In addition to the discussion over in the "Chosen Realm" thread about religious differences being "major" or "minor", I'd like to say that I agree that it might be sort of a sweeping statement to state whether a difference of belief is minor or not. If it's not minor to the believer, then that's their right to feel that way. Being human allows us the freedom of choice that should be respected, even if not agreed with. If someone believes in a rock, they have to be the one who makes that choice and accepts all that entails.

I think the problem arises when some people commit crimes (war, murder, hijacking, genocide, etc. - as did Digimon) against other people to enforce others into believing what they do. We do, indeed, see (and have seen throughout history) many examples of this. The scary part about that is when people can kill because someone tells them "their faith requires it". Some can carry out almost any act against others, and write it off as divine will. That is where a problem lies, IMO.

Well stated, MakeItSo. When people believe that the means (violence) justifies the ends (salvation) then the whole point of the argument becomes muddled. It just gets my dander up when sweeping statements are made about a theological difference being "minor" or petty in some ways. I mean, for crying out louds, volumes are written about ficticous sci-fi characters, but debates about God or salvation are considered mere contrivances?

Reposted from "Countdown":



I didn't say that an atheist wouldn't be afraid. Everyone's afraid of death, even the most religious. (See the Old Testament, God to Moses: "I have set before you on this day life and death; choose therefore life.") But I'm talking about terror, the kind of terror that chooses to throw millions in harm's way to buy themselves time - I don't think it's an absolute necessity of an atheist to have such terror.

I work in a hospital. Older people every day sign DNR/DNI orders - Do not resucitate, do not intubate - that is, if they go into cardiac arrest they don't want any of those measures taken. Many of these people are not religious. If they corresponded to your concept of what is an atheist, they'd be begging for the intubation and those last 6 weeks in the ICU, despite the continuous agony of the procedure and its almost certain doom (only a fraction of people come alive and whole out of the MICU) because hey, it's better than death and nothingness. You would say they're not "well-balanced" atheists. I would say they have a different concept of the value of life - that maybe nothingness, dreamless eternal sleep, is better than agony. After all, a "well-balanced" atheist knows death is going to happen sooner or later. IMHO, it seems to me more "balanced" to reconcile himself to the fact than to spend the end of his life (and all the days leading up to it) in either denial or in abject weeping terror.



Your point of view doesn't really make much sense unless you seriously maintain that the world ceases to exist once you die (yes, I know it does to you, but I mean objectively, in reality). YOU will continue to matter to your loved ones once you're gone - they will remember you. If you're an atheist that's the only immortality you're going to have. Why jeopardize it?
Everyone's going to die. Everyone's going to be afraid when it happens. The only thing any of us are going to have to comfort us when we die is a belief. For the religious, it will be the belief in an afterlife and and a reward for (hopefully) a life well lived. For atheists, it will be the belief that their works will live on for the good, their loved ones, their children (metaphorical and/or actual) are safe and well, and that they will remember them kindly because s/he did their best for them. That's their shield against terror. If I had the choice between two deaths - one in which I was thinking, "Well, I didn't want to die, but at least I made sure my friends and family had a chance to be safe. I did the best I could", and another in which I was thinking, "I had a chance to help save the world, but instead I may have condemned billions of people to death to buy myself a few more pain-wracked hours of guilt and despair", - well, the choice is pretty clear-cut to me.

First, I'd like to introduce myself as an Atheist ("hello!") and just say that it's more polite to capitalize the word "Atheist" in the same manner other belief systems are capitalized.

I think it's totally normal and human to be a little afraid when your time comes, it is, after all, "the undiscovered country" and no matter how certain any of us are about what comes after, if anything at all, we just cannot be. Frankly, as much as I respect other's religions, it doesn't ring true for me.

That being said, that does not mean life is cheap or not worth living or being kind, whatever. If this is all there is and my only chance, what better than to make the world a better place for Humanity that comes after me, because that's the only chance they get? I don't need to be dangled an eternal reward to convince me to be a good person.

So if Hoshi's suicide woud bring about a better world, even if her existence is snuffed out completely, it would be worth it. Atheists don't believe the world ceases to exist when they die, they believe they personally cease to exist.

