• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

TREK future anti-gay?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for the reasonable reply. i appreciate it.

I sometimes post when I should really wait a little while first. You may have noticed an instance of that upstream. I try to be reasonable, though, and it helps if the other side is actually participating and not just doing a drive-by posting.

I am aware homosexuality exist. I don't need Star Trek to promote it.

You're aware that homosexuality exists. It seems reasonable to me for Star Trek to be aware of that, too. To acknowledge something is not to promote it.
 
I like this idea that Sci-Fi fans are somehow "forward thinking" - it's especially funny, when you consider this board constantly runs a number of leering "look at that rack on that bitch" type threads at all times.

Yeah... really forward thinking...

Oh, please. First, nobody has ever used the word "bitch". Second, a person being sexually attracted to a person of whatever gender they are attracted too (they come in male flavors too, don't you know), is not backward, not "not forward thinking", nor is it even anything bad. In fact, it's something GOOD. It's a simple biological fact, and the expression of being attracted to people shows we're biologically still in working order.

I'm a bi guy here and I have always given Star Trek the benefit of the doubt about this issue. Yes they could have acutally had an openly gay or even bi :eek: character

I'm pretty sure Jadzia is bi, and openly so.

Bi guy here too, by the way.

I want to clarify I am not a homophobe if you define that as having a fear of homosexuals. I don't, and I want to make my stance clear and get your reply. I disagree with homosexuality on moral and religious grounds. I do advocate equal rights for them as well as everyone else.

Except that there's nothing moral or amoral about homosexuality, it's simply a biological fact.

Also, the bible not only is not against it, it doesn't even have a problem with it.

I'm not sure what Bible you're reading, but the Christian Bible surely speaks out against it. However, I think this is delving into TNZ territory. If you want to take it up there or via pm, I'm all for it.
 
Thanks for the reasonable reply. i appreciate it.

I sometimes post when I should really wait a little while first. You may have noticed an instance of that upstream. I try to be reasonable, though, and it helps if the other side is actually participating and not just doing a drive-by posting.

I am aware homosexuality exist. I don't need Star Trek to promote it.
You're aware that homosexuality exists. It seems reasonable to me for Star Trek to be aware of that, too. To acknowledge something is not to promote it.

It's all good Steve. I sometimes do the same thing.

About your last point, maybe if Trek acknowledged it and also acknowledged a reasoned opposing viewpoint of it in the same show, I'd watch. I just don't want it portrayed as a wholly acceptable thing, without opposition, when to myself and others it's not.
 
About your last point, maybe if Trek acknowledged it and also acknowledged a reasoned opposing viewpoint of it in the same show, I'd watch. I just don't want it portrayed as a wholly acceptable thing, without opposition, when to myself and others it's not.
Now that I understand your viewpoint, I must agree. I also agree that showing heterosexuality on Trek as a wholly acceptable thing, without opposition, when to myself and others it's not, is unacceptable as well.
Since we now understand each other, let us agree that BOTH sexual orientations should be portrayed on the screen without prejudice toward the other.
Or we could use your example and demand that Trek never show ANY couple having a relationship on screen. Yes, that's it... we will just pretend love, sex and relationships don't exist. :cardie:
 
Bi guy here too, by the way.

Given some of the posters here I feel the need to raise my hand and say that like Jerri Blank "I like the pole and the hole" and I've had occasion to be with a man and enjoyed it and still find guys attractive, though I do have more of an eye for the ladies (still, I'm married, so it's just looking).

I'm not really into the whole "sex preference is determined by genetics" stuff, either. I don't see a need to explain or justify being able to be sexually attracted to people regardless of gender, so the idea of being able to use genetic engineering to eliminate homosexuality sounds like a crock; people will want to be with whomever their attracted to -- genetics cannot explain all human behaviour.
 
as for the homosexualty being abolished through abortion. the one thing i have been waiting for someone to notice (maybe they have and i missed it) is that the people most horrified by homosexuals are the least likely to have an abortion.

That... is an excellent point.

Why didn't you mention it before?
 
About your last point, maybe if Trek acknowledged it and also acknowledged a reasoned opposing viewpoint of it in the same show, I'd watch. I just don't want it portrayed as a wholly acceptable thing, without opposition, when to myself and others it's not.

