TLC's "All American Muslims"

[mathematoons]

Pope Benedict exclaimed in Deus Caritas Est: that eros is the love between man and woman which is neither planned nor willed, but somehow imposes itself upon human beings.

I don’t get it. That sure sounds like our addiction to sin.

The Pope goes on to say that Eros, if wielded w/o proper control will lead to the sins you characterized through the use of the word “romance” However, the Pope also says that it is wrong to completely do away with eros all together. This desire to put the other person on a pedestal is not sinful rather an essential part of what it is to be human.

So why isn’t it idolatry? If you put anything above God, it’s idolatry.

When two people care about each other and want to start a Catholic family together, that’s one thing. (I don’t know enough about other religions to say anything one way or the other.) But the focus of the couple seems to be entirely on each other, with no other purpose, when the whole purpose of couples is to start families.

Also The Book Song of Songs is part of our canon and even referenced by Benedict in the encyclical. The Book is basically a bunch of romantic love songs between a man and a woman. This just further goes to show that there is nothing wrong with exalting romantic love.

As I understand it, the Song of Songs is really about the love between God and humans. The love of a married couple is supposed to be just an image of the love between God and humans. But people seem to be worshipping the image when they fall in love.

 

[LoyalViews]

I can guarentee you that if TLC made a reality show about a Catholic family there would be hell on earth

 

[ringil]

Why would she be upset seeing a Muslim convert to Catholicism?

She stated it was “inappropriate” to air a Catholic converting to Islam. I questioned if she felt it would be inappropriate to air a Muslim converting to Catholicism- it’s called cognitive dissonance.

I would also be “upset” to know or view a Catholic conveting to any religion but I don’t feel it is inappropriate to air this on TV.

 

[ringil]

So then the RC church denies that Athanasian Creed?

The Athanasian Creed
Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.

But the Catholic faith is this, that we venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in oneness; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit; but the divine nature of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one, their glory is equal, their majesty is coeternal.

(it is the longest of the creeds, you can look it up to read the rest of it)

The Athanasian Creed

This is the Athanasian Creed, as used in the Roman Catholic Church. It’s used in the liturgy only rarely (sometimes on Trinity Sunday), but like all of the Church’s creeds, it is still valid and respected.

Although no longer officially attributed to St. Athanasius (died in 373 A.D.), it still bears his name. This beautiful creed contains a detailed meditation on the nature of the Trinity.

The Athanasian Creed is also called the Quicumque vult, after its first words in Latin.

This creed can also be found in the Handbook of Prayers, edited by James Socias.

Since I am not RC I would like to ask that if RC’s put their catechism above the Bible? Above the exact words of Jesus? This was not always the claim of the RC when did it change? The statement that muslims and jews worship the same god was written by man not God. The catechism is not the inspired word of God is it?

I quoted that the RC still uses the Athanasian Creed on Trinity Sunday. If it is read and used then that contradicts the statement in your cathechism.

Divine revelation, savred scripture, and tradition are methods with which the Church transmits Truth. Only the Catholic Church in the Magisterium can authoritatively interpret the Scriptures. A layman cannot on their own and is subject to error.

The Catechism is the current doctrine of the Church and in it we find that Jews and Muslims worship “the One True God”.

But as a Lutheran, you have been forged in the fires of dissent, as it were. I mean this in a respectful way. I actually like many Lutherans who tend to show a depth of thought missing in Low Church Protestantism. I can’t even carry on a conversation with those folks.

 

[ringil]

I can guarentee you that if TLC made a reality show about a Catholic family there would be hell on earth

Why are so many folks around here so tied to this Catholic victimhood mentality?

If there was a focus for such a show like a gigantic family “the Duggars” then I don’t think TLC would care what religion they are. The Duggars religion is pretty odd and certainly more fringe to the American consiousness than Catholicism.

 

[Birdpreacher]

I don’t get it. That sure sounds like our addiction to sin.

You are correct to point that out, that is because eros: the sensation that comes over us when we are so fascinated by another person that we want to be around them all the time can and has lead to sin throughout human history.

Eros is the lighting of a fire, a passion, a strong emotional feeling which consumes a person’s heart. This does sound like the temptation to sin which also springs upon us by suprise and even appears to challenge our abilities to exercise self control.

Sin occurs when our Eros completely controls us. That is were the idolatry you speak of appears. Even back to the days of the Greeks when eros was recognized as divine intoxication, there was this desire to harness its power and become intoxicated by it.THat is why so many temples had orgies, sex slaves etc.

