Fans Disenfranchised with Utopia?

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ It's Moderator-Dalek! Run!

 

[Sci]

First off -- TheGoodStuff, please don't bold every single thing you write. It's uncomfortable to read and makes it seem like you're shouting everything.

I find it amusing that people are trying to ascribe some set of universal traits held by all religions. It's virtually impossible beyond the most basic: Religion is a social institution that seeks to create communities based upon shared belief systems.

That's it. Religion, at the end of the day, is a tool, and like any tool, it can be used for progressive or regressive ends. Yes, religious leaders throughout history have used their religions to justify oppression and violence. So to have governmental leaders used governments -- does this mean that government is inherently bad or regressive? Of course it does not -- because we recognize that governments are tools, and that when patriotism is used to justify oppression or aggression, this reflects a flaw with the leaders and the evils for which the tool is being used, not because these traits are intrinsic to the tool itself. Patriotism was used as a rationalization for the Iraq War; that doesn't mean it is inherently bad, nor that it was the real reason for the war. Religion can be used as a rationalization for aggression or oppression -- but that doesn't mean religion is inherently bad, or that religion is the real reason for those acts.

Prime examples: The Crusades were not about religion, they were about Europe wanting the seize the wealth and power of the Islamic world. The oppression of women and LGBT person is not about religion, it's about propping up capitalist patriarchy. The Troubles in Northern Ireland were not about Protestantism vs. Catholicism, they were about the meaning of what it is to be part of the Irish nation and about Irish self-determination. The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is not about religion, it's about two different cultures with competing claims to the same narrow slice of land as their national homeland. The conquest, oppression, and genocide of the Native American nations was not about religion, it was about stealing Native land for Europeans and exploiting their wealth and labor. Etc.

The proof is in the pudding: If religion were the origin of oppression and violence, a regime that rejects religion would not be so. Yet the Soviet Union, an atheistic regime, was as murderous as any religious regime in history has been. And yet we are enlightened enough that we don't take this to mean that atheism is inherently murderous and oppressive!

Religion has been used to rationalize oppression and violence whose real causes lied in economic systems and political agendas; this is true. It is also true that religious persons throughout history have been motivated by their religion to act in the interests of justice, peace, and equality, and that religion has provided the emotional sustenance for important social movements. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s was, let us recall, driven by religious leaders such as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Opposition to mass-murdering capitalist regimes in South America came from the practitioners of Liberation Theology. Religious leaders like Archbishop Desmond Tutu were invaluable in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Today, the Moral Monday movement, led by the Rev. William Barber, has proven one of the largest and most important social movements to advance social justice and equality against the repressive and racist North Carolina government.

Religion, at the end of the day, is just a tool. It can be used for progress, or it can be used for regression. It is not inherently anything except an attempt by a community to find meaning in their shared beliefs. The question is whether their beliefs promote equality, liberty, and justice, or promote hierarchy, oppression, and violence.

Again, mere religious apologism.

Apologism is merely the act of defending something. Of course I'm defending religion against what I view as an unfair and inaccurate characterization of it. Responding to someone's defense of something you are attacking by saying, "This is mere apologism" is a tautology, and offers no substance for why the defense is erroneous.

You are very focused on the larger attrocities [crusades etc] but religion pervades every day life. For example, slavery was justified in Christian terms, with the bible placing emphasis on another life and 'obeying a master', and Emancipation for example, lay in economic not moral grounds. It still does not change the fact that many used religion to justify slavery.

Sure. I don't contest that.

But religion did not cause slavery. Slavery (in its American form) was caused by Capitalism, with its need for cheap labor to exploit for the European colonial powers who were invading North America. If you had flipped a magic switch and removed religion from the hearts and minds of everybody in North America in the year 1650? You would still have had slavery, and some other rationalization for it would have been found.

And what about those for whom religion inspired their abolitionism and anti-slavery activism? What about those persons held in slavery for whom the Second Great Awakening helped inspire slave rebellions? Or helped to create for themselves a sense of pride in their community even as they were being oppressed?

Religion was not the cause of slavery and oppression. You're attacking a symptom rather than the disease.

The crusades may have been politcal, however religion was their face and a very effective means of spurring them on.

Sure. And when the Soviet Union needed justifications for its mass murders and acts of aggression, it found some that weren't religious -- and yet no one argues that atheism is responsible for Soviet abuses. And well they should not! Atheism is not responsible for this.

Attack the cause, not the symptom.

Young boys have their genitals mutilated in the name of religion.

