View Single Post
Old December 11 2012, 09:49 PM   #201
Darkwing
Commodore
 
Location: This dry land thing is too wierd!
Re: Why Not A Starfleet Ships Chaplain As A Main Character?

Longinus wrote: View Post
Of course no one thinks themselves as evil. That much should be obvious. And kill? I am not going to kill anyone, with hatred or otherwise. What the hell are on about?
It's a paraphrase of Heinlein - and you can take 'killing' literally or figuratively. The fact that that didn't occur to you shows linear thinking. That La Quinta commercial where the salesman 'gets a leg up' on the other salesman was a figurative killing. Obama beating Romney, likewise - but too many partisans in that case still hate the other side of that dispute.

Longinus wrote: View Post
Darkwing wrote: View Post
The democratic party in general, and Michael Newdow and the ACLU in particular, are attempting to do so daily.
This is obviously not true. No one is trying to stop people from having spiritual beliefs. Newdow is however trying to stop people from printing their spiritual beliefs in national currency, or forcing every shool children to recite those spiritual beliefs. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Newdow is rabid on the subject. His exwife has custody, and she and kid were fine with the pledge, but HE didn't like the idea of it, so he sued to try to prevent ANYONE from being able to do it. He wasn't willing to compromise. We already allow chuildren to abstain from saying the pledge, so long as they are quiet during the pledge. Telling those who do choose to say it that they may stop speaking for a moment if they are uncomfortable with those two words is a reasonable compromise. No, he is not reasonable, IMO.

Push them too much, and you're gonna convince a lot of them that it is not only ok, but a good idea, too.
Convince people that homosexuality is a good idea? Do you seriously believe that it is possible to convince a straight person to become a homosexual?
NO. But if you zealously slam folks for opposing you, you validate their opposition, including it's less acceptable features, such as hate.
The first is a scientific fact, only uncertainly might be on the magnitude of the catastrophe. The rest are matters of opinion, in a sense that they're policies, benefits and disadvantages of which can be debated.
1. Anthropogenic is unproven opinion, and based on denying evidence of natural sources grossly exceeding human production.
2. Catastrophic is unproven hyperbole used to scare people.
3. Those behind this agenda are inflexible, proven to have lied and covered up lies, and demanding strict compliance with their agenda. That makes me suspicious of their whole cause. When a major proponent claims that anyone not agreeing completely with him is a traitor to the planet and should be executed, they are not reasonable. When another major proponent ASSUMES missing data follows his expected curve, and then tries to control who's allowed to conduct peer review, he's no longer doing science and forfeits all claims to being a scientist. When this is the foundation of the argument, then I do not agree that it is proven fact.
No one is trying to stop people from praying.
How come they're in the news often doing just that?

Also are we talking about the founding fathers who specificly put the separation church and state in the American constitution? The founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson who wrote his own version of the Bible, editing out all the supernatural parts he considered to be nonsense?
The Thomas Jefferson who used the separation phrase only in a letter where he told religious citizens that NO wall of separation was erected in the constitution. They intended to prevent a theocracy, not a religious nation. That letter is the only source of that phrase which later courts have misused.
I usually refrain from commenting posting style or personality of my fellow board members, but as you keep mentioning things like this, I have to say that neither wisdom, nor respect are the first things that come across from your posts.
You demonstrate an inflexible, hardline thinking about Trek, Roddenberry, science, religion, and the military. It makes you appear to have based your whole worldview on TNG.
Trying to bring this back to topic, a chaplain as a character makes logical sense to anyone who's ever served, but to a producer, author, or other creator, really only works as a back ground character, or for a main character, as a philosophical counterpoint. To a militant atheist, it is, of course, a heinous idea, but then militant atheists rarely have any tolerance anyway.
Do you know what the word 'militant' means?
Relevance?

Longinus wrote: View Post
Bishop76 wrote: View Post
My argument is entirely based on how interesting this would be to see play out as a conflict arising between characters.
IDIC, right?
We see things like this occassionally, for example Worf's Klingon beliefs or the whole Bajoran religion thing DS9. However, regardless of their personal beliefs the Starfleet officers are rational, scientifically minded people and tend to put their duty first. A person who cannot do that do not belong in the Starfleet. Of course, such conflicts can be better explored with new aliens and other non-Starfleet quest characters.
Because that allows us to only see Roddenberry's "better" humans and pretend we have evolved past all that. His earlier version, where we were trying to be better, but weren't there yet, was far more compelling to me than Alien Of The Week.

