Does History Channel’s ‘Satan’ Look Like Obama? – PHOTO


Mediaite reports that social media exploded when the devil appeared in the History Channel series The Bible on Sunday night:

Even prior to the episode’s showing, Glenn Beck tweeted: “Anyone else think the Devil in #TheBible Sunday on History Channel looks exactly like That Guy?”, adding a photo…Once the episode aired, Twitter exploded with commentary on the matter. Most noted it was likely unintentional, chalking it up to an amusing coincidence….At this time, neither History Channel nor Mark Burnett, The Bible series’s creator, has issued any statement on the matter."

What do you think?


  1. MaryM says

    Have I missed something.

    Why is the History Channel airing a show about a work of fiction like the Bible?

    History is based on events that actually happened.

    The bible is a work of fiction in its entirety and all the characters in it are fictional.

  2. ratbastard says


    I’m Agnostic. The bible has had PROFOUND influence over our world for 2000 years. It can not be dismissed that easily.

    Yes, Lucy looks like the president.

  3. brian says


    It might make you feel better to know that immediately after The Bible, Vikings airs, which is about pagans killing Christians.

  4. BABH says

    Yes, black people all look alike to me.

    I guess “That Guy” is the singular of “Those People” for racists like Beck and his audience.

  5. Dastius Krazitauc says

    Definitely, without question. And just looking at his name, Mohamen Mehdi Ouazanni, the actor appears to be of Muslim origin. Even with resemblance to Obama aside, they have white, surgically altered pert-nosed Romney Downey as Mother Mary, and dark skinned, thick-lipped Muslim actor as Satan. Subtle, Mark Burnett, very subtle.

  6. jjose712 says

    ratbastard: Nobody doubts that, but there’s nothing historic on the Bible.
    One thing is to make a documentary about the bible’s influence, and another very different a documentary about the stories on the Bible in an History Channel. That simply makes no sense at all

  7. Simon says

    Just as the saying goes, don’t judge a book by its cover, people are not be judged by the look. Only through their fruit, we can recognize who they are, to know their fruit, we just need to compare what they do against the greatest commandments of the bible as preached by Christ, to love God AND TO LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF.

    Based on this, it’s very easy to spot the devil among us in society : the religious anti-gays! The religious homophobes will use all sort of LOWER biblical verses to deceive people and to defy the highest biblical laws. Anti-Christ spread hate and discrimination among people, just like what the anti-gays are doing.

  8. FancyPants says

    I’m more curious if Jesus is a white dude in this show?

    And yes, there is no mistaking the reason why that person was chosen as Satan. Anyone who thinks that was not precisely why that actor was chosen is fooling themselves.

    While some of the Bible involve allegory, there are historical parts of it that match up to history. We know many of these characters existed in real life. That said, if there is a part where Satan appears, I’m guessing this isn’t actually trying to be historically accurate. There is some importance in history to studying the Bible. I studied it quite a bit in college from a secular standpoint, but I have my doubts that is the point of this show.

  9. Remote Patrolled says

    Hmm, the resemblance isn’t actually exactly subtle is it…

    Tacky move History. But I guess they know their audience. Sadly.

  10. ratbastard says

    Al Sharpton in 5…4…3…2…

    [Al needs a nice bank deposit from the History Channel]

  11. EPCM says

    The History Channel is developing a department which is specialising in producing dramas BASED ON historical events. It’s not meant to be an accurate portrayal of history, just as ‘Titanic’, ‘Elizabeth’, ‘Pearl Harbor’ & ‘U-571′ are partly fictitious for the purposes of entertainment. I’m not Christian, but I have to point out that not all of the characters in the Bible are fiction either, e.g. there was a man named Jesus, from Nazareth, who caused the Romans a lot of grief and ended up being put to death. A religion then grew up around him. That is historical fact. The stories that are told in the Bible are more questionable, but yes they are based on actual events. In addition to that, as @ratbastard says – the Bible has had an enormous effect on humanity, so why shouldn’t it be dramatised? We might not like religion, but we cannot dismiss it out of hand and erase it from our history. It is important in helping us understand and contextualise the world we live in.

