In the Hands of the Prophets - Great Finale

[tomalak301]

I just finished rewatching Season 1 tonight, and came to this finale, which is one that doesn't get talked about that much on here. This was a damn good finale that set up some of my favorite themes that DS9 would cover in the next few seasons, which was expanding the universe and the Bajorans in general. I know this was boring to some and that the Dominion War overshadowed it, but I really did love how this episode set up everything. We meet Berile, Winn, and if Star Trek is about progess, than this episode shows how far we've come since the premiere. There's still a lot that needed to be done, but all of this was touched upon greatly.

I'm interested in hearing from those who thought initially that the Bajoran aspect of this series was boring. Anyone can chime in of course, but yeah let's talk about this awesome finale. What did you think about it. Personally, while I liked the dominion stuff, there was plenty of room for stuff like this. I really missed it in the later seasons.

 

[Navaros]

Great episode yes, but almost entirely because of Louise Fletcher as Vedek Winn and the geniuses who made sure they hired her specifically.

I hate Bajorans and find them equally boring both before and after this episode. However, Vedek/Kai Winn is compelling in every single appearance she has. She's an Oscar winner though so that is to be expected. :thumbsup:

What I'm saying is, this episode wasn't a turning point that made Bajorans in general worthwhile. Rather, Louise Fletcher's amazing performance single-handedly brought an interesting Bajoran to the table for the first time ever. She is the only worthwhile Bajoran, and without Louise Fletcher specifically, they still woulda had nothing there.

It is true they finally started getting some story points rolling in this episode though, and beginning the serialization process. So that was a lot better than "If Wishes Were Horse" and "Q-Less" type crap. :thumbsup:

 

[stj]

Back in the Seventies, in Kanawha County WV, there was a big controversy about irreligious textbooks. The sort of thing that In the Hands of the Prophets was about, no? (This is the one about the school teaching the Prophets were aliens, right?)

The fracas was intense. There were marches and hooraw and yes, a bombing (an empty school bus as I recall.) The upshot was that one of the most vociferous leaders was elected to the school board. Ms Whanger (no joke) was of course not the only leader. Nor was she either a political or religious figure prior to the whole business. Nor has she used it as a stepping stone to wealth and power. Indeed she has moved out of state. (Embarrassed now perhaps?)

The state department of education has run from all hints of controversy since, carefully downplaying in practice such things as evolutionary science. (The controversy was over scoial studies textbooks---they dared to suggest that morality was one of the differences between society, instead of the Divine Plan that everyone selse failed to follow.)

In the DS9 episode, the whole ugly episode is a put up job by a corrupt leader. The good leader comes in and restores local religious observance to its customary decorum. Unfortunately the wicked cleric survives. So although RELIGION IS A GOOD THING it can still be misused.

By the internal premises of the series, Bajoran religious prophecies would not only come true, but be specific enough that people would actually know when they were fulfilled, instead of selling lecture courses that explain it. A religion that actually works, that compels assent from reason by fact, instead of a religion that demands faith without reason, could I suppose contain an interesting commentary on the real world.

This episode I think decisively turned the Bajorans and their religion away from real drama, towards ignorant melodramatic hokum.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

I always liked this episode. When people talk about season 1 of DS9, all you ever hear is Duet, Duet, Duet.

But there are a few gems in season 1...and this is one of them.

Highly underrated, IMO.

 

[tomalak301]

stj said:
Back in the Seventies, in Kanawha County WV, there was a big controversy about irreligious textbooks. The sort of thing that In the Hands of the Prophets was about, no? (This is the one about the school teaching the Prophets were aliens, right?)

The fracas was intense. There were marches and hooraw and yes, a bombing (an empty school bus as I recall.) The upshot was that one of the most vociferous leaders was elected to the school board. Ms Whanger (no joke) was of course not the only leader. Nor was she either a political or religious figure prior to the whole business. Nor has she used it as a stepping stone to wealth and power. Indeed she has moved out of state. (Embarrassed now perhaps?)

The state department of education has run from all hints of controversy since, carefully downplaying in practice such things as evolutionary science. (The controversy was over scoial studies textbooks---they dared to suggest that morality was one of the differences between society, instead of the Divine Plan that everyone selse failed to follow.)

In the DS9 episode, the whole ugly episode is a put up job by a corrupt leader. The good leader comes in and restores local religious observance to its customary decorum. Unfortunately the wicked cleric survives. So although RELIGION IS A GOOD THING it can still be misused.

By the internal premises of the series, Bajoran religious prophecies would not only come true, but be specific enough that people would actually know when they were fulfilled, instead of selling lecture courses that explain it. A religion that actually works, that compels assent from reason by fact, instead of a religion that demands faith without reason, could I suppose contain an interesting commentary on the real world.

