Who Watches the Watchers?

[Nerys Ghemor]

This episode is preachy and its condescending attitude toward religious beliefs strikes an ironic note for a series with tolerance as one of its supposedly major themes. These would be less relevant points if the episode made up for it with terrific acting and story, but is merely adequate on those fronts.

Agreed.

Had Picard simply stated that he had a problem with a society he contaminated believing in him as a god--essentially, that he disrupted their natural development regardless of what it might or might not have been (whether atheist, religious, or whatever else they might choose for themselves), I would've been fine with it. Situational remarks HAD to be made. If that society chose atheism and they interfered, then the interference must be undone. But his generalized, bigoted comments about ALL religion in ALL situations were way over the line. That was just a gratuitous slap that speaks of Picard's arrogance. It seems he's only tolerant if said thing to tolerate agrees with him.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

But his generalized, bigoted comments about ALL religion in ALL situations were way over the line.

I disagree. I'm glad the writers of Star Trek took a stance to say that religion is antithetical to the rational society Roddenberry developed. You might disagree with the argument, but that doesn't make the show less powerful by taking a stance and sticking to it. I might not like Pat Sajak or his style, but I'm not going to condemn Wheel of Fortune for having him as host, and certainly it's better having him than having no host at all. My point is that it's better for a show like Trek to establish it's opinion, and not back down on it, and being politically correct doesn't always make for a "vision."

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

FSM--it looks like I was editing my response as you were answering it, to add in more material.

Even if you don't look at it from a real-life ideological perspective, it undermines the character of Picard. He is supposed to be this man who believes in tolerance of all cultures. He even tolerates the Klingons, who are as bloodthirsty as he is pacifist. Yet he can't tolerate the idea of faith. It really contributes to an arrogant side of his character that is extremely unappealing and undermines him as a "hero" of the show.

(As to Picard's arrogance, it could be pointed out in MANY other contexts, some related to religion, others not at all, and it really did nothing but make the character a hypocrite--though I think by the time of the movies, he realized it and changed. Facing the Borg again really knocked the pompousness and moral snobbery out of him.)

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Furthermore, what is it that all religions have in common: they all propagate a belief in something that cannot be tested, something that exists outside of the natural world. I'm not going to say right where that such a thing does not exist, but certainly such doesn't appear to exist, right? The point of Star Trek is to constantly ask questions, use science, and explore that which can be studied. It's the vision of the show that human kind has outgrown religion. Whether or not we agree that this will, can, or should happen, or even if "outgrow" is an appropriate word for it, that is the vision of the show, of humans in that universe, every bit as much as the fact they use transporters.

I mean, didn't you feel cheated as a Trek fan when, in Insurrection, Picard asks the woman how she was slowing down time, and she said "no more questions?" they missed the boat, because Trek has always been about the questions, and struggling to seek answers. Religion, by it's very nature, is about ready-made answers that are not to be questioned.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

FSM--it looks like I was editing my response as you were answering it, to add in more material.

Even if you don't look at it from a real-life ideological perspective, it undermines the character of Picard. He is supposed to be this man who believes in tolerance of all cultures. He even tolerates the Klingons, who are as bloodthirsty as he is pacifist. Yet he can't tolerate the idea of faith. It really contributes to an arrogant side of his character that is extremely unappealing and undermines him as a "hero" of the show.

(As to Picard's arrogance, it could be pointed out in MANY other contexts, some related to religion, others not at all, and it really did nothing but make the character a hypocrite--though I think by the time of the movies, he realized it and changed. Facing the Borg again really knocked the pompousness and moral snobbery out of him.)

I understand what you are saying.
Sure, Picard might be the model of integrity, but having him be a perfect model for this would be boring. So let him be bigoted with regard to religion if that's what he is. Makes him more interesting.

 

[Amaris]

FSM--it looks like I was editing my response as you were answering it, to add in more material.

Even if you don't look at it from a real-life ideological perspective, it undermines the character of Picard. He is supposed to be this man who believes in tolerance of all cultures. He even tolerates the Klingons, who are as bloodthirsty as he is pacifist. Yet he can't tolerate the idea of faith. It really contributes to an arrogant side of his character that is extremely unappealing and undermines him as a "hero" of the show.

