“Who Watches the Watchers”

"One man speaking secondhand nonsense cannot change the world."

In a completely rational, sane world without wishful or magical thinking that might be true... and there are always other societal factors at play, I agree. But just as Liko on Mintaka III revived belief in an "overseer", Saul of Tarsus (later Paul) on planet Earth did something similar... and I think that may possibly have been the writers' allegorical intent here. Saul never met Jesus of Nazareth in the flesh, so all of his information about his life and ministry was secondhand... but when he had that vision of the "messiah" on the road to Damascus (whatever the real nature or cause of it was), we are told that he was converted... and subsequently did more to spread the fledgling Christian religion beyond Palastine into the Roman world than did any of the disciples whom the Bible says new Christ personally.

So, according to the central text of the Christian religion anyway, one man speaking secondhand nonsense after a revelatory vision CAN change the world... apparently.

Great reviews, nonetheless!

"One man speaking secondhand nonsense cannot change the world."

Saint Paul of Tarsus?

The "What-if" premise in "Who Watches the Watchers" is about being able to show people that religious belief stems from a human psychological condition that is rooted in a world-view which lacks perspective; that in gaining perspective the tendency for a person or a people to adhere to those beliefs becomes less and less tenable.

Picard's speech is against religion, make no mistake. I find your tendency to be distrustful of anti-faith shows and praising of pro-faith shows displeasing. The strength of a story does not depend upon its philosophy.

Elliott, you are absolutely right about the premise of "Who Watches the Watchers", and that is why it is my least favorite episode of an otherwise stellar season. I understand that any series will reflect the views of its creator, but I also find it ironic that the Trek universe that embraces tolerance and multiculturalism at every turn can also depict people of faith as less highly evolved. I also find it interesting to compare Picard's speech here with his answer to Data's question "What is death?"

RE: "Who watches..." again : Jammer "I suppose the 20th century was still the "dark ages" because of all the silly human religious beliefs that persisted?" Well, frankly, yes. If you can't tolerate this notion or at least some version of it, why in the world do you watch let alone review Star Trek episodes? The abandonment of religion is tied in with the other events which according to canon defined the future we see here. That Picard would have the same hope for a promising younger civilisation is totally reasonable. It seems that, because you are unwilling to grant this stance the validity it deserves, you turn your attention to a secondary aspect of the episode (namely this "wonder" idea) and criticise it for not being fully realised. But the real premise of the story is totally and wonderfully realised; you just don't like what it had to say.

@ David H. : Star Trek was never "multicultural" or "tolerant" as you imply--it was never some new-age hippy nonsense show-rather it made a point of distinguishing between doe-eyed idealism and the rational goal of bettering oneself-it was and for ever shall be a balance of forces represented most purely by the friendship between Spock and Kirk and which disseminates across most of the other series and movies. Regarding Data's question; the understanding that intelligent organisms must move away from religion and the denial of all things metaphysical are not one and the same. There can be (and perhaps must be) a higher plane which surpasses our ability to apprehend, but that does not imply such a plane is endowed with consciousness. In fact, Schopenhauer would argue that the point at which metaphysics reach their apex is a point of utter unconsciousness, ie death.

@elliott

For starters, let me tell you that I respect the passion and conviction you approach Star Trek with. From yor numerous comments it is obvious that its worldview (or is it Weltanschauung:) ) means much to you.

At the same time, I think you are spending way too much time on establishing ideological correctness and "truewayism" with regards to Trek. I get the feeling you watch it as prophetic ennobling vision of boundless human potential first, drama (art?, would that be pretentious?) a distant second.

Nothing wrong with that, of course.

@Paul

Thank you for your lovely words. I find that you, like many, seem not to realise that first of all, coherence to premise is a fundamental factor in good drama--and I mean premise as defined by Lajos Egri as the core philosophical idea of a dramatic work (not an initial situation or "promo tagline" as many seem to define it).

Secondly, Star Trek in particular was designed with this in its hierarchy genetic code--the whole purpose of the thing was to espouse a philosophy founded upon a mythical journey. When that idea is removed, circumvented, denied or simply ignored, the drama becomes weak. Now, for many this was just a show about people travelling around in space (meaning either the show failed to prove its premise or even establish it or the episodic nature of TV meant that the thread of premise was ignorable). Both Voyager and DS9 in their own ways of course maintained something like a premise throughout their respective runs (although DS9's was reinvented twice, and was completely anti-trek), but TNG was a strange case. Overall, season 3 is the most philosophically consistent (and thereby strongest overall), but having peaked so early meant that by season 6 there was little left to prove or do, which led to a great deal of wandering in the final two seasons.

A drama must at all times strive to prove its premise; it must work constantly, and the machinations of that proof are the stuff of dialogue and plot. When this goal is ignored, it is precisely the artistic integrity of a work which suffers.

@Elliott

"...coherence to premise is a fundamental factor in good drama--and I mean premise (...) as the core philosophical idea of a dramatic work.

Agreed. That is one of the reasons why I could never fully support Voyager - its characterwork and plots are completely at odds with the established premise; the darn thing just won't let me get, what's the hip word nowadays, immersed in the setting.

But here's where I get off the train with regards to your definition of premise. Note that with Voyager I'm having problems with premise as conceived and followed through by *that* show. Voyager's premise, Voyager's (in)ability to live up to it.

On the other hand, you are critisizing DS9 for not being true to the premise of a completely *different* show, namely original Star Trek. Now, I'm not entirely certain even that's true, but for the sake of argument, let's say it is.

My question now is: why would DS9 have an obligation to TOS? That's what I was aiming at with my previous comment regarding your "Weltanchauung". Although it's absolutely your right to do so, I think you're imposing ideological boundaries on what a show can and can't do, what it can and can't *be*, establishing limits based not on internal dramatic considerations inherent to the show in question, but on external axioms or dogmas stipulated from above.

Elliott wrote, "The abandonment of religion is tied in with the other events which according to canon defined the future we see here."

Actually, religion is treated unevenly in the Trek universe--sometimes positively, sometimes negatively. For instance, consider the TOS episode in which Kirk is defended in court against the death of a crewman ("Court Martial") and his lawyer speaks in praise of the Bible. Or, the episode in which the TOS crew battles "gods" and Kirk says we only need the one God. Or, perhaps the insistence by Kasidy Yates that her mother would prefer her to be married by a minister. Of course, then there is the ENTIRE series of DS9 with its treatment of faith.

Obviously, not all religion was abandoned by the 23rd and 24th centuries in the Star Trek Universe. Q.E.D.

@ Sam :

I'll grant that Trek's treatment of economics is a bit botched with unnecessary references to "expense" and "gambling" but the religion issue throughout TNG's run was crystal clear.

In "Court Martial," Cogley brings up the bible as an example (one of many) of documents which define morality and list "human rights." It does in no way indicate a validation of Christianity as a religion and most definitely not evidence that it is practised in the 23rd century.

The second episode you mention is "Who Mourns for Adonais?" and the line is a bit perplexing given the episode's message seems rather clear that the worship of deities is counter to modern human culture. But, it is there, so I'll give you that one example.

The example from DS9 is something I and others have criticised as totally disrespectful of Trek reality. It's a slap in the face by René Echevarria of all people (the episode is "Penumbra"--a word which under a positive spin revels in DS9's signature "shades of grey" and spun under me is a poetic figurehead for "subversive uncertainty").

Religion was not purported to be abandoned by all people in the 23rd/24th centuries, but by humans and most of the Federation. Klingons, the Dominion (sort of), numerous Delta Quadrant species and of course Bajorans are quite undeniably religious. The issue isn't that religion shows up, it very well should being such an important part of human legacy and history. But the depiction in "Penumbra" is akin to doing a show set in 2012 with people worshiping Zeus or Bacab. It's historically inaccurate.

@Paul :

My apologies for the tardiness of my reply :

1) Voyager ;
In a dramatic work, the premise can only be known by the end. Yes, the premise may be more or less stated in the beginning (this was done in BSG for a related example by way of Adama's 2nd speech to the fleet in the miniseries). Janeway said very clearly in the pilot that they would be "one crew: a Starfleet crew" which would continue to uphold the principles of the Federation and the goals of Starfleet whilst pursuing a course home. Now, many people wanted to see a conflict between the Maquis and Starfleet crews which led to a kind of warped or abandoned Trek philosophy which was radically different from TOS and TNG, but that was never the premise of the show. If it had been, it would be as guilty as DS9 of disrespecting the franchise. There were significant story-telling problems in Voyager, but it never violated its premise.

2) DS9's lack of respect for the franchise :

Let me use as a parallel case, the Prequel Trilogy from "Star Wars." While "fanboys' as their often derided will soak up and love absolutely anything which inhabits the Star Wars universe, most agree the films were regrettably awful. I have a few good things to say about them, but they are pale shadows of the originals. However, far worse than the fact that, on their own, they make pretty lousy movies, the philosophical inconsistencies ruin much of what was great about the Original Trilogy. That The Force became the product of sci-fi microörganisms, light sabres became stand-in plot devices and the entire mythology of Vader's character was proved to be false (that he was ever anything other than a terrible, selfish and murderous person is doubtful). Now, on the one hand, the prequel films catre to a different audience--they're rife with special effects and lots of fan-wanking that appeals to certain demographics. In terms of quality, the films did not have to exist in the same vein or appeal to the same audience as the original films did and do. Take, for example, the newest Indiana Jones film. It was horrendous, but because of the timeline and the way those films are structured, there is no way, no matter how awful, any new film can detract from the originals. In Star Wars' case, this is not so. It wasn't just that the films were poor, it is that the information they provided contradicted on a fundamental level the *premise* of Star Wars as a unified entity of art.

In that way, by calling itself Star Trek and inhabiting the Universe called "Star Trek," DS9 was responsible for adhering to the über-premise of Star Trek, as defined by the original creators, including Gene Roddenberry. That does not mean that "his word is law," and that there is little or no flexibility allowed in the writing, but veering so far away from the original premise was detrimental to the franchise.

To me this is one of the best episodes of TNG. Now, I might be biased because I'm an atheist, but I do think Picard's stance against religion in this context most definitely makes sense.

When you start trying to explain that which is hard to explain by invoking gods, you've entered a dangerous place in terms of trying to understand the universe. This sort of explanation is paper thin, because it doesn't really explain anything at all. Yet, as our history shows entire organizations and complicated dogmas can arise out of the most ridiculous declarations. So I think Picard is reasonably dismayed by this and understandably concerned how this might affect the Mintakan development. And let's not pretend that various religions on Earth has not repeatedly gotten into petty fights with people simply doing basic science that harmed no one. The danger is real enough.

I think we should also bear in mind that the Mintakans aren't given to flights of fancy the way humans are. So an eye-witness account of something might well carry more weight with them. For what it is worth.

Regarding the DS9 talk (and I don't think it is fair to judge this episode by a show that came quite a bit lateR), I feel that DS9 really let us down in how it portrayed religion. Here we had the objects of the religion as beings one could actually meet (with perhaps some difficulty). At first they seem unaware of Bajor. Throughout the show it is unclear if they want worship, how much they care about Bajor (see the Occupation), and whether they respond to prayer -- though they do respond to Sisko yelling at them, but that's a bit different. These issues aren't ever looked at carefully. Heck, as best I remember they don't even look at the issue of whether the prophets DESERVE worship (or if any kind of being ever deserves worship). "Who Mourns for Adonis?" at least did that. The treatment of religion in DS9 was distinctly lacking in thought.

"...a dozen villagers who seem more like isolated nomads than part of a real, larger society."

They're not nomads; they have obviously permanent structures. Nor do they seem particularly isolated; Troi and Riker's arrival is no great surprise, which means there must be travel and trade with other communities. No, the Mintakans have a perfectly solid society, just one that hasn't gotten past perhaps a Bronze Age-equivalent technology.

@Peremensoe: Also, they explicitly state at the beginning that the duck blind is to observe an extended family unit. The microcosm might not really tie in with the fear of massive cultural contamination presented in the episode, but it is established right at the very beginning.

If this episode was rated on the curve of Star Trek Voyager or Star Trek Enterprise, I think it would have been rated at least 3 and a half stars.

It's take on the Prime Directive being considered definitive is well said--because it's a smart story that is beautifully told.

The scene where Nuria holds up her hand in anguish with Picard's blood to Liko is one of the best single shots of TNG.

Really? I always thought her anguish was overacted. The real strength of this episode are the earlier chase/action scenes which are tightly shot and interestingly scored. I do like this episode, of course, but its strength is certainly not in the acting by the guest stars.

I've said elsewhere that the star ratings need not mean very much, but two-and-a-half - on the same level as "The Ensigns of Command" - sounds about right.

This episode is primarily an episode-long elaboration on Arthur C. Clarke’s dictum that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. In this case, however, “magic” is specifically religion. To begin with, I am an agnostic who borders on atheism, but I generally do not oppose art or writing which argues for a religious perspective on principle; I like this episode a great deal, but not because I automatically approve of an anti-religious stance but because this episode argues its case well.

The Mintakans being identified as Vulcan-like species is a detail which is used primarily to establish that these are not unreasonable people (though this might have been a self-defeating decision, since we know that Vulcans were highly emotional before they devoted themselves completely to logic), and that it is not a matter of the people themselves being irrational but of the people attempting to make logical deductions from insufficient data. People (and Mintakans are meant to be stand-ins for people within our past) are pattern-seeking creatures, and it’s this pattern-seeking that allows for logical deduction (and induction) as well as our great advances. However, sometimes the patterns are false (the correlation between Riker and Troi rescuing the anthropologist and the thunderstorm is not causation) and the necessity of relying on the supernatural to explain certain events diminishes as knowledge about the natural world grows (i.e. Picard et al.’s life-saving abilities). The episode proceeds with everyone making generally well-reasoned arguments, if sometimes laced with a great deal of fear, and the structure of Picard et al. attempting various means to quell the consequences of “Gods” entering the Mintakan community’s consciousness and being confronted with the resiliency of the newfound belief makes for a good (if talky, which is not really a problem) series of debates.

It’s true that we are being shown only one small community, but I don’t think that this episode is really suggesting that this is a microcosm of the entire planet, or anything like that. Rather, this group is the group that was being observed, and the people that saw remarkable apparently supernatural happenings. As others have pointed out, Saul’s experience spread around the world given enough time, and it’s not impossible that something similar would happen here. Moreover, even if only a small community changes its worldview as a result of the interference, it is still a big deal and one which Picard understandably wants to correct if he can. The movement into fanaticism as a result of the possibility of an Overseer is obviously a jaundiced take on what religion does to people, but it does flow naturally from the Mintakans’ characters, wherein the belief that one’s fate is largely governed by one’s own actions and random chance is replaced by the belief that one’s own moral code becomes irrelevant in the face of attempting to adhere to the whims of an all-powerful being.

Picard’s dedication to the Prime Directive really shines through here, in ways that reflect both positively and negatively on him. The hint of a standard Picard/Crusher conflict comes up when he indicates that he would have preferred Crusher let Liko die, and his severity is nearly unsympathetic, but this is a man who puts his money where his mouth is, and is willing to risk death himself, particularly after he intuits (from his experience with Nuria) that only blood and death will establish that they are not Gods.

The episode’s real weakness, it seems to me, is that the ending, while somewhat sombre, doesn’t emphasize enough how much contamination has already been done. Picard bleeds, but he doesn’t die (or if he dies, he is revived immediately); it’s enough to communicate that he is not a god, but it doesn’t seem like his arm in a sling will really communicate his relative powerlessness the way it should. Additionally, these people have been shown a glimpse into the future—they know that there are alien life forms, that the technology exists to disappear into the air and to fly into the stars and to heal seemingly unhealable wounds. This doesn’t hurt the episode all that much, but the ending does feel fall a bit short of what came before and this keeps it firmly out of the 4 star range for me; I’d put it on the low end of 3.5 stars.

The other thing I want to add, in reference to the title: one big aspect of the Prime Directive is designed to limit Federation power, to curb imperialistic impulses. The Federation are much, much more powerful than many of the cultures in the galaxy, and any interference would end up being an attempt to remake these cultures into versions of the Federation, as is suggested by one of the anthropologists jumping on the idea that Picard could take the opportunity to give some guidelines. Non-interference except in extreme circumstances is the best way to avoid imposing their values and essentially frightening others into compliance.

This does make Picard's speech indicating that religion is something that all species shake off as they become more advanced, and also his statements that Nuria will certainly explore the stars eventually, a little ironic -- part of the reason Picard believes as strongly as he does in minimizing interference is because he assumes that all cultures will, if left to their own devices, evolve into the 'correct,' i.e. Federation-esque way. I'm not saying Picard is a hypocrite exactly; he certainly maintains respect for the Klingons, who are religious(-ish) and run counter to many Federation values. But it's an interesting (unexamined?) wrinkle in the episode.

This is of particular note in that it builds on the themes from "The Survivors" in the previous episode (in addition to many in other seasons) -- one could say that Kevin was following his own Prime Directive in refusing to use his power and maintaining his human identity as tightly as he can.

@William B:

May I just say, sir, how much of a pleasure it is to read your comments. Your criticisms, while never shallow and rarely betraying bias, demonstrate a firm grasp of the Trek genre as opposed to a more general literary criticism.

Regarding the ending of this episode, I found the final scenes a demonstration of how, even without or *especially* without religion, the inspiration to grow and discover the Universe is is present in the Mentaken's culture. The grand mystery of the unknown is not lost upon them (made manifest by their brief and legendary interaction with the Federation), but does not demand caving to the fearful instinct to deify said unknown.

@Elliott: Thank you! The high level set by Jammer and many of the commenters (yourself included) are an inspiration to write well. My girlfriend is currently watching TNG for the first time, and it's providing an opportunity for revisiting the show for the first time in, I don't know, more than a decade (and it was a pretty formative show for me, and I'd rewatched those episodes ad nauseam back then), and it's a pleasure to think about these in a way I was a little too young to at the time.

" Regarding the ending of this episode, I found the final scenes a demonstration of how, even without or *especially* without religion, the inspiration to grow and discover the Universe is is present in the Mentaken's culture. The grand mystery of the unknown is not lost upon them (made manifest by their brief and legendary interaction with the Federation), but does not demand caving to the fearful instinct to deify said unknown. "

Ah! Thank you. There was something about the ending to this episode that seemed to elude me, and I think this might be it -- I was so focused on the narrow resolution to the is-Picard-a-God question, but the sense of wonder at the unknown/the future and the response to it without fear (something Jammer also mentions) is there. I do especially like how the way to avoid fearing Picard et al. is to see the limits of their power, and to bond over the knowledge of death (first the anthropologist/observer, and later Picard's injury) -- which also suggests that there are some mysteries of the universe left to explore even after they get to the stars.

I still think there's a slight sense that Picard, by encouraging their sense of wonder at the unknown, is still trying to steer them toward (basically) human evolution in contrast to the spirit of the PD, but it's possible that it simply can't be helped after the initial damage is done.

Some great comments here. My own personal feeling is that this is one of the episodes most true to the ethos of TNG. Spirituality (the belief in something greater than yourself that you are a part of) and Religion (dogma, supreme beings, etc), are NOT the same thing.

TNG has no issues with spirituality, as Picard's answer to Data about death shows, but is against organised religion in all its forms.

DS9 and Battlestar Galactica for me almost ruined themselves with their poorly thought out religious nonsense.

I think the wonderful music from Ron Jones deserves special mention here. Watching on Blu-Ray just now the scene where Picard is in the observation lounge with Nuria looking down on the planet gives me goosebumps.

I agree that Jammer seems to be a little harsh with his review here. I thought this one was quite good and nailed the Prime Directive concerns appropriately. Solid episode, an easy 3 stars.

Does it bother anyone else that Liko is able to understand Picard at all in the sickbay, when no one is addressing him such that a universal translator would be in effect? Much as with the leaps to absolute certainty this episode makes, it feels like a convenient shortcut for the sake of allegory that doesn't make sense.

That's a good point Gary!

Also, even though I'm sure we will develop a universal translator one day, it still has to take what you say, convert it and then output the translation. Given some languages can phrase things in total reverse to others, it's not gonna work until after a full phrase has been spoken.

So even when we see advanced Star Trek races talking to each other, the depiction of the universal translator doesn't really stand up to scrutiny!

Ugh! now I know how Trajan felt about "The Measure of a Man". An episode that's otherwise fine and praised by others is completely ruined by the fact that it goes against stuff you've been studying for a while now. And I don't mean the religious thing.

It's the anthropology aspect of it what drives me crazy.

First, did you guys noticed that we wouldn't have a problematic situation if that accident at the observation installation didn't happen? So, it seems to be ok to spy on other civilizations just because they are less technologically advanced. Great. They are studying them like they were a bunch of animals.

Second, that underlying concept of linear evolution. The Federation feels the need to study the Mintakans because they are thought to be representative of a former state of their own evolution history. Oh, really? Why does it have to be that way? The Mintakans aren’t a transparent window to the past like the federation thinks they are. This is an almost pure XIX century anthropology mindset (early XX being generous). Now, I’m aware this is something more or less present all the time in TNG, but it never took central stage until now. And sure, we’re talking about a show that’s more concerned with human drama and sci-fi than being anthropologically correct, but I can’t help myself here.

Now, even if I ignore that issue, this episode still doesn’t work to me. The guest actors are a bit stiff, and the events seemed to develop far too quickly to feel convincing. We move from first contact to religious fervor in 20 minutes. Plus, the only real good scene in my eyes is Picard saying that speech right at the end; but that’s a huge throwback to season 1 with episodes such as “Justice”.

Jammer rating seems about right to me.


Edit. - On religion: I don't see anything wrong with Picard's actions in the context of this episode alone. Maybe his line of thought is a bit anti-religion but he couldn't be more right about the importance of not being called a God.

Picard is a fine guy and he wouldn't abuse that sudden position of power, but any other guy has the potential to enslave the whole Mintakans civilization. What he did was the best course of action given the situation at hand.

Plus, he only has one episode to get it right, hah.

I TOTALLY disagree with Jammer about "one an speaking nonsense" not being sufficient as the foundation of a religion. Human history proves it is actually TOTALLY sufficient.

And I loved Picard's anti-religion speech. Yay for The Picard! :-)

This episode does a really good job of explaining and defining the prime directive and its importance!

This:
"An entire planet's culture (and this has frequently been one of my complaints about Trek) is represented based solely on a dozen villagers who seem more like isolated nomads than part of a real, larger society."

is of course a common occurrence in Trek episodes. A budget issue? It's not limited to only this one.

