Why Not A Starfleet Ships Chaplain As A Main Character?

[Xhiandra]

The fundamentalism of some of this board's posters is both incredibly scary and depressing.

While I would not consider myself a fundamentalist, I do profess a belief in a Supreme Being. How can what has been posted by anyone here so far be classified as "fundamentalism"? Others here believe in God. Why can't they be allowed to say so without being labeled? There has been no advocacy of snake handling, speaking in tongues, self-flagellation, or any of the other things that most people would ascribe to a fundamentalist way of thinking. Some people are unapologetic in their spiritualism. Why should that automatically categorize them as a fundie by your or anyone else's standards?

Wow, hold your straw horses, please.
I have no idea why you want to portray me in a bad light here, but I have said nothing that denotes disrespect or verbal abuse towards theists.

I might live in "heathen lands", but I'm not out of any contact with theists, in fact I went (against my will, but that's another matter) to catholic schools.
I was fed a lot of bible (disbelieved in it all from a young age), I am not unfamiliar with christian dogma.
As a matter of fact, it's interesting you concluded I was an atheist - I didn't say it and my post could easily have been made by a moderate believer.
My catholic entourage certainly wouldn't bat an eyelid (after translation) to any of it.

I respect faith, even though I do not have it nor can really understand it.
But the gnostic theist does not operate on faith, he operates on misinformation.


To answer your question, on this board I've seen:
- Someone refer to the historicity of jesus as having more evidence than the historicity of Caius Iulius (not in this thread) -> that's patently false and evidence of extreme brainwashing; the kind of discourse held by creationists.
In fact, I seem to remember that individual ascribing to creationism (but maybe I misremember).

- The power of prayer held as a proven fact.
Once again, this isn't your average believer statement, this is fundamentalistic.

- The old cliché of "Atheist Dogma" being invoked.
Either the user doesn't realise how preposterous it is, in which case a fundamentalist mindset is involved or the user does and it was a troll comment.
That's not very civil.

If the word has pejorative connotations I'm not aware of (not a native english speaker), I'm fine with not using it, but one needs a substitute. Creationist? Not an exact match.
Gnostic theist? Fine by me, but a bit heavy.


Merry Christmas:
Atheism is doubt without belief; dogma is belief without doubt.
"Atheist dogma" isn't "inappropriate"; it's just complete nonsense.

Aside:
The internet does give me insight on how atheists are treated in the US; though: on several US-dominated boards, I often see theists provoke then cry offense when (very measured in this case!) answer comes.

 

[Longinus]

The propaganda on the issue of sexual orientation is treated as divine writ, handed down from the mountain.

Yes, that's what a religion does. 'Gays are bad 'cause my god said so.' I hope we can agree that this is bullshit.

 

[Sindatur]

On the healing power of prayer, it's interesting to see a study that says it was detrimental. I've seen several studies in the past that have shown it to be possibly beneficial. To me, it would make sense that it would be beneficial, even if you don't believe in the God behind the Prayer, if the person being prayed for believes, it could raise their confidence level, and medicines and healing are aided by the patient fighting to heal and having a positive attitude. Hope can sometimes make the difference between healing and dying

 

[Longinus]

On the healing power of prayer, it's interesting to see a study that says it was detrimental. I've seen several studies in the past that have shown it to be possibly beneficial. To me, it would make sense that it would be beneficial, even if you don't believe in the God behind the Prayer, if the person being prayed for believes, it could raise their confidence level, and medicines and healing are aided by the patient fighting to heal and having a positive attitude. Hope can sometimes make the difference between healing and dying

I agree it was a surprising result. One would expect some sort of a placebo effect. Maybe it made the patients worried: "Oh shit, I'm so sick that they're praying for a miracle!"

 

[Darkwing]

The propaganda on the issue of sexual orientation is treated as divine writ, handed down from the mountain.

Yes, that's what a religion does. 'Gays are bad 'cause my god said so.' I hope we can agree that this is bullshit.

Also the religion of liberalism and politically correct 'explanations'.

 

[Longinus]

Also the religion of liberalism and politically correct 'explanations'.

I was afraid that this was what you really meant.

And this is exactly why I have never had much love for so called 'religious morals'. There are all sort of bizarre mandates that are justified merely by 'god said so.' Some of these are pretty harmless, like banning certain foods or requirements to perform certain ceremonies at specific times, but other are really toxic.

Labelling homosexuality as a sin probably is the most visible example these days. Homosexuality is a behaviour which from rational perspective causes absolutely no harm, yet opposing it seems to be the favourite crusade of many religious people.

Now, to be fair, there are many completely decent religious people who manage to not to be bigots just fine. Bible has all sorts of stories and teachings, and in reality no Christian can follow them all. What bits of the Bible a person deems important really tells more about the person than the religion. For example in the Bible condemnation of divorce and amassing wealth are way more clearer (and come from Jesus rather than some random dude like the gay-thing), yet we see no religious moral outrage and crusade against those.

Morals should be based around avoiding suffering, not on some nonsensical ancient mandates from 2000-year old culture. Homosexuality is absolutely harmless, so there is no reason whatsoever to condemn it.

The Golden Rule is no way exclusive to Christianity, but nevertheless, Jesus had it right. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is an excellent guideline. I hope that those anti-gay crusaders would for a moment stop to think how it would feel if it was their sexuality and lifestyle that would be the target of the condemnation and vitriol.

