Trek's View of Religion

[maneth]

It would be nice if they could leave religion mostly out of it, at least for humans. Show that we have moved so far that what anyone believes is up to them, provided it doesn't hurt others, and that proselytizing in any form (including proselytizing for atheism!) is if not banned, at least heavily discouraged.

The best sci-fi take on alien religions affecting humanity IMO is the Babylon 5 episode Believers. I wish more sci-fi would be so daring.

 

[Deckerd]

reminded of a story, after hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, people entered stores and took food (and other things too). After everything settled down some people returned to the stores and paid for what they had taken. These people could be called moral.

These people could not be called 'moral' whatever the hell that means. They should be called honest.

 

[Nightdiamond]

By the way, wouldn't the school thing be close to violating the Prime Directive?

No, because Bajor is not a pre-warp civilization, which renders this a moot point. Not to mention that Keiko is a civilian, not a Starfleet member. She is not obliged to "not interfere" with the Bajoran kids education any more than a Federation trader is obliged to "not interfere" with Ferengi economy.

Seriously, the way some people interpret the PD is just ridiculous, it makes it sound like total isolationism.

Not necessarily just that- It also involves noninterference with a society's cultural and religious and legal ideas.

Almost to the point of refusing to help, render aid, or allowing things to happen;

If the Prime Directive gets misinterpreted, some of the blame can go to how it has been shown being used before..



Here are some points;

The Kazon are a warp capable species, and the Prime Directive is cited as one of the reasons Janeway refused to share it with them. (she was right, by the way)

Remember the Karemma? Warp capable, part of the Dominion.

The Dominion (already hostile) didn't want to trade with the Federation- The Federation knew this, and traded with them anyway using the Ferengi as middlemen.

Errand of Mercy, TOS- Kirk is actually ordered to contact the Organians, even though they obviously were seen as pre industrial.


The Bajorans had to have had knowledge of warp travel before the occupation, yet the reason Starfleet didn't lend aid during the occupation was because of the prime directive - Bajor was "Inside of Cardassia".

Prior to the Occupation, the Bajorans were a peaceful people whose art and architecture were well-known and admired throughout the galaxy.

The potential problem is Sisko's (Starfleet's) involvement in the matter.... if he does get involved, and makes a decision concerning the issue, then he gets pretty close to some sticky issues.

KIRA: "Then maybe we need two schools on this station... one for Bajoran children and another for the Federation...

SISKO: "If we start separating Bajoran and Federation interests...

KIRA: "A lot of Bajoran and Federation interests are separate, Commander... I've been telling you that all along.

SISKO: "Nobody's saying there can't be spiritual teaching on this station, Major... but why can't it be in addition to what's taught in Mrs. O'Brien's classroom...

 

[stonester1]

It would be nice if they could leave religion mostly out of it, at least for humans. Show that we have moved so far that what anyone believes is up to them, provided it doesn't hurt others, and that proselytizing in any form (including proselytizing for atheism!) is if not banned, at least heavily discouraged.

I like to think the idea of freedom of speech is still alive and well in the future, especially an "enlightened utopia" like the UFP is supposed to be.

There is no reason why believers should have to be shoved into a closet.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

It would be nice if they could leave religion mostly out of it, at least for humans. Show that we have moved so far that what anyone believes is up to them, provided it doesn't hurt others, and that proselytizing in any form (including proselytizing for atheism!) is if not banned, at least heavily discouraged.

I like to think the idea of freedom of speech is still alive and well in the future, especially an "enlightened utopia" like the UFP is supposed to be.

There is no reason why believers should have to be shoved into a closet.

Exactly. If the Federation is so insecure that they cannot tolerate dissent, then there are some very, VERY serious underlying problems.

(Which is actually the way I tend to view the Federation: a whitewashed sepulcher, in a lot of ways.)

 

[Anwar]

Sure they tolerate dissent, they tolerated breakaway colonies and never tried to forcibly annex them afterwards (Turkana IV). They allowed the colonists in the DMZ to stay there AS THEY WISHED and only intervened when they and the Cardassians took their nonsense outside of the DMZ and began attacking Starfleet.