I understand why this episode might hurt the feelings of religious people. Yes I figure we are still in the dark ages ;-)

Agree with Elliot's comments above. This episode is entirely in keeping with the Trek ethos.

I feel that today people are quick to speak in a bigoted manner against those who believe in God. In fact, the very two first comments on this page are clear examples of that. However, intelligence does not bar one from believing in God, nor vice versa. Nor is atheism a sure bet against ignorance or wild theories that spread. After all, communism is an athiestic political system, and it spread far and killed many.

Let us now all realize that when wild ideas spread, it is not due necessarily to religion in general. It can be the specific religion in question, but usually dumb ideas are simply the flaws of humanity itself, by being unnecessarily intolerant, controlling of others, or one society just plain wanting what someone else has.

As far as Trek goes, an above person commented that Trek is pretty schizophrenic on the matter, and this is quite true. Roddenberry himself was an atheist, though probably he preferred atheism as he didn't like the idea of a supreme being having something to say about his promiscuity and theft. Seriously, Roddenberry stole film from Paramount to sell, took credit for other people's work, and wrote words to the TOS theme song so he could steal half the royalties from Sandy Courage. Certainly such a man would be uncomfortable with a moralistic God.

So, basically put, atheism is no guarantee that morality will exist.

"While it would be against the Prime Directive to allow Picard to be seen as a god, Picard has a speech here that seems to be against religion at all."

Interesting, that was one of the only interesting things in the episode, and with which I agreed.

If you can't understand why people believing in unproved (and unprovable) fables that dictate their behavior and thought, conveniently exploited by a few leaders, is a problem for science and the advancement of civilisations, then maybe you should give it some more thought...

This show started all right, but I lost interest about half way through. First, why is the Federation studying this civilization through a window (ceiling cat style)? It's creepy and as Rikko says, probably not very helpful for learning about the history of the Federation. And I felt like the Enterprise kept digging itself into a hole. If they had just decided to leave the system after the first guy had seen "the Picard", that would probably have minimized contact.

But no, the Enterprise needed to go back and eradicate the great evil of religion, "undo the damage it caused". They're laying it thick here. Just because one guy believes in "The Picard" doesn't mean "the inquisition, chaos or holy wars" are coming. Religion is a lot more complex than that and who knows what will happen or would have happened over centuries? The episode is extremely simplistic in suggesting that religious belief will automatically send them back into the dark ages.

The big failure of this episode, is that they end up violating the Prime Directive big time by letting them see the ship and telling them about the stars, etc. But of course, they won't share any of their technology with them. The creepy Federation scientists will just keep on spying on them through their window.

True, religion is more complex than "inquisitions, chaos or holy wars," but complexity is not a justification for Picard and the Enterprise to knowingly propagate a mistruth to an innocent population.

The historical events which get twisted and stuffed into holy narratives are not to blame when religious entities use their power to corrupt and manipulate their flocks, but the point here is the Mentakans developed sufficiently as a culture to draw their conclusions rationally and thus, credulity was minimal. Picard never told Nuria that "there is no God", simply that what she and Liko, et al. thought they were seeing was based on a misconception brought about by the extreme gulf in technology between the Mentakans and the Federation. When Picard was finally able to contextualise their interactions (via analogy and the very human limits of death), it was the Mentakans' OWN reasoning which led to their dismissal of Picard-as-God.

The Federation ideal--that eventually, all cultures evolve into atheistic, non-capitalistic problem-solvers--is ethically no different from the ideal that Americans and the west in general have about democracy; eventually, all nations will embrace this enlightened way of thinking and, while we mustn't *force* other cultures to accept our values, we ought to encourage their natural growth in that direction. It is no more or less arrogant of the Federation to believe/behave this way than for the US to support the Ukraine's advance towards western ideals.

Now, perhaps it IS arrogant, but again, that does not make it wrong.

@Elliott: "It is no more or less arrogant of the Federation to believe/behave this way than for the US to support the Ukraine's advance towards western ideals.

Now, perhaps it IS arrogant, but again, that does not make it wrong."

Fortunately for the Federation, Picard's strategy for dealing with the Mintakans didn't involve staging a coup on their planet while hiding behind grand ideas.

"One man speaking secondhand nonsense cannot change the world."

What about Christ, Mahomet, Buddha etc.? Religions often times started as teaching of a one man, who have ridiculous, supernatural claims. Unfortunately people believe them- and that's how all those "inquisitions, chaos or holy wars," mentioned by Jean-Luc, started in the first place. Yes, this episode - like most of "Star Trek" - is promoting atheist point of view so naturally religious people can be offended by it. Too bad I say, because there is nothing untrue about Picard's view on religion. In fact, this episode quite convincingly describes how religions could come to be. And unlike "TNG The Devil's due" it take itself seriously and it's even more friendly towards religious people, since it doesn't suggests that religions are simply work of a con artist, instead it suggests that it is a simple matter of misunderstanding and people's ignorance and naivete. There is no ill will in "Who Watches the Watchers".

"The episode is extremely simplistic in suggesting that religious belief will automatically send them back into the dark ages."

Funny, that beginning of secularism and enlightenment movements which diminished role of Church and rejected religious dogma, was the beginning of unprecedented, technological and social progress...

I have a hard time accepting the premise that religion wouldn't exist at all in the Star Trek future. If anything, religion is notorious for its lack of ability to change. Knowing that there are alien races out there wouldn't stop religion from existing. Being able to explore the galaxy wouldn't stop it. WW3 wouldn't stop it. A nuclear war might even make MORE people religious.

I just can't see a point where religion just sort of stops existing. All of it, worldwide. It doesn't make sense. Indeed, you'd probably see aliens adopting human religion and vice versa. It just doesn't go away as easily as Trek wants it to. It never historically has. No matter how non-religious the population tends to be, religion is still there and pops back up again and again.

@ Sean :

If you consider human psychological evolution to increase in speed as much as the technological evolution the Trek-verse asks you to believe, it's not so difficult to conceive. Think about how much weaker religion's hold on us is now compared to 400 years ago. With the disappearance of money and corporate political institutions, religion serves to purpose in the Federation. I'm certain that people are still spiritual (there is evidence of this), but organised religion is anathema to the kind of civilisation we see.

What is this "organized religion" that is being demonized?

It's nothing more than two or more people agreeing on a particular metaphysical premise. There's nothing sinister about that, nor much of anything to distinguish it from the vague "spirituality" that you find acceptable.

Now I'm disappointed because I don't know if this actually worth watching, or if evangelical atheists are just praising it because they agree with the message.

@Falconus: ironic that you would choose the word "demonised" since the concept of the demon is a unique product of religion itself. Religion has a way of damning itself, and bureucracies have a way of magnifying inherent faults. Granting political, bureucractic power to formalised collective wishful thinking is sinister in my book.

I was really surprised by the low rating on this episode since it is easily my favorite in TNG.

People have made fine points back and forth about the consistency of atheism within the Federation here, and I don't really have the time to dig into that at the moment except to say that Sisko's role as Emissary in DS9 never, in my opinion, converted him from an atheist Star-Fleet commander into a believer. It seems that he maintains that the Prophets are some kind of 4th dimensional worm-hole aliens, incredibly intelligent but ignorant in their own way about corporeal life and certainly never regards them as gods. It is very interesting to ponder how such incredibly powerful entities could be so flawed in regard to their understanding of our universe. In this stage, Sisko's role is to define and defend "humanity" ie-corporeal beings by engaging in debate rhetoric was one of the most fascinating aspects of this show.

In regard to "Who Watches the Watchers", I found Patrick Stewart's interaction with the proto-Vulcan leader absolutely spellbinding. The musical score was perfect when Picard asked her to 'touch his face...flesh and blood', it gives me goosebumps every time I watch it. Picard's eventual answer to the question, "I wonder if we will ever travel the stars?" ... "of that I have no doubt" carries with it such a profound spirituality in itself, which I feel most true scientists today hold dear. Science is bad mouthed as a kind of religion in itself, but true explorers willingly except their own ignorance about the complexities of the universe through the profoundly limited lens of human perception, and carry on a question for knowledge despite the enormity of life's complexities.

Within this, religion was, and always has been a poor explanation for the wonders of life.

Changing gears from religion, I saw some of this episode while eating lunch today, specifically the portion from when Picard brings Nuria on board the Enterprise. The dramatic license during the scene in sickbay bothered me. I realize the point was to illustrate to Nuria that even "the Picard" cannot save everyone from dying (like the poor researcher in the scene), but you have to wonder about the lack of action from Crusher for someone who was, apparently, critically ill.

The woman is in fairly obvious distress (why?), so Crusher orders some sort of drug, which she oddly administers through her sternum. Now it's hard to assess given the black box of 24th century medicine, but no arrest code? No CPR? Intubation? It all looked very 19th century ("I think we're going to lose her"), as the staff hovered over the no-hope patient without actually, well, doing anything.

It's a fairly enormous contrast from how things work now, but then that's typical for TV and Star Trek in particular. Sick/dying people are always awake, distressed, or else able to carry on a conversation in a halting voice. Are there no ICUs in the 24th century?

@Picard from USS Phoenix: That is a simply unfactual remark. The first universities were started by the Catholic Church in the eleventh century. The new world was discovered by a Catholic. Ancient writings from, Josephus to Tacitus were preserved by the church, and many church fathers studied Aristotle. Even most of the first hospitals were founded by the Catholic Church. Look at Albertus Magnus, Augustin-Louis Cauchy, Pierre Duhem, Jean-Baptiste Dumas, Roger Boscovich, Blaise Pascal, André-Marie Ampère, Gregor Mendel, Charles-Augustin de Coulomb, Pierre de Fermat, Antoine Laurent Lavoisier, Marin Mersenne, Alessandro Volta, Amedeo Avogadro, John Desmond Bernal and Henri Becquerel. The current wars in the Ukraine, and World Wars I and II, as well as the Cold War show that secularism did not cause violence to go away.

@John Logan:

A few things you have to realize in this kind of forum: the "science versus religion" paradigm is best understood when considered as the recent, western phenomenon that it is: secular humanism versus biblical literalism. You provide a nice collection of names and facts that should demonstrate the Cathlic Church's contribution to the natural (i.e. "pure") sciences, but I don't think that is really where the problem comes from. Indeed, the Catholic Church is hated by the evangelicals mainly because of her outright rejection of biblical literalism. So that makes her a target of both sides.

Also Islam truly is an organized religion which is anti science: Allah being pure will, his creation is an act purely of his will and not also of reason, so the universe is not reasonable or knowable by intellect but only if Allah wills that you know. But this subtlety is lost on those who have no interest in, or hate for, religion as such.

By the way I think you forgot to mention the Catholic priest who invented the Big Bang theory (although he called it "the primordial atom").

Where the Cathlic Church is harpooned over the natural sciences is squarely on it's flip-flop from Golden Boy Galileo to Social Parriah Galileo.

Outside of the technological developments from medieval monasteries, the Catholic Church has had very little interest in the applied sciences (i.e. technology), and I would guess this is because applied science doesn't give you that insight into the mind of God the like the pure sciences do.

It is also paramount to remember that when people shout "science!" they often times mean pure science, technology, and the speculations of popular scientists all at once, with an ignorance that a distinction exists.

Thanks for defending the faith and our Holy Mother and Teacher, the Roman Catholic Church, and for defending the truth of her constant, scientific search for knowledge and understanding of this universe.

Picard was right, by the way, in that he is not a god, and that the universe is knowable by reason, and not magic!

@Eddington Thank you for your balanced response. It is true Fundamentalists Protestants take the bible completely literally, and many Muslims reject science all together. This is ironic as in the nineteenth century rationalists tried to pain Catholicism as anti-science while portraying Islam and Protestantism as pro science. Also it is ironic that like with many issue Protestants are either extremely liberal or super conservative. They are either from the seventeenth century Puritan women don`t work tradition, or the enlighment inspired, modernist, the virgin birth was a metaphor abortion should be allowed for any reason till the baby is independent tradition. Either they bless gay marriages, or they would like them killed.

You are somewhat right about aplied science, but the church doesn`t object to it either. The church was fine with the advancement of medical care as it could help the innocent. Just as long as it is not used to change sexual ethics. Man am I happy that the federal appeals courts in Illinois and Washington ruled that Catholic hospitals and pharmacies do not have to provide the morning after pill. Hey Smile from Boston Legal your anti-Catholic episode was once again outdated by real life court cases. But I am getting extremely off track here.

Thank you. Yes Thomas Of Aquinas got it right on the reason part.

Also talking about generalising both science and religion, this episode can in no way paralell Christianity. Jesus was not an outsider to his believers, had no technological advantage over them, and although Paul was an important preacher the gospels were not written by him, and unlike Protestants both Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxes did not overplay his importance.

I'm probably going to open up a whole can of worms (if it hasn't been opened already in these comments), but I really do not like this episode.

I don't think I could say why any better than another reviewer already has, so I'm going to quote it, with slight additions of my own. If you're interested, it's from this site.... rightfans.blogspot.com

"In this episode, we've got Riker and Troi serving as the mouthpieces for a philosophical treatise that begins and ends (apparently) with polygamy and pure egalitarianism (taking the form of tribal/communal life) and the supposedly logical Mintakans behaving completely and totally without logic. In their dialogue, we heard the away team go to great pains to present the Mintakans as deeply logical (and of course, what's more logical than open relationships and polygamy...or so you'd believe if you'd listen to Troi). But at the same time, as soon as the Mintakans are confronted with something they don't understand, they go ballistic and prepare for the human sacrifices, inquisitions and holy wars!

The writers cannot have it both ways and maintain intellectual honesty. Because if we're to believe the events of this episode follow logically from its premise, then the writers must be arguing that religion is the source of all logical failings and conflict...and that, my friends, could not possibly be a more dangerous or historically inaccurate message. History is filled with irrational conflicts over everything from sex to limited resources to conflicting religious ideals...but the mere PRESENCE of a belief in a higher being has never once (you heard me!) been the true source of any conflict. How do I know that? Because atheists have never run a country...apart, perhaps, from Soviet Russia and now Communist China...and um...those countries don't exactly have a sterling record of peaceful, purely logical co-relations with their neighbors. Like it or not, my agnostic or atheist readers...every government's peculiar form of authority and morality is informed by an ethical standard that is owed, at least in part, to one religion or another - or it is informed by the needs of the empowered few (dictatorships, cabals, etc)...and none of those governments made war with their enemies simply because the other guy believed in God or not. Why should we assume, then, that the Mintakans are both logical...and somehow prone to a belief in the supernatural that would lead them to commit heinous crimes? Why should simply believing in a higher power lead IMMEDIATELY to ritual sacrifice? Where is the logic in that?

Incidentally, while I'm tearing this show apart, what is logical about polygamy? The heroic Enterprise crew hears about this culture and they all smile and nod at how impressive it is. Do you know who, here on Earth, likes polygamy? Misogynists. That's right...polygamy has never once been employed in our entire history as a means to greater freedom for one gender...and almost always, it creates significantly lesser sexual and emotional freedoms for women. Of course, the Mintakans' brand of polygamy is female dominated (Trek writers love doing that, because if they did it the other way, people would see how wrong it was immediately)...but one gender having the sexual power over another is always wrong...no matter who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed. And this is a flimsy cover for an obviously bad idea. Women don't like polygamy! There may be a few out there who think open relationships and multiple partners are great, but they are dwarfed by the men who are impressed with it. And that's as easy to understand as anything you'll see on this blog. Women are biologically programmed to dream for the security, emotional bonding and child-rearing assistance of ONE man...one committed partner. As one philosopher put it, "Men dream of waking up with a different beautiful woman every day...women dream of waking up with the same man." You can't fight reality, no matter how badly you might want to...a female-dominated polygamy simply doesn't work, long term.

Not that a male dominated polygamy is good either...in both arrangements, it's the women who suffer. In one, women are viewed as prized possessions...social standing is gained by the men who can attain many wives, each of whom is there to service some specific need of his. In the other arrangement, women carry the biologically unnatural function of caring for multiple men...men who would become a drain on her resources and her emotional energy. All of which is to say...there is nothing logical or desirable about a society that practices polygamy. Don't believe me? You go ask the victims of Mormon ideology.

Compound this episode's lousy moral foundation with some seriously bad acting on the part of Kathryn Leigh Scott (Nuria) and Ray Wise (Liko) and even the regulars...including (gasp!) Patrick Stewart (who's over-dramatic bellowing about how he will not allow a culture to fall into the dark ages of superstition is as bad a moment as he ever gives us), and you have a recipe for a big steaming pile of shit.

Atheism is no more logical than mysticism...they're all "isms" and that implies they all are irrational beliefs in things that cannot be proven. There is no evidence that the appearance of belief in one God was the way into darkness for prehistoric man and no evidence that atheism is bringing enlightenment to us now. In fact, I would argue that belief in God has inspired our greatest achievements...INCLUDING our thirst for freedom and the Western belief that all life is sacred."

Add to all of that the fact that this is yet ANOTHER example of how the application of the Prime Directive is morally questionable yet never questioned. So, apparently isn't better if Liko dies than risk the initial contamination, huh Picard?

What can I say in this episode's defense? Well, the music was nice.

1/10

@Luke I completely agree. It is a little known fact that the Romans and the Greeks were just as fine with infantcide as many Liberals are with abortion, and like with abortion this mainly targeted girls. This was banned by the Catholic Church, along with polygamy, gladiator games, human sacrifice, forced marriages, and so on. In fact under the Romans you could force slaves to have sex with you but the church also banned that. Under the Romans women could not independently own property, yet the church also changed that. In fact witchhunts were long seen as Pagan nonsense by the Catholic Church being forbidden by Pope Gregory VII and Pope Alexander IV.

@Luke:

I'm afraid it's glaringly obvious that your umbrage with this episode is an unwillingness to take at face value the destructiveness of the religious mind. Now that is your right and I'm not here to debate it with you, but you have devalued every nuance and beautiful turn of storytelling in this episode on the grounds that its message upset you, which is unfair. I find CS Lewis' conclusions to be woefully thin and borderline banal, but I don't hold that against the loveliness of his poetry or strength of his narrative.

@Elliott:

Well, given that I am religious and have been my entire life and yet haven't turned to human sacrifices or holy wars, I'd say, yes, I am unwilling to take the "destructiveness of the religious mind" at face value.

This episode seems hell-bent determined to say that even the mere trace of belief in the supernatural will automatically lead to disaster. I simply do not, cannot, accept that. Has religion been used by evil people. Of course it has. Does that mean that every religious person is evil. Of course not. The vast, overwhelming, majority of theists are not, and have never been, in the business of doing what the Mintakans do in this episode. All it takes for these supposedly rational and logical people to go crazy is the slightest trace of belief. One guy shows up, says he saw a god, and immediately it's "praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!" and "let's start fearing the weather!"

To me, that is what is banal - the unwillingness to even attempt to see the other side of the argument. As John Logan pointed out, religion has benefited humanity is numerous ways. Taking Christianity alone - it was Christians who originally built the modern university system, developed the concept of international law and ended the slave trade. To focus on only the good and ignore the bad about religion is only to create a straw-man. And let's be honest, there are bad aspects - the Inquisition was horrible, jihad is horrible, certain aspects of the Crusades were horrible, witch-hunts were horrible. But to do the reverse is also to create a straw-man.

If you, or anybody else out there reading this, is an atheist, I say - more power to you. It's your life; live it as you see fit, as long as you're not hurting anybody. But, I hate straw-man arguments and that's what this episode ultimately is. And it surprises me because Trek has had a history of more honest discussions about faith and non-faith - just look at episodes from "The Original Series" like "Balance of Terror," "Who Mourns for Adonis?" and "Bread and Circuses."

"Does that mean that every religious person is evil. Of course not."

The idea that every religious person is not evil is irrelevant. This episode does not and can not argue that, and neither does Elliott.

Even if "This episode seems hell-bent determined to say that even the mere trace of belief in the supernatural will automatically lead to disaster" is true (which I do not think it is) such a premise does not immediately lead to "all religious people are evil".

I think what the episode is trying to say, and it's something I believe in... is that human beings think a higher power wants something FROM THEM will almost always lead to bad things. There really is no example (that I can think of) of human beings trying to please a higher power that hasn't gone horribly wrong at some point. Pick a religion where human beings have tried to please a higher power and you'll see examples of really bad things that come from it. Because somebody who believes/pretends to speak for the higher power will undoubtedly get stuff really, really freaking wrong and then lots of zealots will follow.

I personally am not against religion/religious beliefs/spirituality/etc. I don't even begrudge people the option to consider leading a life they believe would please a divine entity (I personally think the idea that you know what could please a God is ludicrous, but you're entitled). The second you attempt to try to convince large groups of OTHER PEOPLE that the things YOU THINK would please an divine entity would do so you are committing evil (IMHO)... with rare exceptions.

And as to the open relationships/polygamy think... I'm pretty sure Riker/Troi were joking around. I didn't particularly feel that they were being entirely serious in that scene... but I haven't watched it in awhile.

And as to their being rational meaning that they don't believe in God anymore... I don't think that's exactly what the episode means either. Rational beings don't believe that God controls the weather for crop season or that they send floods. You can be rational and believe in God, but science explains floods and weather patterns. They choose to not replace their believe in Greek-like Gods with a belief in a less intervention happy God, but the truth is that a lot of religion on this planet has been caused by people trying to explain things that their science was not advanced enough to explain.

The universe is a miraculous/wonderful place and it's beauty may be due to a creator... I can think of a dozen different ways that such a thing could be possible. But the last time the Mintakans believed in God they believed in the kind that could send lightning and floods if they were mad at you. It's not beneficial for anyone to believe in such nonsense.

@John Logan - The church doing some good things is not quite the same as the church being a force FOR GOOD. The fact is that if you look back at the Inquisition, Witch Hunts, Crusades and other such nonsense I can find you something bad that the church has done for every thing you find it's done good.

And I actually think that the church is one of the top 3 destructive forces in America today. And as to your disgusting comment comparing infanticide to abortion... it is a FACT that being opposed to abortion and also opposed to birth control is sadistic. People in the church and on the right that want to keep mindless sheep going to the polls would like very, very much to keep people getting abortions so they have something to whine about.

And it's also awesome that most of those assholes want poor people to have to give birth to babies they don't want because they had pregnancies they didn't want because they weren't allowed to have birth control and then cut welfare because who cares about the baby once it's born. Raging about poor people being wellfare queens also gets the sheeple to the polls. It's as disgusting as your comment.

