How Can Religion Get Portrayed Like DS9 Again?

[Timewalker]

So lets tread carefully with this again, as the fanbase is rabidly anti-religion to the point it is hilarious and sad.

That's a rather over-broad generalization. I used to run a local Star Trek club in the '80s and '90s, and our membership included everyone from atheist (me) to extremely religious, and several people who either didn't care one way or the other, or just didn't see any reason to tell us what they believed or didn't believe. Somehow we all managed to get along, and the most religious person and I were the ones who wrote and edited most of the content for the club fanzine. She's the one who came up with the racier stuff in the Next Gen soap opera parody we wrote. Between that and making our own uniforms ("Yesterday's Enterprise" hadn't even been written at that time so we just used our imaginations while frustrating the saleslady at the fabric store as to why we refused to buy anything in red), playing a joke on someone at a convention (they ended up with a lot of tribbles)... we had a blast - of the good, clean fun sort.

No "militant, rabid" actions occurred whatsoever.

 

[BillJ]

And telling Muslim students that they can't pray at noon on school property (somewhere) is anti-religion.

I have no issue with Christians, Muslims, Jewish folks or anyone else using school facilities for prayer or religious clubs or get togethers. The buildings are there and aren't used two-thirds of the time. What I do have an issue with, is using limited class time for indoctrination.

Science classes certainly don't have to be geared toward a anti-religious premise or message.

For many folks, teaching kids that man and dinosaurs didn't coexist is an anti-religious premise. How do you work your way around a fairy tale in science class?

Religion isn't something children should be taught they need to switch off for the convenience of others.

Why not? When I was growing up, I was expected to fall in line with religious non-sense like "one nation under God" and no one gave any thought to me having to switch on and off who I was to accommodate the majority group think.

 

[Tenacity]

and no one gave any thought to me having to switch on and off who I was to accommodate the majority group think.

When we would take the pledge, the room's volume level would slightly drop between "one nation" and "indivisible." Now that doesn't mean that that others who wish to say "under God" should be require not to, just because a few in the room don't wish to say it.

Or hear it.

 

[BillJ]

When we would take the pledge, the room's volume level would slightly drop between "one nation" and "indivisible." Now that doesn't mean that that others who wish to say "under God" should be require not to, just because a few in the room don't wish to say it.

Or hear it.

Actually, it should be dropped. There is supposed to be a separation of Church and State in this nation. Not only that, but it wasn't added to the pledge in good faith. It was added as a way to indoctrinate children against the Red Menace.

I would definitely have my doubts about the solidity of my faith, if I needed to make sure everyone around me worshiped as well. And had to do it openly so the public could see it all.

 

[Tenacity]

How do you work your way around a fairy tale in science class?

Not spending valuable class time on dinosaurs might be one way. Seriously, aren't there better and more important things the student could be studying other than "thunder lizards?"

Same time could be spent on (oh say) Greece or Tao philosophy.

There is supposed to be a separation of Church and State in this nation.

But nothing requires a separation of the public and their religions.

The First Amendment prohibits the making of any law impeding the free exercise of religion.

 

[BillJ]

The First Amendment prohibits the making of any law impeding the free exercise of religion.

But the pledge isn't a free exercise, it is a compulsory exercise handed down by government edict.

Not spending valuable class time on dinosaurs might be one way. Seriously, aren't there better and more important things the student could be studying other than "thunder lizards?"

So we shouldn't teach kids science? Another century, the Asian continent will be ruling the planet while we engage in blood baths over forced worship.

And it still doesn't answer the question of why we should withhold knowledge from people? Is faith in God that weak that learning that man and dinosaur didn't coexist is going to cause people to no longer believe? Religion seems to be awfully fragile in this regard.

 

[David.Blue]

I'm unaware of any "government edict" demanding the pledge. From what I recall (did a bit of research on the subject last year) it remains voluntary. And many schools have never insisted children take it.

