"Game Show Looks to Convert Atheists":
Reuters report:
Turkish television station Kanal T hopes the answer is a ratings success as it prepares to launch a gameshow where spiritual guides from the four faiths will seek to convert a group of non-believers.
The prize for converts will be a pilgrimage to a holy site of their chosen religion -- Mecca for Muslims, the Vatican for Christians, Jerusalem for Jews and Tibet for Buddhists....
A team of theologians will ensure that the atheists are truly non-believers and are not just seeking fame or a free holiday.
Thanks to Religion Clause for the pointer.
And is conversion to judaism measured by circumcision in the case of men?
Can we infer by this that the “spiritual guide” for Christianity is going to be Catholic? Because while I could see where going to the Vatican would be a great pilgrimage for Catholics, I’m not sure it would be as meaningful for Protestants.
Not trying to pick a fight. IIRC Catholics are the largest single denomination of Christianity and it would make sense to have one as the representative (if they can only have one) even though many Christians aren’t Catholic. Short of reenacting that scene from Babylon 5 where Commander Sinclair had to show a representation of Earth’s religion and had an entire loading bay filled with individuals from different faiths, I think that the creators of the show probably made a reasonable choice.
In other news, it's actually not the theologians who will do the converting. They hired a stack of priests, rabbis, imams, buddhist monks, etc. to do that.
A trip to Las Vegas.
I'm curious how they're going to set that up. Some sort of reverse inquisition?
Thanks Martin, if I had to guess someone may have realized that while non-Catholic Christians may not attach much spiritual significance to the Vatican, pretty much all of Christianity has its spiritual roots in Judaism.
Wins the thread.
A Turkish game show is challenging atheists to reassess their views and win "the biggest prize ever".
Penitents Compete will bring together an Islamic imam, a Jewish rabbi, a Buddhist monk and a Greek Orthodox priest seeking to convert the atheists.
The prize for any converted contestants is an expenses-paid pilgrimage to a holy site of their chosen faith.
But the producers say the show will also help contestants "find serenity" and raise awareness of the faiths.
Each episode of Penitents Compete will pitch 10 atheists - carefully vetted by a team of theologians to ensure their non-belief - against the four faith leaders.
The imam, rabbi, monk and priest will then seek to persuade the atheists of the merits and truth of their faith.
Adverts for the show promise: "We give you the biggest prize ever; we represent the belief in God. Believe, repent, God will forgive you."
Mixed reactions
The show's producers say they know there is a good chance that none of the atheists will be converted, reports Turkey's Hurriyet newspaper.
But if any are genuinely convinced by a faith, they will be sent on a pilgrimage - new Muslims to Mecca, Buddhists to Tibet and Jews and Christians to Jerusalem.
The TV cameras will follow the winning contestants as they go on their pilgrimage.
"They can't see this trip as a getaway, but as a religious experience," the deputy director of Kanal T, Ahmet Ozdemir, told Hurriyet.
The programme has prompted a mixed reaction in mainly Muslim Turkey, with some saying it would be good for interfaith relations and others saying such discussions were "inappropriate" for television.
Mr Ozdemir said that when people first heard about the show, it was "hard for them to see what it was all about", but that many people were now "waiting impatiently" for its launch.
"People are free to believe in anything they want. Our programme does not have a say," he said.
Story from BBC NEWS
My money is: 50% Islam, %25 Christianity, %15 Buddhism, %10 Judaism.
Sign me up. Is there a magic word that will cause the duck to fly down and pay me $50?
That would be ridiculously easy and would not involve any deep theologians. Just require all the contestants to publicly desecrate religious symbols of all the participating religions. (Read your Gulliver on the Japanese weeding out Christians). If that admits some stray Wiccan, so be it. He would still be a convert if the contestants succeed. This procedure would make the win that much sweeter for the winning cleric.
Or San Francisco for Anglicans? (heh, heh)
Danbury, CT, for Moonies, anyone?
That also rules out genuine atheists who don't want to be the victim of Mohammed cartoon style violence. There's a reason why we have a Piss Christ, but no Piss Mohammed.
So, any requirement of giving up atheism to "convert" to Buddhism would be a requirement imposed by Kanal T, not by Buddhism.
Anybody remember that low budget SF movie starring the Governator, "Running Man"? If you do, you might remember what happened to the three "winners" they hyped as spending their prize money on a beach somewhere, sipping drinks with little umbrellas.
I have a feeling that any "contestant" who doesn't convert to Islam will never be seen again, except for the show's promos where they're portrayed languishing on a similar "beach".
2. I agree with Fub, about Buddhism. "Converting" to Buddhism seems rather at odds with some pretty core values of most followers of that religion.
3. If there was a way to read people's minds, I suspect that--from those who 'convert'--the main criterion will be: What place to I most want to visit? Although I'd love to see Tibet, and Italy and Israel are always interesting, I think I'd pick 'Muslim' in terms of travel destinations, as it would allow me to visit an exotic place that otherwise is forbidden to me, as a non-Muslim. All other 3 can easily be visited (for Americans, at least), as long as one has the bucks to pay for the trip.
Well, it's certainly true that one wouldn't have to give up atheism to become a Buddhist. But I guess you're right, you don't "convert" to Buddhism as much as you decide to practice.
Given the Chinese occupation of Tibet I'm not sure how much of a treat it would be to visit if the reason for the visit was to explore Buddhist teachings.