Anyone who can convince themselves that abstinence only education coupled with no contraceptives, no abortion and no welfare is a good thing has their head so far up their ass that they have no business pretending they even understand the WORD logic.

"Pick a religion where human beings have tried to please a higher power and you'll see examples of really bad things that come from it. Because somebody who believes/pretends to speak for the higher power will undoubtedly get stuff really, really freaking wrong and then lots of zealots will follow."

But you could make that same argument for numerous human institutions, not just religion. Take the state, for instance - for any good that the institution of the state does for humanity, I can point to a corresponding evil (state-sponsored terrorism, genocide, war, violations of civil liberties, environmental disasters, etc.). Or take the environmentalist movement - it's done good by bringing important issues to public attention, but it's also spawned its own brand of zealots (like people saying we have to let people starve or forcibly sterilize whole populations in order to curb over-population).

The point I'm trying to make, which I don't see the episode making, is that you have to take the good with the bad. Or, don't throw the baby out with the bath water, I guess. Has religion caused evil? Yes, undoubtedly. Is that reason to view it as nothing more than (in Picard's own words) "superstition and ignorance and fear"? No.

I just don't see how belief in the supernatural will lead to a Dark Age. And, just to be clear, you're not saying that, but I do think this episode is. I especially have a hard time accepting that when some of humanity's greatest scientific minds (Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Roger Bacon and Mendel just to name a few) were all practicing theists.

I think the worrisome bit was just that the Mintakans were turning away from science explanations of things back towards religious/supernatural ones. Too many people (even today) reject science because of things in a book they believe in.

Those minds you mentioned (and Einstein is included as well) were occasionally persecuted when their theories contradicted a fictional book.

I'm not against the concept of belief in God (I'm personally not an atheist... although I don't really have a word to describe my own faith). I'm against ignorance and bigotry caused by religious zealot-ism.

Your point stands that any organization headed by man can be as evil as the man leading it is well taken though. Belief in religion should not cause a second dark age... rejection of science will.

It's a fine line that religion walks with science. I personally believe they could work together (and in my head the things I believe live happily with science). I just think that the issue in this episode was more than religion vs rationality... it was that a people who'd given up on the "magic" side of religious beliefs were confronted with technology that reignited a belief in "magic". If God exists it does not (in my belief) possess magic. It may possess something I'd interpret as magic, but that doesn't make it so.

And yes, movements (like environmentalism) can, like everything, be taken to the extreme. But I tend to feel that extreme ideas in secular movements are more isolated than extreme ideas in religious movements. Consider the amount of people in America that think the Earth is close to 10k years old vs the percentage of environmentalists that think we should force sterilize people.

For an example of a pro-faith story I like, I'll toss in Voyager's "Sacred Ground". There is nothing in the episode that cannot be explained by science... but Janeway learned that she can't always explain everything when she needs it explained and that it's ok to take a leap of faith sometimes. The episode is almost a non-religious religious experience.

I have faith in things... I may even have faith in something that is God-like. I may even talk to it for my own purposes sometimes. But I refuse to allow it to make me ignorant. Still, it has it's uses sometimes.

Einsteins views on God are particularly fascinating if you've never read them.

He was against the kind of religious beliefs that are the form of superstition. I think those are the kinds of religious beliefs this episode casts down.

If you don't believe in the kind of "magic" that might cause God to send earthquakes because California has too many gay people... I don't think this episode condemns your breed of religion. You can feel free to disagree of course, but that's my feeling on it.

One of the reasons I like DS9 so much is its layered approach to religion. It unhesitatingly shows the bad religion can cause, but it also doesn't shy away from the good. Kira is religious person who sees her religion as a comfort. Odo, while he does have some rather fascistic tendencies, is ultimately a moral and good person who is adamantly an atheist. Worf has his faith while O'Brien and Jadiza don't. Sisko goes on a seven year spiritual journey from a tolerant skeptic to a firm believer in the Prophets. Bariel is a compassionate man who is isn't above being personally ambitious with his faith. Wynn is a corrupt politician who uses the faith of others in her pursuit of power. Dukat is an evil bastard who uses religion for his own aggrandizement and as just another way to control people. The Bajoran religion helped that people get through the horrors of the Cardassian Occupation while it also led to a deadly cult with the followers of the Pah-Wraiths. Even Quark is shown to be religious in a way, though he probably gives it very little thought beyond a general belief in the afterlife.

I just wish this episode had some inkling of this. Instead, I can't help but view it as biased against religion in general. But, that's just my opinion.

As for a pro-faith episode that I really like, it would be VOY: Mortal Coil. Neelix has a near-death experience and doesn't experience the afterlife. He then begins to seriously question his faith. It shows that religion can have positive influences even in the absence of evidence for it. It provided Neelix with a lifetime of comfort and Chakotay pleads with him not to throw away that lifetime of faith because of one incident. It's probably one of my favorites from Voyager, which is saying something since it is, after all, a Neelix episode.

I like Mortal Coil too. A lot.

I guess that was my point though. I see THIS episode not really as one that has much to say about religion... but more about the prime directive and superstition/magic. Obviously two people can see the same thing differently... but I generally think when Trek does faith it's actually more pro-faith than against.

Robert@ Crusades? Really? The Crusades were just and justified as the American invasion of Germany. Muslims had been waging war against Christians, Budhists, Hindus, Persians, etc. for centuries, they traded millions of Christian slaves, they enslaved millions of black people, slaughtered the Maronites, supressed the Copts, they later even conquered India, how was it weong of Catholicism to fight back? Inquisitions? After World War II Nazism was also outlawed, and Islam had been waging war in Spain for centuries. They had inflicted equal horrors on Christians. The Inquisition required them to accept the Original religion of Spain or leave. That is what happens when an invading force is defeated.

Witchhunts were largely a Protestant thing. They never occured in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, or Belgium. The Council of Frankfurt, the Council of Panderbon, Pope Gregory VII, Pope Alexander IV, and Augustine had all condemned witchhunts as Pagan nonsense.

I don`t, I value all human life. I oppose killing babies whether they are born or unborn. It is sadistic to conceive a life and then murder it.

I am in favour of welffare for poor mothers. I disagree with the right on this, and so do most bishops. The Catholic Church fouded many of the first orphanages for this reason, and actually supports pregnancy crisis centers.

I am in favour of welffare. I do believe chastity is the best way to avoid getting pregnant in the first place as it is full proof. It is how our grandparents and ancestors in general did it. I exist because of this, and so does my father. People used to cherish their bodies amd value sexuality.

@John Logan - "I don`t, I value all human life. I oppose killing babies whether they are born or unborn. It is sadistic to conceive a life and then murder it."

Unless your views are very different than the average pro-lifer, you don't know what the word sadistic means. "deriving pleasure or sexual gratification from extreme cruelty". Leaving off the sexual gratification bit (since that's OBVIOUSLY not the kind of sadistic we're talking about) murdering a living breathing infant is THOUSANDS of times more sadistic than killing a fetus the size of a lime.

It's fine if you think both are bad, but equating them is like saying punching you in the face is equivalent to stabbing you with a machete. Especially since pro-lifers tend to be against the morning after pill, and there you're killing a few cells. It's not the same as a baby.

I'm not trying to talking you out of your pro-life position. I'm trying to talk you out of a poor comparison. At least you aren't for making poor people have babies and then leaving them poor and hungry.

And while I respect your position on chastity and have no problem with it, teaching abstinence only without any other sex ed is a lot like doing a trapeze act without a net. It works great when it works great and when it doesn't you smack into the floor.

I have no problem with teaching abstinence. It's the only 100% fool proof birth control. I have an issue with abstinence ONLY.

@John Logan - Is it possible you are not American. The religious, largely Christian, right is so vile in American that I wonder if perhaps you just don't have to put up with them wherever you are. :)

It's hard to take pro-life seriously from people who are anti-welfare (as you admit much of the right is), who's gay and trans conversion policies drive youngsters to suicide, to be anti-contraception in a world where handing out contraception in third world countries would stop the spread of AIDS, people who accost (often violently) women seeking abortions (even if it's often simply to D&C an already miscarried and wanted pregnancy... doesn't matter... they don't know who they are screaming at and why she's there), etc.

I simply find the religious right where I'm from to be hypocrites and generally not Christ like. Christ would not consider these people Christians.

That said, I am aware that there are many Catholics and Catholic organizations that do a lot of good. But most people wouldn't put up with that success/failure ratio of good/evil from anyone other than their church.

Robert@ Yes I am against leaving them poor and hungry. I think Ireland did an excellent job banning nearly all abortions yet truelly caring for all children. Yes I know there was child abuse in a lot of assylums that was horrible, but generally family was valued a lot more. The church also strongly supported social services. Social care also improved a lot in South America where the economy is strangely enough growing fast.

True I don`t have anything against teaching birth control, I just think religious schools shouldn`t have to teach it as it violates religious freedom.

I live in the Netherlands, I consider myself of the tradition of the Catholic Centre Party, which is far more socialist and caring for the poor.

I am not sure if contraceptives would really solve Aids. Many goverments and charities hand them out in Africa. Many of the down sides of birth control are, they are not full proof but many people act under the assumption they are, they make it easier to have sex at a young age thinking you will face no consequences, easier to tell girls to either have sex with you, or you will dumb them, easier to commit polygamy, and so on. It makes promiscous and abusive behaviour easier. Contraceptives aren`t used nearly as much in South America, or the Philpines were Aids is rather rare. or Poland, or Ireland.

Well a lot of the thinks you mentioned sound more like Protestant fundamentalists. Catholics don`t harras people who want to hand out condoms in Africa, they simply teach the value of chastity, discouraging adultery, polygamy, spousal abuse and so on. This is how the church has Always fought evil, it banned polygamy, and forced marriages, and established the value of chastity.

Catholics are against bullying gays, they simply oppose gay marriage and adoption, and think homosexuals are called to chastity.

I wish the things you've said about Catholics were true about the Catholics here. I would like to apologize to judging you harshly as a member of the religious right. While it sounds like we disagree on many things the Catholic religious right in the Netherlands sounds much less harmful than what we have here.

And for the record I like the new pope MUCH MUCH better than the last one. So I do feel like some things are heading the right direction.

"True I don`t have anything against teaching birth control, I just think religious schools shouldn`t have to teach it as it violates religious freedom."

I will totally agree with you here. In America we have the religious right trying to force things like this and creationism upon public schools. I agree with you, if you want your kid to learn those things instead of birth control/evolution you should send them to Catholic school. Leave the public schools alone (separation of church and state and all that).

I will also admit that it's possible many of the ills are not strictly done by "Catholics" but when the nut jobs in your country fly the banner of "Christianity" it behooves Catholics to find a way to stand apart from that banner if it doesn't represent them. All too often Catholic politicians just accept the religious right, warts and all, under their banner. It muddies the waters.

As I said though... I think my problem may be more with American Christians who are anything but Christlike. I may not agree with your views on many things, but I researched your party and, unlike the Christians here, while I can't claim to speak for him... I don't think Christ would have a problem with much of that.

Robert@ Thank you, apology accepted, but please don`t negatively compare Pope Benedict XVI to Pope Francis. Pope Benedict XVI spoke of the rights of immigrans, condemned Consumerism, spoke of ways to fight for poverty, and he strongly supported fighting Aids by ending poverty, and teaching faithfullness. Pope Francis also condemns the use of birth control, and gay marriage and adoption, and is strongly against abortion. He opposed gay marriage and the free distribution of birth control in Argentina, and urged all bishops there to excomunicate prochoice politicians. He equated abortion with murder countless times, and excomunicated an expriest who supported gay marriage.

THANK YOU. We should just have public and religious schools.

Well the issue if that the left sees third trimester abortions on demand, as a grey area, with Obama opposing a law protecting born babies, from being murdered after being born. It is sort of like Franco, the alternative were the Communists.

"Well the issue if that the left sees third trimester abortions on demand, as a grey area."

I think that's more of an extreme position on the left than the opposite is on the right (and I'm not aware of the born baby law you speak of). A lot on the right try to ban post 20 weeks (or sooner) when the reality is that a lot of horrible conditions don't come out until post 20 weeks. Many people don't get an amnio until after their nuchal translucency test (at 11-14 weeks) comes back with worrisome results and then you need to schedule, obtain and wait for the results of the amnio. The majority of post 20 week abortions are people who really wanted their babies... not people who didn't.

Third trimester begins at 28 weeks and the baby (if a healthy normal baby) actually has a pretty good shot of surviving outside the body with medical intervention at that point. I hope the number of pols that consider a no exceptions third trimester abortion to be a gray area are smaller than the number of pols that are slowly starting to pull away from rape/incest exceptions at the very least.

John Logan is correct that Francis is no more progressive in policy than his predecessor on social issues. To be fair, if he himself wished to change or amend the Canon, I think the next big news story would be about how he was poisoned in his sleep.

What Francis has effectively done is to refocus the institution's energies and re-prioritise its agenda. That way, Catholics who stay in the Church out of faith but feel at odds with many of its teachings have a righteous cause to feel good about (social justice). What is often ignored is that (as this episode eludes to), those same people are perfectly capable of actively promoting social justice AND disjoining themselves from an institution whose social values are borderline mediæval by excommunicating.

Regarding abortion debates, I require a simple mandate from pro-lifers : Demonstrate that your fervent stance on the issue is genuine respect for human life by protesting with equal vigour every war, execution, preventable disease death, starving child (food stamps anyone?), and gun legalisation. Then I am willing to engage your position thoughtfully. Until then, I'm afraid it's all a lot of talk which disguising the real motivator which is sex-shaming and gender control.

Elliott@ Pope Francis didn`t really even refocus the issue either. He partook in prolife marches, called on doctors to evoke conscience clauses, is in favour of excomunicating pro-choice politicians, etc. The Catholic Church has Always been in favour of social care, it is what a lot of its fortune goes to. The Catholic Church provides 26 % of the worlds health care, is the largest non govermental provider of education, runs soup kitchens, orphanages, and just look at the work Mother Theresa did. The church doesn`t blindly support Republicanism and on social issues leans towards the left. Christian Socialism is usually supported by Catholicism. The USA unfortunately doesn`t really have this and forces you to chose between two extremes.

Also the poisened in his sleep joke was rather tasteless.

The papacy opposes the death penalty and unjust war, but the difference with that and abortion, is that it doesn`t murder children for convenience but is aimed at defending innocent life by killing evil life.

The church actually increased womens rights in the Roman Empire. It is far easier to be a woman in South America then in the Middle East.

Robert@ It was a born alive act in Illinois that required doctors to provide medical care to babies born from botched abortions. Obama opposed it. Canada allows abortions at 8 months for any reason what so ever. Roe Vs Wade allowed it till 24 weeks for any reason at all. Many prolifers are moderate on the issue of severly deformed fetuses, this was even allowed in Brazil. Catholic countries generally ban abortions but unlike republicans are far more in favour of supporting the poor, orphans, widows, etc. Ireland Always had far better social services while banning nearly all abortions, the Philipines increased care for pregnant women. The Catholic Church owns many pregnancy crisis centers.

Another issue is that they want to force Catholic hospitals to provide abortions, or birth control, neither of which they will ever do. The Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith allows non abortifacent birth control for rape victims, and Catholic hospitals have freely decided to provide these in Germany, Masschusetes, ad so on. This ironically leading to the false charge that Mit Romney forced Catholic hospitals to provide the morning after pill to rape victims, when the state has a conscience clause for birth control and Mit Romney oppised any change in the law. Even if they tried to override the conscience clause this failed in both Illinois and Washington as the federal appeal courts over turned such laws, so David E Klleys Boston Legal episode Smile once again looks really oudated and silly, but I digress.

Rape and incest are still rejected as valid grounds for abortion in many Catholic countries but care for rape victims is a lot better in those countries.

"Also the poisened in his sleep joke was rather tasteless."

For what it's worth, I don't think Elliott was making a joke. I think it's entirely possible that if the pope came out tomorrow saying it's ok to be gay, the church should perform gay marriages and abortions were ok that somebody would off him.

I don't think that's being insulting, I think it's a pretty good possibility.

"Another issue is that they want to force Catholic hospitals to provide abortions, or birth control, neither of which they will ever do. "

At this point I'd settle for them letting abortion clinics perform abortions in peace. Every few weeks somebody wants to pass a new law pretending to protect women designed to shut down abortion clinics.

I will come down as completely against trying to make Catholic hospitals perform abortions (except in case of life of the mother exceptions) if they'll agree to stop picketing and messing with legal abortion clinics.

And as for the born alive act... not providing care is not entirely the same as murdering, and I'm guessing the lionshare of these "born alive" abortions are basically dead anyway (knowing the survival chances and quality of life prior to 23 weeks and the reason for most abortions after that are serious debilitating conditions). I'm against abortions post 24 weeks anyway, except in extreme cases (life of the mother and severe issues with the baby) so to me if somebody wants a perfectly healthy baby out of them at 27 weeks I'm sure we could find somebody that wants to adopt it.

But I doubt that happens very often. Still, I will take your point that the church != the religious right, even if I disagree with them... they are perhaps not as hypocritical. I'm not aware of their stance on some of the things Elliott mentioned as contradictions, but they are not for war or the death penalty AFAIK.

I will say that things like "Pope Francis is in favour of excomunicating pro-choice politicians" is why I don't go to church anymore. I feel like if people with "my views" aren't welcome than I am not either. It's a shame, because growing up I have fond memories of it and still mostly consider myself to be Catholic.

Religion has no right to dictate morality. It's a fairy tale. What people worship in their own homes is fine (as long as said religion doesn't break the law), but allowing it to dictate on matters of science and conscience is not.

I have my own set of values (I am pro death penalty, pro euthanasia, pro abortion (not totally, but I'm tired) and so on. But my positions on life are based on experience and reason and science. Not a bunch of self serving hypocrites wearing robes, worshiping the invisible man.

And before someone mentions that I am against homosexuals marrying in church, the answer is: yes and no. I am not against gays having the same rights under the law, but I find many want marriage in church just to get a reaction and to act like idiots. I'd be far happier with no churches and no mosques and then this issue wouldn't exist either. But I am mostly against pandering to minority views such that they impact unnecessarily on the majority. So it's not really that I am against gays marrying in church, it's that I am against the church and against Leftists and the militant branch of the homosexual community that are always looking for things to get offended at and complain about.

dlpb@ I don`t think you understand freedom of religion. It does not mean you have to keep it in your home. Religion may be practiced openly and publically, and it can also dictate ones conscience. The founding fathers were also strongly inspired by their religious believes, so was the abolishionists movement, various charities, the resistance to Nazism and Communism, etc. Freedom of conscience is an important human right.

You have the right to have your conscience dictated by humanist values, but in a secular society, religion is not discriminated against, and religion is not less then Humanism.

I do understand freedom of religion, but I don't agree with it. I think religion should start and stop in your home. It should be a personal thing and that;s all. The right to practise religion outside of the home should be removed. I don't tolerate intolerance (religion is overwhelmingly intolerant).

@ dlpb

You don't tolerate intolerance yet you openly declare that people shouldn't be allowed to follow their consciences in public? Sounds kind of intolerant to me.

Since religion is intolerant and always has been, my statement makes perfect sense.

Well, I never knew I was so intolerant, but I guess I have to be since I'm religious. You learn something new every day.

You seem to have a reading problem. I said "religion" not everyone who practises it. But I guess emotional responses are also a part of what religion has done to your mind.

Let me follow up on that: Religion is inherently intolerant and closed minded. There are some religions or variations that are worse than others, but they are all retrograde force in the modern age. They tell people how to live and make promises based on how the person obeys an old book. It is absolutely a negative thing to believe or practise a religion - even if good sometimes comes from it. A person doesn't need heavenly rewards for being a moral person, and a person does not need an old book telling them how to live their lives. But the worst part of religion is how it makes its followers band together and deny the truth. Copernicus knew only too well.

Does that mean all religious people are intolerant and incapable of rational thought? Of course not. But that doesn't change the fact that religion is inherently intolerant. And you'll notice the one's at the top - like the pope - are the worst of all. They actually claim to have divine guidance and have the audacity to proclaim what is right and wrong. We've had quite enough of that bullshit, thanks. It probably held back the microchip by centuries.

dlpb@ Interesting you oppose the basic human right of freedom of religion, yet you claim religion is intolerant. It weren`t religious people who organised the reign of terror in France, the Communists supression of religion and other autrocities in Cuba, Albania, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, China, Cambodja, Vietnam, Mexico, or North Korea. Atheists created the most violent autrocities in the Spanish Civil War, World War II, and the Facists of Italy were horribly intolerant. The Nazis also persecuted the churches in the kirchenkampf.

Many people do need a higher purpose, and eternal meaning to be motivated in life. Religion tells people that even if one gets away with evil in this life, it will eventually be punished. It was Catholicism that banned infantcide, gladiator games, mutilation, and so on, not Atheists. As Eistein said the free thinkers did nothing against the Nazis, the church did saving 860.000 Jews. The church due to its silly believe all life was sacred opposed Nazi eugenics, and helped the starving during World War I. The first opponents of slavery were Saint Patrick and Gregory of Nyssa.

Copernicus was a monk who dedicated his work to Pope Paul III and explained it to him and his cardinals.

You really fail to explain why and how religion is more intolerant then Atheism.

Yes popes like Pope Paul III had the audacity to claim by divine power that enslaving Indians and other peoples were wrong. Or like Pope Gregory XIV who condemned slavery in the Philipinis. Popes like Pope Pius XI had the audacity to condemn Nazism in Mit Brennender Sorge, or to condemn Communism.

Interesting as many of the first universities were founded by the Catholic Church, and as many popes donated to scientific advancement. Like Pope Leo X who donated greatly to learning and art yet also yearly gave 6000 dukats in alms.

Once again, you completely misrepresent my opinion. I am all for people practising their fairy tales in their own home, providing said tales are not promoting or inciting murder and so on... but the right to practise it in the workplace, or to promote it, or to worship outside of the home should be removed.

I welcome the day religion dies off. There is nothing noble or cool about tolerating ideologies that are intolerant. That's where my tolerance ends.

Good Lord, dlpb. As far as I can see, you're the only one around here who's being intolerant. You're openly advocating for people to be kept from enjoying the same rights you claim for yourself. How is that not intolerant?

You're also the only one being dismissive, calling people out on their "fairy tales" and "bullshit."

