test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Why is it "Host a Multicultural *Religious* Symposium"?
wilsonfrontier
Member Posts: 32 Arc User
I can't help but be curious (and I've even done a search into the archives to see if I could find a reason and could not) -- why is there a DOFF mission "Host a Multicultural Religious Symposium"? Specifically, why is it a religious symposium? Shouldn't it just be a "Multicultural Symposium"? Same mission, absent the word religion?
This is a Star Trek game. With the exception of Deep Space 9's exploration of Bajoran beliefs, the franchise has kept clear of the topic of religion. We know Starfleet was uncomfortable with Sisko's identifying as the Emissary. And with most Aliens, we've never heard anything about their religious beliefs, if they even have any. So... the mission stating it's dependency on religion seems... odd. Out of place.
So... any explanation?
I'm frankly amazed this hasn't been asked or brought up before.
This is a Star Trek game. With the exception of Deep Space 9's exploration of Bajoran beliefs, the franchise has kept clear of the topic of religion. We know Starfleet was uncomfortable with Sisko's identifying as the Emissary. And with most Aliens, we've never heard anything about their religious beliefs, if they even have any. So... the mission stating it's dependency on religion seems... odd. Out of place.
So... any explanation?
I'm frankly amazed this hasn't been asked or brought up before.
Post edited by wilsonfrontier on
0
Comments
Dr. Richard Daystrom impressed his moral and religious beliefs onto M5. "This machine cannot murder. It is contrary to the laws of man and God." -M5
Star Trek 5.
Dr. Phlox says he has been to a Tibetan monastery and that he has attended a mass at St. Peter's Square- ENT
original join date 2010
Member: Team Trekyards. Visit Trekyards today!
However... on the other hand... of the 120+ people on my friends list I know each and every atheist. Why is that? Because they take every chance to explain that they are an atheist. That they don't believe in God. That Religion is foolish. Religious people are deeply annoying because they force their beliefs on everyone and preach nonstop. They quote every example of anti-religion in Star Trek without fully grasping the subtitle subtext. And they do all this even if you say "Oh god that's HILARIOUS." Because you know... we need to be reminded of their atheist-ways every single chance!
This... is a classic example of IRONY, folks.
As for the religious DOFF mission -- if it bothers you ignore it. Star Trek is NOT anti-religion. Never has, never will be. Star Trek is about accepting other cultures and exploring what makes them unique. Well that's what it used to be about anyways...
(I am aware of Gene's opinion on the subject -- but despite his opinion the show was chocked full of religious references and spent many episodes exploring the nature of spirituality and faith. )
even if earth religion has died off (which is debatable as the absence of something being mentioned does not mean its not still there) we are talking about a whole galaxy of different species and races here. we know the the bajorans, the dominion, the klingons (big time), the romulans and a few others have their own religions and no doubt others will too.
the reason starfleet did not like sisko being labbled as the emissary was not because they had a problem with religion, but because they did not want their officer becoming an icon for an entire world and possibly changing their fundamental way of life and compromising his mission when religion and business were in conflict. thats a prime directive mess just waiting to happen.
That's because if we'd said this up until 100 years ago we would have been burned at the stake for blasphemy. It's OUR time to be pushy :P
Kirk's Protege.
The irony, is over 9,000.
Why shouldn't it be called "religious" if it is a symposium on religion? (Or am I clouding the real issue here?)
The OP is under the impression that Religion no longer exists within the Federation.
It has been established, several times now, that while Religion has significantly less sway upon politics within The Federation / Starfleet, that such belief systems do exist.
It's more a case of the PERSONS you chose to hang out with rather than their religion/belief system. I could care less what you believe, I keep my beliefs to myself and practice them only in private or in the company of "my kind." However if annoyed sufficiently OUT COMES THE BIBLE AND THE BOOK OF MORMON.
BELIEVE ME, there are some obnoxious pushy Mormons out there, I could be one of them if I chose.
I prefer to keep such conversations out of social situations -- online and offline. I don't need to know that you chose not to believe in something. Or that your interpretation of the Word is different than mine.... or that you believe group X is going to Y because of Z according to interpretation A of passage B in Book C.
I come on here to run around and be Trekkish. That involves boldly going, shooting Borg, hoarding bunnies, and attending multicultural religious symposiums after giving a lecture on singularity containment!
Basically I see it as someone who misunderstood Trek as being anti-religious and not understanding why there is a reference to such in the game. Chalk it up to an honest concern which has now been answered several different ways including relevant canon, quotes, and personal opinions.
Ferengi: Clear religious beliefs (even have shrines they can "p(r)ay" to. Seen at least 3 times in DS9
Bajorans: Prophets. No need to mention the number of times this has been shown.
Vulcans: Surak and the Infinite Diversity in infinite combinations belief. Very clear in both Voy and Ent
So quite a few core species in Star Trek have clear religious beliefs, even if they are "just" on a philosophical level.
It annoys some Athetists I know who believe people of all religions deserve to be treated with respect.
I don't want to be converted by Athetists, Christians, jews, Moslems, Zorosatrians, Buddists, and so on.
