I've recently finished my second viewing of DS9 and it was as great as I remembered it. There are many aspects which set DS9 apart from its sister Trek series, and one of the more poignant differences is the strong presence of religion as a theme. I'm sure this has been discussed before, and if I'm resurrecting a topic everyone is bored with, I apologize, but, upon a quick forum search, I was not able to find a dedicated thread.
I was wondering what brought on the shift from a religiously neutral franchise in TOS and TNG, with some even anti-religious overtones in TNG, to DS9's generous treatment of spirituality and faith. Seeing as this is a science-fiction show, I found it unusual to have a captain that is regarded as a religious icon and a first officer that is not in the least shy about proclaiming her faith in a divine power. I loved what the show did with this theme. I salute having both sides - science and religion - represented and even brought together in Sisko's transformation from reluctance to acceptance of his role as Emissary of the Prophets, but I wonder why. Any thoughts?
Simple: because someone influential on the production side of things is quite religious. So, we get a very preachy, manichean Star Trek show that completely contradicts the humanist vision depicted in TOS&TNG.
You just learn to ignore the horrible religion-heavy episodes ("The Reckoning" had unintentional comical value, though) and focus on the humoristic ("The House of Quark", "The Magnificent Ferengi",...), action-oriented ("Sacrifice of Angels",...) or poetic/dramatic ("The Visitor", Far Beyond the Stars",...) ones.
someone who has to be american wrote:
We have better provenance for the books of the Bible than we do the books of Caesar. No one doubts Caesar's writings are authentic though, because they are secular.
Clear-minded, objective thinking can only conclude that the Bible is an authentic historical record as testified to by it's authors.
You seem more versed in conspiracy theories than History. We have plenty of direct evidence of Caius Iulius' existence and of the authenticity of his writings, we have very little to none of the bible's claims*.
No offence, but it's extreme indoctrination such as this that makes me glad of being born on this side of the Atlantic.
*Note: I'm not saying those claims are false, they could be true even without evidence of their historicity.
same individual wrote:
The authors of the New Testament even used YOUR argument: "Don't believe us? Ask around. There are living people who saw all this happen." That they are dead now doesn't make their statements any less credible.
Given that those authors are writing a century or more after the alleged facts, they couldn't have very well done so.