Religion and Star Trek

[uniderth]

Or "didn't happen". I think that fits most of the religious texts the best.

While didn't happen can be an accurate description of religious texts. I think though that it dismisses the applicable truths contained within those texts. For me i don't put religious texts into the binary categories of true stories and false ones(i.e. didn't happen). Rather they occupy a third category of truth stories. Even though a text may not be a scientifically accurate description of history/nature; they can convey applicable life truths that resonate with many people.

Men using the fear of fire and brimstone to keep the populace under control.

While this certainly has been the case many times throughout history; I think it is inaccurate to paint all religious texts with such a broad brush.

At least Kassidy Yates expressed discomfort with being in an environment where in real life she'd have been unwelcome in reality as a black woman, although the holo-environment was clearly scrubbed clean of any prejudice. Sisko countered that they were enjoying it as it should have been, not the way it was. I'd still be uncomfortable celebrating an environment that was historically rife with bigotry, and think cleaning up the unpleasant reality doesn't do service to the people who lived thru those harder times. But I may be too serious. As a gay man I'd be unwelcome in either of those environments, at least openly, so I identify with Kassidy's initial pov.

That was something that seemed very odd to me. You have Uhura's "We've learned not to fear words," after being called "a charming negress." Then it just seemed odd to hear Kassidy getting all uptight about about the treatment of "our people." It just seemed so odd that in Star Trek's 24th century humans would still be differentiating themselves along racial lines.

But many people romanticize the past. Look at Renaissance fairs and Disney movies. they portray times of kings, and knights as glorious magical times to be alive. Reality was that life was hard back then. But historical reality doesn't seem to stop people from idealizing those times

 

[borgboy]

Those are good points. I could see the difference in attitude of Uhura and Kassidy as being differences in personality and perspective. Uhura is a Starfleet officer who's had different experiences and probably more education than Kassidy, as well as just the differences between any two people.
I never found it strange that Kassidy had a racial identity. Equality doesn't necessarily mean homogenization.
It's true that Renaissance fairs celebrate what was historically a really hard time, but as the put upon were suffering from a class problem as opposed to racial, etc. then it's less controversial. I'd say another good comparison is the romanticized look at the Old South in Gone with the Wind. Having grown up in the rural south, I can assure you that many people still glamorize that time despite - or horrifyingly, even because of - slavery.

 

[velour]

I thought the book was a reference to "Mobsters of Chicago" left behind.

Yes, in the episode "the book" was a reference to the mobs and gangsters of Chicago. The discussion in this thread was whether or not, the book was a metaphor for something in the real world like the Bible.

 

[uniderth]

Those are good points. I could see the difference in attitude of Uhura and Kassidy as being differences in personality and perspective. Uhura is a Starfleet officer who's had different experiences and probably more education than Kassidy, as well as just the differences between any two people.

Oops, I made a mistake. It was Sisko that had the problem with Vic's.

I never found it strange that Kassidy had a racial identity. Equality doesn't necessarily mean homogenization

I agree that equality doesn't necessarily mean homogenization. I guess what struck me when I watched this episode (apparently long enough ago that I forgot who had the problem with Vic's), was that it seemed like Sisko was making such a big deal out of an arbitrary late 20th century racial category. It's true that there are minor differences in humans. But race is a social construct, not a biological one. There is no such thing as "black" people, or "white" people, or "red" people. Humanity comes in endless varieties of sizes, shapes, and colors. Any effort to categorize us into neat little racial boxes will ultimately be an arbitrary and fruitless activity. I would hope that by the 24th Century we could understand this. Yet Sisko seemed set in his "us verses them" mentality of the 20th century. Yes, it's true that at the time in question there was discrimination against "black" people. But what is a "black" person? What is a "white" person? Where do you draw the line? What attributes does a person have to have to be "black"? At what shade of skin color do we draw the line? It would have been nice if Sisko could have acknowledged that such discrimination came from an irrational cultural fear, rather than towing the racial line. I don't say this to diminishes the suffering of previous generations, but it seemed like Sisko's lines diminished the progress that has been made.

It's true that Renaissance fairs celebrate what was historically a really hard time, but as the put upon were suffering from a class problem as opposed to racial, etc. then it's less controversial. I'd say another good comparison is the romanticized look at the Old South in Gone with the Wind. Having grown up in the rural south, I can assure you that many people still glamorize that time despite - or horrifyingly, even because of - slavery.

Agreed.

 

[JeffinOakland]

The mob boss Oxmyx spoke of "the Book" in very reverential tones. However, I don't know if the writer of that episode meant for "the Book" to be a metaphor for the Bible, or for anything else for that matter. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.

I, too, have never made that connection between "the Book" and the Bible. But a viewer is free to project his/her own thoughts about what the writer intended or unintended.