No one is coming between me and cthulhu and the religiously inspired holy book the necromaticon.
No, I'm not.
Joe Sisko quoted a bible verse to Ben in "Far Beyond the Stars" and Uhura explained in "Bread and Circuses" that they where not talking about the sun, but the son, as in son of god.
Religion is an idea. It will always exist, because it is an idea. Practice, participation, belief may vary greatly, but it'll always exist and you'd have to be a damn ignorant fool to think otherwise.
And I am not a damn ignorant fool.
I have spiritual beliefs myself. I believe in god. I simply am personally uncomfortable discussing my own beliefs in any context, because I believe our beliefs are our own. They should be private.
My issue with this is not as an atheist. I did once, in my late teens and early 20s, identify as such. I no longer do. You can't identify as such and believe in god at the same time.
My issue with this is that the idea of asking Starfleet officers to host a symposium about, around, concerning religion seems greatly out of place with what we know of Starfleet and the Star Trek universe.
No matter how many brief references of religion and religious beliefs there are in Star Trek, no one can seriously deny that generally speaking, they tend to avoid the topic as anything but a reference. DS9 got into it heavily with the Bajorans, but otherwise, we know so very little about any other races beliefs.
As it is, the DOFF mission in question feels inappropriate for Starfleet to be ordering/offering. It would be like Starfleet saying "attend a religious service" or to observe a specific religious belief.
I simply do not believe it has a place in a game such as this.
Except when the entirety of DS9 was about Religion, and how it can be used for good or Evil you mean?
A Symposium is a get together, a gathering, it is not the President of the federation going "religion x is right, all others wrong!", it is not choosing a religion over any other, it is a handful of crew, being there to show their respect.
That is fine, but I hardly think a Doff mission entitled "Host a Multicultural Religious Symposium" is forcing anybody's belief system on players.
IMO, hosting a "Multicultural Religious Symposium" is more in line with Star Trek's "message" than the "Lets blow up every damn thing we see!" activities, that are the mainstay of this game.
But thanks for clarifying your views. I'm out.
Peace
I for one do not belive in anything other than you're born, you live, you die and you're toast...
And I am fine with that, because that is how I see nature working.
However, that dosen't mean that I don't spend time looking into the other (to me) fantasies some people hold onto.
Why? Because it's part of who they are and how they live their daily lives... It influences them and it shapes them, and as such it's easier for me to understand you, if I know at least a little about what you believe in.
It's for the same reason i spend time reading the bible, the Qur'an, The Norse Myths... not because I want to convert or believe in them, but because these are faiths that surround me daily.
So to co-exist with these... ideas, I need to have at least have a basic understanding of what they are.
The same would go for a Starfleet / Federation officer... He would need to know what he is dealing with, and have at least a basic understanding of it.
So a coven of closet occultists hijack a major religion and persecute the populace to hide their own transgressions doing the furthest thing from following Christ that they can do, and it is Religion's fault, Christ's fault, and anyone of any sort of faiths fault, and now you have the right to persecute too? All I am saying is, if a major group full of pomp and circumstance is murdering people for various contrived reasons they alone are aware of, that is more cultish than religion. Inquisition = The Third Reich, evil comes in various forms and always accuses people of doing the very things it is MOST guilty of. It is easy to pick on true religious folk like the Mormon chap who posted earlier proving what I am saying. He doesn't shove his religion down people's throat, yet burning people at the stake is supposed to be representative of religion?
Pot meet kettle.
Like when Kirk schools Kukulkan?
Giorgio Tsoukalos would NOT have approved of what Kirk did there.
http://memegenerator.net/instance/39276996
I think you're reading way too much into that. Religions exist. Now, and then. The Cardassians just invented a new one. The Elronians, or somesuch space religion. Just cause Starfleet and the Federation acknowledge the existence of religions, doesn't mean they support all, any or even the general idea. It could be anything from polite interest (knowing what not to serve at diplomatic functions) to intelligence gathering (knowing when to dive for cover) or a cleverly disguised showcase of paranoid delusional disorders where all the Starfleet counselor cadets are hiding behind the magic mirrors. Or perhaps, they're trying to figure out a way to convince the Gorn that Aennik Okeg is the Eggbringer. PRAISE BE TO OKEG!
And some in the Federation, humans included, will no doubt plainly still believe. Even if by all outward appearances, those'll be fairly few and far apart.
As for...
You're right. That is funny.
Also, how is that. And, is that? How can you be sure that you know of all the atheists on your friends list? Did the other 115 come forward and reveal to you their religious beliefs? Why then single out the atheists for wearing their beliefs on their sleeves? How, really, short of it being written on gold plates off in some hat somewhere, do you know, exactly, that there aren't one or ten people on your friends list who are atheists who have decided to just keep things friendly, since it's a game? That they don't think everything has to be a fight all the time and everywhere, as especially with all this dilithium grinding we've got to do, who's got time to convert or deconvert anyone anyway? How do you know that you aren't merely assuming that the few atheists that outed themselves to you are the only ones in your circle, and therefor that all atheists must be like that?
Indeed it is. And I thank you for it.