(As to Picard's arrogance, it could be pointed out in MANY other contexts, some related to religion, others not at all, and it really did nothing but make the character a hypocrite--though I think by the time of the movies, he realized it and changed. Facing the Borg again really knocked the pompousness and moral snobbery out of him.)

True, Picard could be very pompous at times, and in this episode, it has caused a bit of anger and confusion amongst the audience.

Personally, I think Picard was referencing religious extremism, which does lead to inquisitions and Holy Wars, and in this case exactly what Picard had done by accident was initiate this extremism in one man and it threatened to spread rapidly amongst the entire culture. The problem is that he's just vague enough for viewers to include religion in general, and I think that's detrimental to the overall episode.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I think it enhances it. I'm glad the writers took a stance, instead of teetering on the edge of 'let's not offend anyone.' I'm so sick of pandering on TV.

 

[Amaris]

I think it enhances it. I'm glad the writers took a stance, instead of teetering on the edge of 'let's not offend anyone.' I'm so sick of pandering on TV.

Vague and lazy writing is never good.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Honestly, there was so much wrong with Insurrection that I barely even focused on that point. I'd already decided I hated the movie before I even hit that point.

As to religion in the future, it can either adapt or die. Adaptation does not mean disintegrating...it can simply mean not being afraid of science anymore, not being threatened by it. There are MANY who have worked closely with some of the most "controversial" theories out there (in quotes since I see no reason for said controversy): mainstream evolution, and every other theory, who have faith. Some even find that the study itself--and I mean un-manipulated study, not done to further a fundamentalist agenda--is an act of adoration. Someone with that mindset could survive rationally into a future world, because no "God-of-the-gaps," no compromise on either side is necessary.

The only reason for that not to have happened on Earth in the Trekiverse, for at least some to hold that kind of belief and be well accepted, I think, is if something violent happened. Personally, I trace World War III to religious/sectarian conflict, among other causes, with further killings during the Post-Atomic Horror, and mass exile (some possibly by force, but most by ostracism and government coercion in non-forceful manners) to colony worlds, some of which I imagine still refuse contact or at least refuse alliance with the Federation even if their territories have since been overtaken.

 

[Amaris]

Honestly, there was so much wrong with Insurrection that I barely even focused on that point. I'd already decided I hated the movie before I even hit that point.

As to religion in the future, it can either adapt or die. Adaptation does not mean disintegrating...it can simply mean not being afraid of science anymore, not being threatened by it. There are MANY who have worked closely with some of the most "controversial" theories out there (in quotes since I see no reason for said controversy): mainstream evolution, and every other theory, who have faith. Some even find that the study itself--and I mean un-manipulated study, not done to further a fundamentalist agenda--is an act of adoration. Someone with that mindset could survive rationally into a future world, because no "God-of-the-gaps," no compromise on either side is necessary.

The only reason for that not to have happened on Earth in the Trekiverse, for at least some to hold that kind of belief and be well accepted, I think, is if something violent happened. Personally, I trace World War III to religious/sectarian conflict, among other causes, with further killings during the Post-Atomic Horror, and mass exile (some possibly by force, but most by ostracism and government coercion in non-forceful manners) to colony worlds, some of which I imagine still refuse contact or at least refuse alliance with the Federation even if their territories have since been overtaken.

I would be quite saddened if it were found that faith and spirituality had been eliminated in humanity's future.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I understand what you are saying.
Sure, Picard might be the model of integrity, but having him be a perfect model for this would be boring. So let him be bigoted with regard to religion if that's what he is. Makes him more interesting.

Still, it rather undermines the purpose of the character, who was intended to be the voice of morality. The viewer is supposed to trust that he presents the proper viewpoint (and most TNG episodes are "Aesops," in TVTrope terminology). He's like the narrator, if you will.

However, when you really examine the character, he becomes an unreliable/untrustworthy narrator, and this episode is one of the key ones that...sorry...makes him so. After seeing that, the overturning of that attitude in DS9 makes perfect sense, and they almost had to do it, in my opinion, to keep the franchise alive, because people were starting to catch on, and it was either keep going or show the truth.

True, Picard could be very pompous at times, and in this episode, it has caused a bit of anger and confusion amongst the audience.