Oh and FYI: there are two types of Atheists (generally): Weak and Strong. A Weak Atheist doesn't believe God exists, and Strong Athiest believes God doesn't exist, and believe it or not there's a big difference. Also, another term for an Atheist is a "Bright."

What has struck me is not necessarily the Trek-verse's concern with The Deity or Deities; but with their taking cause against False Gods.

Many episodes revolve around unmasking the lie, or taking on a being with "divine" self-illusions or delusions; Trelane, Apollo, Zues, the Devil. Even machines with god-like attributes; Vaal, Landru, the Guardians of Ardona. Or races so advanced that they thought they were gods.

Yet in an odd way the one they respected, who knew he had god-like powers but was a humble servant, was the Guardian of the City of the Edge of Forever.

Ethics is another consideration -- some academics believe that knowledge of good vs. evil, self-sacrifice, and all the noble ideals are intrinsic to human beings.

I tend to believe this because religions generally agree about what constitutes good and evil (differences are usually about how those ideals are applied, e.g. preach to the "ignorant" or conquer them and force them to "behave"). If you take an atheist's view that religion is constructed by humans and not by a God (or Gods), then the similarity in ideals between religions can only originate from within humans.

So I think Hoshi's self-sacrifice as an ideal is something that most human beings would relate to whether they are religious, or were exposed to religion but are agnostic or atheist, or were never exposed to religion. Individuals may not live up to a particular ideal (e.g. love of self is greater than love of others in some situations such as when facing death) but they will still recognize that someone who does live up to that ideal is more heroic (as concerns that ideal at least).

Bump.

Thanks for bumping this, keckler. I wanted to post cross-series references after the DS9 discussion.

One basic problem I have with the way Trek deals with questions of faith is that religion has had about two centuries to deal with difficulties the Enlightenment posed to it, and Trek seems to ignore all of this in order to portray religion as something of a strawman to knock down. Time and again, we get very simplistic depictions of religious faith used as a tool to knock religion in general.

For example, Sybok takes the ship off to find God. Now, perhaps in the 1600's people believed that God was located in an actual physical place in the universe, but I doubt that many do to today. And yet, 300 years in the future, no one thinks to challenge Sybok on this elemental point. And when "God" is proved not to be where Sybok says he is, no one rationalizes that, of course, God isn't, well, corporeal. Instead we get a platitude about God being within us, or something.

Similarly, when Neelix has a near-death experience and doesn't experience and afterlife like he expected, there doesn't seem to be a concerted effort to try to work the issue out in a way that will preserve his faith- for example, reaching for the obvious here, telling him that he didn't really die. Instead, there's more of an attitude of "Oh, well, Neelix, you poor backward Talaxian, turns out your religion was all wrong, and your family is all gone forever. Take a bit, and then join the rest of us enlightened Federation types here in the 24th Century."

As I write that, I'm suddenly reminded of Eddington's accusation of the UFP being worse than the Borg, and I wonder if he didn't have a point.

On the other hand, when we get religion, it's something easily explained: Sure, that species in VOY went someplace after death, but it was an actual location. And then something in their body went into orbit. Sure, the Prophets existed, but so did Q.

So if religion was neglected, that'd be one thing. And maybe if a secular "faith" was on the agenda, it wouldn't be so bad. But we get the latter with no serious effort, and something of disrespect. That troubles me.

I don't know about that. Kirk pretty much thinks it's bunk, until they actually find a planet, and he's all, "we'd be lousy explorers if we didn't at least try to meet God, if he's really here." I don't think they accept it necessarily, but they figure it's worth their time to look.


But isn't that platitude essentially saying that? Kirk says maybe you can't find God because he's not so much out there, physically speaking. Whether God is real or made up by humans is pretty much immaterial to the question he's answering: Bones asks "Is God out there?"

As for Neelix, Chakotay does make that argument. He points out that Neelix is not dead, and he can't be sure that just because he didn't experience the Great Forst doesn't mean it's not real. Neelix isn't interested in listening, but Chakotay does make the point. And I definitely didn't get the attitude that anyone thinks his religion is hokey. Maybe Seven did, but she's hardly the voice of everyone at that point.