But that's just not consistent with Star Trek at all. It doesn't have an entirely consistent or coherent set of values over the course of five series, but it does tend to be socially liberal, right down to having a blatantly pro-abortion TNG episode.

Look at your signature file again. "I'm a secular progressive. Weak national defense. No God in public. No family values. Pro-murder of children. Pro-drugs! Income redistribution for crack heads & welfare deadbeats! No hand up, yes...hand out! I hate America."

Weak national defense? Starfleet has officers who deny that it's a military organization, though it obviously is at least partly one. No God in public? That certainly seems to be the case for the Christian God in the 24th century (and there isn't much Christianity in TOS, either). No family values... well, a lot of characters in the Trekverse don't believe in abstinence until marriage, which seems to be part of the Christian conservative "family values" program. As for abortion, in "The Child" it was clear that Deanna had the choice of aborting the alien embryo, and "Up the Long Ladder" was, among other things, a pro-choice message episode. Pro-drugs? Well, not so much, but a lot of characters consume alcoholic beverages, some to excess, and the holodeck probably plays a somewhat similar role for a lot of characters. Income redistribution? Not in the form of cash and taxation, but by the time of TNG, Federation citizens don't have to take jobs to live. With replicators, holodecks, and virtually free energy, anyone can have pretty much anything.

So why focus on homosexuality as the one thing that really bugs you?
 
About your last point, maybe if Trek acknowledged it and also acknowledged a reasoned opposing viewpoint of it in the same show, I'd watch. I just don't want it portrayed as a wholly acceptable thing, without opposition, when to myself and others it's not.
Now that I understand your viewpoint, I must agree. I also agree that showing heterosexuality on Trek as a wholly acceptable thing, without opposition, when to myself and others it's not, is unacceptable as well.
Since we now understand each other, let us agree that BOTH sexual orientations should be portrayed on the screen without prejudice toward the other.
Or we could use your example and demand that Trek never show ANY couple having a relationship on screen. Yes, that's it... we will just pretend love, sex and relationships don't exist. :cardie:

Great post, and I agree with it. But, to me, Berman and others brought my friend's wrath on them when somewhere back in the 90s this was brought up to Berman or someone. And they responded by saying TNG would have a pro-gay episode (the episode is actually about keeping your sexuality in the closet) and possibly a gay character would be in Voyager, and then later they said Enterprise. Were they just saying that to squash the Gay activist who brought the whole matter up at a convention or in a TV guide interview. (I can't remember which)

But I do remember Berman making an official statement about it and...nothing ever came of it. So while BERMAN and Trek fans can say Star Trek has a liberal message, and does episodes about racism and all that I say...so what? Star Trek is NOT the only show that has done things about race. All in The Family was doing it far earlier (and better I think) and even did episodes about homosexuality way back in the 70s.

So I guess, in someway, I am challenging this mantra that TREK is a progressive show. I say it was progressive back in TOS's day. What TOS did was stretching the envelope, and that is why it is held in high regard today. TNG-DS9-Voy-ENT all had their episodes about race, sexual equality and the threat of over reaching governments. But so what? TOS did these same topics far earlier.

There is absolutely no reason why Berman TREK didn't push the envelope more on social topics of the 80s-90s-2000s. They decided not to because they (Berman and company) caved to Paramount.

I have had my issues with Roddenberry. But that guy, for all his failings (we all have them) had big balls. Berman could have used some viagra. Instead he was a pure studio guy...

When taken in respect to when they were produced, TOS is by far the most ground breaking TREK production.

Rob
Scorpio
 
About your last point, maybe if Trek acknowledged it and also acknowledged a reasoned opposing viewpoint of it in the same show, I'd watch. I just don't want it portrayed as a wholly acceptable thing, without opposition, when to myself and others it's not.

But that's just not consistent with Star Trek at all. It doesn't have an entirely consistent or coherent set of values over the course of five series, but it does tend to be socially liberal, right down to having a blatantly pro-abortion TNG episode.

Look at your signature file again. "I'm a secular progressive. Weak national defense. No God in public. No family values. Pro-murder of children. Pro-drugs! Income redistribution for crack heads & welfare deadbeats! No hand up, yes...hand out! I hate America."