How would you respond if someone said - "I welcome the day atheism dies off. There is nothing noble or cool about tolerating an ideology that has led to more suffering than all religions combined."?

I, personally, would never say something like that - because I don't care if you're an atheist. Even though I'm religious, if you don't want to be, then fine - it doesn't hurt me. If you also want to promote atheism, then knock yourself out.

All I would ask is that I, and other religious people, be accorded the same level of respect. If you claim the right to promote your worldview, don't then say that others don't have that same right. That is intolerant.

But even leaving all of that aside, let me ask this question - how do you envision it being possible for people to be kept from practicing religion outside of their homes? Wouldn't that require the government to crack down on people who are simply espousing a belief different from you (or from the majority)? What would that crackdown entail? Are you prepared to support things like penalties, fines, offender registries or possibly even prison sentences for theists? That sounds pretty totalitarian to me. Please tell me that that is not what you're arguing in favor of.

dlpb@ Then you are advocing abolishing the first amendment, freedom of religion, and going back to the seventeenth century Netherlands. Yes that sounds great. Or the times of the French revolution.

Again you are the one advocating intolerance which is rather ironic.

I don't live in America. And amendments can be amended. And they certainly should be amended in circumstances where you tolerate the intolerant or protect criminals.

Isn't that first amendment of yours the reason people are blowing their heads off all over the place in America? I'm sure that outdated amendment means you basically allow ordinary citizens to buy lethal weaponry.

How is that not intolerant?
-------

I am allowing people to practise their doctrines in their own home and not in public. That's how a true secular society should and could work. I don't want "faith" schools, mosques or churches. Or anyone poisoning the minds of people as if their book is the ultimate guide on life. It isn't. Religion is an intolerant ideology with no basis in fact. It is a personal choice to pray, but you can do that in your own home. We don't allow people to have sex in public either. Is that against your lovely freedoms?

There are limits.

Well, I can see that there's no point in continuing this discussion. I've only posted six times in this thread (and only two at you) and yet you've already said that your atheism trumps other people's freedom and that you should get to decide what other people get taught.

Oh, and just FYI, you're confusing the First and Second Amendments. The First deals the freedoms of religion, speech, the press, assembly and redress of grievances. The Second deals with the right to bear arms (you know, the one that says it's okay for 117,000,000 people, or roughly only 37% of the U.S. population, to own guns). And just FYI again, roughly 99.99 percent of those 117,000,000 people have never killed anybody.

So long. I hope you enjoy promoting your totalitarian, atheistic paradise. It's been fun.

dlpb@ What you are suggesting is not Secularism. Secularism guarantees full religious freedom. You are suggesting state Atheism as practiced by Communists. You are still yet to explain how it are Christians who are intolerant? Many of them suffers martyrdom in the Middle East and Africa, they are usually victims of violence. Many soup kitchens, orphanages, hospitals, and so on were founded by churches. Most charity is church run and most Catholic charities provide to non Christians, even hospitals and schools work at lower prices.

This doesn`t sound intolerant. Banning religion from the public sounds intolerant. Again you have provided no proof for your accusations of intolerance you are yourself preaching intolerance without providing evidence Christians are more intolerant to justify it.

Comparing practicing your faith to having sex is a disgusting comparison and again shows you are the biggot.

I don't care what you call it. I don't want religion anywhere near the workplace or practised anywhere outside the home. I consider it dangerous, backward, and retrograde. It has no place in schools or work or as a place where people congregate in groups. It should not be afforded that kind of respect or freedom. Tolerating intolerant ideologies to the extent of allowing promotion is wrong and dumb.

The end :)

Also, one last thing to clear up: I am well aware that Christianity is, by and large, nowhere near as bad as Islam. That does not change the fact that ALL religions breed intolerance. By their doctrines and by human nature. They hold us back and they always will. What is worse is, they are all man-made rubbish. Religion has and still does cause more trouble and wars than anything else in history, and for what? An invisible sky god.

No thanks. Keep it in the home!

dlpb@ Then you are intolerant and hatefull. You show Atheists are just as in favour of persecution.

Also you still haven`t given any real arguments against religion, you have just been calling it names.

Again you are the one preaching intolerance. You are thge one wanting to ban religion, the way Communists did. Stalin was a lot more intolerant then the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Jews he persecuted.

Your spelling and grammar isn't up to much, and that's factual as opposed to what you did to me by surmising that I am 1. hateful and 2. an atheist. If I am an atheist, then I am a weak one for many reasons. Believing there might be something greater than us (whatever that may be) is not the same as accepting that all religion is a form of man-made control with nonsense deities and false prophets. If you want "hateful", I suggest you look at your dumb post and your dumb religion.

I have always really liked this episode. I like watching the situation devolve and get worse and worse. The scientist's proposal that Picard go to the planet and start issuing decrees is decidedly ludicrous. That doesn't mean, to me, that he was wrong in believing this whole situation could kernel a religion. Of course it wouldn't happen overnight, but it certainly could. Picard's dialogue to the woman about caves to huts was very well written, even if it put the boom mic operator to sleep.

Some of the recent debate here about the merits and status of religions in the world is interesting, too. I can see how dlpb believes that all religions promote intolerance by their very existence; those who believe and follow the religion pit themselves against those who do not--at least on some level--no matter how much those people profess to be indifferent to non-believers. It's the assumed smug "I believe in this and you don't, so I'm secretly saved/better/safer/wiser than you!" mentality. At the same time, dlpb cannot see that his personally-comfortable limits on religions not his own are his own form of intolerance. It is for this reason that atheism is often seen as its own religion, because atheists can also profess the same smug "I don't believe in God and you do, so I'm secretly better/smarter/more-advanced than you!" mentality.

It seems to me the best way to NOT be intolerant is to worry solely about one's own affairs, and not care to or meddle in the affairs of others. But, then, I also believe that true religious faith cannot exist without skepticism and doubt...one can only truly have faith while acknowledging those doubts. This works both ways, whether you choose to believe in supreme being(s) or choose not to believe.

I don't know where you are getting that from - I have openly admitted that I am intolerant to religion. I am intolerant to a lot of things I consider seriously negative or dangerous and I don't see what is wrong with that.

dlpb@ How was my post hatefull? You admitted to being intolerant, and I criticised your intolerance. I am not the one calling religions and posts dumb and idiotic. You want to treat religion the same way the French Revolution did which is very intolerant. You are a biggot.

I admitted to being intolerant of the intolerant. I have already explained your post and mine. Please stop listening to that ringing between your ears and read what I am writing.

"You are a biggot [sic]"

As I said, your post is just ad hominem attacks. Go away and learn how to spell, then maybe you can work on debate and reading comprehension :)

dlpb@ Again you have completely and utterly failed to make your case that religious people are automatically intolerant. You simply called them stupid, backwards, and dumb, which the Nazis also said of the Jews, and of Catholics, and in fact were the same insults used by the reign of Terror, the various Communists dictatorships, and IS. Did Catholics act intolerant to deserve that also? Again there have been various intolerant Atheists, like the Italian Facists, or the Spanish Communists.

So how are all religions automatically intolerant and why do they need to be banned from the public?

Again you haven`t debated at all, you just claim intolerance towards all religions is justified, because you claim without proof they started it. Wanting to ban religious freedom is bigotry. Look up what bigotry is.

And again, you are using a straw man. I have never claimed all religious people are "automatically intolerant". I have claimed that RELIGION is inherently intolerant and breeds intolerance. Can you even read?

dlpb@ So you want to ban it from the public, violating freedom of religion, expression, association, and various other basic human rights.

Although I don't do this that often....

dlpb's original statement was - "It has no place in schools or work or as a place where people congregate in groups. It should not be afforded that kind of respect or freedom. Tolerating intolerant ideologies to the extent of allowing promotion is wrong and dumb."

I don't think dlpb is saying you can't wear a cross in public. He's saying religious ideology should stay the hell away from schools (evolution vs creationism), workplaces (Hobby Lobby), and other such things.

I probably do not fully agree with dlpb on this (or any) subject, but the fact of the matter is that you're arguing PAST him instead of with him. dlpb is abrasive, but you're arguing against his abrasiveness instead of the spirit of his post. And that's just making for boring reading.

Now that I've fixed it I expect more of a quality discussion. ::grabs popcorn::

Put another way... (and this is a thought experiment... NOT a comparison). The KKK is a dangerous, intolerant, bigoted ideology. We (sort of) support their right to exist and congregate, but not to influence schools, work and polices. If religion was even 1% as dangerous, bigoted and intolerant as the KKK... should we allow our politicians to talk about how their religious views shape their abortion policies?

And in an unrelated topic... If I move further to the left and dlpb keeps heading right... can we meet at the other side of the circle?!!

Robert@ The freedom of religious education as well as institutions in general, and the right to lead ones company according to religious principles, or consciously abstain from things one considers immoral, is all a pivotal part of religious freedom and the First Amendment. Anything less would merely be religious freedom as provided by the Dutch Republic, the Yugoslavian Communists, or the French revolution, and would not be true secularism. Especially considering the important role religion had in the founding of the first universities and schools, and orphanages and hospitals, and the roles these institutions had in shaping America and the Wester World it seems rather ungratefull to violate basic human rights of religious freedom.

Also abortion started with Nazism and Communism, while opposition to abortion started with the early Christians who abolished infantcide and mutilation. I think it`s clear which side is bigoted.

"The freedom of religious education"

I've never seen anything in any of dlpb's or my posts that would lead me to believe that he thinks you shouldn't be able to enroll your kids in a private school that taught religious things. This is actually why I bothered to respond to this debate, because a lot of it is dlpb saying "A is bad!!" and you saying "B is not bad!!" I'm not trying to say you don't have any points, I'm telling you that you are arguing PAST him instead of at him.

"The right to lead ones company according to religious principles"

Except that Hobby Lobby is about so much more than that. Hobby Lobby is about having your religious company demand that OTHER COMPANIES modify their product offerings as a means of controlling their employees private lives. This is the kind of thing that actually WOULD be something valid to discuss in line with dlpb's "I don't want religion anywhere near the workplace".

"Especially considering the important role religion had in the founding of the first universities and schools, and orphanages and hospitals, and the roles these institutions had in shaping America and the Western World it seems rather ungrateful to violate basic human rights of religious freedom."

In my opinion? Separation of church and state. You get a dollar from the government? NO RELIGIOUS RULES AT ALL. you want to totally go it alone? Your hospital can ban abortions if it wants to. Don't let me see you taking that dollar from the government though.

"Also abortion started with Nazism and Communism, while opposition to abortion started with the early Christians who abolished infantcide and mutilation. I think it`s clear which side is bigoted. "

LOL. That's probably the worst argument you could ever make for abortion being bad. Early Christians abolished bad things, so all of their ideas were good? Nazis did bad things so all of their ideas were bad? The world is not that black/white.

Robert@ As the majority of taks payers are religious, taks money should certainly not be denied to those who refuse to butcher children. They do it based on the same principles that formed the constitution after all. That all men are created equal, not born. Catholic hospitals aided this nation long before abortion was even legal.

Hobby Lobby simply refused to insure abortifacent, murderous birth control. They refuse to aid the murder of the unborn. So do Catholic hospitals. They cannot be discriminated on those grounds. The constitution and the supreme court ensured equal funding for religious institutions anyways.

Also as the church spent millions for years to support the Marshial Aid programming the US owns us.

No that is true, but you tried to make a link to the KKK, so..

dlpb@ So you want to ban it from the public, violating freedom of religion, expression, association, and various other basic human rights.
-----------

I want it banning in the work place and any *authority* it has in public removing. I don't see religious freedom in the work place or in places of influence as a "human right". I believe human rights are important things, which sky fairy you believe in is NOT. Using "human right" is not an argument. I could make a similar ridiculous "argument" about why Nazis deserve to have their ideas listened to and respected. Religion deserves 0 respect and, as I said, your so-called "human rights" allow for it to be practised ON YOUR OWN TIME. NOT in anyone else's. The sooner religion dies out for good - the better. This whole thread shows what it can do to a human mind.

dlpb@ This again violates secularism and freedom of religion. Guess what, one human right, is the right to publically and openly worship that sky fairy and to lead once life based on it. This is what Chris Columbus did, or Kennedy, Klaus Von Staufenburg, Churchill, etc.

Again the burden is on you to proof why religion doesn`t deserve respect, even though it is what founded the modern concept of universal human rights, charity, caring for the poor, and lead to the abolishment of slavery, mutilation, polygamy, incest and so on.

You are the one being a hatefull bigot who is still to show how religion is harmfull and why.

"As the majority of tax payers are religious, tax money should certainly not be denied to those who refuse to butcher children. They do it based on the same principles that formed the constitution after all. That all men are created equal, not born. Catholic hospitals aided this nation long before abortion was even legal."

It is not possible for every one of your tax dollars to be spent in a way you see fit. Abortion is legal in America. If people don't like that they are free to take it up with the Supreme Court. Spending your tax dollars on something that is legal is something that you should only take umbrage with if you'd like a theocracy.

And I will also point out that "religious freedom" kills born children too (faith healing for example). Not strictly speaking Catholic here, just taking another lob at how religious freedom should be allowed to exist next to the government, not supplant it. If refusing your sick child a blood transfusion is child abuse when I do it, it should be child abuse when EVERYONE does it.

Things like this are we people dislike "religious freedom". "Religious freedom" is often a way to skirt the law (be it by forcing the government to spend your tax dollars the way you want, not charge you with child abuse or teach what amounts to doctrine in public schools).

"Hobby Lobby simply refused to insure abortifacent, murderous birth control. They refuse to aid the murder of the unborn."

Hobby Lobby sells arts and crafts supplies, they weren't insuring anybody anyway. They were buying insurance for their employees and then trying to tell their employees they can't do legal things with their insurance. THIS violates separation of church and state.

"No that is true, but you tried to make a link to the KKK, so..."

You don't really feel I tried to link the church to the KKK... do you? It's merely a thought experiment about how you'd happily ban ideology that you find dangerous but you'd look down on us for doing the same when the thing we find dangerous is your ideology. I'm not trying to compare on a scale which is worse. If I were to do so (let's call the scale Nazis, since you brought them up), I'd say the Nazi's earn 100 out of a possible 100 Nazis, the KKK is probably about a 65/70 and the Catholic Church today is probably closer to a 15/20 (though various Christian sects would be higher).

So on an evil scale I'm putting the church further away from the KKK than I'm putting the KKK from the Nazi's. So that should squelch any argument that I'm trying to compare the 2 in any way.

"Again the burden is on you to proof why religion doesn`t deserve respect, even though it is what founded the modern concept of universal human rights, charity, caring for the poor, and lead to the abolishment of slavery, mutilation, polygamy, incest and so on."

Last one... with all due respect... (and as for respect I'm not saying religion doesn't deserve any) your coin is very one sided there, don't you think. I'd rather have polygamy legalized than touching altar boys and a lot of that charity was done in the name of spreading conversion.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but if you really have such a saint-like view of the church you're being naive. I hardly think the opposite or anything, and if I had to pick a religion to define myself as it'd come closest to Catholic (I've come away from the church because I don't like their politics), but my view is less one-sided.

Robert@ Yes it is legal, yet no obligatorry to provide. Federal laws were enacted that guaranteed funding for religious hospitals that refuse both abortion and sterilisation, right after Roe Vs Wade. Just because something is legal, like alcahol, does not mean one has to provide it. Guns are legal, but if you consider ownership of firearms immoral you can not sell them. It are called conscience clauses, and they were enacted in Federal law and 46 states after Roe Vs Wade.

Also amendments were enacted to deny funding for abortion. The Supreme Court upheld both of this. Also the supreme Court supported Hobby Lobby.

Faith healing was legally protected as a right of religious freedom. However as you pointed out it was not a Catholic practie. The Catholic Church abolished infantcide, and founded the first orphanages.

Actually religious freedom has generally been considered paramount making the refusal of blood transfusions acceptable.

Well if the law gets increasingly tolitarian, and if the goverment tries to control education, health care and so on, then yes the only way for religious freedom to exist is for various exemptions to exist. Religious freedom is the main thing preventing Socialist governoured countries from becoming plain Communist countries.

What doctrine in public schools? You mean birth control? Again religious freedom does mean the right to free religious education, to freely raise your child, to follow your own conscience in raising your child. Yes the supreme court has consistently interpeted the First Amendment as such.

The Obama administration forced all employers to provide Insurance remember.

My point was that if you look at ideoloigies that are dangerous, Atheism has quite some stains. Like Nazism, Communism, the reign of terror, Italian Facism, and so on.

Why does the Catholic Church get a 15-20?

Touching altar boys? Right because the church supported this, oh wait the Vatican has actually done investigations into abuse, set guidelines for fighting it, defrocked priests, compensated victims, and child abuse is even more common in the public school system, or other public institutions.

Actually Catholics never deny any charity to non Catholics. Ever. This is one of the reasons many Romans came to support Catholicism, because they provided charity for all. The Romans killed infants, raped slaves, and mutilated people, all of this was banned by the church. The church banned forced marriages, child marriages, human sacrifice, gladiator games, unjust war, and chattel slavery.

Bringing up the touching of altar boys is tasteless as quite some Atheist teachers and care givers also molested students.

So if my view is naive, could you please cite some failing of the church, not of local priests, who did the same thing, many people who worked with children did?

"but if you consider ownership of firearms immoral you can not sell them"

Again though, Hobby Lobby isn't SELLING insurance. They are buying it. There's a huge difference.

"Also amendments were enacted to deny funding for abortion. The Supreme Court upheld both of this. Also the supreme Court supported Hobby Lobby."

Yes, the conservative Supreme Court supported Hobby Lobby. Because religion has too much influence in politics. At least now we're discussing the same things.

I actually don't think doctor's should be forced to provide abortions (except in the case of life of the mother), but I don't think hospitals should be allowed to ban it either. Public hospitals are public.

"Faith healing was legally protected as a right of religious freedom."

Sadly. See now, I'd be curious how you feel about this. Because, as you said, YOUR doctrine DOESN'T do this. So it's a religious thing that is dangerous and ridiculous that you disagree with. It's a perfect counterpoint to how we feel about abortion, birth control and creationism.

"Actually religious freedom has generally been considered paramount making the refusal of blood transfusions acceptable."

YOU should be allowed to refuse a blood transfusion. The right to be stupid is well and protected. You should not be able to refuse it for your kids and your kids aren't old enough to consent. Child abuse. If you can call abortion murder, I can call this child abuse.

"What doctrine in public schools? You mean birth control? Again religious freedom does mean the right to free religious education, to freely raise your child, to follow your own conscience in raising your child."

Creationism and abstinence only education are 2 things that are currently being taught in public school because Christianity has too much political power. You should have to home school or pay up for private school for your kids to learn that kind of doctrine.

"My point was that if you look at ideoloigies that are dangerous, Atheism has quite some stains. Like Nazism, Communism, the reign of terror, Italian Facism, and so on."

Atheism is not an ideology. I'll claim all atheism under one banner when you claim the sins of all religions that worship Christ under your banner. Fairs fair (and I'm not atheist to boot, but this is not fair).

"Why does the Catholic Church get a 15-20?"

Anything that limits the mind to keep people indoctrinated is partially evil. 15-20 is not that evil though, don't think there's anything that gets a 0. EVERYTHING is somewhat evil which brings us to....

"Touching altar boys? Right because the church supported this, oh wait the Vatican has actually done investigations into abuse, set guidelines for fighting it, defrocked priests, compensated victims, and child abuse is even more common in the public school system, or other public institutions."

If you don't think their investigations were too little, too late you're biased. Sorry, this is a fact, not an opinion. They should have acted sooner but didn't. But I'm actually NOT holding it against the church, I'm just saying your views on the church are waaaaay too saintly. The church is populated by stupid, fallible humans, same as every other organization. There's nothing magic about it. That's all I'm trying to say here.

"Actually Catholics never deny any charity to non Catholics. Ever. "

I never said that. I said there was an underlying, selfish motivation. Still true.

"Bringing up the touching of altar boys is tasteless as quite some Atheist teachers and care givers also molested students."

It's not tasteless. You seem to think there's no sin on the hands of the church. You're practically deifying the saintliness of an organization made of fallible, stupid, sinful men. This is why I don't go to church. The pope is a man. The bishop is a man. They are just as sinful as I am. There is nothing special about them. It has nothing to do with what I believe. It has to do with there being no reason to FOLLOW them, or think that their morality is any better than mine.

Would Jesus be against pro-choice? I think so. And I know him just as well as you do, and just as well as the pope does.

"So if my view is naive, could you please cite some failing of the church, not of local priests, who did the same thing, many people who worked with children did?"

Evidence exists that the coverups went straight to the top. I'm not faulting the church with the molestations, obviously that's not fair.

I'm actually taking a really middle-road here, I'm not against religion, I'm not even against practicing religion locally. A global organization doesn't get to be that way without wracking up evil points though, it's the way of man.

That should have read...

"Would Jesus be pro-choice? I think so."

We don't allow Republican schools or Democrat schools, so why should we allow religious schools? They are all ideologies. Ideas need to be examined and challenged, not made out to be the sole truth. And it gets worse than Christianity when you start to add Muslim schools to the mix - dear Dawkins - a lot worse.

Believe what you want to believe, on that you are free. But not to peddle it as a main doctrine in schools. It comes down to being an open secular society, or a closed-minded fairy believing brainwasher. I take the former, any day.

I am having a really hard time with this thread because, dlpb, you are a hateful bigot (at least so far as the majority of your posts go), but, John Logan, you are almost completely wrong in every other point you make. It kind of turns my stomach to do this, but on even debate grounds, dlpb has clearly won the debate. However, Robert's comments are a hell of a lot more useful and insightful.

John Logan, you are not skirting around the child-abuse issue. I happen to work for the local Bishop at the cathedral and know first hand exactly how the Church dealt with abuse accusations. When a priest was accused of child abuse (or any crime really, theft, negligence, etc.), he would be reassigned to a new parish in order to keep the jurisprudence "in-house." Some Bishops would purposefully assign molester-priests to retirement communities or hospitals or seminaries, where they would theoretically not have unsupervised access to children. Some simply moved them to new parishes so their former congregations wouldn't have to deal with them anymore. While these "solutions" may have keep the issue relatively organised, the effect was to shield criminals from legal prosecution using the protective status (legal and social) of the Church. Obviously, the church does not directly condone child-molestation (well, unless you marry the child I suppose), but it actively propagated the act by prioritising its own bureaucratic control and hegemony over the well-being of its flock. Never mind that the totally ridiculous policy the Church holds about priest gender and celibacy only serves to encourage sexual deviance.