Longinus wrote: View Post
Bishop76 wrote: View Post
You also notice your language when discussing this? That people who work in Starfleet are rational, scientifically-minded people? And that anyone not of that mind-set is inherently too flawed to fit into Starfleet?
In a sense. They must be able accept the scientific reality (this does not necessarily mean they have to be an atheist.)
I cannot imagine a person with a level of disconnect from reality and mistrust of science exhibited by creationists and climate chance deniers working in the Starfleet.
Lack of compromise again. Science today is trying to tell us what to believe and NOT entertaining argument. That makes it less authoritative and more authoritarian. That, and people feeling science to be too cold and sterile is what feeds those creationist fundies and wiccans and other reactionaries.

Longinus wrote: View Post
Bishop76 wrote: View Post
I can understand denying a creationist the ability to work in the life sciences department of Starfleet maybe, but why not astrogation? Helm? Weapons? My point is that while creationism may seem silly to you (and frankly, to me as well), it doesn't seem silly to a lot of people. Some of them are rational and understand that other people have different belief systems, some of them are not.
If you are not well educated it is possible to be merely misinformed. But Starfleet personnel are well educated (and I actually think that all Federation citizens are pretty well educated by today's standards.) Retaining creationist beliefs while being well informed requires active denying of scientific evidence. And I'm not talking about any specific beliefs anyway, but the mindset. If a person cannot take scientific facts objectively, he has no business being in position that requires evaluating of scientific facts.
A lot of scientifically trained people have found reasons to turn away from evolution and embrace ID. They're well-educated, and choose to accept this belief. Who are you to decide that they aren't qualified? Unless they're running for election to office, you aren't. Nor am I, or any of us here.

My point is that it's arrogant and intolerant to write people off for a belief system.
I am talking about science deniers working in a field that requires science (and any Starfleet position does.) I am not passing judgement on them as human (or alien) beings. It just is not the right place for them.
But you ARE passing judgement. And "deniers" is a loaded word used solely by those agitating for a political viewpoint fueld by bad science demanding unblinking acceptance.
And I also wanted to say that the Bajorans don't count because they actually have physical evidence of their "gods" existing. It's not really a faith at that point any more, it's worship of a more advanced being. That always bugged me...
But they didn't always have that evidence. In any case, I never understood the point of faith anyway, but yes, it can make good TV drama.
Faith without evidence makes for better drama, IMO. A serene priest, unruffled by the lack of belief in his co-workers can be a good character (Book), and make for good scripts. A strongly-opinioned minister, upset by and trying to preach to everyone (Jerry Falwell), can be good drama as well.

Bishop76 wrote: View Post
Well, I also assume that finding alien life will cause some major religious upheaval as well, changing a lot of belief systems drastically. But I would consider a nuclear physicist a high science position that a creationist could fill without much problem, so why not a ship's engineer? It's admittedly quite unlikely, but it's not outside the realm of possibility. There is a certain level of suspension of knowledge to believe creationism that I don't fully understand, admittedly, but I don't think it would eliminate them from EVERY Starfleet position.
In today's military, I see this all the time. Lots of snipes are not religious, or they're hardcore believers, and we have some interesting (and heated, occasionally) discussions in berthings and smokepits.
I also don't see all religions disappearing overnight either. In fact, if there was a WW3, they would strengthen before they weakened. And most modern religions have been around a long while - like over a millennium - I don't see them just up and fading away into nothing in the next 2-300 years. Even if there was less fundamentalism than there is now, there is a basic human need in a lot of people to believe in some sort of afterlife/deity/whatever.
I quite agree. Actually, after the crisis passes, I'd think there'd be more faith, but less zealotry and fundamentalism as civilization rebuilds and life eases. Until it gets easy enough that the self-proclaimed prophets see corruption and decadence and start preaching hellfire and brimstone again...

Longinus wrote: View Post
Religions do not necessarily entierly disappear. However, with better education religions that make claims that directly contradict science will invariably disappear.
Today's fundie movement directly belies that. It's a reaction to hardnosed science supporters.
EmperorTiberius wrote: View Post
Somehow I think our religions would adapt quite easily. They've shown extreme elasticity. So much so, the first warp-capable ship heading to the alien world would have missinaries to show the aliens the light.
Especially the Mormons!
__________________
If you donít drink the kool-aid, youíre a baaad person - Rev Jim Jones
Almond kool-aid, anyone? Or do you prefer pudding?- Darkwing
Darkwing is offline   Reply With Quote