Weak national defense? Starfleet has officers who deny that it's a military organization, though it obviously is at least partly one. No God in public? That certainly seems to be the case for the Christian God in the 24th century (and there isn't much Christianity in TOS, either). No family values... well, a lot of characters in the Trekverse don't believe in abstinence until marriage, which seems to be part of the Christian conservative "family values" program. As for abortion, in "The Child" it was clear that Deanna had the choice of aborting the alien embryo, and "Up the Long Ladder" was, among other things, a pro-choice message episode. Pro-drugs? Well, not so much, but a lot of characters consume alcoholic beverages, some to excess, and the holodeck probably plays a somewhat similar role for a lot of characters. Income redistribution? Not in the form of cash and taxation, but by the time of TNG, Federation citizens don't have to take jobs to live. With replicators, holodecks, and virtually free energy, anyone can have pretty much anything.

So why focus on homosexuality as the one thing that really bugs you?

Steve,

I'm a TOS guy. TNG is a weak imitation to me although there are a few nice interactions. I don't subscribe to it's antiseptic, sterile vision of the future. So, my comments will be TOS focused below.

Starfleet is the military instrument of the Federation, there's no getting around that. Kirk even calls the Enterprise "policemen" in "Arena" I believe. Or something similar. There are many military references. (S.P.'s believe we should have a weakened defense. I say this because they want us to consult with other countries before making decisions that we need to make for ourselves. Even Obama has said he will greatly reduce development of new military technologies)

TOS has multiple Christian references and mentions Christ by name (Bread & Circuses) when they had absolutely no reason to. It featured a crucifix in the chapel in Balance of Terror, and mentioned the laws of God in The Ultimate Computer. I'll give you that the other series wanted to remove it, but not TOS, which I watch more than all other series combined. (I have a heck of a TOS bathroom, by the way. I should post some pictures for you guys) S.P.'s want God and all references to Him removed, plain and simple. They do not believe the United States was founded on Christian values, which it clearly was. I am not saying there is not separation of Church and State, I am saying that our founders realized that God guided them in their convictions and that our country needs the same guidance. I can provide hundreds of statements by these men showing this. That doesn't mean others aren't free to practice their religion, but it does show who most of us are.

As far as income redistribution, when I was a kid watching TOS, that was the last thing I was thinking about. I was thinking about ice cream distribution! :) S.P.'s certainly are all for this though. It's bad for America and bad for Capitalism. It takes away incentive for people to achieve, imo. Plenty of other countries if people want that, but it's not what America is, or has been, all about.

As far as homosexuality being my focus, that's not the case. It is the focus of those people that I respond to. If there were threads focusing on how illegal drugs are good, adultery is good, or murder is good, I'd be the first one to step up and give an opposing opinion. I rarely start a thread regarding this anymore. Certainly not outside of TNZ. And in TNZ I've only started one I think in the past 3-4 months. I just feel I have a moral obligation to speak out against it. That's all. Hey, thanks for the discussion.
 
Last edited:
Trek is made in Hollywood. I half expect to see Spock nailing Kirk in the ass in the new movie.

I always thought this would go the other way :)

But about the Bible and Star Trek. There was a Star Trek book ,( not canon I know) Spocks World I think, where Sarek is confronting a 23rd century Christian fundamentialist. Sarek proceeds to logically demolish the fundies beliefs by rightly pointing out that there were certain passages of the Bible that he wasnt following.For those who insist on a literal translation of the Bible this is a big problem. It says the homosexuality is wrong but slavery gets a pass.Eating shellfish is hell worthy but genocide against women and children is god approved behavior. The Earth was made in seven 24 hour days and god made she-bears devour young children who laughed at a old testament prophet. If you are going to take the Bible literally then you have to take it all literally not just the parts you like-otherwise you are one of those hypocrites that the Bible condems-sometimes :p
 
Trek is made in Hollywood. I half expect to see Spock nailing Kirk in the ass in the new movie.