Personally, I think Picard was referencing religious extremism, which does lead to inquisitions and Holy Wars, and in this case exactly what Picard had done by accident was initiate this extremism in one man and it threatened to spread rapidly amongst the entire culture. The problem is that he's just vague enough for viewers to include religion in general, and I think that's detrimental to the overall episode.

Indeed: if the intent was to refer to extremism, then what we have is very shoddy writing.

Still, I think the question has to be raised as to whether it was RIGHT to bring up even that, in the context of this plot, when interference with what was a largely peaceful people was said plot. (Whereas in an episode like VOY: "Distant Origins," it is a VERY salient question that is central to the plot. I rarely compliment the writing on VOY, but in that case it is appropriate.)

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I don't know if I'd be saddened if there was none of that. It just depends on how they are defined. I mean I have faith in my family and friends. They've earned that faith. Faith in the broader sense means believing in something that, not only is there not good evidence for, but it can go to the point of believing in something for which exists demonstrable evidence to the contrary. What's more, faith of this type has no explanatory power for anything. As for spirituality, there is no definition for this word. That changes depending on who you are talking to and when. It's so vaguely defined that it fits almost any situation should there be a need for it to do so.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I would be quite saddened if it were found that faith and spirituality had been eliminated in humanity's future.

We know that Eastern and New Age beliefs survive. It is my theory that those are at least tolerated as something innocuous: quite simply because they weren't at the heart of World War III. But for other faiths, I think the Trek humans threw out the baby with the bathwater. I suspect this fact is not well known in the greater galaxy.

 

[Amaris]

Indeed: if the intent was to refer to extremism, then what we have is very shoddy writing.

Still, I think the question has to be raised as to whether it was RIGHT to bring up even that, in the context of this plot, when interference with what was a largely peaceful people was said plot. (Whereas in an episode like VOY: "Distant Origins," it is a VERY salient question that is central to the plot. I rarely compliment the writing on VOY, but in that case it is appropriate.)

I think that's the key, though. See, Picard not only interfered, he confirmed the basic tenets of a primitive religion, which ignited a bout of extremism from a few. You and I both know from history that such small beginnings can lead to global changes, not always for the better, and an extremist religious group who worships "The Picard" has the added benefit of actually seeing their god in the flesh, as it were, and that would just add to their zeal and self righteousness. What we had was a match lit in a forest of dry tree branches. It had to be stamped out before it caused harm. We had already seen what Liko was willing to do to prove his faith was the only way.

We know that Eastern and New Age beliefs survive. It is my theory that those are at least tolerated as something innocuous: quite simply because they weren't at the heart of World War III. But for other faiths, I think the Trek humans threw out the baby with the bathwater. I suspect this fact is not well known in the greater galaxy.

Yeah, I could see Buddhism easily surviving to the 24th century. Same for Hinduism. Islam, Christianity? Not so much. The more fundamental aspects of each faith is extremely exclusive, and that leads to violence and extremism. I do think the philosophical aspects of Christianity would survive.

 

[Destructor]

I do think the philosophical aspects of Christianity would survive.

And they do. There's a chapel in the Enterprise 1701, and Sisko's father quotes the Bible. I'm no believer, but the Bible is a very important document filled with some very good stories, and it's reasonable to think that, as long as Shakespeare will be around, the Bible stories will also be around, if not given quite as much credence as they are given today, they will still be used to inspire and reflect on.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I think that's the key, though. See, Picard not only interfered, he confirmed the basic tenets of a primitive religion, which ignited a bout of extremism from a few. You and I both know from history that such small beginnings can lead to global changes, not always for the better, and an extremist religious group who worships "The Picard" has the added benefit of actually seeing their god in the flesh, as it were, and that would just add to their zeal and self righteousness. What we had was a match lit in a forest of dry tree branches. It had to be stamped out before it caused harm. We had already seen what Liko was willing to do to prove his faith was the only way.

And if it had been presented like that--Liko has become a fanatic, and his fanaticism will become dangerous to everyone--that would make sense. (And if my WWIII theory is right, the historical precedent would be VERY obvious to any human native of that universe.) But the generalized comments towards anybody and everybody who believes in any faith were over the line.

Yeah, I could see Buddhism easily surviving to the 24th century. Same for Hinduism. Islam, Christianity? Not so much. The more fundamental aspects of each faith is extremely exclusive, and that leads to violence and extremism. I do think the philosophical aspects of Christianity would survive.