Eros is often described as a “searching” kind of love because it yearns and wants satisfaction. That Satisfaction can only be achieved through a long spiritual journey rather than an impulsive one night stand or whirlwind romance. Satisfaction requires the injection of “agape” or spiritual love. However one who is controlled by eros would never know agape love because they are so dedicated to attaining pleasure, whether that pleasure is through sexual gratification or emotional intimacy.

The Pope makes it clear that having romantic feelings toward a person is not sinful when he states:

“Even if eros is at first mainly covetous and ascending, a fascination for the great promise of happiness, in drawing near to the other, it is less and less concerned with itself, increasingly seeks the happiness of the other, is concerned more and more with the beloved, bestows itself and wants to “be there for” the other.”

This desire to want to be around a person all the time is natural,to deny it would be to deny our humanity.

So why isn’t it idolatry? If you put anything above God, it’s idolatry.

I agree with you here. And you are correct to say that romantic love may lead to idolatry. But every kind of love is capable of spiraling into idolatry without the guidance of Church’s teachings.

A mother’s love of her children
An employee’s love of work
A priest’s love for his parishoners
My love of the San Antonio Spurs

All of these relationships are good and natural for people to experience, there is no reason to say that romantic love in of itself is sinful. On the contrary, this stimulation which causes one person to focus on the other, is exactly what makes us humans tick. To try to eliminate it from our lives would be to try to eliminate something GOd created within us.

As for the Song of Songs, while the interpretation you present are valid, its also worth noting that the Holy Father acknowledges that book is an exaltation of conjugal love.

 

[jediliz]

I would consider sister wives a lot worse as
that show glorifies polygamy.

Didn’t TLC used to be the learning channel?
Now it’s just reality junk.

I’d love to see a show about a Catholic family!

 

[psr13]

I saw the last part of the episode where the Catholic converted to Islam. I also felt, not necessarily saddened, more questioning why he would convert to a non-Christian religion. The preview for the next episode makes it seem he only converted so he could marry the girl, which also makes me feel almost as if he was forced into converting. As they explained, the father must give approval before the girl can even accept dating the man.
I also felt, somewhat bothered by the way it seemed they just took his conversion so lightly even making jokes.

He did only convert to marry the girl. I do not believe he in any way believes in Islam. I was glad, though, that his mom ultimately decided not to go to the conversion ceremony. However, the only reason she mentioned not wanted him to convert was really cultural. She never mentioned anything about the beliefs.

 

[Contarini]

The musings of a hyothetical “low opinion of Islam” is entirely yours, sir.

Really? You are willing to assure me that you have a great deal of respect for Islam as a religion?

Every other time that someone has made this move, it’s because they are trying to make a point about something being radically wrong with Islam. (That’s not necessarily a mistake–I have a fairly low view of Islam myself as religions go, which is why I do not find it surprising that many Muslims countries are continuing to practice the intolerance that most Christians have now rejected. Perhaps if I had a more generous view of Islam i would be more shocked by this fact!)

If you care to answer a simple question with obfuscation, have at it.

It wasn’t a “simple” question at all and your claim that it was is disingenuous. It was a completely irrelevant question. We are discussing what is appropriate for “regular” television in the U.S. There was no reason to bring up intolerance in Muslim countries except as a snide way of suggesting that we should be intolerant to Muslims (if in a much gentler manner) because they are intolerant to us.

Edwin

 

[scipio337]

Really? You are willing to assure me that you have a great deal of respect for Islam as a religion?

Really? I suppose no one deserves the benefit in the doubt, in your book. There is much in the Islamic faith to be admired. There is some that is subject to criticism.

Contarini:

Every other time that someone has made this move, it’s because they are trying to make a point about something being radically wrong with Islam. (That’s not necessarily a mistake–I have a fairly low view of Islam myself as religions go, which is why I do not find it surprising that many Muslims countries are continuing to practice the intolerance that most Christians have now rejected. Perhaps if I had a more generous view of Islam i would be more shocked by this fact!)

It wasn’t a “simple” question at all and your claim that it was is disingenuous. It was a completely irrelevant question. We are discussing what is appropriate for “regular” television in the U.S. There was no reason to bring up intolerance in Muslim countries except as a snide way of suggesting that we should be intolerant to Muslims (if in a much gentler manner) because they are intolerant to us.

I believe it to be a highly relevant question. The OT was a Catholic’s reaction on viewing a Catholic conversion to Islam, vis a vis a reality TV show. To question what the inverse reaction should be a valid part of the discussion.

