RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,881
Posts: 5,222,219
Members: 24,231
Currently online: 691
Newest member: Rhonson

TrekToday headlines

Takei To Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Apr 23

Yelchin In New Comedy
By: T'Bonz on Apr 23

U.S. Rights For Pegg Comedy Secured
By: T'Bonz on Apr 23

Shatner: Aging and Work
By: T'Bonz on Apr 23

Kurtzman And Orci Go Solo
By: T'Bonz on Apr 22

Star Trek #32 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Apr 22

Voyager Bridge Via The Oculus Rift
By: T'Bonz on Apr 21

Miles Away Glyph Award Nominations
By: T'Bonz on Apr 21

Q Meets NuTrek Crew
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

Pine In Talks For Drama
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Literature

Trek Literature "...Good words. That's where ideas begin."

View Poll Results: Rate Silent Weapons.
Outstanding 37 44.05%
Above Average 33 39.29%
Average 11 13.10%
Below Average 2 2.38%
Poor 1 1.19%
Voters: 84. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 28 2012, 09:13 PM   #31
TerraUnam
Commander
 
TerraUnam's Avatar
 
Location: United Earth
Re: TNG: Silent Weapons by David Mack Review Thread (Spoilers!)

I read it last night. One nitpick:

__________________
Fate protects fools, little children and ships named Enterprise.
But not ships named Columbia.
TerraUnam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 28 2012, 10:29 PM   #32
rfmcdpei
Captain
 
rfmcdpei's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
View rfmcdpei's Twitter Profile
Re: TNG: Silent Weapons by David Mack Review Thread (Spoilers!)

TerraUnam wrote: View Post
I read it last night. One nitpick:

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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 28 2012, 10:38 PM   #33
rfmcdpei
Captain
 
rfmcdpei's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
View rfmcdpei's Twitter Profile
Re: TNG: Silent Weapons by David Mack Review Thread (Spoilers!)

Tom Riker wrote: View Post
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?
rfmcdpei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 28 2012, 10:48 PM   #34
TerraUnam
Commander
 
TerraUnam's Avatar
 
Location: United Earth
Re: TNG: Silent Weapons by David Mack Review Thread (Spoilers!)

rfmcdpei wrote: View Post
TerraUnam wrote: View Post
I read it last night. One nitpick:

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.
__________________
Fate protects fools, little children and ships named Enterprise.
But not ships named Columbia.
TerraUnam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29 2012, 01:17 AM   #35
Kertrats47
Fleet Captain
 
Kertrats47's Avatar
 
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
View Kertrats47's Twitter Profile
Re: TNG: Silent Weapons by David Mack Review Thread (Spoilers!)

TerraUnam wrote: View Post
rfmcdpei wrote: View Post
TerraUnam wrote: View Post
I read it last night. One nitpick:

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.
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.
__________________
Trek Lit Reviews (Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel by Christopher L. Bennett - March 13th, 2014)
2014 Star Trek Book Releases
Kertrats47 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29 2012, 01:40 AM   #36
TerraUnam
Commander
 
TerraUnam's Avatar
 
Location: United Earth
Re: TNG: Silent Weapons by David Mack Review Thread (Spoilers!)

It illustrates the point of staying away from present-day religion in Trek, mostly because mention of it will annoy somebody.
__________________
Fate protects fools, little children and ships named Enterprise.
But not ships named Columbia.
TerraUnam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29 2012, 02:19 AM   #37
Elias Vaughn
Captain
 
Elias Vaughn's Avatar
 
Location: Dead. Or in the Celestial Temple. One of the two.
Re: TNG: Silent Weapons by David Mack Review Thread (Spoilers!)

As an atheist, I am offended by both the eulogy and the preceding conversation.
Elias Vaughn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29 2012, 03:08 AM   #38
rfmcdpei
Captain
 
rfmcdpei's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
View rfmcdpei's Twitter Profile
Re: TNG: Silent Weapons by David Mack Review Thread (Spoilers!)

TerraUnam wrote: View Post
rfmcdpei wrote: View Post
TerraUnam wrote: View Post
I read it last night. One nitpick:

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.
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?
rfmcdpei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29 2012, 05:21 AM   #39
Kertrats47
Fleet Captain
 
Kertrats47's Avatar
 
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
View Kertrats47's Twitter Profile
Re: TNG: Silent Weapons by David Mack Review Thread (Spoilers!)

TerraUnam wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
Trek Lit Reviews (Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel by Christopher L. Bennett - March 13th, 2014)
2014 Star Trek Book Releases
Kertrats47 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29 2012, 05:31 AM   #40
TerraUnam
Commander
 
TerraUnam's Avatar
 
Location: United Earth
Re: TNG: Silent Weapons by David Mack Review Thread (Spoilers!)

rfmcdpei wrote: View Post
TerraUnam wrote: View Post
rfmcdpei wrote: View Post

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.
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.
__________________
Fate protects fools, little children and ships named Enterprise.
But not ships named Columbia.
TerraUnam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29 2012, 05:39 AM   #41
Sho
Fleet Captain
 
Sho's Avatar
 
Location: Berlin, Germany
Re: TNG: Silent Weapons by David Mack Review Thread (Spoilers!)

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.
Sho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29 2012, 05:50 AM   #42
TerraUnam
Commander
 
TerraUnam's Avatar
 
Location: United Earth
Re: TNG: Silent Weapons by David Mack Review Thread (Spoilers!)

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.
__________________
Fate protects fools, little children and ships named Enterprise.
But not ships named Columbia.
TerraUnam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29 2012, 06:30 AM   #43
JD
Admiral
 
JD's Avatar
 
Location: Arizona, USA
Re: TNG: Silent Weapons by David Mack Review Thread (Spoilers!)

Sho wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
Over the course of many encounters and many years, I have successfully developed a standard operating procedure for dealing with big, nasty monsters. Run away. Me and Monty Python.
Harry Dresden - Blood Rites (The Dresden Files #6)
JD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29 2012, 06:39 AM   #44
rfmcdpei
Captain
 
rfmcdpei's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
View rfmcdpei's Twitter Profile
Re: TNG: Silent Weapons by David Mack Review Thread (Spoilers!)

TerraUnam wrote: View Post
rfmcdpei wrote: View Post
TerraUnam wrote: View Post

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?
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29 2012, 06:40 AM   #45
rfmcdpei
Captain
 
rfmcdpei's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
View rfmcdpei's Twitter Profile
Re: TNG: Silent Weapons by David Mack Review Thread (Spoilers!)

TerraUnam wrote: View Post
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.
...
rfmcdpei is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:36 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.