I'd just like to point out that some of us (by which I mean me) do prefer a future without religion. As an agnostic, I get nothing personal out of it except watching a lot of people hate each other for what seem like very silly reasons (because reasonable people who appreciate their religions quietly and leave everyone else alone don't make the news). So I like a future filled with agnostics. I get where others are coming from, but I prefer it this way.

People who are determined to hate each other will do so whether there are religions or not.

The Trek future without human religion(s) shows me just as much prejudice and intolerance on the part of the writers/producers/creators as they are trying to get rid of in their utopic future. They show no tolerance for religion and people who have faith(s) and who practice them without treating others with hatred. They do not show an enlightened view of what religion could be in a utopic future. I would dearly love to see a futuristic utopic portrayal of our world's diverse religious heritage.

And even if Trek doesn't want human religion, as it clearly doesn't and probably never will have, I could really do without the patronizing view of people who do believe in a higher power. If the Trek PTB don't want religion in their utopic future, fine. But don't trot it out every now and again to disprove it or disapprove of it. I wouldn't care one whit about a non-religious Trek future if they actually left religion out of it altogether.

If Trek presents religious events that are unexplainable and miraculous, then it would be venturing into the realm of fantasy, not science fiction, like the Force in Star Wars. Trek does have fantastical elements but they're still grounded in science-fictiony terms, e.g. Vulcan katras are a result of being a telepathic race, and telepathy at least has a long history in science-fiction even though there's no science to support it.

If Trek presents religions that are completely faith-based (as in no proof to support the beliefs), then Federation humans will naturally dismiss them as myths or superstitions because Federation humans are established in canon as a completely secular, atheist society.



The future with no human religions is one of the fundamental qualities that Gene Roddenberry created for the setting of Star Trek. I don't think GR (or the other Trek writers) are prejudiced and intolerant of religion -- they're just presenting one man's ideas/philosophy of a utopian society.

To change this would be to create a human society like Babylon 5 (which presented positive portrayals of human and alien religions and religious themes in several episodes). I'm not saying Trek is better than B5 (or vice versa), just that they're different. They present specific ideas about humanity's place in the future. Adding human religions to Trek would be like taking away religion from B5 -- it could work, but it would not be Trek anymore.



I can understand why they don't want to leave it out. It's a part of the human condition for many people today, so they want to write about it, but they have to do so in the context of what's already been established in Trek.

I think DS9 did a great job with religious themes -- showing both the evil that is done in the name of religion and the good. Sure, to the Federation the Prophets were just wormhole aliens, but I never got the impression that, e.g. Sisko, Dax, Bashir et al. patronized Kira for her beliefs. Sisko's whole journey during the series run was about learning to have faith without understanding. That the Prophets were aliens didn't matter -- their motivations and plans for him were as mysterious as a god's. Sisko believing that the Prophet's know what's best for him is not that different than followers of contemporary religions believing the teachings of their religions are correct.

I think he was certainly very prejudiced against religion: "Religions vary in their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all. For most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain."

But TPTB have taken the show so far from Gene's unbelieveable and dramatically boring utopia that one more step wouldn't matter.



I don't believe that anyone has stated a desire to see the miraculous. They just want to see some human religion. It's much the same deal that has been going on in the homosexuality thread... the general consensus seems to be that it doesn't have to be in your face, it just has to be there in some manner. A cross or a star of David on the wall, a statue of Ganesh... I apologize, I don't know any symbolism for Islam or Buddhism, despite my comparitive religions courses in college.

In "The X-Files", we knew that Scully was Catholic, but we knew it largely because of the little things, like her cross necklace. She didn't proselytize Mulder or try to constantly explain to him how her idea of God worked in relationship to his wacky theories and weird coincidence. She was simply a Catholic character who went about her job and on rare occasions did something that reminded us of that fact.

I think the Trek approach to religion is almost more insidious than the approach to homosexuality because while they've never had a homosexual character, no one, on the show or behind the scenes, has ever denied that they exist, whereas religion has been implicitly rejected on the show and explicitly rejected by its creator.

I just find it hard to believe that in just 150 years from now, everyone on earth will have abandoned thousands of years of traditions. People have fought wars over beliefs that almost by definition have no proof. I don't think that even World War III would get everyone on earth to simply give up those beliefs.