I find your response to be a disingenuous, and loaded with an assumption of guilt.

 

[sedonaman]

lrcatholic95, … Would you feel this same way, upset and ready to boycott TLC if they had shown a program about Catholics living in America and showed a Muslim converting to Catholicism?
…

Bad comparison. The correct question should be, “Would a Muslim [viewer] be upset if TLC showed a program about Catholics living in America and showed a Muslim converting to Catholicism?”

I think we all know the answer to that. :yup:

 

[sedonaman]

I don’t get the point of your post. It doesn’t address my question to the OP.

He makes an excellent point. Why do Muslims get upset when one of them converts to Christianity since they claim we worship the same God? They inadvertently contradict their own claim.

 

[Contarini]

I believe it to be a highly relevant question. The OT was a Catholic’s reaction on viewing a Catholic conversion to Islam, vis a vis a reality TV show. To question what the inverse reaction should be a valid part of the discussion.

Why?

If a Muslim were objecting to the OP, then yes, it would be a valid response, though the Muslim would have several fairly easy responses (one would be: “yes, Muslim countries are less tolerant than America, which is why I like America–I’m just asking America to live up to its own professed ideals”; another would be, "Muslim countries are self-proclaimed Muslim countries–if a self-proclaimed Christian country had similar policies that would be OK, but America is supposed to have complete freedom of religion).

But in fact this is a discussion among Christians about the appropriate behavior for a secular radio station in a majority-Christian country with a strong emphasis on freedom of religion.

The implied argument–the only argument that makes your question relevant–is that if Muslims don’t tolerate us we shouldn’t tolerate them (even if our intolerance is much gentler than theirs).

If that’s not your argument, then you need to explain what it is. Because the relevance of the question is not self-evident at all. The issue here is not one of reciprocity but of faithfulness to our own culture’s self-proclaimed ideals; and more importantly, for Christians, adherence to the Golden Rule, which says that we should measure our actions by what we would like others to do and not what we think they would do.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Bad comparison. The correct question should be, “Would a Muslim [viewer] be upset if TLC showed a program about Catholics living in America and showed a Muslim converting to Catholicism?”

I think we all know the answer to that. :yup:

This would be relevant if the argument was that the OP’s objection somehow discredits Christianity and shows the superiority of Islam. When Christians argue that Islamic intolerance discredits Islam and shows the superiority of Christianity, it is relevant to point out Christian/Biblical intolerance and violence as a response. (And I note that in a concurrent thread you point to this as a bad tactic, even though it’s far more relevant than the tactic you’re defending here.) But that’s not the point here at all. The point is that by our own standards, both religious and secular, we ought not to call such a program inappropriate. In secular terms, it’s free exercise of religion; in Christian terms, it’s something we would probably like Muslims to allow (in reverse) in their countries, however unlikely they may be to do so in most cases. (Some Christians might argue that no, in fact we wouldn’t expect or desire Muslims to allow this, and that would be a legitimate response–then we would be left only with the secular issue.)

Edwin

 

[scipio337]

Why?

…The implied argument–the only argument that makes your question relevant–is that if Muslims don’t tolerate us we shouldn’t tolerate them (even if our intolerance is much gentler than theirs).

If that’s not your argument, then you need to explain what it is. Because the relevance of the question is not self-evident at all. The issue here is not one of reciprocity but of faithfulness to our own culture’s self-proclaimed ideals; and more importantly, for Christians, adherence to the Golden Rule, which says that we should measure our actions by what we would like others to do and not what we think they would do.

Edwin

My question was rhetorical. The question would probably point to a stronger response in a Muslim country to the inverse scenario, but not to imply some proportional response HERE, and I have absolutely no idea what gave you that impression.

Do people post articles here regarding the plight of Copts in Egypt to elicit a similar response against Muslims in the US? Absolutely not.

The simple argument is that there is a bit of a double standard (Jesus has been a recurring character on South Park for how long?), and that we can point to this double standard in the hope that Muslim treatment of non-Muslims (or apostates) would improve.

I realize that most posters here, including our Muslim posters, are from the US, and aren’t part of the culture that persecutes those of other faiths.