I always thought this would go the other way :)

But about the Bible and Star Trek. There was a Star Trek book ,( not canon I know) Spocks World I think, where Sarek is confronting a 23rd century Christian fundamentialist. Sarek proceeds to logically demolish the fundies beliefs by rightly pointing out that there were certain passages of the Bible that he wasnt following.For those who insist on a literal translation of the Bible this is a big problem. It says the homosexuality is wrong but slavery gets a pass.Eating shellfish is hell worthy but genocide against women and children is god approved behavior. The Earth was made in seven 24 hour days and god made she-bears devour young children who laughed at a old testament prophet. If you are going to take the Bible literally then you have to take it all literally not just the parts you like-otherwise you are one of those hypocrites that the Bible condems-sometimes :p

Oh yeah? But what about this one..VULCANS NEVER BLUFF!!!...wink wink

Rob
Scorpio
 
Last edited:
Number 6, are you referring to my statement that I blocked the channel?

Regardless, I AM the consumer. I can block or watch any channel or show I wish. Same as you can do. I don't want my child seeing it. I also don't want them watching MTV until they're old enough.

I'm not telling you what to watch and I don't care if you watch logo all day long, bud. SO what's the problem?
I'm not your Bud.
My problem is with your petulant and sanctimonious attitude about and toward people who are trying to express their opinion about the issue at hand. Your comments are dismissive and condescending. Your signature line further alienates yourself from any kind of discussion of the matter, because with your declaration about "secular progressives," you have shut yourself off to considering other people's opinions and giving those point of views the respect you would want other people to have for your own views which is antithetical to the basic concepts of the very show of which you claim to be a fan. THAT's the problem.
 
Steve,

I'm a TOS guy. TNG is a weak imitation to me although there are a few nice interactions. I don't subscribe to it's antiseptic, sterile vision of the future. So, my comments will be TOS focused below.

Starfleet is the military instrument of the Federation, there's no getting around that. Kirk even calls the Enterprise "policemen" in "Arena" I believe. Or something similar. There are many military references. (S.P.'s believe we should have a weakened defense. I say this because they want us to consult with other countries before making decisions that we need to make for ourselves. Even Obama has said he will greatly reduce development of new military technologies)

Because might makes right, so when you don't like someone, blow him up, sky high! Yay.

TOS has multiple Christian references and mentions Christ by name (Bread & Circuses) when they had absolutely no reason to. It featured a crucifix in the chapel in Balance of Terror, and mentioned the laws of God in The Ultimate Computer. I'll give you that the other series wanted to remove it, but not TOS, which I watch more than all other series combined. (I have a heck of a TOS bathroom, by the way. I should post some pictures for you guys)
And Bread & Circuses was also one of the worst offenders. They basically go about snubbing their noses at the "ignorant sun worshippers" and then go, oh, all great, when they find out they are "son worshippers" instead.

Because after all, the sun does no provide the energy for all life on Earth, it does not ultimately provide oxygen, it does not have the power to destroy all life on a planet, certainly not a planet itself or the rest of the solar system, and it isn't the power that dominates us enterily. Nah, it's completely stupid the worship that small, weak, useless tiny pile of gasses.

Now the son of the one god though, there is a magnificent something to worship! The one god lead to persecution, murder, burnings at stakes, torture, wars, and more death, hatred and discrod than any of the other religions combined, but that's what an enlightened person worships. Yay!

S.P.'s want God and all references to Him removed, plain and simple. They do not believe the United States was founded on Christian values, which it clearly was. I am not saying there is not separation of Church and State, I am saying that our founders realized that God guided them in their convictions and that our country needs the same guidance. I can provide hundreds of statements by these men showing this. That doesn't mean others aren't free to practice their religion, but it does show who most of us are.
Really, you can? Would you please do? Allow me to supply a few quotes of the founding fathers myself:

James Madison, the "father of the Constitution":

"The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error
so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians,
as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without
a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be
supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical
Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity."
(Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821.)

"Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries
in favour of this branch of liberty, and the full establishment of it in
some parts of our country, there remains in others a strong bias towards
the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between
Government and Religion neither can be duly supported. Such, indeed, is
the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on
both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against."
(Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822.)

"In no instance have the churches been guardians of the liberties
of the people."

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it
for every noble enterprise."

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of
Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less,
in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility
in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."


John Adams, proponent of Independence (in a letter to Thomas Jefferson):

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion
in it."


Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence:

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful
that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have
been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to
them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what
parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence
that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other
parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate
those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."
(Letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814.)