You've got an incredibly biased view of history as well. Catholic charities convinced Rome to adopt Christianity? What a laugh! FIrst of all, the persecuted and marginalised Christian minority barely had the resources to keep itself alive, much less provide charity to others. So that's nonsense. Second, Rome accepted Christianity because Constantine had a conversion. This fact is germane to the larger thread because Constantine made it imperial policy to finance the Church, grant privilege and special treatment to Christian clergy and make legal *exemptions* (not only equality of status) for Christians. He did this because he believed God was providing him military victories and wanted to pay Him tribute (you know, like every leering pagan before him).

Religious institutions should be free to sell their invisible products like any other capitalist entity and enact policies within the confines of their autonomy like any other private enterprise. This means that churches, mosques and temples must not circumvent any law and must pay taxes to the state. Anything beyond transcends religious freedom to religious privilege.

"[The Church] is what founded the modern concept of universal human rights, charity, caring for the poor, and lead to the abolishment of slavery, mutilation, polygamy, incest and so on."

Excuse me? Again, take a history lesson; the Magna Carta (that thing which actually first did all those things you listed) was originally abolished by Innocent III, which, in addition to being a hateful act on its own, lead to the Baron's Wars which killed tens of thousands of people. Yeah.

Robert@ Religious hospitals are religious and can enforce their teachings on their employees.

I think faith healing is a tricky issue, but unlike with abortion and birth control. You don`t merely oppose perverse practices, but refrain from providing medical care to a child. Not education you disagree with, nor the killing of unborn children.

Exactly but our definitions of abuse differ, I consider slaughtering an unborn infant one of the worst forms of abuse, and many people do, and we can live by these principles.

Again it are mainly Christians who pay for education, the USA was discovered, founded, and lead by Christians after all.

True but this shows faith healing is as seperate from freedom for Catholics, as Nazism is seperate from freedom for Atheists.

How are they too little? Victims were asked to come forward, the congregation of the doctrine of faith was put in charge, hundreds of priests were defrocked, many public schools, and Protestant churches are yet to aknowledge they suffer from this problem also. Real social awareness about child abuse is recent anyways.

The Vatican wasn`t aware of it earlier, as local diocees had become very disobedient from the sixties onwards, and abuse was generally not spoken of.

Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII, showed the pope is more then just a man. If people had listened to what Eugenio Pacelli said in the twenties, or if the US had acted on Mit Brennender Sorge a lot could have been avoided.

You described the sins of the lower clergy, not the Vatican.

The fact that Pope Pius XI condemned Communism, Facism and Nazism in 1937, the fact that Pope Pius XII was nearly kidnapped, that both Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI saved Jews, gives me plenty of reason to follow the papacy.

What evidence prooves it went to the top?

What makes you think Jesus would be prochoice? Read the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, or the Apocalypse of Peter, or even Enoch.

Elliott@ I know certain bishops did what you described. Cardinals like Alfrink shared the eucharist with Protestants. The Canadian bishop cobference rebelled against Human Vitae. dlpb didn`t even bring up child abuse cases, Robert did. He just kept saying religion was stupid and dangerous and never once answered my challenge for proof, I don`t see how I could lose a debate while my opponent didn`t cite examples of his criticisms.

Also what you described of child abuse, describes how heads of schools, Lutheran bishops, Anglican bishops, Episcopelian bishops, Methodists, and so on all dealt with it.

The Vatican instructions Always ordered such priests to be disciplined and punished.

Really? Back to the celibacy? Strange that if celibacy causes molestation, that most children are abused by their own parents, or grandparents, and strange that abuse is also common in Protestant churches that ordain women. Many of the bishops who mishandled abuse were actually from a more liberal generation, people Ratzinger, Pell, and Muller are the most active opponents of pedophilia.

Actually if you read Ignatius, the Didache, or Polycarp, you read in detail how Christians practiced charity while being persecuted. Most converts gave everything they had to the church and poor. Quite a couple of aristocrats became Catholics. Senators, governors, generals. Pliny the Younger describes they were actually more concerned with helping others. Lucian even rediculed them for how easily they would provide for others.

By the time that Constantine converted, there were already giant Christian communities from Armenia, to Marocco, to France. Even Ireland, Georgia, and Etheopia became Christian. Persia had a vast Christian community also, which was persecuted for a while as well.

Constantine indeed supported Christianity, but few if any persecutions of Pagans were needed to have most Pagans convert. Julian the Apostate even tried to introduce charity into Paganism.

Tax exempt status is also guaranteed by the first amendment, as the goverment cannot profit from religious institutions, the way goverments profited from state churches.

Religious freedom was generally treated as a privilege by the founding fathers, and most people in favour of the seperation of church and state.

Also incest had been abolished long before, by the church, as had polygamy, and forced marriage. The church dictated marriage was between one man and women, and that it could not be entered under force or with family.

Aren`t you familiar with the myths about the Magna Carta? It didn`t promise nearly as much as you laim, it statisfied neither side, both asking the pope to annul it.

dlpb@ What you describe is relativism, which is also an ideology. We allow religious schools, as religion as part of the constitution has a special protected status, aknowledged by nearly all democratic countries, and it also has to do with the church starting the first universities.

Your society wouldn`t be secular, as it would be against religous education, hence it would be state Atheism, not secularism. It wouldn`t be open either as you don`t allow both Atheism and Christianity to be taught side by side. It would directly against the pluralism and freedom guaranteed by the constitution.

"What makes you think Jesus would be prochoice?"

Religion is about faith, not evidence. What evidence do you have that God exists but what is in your heart?

The God I believe in wouldn't be punitive to people who've had sex for a purpose other than procreation, and that is the heart of being anti-choice.

Think about DS9 S4's "Body Parts". Would it have been murder if Kira had said no to Bashir? The baby would have died because Kira refused to carry it, same as when a person has an abortion. An infant cannot survive on it's own (let's put aside issues of post viability here), requires somebody to be willing to be connected to it, in a parasitic or symbiotic (depending on your view I suppose) relationship. I don't tell you abortion isn't killing, I tell you it's wrong to force someone else to give of their own body to support another.

A person is dying next to me and we're in a hospital. I refuse to give blood. Did I murder them? I refuse to give a kidney. Did I murder them?

My conjecture (and I don't claim to speak for you), is that most anti-choice people would say that the reason abortion is different is because the woman created the baby so now she must live with the consequences. She is being punished for having sex without intent to procreate. She's losing her autonomy to make decisions about her body because she sinned.

Would Kira have murdered Yoshi by turning the procedure down? If you don't think so, then you aren't "pro-life", you're "anti-choice".

Also... ::pats self on back:: I brought this conversation back to the 24th century! :P

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2012/11/02/moderate-muslims-in-the-u-s-46-want-to-criminalize-parody-of-mohammed-18-want-death-penalty-for-insulting-islam-40-say-yes-to-sharia-law-not-u-s-laws/

Sadly, with that around, we are never going to be enlightened.

Elliot, you don;t debate, you name call. As you did above. People in glass houses should not throw stones. And if you want to start throwing "bigot" around, you might want to look in the mirror given your ridiculously one-sided and closed-minded debates with DS9 fans.

Also, Eliott, what I really despise about you is that you are a typical hypocrite. Most of the things you say about religion are true, but you never apply them to the worst religion (Islam) or have a fair and balanced critique on anything. It's always one-sided. I attack all forms of injustice and I champion that above all else. You only care about what Trek preaches and your own lefty propaganda.

@dlpb - Although I can't reach that link right now, anything that claims MODERATE Muslims want Sharia law to the tune of 40% of them is propaganda too. But I'm against Islam and Christianity pretty equally. I just have different tactics in mind than you do for combating them.

Being a self-identified moderate is like being middle class. Most people don't want to be considered a zealot, and most people don't want to be considered poor. But you are what you are, regardless of what you call yourself.

As to your comment that "we are never going to be enlightened".... on really pessimistic days, I totally agree with you.

Robert@ Kira didn`t conceive that baby. The point of prochoicers is that they are in favour of non procreative sex and they want the child to pay for the free pleasure of its parents, even though you would think birth control would be enough.

Whos fault is it the fetus is in that dependent state? Right it is the fault of the parents. So if it dies its blood is on there hands.

Did you cause that person to be bleeding? If so, yes that would be murder. If I cllone a human being that will need blood, I should have blood ready. If I create an A.I. that needs elecricity, oils, or whatever I should have that ready. If I create a dependent life, I am responsible for caring to the needs and the being I created.

No it is not they want the punish the women for having sex for fun, they just don`t want the child to be punished for it instead. The child certainly didn`t chose to be conceived.

No because she conceived another person with needs inside her. There is a difference between being punished for having sex or having to take responsibility for it. Men also have to take responsibility by paying child support.

Also you are ignoring that Kira is not the childs mother, but yes it would be murder. We have a duty to take care of fellow human beings we are not anarchists or social darwinists. Also you have already donated your blood, the child is inside you, connected to you, and your womb exists to support the child. It was naturally intended not artificially created. It is like breastfeeding, if you have no alternative means you have to breastfeed your child or be charged with neglect.

You are either entitled to bodily autonomy or you are not. And nobody caused the child to be born requiring 40 weeks of parasitic activity, it was born that way. The choice to deny it your body is yours.

The second a Star Trek transporter allows womb to womb adoption with no risk to the mother, I'll allow for outlawing abortion.

"Also you are ignoring that Kira is not the childs mother, but yes it would be murder. We have a duty to take care of fellow human beings we are not anarchists or social darwinists."

This is quite a position I'm not sure many would be willing to take.

"No it is not they want the punish the women for having sex for fun, they just don`t want the child to be punished for it instead. The child certainly didn`t chose to be conceived."

This is the same difference. Child carrying is not without risk. What you are saying is "Do the crime, you do the time."

I doubt this is going to be something I'm going to convince you of... but the bottom line is that this is the danger of religion, right?

In my heart I believe God would be pro-choice. Evidence from the Bible on most of this stuff is wishy-washy and conflicting at best.

There's more support for enslaving foreigners in the Bible than for banning gay marriage for instance....

In the end it's faith, what we believe... and you and I believe very different things from the same source. Which is why secular things (like laws and public institutions/schools) should be left secular and religion free.

Robert@ Actually you can forfeit rights by taking on responsibilities. No the mother created it, so she did cause it to be dependent, so if dies, she killed it.

Here is an idea, don`t conceive children you will just murder.

Well yes. The child didn`t conceive itself.

Actually the bible forbids mistreating foreigners, you could only enslave enemies of war, you would otherwise have to kill. Also the church fathers are very clear on all these isses.

"No the mother created it, so she did cause it to be dependent, so if dies, she killed it."

Killing and murder are not the same.

If I shoot you in the chest and donate blood to you to save you after I've come to my senses I may avoid a murder charge (though attempted manslaughter is probably still on the table).

If dlpb shoots you in the chest and I don't donate the same blood to you, I'm scott free. No murder.

Ergo if I do something illegal that causes you to require my assistance, there could be legal benefit to me providing it.

Having sex is not illegal, ergo the woman, through no illegal action has lost her bodily autonomy. For a civilized nation to be ok with this is wrong.

"Actually you can forfeit rights by taking on responsibilities."

By WILLINGLY taking on responsibilities you can be required to fulfill them, yes. You can also walk away from damned near any responsibilities at any time, including your kids (just requires someone to adopt them), your marriage and your mortgage (that one's even easier).

By the way... the above is a thought experiment, nothing violent was intended or intended to be implied.

Robert@ Exactly but the mother did the shooting. If it hadn`t been for her there would have been no dependent fetus.

If you shot me in the chest to actually allow me to developp heathly, it would be like a doctor performing surgery. No harm was intended, if however a surgeon walks away halfway during the procedure, then he is a murderer.

No having sex isn`t illegal, but neither is performing surgery. However performing a surgery poorly resulting in someone dying is a crime, so is driving recklessly, or doing anything that is normally legal, in a way that results in someones death.

You conceive willingly.

@John Logan

Let's look at some good old religion, shall we?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

September_11_attacks
USS_Cole_bombing
European_wars_of_religion
Islamic_State_of_Iraq
Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict
Crusades
Indo-Pakistani_wars_and_conflicts
Thirty_Years%27_War
Military_career_of_Muhammad

Now, come to me with a straight face and tell me that religion is mostly a cause for good. It's been the most divisive and destructive thing EVER conceived of.

dlpb@ Most of the ones you cite are from Islam. All of the current ones are.

The Crusades were a response to this Islamic violence and a defensive war. If everyone in Europe at the time had been Atheists, they would have either done the same thing, or Atheism would no longer exist.

All you did was show that Muslims follow Quran in hating their enemies and that Christians practiced selfdefense.

Also let`s look at World War II and the Holocaust, or all the things done by Stalin, or Mao. This killed around 200 million people. Look at Yugoslavia, Cambodja, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, and Mexico, Atheist Communists commited the worst autrocities, and tried to exterminate all religions through violence.

That does not change the European wars (and they are numerous) or that Islam is "a religion". You can't say religion is a force for good and then say "only mine".

Also, it doesn't change the stranglehold that Catholicism had over the population at one time (and still does in some places). Religion enslaves the mind, and it persecuted free thinkers like Copernicus and Galileo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Galileo_affair

I'm sorry, but atheists would never behave in that manner. Only religion can do that. And it's YOUR precious Christian branch, this time.

dlpb@ Right but not all religions are the same. Some are evil. As a Catholic I only defend Catholicism. Catholicism provides 26 % of the worlds health care, and has founded thousands of soup kitchens, orpphanes, old fokes homes, and introduced the concept of systematic charity, as well as the first universities to the world.

As for the European Wars, most were started by Protestants who tried to exterminate Catholicism, as well as other forms of Protestantism, and who created these wars by starting a schism. The Reformation was a political revolution that sought to violenty over throw Catholicism. Like Islam Protestantism was very intolerant towards non conformists, Jews, Atheists and Catholics. So by your own argumentation that one can be intolerant towards intolerance, that one in fact should be, Catholicism was justified in fighting both the intolerance of Protestantism and Islam.

The papacy generally tried to use negotiation and dialogue to create peace, and used negotiation to avoid war.

I never said religion is a force of good, I said Catholicism is. Just as not al Atheists are like Stalin or Mao, not all religions are the same. One of the reasons Catholicism was sometimes intolerant of Islam is the same reason you are intolerant of it, it started the chain of intolerance.

The Catholic Church rarely started a conflict.

Pope Paul III rejected the Spanish wars of conquest in South and Middle America, as well as the enslavement of Indians. The enslavement of black people was also condemned. Also Catholicism encouraged Germanic rulers to avert war, and tried to peacefully resist the Normans.

In what place would Catholicism still have a strangehold? The church supports freedom of religion as a human right. The Philipines, South America, they all have religious freedom. Catholic countries nearly Always have freedom of speech, the press, and are democratic.

Pope Benedict XV even tried to prevent World War I.

Copernicus was a Catholic monk, who dedicated his work to Pope Paul III and explained it to his cardinals. Gallileo meddled in theological matters, but non the less Pope Urban VIII supported him at first.

Also you seem to usually go back to things that happened centuries ago, and then you can only cite Gallileo. As Copernicus was not condemned by the church, but supported by her.

This is like how Anti-Semitism was justified by reaching back to the crucifixion of Christ. If you want to argue it is oke to be intolerant of Catholicism as it is in its actions intolerant, you need atleast one recent example. If you cannot, you are the one who starts being intolerant.

Except for Stalin, Mao, Tiso, Hitler, Goebbels, Lenin, the Albanian, and Mexican Communists, the French revolutionaries and their reign of terror, Fidel Castro, the Cambodjan Communists, and so on.

You cite how one person was placed under house arest. The Atheist Stalin brutally murdered 20 million people. He had thousands of monks and priests deported, millions of Ukrainians killed, synagogues burned down, Wolga Germans persecuted, etc.

OK, that's me done with the convo. It's been "fun". It's clear that you are not here to listen or understand, just protect your religion at all costs (which is another bad trait of what religions do to a person).

Good luck.

dlpb@ You simply didn`t answer my simple question: what has Catholicism done revcently that makes it intolerant, dangerous or violent, that justifies responding to it with intolerance, or limiting its rights? I have asked this from the beginning and not received an answer.

It is really more the case that you want to criticise religion indiscriminately, at all costs, without providing evidence, and anyone who simply responds to these would automatically be blind.

"Robert@ Exactly but the mother did the shooting. If it hadn`t been for her there would have been no dependent fetus."

Except that shooting is illegal and having sex without protection is not. That's my issue. I don't care if you want to think abortion is morally wrong, but the reason we keep coming back to it is that wanting it to be legally wrong is quite literally the perfect embodiment of what religion overstepping it's bounds looks like.

That's what I think makes religion dangerous. The other part is the group think. The amount of politicians in the US that get into office by paying lip service and pretending to give a crap about the religious right is stunning. Those people would actually have to have good ideas for how to fix the country if they couldn't just get votes by whipping up the religious types into an anti-abortion/anti-gay marriage frenzy.

"You conceive willingly."

That's news to me. If I could have willed it to happen I sure would have. And beyond that, birth control doesn't fail? Which again brings us to the fact that the crime is having sex without intending to procreate.

I feel like the history of religion in this country is that people fled Europe to escape religious persecution so they could come here and enforce their religion on other people. Obviously that's a SERIOUS TLDR/yadayadayada skip over what actually happened over 100s of years, but I think you get my point.

But as I said before, I doubt I'd ever (at least not over the internet in a few posts) manage to convince anyone that abortion should be legal (notice I'm not saying moral, I don't want to convince you of it's morality, I'm trying to point out that it's immoral to make those decisions for other people), but I do really think Jesus would be pro-choice. Quite honestly it's better for the poor and downtrodden of the world to have cheap/easy access to abortion.

But the fact that we disagree on that point is the biggest problem with religion. We're all so far removed from these events and the original texts/languages.... and the problem becomes worse as we get farther away from Jesus too. The old testament is a nightmare to reconcile. Either Jesus' father is NOT the old testament God, or the guy went soft in later years.

In the end I'll just end with the concept that what I took away from my religious studies as a child is not a specific passage, or a set of rules. It's a feeling of Jesus. Of how we should treat each other. Of what it means to be a good person.

That God would not be intolerant of gay people, regardless of 2 lines in multi-translated multiple thousands of year old book. That God would send a man to hell for screaming in a woman's face on the worst day of her life before he'd send her to hell for making the choice to end her pregnancy. That God would send a politician who lies to the world to hell for pretending to care about women's health by requiring BS credentials that de-facto cause almost every abortion clinic in a state to close so that a couple who spent years praying for a baby now have to travel across state lines with money they don't have because it's all been spent on fertility meds to end a pregnancy after receiving a terrible diagnosis.

Add to the list of religious sins faith healing, holy wars, jihad, witch hunts, gender inequality, underage marriage, gay persecution, sharia law (I'll throw dlpb a bone :) ), bombing abortion clinics, civil wars, forcibly taught ignorance of children (basically all of them), and purchasing indulgences.

My point is that the God I believe in would shun all the people that causes those things. Somehow the greedy oligarchs who run the Republican Party always manage to find the 2 lines that support "God hates fags" but always miss the part about it being easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven. Which brings me to my last point. I have YET to meet a person who claims to be really religious that isn't REALLY, REALLY good at cherry picking the bible. If you cherry pick the bible you aren't religious, you're a hypocrite.

I don't think anyone needs me to explain why someone who is a hypocrite and really good at finding religious cherry picked quotes to support their own agenda and at the same time manages have a built in base of fanatics ready to swarm because of where those quotes come from is dangerous. That sounds pretty obviously dangerous to me.

So I ask one time before I walk away from the conversation. You continuously ask for proof of the danger of Catholicism and you tout the Church's goodness over and over. I just presented a wall of text of the dangers of religion. Can you not find one sin of the Church here to own alongside all of those wonderful things? Even one sin to own?

Robert@ Again performing surgery isn`t illegal either, doing it poorly is. Driving isn`t illegal, but driving drunk and smashing into a child is. Getting children is natural, conceiving one to then leave it to die isn`t. You start the pregnancy, create the fetus, and become connected to it. Use birth control properly if you don`t want to get pregnant. It is not the fault of the fetus that it is conceived and dependent.

It is not based on religion, but on the idea that all men are created equal and have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happines. That all human beings have a right to live. That parents can not punish their children for their actions. That you don`t conceive a human being to kill it.

No the crime is not having sex without wanting to procreate. Go ahead, aslong as another human being doesn`t have to die for it instead I am fine with it.

It is not immoral to force parents to keep the children they created alive till they can give it to someone else.

Ironically the poor often value the meaning of family, children, and all human life. I think Ireland and Poland do just fine with their anti abortion laws. The Philipines is one of the most stable countries in Asia, and South America also continues to do better. They value family. I don`t think human life is disposable.

Read the church fathers from the first century, the Didache, and Barnabas, they comment very clearly on both abortion and infantcide. It was in fact the church that banned infantcide. It would still be the norm if it weren`t for Catholicism.

Being a good person isn`t slaughtering unborn babies.

Under age marriage was normal under the Romans and banned by the church. The Catholic Church banned forced marriage, sex slavery, and allowed women to independently own property.

You cannot treat all religions as the same. Witchhunts were largely a Protestant affairs, Pope Gregory VII and Pope Alexander IV banned witchunts.

I give all my money to the poor, and the church opposes rampant extreme capitalism, supports charity, and the church condemns violence or discrimination against homosexuals.

Well I think you mentioned many sins of Islam and Protestantism, as well as the republican party, which the Catholic Church never declared her loyalty to, the republicans often value religious freedom more, but the church has criticised the republican party quite a bit also. Rejects homophobia, jihad, Sharia, and so forth.

I agree many fundamentalists and rightwhingers can be awfull, but Catholicism has Always been more centric, and also supported Christian socialism. No party in the US truelly fits it, and the church never denied the importance of charity, which is why the church would like the democrats to stop trying to prevent Catholic from providing voluntarely charity, by requiring us to act contrary to our sexual ethics. The church helped HIV victims but not by providing condoms, and the church provides health care but not abortions.

If health care is so important then the left should apreciate that the church provides 26 % of th worlds health care.

I could agree on civil wars I guess, but which ones, and which holy wars? The church like during the Crusades often responded to violence, it didn`t iniate it. The church even tried to prevent the popularity of witchunts from spreading.