This episode I think decisively turned the Bajorans and their religion away from real drama, towards ignorant melodramatic hokum.

I'm a little confused about what you're getting at. Did you or did you not like this episode? Isn't real drama about looking at something like religion from all ends of the spectrum. This episode does say that religion is good if used properly. It showed that there are still extremists out there who don't use it properly, but to there own political gain. I loved Sisko's come back when he said to Winn "Do the Prophets also teach you politics?" I think it is real drama in that this religion isn't perfect, much like pretty much all religions of today, and I say that as a devout catholic.

 

[stj]

Of course I didn't like the episode. I really don't think you could explain the proper use of religion. The idea that extremists misuse religion for their own political gain is bullshit. Religious bigots may flatter their own vanity. But religious bigotry is quite the norm, not extremism. The genuine extremists quite often tend to make extraordinary personal sacrifices. Getting stuff like that backwards is why the episode (and all Bajoran religion episodes) are such garbage.

 

[tomalak301]

^Seems like I struck a nerve. Never seen anyone that passionate against this episode before. I can respect that though, for what it's worth.

I do have to ask something though. Did you like the Circle Trilogy. It dealt with politics, but it pushed the religion aspect to the background to an extent.

 

[Tralis]

This was the episode in which I discovered I loved DS9.

 

[CorporalClegg]

stj said:
Of course I didn't like the episode. I really don't think you could explain the proper use of religion. The idea that extremists misuse religion for their own political gain is bullshit. Religious bigots may flatter their own vanity. But religious bigotry is quite the norm, not extremism. The genuine extremists quite often tend to make extraordinary personal sacrifices. Getting stuff like that backwards is why the episode (and all Bajoran religion episodes) are such garbage.

I still fail to see what your point is. This reads more like a rant than a well thought out argument.

In any case, you perked my interest. Please elaborate.

 

[stj]

Here's an extended argument. Let me back up a bit to start.

Isn't real drama about looking at something like religion from all ends of the spectrum.

No. There is a species of intellectual weasel who excuse moral cowardice with this rationalization. Making judgments is not the same thing as being judgmental. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints provides an excellent illustration of the difference.

Joseph Smith did not translate the Book of Mormon from golden plates given to him by angels, any more than he correctly translated Egyptian hieroglyphs. A drama about Joseph Smith that shows him receiving the plates or translating in his study is not balanced. Nor is it letting the viewer decide for himself. It is simply dishonest, afraid to offend viewers with the truth. And writing drama where Joseph Smith "might" be a genuine prophet of God is just a stupid effort to have it both ways.

But a drama about Joseph Smith that pretends Smith was uniquely villainous is also false. His followers must refuse to accept simple reason but implying they are any more irrational than any other believers in the supernatural is also false. It would be bigoted to single out Mormons for anything except being more organized and wealthier than other religions.

To avoid this, most so-called drama that takes up religion is pretty much like a drama about love that pretends the stork brings babies! The better writers tend to avoid the subject of religion for this reason?

Obviously many people disagree. They seem to think that religion is like taste. Some people like this and some like that and criticizing religion is like accusing someone of bad taste. Of course, religious thinking informs all sorts of choices and attitudes in daily life. Faced with consequences, some imply there is good relgion and bad. The difference is supposed to be obsvious.

But no one can say what the difference is other than bad religion justifies things the objector doesn't personally like. They might offer rational justifications for their moral objections but this usually doesn't go far, because religious people don't accept reason as compelling assent---They accept supernatural justifications.

Also, some wiseguy will suggest using the rational moral principles and ignoring the religion! In any event, this moral agnosticism is not wisdom but refusal to commit. What ever is the point of listening to people who just want to evade issues?

Imagining the Bajoran Prophets as functioning as real gods is pretty much like putting "real" angels into your story. It's not balanced or neutral or letting the viewer decide. It's assuming the conclusion. (Good writers could have used them to ask questions like "How do we know the Prophets care about us?" But such things were not an issue for DS9)

In the Hands of the Prophets ostensibly addresses the bad side of religion. The Federation view of Prophets as wormhole aliens metaphorically embodies the scientific understanding of reality. The assumption built into the show is that one could choose to superimpose a religious viewpoint according to taste. In daily life, religion is like a hobby, which just shouldn't have major effects otherwise! (Personally I'm deeply convinced that accepting the supernatural has important effects on your mind.)