"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers,
I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most
lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity,
so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible
that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being."
(Letter to William Short, April 13, 1820.)

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the
supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed
with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter.
But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in
these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding,
and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most
venerated reformer of human errors."
(Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823.)

"It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse],
and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy
nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams."
(Letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825.)

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
(Letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814.)

"I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. ... If ever man worshipped
a false god, he did."
(Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823.)

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of
Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have
not advanced one inch towards uniformity."
(Notes on Virginia, 1782.)

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty.
He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for
protection to his own."
(Letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814.)

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people
maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of
ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will
always avail themselves for their own purposes."
(Letter to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.)


And, although he was not a "Founding Father", this quote may be of interest:

"The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could
never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."

-- Abraham Lincoln.
They were deists at best. Some even seem to be outright Atheists. The US was founded on humanist values.

As far as income redistribution, when I was a kid watching TOS, that was the last thing I was thinking about. I was thinking about ice cream distribution! :) S.P.'s certainly are all for this though. It's bad for America and bad for Capitalism. It takes away incentive for people to achieve, imo. Plenty of other countries if people want that, but it's not what America is, or has been, all about.
If it's bad for "capitalism" then it's a good thing. "Capitalism" or the horrifying monster it mutated into around us these days that goes for capitalism is an extremely bad thing. And anything that is bad for it, would be a good thing. And if America is about today's "capitalism", then it is a bad thing as well.
 
Last edited:
Now the son of the one god though, there is a magnificent something to worship! The one god lead to persecution, murder, burnings at stakes, torture, wars, and more death than any other religion combined, but that's what an enlightened person worships. Yay!

Jesus, that is pathetic. Worship of God, or His Son does not lead to what you describe. It happens because "religion" is twisted by those seeking to further their personal agendas. Kinda the same pathetic notion of looking to a TV show to legitimize one's personal beliefs or behavior.

So, Yay!
 
Number 6, are you referring to my statement that I blocked the channel?

Regardless, I AM the consumer. I can block or watch any channel or show I wish. Same as you can do. I don't want my child seeing it. I also don't want them watching MTV until they're old enough.

I'm not telling you what to watch and I don't care if you watch logo all day long, bud. SO what's the problem?
I'm not your Bud.
My problem is with your petulant and sanctimonious attitude about and toward people who are trying to express their opinion about the issue at hand. Your comments are dismissive and condescending. Your signature line further alienates yourself from any kind of discussion of the matter, because with your declaration about "secular progressives," you have shut yourself off to considering other people's opinions and giving those point of views the respect you would want other people to have for your own views which is antithetical to the basic concepts of the very show of which you claim to be a fan. THAT's the problem.

My apologies. I am aware we are not friends as this is a message board. It was simple conversation.

My opinions are dismissive? How? Because I disagree with yours? Please. I have been nothing but courteous during this entire discussion.

I'm not asking you to believe as I do. I'm not calling you stupid for holding your beliefs about this subject. I simply disagree and did so politely.

The problem I see is that it's not enough for some that people who don't support homosexuality acknowledge it. Some people want us to accept it as a moral thing. Many people simply don't.

Again, as far as my signature, there are MANY signatures here that are controversial. Too bad. Maybe we should just focus on the topic at hand.

And the Trek that I watch, TOS, most certainly was consistent with my ideals. The ones that followed, not so sure.
 
Now the son of the one god though, there is a magnificent something to worship! The one god lead to persecution, murder, burnings at stakes, torture, wars, and more death than any other religion combined, but that's what an enlightened person worships. Yay!

Jesus, that is pathetic. Worship of God, or His Son does not lead to what you describe. It happens because "religion" is twisted by those seeking to further their personal agendas. Kinda the same pathetic notion of looking to a TV show to legitimize one's personal beliefs or behavior.

So, Yay!


But the Bible describes god as authorizing and approving of all of these horrors - past and future.So if god approves whats being twisted?
 
Steve,

I'm a TOS guy. TNG is a weak imitation to me although there are a few nice interactions. I don't subscribe to it's antiseptic, sterile vision of the future. So, my comments will be TOS focused below.