From each Captain of the Enterprise, we've heard speeches about how humans have gotten rid of things like intolerance. I can buy that. Hell, I'd love to buy that. But I'd like to think that would mean that people don't fight wars over religion or judge other people based on religion. I wouldn't think that would mean that religion was wiped out. I realize that Gene Rodenberry would have liked it that way, but it just doesn't seem realistic. I'd rather see a Trek universe in which humans have gotten beyond religious intolerance, but aren't beyond a passing reference to some holiday that someone celebrated.

I was going to stay out of this debate, because I've never noticed the lack of representation of human religion on Trek and it never occurred to me that it needed it. I don't really get why Trek should have human religion of any kind in it: it's not the only TV show which doesn't have religious characters. Religion as a theme is addressed in numerous ways, which I usually enjoy watching, but I don't particularly want to see representations of specific religions.

In my own view, I would like to see a future for Earth/humanity where religion is not afforded the importance it has now, and so I guess Trek chimes with my views in such a way that I don't think there's a problem... if you see what I mean.

(This is all my opinion and is not meant in any way as an attack on the many people who have expressed contrary views.)

But leaving humans aside, what about Klingon religion? I remember it being said that the Klingons murdered their gods, but they still have a belief in Stovokor (sp?). And I don't remember any of them being criticised or taken to task over it. But I'm not keen on Klingon episodes, so I might have missed some salient points. Anyone?

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking, EM, but I think the relevant point here is that it is a Klingon religion, much like the belief in the Prophets is a Bajoran religion. Apparently, human religion has ceased to exist, a fact that is distressing and disheartening for those of us who currently embrace religious faith.

Just a simple observation: Scotty did play "Amazing Grace" on his bagpipes at the end of RoK. Whether that song still has the same meaning in the future, I don't know. Maybe it's gone the way of "God Save The Queen," rewritten with lyrics completly opposite the original meaning.

Religion is out there, far more than most people think about. There are shows that regularly deal with matters of faith, like The Simpsons, and then there are shows where religion is acknowledged, but not directly. A lot of TV families attend some kind of church, at least for major holidays.

We're not saying that Trek needs to have a Catholic priest overseeing a shipboard chapel (though, realistically, I would expect there to be a chapel with a priest, a rabbi and an imam available to the crew, but that's just because those things exist in the military of today, and I don't think they're likely to go anywhere -- even if we never actually see it on the show). But some acknowledgement that the various faiths still exist in 2370 would be nice, since after several thousand years I don't really think they're suddenly going to evaporate in 300.

Didn't Dr. Phlox attend Catholic mass on Earth? Or something? Did my brain completely manufacture that?

He did, LadyBunbury. But the problem, to me, with doing something like that on Enterprise seems to be that, on a story level, we're seeing "pre-evolved" humans, and on a production level that is an easy way to remind us that Enterprise is closer to our time than the 24th century era shows.

I should clarify, then, that all of my arguments to this point are aimed at the chronologically later Treks, particularly TNG, DS9 and VOY, which seems to be the current "default" era of Trek in most people's minds.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. Taking the Prophets as an example, they are shown to exist - even if Starfleet views them as wormhole aliens, it's not disputed that they're real. The same goes for the Founders - whether or not they're really the gods that the Vorta think they are, they definitely exist. I was wondering if the Klingon religion had these sort of "concrete" gods, or whether it was an entirely faith-based religion with no proof that the gods actually exist. I wasn't comparing the Klingon religion to human ones.

Haven't read that before. Interesting. I still don't fault Trek for it though.

I have strong Christian religious beliefs. I doubt that religion is going to go away anytime soon. I'm not bothered by Trek sidelining human religion because I've just accepted that's not the world of the show. Also the premise has provoked some interesting questions (to me, anyway).

Why is it demeaning to religion to suggest that gods are advanced lifeforms with knowledge that we are not ready for yet? What's wrong with suggesting that there may be scientific explanations -- a science so advanced that it's magic to us, but still science -- for religious experiences?