Picard saying that he didn't want the Mintakans to revert to more primitive ways they themselves had grown out of is NOT a condemnation of all religion. Picard himself has some Deist belief.

Some people just want ANY excuse to make the Federation a living Hell just because everything isn't 100% like it is in the 20th century...

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I think the speech in Who Watches the Watchers was brilliant. First, it makes a somewhat above-average episode completely memorable. And, even if it goes against the grain for a lot of people, even if it manages to offend some of those poeple, it actually states a real opinion, boldly and without trepidation. The fact that I agree that with the statement that religion is detrimental to the progress of humanity makes it a bonus.

 

[lawman]

I think the speech in Who Watches the Watchers was brilliant. First, it makes a somewhat above-average episode completely memorable. And, even if it goes against the grain for a lot of people, even if it manages to offend some of those poeple, it actually states a real opinion, boldly and without trepidation. The fact that I agree that with the statement that religion is detrimental to the progress of humanity makes it a bonus.

Quoted for truth. Modern-day Trek has far too often tried to avoid saying or doing anything remotely controversial, which is detrimental to a show that's supposed to be imaginative and thought-provoking and embody future progress. There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying (especially in an SF context!) that a world without religious superstition would be a better one.

 

[DevilEyes]

I think the speech in Who Watches the Watchers was brilliant. First, it makes a somewhat above-average episode completely memorable. And, even if it goes against the grain for a lot of people, even if it manages to offend some of those poeple, it actually states a real opinion, boldly and without trepidation. The fact that I agree that with the statement that religion is detrimental to the progress of humanity makes it a bonus.

By those standards, socialist realism literature was awesome.

 

[Anwar]

You have a problem with certain media having the guts to make a direct statement? You can dislike the statement all you want, but advocating that media shouldn't even have the right to do so isn't a terribly good thing to advocate.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

yeah, even if I was religious, I would commend them for not being tepid and getting some guts.

 

[Anwar]

I AM Religious, and I have no problem with "Who Watches the Watchers?"

 

[DevilEyes]

You have a problem with certain media having the guts to make a direct statement? You can dislike the statement all you want, but advocating that media shouldn't even have the right to do so isn't a terribly good thing to advocate.

Ah, still arguing with your Straw Men, Anwar? Good to know you haven't changed.

I understand that some people have trouble understanding concepts such as complexity, subtlety, presenting different viewpoints, and tend to confuse expressing an opinion with didacticism and insulting the audience's intelligence by preaching and spelling things out for them. To quote myself:

But I'd say that people have a perfectly legitimate right to criticize a piece of fiction for presenting just one side of the view and ignoring others. It's not silly at all, IMO, to say that, you know, the entertainment that holds the religion as the one and true way and attempts to push that belief onto the reader/viewer tends to suck... and that entertainment that states that religion is 100% wrong and tries to push that onto the reader/viewer tends to suck, too. If people want to state their views like that, they can always write a non-fictional book, an essay, a letter to the magazine, a blog, whatever. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with people inserting their beliefs and views in their fictional work, as long as this is done in a subtle, intelligent way that doesn't hurt the artistic value of the work. But when people make the fictional work all about their views and the best way to push it onto the reader/viewer, while completely ignoring the legitimacy of any other point of view, the work ends up one-sided, didactic and preachy.

And ironically, preachy is a word very often associated with TNG, because of the episodes like Who Watches the Watchers.

And FYI, it has nothing to do with disliking the statement. I may really like the statement and agree with it, but still find the work lame or flawed as a piece of art. Example: I actually agree with most of Michael Moore's views, but I don't value his documentaries too highly because of his tendency to constantly tell the viewers what they're supposed to think. Documentaries that just let the material speak for itself, even though the author's stance is still pretty obvious, are far more effective in conveying the message. (e.g. Jesus Camp)

 

[Anwar]

So tell me, what would be a way of saying "Religion is best left in the past" in a way that DOESN'T insult you?