Starfleet is the military instrument of the Federation, there's no getting around that. Kirk even calls the Enterprise "policemen" in "Arena" I believe. Or something similar. There are many military references. (S.P.'s believe we should have a weakened defense. I say this because they want us to consult with other countries before making decisions that we need to make for ourselves. Even Obama has said he will greatly reduce development of new military technologies)

Because might makes right, so when you don't like someone, blow him up, sky high! Yay.

TOS has multiple Christian references and mentions Christ by name (Bread & Circuses) when they had absolutely no reason to. It featured a crucifix in the chapel in Balance of Terror, and mentioned the laws of God in The Ultimate Computer. I'll give you that the other series wanted to remove it, but not TOS, which I watch more than all other series combined. (I have a heck of a TOS bathroom, by the way. I should post some pictures for you guys)
And Bread & Circuses was also one of the worst offenders. They basically go about snubbing their noses at the "ignorant sun worshippers" and then go, oh, all great, when they find out they are "son worshippers" instead.

Because after all, the sun does no provide the energy for all life on Earth, it does not ultimately provide oxygen, it does not have the power to destroy all life on a planet, certainly not a planet itself or the rest of the solar system, and it isn't the power that dominates us enterily. Nah, it's completely stupid the worship that small, weak, useless tiny pile of gasses.

Now the son of the one god though, there is a magnificent something to worship! The one god lead to persecution, murder, burnings at stakes, torture, wars, and more death, hatred and discrod than any of the other religions combined, but that's what an enlightened person worships. Yay!

Really, you can? Would you please do? Allow me to supply a few quotes of the founding fathers myself:

James Madison, the "father of the Constitution":

"The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error
so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians,
as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without
a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be
supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical
Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity."
(Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821.)

"Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries
in favour of this branch of liberty, and the full establishment of it in
some parts of our country, there remains in others a strong bias towards
the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between
Government and Religion neither can be duly supported. Such, indeed, is
the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on
both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against."
(Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822.)

"In no instance have the churches been guardians of the liberties
of the people."

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it
for every noble enterprise."

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of
Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less,
in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility
in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."


John Adams, proponent of Independence (in a letter to Thomas Jefferson):

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion
in it."


Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence:

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful
that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have
been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to
them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what
parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence
that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other
parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate
those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."
(Letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814.)

"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers,
I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most
lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity,
so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible
that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being."
(Letter to William Short, April 13, 1820.)

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the
supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed
with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter.
But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in
these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding,
and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most
venerated reformer of human errors."
(Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823.)

"It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse],
and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy
nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams."
(Letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825.)

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
(Letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814.)

"I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. ... If ever man worshipped
a false god, he did."
(Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823.)

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of
Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have
not advanced one inch towards uniformity."
(Notes on Virginia, 1782.)

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty.
He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for
protection to his own."
(Letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814.)

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people
maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of
ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will
always avail themselves for their own purposes."
(Letter to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.)


And, although he was not a "Founding Father", this quote may be of interest:

"The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could
never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."

-- Abraham Lincoln.
They were deists at best. Some even seem to be outright Atheists. The US was founded on humanist values.

As far as income redistribution, when I was a kid watching TOS, that was the last thing I was thinking about. I was thinking about ice cream distribution! :) S.P.'s certainly are all for this though. It's bad for America and bad for Capitalism. It takes away incentive for people to achieve, imo. Plenty of other countries if people want that, but it's not what America is, or has been, all about.
If it's bad for "capitalism" then it's a good thing. "Capitalism" or the horrifying monster it mutated into around us these days that goes for capitalism is an extremely bad thing. And anything that is bad for it, would be a good thing. And if America is about today's "capitalism", then it is a bad thing as well.


Lets not forget that most of story and attributes about the Son were lifted from stories and attributes of the Sun (ie Osiris,Apollo and others). Many things can be said about Xianity but one belief that many of its adherants hold to is wrong-its not unique!!
 
Number 6, are you referring to my statement that I blocked the channel?

Regardless, I AM the consumer. I can block or watch any channel or show I wish. Same as you can do. I don't want my child seeing it. I also don't want them watching MTV until they're old enough.

