That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
It has everything to do with it. You’re trying to map your personal world view onto someone else’s art, essentially co-opting it to advertise your own values. That’s dishonest, to say the least, though it does seem to be the latest craze among certain conservatives. Perhaps we should call it the “Sponge-Bob-Along”.
WC4 superficially portrays Tolwyn as “Space Hitler”, but no!, there are “deeper meanings” clearly intended here that moral gamers must try to see and understand and learn from!
Aha! Roddenberry despised religion in real life, therefore “Star Trek” can only be a covert vehicle for purely secular, anti-religious propaganda. This so-called show must be denounced!
What’s next? The Steltek as sentient stem cells?
Please. You’re tilting at windmills when there are surely real dragons elsewhere in the world.
They tried to show religion as bad . . .
No, “they” (conspiracy theory running amok) didn’t. If anything, Star Trek accorded religion as religion great respect, whether on an individual level (e.g., Worf, B’Elanna, Chekotay, Kira) or a communal or societal level (e.g., the Bajorans, Native Americans, the “Son-Worshippers"). And the only message I ever saw intended here was simply that–respect, with even some admiration thrown in.
And as for your rants over what you like to call “secular humanism”, just because “Star Trek” is mostly silent about what’s going on with humanity in general regarding religion doesn’t in any way imply religion is “bad”. But I will certainly grant that the oft-sounded theme of self-improvement could easily imply a reigning Protestant ethic, and leaves more than enough room for Protestantism too, so I guess I can see how that might annoy you.
. . . but they failed because they don’’t know what religion is.
Ah, “they” don’t, but of course
you do. Please stop it.
As LOAF noted, it’s hard to point to any ideal that “Star Trek” consistently represents. I suppose elimination of poverty, or of want generally, might count as an honorable mention (since that’s its actual status). But if I had to name a theme, identify a consistent “message”, and particularly something “Star Trek” deems “bad”, it certainly would not be capitalism or religion or property, but simply
excess. So no, money’s not bad and property’s not bad, but building your whole life around the goal of making as much money as possible in order to buy and own as many different things as possible
is. And no, religion isn’t bad, but judging people on the basis of whether “they” happen to follow yours, or using yours to co-opt political, secular power,
is. Further, we see little indication of 24/7 advertising, rampant drug or alcohol addiction, reckless marriages and divorce, or long lines at Counselor Troi’s door. (I don’t know, maybe the elimination of excess does count as an ideal.)
Whenever it kicks in, it's so blatantly superficial that's barely recognizable.
A sign that you’re probably imagining it all on your own.
It reminds me of the Robocop DVD Extras. One of the writers was strongly anti-capitalist, but his criticism is so nonsensical it’’s hard to even be aware it’’s there at all.
Hmm, you don’t say?
To equalize religion with superstition is an accusation made by the anti-religious. . .
Maybe, but also something an agnostic might well say. And something a given faith might well say–and feel driven to say–about most other faiths. It doesn’t improve matters to try to parse the word as you do (though I understand your desire). I think it’s fair to say that almost any claimed religion has, among its “building blocks”, one or more superstitions. But that fact doesn’t undermine either its sincerity or legitimacy.
. . . so, well, it’’s something you’’d expect to happen on Star Trek.
And so your imagination evolved into a distinct prejudice.
Gene Roddenberry the series was strongly and vocally against religion and said it would not have a place in human future, and he south to secularize society, even seemingly actively participating on organizations with this goal.
I thought we were talking about “Star Trek”, not what happened outside the show or what Roddenberry did in his off-time.
On Star Trek, religion would not be a part of the future and mankind is uniformly secularized.
Too bad the show contradicts your “expectation” née imagination.
And of course so am I [referring only to humans], considering I was talking about things that exist now but simply disappear in the future.
Nice of you to finally come off the mountain to make that clear for everyone. But the fact remains “Star Trek” does refer to religion and does give it a positive treatment. And trying to argue that those storylines shouldn’t count because they mostly involve non-humans only underscores how weak your contention is that Gene Roddenberry was using
the show as just another conduit for his disapproval of religion. (I mean, we’d have to say he does a lousy job of that, right? And here we took him to be such a clever, creative guy.)
This doesn't make sense. Those are exceptions that prove the rule.
No, again, I do not read Braga to be saying it was any kind of “rule” enforcing some vision of what humanity would/should be like in the future. To the contrary, he seems to be saying they generally didn’t want to dramatize religion among the human characters and risk inviting controversy or distraction beyond the storyline and show. (No, no, we really can’t comment on whether Captain Picard would be pro-life or pro-choice. But “boxers or briefs” now . . .)
And maybe others have had a different experience, but reflecting on the TV shows I’ve watched over time, I don’t recall learning much if anything about the religious make-up of most principal characters. (Religious belief was more likely to figure in the life of the odd guest-star-of-the-week.) So I don’t see “Star Trek” as exceptional or special in that way.
He lied in order to murder an entire race based on the opinion their deaths would benefit others. It’’s wrong to lie. It’’s wrong to cause the death of millions. It's wrong to kill people because, in your opinion, they are not worth living. It’’s wrong to deny help that innocent people desperately need and would cost you nothing.
No, the situation was that the Valakians were doomed genetically; they had come to an evolutionary “dead end” and were dying, which circumstance positioned the Menks for an evolutionary advance, because they would no longer live in passive reliance on the Valakians. The moral question posed was: should Archer and crew intervene to overrule the natural course of evolution and raise the “arc” of the Valakians while blunting or lowering that of the Menk?
So yeah, you can question the scientific premises if you want, but since when has good science been a prerequisite for good sci-fi? The moral dilemma here is the point of the story, and it’s entitled to some attention. But since you seem to have some interesting notions about “murder” and all, why not first consider the more bare-bones “what-if” that may have inspired the story:
You’re standing beside a main run of track that a little farther on splits off to form a second track. Past that point you see five men who are standing inside the main line and are busy working. Suddenly you realize a train is coming up very quickly from behind you. It is also immediately clear to you that the five men don’t see it and that in a matter of seconds they will all be run over and killed. But right at hand is a lever you can pull to switch the train onto the second track and thus save the men. Unfortunately, on that second track is standing another man, also busy working and oblivious to what’s happening. If you pull the lever, it is clear to you that he will be killed.
So, what say you: is it morally permissible to pull the lever?