Yet the fundamentalism is far from a requirement. If you do not balance objective morality with humility (if there is only one standard, then you too are missing the mark), then obviously you've got a huge setup for a problem. A move away from that attitude I completely understand: being a Jerk for Jesus or an Idiot for Islam is not excusable. Too many people fail to understand that point...even if you are right, you still do not get the right to be cruel or demeaning, and should be everything BUT. (And tolerance can be found in places where people might not think to look. I wonder how much controversy will occur when people realize what C.S. Lewis really did in The Last Battle with the character of Emeth, whenever that movie is made.)

But, I think there are Christians who would cope with the 24th century just fine. As for Islam, I think it depends on whether there's a Reformation. If not, then they'd have to bank on the survival of the Sufis, and a few others. Still, in my own imagining of the Trekiverse, it won't matter if you're a Wahhabi or a Sufi...during the Post-Atomic Horror, people won't bother with the difference and the results will be brutal.

 

[Amaris]

I do think the philosophical aspects of Christianity would survive.

And they do. There's a chapel in the Enterprise 1701, and Sisko's father quotes the Bible. I'm no believer, but the Bible is a very important document filled with some very good stories, and it's reasonable to think that, as long as Shakespeare will be around, the Bible stories will also be around, if not given quite as much credence as they are given today, they will still be used to inspire and reflect on.

Agreed. We still quote Shakespeare, which is still culturally understood hundreds of years after his works were published.

And if it had been presented like that--Liko has become a fanatic, and his fanaticism will become dangerous to everyone--that would make sense. (And if my WWIII theory is right, the historical precedent would be VERY obvious to any human native of that universe.) But the generalized comments towards anybody and everybody who believes in any faith were over the line.

Agreed. By including everyone in that scathing indictment, the message gets watered down.

Yet the fundamentalism is far from a requirement. If you do not balance objective morality with humility (if there is only one standard, then you too are missing the mark), then obviously you've got a huge setup for a problem. A move away from that attitude I completely understand: being a Jerk for Jesus or an Idiot for Islam is not excusable. Too many people fail to understand that point...even if you are right, you still do not get the right to be cruel or demeaning, and should be everything BUT. (And tolerance can be found in places where people might not think to look. I wonder how much controversy will occur when people realize what C.S. Lewis really did in The Last Battle with the character of Emeth.)

But, I think there are Christians who would cope with the 24th century just fine. As for Islam, I think it depends on whether there's a Reformation. If not, then they'd have to bank on the survival of the Sufis, and a few others. Still, in my own imagining of the Trekiverse, it won't matter if you're a Wahhabi or a Sufi...during the Post-Atomic Horror, people won't bother with the difference and the results will be brutal.

I agree with this as well, and in regards to your position on WWIII/Post Atomic Horror, all we can do is hope it really doesn't come to that, that perhaps humanity will change just enough to find the idea of more war reprehensible.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I do think the philosophical aspects of Christianity would survive.

And they do. There's a chapel in the Enterprise 1701, and Sisko's father quotes the Bible. I'm no believer, but the Bible is a very important document filled with some very good stories, and it's reasonable to think that, as long as Shakespeare will be around, the Bible stories will also be around, if not given quite as much credence as they are given today, they will still be used to inspire and reflect on.

Agreed. We still quote Shakespeare, which is still culturally understood hundreds of years after his works were published.

And while the King James Bible is an atrocious translation from a scholarly standpoint, from a literary standpoint its influence on the English language itself cannot be understated, just like Shakespeare.

 

[Amaris]

And they do. There's a chapel in the Enterprise 1701, and Sisko's father quotes the Bible. I'm no believer, but the Bible is a very important document filled with some very good stories, and it's reasonable to think that, as long as Shakespeare will be around, the Bible stories will also be around, if not given quite as much credence as they are given today, they will still be used to inspire and reflect on.

Agreed. We still quote Shakespeare, which is still culturally understood hundreds of years after his works were published.

And while the King James Bible is an atrocious translation from a scholarly standpoint, from a literary standpoint its influence on the English language itself cannot be understated, just like Shakespeare.

True. The language is poetic, but the textual translation is terrible. Still, like an art piece, accuracy isn't always required for something to become a valued cultural treasure.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

It IS an art piece, no doubt about it.