How Can Religion Get Portrayed Like DS9 Again?

[David.Blue]

I'm sorry, why should I need to contact a writer in order to evaluate a script? I certainly would never demand or dream of even suggesting anyone to ask me questions before they criticize one of my plays. They should stand on their own, without needing the crutch of me--the author--explaining to everyone what I meant and why this is so clever, etc. Nor do I know a single playwright (and I know a few dozen) who would. I might well enjoy talking to David Mack about writing, about what went into certain decisions. Thanks for the tip, which I may very well follow up upon. But that is hardly necessary for me to evaluate a script.

This thread is explicitly about how DS9 treated religion. I criticized DS9 for how it did so, and went into detail about why this was my opinion. I asked a series of rhetorical questions to make my point, about things we never learned--my point being that we should have gotten some strong hint along those lines. I am not looking for these things anymore in DS9. I looked when the show was on the air. They aren't there. That is my criticism.

Much of the feedback I have gotten did not respond in any meaningful way to my actual posts, and that irritates me the most. One person evidently cannot recognize a rhetorical question...! Now this straw man argument about "pigeons that just fall in line." Turn it around--I'm not a pigeon who falls into line because people say I"m wrong. I may be wrong. I may be right. But I'd like a genuine reply to my criticism of DS9 rather than indignation when I defend and clarify my ideas.

 

[VulcanMindBlown]

I just wanted to know how religion could be an intricate part of a Trek show like DS9 did -

Portraying it as:
*Possibly being true
*Open minded
*Not everyone who believes it as true is dumb
*Skeptics and believers
*Good and evil on both sides
*Exploring purpose of the universe and theology

The other Trek shows didn't do those things.

 

[BillJ]

I'm sorry, why should I need to contact a writer in order to evaluate a script? I certainly would never demand or dream of even suggesting anyone to ask me questions before they criticize one of my plays.

If you have criticisms, why not ask the relevant people why if they are available and willing to talk? Just because the scripts don't satisfy you doesn't mean that there aren't reasons behind certain creative choices.

You seem to be a bit bent out of shape because people aren't treating your criticisms as the end all, be all judgement on DS9.

 

[David.Blue]

If you have criticisms, why not ask the relevant people why if they are available and willing to talk? Just because the scripts don't satisfy you doesn't mean that there aren't reasons behind certain creative choices.

You seem to be a bit bent out of shape because people aren't treating your criticisms as the end all, be all judgement on DS9.

I'm sorry it seems that way, and shall take that criticism to heart. However, I stand by my firm belief no one need speak to the writer to evaluate a written work. If the writing doesn't stand on its own, it has in some sense failed. Overall the scripts for DS9 tended to be very, very good. My criticism is about how the series treated the Bajoran religion and culture, i.e. in a generic un-specific manner--the opposite of how they treated Cardassian culture.

It would be interesting to learn more about the process of making those decisions, to be sure. But as a writer myself I must repeat a firm belief--the writing must stand alone.

I'm not really upset folks disagree with me. I'm upset some people aren't responding what I'm saying. One example--"people aren't treating your criticisms as the end all, be all judgement on DS9" which ignores my repeated note that DS9 is my favorite Trek so far, but I do have a specific criticism of the series overall. Likewise taking my comment that certain questions remain unanswered as a demand that someone answer them for me. Frankly it seems as if some folks are skimming my comments instead of actually reading them. Which is okay--I do the same sometimes. Don't we all? But when I've skimmed then commented, I tend to end up with egg on my face. So I try not to do that. Hopefully, I succeed. Usually.

 

[David.Blue]

VulcanMindBlown thanks for the precision of your post. And I cannot but agree.

 

[Tenacity]

The other Trek shows didn't do those things.

Not true, a episode of VOY had Tuvok's wife as a religious person, and in the same episode Tuvok described a Vulcan temple as sacred. Tuvok wasn't depicted as "dumb."

TOS Bread and Circuses, had a number of the main characters as religious.

