amurrican TV to sell an explicitly Catholic or Jewish character, and the specific trappings of his religion, than an explicitly Protestant character.
Maybe because Protestants are so divided.
Maybe because Catholic and Jewish characters can have their religion appear as part of an “ethnic” trait, while Protestants (unless they’re Quakers or something) are seen as generic Yankees, and their religion lacks the piquant “otherness” of confessionals and whatnot.
Maybe because Protestant religion hits too close to home for the audience.
Maybe because the Protestants don’t lobby Hollywood for representation like “minorities” do somewhat.
Or maybe those of us who are Protestant just think there are fewer of our sort of Christian on TV, when the truth is that any religion is rarely dealt with deeply in TV entertainment. We just notice the shallow trappings of, say, “Jewishness”, more, because they’re foreign to us.
That said, there have been shows set in churches or about explicitly religious people (I’m not limiting myself to Protestants here):
Christy, admittedly set in 19th Century Appalachia.
Amen, in a modern-day Protestant church with a black congregation. I’m not sure if they ever said the denomination, possibly Baptist or A.M.E. The people didn’t have the most sterling characters–it was a sitcom–but that’s not unrealistic, is it? At least there was the appearance of religious authority in it; a main character was the minister.
Nothing Sacred, in a Catholic parish. It was very controversial, so one sort of people avoided it, and another sort (me) watched it regularly out of curiosity. I liked it.
Umm… ok, those have been named already.
How about “god, the devil, and bob” and “the cosby show”
Also, almost all western media art is christian leaning.
Even a movie like “pulp fiction” which was attacked by christian groups. If you watch the movie you see that the sam jackson person accepts that, “god stopped the bullets”, changes his evil ways, and lives. The john travolta person denys the existance of god and dies.
side note…
The dish network sells a package of christian only satilite channels through a company called angelstar. You can ask about it here http://www.dbsforums.com
Of course, don’t forget they were carrying Marcellus Wallace’s immortal soul around in that briefcase. 
You know, Bill, if you’re looking for Christian characters in prime time television, how about X-files’ Dana Scully? She’s a practicing Catholic, and many of the show’s better episodes dealt with overtly Christian themes.
Sorry, Bill, but I don’t think this show would find much of an audience. I think people would be straining muscles diving for the remote to turn the channel.
If producers believe that there is a market for a show, then they make it. If not, then they don’t.
In Ireland and England we had a show called Fr Ted - about Three Priests. You should check it out Wildest Bill. It may be on cable somewhere.
Ah, give your mom some credit, Green Bean. Maybe it was a taste issue rather than a matter of religion. Probably your mom just didn’t want you to watch such crap and start to think it was good.
Define, ‘good,’ Tom.
I think Christy sucked, and Little House sucked worse.
Wild Bill, to know why there are no good Christian shows, you need look no further than these two examples. Both were based on perfectly good books – in fact, the Little House books are better than good, they are brilliant – with a strong christian theme – especially Christy. Even as an agnostic, I enjoyed these books, because they were, as I said, good. In order to make the shows suitable for television, the books were watered down and TVed up (my term for what the TV industry likes to call ‘made relevant to modern times’) to an almost unrecognizable degree. The result? Puerile, nauseating dreck. Most TV is generic and derivative and the process of making the source material fit that mold tends to destroy it. What’s amazing to me is that there is any good TV at all out there.
Regarding your first point, my cite is http://www.msnbc.com/news/461634.asp , where MSNBC reports (please note their use of the word “everyone”) that
Second, while I do realize that many theaters will allow children in to R-rated movies with older siblings, or even alone, the official rules are that “being accompanied by an adult” is not enough. The official MPAA rules, from their site at http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/content.htm , defines an “R” rating as
By the standards of the time, “Little House” was actually a pretty decent show. It was smarmy, but it wasn’t meant to be edgy. It was well written and acted for the time, though it went downhill its last few seasons (like all ahows do.) The picture of day-to-day life was remarkably realistic for the time in the sense of the family’s constant money problems and the general humbleness of their existence; compare it to “Dr. Quinn” to see what I mean. The show’s production values were high.
Compared to the TV of the time it was way above average. I’d take it over “The Love Boat” or “Dallas” any day.
Of course, it wasn’t as good as the books, but TV and books are two different media and can’t be compared. You have to compare it to the TV shows it was up against, and it compares very favourably. By today’s standards it wouldn’t be as good, but it sure wouldn’t be as bad as a lot of shows.
Even I, an atheist, used to watch Christy. I actually liked the show, although some of that is probably due to the fact that I lusted afted Kellie Martin 
Regarding Highway to Heaven though, wasn’t this just Have Gun Will Travel/Kung Fu/The Hulk/etc.? The basic plot is the same in all those shows: Good guy wanders around, meets some folks having problems, uses unusual abilities to right wrongs, moves on. The religious overtones to the show were for me nothing more than the plot device similar to David Banner’s gamma radiation. In other words, it was a (super)hero show 90% of the time, which very occasionally threw in religious issues.
Nope. Little House on the Prairie SUCKED. Sucked, sucked, sucked. Capital S, capital U, capital C, capital K, capital E, capital D. Sucked. And I’m willing to take it to the pit any time you say.
Really, saying that it wasn’t bad for the time doesn’t cut it for me. Sure it could have been worse… But, holy cow – with the rich source material and the industry clout the show had behind it, it should have been, and easily could have been, good. Instead they took the easy way out and just made a show about a modern medium-poor family and dressed them in old-fashioned duds for the period flavor. It was “Family (remember that show? with Kristy McNichol?) in Sunbonnets.” I actually have a lot of ammo in the TV show versus Little House books argument – it is a subject I can be tedious about. However, I don’t want to completely hijack Wildest Bill’s thread. One last thing – Dr. Quinn ALSO sucked, but the sucking was not so egregious as with Little house because it didn’t involve raping such wonderful books.
So, in closing I’ll just say, [ahem] “The TV series Little house on the Prairie really, really sucked. Alot. Really. And so did Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman, but not quite as much.”
Keeve sed:
Note, however, that it does not say “Legal guardian”. The MPAA knows what side its bread is buttered on. An “adult guardian” is any person over the age of 17 who claims responsibility for the person under 17. There is nothing legally binding or required about it.
What document would you have a person produce at a movie theatre to prove that they are that child’s legal guardian? If I’m watching my neices/nephews/grandkids, I can’t take em to a movie because I’m not their parents? I think that its less “knowing what side their bread is buttered on” then switching to a system that would be completely untenable.
And if Highway to Heaven isn’t a Christian TV show, I don’t know what would be, short of televangelist programming or bible discussions.
Mojo, I’m not proposing anything. I’m attempting to demonstrate to Keeve that according to the MPAA, indeed any adult may accompany a child into an R-rated movie.
That is, the MPAA has no real authority, and cannot require a parent or legal guardian, even if they wanted to, which they clearly don’t.