Many religions (real and fictional) portray the afterlife as some mystical plane of existence. In Trek, Sto'vo'kor and the Celestial Temple are dreamlike places where laws of time and space don't exist. When I die, will I find something similar -- that the knowlege humanity has gained is useless? What would be the point of achievements on Earth if we're back to square one in heaven (not to mention, the incredible culture shock)? Is it a requirement for religion that we remain in ignorance about God's true nature? Would finding out a "scientific" explanation for God diminish our ability to love and respect Him? I'm not trying to start a debate on the nature of God -- just saying that Trek has made me examine my religious beliefs in a new way. Trek presents two opinions on the subject:

In "Who Mourns for Adonis?" Kirk & Co. scorn Apollo from the get-go because they know the Greek myths were just that. In the context of the show, Apollo could have been Jesus, Muhammad or any religious icon of today -- Kirk would have dismissed him just the same.

In contrast, the Bajorans know that there are "scientific" explanations for their Prophets but it doesn't diminish their beliefs. Kira still feels love, awe and humility before them. Sisko doesn't believe but he also doesn't dismiss the Prophets as irrelevent and unworthy of respect the way Kirk did to Apollo (even before he found out Apollo wasn't a nice guy). Or the way Picard did to the Edo God before he realized they were more powerful than him and ended up begging them to let the Enterprise crew go.

If Trek accepts the premise that human religions exist in the future, then it would be strange for them to meet Godlike beings (or mysterious phenomena) and not have at least some crewmembers believing that their religion had been given form. Then the writers would be stuck in the same situation as Shatner in Star Trek V, where offering a scientific/mundane explanation could be seen as slamming a religion, but suggesting that the crew was really having a religious experience from a real-world religion would also offend many. (I admit, Babylon 5 managed not to offend with Vorlons = gods/angels and Shadows=devil, but that show was thematically very different from Trek.)



It could go either way depending on whether B'Elanna's experience in Ship of the Dead (?) is akin to human near-death experiences where there's no proof anything happened outside of the mind or akin to Sisko encountering the wormhole aliens in "Emissary."

For a TOS counter-example, there's Bread & Circuses. There's the belief in "The Son" on the planet, which Kirk and Spock think is "The Sun" until Uhura clues them in at the end. The way Uhura talks about it, there's no doubt in my mind that she's a Christian.

I suppose, RiverThames, but that's such a bad episode, it makes "The Outcast" look positively progressive. Forgoing the completely ludicrous idea that a society could spring up on an alien world and be nearly identical to ancient Rome -- but with TV! -- we're also supposed to buy the notion that the words for "Sun" and "Son" in this alien tongue are homophonic.

I find it odd, though, that this one brief passing allusion to Christianity came in an episode penned by Roddenberry himself.

To put it in very simplistic terms, some lines of Jewish thought think of Heaven as "what you make of it." So of all things, I can certainly sympathize with the idea that Quark goes to the Celestial Treasury, and B'Elanna (and Jadzia) go to Sto'vo'kor.

Now I'm thinking of another positive portrayal: "Faith, Treachery, and the Great River." I may be in the minority, but I really enjoyed it. You have Odo, who knows he's not a god, having to play the role for Weyoun, with his blind faith. And you have Nog, vindicated in his religious belief before O'Brien. Maybe I shouldn't be so down on Trek when it comes to religion after all.

Except for "Bread and Circuses," which is just odd on many levels as already pointed out, all the other positive or even tolerant portrayals of religion seem to be on DS9. Are there any other positive protrayals of religion which fit with the canon on any of the other Treks? I can't think of any on TNG.

I really did think "Mortal Coil" was pretty sympathetic to Neelix, and certainly never disproved his beliefs. And "Barge of the Dead" didn't try to offer any scientific explanation for B'elenna's experience, besides various characters suggesting that maybe it was all in her head. The narrative seemed to be on B'elenna's side.

Of course, "Barge of the Dead" was written by DS9's Ron Moore.

One thing that always irked me about "Barge of the Dead" is that B'Elenna was mocked for not being a warrior, and never responded with something like, "But I have an important job! The ship wouldn't go without me!"

But now that I consider it in terms of religion, I can understand: She's at the Final Judgment here, and there are no excuses. You have to have done what God (or Kahless, or whatever) wanted of you, and either answer Him on His terms or fail. So B'Elenna realizes that she's been a failure, from a Klingon religious point of view.