 

[David.Blue]

Not true, a episode of VOY had Tuvok's wife as a religious person, and in the same episode Tuvok described a Vulcan temple as sacred. Tuvok wasn't depicted as "dumb."

TOS Bread and Circuses, had a number of the main characters as religious.

You bring up a good point, so I did some research. In fact I found (thanks really to this very good article at Ex Astris Scientia) all the movies and series abound with casual references to different faiths, with clear evidence that religion on Earth is very much still practiced, but evidently less so than today. For example, although the Roman Catholic Church clearly exists (Dr. Phlox attended Mass at St. Peters) I cannot once recall seeing a single person cross themselves. One pattern that stands out, particularly in TOS, is a subtle sense that monotheism seems the norm for many Humans (despite at least one Hindu--Lt. Rahda in "That Which Survives"--on board, and Data later attending a Hindu Festival).

The article makes some excellent points:

QUOTE: "Overall, we can observe that explicit anti-religious statements are comparably rare in Star Trek, even during most of the time when Roddenberry was still alive. Looking at The Original Series, we find that issues of faith (human as well as alien) are systematically kept out of the show, aside from for a couple of vague mentions and isolated statements. This may have to do with the era when the series was being produced. In the 1960s it may not have been opportune to create a decidedly atheist TV show, so Roddenberry may have been forced to drop (anti-)religious references to keep it at least secular. It is only remarkable that of all people in the series Edith Keeler, a church social worker of the 1930s, does not mention God on an occasion where it would have been very appropriate, while there are mentions of (the one) God in the 23rd century on other occasions, where they wouldn't belong in Roddenberry's view.

Anyhow, one negative aspect of religion and one that was apparently essential to Roddenberry can be found more or less systematically encrypted in several TOS episodes. It is the classic and already stereotypical "false god" plot, where god-like entities are destroyed or are uncovered as what they really are. This happens in TOS: "Return of the Archons", "A Taste of Armageddon", "Catspaw", "The Apple", The Paradise Syndrome", "Who Mourns for Adonis", "And the Children Shall Lead", "For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky" and "Plato's Stepchildren", to name only the most obvious examples. Many of these stories closely resemble one another, and most of them fail to make a moral statement except for a sigh of relief that the "false god" has been overthrown and that his/her subjects have gained their freedom."

QUOTE: "With Roddenberry being strongly involved in the making of Star Trek at the beginning of TNG again, his atheism becomes the prevalent tone of the new series. The non-existence of religion in the Federation is said to be equally progressive and enlightened as its non-profit economy. "Primitive" civilizations and particularly Earth's own savage past are frequently shown or cited as a contrast to the peaceful, wealthy and happy secular world of the Federation, just like in TNG: "Encounter at Farpoint". In a couple of stories, including TNG: "Justice", "Who Watches the Watchers" and "Devil's Due", "false gods" are exposed (not to mention Q who, however, rather enjoys being a continuing nuisance than being worshipped). Although the situation seems different, considering that the Mintakans are enlightened compared to the dull Vaal people, the outcome in "Who Watches the Watchers" is much the same as in TOS: "The Apple". Here Picard takes the opportunity to condemn religion in unconcealed and harsher words than Kirk could have chosen during TOS. Even though TNG is known to apply only mild violence compared to TOS, if any, we may only speculate what would have happened if the false Edo "god" hadn't been much more powerful than the Enterprise-D...
...But Roddenberry's criticism goes beyond that, as he feels that any religion needs to be abolished and/or replaced by pure science as a prerequisite for a truly enlightened civilization. Most of all TNG: "Who Watches the Watchers" explicitly blames faith itself for everything that is wrong with any religion and as an obstacle to the further development of a society. Not zealous and intolerant single individuals, not leaders that misuse religion to exploit their followers, but the very basis of any religion is condemned on these occasions."