  12. Polyboy says

    Wow… impressive. Jesus is white, but Satan is Obama.

    The Hitler Channel has jumped the shark.

  13. hwood says

    Mark Burnett would nail his own mother to a cross if he thought it would get ratings and make money.

  14. Cyberman says

    Idk why people are irked about this being on the history channel, they’ve showed lots of fictional bs anyone remember Ancient Aliens and Monster Quest? lol

  15. niles says

    This is the work of arch Catholic goody-two-shoes Roma Downey. Touched by an Angel indeed.

  16. David Hearne says

    The bible is a work of fiction in its entirety and all the characters in it are fictional.

    Posted by: MaryM | Mar 18, 2013 9:48:04 AM

    The Bible is a folk history, and contains myth, allegory, and actual people, places, and events.

    Your comment is demonstrably wrong. The Bible refers to known kings, wars, peoples, places, and events. It is not all fiction- just the magical parts.

  17. Dastius Krazitauc says

    “I don’t think the historical Jesus if he existed looked like a ‘hot’ Portuguese actor.”

    Nor would Mary have face-lift eyes and a whittled down, pert nose.

  18. says

    COINCIDENTALLY…I read a rumour that the History Channel is now owned by a Christian broadcasting company. Hmm……..

  19. jjose712 says

    No, no and no. Sorry but the Bible is not historic accurate at all. The pilars of earth are more apropiate for an historic channel than the stories of the Bible.

    There are historic characters on the bible, of course, but the stories are fables to make people (without culture) understand some messages. There’s no way to make the stories of the Bible pass as historic for this kind of channel

  20. stranded says

    In response to the issues about the History Channel not being about history, neither is the Travel Channel about travel or the Learning Channel about learning or Cartoon Network about cartoons. Neither, I should add, is Fox or CNN or MSNBC about news. It’s all infotainment. The media companies long ago abandoned any pretense of catering to anything but the lowest common denominator for their cable channels. I stopped watching years ago but occasionally while travelling I’ll try to see what’s on, and end up turning it off in disgust. It’s mostly all become mind-numbing and manipulative twaddle, unless you can afford high-end cable like HBO or TCM.

  21. Matt26 says

    My answer is yes.
    In these series and movies done Jesus is always played by a white actor.

  22. David Hearne says

    In his letter Lentulus describes Jesus as having: “a noble and lively face, with fair and slightly wavy hair; black and strongly curving eyebrows, intense penetrating blue eyes and an expression of wondrous grace. His nose is rather long. His beard is almost blonde, although not very long. His hair is quite long, and has never seen a pair of scissors…..His neck is slightly inclined, so that he never appears to be bitter or arrogant. His tanned face is the color of ripe corn and well proportioned. It gives the impression of gravity and wisdom, sweetness and good, and is completely lacking in any sign of anger.”

  23. ratbastard says

    Maybe it’s just me, but I picture the devil as being an attractive individual, not creepy looking. Isn’t his/her attractiveness part of the seduction?


    As for J.C., somebody else once asked the question if Jesus was an obese smelly incontinent guy, would anybody have ever paid attention? Well there’s Buddah, but I guess it’s necessary for JC to be a ‘hot’ Portuguese actor.

  24. ratbastard says


    It isn’t really known if ‘Lentulus’ as portrayed here, really even existed.

    Catholic Encyclopedia says:

    “Publius Lentulus is a fictitious person, said to have been Governor of Judea before Pontius, and to have written the following letter to the Roman Senate:”

    And the New Testament was written after the death of Jesus.

  25. Polyboy says

    Push that made up “epistle” somewhere where the desperate and gullible dwell David Hearne.

  26. Polyboy says

    The bible is a tool that’s re edited every few years to get more money out of people who want to claim they have the right version.