The real story is this---Kai Winn organizes an attack on the Federation school for political gain. I can't quite remember whether the assassination of Bareil (I think his name was) was always the goal or an add on. The plot is foiled but Kai Winn lives to fight another day (in the Circle trilogy which I missed.) The plot isn't unfolded this way---and there's other scenes with the Feds, usually making speeches for the validity of religion and against the bigotry of rejecting superstition.

Actually in terms of the show, the school was implicitly making political criticisms of the Prophets, denying their benevolence and authority! The real meaning of the Prime Directive in Trek's fictional universe is unclear to me. But the real story should have been about the conflict between the truth and what the Bajorans insisted on hearing.

(This is one of those SF shows where you have to ignore what's on screen and interpet it as metaphors for contemporary reality. Personally, I intensely dislike this approach. It combines the inability to write coherent sf with a desire to misrepresent today's reality, truly the worst of both worlds. By the way, writers who claim science and religion are compatible would be more believable if they were not only incredibly ignorant of science, but boast of their hostility to science!)

In other words, the story is about how a nasty politician/clergyman whips up a storm over teaching of evolution (best real world topic) to gain political points. And he's using it as a cover to assassinate a rival politician/clergyman when he comes to defend the evolutionists!

Now lots and lots of believers have absolutely no need of a clergyman or a politician to get upset over evolution. The insult to their vanity does that. It is the politicians playing demagogue who pander to that indignation, instead of creating it. It is rarely in the interest of politicians to be seen as causing public disorders. It is also rare that
powerful politicians resort to violence. Riots, bombings and assassinations are usually the resort of the weaker parties. There is rarely a political or religious leader who can or will calm the mob (at the moment I can't think of any! Ever!) And the bigotry most certainly does not conveniently disappear after the evil misleader is unmasked!

That's just not the way that things are. It's not even a story about what might be! The story shouldn't have been judgmental, casting the Bajorans as benighted fools. But as it is, the story pretends that the Bajorans who thought demoting the Prophets to wormhole aliens raised questions about why they should be obeyed are just being foolish. Despite all the palaver about toleration and equal treatment of religion, the story still assumes that people who take their religion seriously are sheep! I think they're wrong. But I think that view is really more respectful of them as people.

 

[CorporalClegg]

stj said:
The real story is this---Kai Winn organizes an attack on the Federation school for political gain. I can't quite remember whether the assassination of Bareil (I think his name was) was always the goal or an add on. The plot is foiled but Kai Winn lives to fight another day (in the Circle trilogy which I missed.) The plot isn't unfolded this way---and there's other scenes with the Feds, usually making speeches for the validity of religion and against the bigotry of rejecting superstition.

Actually in terms of the show, the school was implicitly making political criticisms of the Prophets, denying their benevolence and authority! The real meaning of the Prime Directive in Trek's fictional universe is unclear to me. But the real story should have been about the conflict between the truth and what the Bajorans insisted on hearing.

(This is one of those SF shows where you have to ignore what's on screen and interpet it as metaphors for contemporary reality. Personally, I intensely dislike this approach. It combines the inability to write coherent sf with a desire to misrepresent today's reality, truly the worst of both worlds. By the way, writers who claim science and religion are compatible would be more believable if they were not only incredibly ignorant of science, but boast of their hostility to science!)

I only quote this section as I think it is the most definitive part of the argument.

Your assessment of the plot is more or less accurate. The episode really wasn’t about creationism v. evolution at all. It was really about a megalomaniacal sociopath using faith (or rather other’s faith) as a tool for her own ambition.

It was the stepping stone for one of the main themes of the series: Sisko’s faith against Winn’s. Hers was waning at best, and completely absent at worst. This was pretty clearly established in subsequent episodes.

It was clear that the Occupation had some sort of psychological impact on her and it affected her judgment, as well as began to weaken her belief in her Gods. This continues to the point where, in the end, she “sleeps with the devil” both literally and figuratively.

Also, you have to consider the fact that the episode was more or less a cliffhanger as it directly leads into The Circle arc—which elaborates on this theme even further.

The school bombing was simply a plot device (not only by the writers, but her) to accomplish her ultimate goal. I think even by the end of the episode, it’s pretty clear that she couldn’t care less what Keiko teaches in her school.

And let’s not pretend that such a plot is out of the realm of real-life possibilities. There most definitely is precedent. Heck, look at the current President.

He used 9-11 as a similar launching platform (even though he was the cause, he still took full advantage of it). He then begin preaching faith to cement his ambitions. He did so by expressing ideals that others found important with their faith. All the while, he did nothing to prove or establish his own except speak on its own behalf. But, actions speak louder than words; so much so, that people have finally seen past his cloud of smoke and he’s now the least popular president in the country’s history.