I am assuming you are referring to circumcision. You should probably tread carefully, here -- there are a lot of circumcised men who don't agree that they've been "mutilated," and I dare say that the actual person involved has a better idea of whether or not he's been mutilated than a third party.

And your argument falls apart here. Millions of men in America have been circumcised for decades for completely non-religious reasons -- mostly due to alleged health benefits that have since been found erroneous.

Perhaps you were thinking of the role of circumcision within the Jewish community. You are stumbling over the fact that in addition to Judaism being a religion, the Jewish people are also a distinct culture (not all of whom believe in Judaism); this is because, of course, Judaism and the Jewish people have their origins in the era when religion was defined by one's culture.

If you're going to condemn Judaism for circumcision -- already a questionable proposition, since it's unclear that circumcision is necessarily a "mutilation" -- then you also have to account for the numerous cultures around the world who engage in body modification for completely non-religious reasons, merely cultural reasons, and you have to account for the role it played in the history of the ancient Hebrews.

Are you going to ascribe the neck rings of the Kayan people to religion? They ascribe it to wanting to declare their cultural autonomy. What about the lip rings of the Mursi, or Mun, people? They ascribe it to wanting to appeal to men was wives.

If I am being too subtle, let me be clear: I am arguing that it is exceedingly difficult, if we are looking at Jewish history, to distinguish the religious role of circumcision from its cultural role; that it is unclear how and when circumcision developed and why; that it is know to have been practiced by pre-Hebraic Semitic ethnicities in the ancient Middle East; and that it is entirely possible that circumcision originated as a cultural practice at a period in the history of the ancient Hebrews before they themselves had settled upon Abrahamic monotheism. (The history of the ancient Hebrews is essentially the history of monotheism gradually supplanting Semitic polytheism, and the adoption of many cultural practices to distinguish themselves from their polytheistic neighbors.)

In other words -- I view circumcision as cultural, as being about saying, "This is what we do as a people," rather than being religious per se. If you had hit a magic switch and removed all religious belief from the minds of humanity in the ancient Middle East? I daresay the ancient Hebrews would still have practiced circumcision.

I really cant be bothered listing what it does.

Perhaps you should. You may find yourself reexamining your prejudices.

These beliefs have a cascade effect on the world. They are based in ignorance,

Patently false. Certainly, there are religious movements, such as Evangelical Protestantism in the U.S., or Islamist fundamentalism in the Middle East, that are based on ignorance and seek to suppress scientific advancement. On the other hand, there are plenty of religious traditions that advocate for scientific education, that actively modify their beliefs to accommodate scientific knowledge rather than to suppress it.

they are ficticious

Perhaps. I have long since concluded that there is no reason to believe that the supernatural exists, and therefore believe it does not exist.

But hey -- Star Trek's fictitious, yet it's had a beneficial impact on my life. Being fictitious is not inherently a negative thing.

and they bring absolutely no benefit to humanity.

Patently false. One need only look at the role of the black church in the Civil Rights Movement, and at the role of leaders like the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to realize that religion can bring benefit to humanity.

Have you actually read the bible? It is a disgustingly amoral book.

But it's not really a book. It's an anthology, produced by different authors across different centuries in different cultures, advancing different agendas. Heck, there's not even universal agreement on which books belong in this anthology -- the Tanakh in Judaism uses the same books as the Christian Old Testament, but in a different order; Christians add the New Testament to the Old; and Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians accept as part of the Bible most of the books in the Biblical Apocrypha, yet most Protestant sects reject them.

So, there's not really even agreement over what constitutes this thing we call "the Bible." As such, it is exceedingly difficult to say anything meaningful about the "Bible" which can accurately be said to apply to all of its books across all of its versions.

Religion orders, it condemns, it threatens and it dominates.

Far too often, this is the case.

Yet there are also many people for whom religion provides comfort, a sense of community, a sense of meaning, and a sense of liberation.

I would hardly call religious leaders like Dr. King, or Óscar Romero, or Sister Dorothy, or Archbishop Desmond Tutu, or Mahatma Gandhi, people who only "order, condemn, threaten, and dominate."

There is nothing good about it.

I'm having deja vu because of the people I used to argue with who told me that atheism was pure evil and nothing good could come from it.

 

[robau]

Practicing religion in its purest form generally requires some amount of discipline. Discipline ought to be a noble pursuit in the utopia. Not to mention the historical and cultural value.

 

[TheGoodStuff]

First off -- TheGoodStuff, please don't bold every single thing you write. It's uncomfortable to read and makes it seem like you're shouting everything.