I'm not telling you what to watch and I don't care if you watch logo all day long, bud. SO what's the problem?
I'm not your Bud.
My problem is with your petulant and sanctimonious attitude about and toward people who are trying to express their opinion about the issue at hand. Your comments are dismissive and condescending. Your signature line further alienates yourself from any kind of discussion of the matter, because with your declaration about "secular progressives," you have shut yourself off to considering other people's opinions and giving those point of views the respect you would want other people to have for your own views which is antithetical to the basic concepts of the very show of which you claim to be a fan. THAT's the problem.

My apologies. I am aware we are not friends as this is a message board. It was simple conversation.

My opinions are dismissive? How? Because I disagree with yours? Please. I have been nothing but courteous during this entire discussion.

I'm not asking you to believe as I do. I'm not calling you stupid for holding your beliefs about this subject. I simply disagree and did so politely.

The problem I see is that it's not enough for some that people who don't support homosexuality acknowledge it. Some people want us to accept it as a moral thing. Many people simply don't.

Again, as far as my signature, there are MANY signatures here that are controversial. Too bad. Maybe we should just focus on the topic at hand.

And the Trek that I watch, TOS, most certainly was consistent with my ideals. The ones that followed, not so sure.

The issue in this thread is not about the morality of sexuality. It might be your issue, but that's not the topic. Your sig line speaks volumes about your value system. In fact, it is throwing it in the face of the people you engage in this discussion, especially when you post a reply such as "too bad." The fact that others may have "controversial" signatures does not in any way make yours less offensive.

The concept of embracing diversity in all its combinations was INTRODUCED in TOS. Any fan of TOS would know that.
 
Here you go 3D:
John Adams and John Hancock:
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus[April 18, 1775]
John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798
"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson
"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817] |
.......click here to see this quote in its context and to see John Adams' quotes taken OUT of context!

Samuel Adams: | Portrait of Sam Adams | Powerpoint presentation on John, John Quincy, and Sam Adams
“ He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all… Our forefathers opened the Bible to all.” [ "American Independence," August 1, 1776. Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia]

“ Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity… and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.” [October 4, 1790]
John Quincy Adams:
• “Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?
--1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.
“The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.”
John Quincy Adams. Letters to his son. p. 61
Charles Carroll - signer of the Declaration of Independence | Portrait of Charles Carroll
" Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." [Source: To James McHenry on November 4, 1800.]
Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech
“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]
In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."
In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."
Alexander Hamilton:
• Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great:
(1) Christianity
(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.
“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”
On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”
"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." [1787 after the Constitutional Convention]
"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."
John Hancock:
• “In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, …at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness… Resolved; …Thursday the 11th of May…to humble themselves before God under the heavy judgments felt and feared, to confess the sins that have deserved them, to implore the Forgiveness of all our transgressions, and a spirit of repentance and reformation …and a Blessing on the … Union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights [for which hitherto we desire to thank Almighty God]…That the people of Great Britain and their rulers may have their eyes opened to discern the things that shall make for the peace of the nation…for the redress of America’s many grievances, the restoration of all her invaded liberties, and their security to the latest generations.
"A Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, with a total abstinence from labor and recreation. Proclamation on April 15, 1775"
Patrick Henry:
"Orator of the Revolution."
• This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.”
—The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry
“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]
“The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed.”
Thomas Jefferson:
“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”
“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”
"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]
James Madison
“ We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