I know it's an even longer stretch, but maybe "the Book" was a metaphor for Marx's Das Kapital or Mao's little red book. God knows, there have been totalitarian, atheistic (atheistic in terms of the official regime policy) societies built around the ideas in those books.

And that's the great thing about art. It says more about the audience than about the creator (s).

 

[BillJ]

I'm interested in what Christians and believers of other religions think of episodes like "A Piece of the Action" and other episodes that openly mock religious beliefs.

And that's the great thing about art. It says more about the audience than about the creator (s).

I think your read on "A Piece of the Action" threw me because you said it openly mocked, when it was more of a subtle jab.

 

[Rollar]

Maybe a hard-core, right-wing fundamentalist Christian might have a problem with Star Trek

I'm moderate right politically, and Christian, and I have no problem with Star Trek.

Kassidy getting all uptight about about the treatment of "our people."

Yes this was Sisko, and I do have something of a problem with him using the term "our people." I think this is the only time any character has singled out a race as a part of their group identity. Cultures, nationalities, even species sure, but never race.

When did Picard even once self-identify as being "White."

But race is a social construct, not a biological one. There is no such thing as "black" people, or "white" people, or "red" people

But isn't race not being a real thing itself a fairly recent social construct, an example of politically correct artificial "truth-speak?"

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Journey's End deals with racial categories and hereditary cultural debt.

The concept of race is more intertwined with cultural identity than is often given credit. One of the major causes of a large group of people sharing the same experience. The thing about politically correct 'truth speak' is that it's not arisen from complete nonsense, it's an overcorrection for real social problems. Racists point to 'political correctness' as this kind of Orwellian force to lie about reality, but they do it to support their decision to embrace and reinforce the social problem it is overcorrecting. Unfortunately the overcorrection often has the reverse effect of pushing people in the direction of the original problem when they feel they are being forced to believe things that contradict their own observation.

Usually being a social conservative implies to me that you believe 'This is our culture' and everybody in the country should be compelled to conform to that culture, and everybody who won't will be kept out. That kind of anti-plural philosophy is incompatible with Trek. But any way of life is accepted, so long as you also accept others who choose not to live that way.

 

[KeepOnTrekking]

I remember when the Southern Baptist Convention denounced Star Trek because McCoy indirectly refers to the Biblical account of creation as a "myth" in ST: The Wrath of Khan. Even though I am a Christian Star Trek fan, I thought that was pretty ridiculous. Maybe a hard-core, right-wing fundamentalist Christian might have a problem with Star Trek, but I for one do not (I am a moderate Baptist.)

Different people can see the same thing and interpret it differently. I always took that line about "according to myth" as McCoy taking a jab at Spock's beliefs and not expressing his own. McCoy is often described by fans as humanistic but I'm probably in the minority seeing McCoy as more spiritual in behavior (like when he killed the salt monster in "Man Trap") if not in words (like "Dear God" or "Dear Lord"). Spock clearly said that he does not believe in angels in "Galileo Seven" even though he is familiar with Bible verses in "Trouble with Tribbles." Just because Spock finally embraced his emotions in Star Trek: The Motion Picture doesn't mean he became spiritual. Maybe the famous "logic vs. emotion" banter between Spock and McCoy turned into "religion vs. non-religion" after Spock's experience with Vejur. But it's a subjective opinion that I don't expect everyone to share. I've done a LOT of 180s in my beliefs throughout my lifetime if something comes along later that makes more sense.

 

[Greg Cox]

Clearly, those Southern Baptists missed the bit in "The Cage" where the Keeper dismisses Hell as "a myth you heard in your childhood" (or words to that effect).

 

[The Old Mixer]

There's a place, buts its more likely with the J'naii who couldn't accept Soren, rather than with the Federation and its philosophy of Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination.

Apparently people are responding to the tangent in the original post without having read my warnings on the subject. I've removed the parenthetical tangent from the original post so people will stop responding to it.

The topic here is religion in Star Trek, not the OP's views regarding the LGBT community. Any further discussion of said views will get a Warning. If you want to debate the OP on that matter, take it to Miscellaneous or The Neutral Zone.

And a big THANK YOU to all of the posters who've kept on-topic and proven that the thread deserved a chance.

The issue, is you are mistaking the question he was asked as a religious one. He is simply asked what he thinks death is.

Religion is humanity's way of dealing with things like mortality and death. If there's a distinction, it's a very blurry one.

I certainly think the man who said:

Could be safely considred Atheistic in his thinking.

No...he just doesn't believe in a primitive form of organized religion. It doesn't contradict the agnostic views that he expresses in "Where Silence Has Lease". Atheism means you believe there's nothing beyond this life. Picard dismissed that view in WSHL.