  27. Thomas says

    Anyone who has watched the History Channel knows that “History” needs to be put in strong air quotes for that network. Half the stuff they show is the fun kind of speculative bunk that appeals to kids in junior high (Wonders of the World! Monsters! Aliens! Wooooooo!).

    I just did some Google image searching of the cast and….dang. It’s laughably bad. And anyone who thinks they didn’t pick Obama/Satan to goose ratings is living in a hole. I’m surprised they didn’t have him fist bumping with a Michelle Obama/Eve.

  28. bobbyjoe says

    Since this is a gay blog, here’s the more specific angle from a GLBT viewpoint that Towleroad might want to cover. In the Feb. 25-Mar. 10, 2013 TV Guide, there’s an article about the History Channel and Mark Burnett’s Bible mini-series. The following quote from that article is where things become disturbing from a GLBT perspective:

    “”We weren’t qualified to teach the Bible, but we knew plenty of people who were,” says [Mark] Burnett, whose inter-faith panel included pastors Joel Osteen, Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes, Bishop Michael Sheridan, Focus on the Family president Jim Daly and Rev. Samuel Rodriguez.”

    Perhaps you’ll notice what all of this supposed “inter-faith” panel has in common. Besides the obvious– though strangely included– Focus on the Family representative, there’s Samuel Rodriguez, the anti-gay activist who’s worked with Ruben Diaz; Bishop Michael Sheridan, who has called same-sex marriage “intrinsically evil” and has argued that communion should be denied to Catholics who vote for it; T.D. Jakes, who, according to the Dallas Voice, proclaimed he would not hire an openly gay person and called homosexuality a “brokenness;” and both Rick Warren and Joel Osteen who as you know have trotted out their own anti-gay views.

    It’s worth noting that not only does every member of that panel have a distinctly anti-gay history, but that the panel is entirely conservative (Warren’s protestations to the contrary). Mark Burnett has made quite a bit of cash on the backs of gay contestants on his various shows, so I’m curious why any progressive or GLBT voices are suddenly lacking when he’s looking for perspective this time around? It’s 2013, and I thought the media was improving at least a little bit in thinking that the only religion that exists anywhere is right-wing religion, but apparently not in this case. And why–particularly- did Burnett seek out Focus on the Family for this, when FOF is not a church, last time I checked, but a thinly-veiled anti-gay organization?

  29. jamal49 says

    @EPCM: For the historical record, there is absolutely NO, I repeat, NO historical evidence, none whatsoever that a man named Jesus ever existed. None. Not one iota. Unless you’re referring to the phony accounts of Josephus, which most serious biblical scholars dismiss as a complete fabrication, added centuries after Josephus wrote his Histories. As for the bible itself, place names do not accurate history make. In fact, for the historical record, there is not one biblical story that has EVER been proven to be historical fact. The bible is a mythical account of a small, insignificant, desert tribe and their travails and conflicts with their vengeful, wrathful god (the Old Testament) and a mythical account of a redeemer messiah fabricated by New Testament writers based on inaccurate interpretations of messianic myths of The Pentateuch by unknowledgeable pagan writers. As for the “profound” influence the bible has had on Western history, profundity does not necessarily translate to a positive outcome. The bible, aka judeo-christianity, has been a corrupting, decadent, regressive influence on Western, if not world, civilization. It needs to be vanquished and eradicated, along with its demon spawn, the q’uran (aka as islam). Good riddance to all three.

  30. trees says

    No, the devil is not black. The devil should look like Donald Trump, all pink and orange like fire, and with hay for hair.

  31. says

    It’s television … and Mark Burnett knows what he’s doing. Casting an Obama look-alike as Satan will generate more “buzz” than the History Channel has ever seen before. You can’t buy this kind of publicity.

  32. Eric in Chicago says

    Guess they didn’t read the bible. The Devil is supposed to be extremely beautiful.