• I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare the unsatisfactoriness [of temportal enjoyments] by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.
Letter by Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773)
• In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided the Bible Society of Philadelphia in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.
“ An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia” Approved February 2, 1813 by Congress
“It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.”
• A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven. [Letter by Madison to William Bradford [urging him to make sure of his own salvation] November 9, 1772]
At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22;
“For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king;
He will save us.”
James McHenry Signer of the Constitution
Public utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.
Jedediah Morse:
"To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them."
John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg
In a sermon delivered to his Virginia congregation on Jan. 21, 1776, he preached from Ecclesiastes 3.
Arriving at verse 8, which declares that there is a time of war and a time of peace, Muhlenberg noted that this surely was not the time of peace; this was the time of war. Concluding with a prayer, and while standing in full view of the congregation, he removed his clerical robes to reveal that beneath them he was wearing the uniform of an officer in the Continental army! He marched to the back of the church; ordered the drum to beat for recruits and over three hundred men joined him, becoming the Eighth Virginia Brigade. John Peter Muhlenberg finished the Revolution as a Major-General, having been at Valley Forge and having participated in the battles of Brandywine, Germantown, Monmouth, Stonypoint, and Yorktown.
Thomas Paine:
“ It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles: he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.”
“ The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools, in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. They labour with studied ingenuity to ascribe every thing they behold to innate properties of matter, and jump over all the rest by saying, that matter is eternal.” “The Existence of God--1810”
Benjamin Rush:
• “I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them…we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government; that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible; for this Divine Book, above all others, constitutes the soul of republicanism.” “By withholding the knowledge of [the Scriptures] from children, we deprive ourselves of the best means of awakening moral sensibility in their minds.” [Letter written (1790’s) in Defense of the Bible in all schools in America]
• “Christianity is the only true and perfect religion.”
• “If moral precepts alone could have reformed mankind, the mission of the Son of God into our world would have been unnecessary.”
"Let the children who are sent to those schools be taught to read and write and above all, let both sexes be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education”
Letters of Benjamin Rush, "To the citizens of Philadelphia: A Plan for Free Schools", March 28, 1787
Justice Joseph Story:
“ I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its foundations.”
[Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States p. 593]
“ Infidels and pagans were banished from the halls of justice as unworthy of credit.” [Life and letters of Joseph Story, Vol. II 1851, pp. 8-9.]
“ At the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration [i.e., the First Amendment], the general, if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship.”
[Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States p. 593]
Noah Webster:
“ The duties of men are summarily comprised in the Ten Commandments, consisting of two tables; one comprehending the duties which we owe immediately to God-the other, the duties we owe to our fellow men.”
“In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”
[Source: 1828, in the preface to his American Dictionary of the English Language]
Let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God [Exodus 18:21]. . . . If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted . . . If our government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws. [Noah Webster, The History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie and Peck, 1832), pp. 336-337, 49]
“All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.” [Noah Webster. History. p. 339]
“The Bible was America’s basic textbook
in all fields.” [Noah Webster. Our Christian Heritage p.5]

“Education is useless without the Bible” [Noah Webster. Our Christian Heritage p.5 ]
George Washington:
Farewell Address: The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion" ...and later: "...reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle..."

“ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”
“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]
"To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian" [May 2, 1778, at Valley Forge]
During his inauguration, Washington took the oath as prescribed by the Constitution but added several religious components to that official ceremony. Before taking his oath of office, he summoned a Bible on which to take the oath, added the words “So help me God!” to the end of the oath, then leaned over and kissed the Bible.

^^^ I like that one the best...
 
Last edited:
I'm not your Bud.
My problem is with your petulant and sanctimonious attitude about and toward people who are trying to express their opinion about the issue at hand. Your comments are dismissive and condescending. Your signature line further alienates yourself from any kind of discussion of the matter, because with your declaration about "secular progressives," you have shut yourself off to considering other people's opinions and giving those point of views the respect you would want other people to have for your own views which is antithetical to the basic concepts of the very show of which you claim to be a fan. THAT's the problem.

My apologies. I am aware we are not friends as this is a message board. It was simple conversation.

My opinions are dismissive? How? Because I disagree with yours? Please. I have been nothing but courteous during this entire discussion.

I'm not asking you to believe as I do. I'm not calling you stupid for holding your beliefs about this subject. I simply disagree and did so politely.

The problem I see is that it's not enough for some that people who don't support homosexuality acknowledge it. Some people want us to accept it as a moral thing. Many people simply don't.

Again, as far as my signature, there are MANY signatures here that are controversial. Too bad. Maybe we should just focus on the topic at hand.

And the Trek that I watch, TOS, most certainly was consistent with my ideals. The ones that followed, not so sure.

The issue in this thread is not about the morality of sexuality. It might be your issue, but that's not the topic. Your sig line speaks volumes about your value system. In fact, it is throwing it in the face of the people you engage in this discussion, especially when you post a reply such as "too bad." The fact that others may have "controversial" signatures does not in any way make yours less offensive.

The concept of embracing diversity in all its combinations was INTRODUCED in TOS. Any fan of TOS would know that.

Ah, so anyone not willing to embrace something they don't agree with cannot be a Star Trek fan? That's rich.

Also, IDIC was a marketing tool that failed miserably. All the actors also hated it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top