And really isn't this what the Federation is all about? Being able to learn about, discuss, and foster understanding of all aspects of various cultures all in a peaceful and respectful manner? Including "touchy" subjects?
I don't think this comparison is very apt. They're not saying "go tell people about your religion" or "go worship the Prophets" or even "go watch people worship the Prophets" (which I can't see much of a problem with as long as the worshipers don't mind). They're saying "organize a scholarly and diplomatic event, the focus of which will be the religious beliefs of a variety of cultures." Which is, again, totally in the purview of a Federation diplomat or the broadly-defined "advisor."
Ann Manistee Traverse - Human Science ~~ Oken Miquat - Saurian Tactical
Exin Jor - Joined Trill Engineer ~~ Vartox - Romulan Science
Dn'Dok, son of Ladok - Klingon/Romulan Engineer ~~ Mosa M'ren-faa - Ferasan Tactical
Krushan Twinn - Orion Science
You can't use a document to prove itself. That's circular logic. As soon as you can verify the accuracy of the documents independently, you can start using them as a primary source. First you'd have to overcome the mountain of evidence and the prevailing opinion of historians (secular and religious) that the books do not represent historical events, were written centuries after the fact, and were in large portions completely forged.
Actually, civilization was formed as a result of the invention of agriculture. Agriculture allowed a subset of people (farmers) to feed all the rest. This allowed those other people time to do other things, and alleviated the need to migrate around. People gathered around the now permanent food sources, started living in larger groups, created a social hierarchy out of necessity, presto: civilization.
Ooh, ooh. This is one of my favorites, the No True Scotsman fallacy. Truth is, everybody thinks they are their beliefs are the "true" religion, but in fact everybody has a different idea. Those people you wag your finger at, their position is just as valid as yours. That's what happens when you have beliefs that can't be verified.
Back to topic at hand: The Doff assignment. I see no issue with it. Humans seem to have largely discarded formal religion, and Kirk sure made a hobby of killing other cultures' gods. But, religion still exists in Trek time, especially among other races as has been cited in this thread. Anthropology being a very active field of study in the Federation, this kind of symposium is to be expected. We can hope by this point in time, a secular point of view is represented as well.
Final note: Why did I bother to counter those arguments after saying it's pointless? Just in case anybody "on the fence" is reading.
I wonder if you fully understand Starfleet and the Federation. Yes, I can see Starfleet conducting a multicultural religious symposium. Starfleet and the Federation hold to the idea that all are created equal and are entitled to their own beliefs. The goal being to understand what are the differences and similarities among each culture. It would be through this understanding that you can further learn to accept and respect those who are different than yourself. A greater understanding of different cultures makes for an environment in which conflicts are less likely to occur, or if they do they can be easily resolved. Knowledge and understanding are part of the core of both Starfleet and the Federation.
Commanding Officer, Strategic Starfleet Operations
Those people I wag my finger at...you mean the people who LIT PEOPLE ON FIRE!? I don't think you get what I had to say. People who are truly representative of a certain faith do not behave in certain ways. To say behavior being committed is indicative of a certain belief is a fallacious argument. I don't care what you believe. My point is that true Christians do not light people on fire, true followers of Islam do not blow people up, etc. You can't blame religion for the acts of evil. So unless you are just cracked in the brain, my position, which is one of logical tolerance, is FAR superior to the position of people who burn people alive.
Wag your finger at that homie.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. - Romans 1:21-23
I'm not making an argument of which position is better. Clearly not burning people is a more moral position than burning people. My point is that you are no more able to prove that you are the "true Christian" (Scotsman) than those nasty old Catholic inquisitors. You can pull as many passages from the bible in support of violence as against it. That's the point that needs to be made. If nobody can prove their belief over the others, how are you to know whose is right? Everybody thinks their particular position is correct, and that they are doing what god wants. No True Scotsman.
Well, of the 13 Pauline letters in the bible, you acutally quote from one of the seven that was actually written by Paul and not a complete forgery. So, good on that, though I think we'll chalk it up to blind luck.
But who was Paul? Can you trust him? Do his beliefs align with yours? Fun fact: Did you know Paul was possibly a docetist? Docetism is the belief that Jesus' life, death and resurrection were not worldly events, but happened in a purely supernatural realm. If he was seen on Earth, he only seemed to be there, but it was illusory. Some docetists thought he was never on Earth at all.
If you stick to just the seven authentic Pauline letters (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon), Paul is very disinterested in the Earthly details of Jesus' life. He never talks about mangers in Bethlehem, sermons on the mount, Herod or Pilate, etc. He never cites a gospel as a reference, only his own revelations and prophecies from the Old Testament. Since the gospels we know of weren't even written until long after Paul died, that's not surprising, but Paul would've had access to primary witnesses like Peter. Why does he never talk about Jesus' actual life? Thus the debate that's raged for millennia... did Paul, possibly the most famous and influential Christian in history, actually believe Jesus existed on Earth?
This is also an example for the gentleman above, of the many different interpretations there have been of Christianity. It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not you burn people, but it is a very fundamental question.
I really wish I was in a different school.