The article goes on to note how Trek became more tolerant of religion following Roddenberry's death. I myself am not backing down from my criticism of how DS9 portrayed Bajoran culture and religion--especially when compared to the portrayals of the Ferengi, Vulcans, Klingons and Cardassians as well as (eventually) the Andorians--but as this well-researched article points out the role of religion in Trek is more complex than any one blanket statement can accurately portray. Highly recommended!

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

Given Bajorans' major role in the show as the motivation for so many things that happen on/around the station, which puts them in at least the same echelon as the other races you mentioned, they seem to be, (in your opinion, (the last episode I saw of it was "Trials and Tribble-ations"; haven't seen any other episodes in years) limited to plot devices and ever-present religious practitioners who flit about, reading never-quoted texts, participating in once-mentioned, never elaborated on rituals, with little or no meaning behind them that a casual watcher would discern.

 

[Tenacity]

One pattern that stands out, particularly in TOS, is a subtle sense that monotheism seems the norm for many Humans

Keiko's wedding dress (TNG) was traditional Shinto.

 

[BillJ]

The article goes on to note how Trek became more tolerant of religion following Roddenberry's death.

Which isn't quite true, as TOS clearly shows. Roddenberry changed sometime during the late-70's/early-80's, buying into the college circuit hype about Star Trek being about a better humanity in the future.

KIRK: Caesar and Christ. They had them both. And the word is spreading only now.
MCCOY: A philosophy of total love and total brotherhood.
SPOCK: It will replace their imperial Rome, but it will happen in their twentieth century.
KIRK: Wouldn't it be something to watch, to be a part of? To see it happen all over again? Mister Chekov, take us out of orbit. Ahead warp factor one.

 

[BillJ]

Trek may have been more hostile towards religion than some folks were comfortable with, but it definitely retained a spiritual side that it didn't seem ashamed of. It really hit me while watching The Motion Picture the other night.

SPOCK: I saw V'Ger's planet, a planet populated by living machines. Unbelievable technology. V'Ger has knowledge that spans this universe. And, yet with all this pure logic, ...V'Ger is barren, cold, no mystery, no beauty. I should have known.
KIRK: Known? Known what? ...Spock, what should you have known?
SPOCK: This simple feeling ...is beyond V'Ger's comprehension. No meaning, ...no hope, ...and, Jim, no answers. It's asking questions. 'Is this ...all I am? Is there nothing more?'

KIRK: Spock. ...Spock?
(as Spock turns Kirk and McCoy see that he is crying)
KIRK: Not for us?
SPOCK: No, Captain, not for us, ...for V'Ger. ...I weep for V'Ger, as I would for a brother. As I was when I came aboard, so is V'Ger now, empty, incomplete, ...searching. Logic and knowledge are not enough.
McCOY: Spock, are you saying that you've found, what you needed, but V'Ger hasn't?
DECKER: What would V'Ger need to fulfil itself?
SPOCK: Each of us, at some time in our life, turns to someone, a father, a brother, a god and asks 'Why am I here?' 'What was I meant to be?' V'Ger hopes to touch its Creator to find its answers.
KIRK: 'Is this all that I am? Is there nothing more?'

DECKER: To bring the Creator here, to finish transmitting the code in person, ...to touch the Creator.
McCOY: To capture God! V'Ger's going to be in for one hell of a disappointment.
SPOCK: Perhaps not. ...Captain, ...V'Ger must evolve. Its knowledge has reached the limits of this universe and it must evolve. What it requires of its God, Doctor is the answer to its question, 'Is there nothing more?
McCOY: What more is there than the universe, Spock?
DECKER: Other, dimensions, higher levels of beings.
SPOCK: The existence of which cannot be proved logically, therefore V'Ger is incapable of believing in them.
KIRK: What V'Ger needs in order to evolve is a human quality. Our capacity to leap beyond logic.
DECKER: And joining with its Creator might accomplish that.

 

[Ralphis]

I think that Star Trek can benefit from portraying religion in a positive and curious light like in Deep Space Nine.