I think this hold even truer with people of real faith, and this is supported by how well Huck is doing because he so openly (and credulously) practices his faith.

In fact, I would even argue that the Bush/Huck dynamic parallels the one presented in DS9 with Winn and Sisko rather freakishly in that people left the phony in favor of the one they perceived to be a truly practices and believes.

As for the whole Prime directive thing, I don’t think it really applies to Keiko. I mean, just because I am a citizen of the United States doesn’t mean I have to adhere to the military’s rule of law—even if I was married to an officer.

Semantics sure, but it’s much shorter reach than some of the other blatant disregards for the PD that have been attempted to be explained away.

 

[stj]

An amusing typo in the quote---that should be "weren't not only incredibly ignorant" etc. My mistake obviously.

After the Kanawha County textbook war, the story cuts too close to home to enjoy the heroes vs. villains melodrama of it all. I do remember reading the timeline of the whole series in the front of Avatar. They all had a very busy time indeed. For me, the pleasure in these elaborately twisty plots is determined by affection for characters. Quark was too greedy, O'Brien/Bashir too petty and Dax played by Terry Farrell (who I didn't like on Becker either. Jake/Sisko was about the only emotional warmth in the first season. Way too cold for me. I liked Odo okay but there were suspension of disbelief problems. Kira had some too---she was too undisciplined to believe as a resistance leader.

As to real world, I see no reason to doubt that Bush's sincerity in his religion. And I think most people's objections to Bush are that he's losing the war on the Muslims, not that he's waging war on them.

I think this all explains everything necessary about my peculiar distaste for In the Hands of the Prophets.

 

[Navaros]

stj said:
But the real story should have been about the conflict between the truth and what the Bajorans insisted on hearing.

That's just not the way that things are. It's not even a story about what might be! The story shouldn't have been judgmental, casting the Bajorans as benighted fools.

Calling the Bajorans fools for not denying their faith certainly isn't respectful to them and had the show done that, it wouldn't have been respectful to the real-life beliefs of those who disagree with the secular humanist agenda, either. To say that those who do not agree with Keiko (and implicitly, the theory of evolution) are fools, is being very judgemental. What was presented in the episode was not judgemental, though. The show did not present the Bajorans who agree with what Winn was saying as fools. To it's credit.

And what Keiko was saying wasn't necessarily "the truth." Keiko's derogatory attitude was just the same as Winn's, and Keiko in this episode was no better than Winn. The Sisko was wise, and did well to point this out to Jake when Jake started acting like Keiko about this matter. The Sisko pointed out they would become just as bad as Winn if they thought like that, and that they mustn't think like that. As a Trek show, that took a lot of guts for Trek for once to not be propagating a secular humanist agenda. This episode deserves much respect for that.

One of the things that makes this episode brilliant is that it doesn't put a secular humanist agenda upon a soapbox and dictate that anyone who doesn't agree with that agenda is wrong and ignorant. Like many other Trek episodes do.

 

[stj]

If the real world were anything like the silly story in this episode, anyone talking about the "secular humanist agenda" is merely parroting a libel contrived by a self-serving scoundrel. As soon as a liberal clergyman inspired by pure motives stands up for niceness, all these malevolent lies will be forgotten. Especially if the intellectuals don't rile the plebeians with snooty ideas about evidence and logic. Those kind of people, were some to exist somewhere on Earth, truly are fools.

In reality of course, none of this is true. Believers reject rational standards because they want to believe in miracles (and in the case of evolution in their own mirculous nature!) To support their visceral resentment of reality against experience, they have to various degrees internalized elaborate ideologies while simultaneously conducting most daily affairs using the knowledge won by others. Politicians and clergymen pander to their base appetite for self-glorification and self-indulgence in wishful thinking. People like this gain no significant political power, so the idea that it's just a matter of a misleader is absurd. But all this is much more wolf-like than sheepish. It is not a question of folly, nor ignorance.

It is outright refusal to accept the authority of reason, of pretending one's personal feelings are the authority. Many people live daily live unequal to their amour propre. On issues seemingly remote from practical application, like religion, it appears the joy of malice can be safely indulged.

In Trek's fictional universe, the Prophets are quite factually not the Gods of billions of galaxies. But---these Gods allowed the Cardassians to torment the faithful? And no one is allowed to question the benevolence or power of the Prophets? And it is supposedly wisdom to sneer at any one who presumes that other people have the mother wit to ask such obvious questions?

Obviously the responses of the Federation characters are supposed to be about real world issues instead of the purported story. I still think this first fails to actually write a sf story and second fails to tell a truthful story about the real world. It's drivel.

And as far as evolution is concerned, it is absurd to think that all these people give a shit about biology.