I think, with "Barge", B'Elanna was being mocked not for "not being a warrior" in the classic "pick up a Batt'leth and fight" sense, but that in trying to be all things to all people, not putting her heart entirely into what she was doing with her life. I would think in Klingon final judgement, it has less to do with the actual fighting, and more to do with doing whatever you choose to do boldly.

I don't know, I always have compared the Klingons to the Vikings and you're not getting into Valhalla unless you were actually fighting.

They've fudged that idea, though. Jadzia didn't die fighting, per se, but Worf and co.'s mission in her name was supposedly enough to get her in. Now, considering the Klingon attitude towards outsiders, this may not have been the best of ideas. I mean, consider an eternity of: "How did you get in here, you spotted p'tagh!"

I don't know of any other examples from the "How to reach Stovo'kor" handbook, though.

I'm want to agree with RiverThame's interperitation of Sto'Vo'Kor. However, IIRC, the Vikings had a lesser afterlife (but not Hellish) called Hel, which was a more Elysian afterlife, instead of feasting with Thor and the Valkeries. I'd imagine that the Klingons would have such a belief, if only to motivate their blacksmiths to blacksmith and their builders to build. One just cannot have a society where everyone's a warrior, and there needs to be motivation to do other work.

I'd also guess that there are different religious philosophies among Klingons. Some would believe that you have to be a great warrior, which is why they go around picking fights. Others believe that you must just live honorably, so they try to do that. Just like there are zillions of different factions within Christianity, Judaism, et al, who believe slightly different things, so too the Klingons must have some different beliefs within their religion.

After reading all 11 pages, I just have to say Wow, and Thank You, everyone who has written.

As a non-church attending Methodist, I'd like to throw a vote toward the passing reference to characters' religious preference, ala the book at dinner, something on the wall of their room, wardrobe-that-doesn't-interfere-with-their-job. While I have faith in a higher power, I don't have it in the current writing staff. I don't think they can give us a thoughtful story with Earth-based religious elements. (Yes, Paramount, I doubledog dare you to disprove me.)

I also think that trying to delve into alien religions would be interesting, as long as it doesn't turn out to be like ENT's "Those guys are blasphemers! because they think the planet was created in 9 days! Everyone knows it was only 7." That goes back to MakeItSo and BassetHound, who mentioned one person's minor is another person's major,whether the question is epiphany or division. Alien religions as an allegory, in order to more 'safely' discuss differences in current religions, would be best, but there just has to be someone on staff able to write something along the lines of what this thread is hoping for, right? Anyone? Bueller?

I do believe that Paramount's CYA approach to religion is cowardice. The hype I remember over every same sex kiss (except, maybe TNG's), every "Vulcan In Heat" promo doesn't match to the silence on religious-based eps, be they alien or human.Religion isn't 'sexy' to corproations/advertisers, as they (said corporations/advertisers) run scared of controversy-especially when it comes to religion.

I understand the business decisions behind later Treks not doing much with Earth religions. As many have already stated, the flow of outrage over "hateful" representations do tend to stop all representations. Yet the bomp-chicka-wah-wah is hauled out despite potential negative response because of the supposed "ratings bump." I'd rather have my mind/worldview widened some in a thoughtful episode about beliefs than some sweeps sex, though nothing wrong with a little of both. ( I am a fan of Our Darlin' Boy, Trip.) It just seems that Paramount/ whomever else would rather face a storm of irate letters over sex and wrap themselves up in the First Amendment as a defense than do the same with regards to an ep on a character's belief. That angries up my bleeding-heart liberal blood.

Taking an idea from B5 and adding a slight twist, what if a human crew member decided to convert to an alien religion? Would CQ treat the crewperson as if they were brainwashed? I can see where an episode like that could go very wrong, very fast, but it would be an intriguing idea. That a not overly religious person actually found peace in another species' religion/ way of life.

The actual tenets don't have to be spelled out, the point being:when it comes to the military, where exactly do your religious beliefs "stop"? If it isn't interfering with your job, does your chain of command get to tell you where?

To be clear: I wouldn't have the crewmember brainwashed at all. Just the person would be a bit happy with their newfound sense of peace. Just "not like their old selves." As seen on shows where obese folks slim down hundreds of pounds, it changes the folks around the formerly-obese person too, and not always in happy ways.