  33. 1♥ says

    So this means that since mount Olympus is a real place then all of the roman gods that live on it are real. If the Bible is kind of, or sort of, the truth that would mean that the God of the Bible isn’t telling us the real truth and is a liar.
    If the word of your god is just an allegory then your god is just an allegory.

  34. Jeffrey York says

    Wow, what a hot Jesus, king of the Jews! And Mary is about as white bred as they come.

  35. Dee Vee says

    It’s so much different from the book, but it had a nice beat and was easy to dance to.

  36. Chitown Kev says

    “More likely he looked most similar to a present day Arab, Palistanian,or some other genuine Semitic man.”

    Whcih tells us nothing as to whether Jesus was “hot” or not.

  37. Bob R says

    @jamal49, thank you for your post, you saved me a lot of typing and aggravation. People who believe the Jesus myth are either home schooled or willfully ignorant. If the Biblical Jesus did exist and do all the miracles he is credited with, raising the dead, etc, I would think that legitimate historians of the era would be writing volumes about him. Yet there seems to be no real legitimate mention of him outside the Bible. So much of the Bible is historically false and inaccurate it’s ridiculous. To go through and point out all the blatant historical errors in the Bible would take hours. Then we could start on the Bible’s contradictions. Faith is indeed blind to facts and truth.

  38. jaragon says

    The History channel has become as ridiculous as the Learning Channel- and yes that actor is made up to look like President Obama- and of course this was done on purpose- it’s hard to believe that anyone involved in this production did not notice- also casting a black actor as Satan- is in questionable taste.

  39. Bernie says

    sorry, but the use of this so called “devil” is no coincidence…if you follow these religious right wing zealots they truly believe Obama is Satan, the devil, a Nazi…..etc and it fits into their racist hatred of Obama…….remember the Obama compared to a monkey and a hanging of him in effigy….well this follow the same sick and disrespectual caricature of Obama……and they call themselves Christian………pathetic

  40. David Hearne says

    @ Ratbastard

    It simply doesn’t matter, but the rule is that the older the source the greater probability of being true. For example, in genealogy if the 1870 census says that your great grandfather is 14 but in the 1860 census it says he was 2, then you use the 1860 census.

    Israel was then as it is today, a genetic and commercial crossroads. As Jesus was described in early texts as being “fair”, and given that the story of Jesus says that he was conceived in a unwed woman in Roman occupied Israel, it’s not unrealistic to allow that he may well have been lighter than the rest of your garden variety members of the House of David. Moreover, if you also allow for the rather likely possibility that he was not of low birth, then he could well have resembled his cousin Herod.

    In any event, this bunch here would rather the black guy not get the part of Satan. So they don’t want the black guy to work apparently. I’ll bet they didn’t have a problem with a black guy playing Jesus Christ in countless “edgy” versions o f JC Superstar

  41. Clint says

    “COINCIDENTALLY…I read a rumour that the History Channel is now owned by a Christian broadcasting company. Hmm……..”

    Imagine Christians trying to re-manufacture the story of how things went down…I don’t think we’ve been down that road yet.

  42. ratbastard says

    @Chitown Kev,

    Oh man. Now you do sound like you have a chip on your shoulder if you’re suggesting I don’t think Arab or Semitic men can be hot.

  43. V-8 says

    many portuguese and spaniards are genetically partially sephardic jews, before the inquisition, and many others have moorish blood as well…

    mediterranean people, from lisbon to telaviv, run the gamut as far as their looks….

  44. Chitown Kev says


    no chip on my shoulder at all…it’s just that by my own empirical observations and (ahem!)experimentation with Arab/Semitic types, the two are not mutually exclusive.

    That had more to do with the way you constructed your statement than anything else, not accusing you of anything.

  45. Will says

    Yes, that does look like “The Gay President” but I don’t think this one spends so much on golf.

  46. Will says

    Yes, that does look like “The Gay President” but I don’t think this one spends so much on golf.