For the record, I do believe the "under God" should be retired in public schools. Part of my own faith is that human beings and institutions--including all churches--are subject to error. History shows forcing religion on a diverse people rarely ends well--and doesn't do too well on a non-diverse nation either.

 

[Timewalker]

Not spending valuable class time on dinosaurs might be one way. Seriously, aren't there better and more important things the student could be studying other than "thunder lizards?"

Seriously? Dinosaurs are fascinating (I live in a region of the world that's rich in dinosaur fossils), and one of the best Voyager episodes involved intelligent hadrosaurs who managed to leave Earth before the meteor hit and wiped out the rest of them. By the time Voyager encountered the descendants of these dinosaurs, they had developed a rigid religious doctrine that insisted they had originated in the Delta Quadrant and basically put one of their own scientists through an Inquisition-style ordeal because he dared to question that and say he had evidence that their species had originated on Earth and they had DNA in common with a mammalian species - humans.

Same time could be spent on (oh say) Greece or Tao philosophy.
But nothing requires a separation of the public and their religions.

Why should Greek or Tao philosophy be taught in science class?

I don't understand your comment about separating the public and their religions. Just because you might be assigned to study dinosaurs in school, that doesn't prevent you from practicing your religion.

The First Amendment prohibits the making of any law impeding the free exercise of religion.

Why should learning about dinosaurs do this? I'm not American, so am not sure what most of your amendments are or what they mean, but doesn't this one also mean that a specific religion can't be imposed on people if they prefer not to follow it?

 

[BillJ]

I'm unaware of any "government edict" demanding the pledge. From what I recall (did a bit of research on the subject last year) it remains voluntary. And many schools have never insisted children take it.

"Under God" was added by government edict, with Eisenhower asking for it and Congress approving in 1954.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/04/us/pledge-of-allegiance-fast-facts/

1954 - President Dwight D. Eisenhower asks Congress to add "under God" to the pledge. Congress adds the phrase.

 

[David.Blue]

Dinosaurs are essential in understanding the geological and biological history of the Earth. And studying them in no way precludes study of Greek philosophy.

And the First Amendment is worded in a very specific way: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" The Supreme Court has ruled this comprises two complementary clauses. The "Establishment Clause" is about keeping religion and the state from "undue entanglements" or any hint of giving preference to any one religion over another. The "Free Exercise Clause" is about allowing religion to exist unfettered, unless the state has some compelling interest in interfering with a specific religious practice. An extreme example would be human sacrifice. More commonly, a problem pops up when parents refuse to allow medical treatment for their underage children because it violates religious beliefs.

Federal Courts have ruled that any attempt by public schools to specifically teach one set of religious values as religious values is violating the "Establishment Clause." Using a fairly obvious example--most faiths teach it is a sin to steal, while it is also against the civil law to steal. Teaching underage students that stealing is bad because the Bible/Q'ran/Torah etc. says its bad violates the First Amendment. Teaching them that all these religions view stealing as bad however does not violate it. The state may not take sides in any religious question without a clear and compelling reason. Nor may the state seem to take sides, such as pushing a specific religion ahead of others. When Oklahoma sought to place a Judeo-Christian monument in a place of honor on government lands, a self-styled Church of Satan sought to place a suitable monument for their religion in the same lands. They were within their rights, because the Constitution says the stage must treat all faiths equally. Every single one.

Which means of course a specific Protestant interpretation of the Christian Bible cannot be taught as science in pubic schools--because that violates the Constitution (and also amounts to non-feasance because religion is not science).

 

[BillJ]

I don't have a problem with people having a belief in God. I have a problem when people try to use that belief to deprive other people of rights as human beings or keeping my children from learning science.

 

[BadMoonRising]

I don't have a problem with people having a belief in God. I have a problem when people try to use that belief to deprive other people of rights as human beings or keeping my children from learning science.

It's that simple.

And in return if you don't believe in God, don't push it on me or destroy my place of worship.

Now taco fillings on the other hand... if you do not believe in the inherent superiority of chicken-rice-black-bean tacos it will be war between us.

