I don't know? When Isaacs challenged her on it, she said he could say "fuck" before he could say "God". According to the article.
Which only highlights how seriously they weren't taking it, in my book. Jason has made the irreverent Brit reply that I probably would have made and got a 'wind your neck in' slightly jokey response. I think we took that exchange way too seriously, especially since they then put out that it wasn't the case at all.
It's a usage of language. 'Blasphemy' isn't reverence, lol. Just as some language we use today has survived without relevance to a belief or direct meaning, some will continue.
Yup. Plus, it is a conceit of Star Trek that the English language hasn't changed noticeably, and so if we are going to take umbrage with whether we'd still be using religious references in 300 years, we need to look at the fact that it doesn't really make sense that they're still speaking recognisable modern English in general despite the enormous new influences they'd have encountered.
If it bothers you, it's probably easier to think of the universal translator concept as including the audience - the speech of 24th century English is translated to 2017 English for our ears.
It's not too hard for millions of Game of Thrones fans or Breaking Bad fans to follow their shows avidly and discuss every detail of where the plot might be going. It's perfectly fine to prefer episodic TV, but I don't think an argument that is easier to follow holds much water. If the show's good, it will attract an audience, if it isn't, it won't, regardless of format.Especially nowadays and the long-arc shows. It's hard to follow a single narrative over many years. One thing about episodic Trek is you can pretty much watch any episode at any time.