"It is not immoral to force parents to keep the children they created alive till they can give it to someone else."

Force someone to do something else that is dangerous with their body? Yep, immoral. No way around it.

"No the crime is not having sex without wanting to procreate. Go ahead, as long as another human being doesn`t have to die for it instead I am fine with it."

Obviously that IS the crime. Because if conception occurs you want to make sure they pay for having caused it. If it's not a crime you cannot remove a woman's bodily autonomy for committing no crime. You are saying "You who have done nothing wrong should lose the right to your own body for the sake of another life."

"Being a good person isn`t slaughtering unborn babies."

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Forcing this into the legal code makes you not a good person in my opinion.

"The church helped HIV victims but not by providing condoms"

Because the church believe in it's own ethics above proven science, something that is dangerous. It's great that they help HIV victims, but they have the power to make there be less victims and choose not to because it goes against doctrine.

"church condemns violence or discrimination against homosexuals"

It's a logical contradiction to talk about Sodom and Gomorrah being destroyed for homosexuality and condemn violence against homosexuals. It's nice that they say it, but until homosexuality is not a sin under the church's eyes I cannot consider the church to be against discrimination. Teachers have been fired from Catholic schools for being gay. Until the pope calls the head of the school and says it's wrong to do so, one assumes the church supports this.

"You cannot treat all religions as the same."

I don't. What is the same of all religions is that they seek to oppress facts that don't coincide with doctrine in order to keep the minds of their flock smaller to minimize strays. Are Catholic schools better than a lot of other Christian sects/schools/etc. Yes. I've acknowledged this many times as we speak. Actually, Catholic schools teach evolution. I give credit where credit is due. I've even said that I consider myself Catholic (although you likely would not).

The church does many good things, but politically they have too much power in too many countries where there should be separation of church/state. This is dangerous. Democrats have had bishops deny them communion for supporting abortion. You say the church does not support the Republican party. I say these 2 facts cannot both be true (and yes, the pope is making it pretty uncomfortable for Catholic Republican candidates this week, and while I enjoy a bit of schadenfreude over this, it doesn't make it less true).

Robert@ Most abortions are for healthy pregnancies when women freely consented to sex. No I want to make sure the fetus doesn`t pay for it instead. It didn`t do anything.

No you eho conceived this life knowing it would be dependent on you, should take care of the live you created, you are doing something wrong if you create a live just to kill it. Whether it is wrong to create a life or not, depends on whether you do it responsibly. Getting children isn`t a crime, but fathers still have to pay child support.

You can consider adultery a sin without advocating stoning them. You can consider masturbation a sin, without wanting to beat up children who do it. According to the church we all struggle with sin and need to fight our natural sinful tendencies. Yet we should treat eachother with kindness and leave the judgement up to God.

Forcing into the legal code that all human beings have a right to live, is basic human kidness.

Actually they teach chastity which is a full proof way to prevent the spread of HIV, which is why South America and the Philipines or even Ireland have less then the world wide average.

Actually it makes sense to believe God punishes sinners, yet as we are not without sin, we cannot cast the first stone and need to forgive others their tresspassings, so others may be forgiven.

Catholic schools only hire teachers who agree with and live by church teachings. Discrimination by religious institutions for ministerial positions is different from secular public discrimination. The church fires all who dissent from her teachings, from positions where they are to teach the Catholic faith. One has to be a commited Catholic or at least a crypto Catholic Christian to teach Catholicism.

Yes the pope supports the right of the church, to appoint her own ministers. So did the founding fathers. The church believes in the right of women to receive any job with equal pay except the priesthood as that is a religious position. For example I am against firing people because they are Muslims but ofcourse this would be normal if they wanted to teach at a Protestant or Jewish school. You confuse public life, and private religious institutions.

Well Democrats who support the murder of babies, yes they are refused communion. That is not an unconditional endorsement of the republican. The church also excomunicated all Nazis and Communists in the thiries while not unconditionally supporting either Social Democrats or Nationalists.

Pope Francis also did this in Argentina, if people support the murder of innocent life, then they do follow the teachings of Christ and his church, and should not eat the flesh of the man who taught us to love the weak, not murder them for being weak. He taught us the narrow path, not that we can be irresponsible and make our weak children pay for our actions.

Moving away from abortion (since that's really a non starter on the internet and I'm not sure why I let it go along that far anyways). I agree with much of what you say. We obviously need to put some sins in the legal code and we obviously don't want to stone everyone that sins. And yes, fathers pay child support but the only other crime in which one loses bodily autonomy are those which carry capital punishment. Consider that. But obviously a large % of the population is judeo-christian and some of their values are going to end up in the legal code. I don't mean to suggest a blanket "anything the bible says should be out of the law books". That "thou shalt not kill" thing is pretty useful (and yes I see how you might take that bait on abortion, but resist the temptation... as I said before, to me it's about losing the right to your body, not about not killing).

"Actually they teach chastity which is a full proof way to prevent the spread of HIV, which is why South America and the Philippines or even Ireland have less then the world wide average."

Correlation does not prove causation. I don't pretend to be an expert on those countries, but it's pretty well established in this country that abstinence only education doesn't work. I can't imagine it works better in the Philippines, but I can't argue that which I have no information about.

"Discrimination by religious institutions for ministerial positions is different from secular public discrimination. "

I didn't say it shouldn't be allowed. I fully support the right of the church to fire gay people, adulterers, and gamblers. But you cannot say "You are not a good moral person, you cannot teach my children" and assume that it does not contribute to general discrimination against gay people. My point in bringing that up is that the church IS part of the problem here. It's nice they give lip service to "don't discriminate against gays" but until they stop doing so their flock will continue.

"You confuse public life, and private religious institutions."

I don't think so, I just believe that people who call themselves father should be aware that only bad parents don't lead by example. If you say "don't discriminate against gays" you have to do it yourself in order for your children to follow you.

"Well Democrats who support the murder of babies, yes they are refused communion. That is not an unconditional endorsement of the republican. The church also excomunicated all Nazis and Communists in the thiries while not unconditionally supporting either Social Democrats or Nationalists."

Again, this is a follow the leader thing. The Democratic presidential candidate in a 2 party system is not welcome to receive communion under my roof... but that's not an endorsement to not vote for them. Come now, you cannot believe that... and this is never applied evenly either, it's a dog and pony show. And largely it's why I don't attend church and my kids won't either. If people like me are not welcome under your roof, neither am I. You must realize this is done to affect power over the elections.

Robert @ Thank you for the kind response. Abstinence only worked well in the entire continent of South America.

Actually saying you do not follow all Catholic teachings, so you cannot teach Catholicism doesn`t mean so we generally discriminate towards you. I doubt I`d be allowed to teach at an Islamic school. It is about ministerial positions which is seperate from human rights issues and the issue of discrimination.

That is like saying that the church should allow Muslims to teach at Catholic schools because if not they encourage Islamophobia. Again ministerial positions are an exceptional issue.

Again the two issues are not comparable. Catholic teachers have to follow the Catholic faith, that is different from requiring someone to follow Catholic teachings for a secular job.

The church is seperate from public society, and supposed to be the body of chridt, not a representation of an ideal earthly society.

Suggesting Catholics allow those who oppose the churches teachings to teach at their schools just to set an example is an extreme form of over compensation.

Yeah that is the issue of a two party system, if one of the two supports murdering babies, that creates problem.

The church was often more supportive of the democrats before they embraced the culture of death.

Right now the Republicans seem like a lesser evil as they value all innocent human life.

Well yes the church needs to protect innocent life, just as it did in the thirties. You cannot receive the body of Christ if you do not wish to protect all innocent humans.

"Actually saying you do not follow all Catholic teachings, so you cannot teach Catholicism doesn`t mean so we generally discriminate towards you. I doubt I`d be allowed to teach at an Islamic school. It is about ministerial positions which is seperate from human rights issues and the issue of discrimination."

Simply the fact that the church considers living as an out gay person to be sinful/not following the Catholic teachings is, quite literally a discriminatory thought. It's backwards, dangerous, and the support for it in the bible is minor compared to not eating ham.

"That is like saying that the church should allow Muslims to teach at Catholic schools because if not they encourage Islamophobia. Again ministerial positions are an exceptional issue."

Simply considering being gay to be a lifestyle, a choice or a position akin to your religion is bigoted and backwards. The fact that you don't realize that is pretty solid proof of the danger of the church and group think that goes along with doctrine.

"Well yes the church needs to protect innocent life, just as it did in the thirties. You cannot receive the body of Christ if you do not wish to protect all innocent humans. "

Except the pope just made a whole bunch of anti-war statements and hawks (a lot of whom are Republican) don't get the same treatment as Democrats. It's political, it's not particularly fair, it's playing favorites and it's wielding too much power.

And it really brings this conversation full circle since the whole point of the conversation was the dangers of religion, Catholicism in particular. So we have a whole slew of Republican candidates, who are Catholic, a pope spouting anti-war rhetoric (and I liked his speech btw), but bishops who'd deny communion to pro-choice candidates but not pro-war candidates. Fairs fair. If ever there was a party of death, it's not the Democrats.

Just out of curiosity, if picked say... 250 issues, is there ONE you'd disagree with the pope on?

Robert@ Discriminatorry thought? Well what is wrong with that? We have freedom of religion. Religion discriminates nearly Always, unless it is relativistic. Religion discriminates against sin, and against what it perceives to be heretical and false. In this sense all religions discriminate against eachother. Protestants can be against anti-Catholic violence and discrimination in public life, yet still not want Catholics to teach in their schools. Jews can think that the Christian religion is incorrect and forbid those who are uncircumcised from teaching in Jewish schools. That would not be the same in any way, as commiting violence against Christians, as refusing them public jobs, positions in goverment or anything else. Many Catholics opposed anti-Semitic Nazi laws, but that didn`t mean they would be oke with Jews teaching in Catholic schools.

How is disagreeing with sexual promiscuety dangerous? The church teaches sex is only allowed when it is within marriage for reproduction. This has been the cionstant teaching of the church fathers. The Didache, Justin Martyr, Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, all of them were against birth control, abortion and homosexual practices.

Jesus indicated marriage is a permanent sacramental Union between one man and one woman.

The church does not stone the adulterer, and we would protect them if others wished to do so, but we ciould not have adulterers teach in our schools.

You are yourself disceiminating against traditionalistic Catholicism, why would that be any more oke? Condemning the church for following the church fathers is also discriminatorry.

The church does not consider gay feelings a life stule our choice. Conspucience is not sinfull. The church views acts as sinfil.

All sexual acts not open to reproduction are a sin according to the bible and sacred tradition.

One still choses to practice homosexual acts or not, just as one choses whether to practice Catholicism or not. You can argue you don`t chose to have homosexual feelings, but you also don`t chose to think the bible is correct you just do. Religious feelings and thoughts aren`t more up to free will then sexual feelings. Both are inffluenced by nature and nurture.

Actually the church indeed disagrees with most wars and the death penalty, but since John Paul II the church has stated one can faithfully disagree with the church on this, as it has not been infallibly defined, many church fathers believed in just war, many Catholic saints did, and whether taking evil lives to save thiose of the innocent is justified, is considered more grey than whether mothers may kill their babies.

Democrats violate infallible teachings that all the church fathers held since the first century. Those in favour of preemptive war do not.

That really ddoesn`t proof religion is harmfull. The church does not refuse communion to those who disagree on non essential debatable matters, it does refuse communion to those who reject infallible dogmas.

I don`t know pick something? If it is an infallible dogma than no, I follow all de fide articles of the church.

I used to disagree on masturbation, but I conquered that sin. I have come to accept that the pope holds the keys.

"
The church does not consider gay feelings a life stule our choice. Conspucience is not sinfull. The church views acts as sinfil.

All sexual acts not open to reproduction are a sin according to the bible and sacred tradition.

One still choses to practice homosexual acts or not, just as one choses whether to practice Catholicism or not. You can argue you don`t chose to have homosexual feelings, but you also don`t chose to think the bible is correct you just do. Religious feelings and thoughts aren`t more up to free will then sexual feelings. Both are inffluenced by nature and nurture."

But these thoughts cause children to kill themselves. I don't think I have more to say on the subject so I'll leave us with a Star Trek quote and a prediction.

Some day the church will decide it's ok to be gay and the faithful will pull a switch and suddenly it will be ok to be gay. The same way it was suddenly ok to have female altar servers.

And on that day nobody will think anything was wrong with the fact that they felt differently yesterday. And THAT is frightening as hell to me!

ODO: Major. Come to see Akorem speak?
KIRA: The Emissary's first public appearance? I wouldn't miss it.
ODO: I'm surprised to hear you call him that.
KIRA: Why? Akorem Laan was, is a great man. He's been with the Prophets for over two hundred years, and now they've sent him back to us.
ODO: Yes, but two days ago you believed Captain Sisko was the Emissary.
KIRA: Well, he made it clear he wants to step aside.
ODO: Does that mean he never really was the Emissary?
KIRA: No.
ODO: But they can't both be.
KIRA: I don't know. What do you want from me, Odo?
ODO: Forgive me, Major, I don't mean to be difficult, but your faith seems to have led you to something of a contradiction.
KIRA: I don't see it as a contradiction.
ODO: I don't understand.
KIRA: That's the thing about faith. If you don't have it, you can't understand it, and if you do, no explanation is necessary.

Robert@ Children have killed themselves for various reasons. You don`t have to aproove incest, drug use, pedophilia, or anything you consider wrong, just because someone people want to kill themselves unless you agree with them. Anti-Catholicism has also resulted in countless murders.

If I couldn`t faithfully follow the bible I would kill myself.

Altar girls is a discplinarry issue. Ethics are dogmatic.

Yeah tell me what contradiction exists within Catholicism without citing fallible disciplinarry issues, or generally fallible non dogmatic teachings?

The fact that a Catholic feels comfortable comparing being gay to incest and pedophilia just drives home how you all really feel about gay people. And yes, there are gay people that don't have gay sex because they think god would be sad and that's an abomination caused by Catholicism/Christianity too. Like conversion therapy. Anti-science mumbo jumbo at it's finest.

I wasn't speaking of an existing contradiction. I was saying that if one day the pope woke up and said that gay sex inside a marriage was ok and that the church would begin performing gay marriage that the flock would follow him.

As to what contradictions exist? Well, let's keep on the same subject. Sodom and Gomorrah never actually mention gay sex. Leviticus does, so you have that. And there is a little bit of support in the New Testament for it. But to what end should we follow things in the bible when there is a little bit of support for them?

Do we follow this one thing because the pope says so? (that's what the quote from DS9 was really about... that 2 men decided to change who the emissary was and the flock went along with it)

Actually I find the biggest flaw with Catholicism is that you aren't supposed to interpret the bible for yourself. An organization dedicated to preventing you from thinking for yourself might as well be a cult.

Consider the following. The bible says a man shall not lay with a man as he does with a woman (I'm paraphrasing, I was never good at quoting scripture even when I was a better Catholic).

It also says you can't eat pig (but Easter ham is so delicious) and I believe it has a restriction on shellfish.

Leviticus (the main support for no gay sex) also says you can't walk around with your head uncovered and the only person I know who follows that is a Jew. Also thou shalt not mar the corners of thy beard. I've always liked that one, and I hope you have your beard in tact or you'll have to work on that one now that you've finished with masturbation.

New moms are unclean (yay women hating bible) and need to stay out of church. EVERY single woman who attends her child's baptism is as big a sinner as someone who has gay sex. And of course we work on Sundays (Orthodox Jews try really hard to follow this one, though it ends up kind of ridiculous).

"You can argue you don`t chose to have homosexual feelings, but you also don`t chose to think the bible is correct you just do. Religious feelings and thoughts aren`t more up to free will then sexual feelings. Both are inffluenced by nature and nurture."

I will also take issue with this. I can't tell you when I "chose" to be straight, but I sure can tell you when I decided I wasn't going to go to church anymore (though I still go on holidays with my Dad... but for him, not me).

Robert@ Actually it just shows how I feel about all non reproductive sex, or sex outside of a sacramental marriage. Incest even involves consenting adults, but the point is those people didn`t chose those feelings either, so if you mstill think you can disagree with their choices, it shows the argument I was born with these feelings is invalid. Just as you don`t chose to have feeling of bestiality but you chose whether you act on them or not. The same with rape, sadism, polygamy, fornivation, adultery, masturbation, etc.

What does choosing to be chaste have to do with science mumbo jumbo? It is also nothing like conversion therapy, you merely chose to be celibate, it doesn`t require you to change who you are, only how you act. The church gives the same calling to the divorced remarried, those who don`t want children, or who aren`t married yet. How is asking people to be celibate an abomination?

When the church fathers and the magisterium interpet the bible a certain way, that interpetation is valid.

Well that is why Jesus made Peter the pope, because you can have good and evil interpetations. Claiming that an orginisation that is to explain sacred scripture is a cult is a gross stereotype.

Not everybody believes in individualism, that doesn`t automatically make you cult thinker.

Those dietarry laws were abolished in the New Testament when Jesus declared all foods clean. The church fathers never forbade pig meat, they Always banned homosexual acts.

Actually again, these laws weren`t upheld in the New Testament, if you read Jude, Timothy, Romans, or Corinthians, you see the laws on homosexuality were. Also I sugest you read the Didache from 70 A.D., the earliest cathechism which bans both abortion, and homosexual acts.

Again read the Didache or even Ignatius for Sunday worship.

I can tell you when I chose not to masturbate, fornicate, swear, or not practice any sinful acts. A homosexual can tell you when he stopped sleeping with men, just as you stopped going to church.

That comparison is much better. A better comparison to chosing to be straight, ( which I didn`t say, I said chosing to be celibate), is chosing to no longer believe in God, or to feel as though God exists, or to chose to no longer fear Hell, believe the bible, or to feel as though your traditionalist parents were right.

Some of your points I will give you. I appreciate you framing it is "choose to be celibate" even though I think that's a crappy awful choice to pick between celibacy and damnation... at least you aren't saying "choose to be gay". So I appreciate that. "Pray the gay away"/conversion therapy is anti-science mumbo jumbo but you don't seem to believe in any of that, so perhaps that's just a Christian thing and I'll retract that point.

Also, I think I get what you're saying at the end there. You cannot choose to stop believing in God. You can come to the realization that you have stopped believing in God at some point in the past, but you can't just wake up one day and decide to stop believing in God. I get that.

I think I realized one day that the God I believed in wasn't the one that is discussed in Church anymore. I think I still feel that way. But it wasn't a choice. That God just felt wrong. It says in the Bible that “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through me". The church fathers think a lot of things in the bible are literal. That you're going to hell if you aren't Catholic for instance, based on that quote. My God wouldn't send a Jewish person to hell if they lived in a way that would make Jesus happy. That's what that quote means to me. I feel most of the bible feels better to me when it's not taken literally...

"Actually again, these laws weren`t upheld in the New Testament, if you read Jude, Timothy, Romans, or Corinthians, you see the laws on homosexuality were."

I personally feel the new testament is actually contradictory on the old laws, BUT I'll grant you them for the sake of argument. Let's just play with those books you mentioned by your rules...

1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

1 Timothy 2:11-12
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;she must be quiet.

Should not female Catholic politicians be denied communion?

Robert@ Thank you. Yes I as a Catholic believe celibacy is the calling for all who are not ready to have kids within a sacramental marriage, which is most people nowadays really. You don`t have to pray the gay away, just pray you can not have sex, which those who aren`t married yet should pray also.

We don`t say don`t be gay, we say don`t have sex we disagree with, which is most forms really.

Considering the first quote refers to women in the church, and the second was in a pastoral epistle speaking of how to lead the church, and referred back to the first, this clearly refers to church matters, and church leadeship. They are one of the reasons the church does not ordain women.

However the church fathers never opposed women being involved with politics. It was the church that gave women the right to independently own property, and the ban on infantcide also really helped out young girls. It is really sad many people call the church sexist just for her refusal to not ordain women.

Like with gay people at schools, church teaching positions are seperate from public life. So no. Women can be politicians, they have been so for 2000 years. Empresses could even cal councils like Nicea II. We greatly honour Mary Queen of Scots, or Empress Theresa.

Considering the primary place for learning back in the day was the temple and rabbi means teacher I actually interpret those passages to mean that women should learn what their husbands want to teach them and not be in charge of men ever. And there are several other passages that can be interpreted similarly in the New Testament. At the very least married women don't need the right to vote because they'd never vote opposite their husbands.

But let's return to the crux of the problem which is that the main danger of the church to those outside the church is power overreach.

Why are Catholics not then for gay marriage? Or at least not against it. I mean, it would seem to me that your, I would even call it very reasonable point of view is that...

1. Lots of people shouldn't have sex.

2. You should only have procreative sex.

3. You should only have said procreative sex inside a loving FIRST marriage between a man and a women.

4. Other kinds of sex... gay sex, fun sex with birth control, extramarital sex, pre-marital sex, masturbation, etc. is all off limits.

So the truth is that since I have 2 kids and don't want more it really wouldn't suck to be a gay Catholic much more than it would suck to be me and Catholic if I was following the rules properly because I'm in my early 30s and I'd be done having sex forever already. Let's call this "checkpoint A". Are we in agreement here at "checkpoint A"? A place I'd call silly but logically consistent thus far.

So if Catholics want to prevent gay couples from getting legally married (we're not speaking of in church marriages) and adopting kids... why are they not equally trying to stop divorces from occurring? Remarried couples from having kids? The position seems logically consistent in most other places (Catholics are for abstinence only, against birth control, etc.).

But as you've said they are against THEIR employees getting birth control. They are only against teaching abstinence only education in THEIR kid's schools. They are only against remarriage in church (unless you're Newt Gingrich apparently). As you keep saying "church teaching positions are seperate from public life."

So I ask you, if I tried to pass a law that said gay people could be legally married BUT that no institution would ever be forced to perform that marriage, if that wording was coded into that law... would you be for or against? Such a law would, in a way, be a win for churches that fear of legislative overreach forcing them to perform these marriages (something I'd never be for).

If not, why? And if not, do you think the rest of Catholic dogma should be enshrined in our legal system? Specifically no divorces? And if so, how do you feel about the church hypocrisy in those matters (like in Newt's case).