 

[Darkwing]

I meant BOTH sides of the coin. A plague on BOTH houses, IMO.

 

[Longinus]

I meant BOTH sides of the coin. A plague on BOTH houses, IMO.

Sometimes there just are not 'both sides.' Sometimes there is just the right side and the wrong side, and with this issue that is exactly the case.

 

[Vito Corleone]

how does one person handle the religious requirements of 150+ member worlds?

If they are like modern military chaplains, Starfleet chaplains would be trained to serve all religious, faith and spiritual needs. No matter any individual or groups affiliation. And also those with none.

Starfleet chaplains can advise the ship's commanding officer on issues of religion, ethics, morale and morals.

Starfleet chaplains can meet with planetary religious leaders to understand the role of religion as a force for reconciliation and peace.

Sounds like a good idea. I still think that most of a Chaplain's day-to-day job can be handled by a good counselor, though.

As I'm not especially familiar with the concept of a chaplain, I have to wonder how atheists tend to feel about them.

The Atheists I've met in the Service don't have a problem with Chaplains as an idea. One of the atheists I know did have a bone to pick with her unit chaplain in Iraq. He reportedly welshed on something he promised the unit he'd do. I wasn't there so, I can't offer any more insight into that matter.

I've liked all my Chaplains. They have all been quite helpful.

 

[Vito Corleone]

Also, it is worth noting that Gene specifically went out of his way to not get Trek too heavily involved in religion issues since that was a sure-fire way to get cancelled.

It's also a horse that has beaten to death and I don't really need to see/hear any more discussion on the subject. My mind has been made up on that stuff for a long time and it's not likely to change.

 

[Bishop76]

I think adding religion to Trek would be a really really interesting story line since it's really been largely ignored except for the Bajoran angle which wasn't all that interesting since apparently they only had one religion and everyone believed it. I think seeing a relgious person in the Starfleet would be a fascinating character to watch amongst a largely atheistic society.

That said, the reality of the situation is that we live in politically correct times where no one can ever be offended, heaven forbid, so it's better to just leave the drama off the table. Also, I think networks would balk at it too for fears of driving off viewers.

 

[Vito Corleone]

I think 24th Century society is just a more polite society where everyone has their own views and keeps them to themselves.

People will always have a need to believe in something larger than themselves so, I doubt spirituality/religion will ever go away.

 

[Bishop76]

No, it wouldn't - but it would make for an interesting episode or 12 where one character's morality system conflicts with another's. You know, social commentary and all that good stuff Trek was known for before the late 90s decline.

 

[Chronius Fawkes]

During the Roddenberry era and beyond religious themes came up occasionally and were often casually dismissed. Consider Neelix's crises of faith when he died, was resurrected, and was devastated to discover no afterlife. He had to be convinced that life was worth living, even without any supernatural escape clause. It is no secret that Roddenberry was an atheist and his Trek universe was reflective of this. What purpose a mystic might serve in a future enlightened and educated society is a bit of a mystery to me.

 

[Chronius Fawkes]

Well, it is indeed troubling if Vulcans actually pray. That is not a logical thing to do. Another reason to dislike Voyager, I guess.

What do you think the entire "Search for Spock" ended up meaning? The ritual at the end of STIII was strict spirituality/faith, without a shred of science involved in the act.

I disagree. Being psychic, it is entirely possible that the intervention of a third party is required to restore the katra of an individual, using the laws of physics that first allow them to be psychic. Science, no supernatural involved.

 

[nightwind1]

I am utterly gobsmacked how many people seem to think that this would be a good idea, rather than absolutely ludicrous one. A starfleet chaplain would have Roddenberry spin in his grave fast enough to power a warp drive. Federation is atheistic, there is no religion.

Sure, because atheists would put a chapel on a starship.

 

[137th Gebirg]

^^^ Also:
"Mankind has no need for gods. We find the one quite adequate." - Kirk to Apollo (Who Mourns for Adonais)

This is like the whole "Starfleet is not military" thing, even though there is direct on-screen evidence to the contrary:
"I'm a soldier, not a diplomat." - Kirk to Ayelborne (Errand of Mercy)

The denial amuses me.

 

[EmperorTiberius]

Why would you compress over 100 years of history into a span of several years? It's clear that by TNG, religion as we know it today is largelly extinct on Earth. Perhaps there are small pockets of faitfull here and there, but it's not enought to warrant a chaplain aboard a starship.

 

[Darkwing]

Sometimes there just are not 'both sides.' Sometimes there is just the right side and the wrong side, and with this issue that is exactly the case.

And here we are back to the intolerance of tolerance. Neither side is wholly right, nor the only two sides to the issue.

 

[Longinus]

And here we are back to the intolerance of tolerance. Neither side is wholly right, nor the only two sides to the issue.

You are mistaken. Tolerance do not require to tolerate intolerance. Half a century ago there were many people (and sadly, there are still some) who thought that a white and a black person should not be able to marry each other. Not every opinion is equal. Those people were just wrong.

Also, the situation is not symmetrical. No one is forcing the sweet man-love upon the homophobes. It is the religious people who are trying to force others to conform to their morals. I cannot stand beetroots and it is my right to not eat them. But if I'd try to get that vegetable banned so that no one could eat them then I would just be a dick.