It just makes me mad that people who come to a religious decision later in life are considered 'brainwashed', as if there is only one correct way to believe and you are locked into that belief until you die. Rarely is changing to a different belief considered a good thing, as if a loved one or good friend has to believe as the other characters do (or don't, as the UFP seems to be saying.)

I apologize if I seem scattered; it is a bit later than I tend to stay up.

ETA: Oops, sorry; TNG didn't have a same sex kiss, I was thinking about "The Outcast" and dealing their dealing with homosexuality.

somewhere way back in this thread, it was mentioned that perhaps the Trek future is post-messianic...i've actually been thinking about this, and it seems to be plausible (even though i guarantee it's not what the writers intended)...and i'm kinda pissed that someone else posted it so long before i did, because i thought i was all clever for coming up with it! heh.

but anyway, it occurred to me that the world of Trek is pretty similar in a lot of ways to the Jewish idea of the messianic age: ie, world peace; prosperity; lack of violence, prejudice, poverty; extended lifespans; etc. in that context, it makes a little more sense why we've never met an identifiable Jew on any Trek show (in the ethnic sense; we've never really met an identifiable Christian on Trek either, but there are plenty of diverse ethnic groups that are able to be identified in physical terms, whereas Jews aren't, so it would kind of have to be explicitly mentioned for us to even be aware of it -- but still) with the possible exception of Dr. Zimmerman.

but one of the prophecies regarding the messianic age is that all the Jews will be gathered "even from the farthest star" and brought to the land of Israel. it sort of implies that humans may be living in space by that time, but it also might give some insight to the apparent lack of Jews in the Trekverse: they're all living on Earth, in the Promised Land.


on a somewhat different topic, i seem to remember an episode of Voyager where someone asked Tuvok if he believed in the soul or something, and he responded that Vulcans do have the concept of katra and certain spiritual beliefs, but he personally tended to be skeptical of that stuff. it struck me as odd, because i was pretty sure that katra and all that was fairly well established in an empirical sense. am i wrong about this?

I don't think they'd touch that one. The religions on Trek are non-missionary religions. It presents the view of the writing staff (i. e. "Why don't you holy rollers just go back home and stop bothering me!") but it also cuts them off from a number of possible storylines. For instance, what if missionaries from Earth become embroiled in a political dispute on another planet? Or try to get permission to work on a hostile planet? Or a highly pacifist religion gains ground among the Klingons?

Frankly, I don't think Bermaga can afford to block off potential stories, since they seem to have been letting fanfic authors write their most recent offerings.

Sisko became a major religious figure for the Bajorans ... he wasn't exactly a convert, though.

I was just thinking about an ordinary StarFleet member, who happens to find a bit more peace in a (literally) alien way of thinking/believing.

I agree with you,LadyBunbury- Benjamin didn't convert as much as he acquiesed(sp?) to what seemed inevitable.

Sadly, I feel that echopapa- and earlier posters- are correct about Bermaga and/or Paramount's handling of religion, even on such a small scale as one crewmember.

For all of the leaving behind of things thought to be outdated currently (miniskirts, Men Only flag officers[presumably], and more), apparently a relatively respectful look at religion, and it's effects on it's practioners, is to be ignored.

This thread has got me thinking about various things along these lines. sadly, I may have to turn to writing fanfic to satisfy that part of the Trek universe I will be unlikely to get from official sources.

I think Sisko being an alien religious icon allows them to explore the 'savior/hero' aspects of Earth religion without actually mentioning it as such--in line with Trek's avoidance of certain kinds of controversy involving humans (cause supposedly there won't be any controversies of that nature in Utopian 22nd-24th Century Earth).

That analogy makes sense particularly in episodes like "Sacrifices of Angels", when Sisko had his "Moses Red Sea" moment in the wormhole--with him appealing to the prophets to intervene directly in corporeal matters. Many of the Bajoran-religious plots are lifted directly from the Bible and other religious texts, only they've been revamped to make them 'alien'.

In general, I think DS9 has taken more risks than any of the other "new" series (not including TOS, which was revolutionary for it's time), in terms of addressing diverse topics and creating thoughtful stories.