And before you explain to me what an annulment is, I'm not totally against it (even from a Catholic perspective), but a marriage that lasts over a decade and produces multiple children can only be annulled by a hypocrite. And granted, the hypocrite was a Bishop, not the Pope, but I was just wondering how you feel about it anyway. I presume you are at least allowed to think Bishops are hypocrites sometimes even if you aren't really allowed to disagree with the Pope. I was never 100% clear on that, but I know he speaks with the authority of God.

Robert@ Actually secular education already existed in Roman times. Paul epistles are pastoral and refer to roles in the church, and it means women should not try to discuss the faith within the church. Temple discussion and discussions in church were theological, and sacramental.

You shoulde check the constitutional ban on divorce that existed in Ireland till 1993, or the protests of the church and papacy over the legalisation of divorce in Austria-Hungary, the constitutional ban on divorce in Brazil in 1978, the attempts to ban divorce in Italy trough referendum in the sixties, to opposition to divorce in Spain and Portugal.

To be very honest. We lost.

Similarly Ireland, Argentina, Chile, etc. all used to ban birth control. I think Bolivia, El Salvador, and Colombia still do. The Philipines still has a ban on divorce.

The church mainly opposes gay adoption as like abortion it is seen as hurtful to young children. They believe children need both a father and mother.

The church Always defended marriage as it started out as a religious Union first, and the goverment used to base its views on marriage on the Christian religion of the founding fathers.

The church has Always requested the goverment upholds the Christian ethics the Western world was founded upon.

If they wouldn`t adopt kids I wouldn`t have a big problem with it. Also if it would legalise adoption the church would request their adoption agencies be exempted. Which too often they are not, forcing them to close centuries old adoption agencies and abandon hundreds of children.

I would prefer for divorce to be banned as well, as I have seen what it did to countless children. Most became bullies, or severly depressed. I believe divorce goes against the promises you make, the vows you take.

I think birth control also has done great harm, as it caused people to view their own bodies in a superfisial way, and caused certain children to be accidents. It caused getting children to become a choice, and it suggests my grandparents were breeders. Many of us exist thanks to the times that birth control and abortion were banned. Also considering birth control was made popular by Communists and eugenicists I could favour banning that.

Pope Francis tried to keep birth control illegal in Argentina.

Also one a personal note, one of the reasons I became Catholic is because I have OCD and Tourette and have been bullied for that, relentlessly, including by own liberal teachers, and I soon learned that the liberal anti-discrimination movement only wanted to protect certain groups, while allowing the truewlly handicapped and weak to suffer. If you were gay you were totally save, but I was physically assaulted by own liberal teachers.

I also came to discover liberal doctors and psychiatrists supported the Nazi eugenics program, and that it was the silly Catholic Church that opposed eugenics.

I became prolife after learning of the aborting of children with downsyndrome, and girls, and because women wanted to go on vacation.

Also my parents sometimes treated me as a burden, and sometimes that caused me to wish I hadn`t been born, till I realised it was their choice to get me, and that children are not pets you can love or take responsibility for, only if they suit your demands.

I came to the conclusion that the liberal freedom= happines culture, was a mild version of anarchism. Of allowing 2 wolves and 1 sheep, to vote over what you are going to do. Seeing the silent scream was especially interesting. Learning of partial birth abortion was also horrifying. One person even said he didn`t care if the fetus felt pain.

I was also interested to learn that the church stance against abortion and euthenesia and birth control made them one of the greatest opponents of both Nazism and Communism, and the heroic role of the church during World War II was universally aknowledged till a disinformation campaign from the KGB in the sixties started to influence public opinion.

As for your last question, I think the annulment might have been granted because of lack of maturity when entering the marriage, not being ready for it, and that the new marriage might be less harmfull to the children then one that didn`t work. I hope they had valid reasons for it. Henry VIII showed annulments aren`t granted lightly. But the bishop could have been a hypocrite, yes. I hope he wasn`t. Even the pope can make mistakes when not speaking ex cathedra, although rarely.

"As for your last question, I think the annulment might have been granted because of lack of maturity when entering the marriage, not being ready for it, and that the new marriage might be less harmfull to the children then one that didn`t work."

It was his third marriage and the previous 2 spanned nearly 40 years. I think he was ready to make those vows the first time.

I also get where you are coming from and I'm sorry for your experience, but I think things like this are pendulum issues. Like... if conservatives and liberals could just be centrists we could mix the good ideas from both sides.

I also appreciate you saying that you have no intrinsic opposition to gay marriage IF you could be certain Catholic churches and Catholic adoption agencies were exempt. I think that if more people were against the separation of church and state in that way that the Church would be less dangerous.

And I understand the sentiment behind things like "I became prolife after learning of the aborting of children with downsyndrome, and girls, and because women wanted to go on vacation." but I feel like that's the argument for a lot of conservative things and I hate it. If you start banning things because of potential for abuse you end up with a country that is not free. Damn near everything can be abused. But conservatives use this to say why affirmative action, welfare, abortion, pot, and a myriad of other things are bad (I'm not actually 100% supportive of all of those things in their current form, but I would not use their potential for abuse as reasons to get rid of them).

To be honest I've never felt the Catholic Church belonged with the conservatives and if they could find a way to ally themselves with liberals instead and focus on the compassionate side of Catholicism instead of the judging sin side (which they shouldn't be doing anyway, judge not lest ye be judged and all of that) that it would strengthen the church and lengthen it's life. At least in America that's a big problem for them. Some joke that Catholics like me who are, for all intents and purposes non practicing, are the second biggest religion in the country....

Robert@ The Catholic Church actually supported centrist parties a lot like the Catholic Centre Party in Germany.

True but I think killing babies before they are born, chosing who lives and who dies, is a freedom noone deserves.

The church long did ally itself with centrists, in many countries, especially south America, Poland, the Philipines, Australia, and Germany they still do.

However I think you understand that if you are really prolife abortion is like murdering a baby. So the liberals have to give way on that. The church generally supports the Republicans indirectly, by default.

Also there is a difference between judginng sins and the sinners. The church is not merely a charity orginisation. The Nazis also provided social services to Aryans, the church condemns what it connsiders the murder of the innocent. The church saved many mentally handicapped people from the Nationnal Socialists because they refused to compromise.

The Episcopelians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and generally all liberal protestants have done what you suggested. Those churches are already practically dead.

As Catholicism is the biggest single denomination this makes sense. Most Protestants are agnostics as well, but there churches have themselves become agnostic and don`t even care whether you show up or not, so noone notices.

Liberal Christianity has also seen better days. Also if the church in Poland had followed your advice, the iron curtain might still be up.

"However I think you understand that if you are really prolife abortion is like murdering a baby. So the liberals have to give way on that. The church generally supports the Republicans indirectly, by default."

I would hope we could agree to disagree on that one. I don't expect them to ever not see it as killing a baby, but I hope there could be some common ground between killing and murder. It's my hope that the church one day says "I cannot control your body, but I'm here to offer you support both financial and otherwise if you make the right choice." I think attempting to control another person's body is immoral and the middle road is the only moral choice.

"Liberal Christianity has also seen better days."

At least in big cities it's dying, albeit slowly. Where I live the # of parishes has more than halved in my lifetime. My cousins and I all have pleasant memories of church and going with our parents. Of the 10 of us, only 3 still attend, and 2 of those are minors. The previous generation all 6 of them went. My kids are not and will not be baptized. I know in the South it's doing well, but young liberals aren't going to church.

Robert@ The church also condemns spousal abuse, believing it is oke to control how a man treats his family to protect the innocent. The church banbed infantcide on the grounds you could control people to not harm others. As the woman is the cause of the fetus being inside her, the church doesn`t see it as a justifficationn for murder. It is infantcide. The church like with the T4 program, will not compromise.

Telling a man not to rape is also controlling his body in a sense. The women harms not just her own body, but the fetus, she put inside her body. I am allowed to kill trespassers, but not my own children I take care of inside my home. I also cannot kick them out while it is storming or until I have found another home. The burden is on the parent to find alternative care. So go work on that.

No but they wouldn`t be going even the church sold out to the evils of the world, as Protestantism has shown.

Nazis were excomunicated, anyone else who supports a holocaust will receive the same treatment.

I think I'm going to have to check out of the conversation if you're comparing pro-choice/abortion doctors to a holocaust....

I am pleased we were able to find common grounds in some places though.

Robert@ That is not my view, but the view of the pope and the church.

I appreciate the distinction. It'd be nice some day if the left and the right weren't at war, but I guess there's still a chasm to overcome. Still, it was nice finding some common ground. I hope you walk away with a bit more understanding of what the other side finds scary about the church and I definitely have more understanding of how a person in your shoes feels.

Luke :

"Has religion been used by evil people. Of course it has. Does that mean that every religious person is evil. Of course not. "

That is not the premise in the episode. To paraphrase the great Christopher Hitchens: good people tend to do good, evil people tend to do evil; for a good person to evil and believe himself doing good, that takes religion.

Likko, in his credulous fear, resorted to behaviour which, without that religious conviction, he would be incapable. Because his morality was being defined by a non-rational source, actions which would naturally be deemed evil are felt to be acceptable or even righteous.

"religion has benefited humanity is numerous ways. "

How exactly? Human beings, some of whom belonged to religious institutions, have benefited humanity in numerous ways. How has religion itself done so? How has promulgating religious thinking actually helped our species in any way?

Without getting too far off the subject, there is something about the human condition that pure rationalism cannot touch. One may call it metaphysics or the numinous, or the spiritual, the label is relatively unimportant. Religions do address this dimension of our reality, but they also impose the irrational (which this by definition is) onto the rational. For example, one has a sense of the divine, a connection to other human beings which cannot be explained by physics or biology. Fine, that is a numinous reality. But to then say that this sense justifies enacted codes of conduct about society (a rational construct), science (likewise), or sex (irrational in its way, but it has a physical component) is problematic to say the least. That is the core problem of religion. There is at least one other human activity which touches this part of ourselves which does not come with this problematic baggage however, and that is art. Art is the compassionate, rational-complementary alternative to the religious experience.

I hesitate to get back into this comment thread after the rather disturbing place I saw it go last time, but I do want to say this....

"How has promulgating religious thinking actually helped our species in any way?"

I can't speak for other faiths but it was the promulgation of Christian ideology that directly led to the ending of the gladiatorial games of ancient Rome. It also brought about the end of the Roman practice of infanticide. It was Christian clerics who, based upon their religious faith, first condemned the treatment of Natives Americans in the early days after Columbus' discovery of the New World. It was again Christians who, due to their religious faith, brought an end to the trans-Atlantic slave trade and eventually an end to the entire practice of slavery in the Western world.

Religious thinking was absolutely essential in all of those improvements in our species.

@Luke :

Christianity replaced the Roman faith, but it did not replace non-religious thinking with religious thinking. I would say that, from an anthropomorphic perspective, Christianity is a more evolved religion than the Roman faith (as far as we know), so yes, I am unsurprised that it helped produce slightly less violent social norms for its time (ignoring for the moment that the majority of the victims of Roman brutality tended to be Christians, so it's a bit self-serving if justified). As far as the rest of your examples, I'm afraid not. Christianity was at the core of the justification for the original conquest of American AND most definitely slavery. At best, I would call those a wash, but that's generous. One does not require religious thinking to recognise the immorality of slavery. Any psychologically balanced child can tell that. But when religion is introduced--when an ideology that deals in absolute terms with a father (human)-like arbitrator of right and wrong for all people throughout time, that's when one's mind can be twisted into believing that it is perfectly natural to denigrate, mistreat and enslave his fellow human beings. Sure, one is always capable of this, but is he capable of believing that he is doing the righteous work of the Lord in so doing? You might read the Confederate propaganda from the antebellum United States or the correspondences of the Conquistadors before claiming that "religious thinking" actual helped fight those phenomena. Religious PEOPLE may have done so, but not the religiosity of their thinking. The justification for ending slavery and barbarism requires only basic humanist principles, which any person can profess with or without religion. Religion tends to make good people do terrible things, but I would like an example of a situation where ONLY as a result of thinking in a religious way was mankind in some way benefited.

"That is not the premise in the episode. To paraphrase the great Christopher Hitchens: good people tend to do good, evil people tend to do evil; for a good person to evil and believe himself doing good, that takes religion."

I have said this before and will say it again: in order for this to be true, Atheists would have to percentage wise produce less psychopaths and murderers, compared to every existing religious group. The reign of terror, Mao, North Korea, and Cambodja all make this rather difficult to assert.

Elliott@ The Romans were rather secular. They were very pragmatic about religion and it had no influence at all in politics. Slavery was a common practice under the Romans. Including the raping of slaves. The raping of slaves, or forbidding them to marry was abolished by the church. Various saints freed slaves, or opposed slavery al together like Saint Patrick and Gregory of Nyssa.

La Casas was the ultimate patron of Indian rights. The North was also devoutly religious, and the jesuits long protected the Indians.

If you need a religion or god or promises of afterlife to do good, you are not really doing good. If I buy someone something and I expect to gain something from that act, I am not doing it selflessly. Another reason religion is a joke.

So what we see here is not science versus religion, but rather religion-haters versus Catholics. I must admit I was wrong above: this is not a forum driven by the paradigm of secular humanism versus biblical literalism. I haven't seen any arguments for humanism, and if there were some bible quotes up there I missed them.

I think Who Watches the Watchers demonstrates this, too. It portrays religionists as stupid, irrational, and dangerously violent; while our heroes are helpless against them except to yell at them that they're stupid and affect a politely-moderated sense of superiority.

@DLPB: You are correct in your morality, but it is clear you don't understand anything about Catholicism, arguably a major player in things related to religion. I bring up Catholicism because that's my religion and also it seems the only other religion represented in this thread.

Of course it's of no moral value to do good simply because you're afraid of getting caught and punished, but who can say they haven't done just that from time to time? Yet, as DLPB reminds us, you must always bear in mind that to truly profit from doing good, you must do it selflessly, as an act of charity. Allow me to be the first to confess that I have many times avoided evil or done good only because I feared the loss of heaven and the pains of hell, while I should have done so out of selfless charity and love of God and neighbor.

"If I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not love, it profits me nothing."*

@DLPB: you speak of things you know nothing about.

*I figured I'd add a Bible verse, but with the twist of using it to defend the position of someone calling all religion "a joke". And honestly I don't see what any of this has to do with science such that it should be antithetical to it.

For what it's worth, I see pure Catholicism (some people take this stuff in a bad direction) as a step up from the kind of religion this episode bases. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in Catholicism than me could help me out, but the big difference between this religion and Catholicism is that Catholics do what they think God would find good to secure a place in heaven. These people are doing what they think God would find good to provoke a response.

And they read that response in weather and other perfectly explainable phenomenon. This is akin to people who say that natural disasters are caused by gay people (www.advocate.com/politics/2012/10/31/10-disasters-gays-were-blamed-causing?page=full)

Luke and I don't see eye to eye, but I recognize that these are Christian sects propagating that nonsense for the most part, not Catholics. Something tells me that he's against reading weather like their tea leaves for God's will.

Primitive religions were needed to understand things we couldn't understand without religion. Now we can. It's called science. You CAN be Catholic and not be against science (see the pope's recent comments on Global Warming). Luke and John and I were primarily arguing about the danger of religions try to impose themselves on others.

I don't think this episode dismisses the kind of religion that Catholicism is.

@Eddington - I was brought up a Roman Catholic and attended church for 10 years. I attended two Roman Catholic schools. Perhaps next time you will think before making assumptions?

The difference between you and me is this: I have woken up. I had the intelligence to grow out of fairy tales and man-made dogma.

@Robert: it seems to me you're oulining a case against superstition: doing something "to provoke a response". Or, maybe in other words, to control or predict the natural world using magic or other chance occurrences rather than by using knowledge (science).

I suggest many episodes of Star Trek, appearing to be self-consciously anti-religion, are better interpreted as anti-superstition. This is what plays out on the screen.

And as for the Pope, when he wants to talk about science then you will know the Pope has lost his wits. His "scientific" utterances are spurious and contradictory. He's not even a good scientist as a hobby on the side. And good thing, too, because a Pope isn't needed to lecture us on science. Catholicism doesn't change on a Pope's command, and the scientific truths of the natural order are older than the Church.

Remember Galileo?

If any of us want to cheer the Pope lecturing on science as if to endorse, through faith and morals, any particular theory in exclusion to another, we are no better than these silly "Protovulcan" villagers. Catholic or otherwise.

For those who aren't catholic, please understand that there is no requirement for intelligence to be a member, and the requirements for Pope are lower still. Catholics come from many different cultures, times, and scientific traditions. Any of them could be "good cathlics" or just as likely ignorant jerks. The fact is, there is no scientific theory that I must accept or reject to be or stay catholic. For this religion, at least, claims of "anti-science" are baseless.

@Eddington - I will agree with you on the point that "many episodes of Star Trek, appearing to be self-consciously anti-religion, are better interpreted as anti-superstition."

As for the Pope talking about global warming... well if God gave us the gift of this planet, teaching people to protect it is more important than any anti-war or pro-life message the church could give. If we accidentally kill all of the things, who the hell cares about war or abortions?

What I would have like to seen was more mention of the Vulcans or Romulans. The should have been shown to the Mintakan leader as an example of where their race could go. Furthermore, why weren't there any Vulcans with the scientists in the begining of the episode. Wouldn't the Vulcans have some curiosity concerning an offshoot of their race?

A wonderful little episode - but one that for obvious reasons is going to lead to strong opinions on either side of the spectrum.

For me, this is an examination of what might happen if a primitive but rational people were exposed to the dictum "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Some might interpret that as evidence of a supreme being. Others might believe in the supreme being, but question how to interpret the wishes of that being. Others might not believe without proof. And if proof were provided - a primitive but rational people might conclude that the supreme being was not actually a supreme being.

Given the broad constraints of an hour's TV this episode does not perhaps examine all of these elements with subtlety. But it does at least ask the question based on its premise with some sensitivity. The scenes between Nuria and Picard on the Enterprise are particular highlights. 3 stars.

Robert@ I just wanted to say that after thinking about it for a while I still think that an alliance between Catholics and Democrats is impossible. If the Democratic party was still what it was before Jimmy Carter we would firmly support it. The Democrats were once pro life. Now they are the party of death. Democrats don`t just support first as well as second trimester abortion for any reason they also defend partial birth abortion. Also their current president defended infanticide, multiple times. If any doctor our parent, or caregiver, abandons, or neglects a born baby that is infanticide. Just as throwing a baby in a dumbster is.

Pure Catholicism is first century Christianity. If you read either the Didache, which predates revelations, or the Epistle of Barnabas, you see firm and explicit condemnations of both infanticide and abortion. Both which the church banned. Excommunication was always the punishment for those involved with abortion.

However Jimmy Carter also saw it fit to lecture John Paul II. Now John Paul II grew up when the Nazis invaded Poland and was bishop under the Communists and opposed their tyranny while bishop, and worked together with Ronald Reagan and Margaret in bringing about the peaceful fall of Communism.

Also the Obama administration opposed the ministerial exception. The Democratic party has frequently ridiculed Catholic republicans. Obama tried to force religious Catholic institutions to provide birth control coverage. The Democrats try to force Catholic hospitals to provide the morning after pill. They don`t respect the freedom of Catholic hospitals, they despise our theology, they oppose the papacy. Democrats have even supported attempts in certain states to infringe upon church organization trying to enforce democratic decision making. The Democratic party indulges people who tried to have the tax exempt status of the church revoked because we are pro-life. The Democratic party as it is right now, would like nothing more then to do to the Catholic Church what Queen Elizabeth did. They will oppose Catholicism till it becomes like Anglicanism. Also Anglicanism, Lutheranism and Methodism have all shown that becoming increasingly more secular, liberal, and humanistic does not preserve membership, encourage devotion, or do anything except make the church leadership as faithless as the faithful.

Lastly Obama dared to lecture the Irish about separate religious schools, but never did anything of a kind with Muslims. Also the Democratic Party has done very little for the Christians in the Middle East.

The republicans are the party of death. The two recent pointless occupations killed over 100k innocent civilians and accomplished nothing but profits from war. These were fully born and grown humans. Not everyone views a fetus as you do. Additionally, a vast majority of abortions are done in the firsy trimester. Why focus on 3 month fetus rekovals when we just killed one hundred Thousand fully grown humans and have more military spending than the next 10 countries combined, guaranteeing another war soon enough?

ES@ In the past not everyone viewed black people the same, that still didn`t prevent the Republicans from fighting over it in the civil war under Lincoln. Democrats have also supported plenty of wars. There is a difference between just war, and infanticide. Clinton also had bombings done in Yugoslavia. War is usually crucial to defend the weak. It usually targets those who can defend themselves. If babies cannot even be safe by their own mommies there is a problem.

"Obama tried to force religious Catholic institutions to provide birth control coverage."

This is by far the weakest of your arguments. Obama tried to force religious institutions to provide HEALTH coverage that includes birth control coverage. I'm sorry, but EVERY SINGLE PERSON in this non religious country has some of their money go to things that they feel are immoral. Anybody who does not like this SHOULD LEAVE. There is just no way around this. For a Catholic person to spend more time worrying that the health plans they buy their employees might be used to buy birth control instead of worrying that they are paying taxes that will be used to EXECUTE INMATES is ridiculous. Since you're discussing birth control and how Democrats and Catholic people can't get along I'd like to point out that Republicans do in fact want to use YOUR MONEY to MURDER PEOPLE.

Additionally, if their employees don't get birth control via the health plan they'll do so via their salaries. The Catholic organization is still paying for it. It's all semantic nonsense. Really, it's ridiculous. So now that we've gotten your most ridiculous example out of the way I can move on to the less ridiculous arguments.

"Also their current president defended infanticide, multiple times."

This, while true is 10% fact, 90% spin. "At issue is Obama’s opposition to Illinois legislation in 2001, 2002 and 2003 that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a "born alive infant" entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive."

Now Republicans thinking they know better than doctors is nothing new, but Obama choosing to let an obviously stupid law fail is not "supporting infanticide". The truth is extremely light gray and the way you put it is black. The result of this law would have been a freak show of mother's terminating terminally ill babies after an 18 week amnio shows that their baby has no skull being thrown in prison for murdering "born alive" babies that "shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law." At best this was a backdoor attack on abortion, at worst it was a way to get good election quotes about Democrats voting to kill babies. In no way was this law actually about saving babies.