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Documentaries that just let the material speak for itself, even though the author's stance is still pretty obvious, are far more effective in conveying the message. (e.g. Jesus Camp)

Lost credinbility with your example right there. It would be like me reccomending people watch Religulous to see what my point of view is. Not a good idea. I would actually point out youtube channels like AronRa instead.

So WWTW is an episode that almost clearly implies that humanity considers religion to be something that is akin to mere superstition and, as part of the Federation, humanity has "outgrown" it. I think it's cool, and friggin' ballsy to come out and say it.

My biggest with people that are religious is not knowing what I can and can't say while I'm around them, how close I am to offending them by trouncing on their worldview.

Trek's audience would obviously consist of members that are very devout and would undoubtedly take offence at the idea that humanity would "evolve past" or "outgrow" religion, but man, I'm glad the writers just said "to hell with it" and actually made a real statement about what the future (In Trek) was like without so much regard for who may or may not be offended.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It would be nice if they could leave religion mostly out of it, at least for humans. Show that we have moved so far that what anyone believes is up to them, provided it doesn't hurt others, and that proselytizing in any form (including proselytizing for atheism!) is if not banned, at least heavily discouraged.

I like to think the idea of freedom of speech is still alive and well in the future, especially an "enlightened utopia" like the UFP is supposed to be.

There is no reason why believers should have to be shoved into a closet.

Exactly. If the Federation is so insecure that they cannot tolerate dissent, then there are some very, VERY serious underlying problems.

(Which is actually the way I tend to view the Federation: a whitewashed sepulcher, in a lot of ways.)

Seems to me someone is confusing the creator's desires with the objectives of the his fictional world. GR creating a world where humanity has moved past religion is not the same thing as the UFP supressing freedom of speech or religion

 

[DevilEyes]

So tell me, what would be a way of saying "Religion is best left in the past" in a way that DOESN'T insult you?

Actually it doesn't insult me at all, especially since I'm not exactly what one would call a religious person. I just find it silly, one-sided and prejudiced.

If you're asking what would make expressing such a viewpoint through a fictional work less silly and one-sided, it would be to show that some people think that 'religion is best left in the past' and others don't agree. Or that only a minority of people in the Federation are religious, but that they still exist. That would certainly be more realistic, and at least make it all look less like propaganda. If if you're creating propaganda, it's far better propaganda if it is not obviously so.

If you want to convey a direct message without any subtlety, the easiest and best way to do it is in essays, interviews, blogs or on public forums. It's perfectly OK for those to be one-sided and argumentative - they're pretty much expected to be.

 

[DevilEyes]

Documentaries that just let the material speak for itself, even though the author's stance is still pretty obvious, are far more effective in conveying the message. (e.g. Jesus Camp)

Lost credinbility with your example right there. It would be like me reccomending people watch Religulous to see what my point of view is. Not a good idea.
.

1) I have no clue what you're talking about.
2) Do you actually have any clue what I was talking about? Doesn't seem so.

Trek's audience would obviously consist of members that are very devout and would undoubtedly take offence at the idea that humanity would "evolve past" or "outgrow" religion, but man, I'm glad the writers just said "to hell with it" and actually made a real statement about what the future (In Trek) was like without so much regard for who may or may not be offended.

"Ballsy" and "stupid"/"narrow-minded" are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Jesus Camp is biased and preachy aand doesn't let the message speak for itself. Neither does Religulous

 

[DevilEyes]

Jesus Camp is biased and preachy aand doesn't let the message speak for itself.

Of course it is biased. I can't think of a single documentary I've ever seen that isn't. Every documentary involves editing and choosing the footage, so even if you pretended not to have a 'message' you'd end up making it 'biased' to your views and ideas. But it's far more effective and better made because the authors don't tell you in a voiceover what's going on and what you're supposed to think, as if you can't figure it out. Now that would be preachy. I tend to think of preachy as involving some preaching - which is hardly a case when most people shown are those with the opposite view talking and basically burying themselves by just being who they are.