 

[sedonaman]

This would be relevant if the argument was that the OP’s objection somehow discredits Christianity and shows the superiority of Islam. When Christians argue that Islamic intolerance discredits Islam and shows the superiority of Christianity, it is relevant to point out Christian/Biblical intolerance and violence as a response. (And I note that in a concurrent thread you point to this as a bad tactic, even though it’s far more relevant than the tactic you’re defending here.) But that’s not the point here at all. The point is that by our own standards, both religious and secular, we ought not to call such a program inappropriate. In secular terms, it’s free exercise of religion; in Christian terms, it’s something we would probably like Muslims to allow (in reverse) in their countries, however unlikely they may be to do so in most cases. (Some Christians might argue that no, in fact we wouldn’t expect or desire Muslims to allow this, and that would be a legitimate response–then we would be left only with the secular issue.)

Edwin

Two observations here. As far as the popular culture is concerned, bashing Christianity: IN, bashing Islam: OUT. That’s one of the hidden messages.

Second, if people see something on TV [or read it in a newspaper, etc.], they consider it to be true because of the assumption that “‘They’ wouldn’t let ‘them’ put it on if it wasn’t.” The message of this character’s conversion is that Christianity is wrong and Islam is right. I’m sure Muslims would interpret it the other way around if the character converted from Islam to Christianity. Turn about fair play.

So, what’s not relevant about this since the topic is broadly “TLC’s ‘All American Muslims’”?

 

[John7]

In case you have not seen the coming attractions or the show itself TLC now has a show documenting the life of Muslims living in America. In one episode though it shows the fiance of a muslim woman converting from Catholicism to Islam. I was sick to my stomach seeing this, I do not know why TLC would show this. It was just so upsetting for me to see this. I am now personally boycotting TLC and advocating all my friends do the same. I am also going to send letters telling them how this was completely inappropriate. To show anyone changing their religion on regular television, I feel, is too sensitive of a subject to show, any religion. How do all of you feel about this show?

FYI, supposedly the ratings for the opener were good
“More than 1.7 million viewers nationally tuned in to the 10 p.m. airing of the show.”
freep.com/article/20111115/ENT03/111115051/-All-American-Muslim-premiere-lands-strong-ratings

be interesting to see where viewership goes…

 

[Crdl2Grv]

Second, if people see something on TV [or read it in a newspaper, etc.], they consider it to be true because of the assumption that “‘They’ wouldn’t let ‘them’ put it on if it wasn’t.” The message of this character’s conversion is that Christianity is wrong and Islam is right.

I suspect you haven’t seen the episode. If there is a “message” about this guy’s conversion, it’s, “Look what his fiancee is making him do.” He’s not the most, uh… zealous convert in the history of Islam. Honestly, he doesn’t seem to particularly care about religion that much at all. The whole thing comes off like the equivalent of a guy who’s fiancee’s family wants a much bigger wedding that he’d prefer. Or a longer wedding ceremony that he’d want. Something like that. It’s kind of a, “Whatever, if it makes her/her family happy, then fine” situation. His mom seems pretty upset by his conversion, but from the looks of it he wasn’t much of an active or practicing Catholic, anyway.

 

[sedonaman]

I suspect you haven’t seen the episode. If there is a “message” about this guy’s conversion, it’s, “Look what his fiancee is making him do.” He’s not the most, uh… zealous convert in the history of Islam. Honestly, he doesn’t seem to particularly care about religion that much at all. The whole thing comes off like the equivalent of a guy who’s fiancee’s family wants a much bigger wedding that he’d prefer. Or a longer wedding ceremony that he’d want. Something like that. It’s kind of a, “Whatever, if it makes her/her family happy, then fine” situation. His mom seems pretty upset by his conversion, but from the looks of it he wasn’t much of an active or practicing Catholic, anyway.

So what does his being Catholic add to the story that wouldn’t be there had he been, say, an atheist instead?

 

[ringil]

I suspect you haven’t seen the episode. If there is a “message” about this guy’s conversion, it’s, “Look what his fiancee is making him do.” He’s not the most, uh… zealous convert in the history of Islam. Honestly, he doesn’t seem to particularly care about religion that much at all. The whole thing comes off like the equivalent of a guy who’s fiancee’s family wants a much bigger wedding that he’d prefer. Or a longer wedding ceremony that he’d want. Something like that. It’s kind of a, “Whatever, if it makes her/her family happy, then fine” situation. His mom seems pretty upset by his conversion, but from the looks of it he wasn’t much of an active or practicing Catholic, anyway.

Oh, don’t confuse posters perceptions with the facts!!

I think the idea of such a show is a fine one. There is real discrimination against Muslims in this country and we have seen it on youtube, the news, etc. Efforts to show that Muslims in the US are just like everyone else, warts and all, is a good thrust and message to send.