I find it amusing that people are trying to ascribe some set of universal traits held by all religions. It's virtually impossible beyond the most basic: Religion is a social institution that seeks to create communities based upon shared belief systems.

That's it. Religion, at the end of the day, is a tool, and like any tool, it can be used for progressive or regressive ends. Yes, religious leaders throughout history have used their religions to justify oppression and violence. So to have governmental leaders used governments -- does this mean that government is inherently bad or regressive? Of course it does not -- because we recognize that governments are tools, and that when patriotism is used to justify oppression or aggression, this reflects a flaw with the leaders and the evils for which the tool is being used, not because these traits are intrinsic to the tool itself. Patriotism was used as a rationalization for the Iraq War; that doesn't mean it is inherently bad, nor that it was the real reason for the war. Religion can be used as a rationalization for aggression or oppression -- but that doesn't mean religion is inherently bad, or that religion is the real reason for those acts.

Prime examples: The Crusades were not about religion, they were about Europe wanting the seize the wealth and power of the Islamic world. The oppression of women and LGBT person is not about religion, it's about propping up capitalist patriarchy. The Troubles in Northern Ireland were not about Protestantism vs. Catholicism, they were about the meaning of what it is to be part of the Irish nation and about Irish self-determination. The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is not about religion, it's about two different cultures with competing claims to the same narrow slice of land as their national homeland. The conquest, oppression, and genocide of the Native American nations was not about religion, it was about stealing Native land for Europeans and exploiting their wealth and labor. Etc.

The proof is in the pudding: If religion were the origin of oppression and violence, a regime that rejects religion would not be so. Yet the Soviet Union, an atheistic regime, was as murderous as any religious regime in history has been. And yet we are enlightened enough that we don't take this to mean that atheism is inherently murderous and oppressive!

Religion has been used to rationalize oppression and violence whose real causes lied in economic systems and political agendas; this is true. It is also true that religious persons throughout history have been motivated by their religion to act in the interests of justice, peace, and equality, and that religion has provided the emotional sustenance for important social movements. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s was, let us recall, driven by religious leaders such as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Opposition to mass-murdering capitalist regimes in South America came from the practitioners of Liberation Theology. Religious leaders like Archbishop Desmond Tutu were invaluable in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Today, the Moral Monday movement, led by the Rev. William Barber, has proven one of the largest and most important social movements to advance social justice and equality against the repressive and racist North Carolina government.

Religion, at the end of the day, is just a tool. It can be used for progress, or it can be used for regression. It is not inherently anything except an attempt by a community to find meaning in their shared beliefs. The question is whether their beliefs promote equality, liberty, and justice, or promote hierarchy, oppression, and violence.

Again, mere religious apologism.

Apologism is merely the act of defending something. Of course I'm defending religion against what I view as an unfair and inaccurate characterization of it. Responding to someone's defense of something you are attacking by saying, "This is mere apologism" is a tautology, and offers no substance for why the defense is erroneous.



Sure. I don't contest that.

But religion did not cause slavery. Slavery (in its American form) was caused by Capitalism, with its need for cheap labor to exploit for the European colonial powers who were invading North America. If you had flipped a magic switch and removed religion from the hearts and minds of everybody in North America in the year 1650? You would still have had slavery, and some other rationalization for it would have been found.

And what about those for whom religion inspired their abolitionism and anti-slavery activism? What about those persons held in slavery for whom the Second Great Awakening helped inspire slave rebellions? Or helped to create for themselves a sense of pride in their community even as they were being oppressed?

Religion was not the cause of slavery and oppression. You're attacking a symptom rather than the disease.

And you are missing the point entirely. Religion at its core, is ignorant and has been used to justify genocides, slavery, oppression and a multitude of other things. What you want to deal in is semantics and avoid an uncomfortable truth. Religion, superstitious nonsense, has been used to condone and justify a staggering amount of evil on this planet. It motivates good people to commit evil deeds.


Sure. And when the Soviet Union needed justifications for its mass murders and acts of aggression, it found some that weren't religious -- and yet no one argues that atheism is responsible for Soviet abuses. And well they should not! Atheism is not responsible for this.

Attack the cause, not the symptom.



I am assuming you are referring to circumcision. You should probably tread carefully, here -- there are a lot of circumcised men who don't agree that they've been "mutilated," and I dare say that the actual person involved has a better idea of whether or not he's been mutilated than a third party.

No, it is needless mutilation. Taking a knife to a childs penis cannot be justified or condoned.

