TNG: Silent Weapons by David Mack Review Thread (Spoilers!)

[TerraUnam]

I read it last night. One nitpick:

A Unitarian Church? You had to go and make Esperanza a Unitarian of all things?
Good grief man, what happened to the Holy and Undivided Trinity in the 24th Century?
Were the Presbyterians not available?

[rfmcdpei]

TerraUnam wrote:

---

I read it last night. One nitpick:

A Unitarian Church? You had to go and make Esperanza a Unitarian of all things?
Good grief man, what happened to the Holy and Undivided Trinity in the 24th Century?
Were the Presbyterians not available?

Even if you're joking, that sort of religious bigotry is completely uncalled for. Why not Unitarians in the 24th century? (And what, exactly, are wrong with Presbyterians?)

[rfmcdpei]

Tom Riker wrote:

---

Good job shippers! You Picard\Crusher fanatics who wanted them to get together has now ruined the career fo Jean-Luc Picard. hopefully he becoems resentful of her for making him abandon his career cuz she's a whiny harpy and it leads to the divorce we saw in All Good Things.

... what?

[TerraUnam]

rfmcdpei wrote:

---

Even if you're joking, that sort of religious bigotry is completely uncalled for. Why not Unitarians in the 24th century? (And what, exactly, are wrong with Presbyterians?)

There is nothing wrong with Presbyterians, that's my point. A Unitarian is explicitly not a Trinitarian, which is the belief position of every other church you can think of today. That is a problem if, like me, you take the Trinity seriously.

[Kertrats47]

TerraUnam wrote:

---

There is nothing wrong with Presbyterians, that's my point. A Unitarian is explicitly not a Trinitarian, which is the belief position of every other church you can think of today. That is a problem if, like me, you take the Trinity seriously.

But why exactly is it a problem to show someone who has different beliefs from you? Just because you take the trinity seriously, why does it follow that Esperanza has to? There are Unitarians today, and personally I think it's kind of cool that they are shown to exist in the future.

[TerraUnam]

It illustrates the point of staying away from present-day religion in Trek, mostly because mention of it will annoy somebody.

[Elias Vaughn]

As an atheist, I am offended by both the eulogy and the preceding conversation.

[rfmcdpei]

TerraUnam wrote:

---

There is nothing wrong with Presbyterians, that's my point. A Unitarian is explicitly not a Trinitarian, which is the belief position of every other church you can think of today. That is a problem if, like me, you take the Trinity seriously.

You're not trying to get the point.

What is the problem, exactly, with Trek depicting someone who has a belief system different from your own? Would you be making the same complaint if it turned out that the character in question was, say, Jewish?

Or would you prefer that Trek novels be all about efforts by American evangelical Christians to convert all the heathens out there, starting with the Romulans and their pagan Elements?

[Kertrats47]

TerraUnam wrote:

---

It illustrates the point of staying away from present-day religion in Trek, mostly because mention of it will annoy somebody.

I'm an atheist, and I couldn't care less what someone's religion is depicted as. It's a part of culture, and different religions exist. It lends a verisimilitude to Trek that I rather enjoy.

There are many things that will annoy many different groups of people the world over. Should writers stay away from any topic for fear that some segment of the readership will be "annoyed"? I don't know about you, but to me that sounds like it would be some pretty drab prose.

[TerraUnam]

rfmcdpei wrote:

---

You're not trying to get the point.

What is the problem, exactly, with Trek depicting someone who has a belief system different from your own? Would you be making the same complaint if it turned out that the character in question was, say, Jewish?

Or would you prefer that Trek novels be all about efforts by American evangelical Christians to convert all the heathens out there, starting with the Romulans and their pagan Elements?

I'm a Canadian. I go to the United Church if you must know.

Keeping religion at an arm's length was an established part of Trek's "veneer of the future", if you will. Everybody has an opinion on present-day religion. Mentioning the Roman Catholic Church would have a much, much larger reaction, and it's just best not to mention it for the same reason. A fire salute over the grave with rifles is also just a bit too present-day and IMO just a little too precious. Again, it rips the "veneer of the future" away too much.

Every work or series of works in Science-fiction has a set of self-consistent conceits that allow the reader to suspend their disbelief and accept the fantasy world. Not saying much about present-day religions is an established part of Trek's conceit system. Silent Weapons got away from that system more than I prefer.

[Sho]

I'd say showing that some humans still believe in deities and/or participate in religion goes with the general thrust of showing how humanity has grown enough to at least deal successfully with several deeply-rooted flaws that remain. It's a more realistic angle on Trek's optimistic view of the future - there's the simple version where humanity has generally just improved, and the more nuanced view where it has grown up enough to deal with internal strife in a constructive manner on a species-wide scale. Realistically, there's just relatively little hope of abolishing religion in the time frame we're speaking about. It's a powerful meme, and recently there seems to be some scientific basis to at least consider that a large percentage of the population may be psychologically set up to gravitate to such ideas.

[TerraUnam]

I also disagree with the apparent attempt to link the positive political message in the Eulogy to established present-day archetypes of religion. The Unitarians fall definitely into the Christian Left, but you've got other members of the Christian Left, like me, who take issue with their theological positions (not their political ones). That entire link is unfortunate. It's not Trek. It's too present-day.

[JD]

Sho wrote:

---

I'd say showing that some humans still believe in deities and/or participate in religion goes with the general thrust of showing how humanity has grown enough to at least deal successfully with several deeply-rooted flaws that remain. It's a more realistic angle on Trek's optimistic view of the future - there's the simple version where humanity has generally just improved, and the more nuanced view where it has grown up enough to deal with internal strife in a constructive manner on a species-wide scale. Realistically, there's just relatively little hope of abolishing religion in the time frame we're speaking about. It's a powerful meme, and recently there seems to be some scientific basis to at least consider that a large percentage of the population may be psychologically set up to gravitate to such ideas.

I'm an atheist, but at the same time the lack of religion in Trek always bothered me. I've always found it hard to believe that religion would just disappear like Trek says it would. I've also never been real fond of the idea that religion was something bad that we had to move beyond. Yeah, religions have brought about some bad things, both now and in the past, but I refuse to believe that they are all bad and that we have to "evolve" past them.

[rfmcdpei]

TerraUnam wrote:

---

I'm a Canadian. I go to the United Church if you must know.

I was raised in that denomination myself. Running from my own personal experience, I don't remember any enculturation of anti-Unitarian sentiment, something that a quick Googling of the church's website confirms.

Keeping religion at an arm's length was an established part of Trek's "veneer of the future", if you will. Everybody has an opinion on present-day religion. Mentioning the Roman Catholic Church would have a much, much larger reaction, and it's just best not to mention it for the same reason.

You weren't complaining about religion in Trek, though. Rather, you were complaining about the presence of a specific denomination on the grounds that the "Holy and Undivided Trinity in the 24th Century" wasn't shown as being a universal belief.

Religion has had its place in the novelverse: Jews, Hindus, and Muslims have been depicted prominently as Jews, Hindus and Muslims. What's the problem with Unitarians, specifically? (Muslims share Unitarian beliefs on the Trinity, come to think of it ...)

[rfmcdpei]

TerraUnam wrote:

---

I also disagree with the apparent attempt to link the positive political message in the Eulogy to established present-day archetypes of religion.

What attempt at linkage?

The Unitarians fall definitely into the Christian Left, but you've got other members of the Christian Left, like me, who take issue with their theological positions (not their political ones). That entire link is unfortunate. It's not Trek. It's too present-day.

...