 

[KeepOnTrekking]

Clearly, those Southern Baptists missed the bit in "The Cage" where the Keeper dismisses Hell as "a myth you heard in your childhood" (or words to that effect).

Again, it would be interesting to know if that was Pike's opinion the Keeper expressed or the Keeper's opinion of Pike's memory.

 

[stardream]

Clearly, those Southern Baptists missed the bit in "The Cage" where the Keeper dismisses Hell as "a myth you heard in your childhood" (or words to that effect).

Now that I think about it, my mother was the most fundamental of fundamentals but we watched TOS when it first aired...and all the spin offs. Not one word of complaint about this or 'Who watches the Watchers' or anything else. She even bought me one of those big commerative Star Trk coffee table books.

Maybe because she knew it wasn't real...or just didn’t take it personally.

 

[TheGoodStuff]

Religion is humanity's way of dealing with things like mortality and death. If there's a distinction, it's a very blurry one.



No...he just doesn't believe in a primitive form of organized religion. It doesn't contradict the agnostic views that he expresses in "Where Silence Has Lease". Atheism means you believe there's nothing beyond this life. Picard dismissed that view in WSHL.

You don't seem to know what atheism actually is. It literally means, lack of belief in god/s. That is an entirely different thing than believing in anything after this life. Christopher Hitchens said:

"We don't say on non-truth claims or faith claims that we know when we don't.....atheists do not say that we know there is no god. We say to the contrary, no argument and no evidence has ever been educed that we consider to be persuasive......The same with the afterlife. Of course we don't say that we know there isn't one. We say that we don't know anyone who can bring any reason to think that there is."

Picard can be an Atheist and believe in an afterlife. Now, yes, atheists feel an after-life is extremely unlikely [especially in the fantastical religious sense]. However, in Picard's case, he lives in a world where Q makes 'Jesus' look like a kids party magician, where there are mirror universes, different dimensions, different time lines etc. By saying "I think there is more to existence than just death", from his perspective...he could mean a myriad of things.

Also, religion has been a way of dealing with mortality/death for some people for some of the time. It seems quite logical to assume that will not always be the case.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Even if that's the nutshell definition of atheism, it doesn't preclude Picard being agnostic.

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether God, the divine, or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

True. Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.
However agnosticism doesn't really say anything about if you believe a god/afterlife/etc exists or not. It just says you have no knowledge about the actual non/existence.

On the position of believing in a god you are either a theist and believe that one does exist or you are an atheist and do not believe that one exists.
It is a binary question, there is no middle ground to take.

At best you believe in a god but remain open to change your mind if the evidence does not hold up to scrutiny or you don't believe but are open to change your mind if sufficient evidence is presented. Both are intellectually honest positions, but have nothing to do with agnosticism.

 

[The Old Mixer]

To my understanding, agnosticism is "don't know/haven't decided." Binary schminary.

There are two types of people...those who believe in binary choices, and those who don't.

 

[Vger23]

I personally find it interesting that we can have one discussion going on about how Star Trek should be more representative of certain under represented communities like LGBT, but then have other discussions about how Star Trek has dismissed religious people as silly.

Star Trek's entire core theme is tolerance. Tolerance is a meaningless word and concept if it's only applied to things you tolerate.

So my answer is that there is absolutely a place for religious and spiritual thinking in Star Trek, regardless of your personal beliefs...just as there is a place for different races and sexualites. That's the whole point.

 

[T'Arwen]

Rick Berman and his teams had made some nice attempts to bring in more religious aspects to the STAR TREK universe. Sometimes, though, with Chakotay's Vision Quests, and some of Bajor's religion, it got a little silly, the attempt was still appreciated. I wouldn't have minded seeing Judeo/Christian beliefs feature more prominently, in STAR TREK. I'm still hopeful that the new series will do more, in this regard. In Real Life, during the 60's and 70's, NASA astronauts made it a point to quote from the Bible - particularly what's referred to as The Old Testament, when addressing the curious public. Visiting Outer Space proved to be very moving, Spiritually ...

Interestingly, Braga is an atheist so it's interesting that he might have agreed to let Berman put in some of the religious aspects. The only ENT episode which actually talked about religion was written by Manny Coto.

 

[2takesfrakes]

I'm sure that everybody involved wanted Chakotay to be a very dynamic character and all of the ingredients are, in fact, there. He's a former maquis, he undergoes these Vision Quests, he's a natural leader and to start with, at least, he was in a relationship with a volatile woman. The Vision Quests though, was probably the character trait that stood out the most. There's a sense of mystery, where a hinge to other stories might find itself - seemingly, unexpectedly. Even Braga knows the quote from Hamlet, "There is more in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy" ... and its portent.