And your argument falls apart here. Millions of men in America have been circumcised for decades for completely non-religious reasons -- mostly due to alleged health benefits that have since been found erroneous.

And what you are saying here is irrelevant. Circumcision has religious foundations. It is abhorrent.

Perhaps you were thinking of the role of circumcision within the Jewish community. You are stumbling over the fact that in addition to Judaism being a religion, the Jewish people are also a distinct culture (not all of whom believe in Judaism); this is because, of course, Judaism and the Jewish people have their origins in the era when religion was defined by one's culture.

If you're going to condemn Judaism for circumcision -- already a questionable proposition, since it's unclear that circumcision is necessarily a "mutilation" -- then you also have to account for the numerous cultures around the world who engage in body modification for completely non-religious reasons, merely cultural reasons, and you have to account for the role it played in the history of the ancient Hebrews.

Are you going to ascribe the neck rings of the Kayan people to religion? They ascribe it to wanting to declare their cultural autonomy. What about the lip rings of the Mursi, or Mun, people? They ascribe it to wanting to appeal to men was wives.

If I am being too subtle, let me be clear: I am arguing that it is exceedingly difficult, if we are looking at Jewish history, to distinguish the religious role of circumcision from its cultural role; that it is unclear how and when circumcision developed and why; that it is know to have been practiced by pre-Hebraic Semitic ethnicities in the ancient Middle East; and that it is entirely possible that circumcision originated as a cultural practice at a period in the history of the ancient Hebrews before they themselves had settled upon Abrahamic monotheism. (The history of the ancient Hebrews is essentially the history of monotheism gradually supplanting Semitic polytheism, and the adoption of many cultural practices to distinguish themselves from their polytheistic neighbors.)

In other words -- I view circumcision as cultural, as being about saying, "This is what we do as a people," rather than being religious per se. If you had hit a magic switch and removed all religious belief from the minds of humanity in the ancient Middle East? I daresay the ancient Hebrews would still have practiced circumcision.



Perhaps you should. You may find yourself reexamining your prejudices.

There are no prejudices here, however it is provoking you to squirm to justify and defend religion.



Patently false. Certainly, there are religious movements, such as Evangelical Protestantism in the U.S., or Islamist fundamentalism in the Middle East, that are based on ignorance and seek to suppress scientific advancement. On the other hand, there are plenty of religious traditions that advocate for scientific education, that actively modify their beliefs to accommodate scientific knowledge rather than to suppress it.

Which is blatant hypocrisy from the theists who have their outdated, ignorant texts shown to be falsehoods and who must backtrack and reinterpret in order to hold onto their comfort blankets.


Perhaps. I have long since concluded that there is no reason to believe that the supernatural exists, and therefore believe it does not exist.

But hey -- Star Trek's fictitious, yet it's had a beneficial impact on my life. Being fictitious is not inherently a negative thing.

But you likely do not believe that Star Wars fans will burn in hell, in agony, for chosing a different show. You likely do not believe that women should submit to men as a result of which show they watch, or that homosexuals who watch Dr Who are practicing an evil life system. I also dont recall Babylon 5 condemning the use of condoms in AIDS stricken areas of the world.



Patently false. One need only look at the role of the black church in the Civil Rights Movement, and at the role of leaders like the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to realize that religion can bring benefit to humanity.

Wrong. Another misguided attempt to protect religion. Humans did those things. Silly 'gods' had absolutely nothing to do with it. Stop twisting things to suit your argument. Religion does NOTHING to help civil rights. I find that laughable.


But it's not really a book. It's an anthology, produced by different authors across different centuries in different cultures, advancing different agendas. Heck, there's not even universal agreement on which books belong in this anthology -- the Tanakh in Judaism uses the same books as the Christian Old Testament, but in a different order; Christians add the New Testament to the Old; and Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians accept as part of the Bible most of the books in the Biblical Apocrypha, yet most Protestant sects reject them.

So, there's not really even agreement over what constitutes this thing we call "the Bible." As such, it is exceedingly difficult to say anything meaningful about the "Bible" which can accurately be said to apply to all of its books across all of its versions.

Because it is nonsense. As is the Qu'ran, as is the Bhagavad Gita. Ive studied and read them at University...all utter nonsense.

Religion orders, it condemns, it threatens and it dominates.

Far too often, this is the case.

Yet there are also many people for whom religion provides comfort, a sense of community, a sense of meaning, and a sense of liberation.

Which is tragic. All of those things can and should be derived from their fellow humans, not promises of a fantasy world and doctrine.

I would hardly call religious leaders like Dr. King, or Óscar Romero, or Sister Dorothy, or Archbishop Desmond Tutu, or Mahatma Gandhi, people who only "order, condemn, threaten, and dominate."

You are confusing ethics with religion. An easy mistake many make.

There is nothing good about it.

I'm having deja vu because of the people I used to argue with who told me that atheism was pure evil and nothing good could come from it.

Im bolding my writing as its easier for me to reply to these mountains of text.

Perhaps Mr Hitchens will get through to you better than myself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPmVC8u_jvU

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Hitchens. Yeah, there's a non-prejudiced voice for ya.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I honestly think the idea that humanity would become all tolerant and cool with each other if religion just went away pretty absurd.

Is it that hard to figure that all the intolerant douchebags who like to lord over and abuse those they see as inferior will just find some other reason to justify there horrible behavior.

Because at the end of the day that's just what using religion, support of preferred economic systems, nationalism, flawed views of genetics as well as other scientific theories, and ect. are all just excuses used to justify their horrible behavior.

Or basically they are just using being x to justify treating a person who is y like crap.

 

[TheGoodStuff]

I honestly think the idea that humanity would become all tolerant and cool with each other if religion just went away pretty absurd.

Is it that hard to figure that all the intolerant douchebags who like to lord over and abuse those they see as inferior will just find some other reason to justify there horrible behavior.

Because at the end of the day that's just what using religion, support of preferred economic systems, nationalism, flawed views of genetics as well as other scientific theories, and ect. are all just excuses used to justify their horrible behavior.

Or basically they are just using being x to justify treating a person who is y like crap.

No no, religion dying is just one part of humanities strides to a better way of life. We we are no longer placing value in fictional deities and other worlds. It is a part of a far greater social process of education and understanding.

 

[AgentCoop]

One of the things I love about Trek is that it was not afraid to point a finger at the ills that religion has brought upon nearly every society throughout history. Rationalism in the face of superstition is one of the noblest causes one can pursue. In my opinion.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I honestly think the idea that humanity would become all tolerant and cool with each other if religion just went away pretty absurd.

Is it that hard to figure that all the intolerant douchebags who like to lord over and abuse those they see as inferior will just find some other reason to justify there horrible behavior.

Because at the end of the day that's just what using religion, support of preferred economic systems, nationalism, flawed views of genetics as well as other scientific theories, and ect. are all just excuses used to justify their horrible behavior.

Or basically they are just using being x to justify treating a person who is y like crap.

No no, religion dying is just one part of humanities strides to a better way of life. We we are no longer placing value in fictional deities and other worlds. It is a part of a far greater social process of education and understanding.

One of the things I love about Trek is that it was not afraid to point a finger at the ills that religion has brought upon nearly every society throughout history. Rationalism in the face of superstition is one of the noblest causes one can pursue. In my opinion.

Yeah just imagine humanity finally free of the horrors of Buddhism

 

[Wadjda]

A world without religion? I guess it depends on what you mean by that. Undoubtedly there are humans in the 24th century Trek era who have some kind of religious or spiritual beliefs. However, in a world where material needs are taken care of, where everyone has access to universal healthcare and no one needs to go hungry, and where everyone who wishes to do so can engage in lifelong learning, the likelihood of a secular culture gaining the upper hand is much more likely. Religions developed as a way to explain why horrible things happen to people, and organized religions were developed to keep the unwashed, uneducated masses in line. Those issues are much less, if at all, relevant in the 24th century.

You got Organians, Q's and so on. Way more real than Earth Gods, some people would totally worship them.


Star Trek does not have to be an utopia. Starfleet needs to be more diverse and more humanitarian than IRL militaries and i consider it Star Trek.

 

[Wadjda]

One of the things I love about Trek is that it was not afraid to point a finger at the ills that religion has brought upon nearly every society throughout history. Rationalism in the face of superstition is one of the noblest causes one can pursue. In my opinion.

What about the very real Godlike beings in Trek? Someone would worship them.

 

[AgentCoop]

One of the things I love about Trek is that it was not afraid to point a finger at the ills that religion has brought upon nearly every society throughout history. Rationalism in the face of superstition is one of the noblest causes one can pursue. In my opinion.

What about the very real Godlike beings in Trek? Someone would worship them.

I would argue that the Q and the other "godlike" beings in the Trek universe, while seeming like gods to us, are nevertheless beings that exist within the boundaries of a universe of rational laws and that worshipping them (though some assuredly would) makes no more rational sense than an ant worshipping a gorilla. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that it exists outside of our universe of rational, observable laws.

 

[Wadjda]

Trek humans are not Data's. They do irrational things. Trek would be boring if no one would have emotions.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Having some 20+ years of experience in Bible education, I have found that the Internet is the least effective place to advocate your personal views in the eternal religion/atheism/other debate. Things tend to get heated, and very few people have ever changed their minds based solely on what they read on the Internet.

Returning to the original topic (congrats to the OP for sparking such an interesting discussion) I think we should all keep in mind that Star Trek is for - profit science fiction, produced and shaped by thousands of different people. They were united in ONE belief: that making Star Trek was important to them at the time, and that they could use it to express their creative energies. Gene Roddenberry's vision DID shape a great deal of the overall story, but his vision was not of perfection, but of OPTIMISM. Humanity and the other species of the galaxy had not conquered all their problems, but they had conquered many of them, and were strong enough to tackle new and complex ones, or to to stamp out small recurrences of old ones quickly and efficiently.
OPTIMISM is what makes Star Trek appealing. As viewers and readers we KNOW that the "good guys" will eventually make things right, and that even though the powers arrayed against them may be vast or insidious, they will prevail. We don't have to worry about them falling victim to the common failings we do, like colds, headaches, diarrhea, unfettered greed, casual cruelty, completely inept and corrupt government, etc. Even if on occasion the heroes of the story have dealt with such subjects, they are treated as an unwelcome aberration, not a commonplace occurrence.

I don't think that Star Trek fans have abandoned their belief that the future will get better, will BE better, but with the current world conditions, I do think that their "faith" is waning. We as humans yearn for freedom from oppression, suffering, war, hunger, violence, psychological trauma, fear, and other commonplace factors that determine our life and it's choices. Star Trek at its core shows a world where the vast majority of beings can live free of such terrible things. But as time marches on and the optimists find themselves being drowned out by the realists even the fantasy worlds that humans construct start to reflect the cynicism and depression that pervades human society.

One of the reasons that I enjoy reading the work of such authors as Kirsten MF Beyer, NYTBSA and Christopher Bennett is that they tend to be optimists. They show beings triumphing over their fears and their challenges. They show aberrations being eliminated. They show beings working together to defeat large, complex challenges. The J.J. Abrahms movies are similar in their cheerful optimism. You know that the good guys will win, and that there are more good guys than bad guys. That is what make Star Trek work, and why we love it.

 

[TheGoodStuff]

All Caps.

The Good Stuff, you seem to have accidently hit your "Caps Lock" key on your keyboard, usually when this happens a small light on the upper right of your keyboard will illuminate. Tapping the key a second time will end this function

Thought you'd like to know.

Nothing I have written has been all caps. I have, however, bolded some of what I have written.

One of the things I love about Trek is that it was not afraid to point a finger at the ills that religion has brought upon nearly every society throughout history. Rationalism in the face of superstition is one of the noblest causes one can pursue. In my opinion.

Exactly. There is a warmth in Trek's view of things that I love. Man seems to have cast off these silly superstitions and is bettering itself for its own sake.

 

[Jedi_Master]

One other thing that I would like to see more of is less serialized storytelling. Although some serialization is awesome, having stories that can be told in one book or block of TV/movie time allows for the optimistic storytelling that made TOS and TNG so much fun.

 

[T'Girl]

We as humans yearn for freedom from oppression, suffering, war, hunger, violence, psychological trauma, fear, and other commonplace factors that determine our life and it's choices.

You mentioned the internet, which in this one case is part of the problem. The sense of community found in the internet is real, but there is the negative of being flooded with the horror to be found in our world. Mostly the world tooters along with those horrors being far away, the internet dumps them right in your room.

It can give you a false impression of the the way the world is, which often in real life it isn't.

 

[Wadjda]

Horror? From a historical perspective we live in a golden age.

 

[JarodRussell]

I think for someone in the dark middle ages, our times would appear pretty utopic. Then he would go to the next hardware store to buy wood and fuel to burn all the witches.

 

[Jedi_Master]

I think for someone in the dark middle ages, our times would appear pretty utopic. Then he would go to the next hardware store to buy wood and fuel to burn all the witches.

You win the thread sir! What is nice about Star Trek is that it gives us hope that life will continue to get better. Humans DO have some super big problems like hunger, disease, etc. So we are out of the frying pan, but are still in the fire.