However, I realize that that might be hard to do, since most of the Federation has embraced secular humanism, and the only portrayal that I liked, from DS9, came from the top ranked Star Fleet officer being ordained by other religion based on another planet. Thought, you can from the shows see that sometimes it seems like they make whatever religion a humanoid believes in them is real to them... like Sto-Vo-Kor... and there are probably other examples... I know that religion can be a touchy subject... but Trek hasn't completely shied away from the controversial.

If they just stuck with alien religions it would be ok. But with today's uproar culture, I think it's best to just stay away from real-world religions, unless they're just vaguely referred to.

 

[David.Blue]

If they just stuck with alien religions it would be ok. But with today's uproar culture, I think it's best to just stay away from real-world religions, unless they're just vaguely referred to.

Why?

 

[Ralphis]

Why?

Because it's a sensitive subject, especially today with everyone being offended by everything under the sun. If anyone feels like their religion isn't quite respected as they feel it should, they'll get offended. If you have one religion represented but not the other, you'll offend someone from the other religion. If the villain in an episode is of a certain religion, people will say the writing staff is anti-whatever.

 

[David.Blue]

Because it's a sensitive subject, especially today with everyone being offended by everything under the sun. If anyone feels like their religion isn't quite respected as they feel it should, they'll get offended. If you have one religion represented but not the other, you'll offend someone from the other religion. If the villain in an episode is of a certain religion, people will say the writing staff is anti-whatever.

Does this apply to other "sensitive" subjects? Or just some? On what basis other than your own feelings?

 

[Ralphis]

Does this apply to other "sensitive" subjects? Or just some? On what basis other than your own feelings?

I personally wouldn't mind a little Earth-based religion in Star Trek. But I'm just afraid the moment you give a character a specific religion, say Christianity, that people will find it preachy, especially with majority of the Trek fan base being more of a secular ideology. I personally wouldn't be offended, but I just feel like a lot of people would. I could be wrong though. I'm wrong a lot.

 

[Tenacity]

especially with majority of the Trek fan base being more of a secular ideology

May I ask where you are getting this idea?

Because it's a sensitive subject, especially today with everyone being offended by everything under the sun.

There is a hope (among some of us) that with the new political structure coming into place after the last election, that overt political correctness and the "everyone being offended by everything under the sun" culture will begin to fade away.

Just because a fictional character on a TV show has a faith or spirituality, doesn't have to mean that it's an attack on a real world person with a opposite viewpoint.

Also, having a character possess a faith or spirituality, doesn't mean that they automatically have to be written as a over-the-top religious zealot. Major Kira was a person of faith, and she was open about it, but that wasn't her sole defining feature.

 

[Ralphis]

May I ask where you are getting this idea?

I regret making that comment. It was a bit ignorant of me. I was on my phone at work and not really thinking about what I was writing. Most of my real-world Trekkie friends are at least agnostic, I've just always kind of assumed that was they way it was across the board. I apologize for that comment.

Just because a fictional character on a TV show has a faith or spirituality, doesn't have to mean that it's an attack on areal world person with a opposite viewpoint.

Of course it doesn't. But that doesn't mean people will see it that way. Just read the comment section for any article on social media. Holy crap, everyone finds something to bitch about.

Also, having a character possess a faith or spirituality, doesn't mean that they automatically have to be written as a over-the-top religious zealot. Major Kira was a person of faith, and she was open about it, but that wasn't her sole defining feature.

I agree. I guess I'm just a little bit too jaded on how our society reacts negatively towards everything these days. Maybe I just need some rum or something.

 

[Tenacity]

I agree. I guess I'm just a little bit too jaded on how our society reacts negatively towards everything these days.

I do have hope that we can one day change away from that.

 

[Tenacity]

I regret making that comment. It was a bit ignorant of me.

I don't want you to feel that I was attacking your statement or being confrontational. I was just interested as to where you come upon that piece of information.

Maybe a poll, there have been a few through the years.

My perception is that while Trek fans do hold (proportionately) a few more percentage points of people who are non-spiritual or anti-spiritual than the general Human population, for the most part "Trekkies" aren't too from the general population percentages on the matter.