Well, here are some thoughts on why not convert or perhaps tests . . . :
- in Islam you have to say the Shada and if you recant, under Sharia law the penalty is death, so the there's a built in incentive to be truly sincere when you convert. Sahih al-Bukhari 9:84:57 &9:83:17
In Judaism perhaps they would have to be circumcized? Of course, this leaves out testing all the atheists who were circumcised when they were babies. . .Of course the Old Testament had the death penalty as well - but it only applied to those who worshiped other gods besides Yahweh (Deuteronomy 13:6-11 &Deuteronomy 17:2-7) so an atheist would seem to be in the clear there.
As for determining if he is a true Christian - maybe make him sit through an entire showing of The Passion? Or, have him say "Jesus is Lord" as 1 Cor. 12:3 says "no one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit."
I hope the rules are a little tighter than as stated. If the above is accurate, then there's going to be a non-performance problem when the Christian, Jewish, or Buddhist convert choses to go to Mecca for his prize...
However, to call them "dogmatic factual assertions ... that one would need to accept in order to become a Buddhist" is more than a stretch. Either one thinks they are true, or not. If one doesn't, then there is still no rule in most sects to prevent one from becoming a regular member of a lay community or congregation and participating in regular practice or services. One might not wish to do so, but that's different from not being permitted to do so.
Of course, one would be unlikely to take Bodhisattva vows to join a Sangha (a group of priests, monks or nuns) if one did not believe them true. But that is more akin to ordination in Christianity than to simply being a member of a congregation.
Even the Gotama Buddha's uncle, so the story goes, attained enlightenment without being a member of a Sangha. Or maybe they just say that because he was a good ol' boy.
Strictly speaking, the rabbis shouldn't be trying to convert these atheists, though perhaps they'll only teach them the precepts of Judaism and hope the atheists are hooked. The issue might make for an interesting TV plot point, when it's filmed.
Alas, desecration of religious symbols appears to be an activity engaged in almost entirely by the religious.
What makes it OK to have a gameshow about converting atheists and not other people from other religious groups?
That's how a lot of modern, particularly western (but certainly not exclusively), practitioners of Buddhism would like to believe, but traditional Buddhism has plenty of dogma. It's just ignored or re-imagined as completely metaphorical by many modern practitioners. Buddhist Dogma
As far as "no rule in most sects to prevent one from becoming a regular member of a lay community or congregation and participating in regular practice or services" due to non-belief in dogma, that's also true for most Christian churches.
I don't have any problem with people practicing new-age mysticism (which is what the vast majority of western "Buddhists" are practicing), but they're practicing traditional Buddhism to about the same extent that Madonna is practicing traditional Judaism.
JK,
It would be more accurate to say that various schools of Buddhism have taken on various traditions and dogmas, many of which derive from local indigenous cultures. It is an inevitable process.
The fact is that the Buddha didn't teach any dogmas. Anyone can confirm this for themselves by reading the ancient texts. What the Buddha did say, explicitly, was that you shouldn't believe anything unless you verify it for yourself.
If you're interested I highly recommend 'What the Buddha Taught' by Walpola Rahula. Extremely concise and well written.
It appears you are using the word "dogma" in the sense of "dogmatic theology", an official belief recognized by a church body. Louis De La Vallee Poussin's 1906 article you linked considers Trikaya (a tripartate definition of the attributes of Buddhahood) teachings to be a settled doctrine of the so-called Mahayana school, and to some extent traces its evolution from an early speculative inquiry into what he calls "[a substitute] for the antiquated 'dependent origination' (pratityasamutpada)."
I see several problems with this. First, the Mahayana / Hinayana distinction of Buddhist schools is to a great extent a construct originated by early western scholars, based upon far more complicated ancient polemics, tinged with nationalism, exchanged by some ancient Buddhist scholars. Buddhists tend not to use this distinction.
Second, De La Vallee Poussin appears to assume that there is a coherent and consistent belief about the nature of Trikaya overarching all so-called Mahayana sects.
I wasn't around in 1906, but I do know that now there are differences of opinion over Trikaya teachings even within adherents of one sect or another. I also know that teachings on "dependent origination" are still around, and not subsumed by Trikaya teachings. I've heard some over the years. Dogma, by definition, is not subject to debate.
So, whatever De La Vallee Poussin meant by "dogma", Trikaya teaching is not dogma in the sense that there is one and only one official Buddhist doctrine.At least until you want to join in sacraments. Since there are no sacraments in the Christian sense in Buddhism, participation by non-adherents is much less limited.Try a simple experiment. Sign up and attend a sesshin conducted by any American Roshi (approximately an Abbot) given Inka (approximately certification) by any recognized Zen lineage. There are plenty available in the USA. Insist on participating if he or she tries to discourage you. Don't quit until it's over. Then report back just how "new-age mystical" you found the practice.
This was my immediate take on the show. How well would this go over if they had a muslim contestant to be converted to atheism, christianity, judaism, etc? The show appears to make atheists acceptable targets and the butt of the joke.
Reducing religion to a game show, regardless of the belief system, is distasteful.
"We found a witch! May we burn her?" -- Monty Python
Another example, pointed out by Dawkins, is the very word "atheist" - a word, he says, which has no more rational basis to exist than, say, "a-alchemist." The fact that it <i>does </i>exist is testament to the degree to which theists have convinced not only themselves but even many non-theists to regard theism as somehow the natural, default position.
A final example of theists' PR prowess is their use of the connotation/denotation distinction to incredible effect. Do you cynically admire "Toxic assets" -> "legacy assets?" "Special interests" -> "Stakeholders?" Bah; isolated one-offs, small potatoes.
Compare "superstition" -> "faith," which audaciously re-spins <i>the very mode by which people can be induced to believe pretty much anything</i>. Talk about your points of high leverage and going for the jugular. SomeOne - er, someone - way back when <i>really </i>knew what they were doing:-)
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.