Thursday, August 02, 2007

Well, I could be wrong, but I believe, uh, diversity is an old, old wooden ship that was used during the Civil War era.

Okay, I don't get to watch much television, but I discovered a show that I've found fascinating.

It's called "Without Prejudice" and I've watched the first few episodes.

The premise is that a panel of judges will determine who will win $25,000. The panel learns more about the people through each round of elimination until they choose between the remaining 2 contestants.

So, in the earlier rounds they pick & choose based on looks and their own prejudices. It's interesting to hear the panel deliberate and see how they want to convey their thoughts in a way that will put them in the best light.

They might try to be PC or sound non-racist or non-sexists or non-homophobic or whatnot, or they may be bold in their stereotypes. Some won't like a contestant based on age, others will like that person for the same reason.

Will they give the money to the person they like the most? Will they give it to the person who most needs it?

The one question they cannot ask a contestant prior to elimination is what he/she would do wit the money. So, they must guess, based primarily on their prejudice.

But they have to decide who they "like the most or hate the least."

NY Times review:
The premise: five people, sequestered in the proverbial green room, reveal tidbits about themselves — their jobs, their beliefs, their love lives — to another five people, who sit in judgment of them along with the show’s host, the psychotherapist Robi Ludwig. All 10 are “ordinary” — no celebrities in sight — though since we’re told nothing about how either group is selected, we can assume that the usual reality-show casting decisions are being made.
The contestants are diverse group of people, varying in age, gender, economic status, hairstyles, sexual orientation, etc.

So far, the same is true of the diverse panel and it's interesting to see how they prefer folks like them and not so much folks who are different. However, you will at times suspect that panelists are saying more what they think is the "right" thing to say in the eyes of the other panelists.

It's an interesting way to learn about diversity in America and how "common" folks approach the subject as they interact with other such "common" folk.

From the show's site:
WITHOUT PREJUDICE? does not support or condemn any action, attribute or value system, but rather stimulates an open debate. The diverse panel and viewers will soon need to make the ultimate determination that will impact five lives on the line. Can a life-altering decision truly be reached WITHOUT PREJUDICE?
Like "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" and "The Weakest Link," this show is copied from its UK counterpart. I'd be curious to see how the UK version plays out.

Caution ... I do pick up on a bit of a liberal slant to the show, but there's great potential for a train wreck and tension can certainly abound. Plus, there are still many Americans who know little experientially about the rampant diversity we have and how different folks think and interact.

Thus, it could be entertaining AND educational.

It's on GSN on Tuesday nights (8PM Central), but you can always use the greatness of TiVo to track it down like I do. Our you can visit the GSN's "Without Prejudice" site and view online. I offer you Episode 3 for your viewing pleasure.


At 02 August, 2007 09:57, Blogger Lance said...

Funny you should mention that, as I'm currently preaching through Philippians and will be hitting the nucleus of the book this week, 2:6-11.
Paul there talks about how Jesus, being in the form (morphe) of God, took on the form (morphe) of a slave. Later he says that Jesus was found in "outward form" (schema) as a man.
When the two are put together, it almost sounds like Jesus was in a costume, but what Paul seems to be saying (in this extraordinarily complex passage)is that Jesus really did become a slave (not just looking like one).
However, Paul also emphasizes that he was not a glorified slave, as his physical appearance was drab and ordinary (Isaiah 53:2-3).
My point being . . . if Jesus were to appear on this TV show, what chances would he have of winning the $25K? I'm betting he would take an early exit, if indeed people merely judge by appearances.
Kinda makes you wonder, too, about all those so-called images of Jesus in trees and clouds, et. al.
How do we know that's not Judas or Charles Manson (long hair, beard--really fits the role, eh?).
So, in this long-winded comment, I'm reminded that the only way we will recognize the Son of God is through the eyes of our hearts, not our sockets.

At 02 August, 2007 12:14, Blogger GUNNY said...

Good slooge, Lance.

We used Philippians 2:3-11 last Sunday as our responsive Scripture reading ... and it was good.

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of pictures of Jesus for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that they try to make Him aesthetically beautiful. Yet, we know there was nothing in His appearance that would attract us to this Man of Sorrows.

Without eyes to see from the Spirit in regeneration, we'd all be the type who would hang out to get a free meal or a healing or watch the show, but that's about it.

I also think He would be an early exit, rejected by the common folk, the people of the land.

At 03 August, 2007 11:28, Blogger brentjthomas said...

Since I am a painter, I think about Jesus' appearance often. There is a benefit in contemplating that He knows our human pleasures and pains (thus a potential benificial, edifying reason for a painting). Perhaps Jesus was not handsome, during His earlier ministry, but now He is our Fairest Lord Jesus. Luke 2:52 suggests that He was not, prior to His sufferings, repulsive, stating that He increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.
Since men do not see as God sees, he must at least have been "normal" and healthy in appearance, for such a verse to be written.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting