Why Not A Starfleet Ships Chaplain As A Main Character?

[Darkwing]

Of course no one thinks themselves as evil. That much should be obvious. And kill? I am not going to kill anyone, with hatred or otherwise. What the hell are on about?

It's a paraphrase of Heinlein - and you can take 'killing' literally or figuratively. The fact that that didn't occur to you shows linear thinking. That La Quinta commercial where the salesman 'gets a leg up' on the other salesman was a figurative killing. Obama beating Romney, likewise - but too many partisans in that case still hate the other side of that dispute.

The democratic party in general, and Michael Newdow and the ACLU in particular, are attempting to do so daily.

This is obviously not true. No one is trying to stop people from having spiritual beliefs. Newdow is however trying to stop people from printing their spiritual beliefs in national currency, or forcing every shool children to recite those spiritual beliefs. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Newdow is rabid on the subject. His exwife has custody, and she and kid were fine with the pledge, but HE didn't like the idea of it, so he sued to try to prevent ANYONE from being able to do it. He wasn't willing to compromise. We already allow chuildren to abstain from saying the pledge, so long as they are quiet during the pledge. Telling those who do choose to say it that they may stop speaking for a moment if they are uncomfortable with those two words is a reasonable compromise. No, he is not reasonable, IMO.

Push them too much, and you're gonna convince a lot of them that it is not only ok, but a good idea, too.

Convince people that homosexuality is a good idea? Do you seriously believe that it is possible to convince a straight person to become a homosexual?

NO. But if you zealously slam folks for opposing you, you validate their opposition, including it's less acceptable features, such as hate.

The first is a scientific fact, only uncertainly might be on the magnitude of the catastrophe. The rest are matters of opinion, in a sense that they're policies, benefits and disadvantages of which can be debated.

1. Anthropogenic is unproven opinion, and based on denying evidence of natural sources grossly exceeding human production.
2. Catastrophic is unproven hyperbole used to scare people.
3. Those behind this agenda are inflexible, proven to have lied and covered up lies, and demanding strict compliance with their agenda. That makes me suspicious of their whole cause. When a major proponent claims that anyone not agreeing completely with him is a traitor to the planet and should be executed, they are not reasonable. When another major proponent ASSUMES missing data follows his expected curve, and then tries to control who's allowed to conduct peer review, he's no longer doing science and forfeits all claims to being a scientist. When this is the foundation of the argument, then I do not agree that it is proven fact.

No one is trying to stop people from praying.

How come they're in the news often doing just that?

Also are we talking about the founding fathers who specificly put the separation church and state in the American constitution? The founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson who wrote his own version of the Bible, editing out all the supernatural parts he considered to be nonsense?

The Thomas Jefferson who used the separation phrase only in a letter where he told religious citizens that NO wall of separation was erected in the constitution. They intended to prevent a theocracy, not a religious nation. That letter is the only source of that phrase which later courts have misused.

I usually refrain from commenting posting style or personality of my fellow board members, but as you keep mentioning things like this, I have to say that neither wisdom, nor respect are the first things that come across from your posts.

You demonstrate an inflexible, hardline thinking about Trek, Roddenberry, science, religion, and the military. It makes you appear to have based your whole worldview on TNG.

Trying to bring this back to topic, a chaplain as a character makes logical sense to anyone who's ever served, but to a producer, author, or other creator, really only works as a back ground character, or for a main character, as a philosophical counterpoint. To a militant atheist, it is, of course, a heinous idea, but then militant atheists rarely have any tolerance anyway.

Do you know what the word 'militant' means?

Relevance?

My argument is entirely based on how interesting this would be to see play out as a conflict arising between characters.
IDIC, right?

We see things like this occassionally, for example Worf's Klingon beliefs or the whole Bajoran religion thing DS9. However, regardless of their personal beliefs the Starfleet officers are rational, scientifically minded people and tend to put their duty first. A person who cannot do that do not belong in the Starfleet. Of course, such conflicts can be better explored with new aliens and other non-Starfleet quest characters.

Because that allows us to only see Roddenberry's "better" humans and pretend we have evolved past all that. His earlier version, where we were trying to be better, but weren't there yet, was far more compelling to me than Alien Of The Week.

You also notice your language when discussing this? That people who work in Starfleet are rational, scientifically-minded people? And that anyone not of that mind-set is inherently too flawed to fit into Starfleet?

In a sense. They must be able accept the scientific reality (this does not necessarily mean they have to be an atheist.)
I cannot imagine a person with a level of disconnect from reality and mistrust of science exhibited by creationists and climate chance deniers working in the Starfleet.

Lack of compromise again. Science today is trying to tell us what to believe and NOT entertaining argument. That makes it less authoritative and more authoritarian. That, and people feeling science to be too cold and sterile is what feeds those creationist fundies and wiccans and other reactionaries.

I can understand denying a creationist the ability to work in the life sciences department of Starfleet maybe, but why not astrogation? Helm? Weapons? My point is that while creationism may seem silly to you (and frankly, to me as well), it doesn't seem silly to a lot of people. Some of them are rational and understand that other people have different belief systems, some of them are not.

If you are not well educated it is possible to be merely misinformed. But Starfleet personnel are well educated (and I actually think that all Federation citizens are pretty well educated by today's standards.) Retaining creationist beliefs while being well informed requires active denying of scientific evidence. And I'm not talking about any specific beliefs anyway, but the mindset. If a person cannot take scientific facts objectively, he has no business being in position that requires evaluating of scientific facts.

A lot of scientifically trained people have found reasons to turn away from evolution and embrace ID. They're well-educated, and choose to accept this belief. Who are you to decide that they aren't qualified? Unless they're running for election to office, you aren't. Nor am I, or any of us here.

My point is that it's arrogant and intolerant to write people off for a belief system.

I am talking about science deniers working in a field that requires science (and any Starfleet position does.) I am not passing judgement on them as human (or alien) beings. It just is not the right place for them.

But you ARE passing judgement. And "deniers" is a loaded word used solely by those agitating for a political viewpoint fueld by bad science demanding unblinking acceptance.

And I also wanted to say that the Bajorans don't count because they actually have physical evidence of their "gods" existing. It's not really a faith at that point any more, it's worship of a more advanced being. That always bugged me...

But they didn't always have that evidence. In any case, I never understood the point of faith anyway, but yes, it can make good TV drama.

Faith without evidence makes for better drama, IMO. A serene priest, unruffled by the lack of belief in his co-workers can be a good character (Book), and make for good scripts. A strongly-opinioned minister, upset by and trying to preach to everyone (Jerry Falwell), can be good drama as well.

Well, I also assume that finding alien life will cause some major religious upheaval as well, changing a lot of belief systems drastically. But I would consider a nuclear physicist a high science position that a creationist could fill without much problem, so why not a ship's engineer? It's admittedly quite unlikely, but it's not outside the realm of possibility. There is a certain level of suspension of knowledge to believe creationism that I don't fully understand, admittedly, but I don't think it would eliminate them from EVERY Starfleet position.

In today's military, I see this all the time. Lots of snipes are not religious, or they're hardcore believers, and we have some interesting (and heated, occasionally) discussions in berthings and smokepits.

I also don't see all religions disappearing overnight either. In fact, if there was a WW3, they would strengthen before they weakened. And most modern religions have been around a long while - like over a millennium - I don't see them just up and fading away into nothing in the next 2-300 years. Even if there was less fundamentalism than there is now, there is a basic human need in a lot of people to believe in some sort of afterlife/deity/whatever.

I quite agree. Actually, after the crisis passes, I'd think there'd be more faith, but less zealotry and fundamentalism as civilization rebuilds and life eases. Until it gets easy enough that the self-proclaimed prophets see corruption and decadence and start preaching hellfire and brimstone again...

Religions do not necessarily entierly disappear. However, with better education religions that make claims that directly contradict science will invariably disappear.

Today's fundie movement directly belies that. It's a reaction to hardnosed science supporters.

Somehow I think our religions would adapt quite easily. They've shown extreme elasticity. So much so, the first warp-capable ship heading to the alien world would have missinaries to show the aliens the light.

Especially the Mormons!

 

[Longinus]

Darkwing, you are simply wrong about how scientific world view operates. This is evident from your comments on ID, the climate chance and the scientists 'telling people what to believe.'

I assume you are an American? I understand that it might be hard to get a good view of the current scientific consensus on matters from US media, so this may colour your position. both ID folks and climate chance deniers are strange fringe groups that are not taken seriously by the scientific community. Both groups are very vocal in the US though.

Intelligent design is religion using some trappings of science, but it is not science. They have a specific thing they want to be to be the truth, and try their damnest to produce any sort of evidence to support their claims (with little results, obviously.) But that is not how science works. You look at the evidence and then draw conclusions from that. You cannot start with the conclusion.

Scientists can be wrong; they often are. New findings may challenge existing theories. Science is about the search for knowledge; there is no 'scientific agenda' other than finding the truth.

 

[Xhiandra]

Trying to bring this back to topic, a chaplain as a character makes logical sense to anyone who's ever served, but to a producer, author, or other creator, really only works as a back ground character, or for a main character, as a philosophical counterpoint. To a militant atheist, it is, of course, a heinous idea, but then militant atheists rarely have any tolerance anyway.

It's really hard not to see fundamentalism when fundie oxymora abound. "Militant atheist", now.
The indoctrination machine sure is working well; you have no place to accuse Longinus of a lack of wisdom, as you clearly display none.

Look, if you oppose secularism (or bemoan a lack of theocracy), you are a fundamentalist. It's not an insult, it's a descriptive.
I know the US far-right (you guys don't have a left, just a right and a far-right) propaganda tends to equate secularism with an attack on theism, but nothing could be further from the truth.
The truth is, separation of church and state benefits almost everyone:
- Atheists, who don't have to live under the oppression of a religion they do not adhere to.
- Minority religions (e.g. christians in Pakistan would benefit greatly), who do not have to live under the oppression of a religion they do not adhere to.
- Moderates of the majority religion, who do not have to live under a stricter interpretation of their religion and watch their friends be oppressed because they're of the wrong/no religion.
Secularism/separation of church and state is merely the opposition to theocracy; not to religion... and all those examples you mention are examples of theocratic measures.

In a secular state (and I am lucky enough to live in an almost-completely secular state), homophobes are free to dislike homosexual practices for religious reasons, even refuse to associate with LBGT people (we wouldn't want to associate with them anyway), but not to discriminate against them.

Any fear that the evil evil secular people will invade your home and prevent you to pray is quite frankly ludicrous.

 

[Darkwing]

Darkwing, you are simply wrong about how scientific world view operates. This is evident from your comments on ID, the climate chance and the scientists 'telling people what to believe.'

There's what is supposed to be, and what is. Too many 'scientists' today do push an agenda, and allow it to color the work they do. Read the news and watch for the slant.

I assume you are an American? I understand that it might be hard to get a good view of the current scientific consensus on matters from US media, so this may colour your position. both ID folks and climate chance deniers are strange fringe groups that are not taken seriously by the scientific community. Both groups are very vocal in the US though.

You haven't understood my position at all. I'm simply willing to admit that ID folks are not all uneducated hillbillies, while you assume only morons can think that way. I don't agree with them, but some really smart, educated people have adopted it - sf author James P. Hogan really surprised me when he went over to it. And is Tom Cruise unintelligent for belonging to scientology? I like his movies, even if his religion does nothing for me.

The other thing is, we have changes happening, and talking heads are aggressively asserting that it's all our fault, that it's gonna be real bad, and that if you don't immediately jump on the bandwagon with their narrative and adopt their solutions, you can't be a skeptic, you can't be unsure, and you can't be a scientist who doesn't see the data supporting the contention. You can only be a "denier", a hick, and a fool. Sorry, but that attitude puts me off and makes me wonder what they're hiding. Further, when a lot of scientists say "I agree about this and this, but not that", and it all adds up to a lot of people supporting different pieces of the whole picture, it's deceptive to claim "all of the scientists support the whole thesis". That's advertising business weaselliness, and makes the package more suspicious. If they can't be honest, then it's not really science, IMO.

Intelligent design is religion using some trappings of science, but it is not science. They have a specific thing they want to be to be the truth, and try their damnest to produce any sort of evidence to support their claims (with little results, obviously.) But that is not how science works. You look at the evidence and then draw conclusions from that. You cannot start with the conclusion.

I never said ID was science, merely that one need not be a blithering idiot to buy it. I do, however, see the catastrophic anthropogenic warming folks acting exactly the same way as the ID folks. Michael Mann, anyone? Those leaked emails?

Scientists can be wrong; they often are. New findings may challenge existing theories. Science is about the search for knowledge; there is no 'scientific agenda' other than finding the truth.

Sorry, but the real world is messier than that. Preaching about pollution did nothing to abate it, so let's pretend the sky is falling, and it's all our fault, and maybe it'll scare folks enough to actually do something. HIV research gets money, other diseases do not. Let's reclassify a whole slew of diseases as signs of HIV in the 3rd world, so Old & New World donors will allow us to help some of those folks who don't really have aids, but need help we otherwise wouldn't be allowed to give. But then we use that to scare folks about how bad aids is in the 3rd world. And sometimes, it's just about getting grants. What do the donors want to hear? It's also sometimes about getting a study to support a viewpoint. For example, many people criticized a British study of the health costs of smoking. They had hoped to show it cost society more to treat smokers, but the data showed that smokers died earlier, and more quickly. Non-smokers lingered with longer, more-expensive illnesses. They published, because it was what the data showed, yet many felt that it should have not been published, because it didn't support the political narrative they wanted.

It's really hard not to see fundamentalism when fundie oxymora abound. "Militant atheist", now.
The indoctrination machine sure is working well; you have no place to accuse Longinus of a lack of wisdom, as you clearly display none.

You really think that militant atheist is an oxymoron? I assure you, they exist. I've met them. Same for many other philosophies. When someone has such a narrow world-view, they do lack wisdom. If you share Longinus' strict interpretations, then I hope you too can expand your thinking. The unexamined belief is not worthwhile. A person who inherits a belief in any particular religion, who never questions it and wrestles with their faith to finally decide what they believe simply follows their programming. Someone who rejects that programming and just substitutes the opposite (or some other creed taught them by some leader figure) to shock Mommy and Daddy is no better off. Only someone who critically eyes their faith or philosophy is really thinking for themself.

Look, if you oppose secularism (or bemoan a lack of theocracy), you are a fundamentalist. It's not an insult, it's a descriptive.

It's usually used as a pejorative, and often should be.

I know the US far-right (you guys don't have a left, just a right and a far-right) propaganda tends to equate secularism with an attack on theism, but nothing could be further from the truth.

We're not, despite the agit-prop you see in your country. Fox is slightly left of center, the rest of the media is farther left, and even the republicans have been sliding left for years. Just because you're used to a world-view that is further left, you assume that we are far-right. It's all relative. But you also misunderstand me. I'm agnostic. I gave up on religion probably before you were born. It's not for me. I am, however, more tolerant of other people wanting to believe and express their religion than many others. I feel that the courts should not be permitted to deprive the majority of public expression of their faith.
Instead of banning nativity scenes and 10 commandment displays, or crosses on public land (many having stood there for decades, occasionally centuries) they should, based on the founder's intent, only be able to require equal access for jews, atheists, buddhists, etc. I know, to a militant atheist, that's fundamentalist, but they are not correct to assert that public display of faith is an attack on their freedom not to participate in religion. When activists demand historical symbols of faith be removed, they deny our past, but do not make us more free. Religion in America is not a tyrannical yoke. But judicial activism to eliminate it feeds fear in the hearts of the religious, making them adhere all the more tightly to their faith and to more extreme doctrines. The pushback is potentially frightening.

The truth is, separation of church and state benefits almost everyone:
- Atheists, who don't have to live under the oppression of a religion they do not adhere to.
- Minority religions (e.g. christians in Pakistan would benefit greatly), who do not have to live under the oppression of a religion they do not adhere to.
- Moderates of the majority religion, who do not have to live under a stricter interpretation of their religion and watch their friends be oppressed because they're of the wrong/no religion.

To a point, yes. Our courts are taking a good idea much farther than the founders intended. But nothing is ever 100% good, and the gets better no matter how much further you push it. We're crossing that line more often now. Separation of church and state was supposed to be about preventing any one denomination or faith from running the government. No-one should be able to prevent someone from voting or running for office on the basis of faith or lack thereof, but prohibiting christmas displays and banning mention of god (by whatever name) was never the intent. I prefer that originally intended balance, and oppose attempts at secular or religious overreach. The pendulum swings, and if we allow one side to keep pushing it further to their side, it'll swing that much farther the other way when the tide turns. I like the pendulum to have a very small arc around the middle.

Secularism/separation of church and state is merely the opposition to theocracy; not to religion... and all those examples you mention are examples of theocratic measures.

Lack of experience and knowledge of history, then. 'In God we trust" on our money is mild, compared to a nation where the head of state is the head of the religion, and members of other sects or faiths are not able to hold office. It certainly is not theocratic. If atheists had to use a lesser scrip than true believers, it would be theocratic.

In a secular state (and I am lucky enough to live in an almost-completely secular state), homophobes are free to dislike homosexual practices for religious reasons, even refuse to associate with LBGT people (we wouldn't want to associate with them anyway), but not to discriminate against them.

Which is fine, but a lot of folks are fairly vitriolic on the issue, which precludes understanding and hardens attitudes against them. I see this in your's and Longinus' assumptions that a chaplain is a bad idea.

Any fear that the evil evil secular people will invade your home and prevent you to pray is quite frankly ludicrous.

In a surveillance state like we are becoming, I'm not so sure about that.

 

[Longinus]

You haven't understood my position at all. I'm simply willing to admit that ID folks are not all uneducated hillbillies, while you assume only morons can think that way. I don't agree with them, but some really smart, educated people have adopted it - sf author James P. Hogan really surprised me when he went over to it. And is Tom Cruise unintelligent for belonging to scientology? I like his movies, even if his religion does nothing for me.

They're not necessarily stupid. Being a well educated creationist (and ID is creationism) requires some really etraordinary mental gymnastics. Some people use their intelligence to come up explanations why the evidence do not actually mean what it seems to mean.

You really think that militant atheist is an oxymoron? I assure you, they exist. I've met them. Same for many other philosophies. When someone has such a narrow world-view, they do lack wisdom. If you share Longinus' strict interpretations, then I hope you too can expand your thinking. The unexamined belief is not worthwhile. A person who inherits a belief in any particular religion, who never questions it and wrestles with their faith to finally decide what they believe simply follows their programming. Someone who rejects that programming and just substitutes the opposite (or some other creed taught them by some leader figure) to shock Mommy and Daddy is no better off. Only someone who critically eyes their faith or philosophy is really thinking for themself.

Atheists who dare publicly say that there is no God or question the prelevance of religion in government institutions are labelled militant. Religious people can push their views all they like and it is considered to be perfectly normal. Religious need to start attacking abortion clinics to be considered militant.

And my position is not unexamined. It is quite throughly examined, thank you.

Fox is slightly left of center, the rest of the media is farther left, and even the republicans have been sliding left for years.

...

I must have misread...

Fox is slightly left of center, the rest of the media is farther left, and even the republicans have been sliding left for years.

No, you really said that.

I really do not know what to say. Your detachment from reality is just too owerwhelming at this point. Where is the centre then? I assume somewhere around Emperor Palpatine.

By the standards of today's Republican party Reagan could never get through primaries. He would be considered to be far too much on the left.

I really recommend that you try to realign yourself with the reality.

 

[Xhiandra]

You haven't understood my position at all. I'm simply willing to admit that ID folks are not all uneducated hillbillies, while you assume only morons can think that way. I don't agree with them, but some really smart, educated people have adopted it - sf author James P. Hogan really surprised me when he went over to it. And is Tom Cruise unintelligent for belonging to scientology? I like his movies, even if his religion does nothing for me.

Maybe I missed it, but neither Longinus nor I called them uneducated, hillbillies or stupid.
An intelligent, knowledgeable individual can fall for brainwashing.

As for Tom Cruise, I'd sooner accuse him of lacking integrity than intelligence.
Scientology uses celebs as walking, talking ads and pampers them; he needs not even believe in their precepts to have an interest in joining.
That is, if I cared about celebs' private lives.

You really think that militant atheist is an oxymoron?

It be.
It's a shock term only in use in the US (and, sadly, the very US-influenced internet) to label atheists abhorrent.
All "militant" atheists do is refuse to be second-class citizens.

The unexamined belief is not worthwhile.
A person who inherits a belief in any particular religion, who never questions it and wrestles with their faith to finally decide what they believe simply follows their programming. Someone who rejects that programming and just substitutes the opposite (or some other creed taught them by some leader figure) to shock Mommy and Daddy is no better off. Only someone who critically eyes their faith or philosophy is really thinking for themself.

Firstly, I have no belief (at least no religious one).
Secondly, I resent the implication that I never examined the religious question, or that my lack of belief in deities is me trying to shock mommy and daddy.
For someone who claims open-mindedness, you don't demonstrate much.

We're not, despite the agit-prop you see in your country. Fox is slightly left of center, the rest of the media is farther left, and even the republicans have been sliding left for years. Just because you're used to a world-view that is further left, you assume that we are far-right. It's all relative.

I've no idea what "agit-prop" is. Sounds like a pharmaceutical name. New form of Ibuprofen?
Anyway, you don't know what my country is (though you should have a good idea of the continent), I never volunteered that info.
I assure you, our political parties run the gamut: we've got left-wingers, right-wingers, far-left and far-right mainstream parties and your repubs would sit right at home with our far-right and democrats with the democratic right.

I gave up on religion probably before you were born.

I don't recall volunteering my age, but if that's true, then please remember to drink enough water in the summer.
And don't be afraid, those children on their skateboards are quite harmless.

Separation of church and state was supposed to be about preventing any one denomination or faith from running the government.

And hopefully, one day, you guys will get there. It'll take time, probably a few centuries, but I trust you guys to get there eventually.
Let's just hope it doesn't take you as long as it took us and that your crusades soon come to an end as the world pays a heavy toll for your country's adolescent flirt with theocracy and imperialism.
See, we only had swords, you guys sadly possess stronger toys.

Lack of experience and knowledge of history, then. 'In God we trust" on our money is mild

Mild as it may be, it's symptomatic.
And one would be intrigued to see the result of the converse: what if your money loudly proclaimed "there is no god"?
Do you not think furore would ensue? I guarantee you, it would.

Secularism is the center of that pendulum or yours, not one of its extremes!
In the example of the money; no inscription either way is the perfect middlepoint.

compared to a nation where the head of state is the head of the religion, and members of other sects or faiths are not able to hold office. It certainly is not theocratic. If atheists had to use a lesser scrip than true believers, it would be theocratic.

I must've missed all those non-christian US presidents.
Or even non-protestant.

In fact, I seem to recall quite a few hateful objections to your current president on the wrong assumption that he was a muslim!

I also must've dreamt the double standard of labelling any outspoken atheist (and presumably Asatru, buddhist, Mythos cultist, satanist, jew, scientologist, muslim, etc) militant while allowing freedom of proselytism for the christians.

Which is fine, but a lot of folks are fairly vitriolic on the issue, which precludes understanding and hardens attitudes against them. I see this in your's and Longinus' assumptions that a chaplain is a bad idea.

Expressing contrary opinion to yours about an hypothetical scenario on discussion board is being vitriolic?

 

[Darkwing]

They're not necessarily stupid. Being a well educated creationist (and ID is creationism) requires some really etraordinary mental gymnastics. Some people use their intelligence to come up explanations why the evidence do not actually mean what it seems to mean.

Which, again, does not preclude them working in science fields.

Atheists who dare publicly say that there is no God or question the prelevance of religion in government institutions are labelled militant. Religious people can push their views all they like and it is considered to be perfectly normal. Religious need to start attacking abortion clinics to be considered militant.

Um, no. Atheists who live their life like anyone else are not militant. Those who ask people not to pray near them are pushy. Militant atheists make a scene about it. Religious folks who quietly live their lives are labeled pushy if they refer to their religion, and those who make a point of asking others to not offend their religion are considered militant. Your view of religious people is quite askew to reality.

Fox is slightly left of center, the rest of the media is farther left, and even the republicans have been sliding left for years.

...
I must have misread...

Fox is slightly left of center, the rest of the media is farther left, and even the republicans have been sliding left for years.

No, you really said that.
I really do not know what to say. Your detachment from reality is just too owerwhelming at this point. Where is the centre then? I assume somewhere around Emperor Palpatine.
By the standards of today's Republican party Reagan could never get through primaries. He would be considered to be far too much on the left.
I really recommend that you try to realign yourself with the reality.

You actually believe that, or was it said with malice aforethought? You're quite out of touch.

Maybe I missed it, but neither Longinus nor I called them uneducated, hillbillies or stupid.
An intelligent, knowledgeable individual can fall for brainwashing.

Longinus certainly called them uneducated, and claimed they were not able to fill Starfleet positions due to their lack.

As for Tom Cruise, I'd sooner accuse him of lacking integrity than intelligence.Scientology uses celebs as walking, talking ads and pampers them; he needs not even believe in their precepts to have an interest in joining.That is, if I cared about celebs' private lives.

You actually put more effort into scientology than I felt necessary.

You really think that militant atheist is an oxymoron?

It be.
It's a shock term only in use in the US (and, sadly, the very US-influenced internet) to label atheists abhorrent.
All "militant" atheists do is refuse to be second-class citizens.[/QUOTE]
Wrong. Not all atheists are militant. But some are indeed militant. That applies to any ism. Your denial won't change reality.

Firstly, I have no belief (at least no religious one).Secondly, I resent the implication that I never examined the religious question, or that my lack of belief in deities is me trying to shock mommy and daddy.For someone who claims open-mindedness, you don't demonstrate much.

That's your failure to listen, combined with seeing what you WANT to see and taking general talk as personal. Part of growing up and becoming an adult is forging one's own identity. That usually starts by rejecting what your parents teach. Sometimes this is followed by returning to the fold, sometimes by going even farther afield, and, in the best case, by actually thinking seriously about it and developing a set of beliefs. So open your mind, read without prejudice, and think about it. Maybe you'll see that open-mindedness does NOT consist of spewing politically correct pablum and insulting anyone not on your side of the spectrum.

I've no idea what "agit-prop" is. Sounds like a pharmaceutical name. New form of Ibuprofen?

Look it up.

Anyway, you don't know what my country is (though you should have a good idea of the continent), I never volunteered that info. I assure you, our political parties run the gamut: we've got left-wingers, right-wingers, far-left and far-right mainstream parties and your repubs would sit right at home with our far-right and democrats with the democratic right.

Don't much care where you live. If I haven't been there yet, then I hope to visit it one day. But before you go on about the political parties, try the Pournelle Political Axis.

I don't recall volunteering my age, but if that's true, then please remember to drink enough water in the summer.
And don't be afraid, those children on their skateboards are quite harmless.

Coffee has all the water I need, and skateboards don't bother me.

And hopefully, one day, you guys will get there. It'll take time, probably a few centuries, but I trust you guys to get there eventually. Let's just hope it doesn't take you as long as it took us and that your crusades soon come to an end as the world pays a heavy toll for your country's adolescent flirt with theocracy and imperialism. See, we only had swords, you guys sadly possess stronger toys.

We've fallen back a bit, but we'll get back to where we were eventually. Only a militant atheist and terminal liberal could see us as theocratic and imperialist.

Mild as it may be, it's symptomatic. And one would be intrigued to see the result of the converse: what if your money loudly proclaimed "there is no god"? Do you not think furore would ensue? I guarantee you, it would.

Noise, yes. Not much else.

Secularism is the center of that pendulum or yours, not one of its extremes!
In the example of the money; no inscription either way is the perfect middlepoint.

No, not secularism. Tolerance for any belief, so long as it doesn't act inappropriately. Building a mosque at ground zero doesn't meet that test, and shouldn't be an issue. Suicide bombings and lynchings, though, are certainly grounds for not tolerating the behavior of adherents to a creed. Strict secularism would disenfranchise too many of their right to practice their faith. I may mock them when they try to preach to me, but I defend their right to believe, and to proselytize, so long as they respect my right to say "Not interested".
As for the money, again, demanding the change pushes people in ways they don't like, and they react, making the pendulum move. Quietly omitting the inscription when authorizing a new design allows it to fade with less notice and less motion. It's also not a big enough deal to me to bother worrying about. It reassured a few people when it was enacted; it reassures some people now to see it, and is not offensive enough to justify changing. There's more pressing issues, like trying to deal with politicians inciting class envy and trite media phrases like 'fiscal cliff'.

I must've missed all those non-christian US presidents. Or even non-protestant.In fact, I seem to recall quite a few hateful objections to your current president on the wrong assumption that he was a muslim!

JFK was catholic, and we nearly elected a mormon. But even so, there's no litmus test. Any faith can be president, if you connect well enough with the voters. There's no constitutional requirement that any office holder or bureaucrat must belong to a given sect and uphold it, as has happened in the past on your continent, and as is current practice in some countries.

I also must've dreamt the double standard of labelling any outspoken atheist (and presumably Asatru, buddhist, Mythos cultist, satanist, jew, scientologist, muslim, etc) militant while allowing freedom of proselytism for the christians.

You did. I explained it above. Add vegetarians, animal rights activists, environmentalists, oil company spokesmen, salesmen - especially salesmen! - and so on ad infinitum. They can all proselytize. They can all be reasonable, aggressive, or militant. And there are plenty of us who don't care what your ism is, so long as we can interrupt your speil to say "No thanks" and walk away.

Which is fine, but a lot of folks are fairly vitriolic on the issue, which precludes understanding and hardens attitudes against them. I see this in your's and Longinus' assumptions that a chaplain is a bad idea.

Expressing contrary opinion to yours about an hypothetical scenario on discussion board is being vitriolic?

Are you deliberately misunderstanding? Longinus especially seems to react to the idea of religion and to chaplains in Trek in much the same way that religous people do to gay's demands for equality: Shields up! Start citing scripture and verse (or episode and season, in this case) to justify saying "nononononono!" Think about it.

 

[Longinus]

I said creationsist are either uneducated OR denying science. Both options were covered. There is not third one.

And examine actual policies of Reagan. Especially economically he is left on Republican party of today. It seems that Republicans rather suicide the economy than raise taxes. Reagan raised taxes many times when it was needed. And while never particularly pro-choice, as a governot he signed a law helping women to get abortion. Tea party would have none of that. In any case, the claim that the Republican party has moved left seems to be factually incorrect.

And really saying that Fox News leans left is like saying Klingons are a peace loving race. It is utterly bizarre claim; in fact easily the bizarrest claim you've made in this whole thread. I'd really like to know your standards for centrist media... If it seems to you that all media leans left, maybe it is just because your perception of reality is completely skewed?

Also how would a secular nation infringe people's rights to their religion? They can build temples (but not with government money), they can pray all they like and they can express their views freely. Pretty much all the examples ever on secularists or atheists limiting religious freedom are actually just examples of limiting the ability to force religious views on others or get them enshired and venerated by government institutions. It is funny how the sharia law is such a boogyman to the religious right, even though they are doing the exact same thing, truing to force their religious views on others by laws. That shit just have to stop.

Furthermore, your constant claims that other people's positions must be unexamined because they do not see wisdom of your words is rather unfortunate. You do not know me or Xhiandra, nor have you any idea how we are arrived to our current positions. I do not know how you're arrived to yours, and I am not starting to guess. Though with that Fox News one it must be quite a story.

 

[Xhiandra]

Darkwing, I was trying to outline your assumptions with light-hearted humour.
If you can't laugh, well, that's just sad.

Let me be less subtle:
You don't know my age, yet presume to be older (and implicitely wiser).

You don't know my country, yet presume it is filled with agit-prop (btw, I do not need to look it up to guess what it stands for); and agit-prop about US politics, no less!
Do you really believe the rest of the world is constantly focused on you guys? Have you never left american soil?

You don't know how I arrive(d) to any conclusion, yet presume they emerge from teenage rebellion (though if I read you right, you apparently believe all convictions emerge from teenage rebellion); they do not.

You accuse me of reading what isn't there, then, in the next breath, repeat the very implication you just denied, and with a heavier hand.

You presume to teach wisdom, but rely heavily on emotional appeals such as the one below.

On the matter of US politics, I will concede that I didn't know of JFK's catholicism. I thought Obama was the first non-WASP; and that the P still stood.
But the point remains: no non-christian (and very few non-protestants) have the political capita to make it in your country.
Of course, the obstacles aren't institutionalised; but that's not the point, the point is that they couldn't make it, even though they're allowed to try.
You're trying to paint the exceedingly dominant majority as suffering the joug of militant atheism; it's quite frankly FoxNewsish.
By the way, if FoxNews is a left-leaning organisation, then I suppose the media that actually try to be unbiased (BBC, The Times, Le Monde,...) are full-on anarcho-communists!

Longinus especially seems to react to the idea of religion and to chaplains in Trek in much the same way that religous people do to gay's demands for equality: Shields up! Start citing scripture and verse (or episode and season, in this case) to justify saying "nononononono!" Think about it.

So, anyone that answers the thread's question negatively is a militant atheist?
But anyone answering it positively isn't a militant theist. Obviously not.
No double standard here.

He cited canon? Yes. So did plenty of other people. Many many threads on these boards end up heavily citing canon. Why is it anathema in this particular case?

 

[nightwind1]

1. Anthropogenic is unproven opinion, and based on denying evidence of natural sources grossly exceeding human production.
2. Catastrophic is unproven hyperbole used to scare people.
3. Those behind this agenda are inflexible, proven to have lied and covered up lies, and demanding strict compliance with their agenda. That makes me suspicious of their whole cause. When a major proponent claims that anyone not agreeing completely with him is a traitor to the planet and should be executed, they are not reasonable. When another major proponent ASSUMES missing data follows his expected curve, and then tries to control who's allowed to conduct peer review, he's no longer doing science and forfeits all claims to being a scientist. When this is the foundation of the argument, then I do not agree that it is proven fact.
How come they're in the news often doing just that?

 

[Darkwing]

I said creationsist are either uneducated OR denying science. Both options were covered. There is not third one.

There is room for multiple theories in science. Adhering to a non-scientific belief in that respect need not prevent them from doing good work in any field other than astrophysics.

And examine actual policies of Reagan. especially economically he is left on Republican party of today. It seems that Republicans rather suicide the economy than raise taxes. Reagan raised taxes many times when it was needed. And while never particularly pro-choice, as a governot he signed a law helping women to get abortion. Tea party would have none of that. In any case, the claim that the Republican party has moved left seems to be factually incorrect.

1. Reagan made pragmatic deals with the democrats that they welshed on.
2. Raising taxes is not necessary to rescue the economy, and isn't going to raise enough to matter without spending cuts. Obama ius willing top go over the fiscal cliff because the media will sell the false idea that it's the republicans' fault.
3. I never said they moved left. They just aren't as far right as portrayed.

And really saying that Fox News leans left is like saying Klingons are a peace loving race. It is utterly bizarre claim; in fact easily the bizarrest claim you've made in this whole thread. I'd really like to know your standards for centrist media... If it seems to you that all media leans left, maybe it is just because your perception of reality is completely skewed?

Ever watch them? Or do you just accept what the other media and talking heads claim? There's the news portion, and then there's the infotainment section - Fox at least has a right and left guest on those segments. They've had leftist shows, as well. Can't say what they have on right now, haven't had cable in a while, and only bother watching once in a while, because I prefer to read.

Also how would a secular nation infringe people's rights to their religion? They can build temples (but not with government money), they can pray all they like and they can express their views freely. Pretty much all the examples ever on secularists or atheists limiting religious freedom are actually just examples of limiting the ability to force religious views on others or get them enshired and venerated by government institutions. It is funny how the sharia law is such a boogyman to the religious right, even though they are doing the exact same thing, truing to force their religious views on others by laws. That shit just have to stop.

Secular means religion isn't welcome. We're going that way, and it's been mostly suits to prevent people using the word christmas, have nativity scenes, roadside crosses, and the like. A suit recently demanded that all the crosses in a cemetary be replaced with secular markers. That's infringing on people's rights. Your claims that the 'religious right' is acting just like the "islamofascists" is hyperbole. Some on the fringe WANT to be able to do so, but there's just as many on the opposite extreme wanting to eliminate the right, as well.

Furthermore, your constant claims that other people's positions must be unexamined because they do not see wisdom of your words is rather unfortunate. You do not know me or Xhiandra, nor have you any idea how we are arrived to our current positions. I do not know how you're arrived to yours, and I am not starting to guess. Though with that Fox News one it must be quite a story.

You do not read with comprehension. I explained my philosophy of religion and morals, and gave background. You both took that as a direct, personal statement. Your mistake. I respect anyone's RIGHT to believe whatever, but unless they've done their growing up, don't take seriously their belief. Anyone, baptist or communist, who espouses the beliefs their parents instilled, hasn't come to those beliefs by their own effort, and should not expect their depth of belief to be respected, which is a wholly different thing than repsecting their actual belief. And that journey is part of growing up.

Darkwing, I was trying to outline your assumptions with light-hearted humour.
If you can't laugh, well, that's just sad.

It wasn't clear if it was supposed to be funny.

Let me be less subtle:
You don't know my age, yet presume to be older (and implicitely wiser).

I intended to show that the assumption I was religious just because I defended the right to those beliefs was false, and to give some idea of how long ago I came to my views. You added the other nuance yourself.

You don't know my country, yet presume it is filled with agit-prop (btw, I do not need to look it up to guess what it stands for); and agit-prop about US politics, no less!

The entire developed world is awash in propaganda, and more of it today is aimed at shaping opinions for political purposes than used to be tolerated in the once-supposedly objective media.

Do you really believe the rest of the world is constantly focused on you guys?

Did I ever say that?

Have you never left american soil?

I've been to much of this planet, and would be surprised if you've been to as many places.

You don't know how I arrive(d) to any conclusion, yet presume they emerge from teenage rebellion (though if I read you right, you apparently believe all convictions emerge from teenage rebellion); they do not.

Read above.

You accuse me of reading what isn't there, then, in the next breath, repeat the very implication you just denied, and with a heavier hand.

You presume to teach wisdom, but rely heavily on emotional appeals such as the one below.

Wisdom is emotional.

On the matter of US politics, I will concede that I didn't know of JFK's catholicism. I thought Obama was the first non-WASP; and that the P still stood.
But the point remains: no non-christian (and very few non-protestants) have the political capita to make it in your country.
Of course, the obstacles aren't institutionalised; but that's not the point, the point is that they couldn't make it, even though they're allowed to try.

For a while there, religion didn't matter. It came to matter again when the left tried to marginalize it, and many felt threatened, and became polarized in their defense of it. Left alone, they'd've slowly faded.

You're trying to paint the exceedingly dominant majority as suffering the joug of militant atheism; it's quite frankly FoxNewsish.

No. The US was founded by christians, as a christian nation, but the founders didn't want a theocracy - they expected most people to be christian of one stripe or another, but didn't want any particular sect to dominate. Over time, other faiths and atheism became acceptable, until christianity became somewhat less than the majority, and many religious elements came to mean little. Some people have tried to purge religion from public life, which has led to an unfortunate resurgence in the virulence of some believers. If "merry christmas" is threatening to those folks, they're insecure. If I'm wished "merry christmas", I smile and say the same. If I'm told "Jeeesus is the reason for the season", I smile and wish them a merry solstice and a happy Sir Isaac Newton's Birthday. If I'm told I'm going to hell because I'm not praying with them, I ask them if they even know the name their savior actually wore when he walked this planet. I tolerate their right to believe, as long as they tolerate me.

By the way, if FoxNews is a left-leaning organisation, then I suppose the media that actually try to be unbiased (BBC, The Times, Le Monde,...) are full-on anarcho-communists!

No, but ain't nobody trying to be objective anymore.

So, anyone that answers the thread's question negatively is a militant atheist?
But anyone answering it positively isn't a militant theist. Obviously not.
No double standard here.

You misunderstand. The vehemence is the reason. "I don't see it fitting because..." is one thing. "Absolutely NOT!" is another.

He cited canon? Yes. So did plenty of other people. Many many threads on these boards end up heavily citing canon. Why is it anathema in this particular case?

Are you impressed when some cites Paul? As opposed to giving an independent rationale for their opposition? And since Roddenberry's views changed between TOS and TNG, I don't feel obligated to accept the less-tolerant later views as the only acceptable position.

 

[Darkwing]

Nice attempt at a straw man.

 

[Iamnotspock]

I don't think we are going to find a common ground.

To me Star Trek represents (and should represent) sort of evelved humanity that has no use for religion. They solve their problems with reason. Superstition just do not fit that worldview.

Wow. Just wow.

"Horrifying... Dr. Barron, your report describes how rational these people are. Millennia ago, they abandoned their belief in the supernatural. Now you are asking me to sabotage that achievement, to send them back into the dark ages of superstition and ignorance and fear? No!"
- Jean-Luc Picard

 

[T'Girl]

"Horrifying... Dr. Barron, your report describes how rational these people are. Millennia ago, they abandoned their belief in the supernatural. Now you are asking me to sabotage that achievement, to send them back into the dark ages of superstition and ignorance and fear? No!"

(From Reunion) ... the Enterprise crew currently includes representatives from thirteen planets. They each have their individual beliefs and values and I respect them all.

Iamnotspock, how would you reconcile these two Picard quotes. In the latter, we see the Picard who is respectful, tolerant and believes in multiculturalism. This Picard is very much the cosmopolitan being who commands the starship Enterprise.

In the former quote, there is a separate Picard, one who is narrow minded, intolerant and is disdainful with ideas that he himself doesn't personally embrace. He insults the Mintakan's former spiritual beliefs, using derisive terms like "dark ages" and "ignorance."

Where did this separate Picard come from? He obviously isn't the Picard who exists elsewhere in the series.

 

[Longinus]

There is room for multiple theories in science.

Yes there is. In areas where there is uncertainity or new unexpected evidence. With evolution neither is the case. Creationism is pretty much as valid theory as Flat Earth theory.

Adhering to a non-scientific belief in that respect need not prevent them from doing good work in any field other than astrophysics.

It demonstrates the mentality that if the evidence conflicts with the personal beliefs, the evidence will be dismissed. Such person is not fit to work in any field that requires scientific analysis of information.

1. Reagan made pragmatic deals with the democrats that they welshed on.

Right. And this pragmatism is something wich is not tolerated in the Republican party of today. There is only room for fanaticism and ideaological purity. Anyone who dares to actually work with the 'enemy' is labelled 'RINO' and ostracised.

2. Raising taxes is not necessary to rescue the economy, and isn't going to raise enough to matter without spending cuts. Obama ius willing top go over the fiscal cliff because the media will sell the false idea that it's the republicans' fault.

Hmm. I think that's why Obama is willing to make spending cuts too...

3. I never said they moved left. They just aren't as far right as portrayed.

Oh?

Fox is slightly left of center, the rest of the media is farther left, and even the republicans have been sliding left for years.

Seems to me that you did.

Secular means religion isn't welcome.

No it doesn't. Can you tell apart public and private?

We're going that way, and it's been mostly suits to prevent people using the word christmas, have nativity scenes, roadside crosses, and the like.

On public land. Private people and organisations can bo what they like.

A suit recently demanded that all the crosses in a cemetary be replaced with secular markers. That's infringing on people's rights.

You mean this?

The ACLU is not pursuing, nor has it ever pursued, the removal of religious symbols from personal gravestones. Personal gravestones are the choice of the family members, not the choice of the government.

Most of this stuff you mention is just not true. Maybe you should stop watching Fox News?

Your claims that the 'religious right' is acting just like the "islamofascists" is hyperbole. Some on the fringe WANT to be able to do so, but there's just as many on the opposite extreme wanting to eliminate the right, as well.

Either you think that is okay to push laws that force other people to conform to you religious views or you don't. Both religious right and the fanatic islamists seems to be in the same camp on this.

No, but ain't nobody trying to be objective anymore.

There are a lot of news organisations which try to be objective. Of course human beings cannot be 100% objective all the time, but at least some try. And if organisation as whole aims to be objective, it can do it quite well. BBC is quite decent in that regard. There are many others.

 

[Longinus]

"Horrifying... Dr. Barron, your report describes how rational these people are. Millennia ago, they abandoned their belief in the supernatural. Now you are asking me to sabotage that achievement, to send them back into the dark ages of superstition and ignorance and fear? No!"

(From Reunion) ... the Enterprise crew currently includes representatives from thirteen planets. They each have their individual beliefs and values and I respect them all.

Iamnotspock, how would you reconcile these two Picard quotes. In the latter, we see the Picard who is respectful, tolerant and believes in multiculturalism. This Picard is very much the cosmopolitan being who commands the starship Enterprise.

You can respect someone and still think their beliefs are complete bollocks.

Furthermore, all the Starfleet personnel are probably from pretty highly advanced cultures, I doubt that their beliefs contain much blatant superstition.

In the former quote, there is a separate Picard, one who is narrow minded, intolerant and is disdainful with ideas that he himself doesn't personally embrace. He insults the Mintakan's former spiritual beliefs, using derisive terms like "dark ages" and "ignorance."

He is a rationalist and what he says is true. How is 'ignorance' not an accurate description for believing things that just are not true? Should Picard respect the Mintakans' blatantly mistaken belief that he is a god?

I think that all Federation members have shared respect of scientific reality and knowledge. That things can be known, that they can be studied, and increasing knowledge makes us better people. They're not people who would be insulted if someone told them that their beliefs are not true. They would ask the person to explain why they think that and then they'd have a civilised discussion on the matter.

Respecting beliefs do not require accepting false things as true. Respecting someone's beliefs do not require you to refrain from saying that you think their beliefs are not true.

 

[T'Girl]

You can respect someone and still think their beliefs are complete bollocks.

Actually no, respect has long ended when you begin to believe that someone else's beliefs are "bollocks," simply because they don't coincide with your own personal/group beliefs.

A while back, I was a bridesmaid for a friend of mine, part of the ceremony included the couple conduct seven circles of the Fire deity, who was a witness to their wedding vows

Even though I am Christian, I do not consider the deity Agni to be "bollocks." Agni simply isn't within my Christian spiritual beliefs. I would never dream of disrespecting her beliefs with derogatory terms, solely because they don't corresponded with mine.

Picard was not exhibiting "respect." Expecting all others to embrace your particular positions and your beliefs, borders on the ridiculous. Doesn't matter if it's religion, politics or who'll win the next super bowl.

Longinus, your belief that there is no God, no gods, no spirituality of any kind is your belief, that's fine. Going beyond that personal/group belief, and labeling others negatively who don't share it is arrogant.

How is 'ignorance' not an accurate description for believing things that just are not true?

No, the things that you hold to be "not true." Not quite the same as actually being "not true." Longinus, you wouldn't have you current long list of various personal beliefs if you didn't think that they were "true." That doesn't automatically make others with a different long list ignorant.

Should Picard respect the Mintakans' blatantly mistaken belief that he is a god?

And by "the Mintakans" you mean a single individual within their society?

At the end of Who Watches The Watchers, Picard told a small group Mintakans who he was and what was going on. He was vague in places and lacking in detail, but he was also honest with them.

His end statement of "you must progress in your own way" showed the understanding and respect that was absent earlier.

ACLU wrote:
The ACLU is not pursuing, nor has it ever pursued, the removal of religious symbols from personal gravestones. Personal gravestones are the choice of the family members, not the choice of the government.

But there the ACLU has taken it upon themselves to determine where the religious symbols can be (personal gravestones) and where they can't (i.e. national memorials). The ACLU feels perfectly free to employ the court system to force their views upon others who don't share it.

Can you really see one of the many Christian churches attempted the same thing?

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

Well, I also assume that finding alien life will cause some major religious upheaval as well, changing a lot of belief systems drastically. But I would consider a nuclear physicist a high science position that a creationist could fill without much problem, so why not a ship's engineer? It's admittedly quite unlikely, but it's not outside the realm of possibility. There is a certain level of suspension of knowledge to believe creationism that I don't fully understand, admittedly, but I don't think it would eliminate them from EVERY Starfleet position.

I also don't see all religions disappearing overnight either. In fact, if there was a WW3, they would strengthen before they weakened. And most modern religions have been around a long while - like over a millennium - I don't see them just up and fading away into nothing in the next 2-300 years. Even if there was less fundamentalism than there is now, there is a basic human need in a lot of people to believe in some sort of afterlife/deity/whatever.

Somehow I think our religions would adapt quite easily. They've shown extreme elasticity. So much so, the first warp-capable ship heading to the alien world would have missinaries to show the aliens the light.

Not wanting to get too involved into this discussion, but announcing the virtue of a religion to adapt... isn't that in essence saying, that the teachings of a religion are not set in stone?
And if that's the case, why have the religion at all?
If those teachings can be changed on a whim or be discarded just because there is new undeniable evidence to the contrary what is their actual worth?
What you are left with is the god of the gap to fill in the blanks that we have not yet discovered, and since we learn more every day, those gaps are getting smaller and smaller.
It will inevitably reach the point where god (any god) has to hide behind the threshold of unobservability, which is in what we call the big bang today.
But a god that can only exist behind that threshold has no influence on anything in the observable universe and can be treated as non existant and has no say in how we live our lives or how we treat others.

 

[Longinus]

Actually no, respect has long ended when you begin to believe that someone else's beliefs are "bollocks," simply because they don't coincide with your own personal/group beliefs.

A while back, I was a bridesmaid for a friend of mine, part of the ceremony included the couple conduct seven circles of the Fire deity, who was a witness to their wedding vows

Even though I am Christian, I do not consider the deity Agni to be "bollocks." Agni simply isn't within my Christian spiritual beliefs. I would never dream of disrespecting her beliefs with derogatory terms, solely because they don't corresponded with mine.

'Bollocks' was merely a humorous colloquialism to indicate 'not true.' Yes, I agree that it would be disrespectful to call someone's beliefs 'bollocks' to their face.

Do you believe that Agni exists? If you don't then you think that your Hindu friends hold a belief that is not true. And it is not disrespectful for you to do so. It is not even disrespectful for you to say that in a relevant context.

Picard was not exhibiting "respect." Expecting all others to embrace your particular positions and your beliefs, borders on the ridiculous. Doesn't matter if it's religion, politics or who'll win the next super bowl.

Longinus, your belief that there is no God, no gods, no spirituality of any kind is your belief, that's fine. Going beyond that personal/group belief, and labeling others negatively who don't share it is arrogant.

Do you accept that a reality exists and human beings can have knowledge of it? Because if we accept that, then it follows that there are true and false beliefs about reality.

We humans can study reality and learn from it. And not all beliefs are equal. Believing that Earth is flat is ignorant. We have good evidence that pretty strongly suggest that it is in fact a sphere (I know, not a perfect sphere.) Similarly Picard had good reasons to assume that the Mintakans' beliefs were indeed in error.

And by "the Mintakans" you mean a single individual within their society?

So how many people have to hold a belief before it becomes a religion warranting special protection and respect?

At the end of Who Watches The Watchers, Picard told a small group Mintakans who he was and what was going on. He was vague in places and lacking in detail, but he was also honest with them.

His end statement of "you must progress in your own way" showed the understanding and respect that was absent earlier.

He informed them of the true state of the things, yes. That was respectful.

But there the ACLU has taken it upon themselves to determine where the religious symbols can be (personal gravestones) and where they can't (i.e. national memorials). The ACLU feels perfectly free to employ the court system to force their views upon others who don't share it.

They uphold the law and the distinction there is perfectly clear. A state separated from church cannot endorse specific religion. Individual citicens can do as they please.

Now personally I do not much care in one way or another about old crosses, symbolic mentions of God or bible quotes, but what ACLU is doing is quite logical.

And about war memorial monuments specifically, think it like this. Not all those who died were christians. They might have been buddhists, muslims, atheists, whatever. And they did not die fighting for christianity, they died fighting for their country. Putting a specifically christian symbol on such a memorial is disrespectuful for those non-christian war heroes and their families.

Can you really see one of the many Christian churches attempted the same thing?

Advocating for equal treatment of all citicens? Sure, many churches are for that.

It is however unfortunate that even more churches are for pushing laws that force their religious views on others, such as various same-sex marriage bans.

 

[Darkwing]

Yes there is. In areas where there is uncertainity or new unexpected evidence. With evolution neither is the case. Creationism is pretty much as valid theory as Flat Earth theory.

Well, evolution is not fully developed - we can demonstrate it happens, but are still not able to demonstrate the mechanism - kinda like electricity at one time. And hopefully by the 2rd century we'll have that. But I also remember how James P. Hogan, in his Gentle Giants of Ganymede series was heavy-handed and preachy on the topic of evolution, and how well-thought-out his books have been. Yet he has gone over to ID in recent years. So smart folks can do good work, yet still hold these beliefs.

Adhering to a non-scientific belief in that respect need not prevent them from doing good work in any field other than astrophysics.

It demonstrates the mentality that if the evidence conflicts with the personal beliefs, the evidence will be dismissed. Such person is not fit to work in any field that requires scientific analysis of information.

Such a hard-nosed attitude. Strange that that doesn't disqualify many climatologists.

Right. And this pragmatism is something wich is not tolerated in the Republican party of today. There is only room for fanaticism and ideaological purity. Anyone who dares to actually work with the 'enemy' is labelled 'RINO' and ostracised.

According to your sources. I don't see this fanatacism except in HuffPo and similar cliques.

Hmm. I think that's why Obama is willing to make spending cuts too...

Mostly, he refuses to discuss them, and has retracted some he was willing to make earlier. And cuts set to happen in 10 years mean nothing. Later congresses will override those. It's intensely frustrating that we added a few republicans to the house and a few democrats to the senate, then sent back pretty much the same teams as before that couldn't work with each other, because no-one is willing to really consider anything serious.
I don't understand it. Packing each house with one party or trying to swap which party is the majority in each house would have been comprehensible. Electing a different president while keeping the same congress, or keeping the president and changing out congress as much as possible would have made more sense than what we got: More of the same, just a little fringe modification.

Regardless, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi should be challenged for asserting it's all the republicans' fault. They are all equally culpable.

Oh?

Seems to me that you did.

You're right, I did. Should have reread previous posts before replying.

No it doesn't. Can you tell apart public and private?

What I see is private citizens being told that public doesn't mean "don't use public money", but "don't let it be seen in public". That's not tolerant.

You mean this?
Most of this stuff you mention is just not true. Maybe you should stop watching Fox News?

1. As mentioned before, I don't have tv. I see tv news only when I'm somewhere with tv, like a hotel or a friend's or a public place. Haven't paid for cable for years, since shortly after returning to the US.
2. ACLU is not the only organization challenging organizations. I did read an article on that challenge recently. So ACLU denying it does not invalidate the statement.
3. Your blithe dismissal of Fox tells me you probably haven't watched it at all. When I have seen them, they didn't seem as bad as MSNBC, and no worse than CNN - which ain't sayin' much, I know, but my experience tells me that, as tv news goes, they're NOT what the political pundits claim.

Either you think that is okay to push laws that force other people to conform to you religious views or you don't. Both religious right and the fanatic islamists seems to be in the same camp on this.

Again with the rigid views.

There are a lot of news organisations which try to be objective. Of course human beings cannot be 100% objective all the time, but at least some try. And if organisation as whole aims to be objective, it can do it quite well. BBC is quite decent in that regard. There are many others.

When did this happen? I recall hearing recently that BBC sat on Savile story, for example. Honest and objective?