I think it might be more fair to say that DS9 is using archetypes that are also present in the Bible and other religious texts. Divine intervention, "somewhat-Other" saviors, flood stories, virgin conceptions or divinely confused conceptions, and resurrected (or predicted to be resurrected) god figures are fairly cross-cultural.

Testing, testing...does this work?

Does what work?

Well, I was trying to beam myself into the Q continuum. I wanted to ask them if they considered themselves to be God. Or if they were taken by others to be God. Instead, I find myself here. Unless, you are all Q?

OK then. I've read all 12 pages of this thread in the past three nights, always late at night. This place is fantastic. Not only is it extremely interesting, everyone is respectful!

Many people have explained their belief systems, so I will start there. I'm a religion-free Humanist, like Gene Roddenberry. To me it's perfectly logical that Federation types look down on religion. Mrs. Roddenberry is still going strong I think? Is she also a Humanist? I'm a former Protestant. I have Catholic and Protestant relatives. Most monotheists that I know act as if everyone believes in one God. 'How could anyone possibly differ from the norm' is their attitude. An example - I'm a parent volunteer at a Teacher Appreciation lunch. The parent chairperson stands up and says a fairly lengthy thanks to God for the food. No one told me she was doing this. I could have politely told her that I will leave the room just before she says grace, if I'd known. I didn't know about the prayer, so I ended up standing there quietly with my eyes open. So most people would assume that I'm a monotheist, because I stood there for the prayer.

Another example, my Aunty June, in her seventies, lives 2000 miles away. She phones me on my birthday and always ends the call with "God bless you dear". Her son died in a car accident about 10 years ago. She is likely looking forward to reuniting with her son in the after life. She says God Bless and I just say thank you.

The Star Trek universe is an absolutely wonderful place for Humanists and Atheists. We really need a Universe like this,now and then.

ITA, Cali. I think DS9 is one of my favorite sci-fi shows in general because it took the risk of dealing with religion (as did Babylon 5). Something always seemed a little 'off' to me about Trek just dispensing with human religions altogether. For example, what happened to Judaism? I can't imagine no one in the 23rd-24th century honoring Passover. What happened to Christianity? Did it just disappear after the Third World War? The encounter with Vulcans? How do humans progress from regarding creation stories as truth to regarding them as myth, as McCoy does in WoK?

Something I've wondered about recently. How would the Bajoran religion react to the existence of the Mirror Universe (which I doubt the Bajoran public-at-large know of)? Resurrection, DS9 was on the other day, in which the mirror Bariel and the Intendant try to steal an Orb. That says to me that the Mirror-Bajorans worship the Prophets, which in turn tells me that there are Mirror Prophets. Bajorans believe 9Children of Time) that every individual has a single path, leading Kira to want to not escape from a planet in which... never mind that.

My point is, how would Bajorans react to finding out that there was another one of them, that the beloved Bariel was, in another universe, a theif? That there are another set of Prophets? An infinite number? I'd imagine that the Vedek Council and the Kai would try to supress the knowledge. Just one of those things I thought about whilst up at 3 AM, vomiting.

Hope you are feeling better, cuiusquemodi, and I think the knowledge would freak them out, and not in a good way.

Now? I'm gonna have to think on that, because it's a cool line of thought.

Oh, no, it was just something I ate.

I don't know that that would actually be that large of an issue for the Bajorans. Kira was quite devout, and never had any obvious problem trying to reconcile the mirror universe to her faith. The issue in Children of Time is a little different, because Kira is talking about "her" one destiny. But she recognizes that despite the similarities, the Intendant is not her, and thus has her own destiny.

Is there another set of Prophets in the Mirrorverse, or do the Prophets transcend dimensions just like they do time?

I don't know that we have enough evidence to say one way or the other. I, personally, suspect that they transcend dimensions. There is a school of thought, held by some here I believe, that the Benny Russel-verse was not an hallucination of Sisko's, but a reflection of a different reality (in effect, that Benny and Sisko dream of each other). It seems to me that the same Prophets could be responsible for that by having both Benny and Sisko in their sights and under their direction, so to speak.

Am I making any sense? It's been a rough Monday morning.