Humor aside, there is nothing wrong with believing or not believing, but everything wrong with forcing others to agree with you.

 

[BillJ]

And in return if you don't believe in God, don't push it on me or destroy my place of worship.

I believe anyone caught destroying a place of worship (Christian, Catholic, Jewish, Islam or any other belief system) should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Like hate crimes, I have no issue with them putting a little extra time on for anyone convicted of such a crime.

 

[BadMoonRising]

I believe anyone caught destroying a place of worship (Christian, Catholic, Jewish, Islam or any other belief system) should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Like hate crimes, I have no issue with them putting a little extra time on for anyone convicted of such a crime.

Slight tangent.... in these situations I think the people who do this kind of thing were going to cause harm/destruction anyway and just needed an excuse. Haters gonna hate as the meme goes. It's just easier to engage in such behavior if you have a target.

I joke with my friends that "no lives matter, I hate everyone equally, you know what you did" --- and that I am so filled with loathing and hatred that I can't decide who to punish first. It's somewhat true, while I despise humanity in general (you know what you did) I don't hate anyone or any group. And thus I sit here and live my life without violent outbursts or massive shooting sprees in the name of whatever offended me this week.

 

[BillJ]

Slight tangent.... in these situations I think the people who do this kind of thing were going to cause harm/destruction anyway and just needed an excuse. Haters gonna hate as the meme goes. It's just easier to engage in such behavior if you have a target.

I think attacking a place of worship is a special kind of crime, needing an expanded penalty. They are a place of peaceful gathering, and a place of expected safety.

 

[Timewalker]

...if you don't believe in God, don't push it on me or destroy my place of worship.

Not all atheists want to destroy places of worship. I'm appalled when things like that happen - no matter which religion is involved.

As for "pushing" a nonbelief in God on you, I have never heard of atheists knocking on doors and waving a copy of... whatever you imagine atheists might use for the type of "literature" doorknockers tend to use.

If you object to how religion is shown in Star Trek, the answer is simple: Don't watch. If you object to how some fans view religion in Star Trek, you have the option to not associate with those fans.

 

[Greg Cox]

As for "pushing" a nonbelief in God on you, I have never heard of atheists knocking on doors and waving a copy of... whatever you imagine atheists might use for the type of "literature" doorknockers tend to use.

"Excuse me. Do you have a few minutes to discuss the vast indifference of the universe? I have some literature I'd like to share with you."

The word "evangelical" was not coined to describe unbelievers.

 

[Amaris]

"Excuse me. Do you have a few minutes to discuss the vast indifference of the universe? I have some literature I'd like to share with you."

The word "evangelical" was not coined to describe unbelievers.

How cool would it be, though, to pass out copies of "The Big Book of the Universe" to people?

 

[Tenacity]

As for "pushing" a nonbelief in God on you, I have never heard of atheists knocking on doors and waving a copy of...

Not knocking on your door, they're down at the court house "pushing" a non-belief in God through the legal system.

Why ask people to change their beliefs, when you can force the issue using new laws?

 

[BillJ]

Not knocking on your door, they're down at the court house "pushing" a non-belief in God through the legal system.

They're pushing the separation of Church and State that is supposed to exist.

I've never much thought about the Ten Commandments or other religious stuff on public property. It doesn't bother me. It doesn't change my personal beliefs. But, for some reason, Christians believe that if their religion isn't "everywhere" it somehow means a war exists against them. In a nation where 70+ percent identify as Christians, it is a comical thought. That if people say "Happy Holidays" it is somehow meant to offend them and Christmas.

My grandmother, a devout Christian, would be appalled about how modern Christians seem to miss the point about being Christian. It isn't about shoving your belief in everyone's face. It is supposed to be about leading a life devoted to Christ, not your personal agendas against whomever you happen to dislike this week. You are supposed to be setting an example for folks to follow, not engage in Taliban like tactics to force folks to see things your way.