The law he voted against was in Illinois. Illinois already had a law on its books from 1975 that said if a doctor suspected an abortion was scheduled for a viable fetus — meaning able to survive outside of the mother's body — then the child must receive medical care if it survives the abortion. The new laws didn't distinguish between viable and nonviable, meaning that an infant of any age that survived an abortion should receive care. Again, this was a stupid law where Republicans (for a change) think they know better than doctors. I am sure you will not even bother to offer a rebuttal to my argument here, there is none.

"Obama tried to force religious Catholic institutions to provide birth control coverage. The Democrats try to force Catholic hospitals to provide the morning after pill."

I have a hard time here. I half agree with you, half do not. I think that a hospital should have to provide a basic set of services in order to qualify for government dollars. I would personally like to have some kind of protection for any doctor, nurse or orderly that does not feel comfortable participating in this process. But while a hospital can be created by a religious institution a building cannot worship and a building that receives government dollars should meet all standards required for those dollars. I feel there has to be a way to not infringe on the employees freedom of religion, while at the same time recognizing that the building does not really have a religion. And if the building really, really wants to be a religious building it can do so without government funds.

"The Democratic party indulges people who tried to have the tax exempt status of the church revoked because we are pro-life."

I cannot find any evidence as to this claim, so I don't really know what to do with it. I've found evidence of Democrats attempting to have what are essentially pro-life lobby groups mascarading as "religious groups" lose their status. But the church itself? I can't find anything. If this is a view-point I have a hard time believing it to be mainstream in such a way that it's worth discussing.

"Also the Obama administration opposed the ministerial exception."

Here I will not offer a rebuttal. I am strongly for the ministerial exception. Catholic schools should be able to fire a gay teacher. Churches should be able to not hire a Jewish person. Etc., etc. I believe the government should keep out of church business (mostly) and vice versa.

"In the past not everyone viewed black people the same, that still didn`t prevent the Republicans from fighting over it in the civil war under Lincoln."

You claim Democrats are so different from Jimmy Carter's era that they are basically considered a separate entity but somehow Republican power dates back to the civil war? Really. Republicans ought not to bother taking credit for anything that far back, it's not the same party either.

Robert@ Directly ensuring is different from paying taxes for. Being forced to provide insurance is very Socialist and goes against the founding fathers anyways. A mandate to insure never existed like this before, and lead to dozens of lawsuits of Catholic institutions as insuring the morning after pill is cooperating in the murder of fertilised eggs. Thankfully the supreme court overruled Obama.

This country was discovered by Catholics. The constitution written by devout conservative Christians of various creeds. Founding fathers whom opposed abortion and the likes.

The death penalty is the killing of guilty evil, mortal sinners. This is compatible with the teachings of Augustine, or a great hero like Pope Pius XII. They defended the death penalty as it is aimed at the evil who harm the innocent. Like just war. Abortion on the other hand was condemned since 70 A.D. in the Didache as murder of the innocent. Americans also executed Nazis but that wasn`t the same as killing babies.

Jerome, Ambrose, Hyppolatus of Rome, Barnabas, John Chrysostom, they all condemned both abortion and birth control. Early Christians also refused to attend races although it was a public duty as slaves were forced into it. The Catholic Church in Poland refused to confirm to the Communists and support birth control and abortion. Catholics have died over these issues.

So by Obama`s reasoning any doctor could avoid being charged with infanticide just by claiming that the baby had no chance of surviving. Also plenty of foetuses were actually killed after abortions while others were saved by nurses, every Democrat aside from Obama supported the law. What is the harm in helping the fetus anyways? If it dies at least you tried.

This was about late term abortions. Fetuses have been born at 22 weeks, Obama required no proof of doctors to indicate the fetus would die, and by allowing it to die, we don`t know whether it could have been saved or not. Also how objective is an abortion doctor really? Doctors in the early twentieth century defended eugenics, and the Nazi T4 program, as well as lobotomies. Doctors long classified homosexuality as an illness. Clearly the opinion of doctors isn`t infallible otherwise it wouldn`t change, and many doctors have saved foetuses.

The law wouldn`t have punished women for having abortions. It was passed, and it was never used as such. It only required the doctor to try and take care of the infant. It had to do with giving care to born babies. Many of whom lived thanks to this bill. Late term abortions don`t just occur because of the severe handicaps you describe. Obama didn`t even use the defences you used.

He merely believed pro choice doctors who perform late term abortions could be trusted to decide what constituted viability. The bill merely required them to check whether the fetus was viable. There is my rebutal.

The Hyde Church amendment enacted after Roe Vs Wade with the support of the supreme court guaranteed that religious hospitals do not have to provide abortions or sterilisations even while receiving federal funding. Tens of millions of prolifers pay taxes after all, and Catholic hospitals provided services to the public long before anyone considered legalising abortion. We founded the first hospitals after all. 46 States have laws protecting religious hospitals also. Around 30 protect any hospital from providing abortion.

Catholic hospitals are ran by directives from the bishops which ban abortion, sterilisation, IVF, and so on. The hospital as an organization is under Catholic control and is there to provide medical care, not to support sexual promiscuity. The original Hypocratic Oath forbids both abortion and euthenasia.

Not the Democratic party itself but certain Feminists that are supported by it, it was a big case in the eighties.

Republicans maintained the traditional views on marriage, life, America as a Christian nation, just war and so on.

The point is that opposition to abortion started in the first century Christian Church. It has always been condemned as murder. Republicans have recently been expanding conscience clauses protecting Catholic institutions. A Californian judge lectured the Catholic Church for its position on gay adoption. Again Democrats even tried to take control over church funds away from the bishops in Conneticut.

Democrats have also tried to force Catholic pharmacies to provide birth control, and Democrats usually promote dissident Catholics. Again Carter lectured John Paul II on church.

Also they supported Planned Parenthood who`s crimes have recently been coming to light.

"This country was discovered by Catholics. The constitution written by devout conservative Christians of various creeds. Founding fathers whom opposed abortion and the likes."

Founding fathers who enshrined freedom of (and FROM) religion into the constitution instead of abortion opposition.

"The death penalty is the killing of guilty evil, mortal sinners. This is compatible with the teachings of Augustine, or a great hero like Pope Pius XII. They defended the death penalty as it is aimed at the evil who harm the innocent. Like just war. Abortion on the other hand was condemned since 70 A.D. in the Didache as murder of the innocent. Americans also executed Nazis but that wasn`t the same as killing babies."

Who are you arguing with. I compared Catholic SILENCE for tax dollars being used in executions for Catholic UPROAR at their money being spent on birth control. You will not find anything in those comments equating abortion. Catholics are against the death penalty. They are just oddly MORE against birth control (not including morning after in this part of the discussion either FYI).

"He merely believed pro choice doctors who perform late term abortions could be trusted to decide what constituted viability. The bill merely required them to check whether the fetus was viable. There is my rebuttal."

Yes, your rebuttal admits that your original comment was 10% fact, 90% spin. As I said. AS you pointed out "He merely believed pro choice doctors who perform late term abortions could be trusted to decide what constituted viability." In your head "Obama trusted the doctors to make medical decisions" == "Obama supported infanticide." Sorry, that's spin. There's no way that can ever be anything other than spin to any educated person with a reasonable IQ looking at this from a place of logic and not emotion. It makes for great election time spin, but it's spin. Honestly if you won't relent on this one don't expect me to respond further. It's arguing from an extremely disingenuous place.

"The Hyde Church amendment enacted after Roe Vs Wade with the support of the supreme court guaranteed that religious hospitals do not have to provide abortions or sterilisations even while receiving federal funding."

So? You mentioned 2 bits of law there. We each disagree with one of them. I'm not sure what you're point is. If your point is that the status quo of law is good than I'm glad you now support Roe.

"The original Hypocratic Oath forbids both abortion and euthenasia."

Also... so? We shouldn't update old things with modern sensibilities? Good to know slavery should still be legal and women shouldn't be allowed to vote...

"The point is that opposition to abortion started in the first century Christian Church. It has always been condemned as murder."

Lots of ideas originated that far back that are bad. A history lesson doesn't determine if something is good or bad.

"A Californian judge lectured the Catholic Church for its position on gay adoption."

Ok, that sounds like the church trying to but into legal things. They deserve a lecture from a judge if they are trying to change laws.

I guess what you're trying to say is that the Democrats are attacking the church and the mighty Republicans are their saviors. If that's the case then I'm sure glad I gave up going to church.

@Logan

If you are worried about socialism, then you should have a HUGE problem with the military, which has the budget of the next 10 countries combined, even though we are surrounded by oceans and harmless countries. We use that to regularly murder fully grown and functional innocent hunan beings. While you are at it, you should work to get rid of our other socialist programs like public schools, police departments, fire departments, public libraries, the post office, medicare, and social security, to name a few.

ES,

Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. (or the "State")

None of the programs, voted in by the peoples elected officials advocate state ownership instead of private. Your argument for socialism is invalid.

The largest contributors to public libraries in this country was from one of it's greatest capitalist, not socialist (Andrew Carnegie).

Try again.

As an x-military guy, our military budget is too large. But stability of the seas around the world does benefit you at the gas pump, in the stores etc. So while I might agree that we have too many irons in the fire overseas, one can't argue that our military doesn't benefit the entire world.

I also wouldn't consider ISIS members as "innocent human beings" either... Neanderthals comes to mind.

Interesting... Catholic hospitals don't have to perform abortions... boy, what about Catholic wedding cake makers? Why hasn't the Mosks here in the US been made to conduct Gay weddings? Why is it that only the Christian organizations/believers in the country being attacked? If you get this question right, then you should easily realize what the real threat is.

"Interesting... Catholic hospitals don't have to perform abortions... boy, what about Catholic wedding cake makers? Why hasn't the Mosks here in the US been made to conduct Gay weddings? Why is it that only the Christian organizations/believers in the country being attacked? If you get this question right, then you should easily realize what the real threat is. "

I'm confused about what point you are trying to make.

You aren't truly equating being forced to make a cake with being forced to conduct a wedding though, right?

A business must not discriminate who they sell their product to, but I hope we have not reached a point where a church wedding "license" is considered a for sale product.

Unless I either a) misunderstand what you are arguing or you b) selected a poor equivalence example. Either is possible.

In any case... be careful who you aren't willing to share your jumja with :P

Actually that should read "SELL A CAKE", not "MAKE A CAKE". The difference is subtle, but important.

Aw cripes. I'm going down the tangent hole.

John Logan: "This country was discovered by Catholics."

Which country are you referring to? The Bahamas?

"...Planned Parenthood who`s crimes have recently been coming to light."

If crimes had been committed, multiple investigations should have found some evidence of wrongdoing. Instead, zip.

Yes, Yanks :) The truth is, the media, and government of US and Europe (and most places) know only too well that Islam is by far the most dangerous ideology on this planet - Which is why they are appeasing it any way they can. But ignoring a threat only allows it to grow.

This is something the Left fail to understand time after time after time. APPEASEMENT DOES NOT WORK.

"Aw cripes. I'm going down the tangent hole."

Welcome!

"Which country are you referring to? The Bahamas?"

I think he means America. It was discovered by the Catholic Native Americans and then by the Catholic Vikings.

I think he really means Colombus though, who actually was Catholic if memory serves.

"This country was discovered by Catholics. The constitution written by devout conservative Christians of various creeds. Founding fathers who[] opposed abortion and the like[].

-This is a bridge way, way, way too far. The continent was indeed discovered by emissaries of the Spanish Empire (or at least, their discovery of it was what propelled mass European exploration of it, including the Dutch, French and English). That fact has exactly zero bearing on the founding of the United States and far less the constitution.

-Almost none of the founding fathers were theists (and therefore could not, by definition, be called Christians). The only orthodox Christian among them was John Jay who, ironically, attempted to ban Catholics from holding office. The most generous description one can make of their religious beliefs would be to call them (the majority) "Deistic Christians," which is to say, men who retained the rhetoric and general cultural norms of their Judeo-Christian European ancestry, but did not believe in the supernatural claims of any church, or of any church's moral authority over men. Two prominent fathers were outright anti-theists (Deists), Paine and Allen.

ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/anti-catholicism-founders

-More to the point, medical abortions were not a thing in the 18th century. There was no practice for anyone to condone or oppose. Women were not considered people and the biology of reproduction and evolution was not understood. To make any claims about the fathers' stance on abortion is completely specious, regardless of which position one might take.

@DL

All religions are equally dangerous.

We should spend 3 trillion dollars slaughtering a few more 100k innocent civilians in the middle east..that will surely work, just as the right has shown us!

Robert @ Birth control is still a mortal sin. Executing criminals isn`t a sin at all. Some Catholics are against the death penalty. We don`t have to be.

What first century Catholic Church fathers believed is the standard of the Catholic faith. They dictate dogma.

The church has the legal right to express itself on moral issues, and to tell her adoption agencies who to give children to.

The First amendment guarantees the right of religious institutions to follow the tenets of the faith. The Hyde Church amendment defended this right and protects the right of doctors to defend the Hyppocratic Oath.

Well yes Democrats have long attacked the church on dogmatic and moral issues and Republicans have been more likely to defend religious freedom. How is that bad? Are you saying the Democrats are so great, you`d support them when they persecute Christ`s church?

ES@

Public infrastructure is not Socialism, and not aggressive anti-Christian Socialism.

Elliott@

The founding fathers were Christians. George Washington was a devout Episcopelian. He regularly attended church, did lay work, prayed intensely, and his step daughter defended his Christianity. Just because he used the term providence, does not make him a Deist. The Anglican prayer book used such terms.

Benjamin Franklin had rejected the Deism of his youth and supported prayer during government proceedings. He returned to Puritanism.

Alexander Hamilton was an Episcopelian, who converted from Presbyterianism.

All of these men affirmed the value of prayer. All attended church, were buried in the church, and believed in the bible.

James Madison was also Episcopelian.

"Birth control is still a mortal sin. Executing criminals isn`t a sin at all. Some Catholics are against the death penalty. We don`t have to be."

You can't be serious. Aren't good Catholics supposed to follow the pope. The pope takes a very, very dim view of the death penalty.

"Well yes Democrats have long attacked the church on dogmatic and moral issues and Republicans have been more likely to defend religious freedom. How is that bad? Are you saying the Democrats are so great, you`d support them when they persecute Christ`s church?"

I'm saying that the Republican's view on "religious freedom" is freedom for this to be a Catholic nation and the founding fathers are turning in their graves.

Grumpy,

""...Planned Parenthood who`s crimes have recently been coming to light."

If crimes had been committed, multiple investigations should have found some evidence of wrongdoing. Instead, zip."

Seeing what we've seen on video tape, you should be asking why this administration has not done a "nationwide investigation" not "we haven't heard anything so...."

Robert, really? Catholic hospitals aren't required to perform abortions because of their faith and wedding cake makers have to support Gay weddings regardless of what their faith demands? Come on man, you don't see a problem there? They are both "products". The first situation was upheld in Federal Court and the second one was not. I guess "precedent" doesn't apply here... or more aptly, doesn't apply where this administration doesn't want it too.

Right on the money dlpb.

ES,

"...slaughtering a few more 100k innocent civilians in the middle east..."

You mean the ones beheading Christians?

@Yanks

Can you cite 100k christians beheaded from a source?

The US slaughtered 100k innocent people within the first few years of the occupation. It is clear that you are trying to insinuate something, but i can't imagine that it in any way diminishes what the US has done..and i could have sworn that the US is supposed to be standing on the higher ground...you can't exactly complain about a relatively small amount of beheadings(comparatively) by the muslims, when the US has done catastrophically more damage, all the while claiming moral superiority.

Shall we include the 3000+ on 9/11? Or any other number of atrocities the Muslim extremists have conducted? Shall we just throw numbers around in an attempt to justify their extremism?

I guess their treatment of women and children over 2000+ years?

On human rights issues the US is definitively morally superior.

Not sure what you point could be.

Sure, feel free to add in the 3k and you won't even approach how many we have slaughtered in just the first few years of Iraq alone. We killed more in 5 years than Saddam had killed in 30.

Your attempt at sympathy when complaining about a handful of beheadings shows your bias and ignorance about what we have done.

Let us also not forget how we have propped up dictators in the middle east for decades so we can profit from oil.

"On human rights issues the US is definitively morally superior."- So, the 100k we just slaughtered means nothing? I don't see how anything can negate that. We lost any possible moral high ground when we invaded and occupied two foreign country, slaughtering well over 100k of their people in the process, while creating a situation that created over a million refugees.

- According UNHCR, the UN refugee agency, the total number of internally displaced equals more than 1.3 million, and the number of refugees exceeds 1.4 million. Total "persons of concern" exceed 3 million. UNHCR web site

-Percentage of Iraqis who lived in slum conditions in 2000: 17

Percentage of Iraqis who live in slum conditions in 2011: 50
web.mit.edu/humancostiraq/

Number of Iraqis who died of violence 2003-2011: 150,000 to 400,000.

Orphans in Iraq: 4.5 million.

Orphans living in the streets: 600,000.

Number of women, mainly widows, who are primary breadwinners in family: 2 million.

Iraqi refugees displaced by the American war to Syria: 1 million

Internally displaced [pdf] persons in Iraq: 1.3 million

Proportion of displaced persons who have returned home since 2008: 1/8


And that is just Iraq. Let's look at Afghanistan-

"Overall, my best estimate of excess deaths in Afghanistan is around 100,000, but it is an inadequate estimate, as all are for this beleaguered country."

Moral high ground? You are LAUGHABLE! Not sure what YOUR point can be.

@Yanks - Sorry, no can do. You can discriminate products, not customers. It's not even similar.

I'll support the right of an artist or baker to not take a commission they disagree with. Ie a rainbow cake with 2-guys having sex on top. But if you sell 3-tier white cakes to one person you have to sell them to everyone. Or little groom statues. Or jumja sticks.

Robert@ Actually we only have to follow binding teachings. Not personal opinions of the pope. Pope Pius XII, and Pope Pius IX both defended the death penalty. So whatever the pope thinks of it now is a matter of personal opinion. Pope John Paul II said Catholics could form their own opinion on this as even various church fathers differed on this issue. Not so with either birth control or abortion which were consistently and unanimously condemned since the early first century by every church father including those who knew the apostles.

The death penalty is a grey area. Abortion is not. That was the position of the first century Christians.

And you don't think that's a problem with your religion? The fact that nobody can ever say.... "You know what, murdering inmates is worse than using a condom"?

ES,

Tell that to the Kurds.... jesus, you just keep stepping it in.

You make no point. Saddam willed his won people, to the tune of what... in excess of 180,000 people?

While I agree that we never should have been in the "prop up the dictator" thing, to blame all those deaths on the US is ludicrous. You'd have been the first one screaming had the US stepped in.

I guess, just maybe, that the local folks should have fought for their own freedom in Iraq and Alph (oh, that's right - they can't bear arms... another leftist mantra). They most certainly have been given the opportunity, training and arms to do so. I don't morn one dead terrorist that took up arms against us after 9/11. Not one. I don't morn ISIS deaths either.

I'm all for pulling out of the god-forsaken part of the world. (I've been over there too many times) But what would that solve? These Neanderthals still kill those that leave their religion, kill women and children, strap bombs to kids, murder school children, and walk counterclockwise around a frellin rock, etc. It's hard to believe that the world tolerates the atrocities over there.

I'm all for dropping millions of cartoons of Allah out of planes and watch them kill each other.

The war in Iraq was won. A government was in place (albeit not perfect) and then the current dip-shit in charge pulled out and look what we have now.

Weather you agree with it or not, at least their used to be a pretty clear cut policy over there... do you know what it is now? Does anyone?

We should have made Iraq a state and took all the oil.

My point is simple. Muslim extremists are wrong and all should be eliminated.

Robert,

Nope, the cake bakers chose not to participate in a ceremony they don't condone. (for gods sake, they had served homosexuals before and knew it!) So, by your logic, if meth heads came in and wanted a meth cake to celebrate the number of lives ruined and lost due to the drug you say they have to participate? This was a dem-lefty plant, with judges already lined up for the kill.

Robert@ No. It should be self-evident that killing murders and rapists who permanently destroyed the lives of innocent people is not as bad as committing Onan`s sin. The use of birth control goes against the first mandate humans ever received. Go forth and multiply.

"Nope, the cake bakers chose not to participate in a ceremony they don't condone. (for gods sake, they had served homosexuals before and knew it!) So, by your logic, if meth heads came in and wanted a meth cake to celebrate the number of lives ruined and lost due to the drug you say they have to participate? This was a dem-lefty plant, with judges already lined up for the kill."

It depends. The baker doesn't have to make a meth friendly cake. If the meth heads were buying the cake for a meth party that's NONE OF THE BAKER'S BUSINESS.

For comparison I support the baker in the Gareth Lee case (which was liberal trolling at it's best) but support the lesbian couple in the Sweet Cakes By Melissa case. The devil is totally in the details if you care to read up on them.

"Robert@ No. It should be self-evident that killing murders and rapists who permanently destroyed the lives of innocent people is not as bad as committing Onan`s sin. The use of birth control goes against the first mandate humans ever received. Go forth and multiply."

Jesus would disagree with you. Ending a life and violating the judge not lest ye be judged thing... sorry, that doesn't compare with a person with 4 kids getting an IUD because they can't afford more and don't want to end up on the government dole (something Republicans hate, except when quiverfull assholes do it).

Robert@ First of all Jesus was the messiah of Judaism which condemned abortion and supported the death penalty. Second judge not lest ye be judged does not exclude ensuring civil justice and defending the rights of victims.

Was it wrong to kill Nazis? Were the Nuremberg trials wrong? Roosevelt would say no, but he would consider birth control immoral. Same goes for Oskar Shindler, and the resistance in general. The death penalty was normal, the use of birth control wasn`t. The death penalty was defended by various church fathers. Birth control was condemned by all. God killed Onan for wasting his seed. God said go forth and multiply, he actually ordered the killing of those who were evil. Augustine wrote in favour of the death penalty.

Here is an advice, if you cannot afford more kids, do what Jesus said was good, be an eunuch for the kingdom of Heaven. Be celibate. The Catholic Church has provided plenty of instructions of the rhythm method and provided care and support to orphans. However if you want to know why the church is so strongly against birth control read the encyclicals of Pope Pius XI. If more people had listened to that blessed man that the Holocaust could have been avoided.

You know what. I agree with you. There's no reconciling the church with modern day progressive beliefs. I hope the church fails and is replaced with something befitting our current world. The morals you speak of are obsolete.

Oh, and I miss you Luke. I didn't agree with you, but I didn't hate the church when I was done talking to you.

Robert@ Exactly as Christ said himself we cannot be of this world. It will hate us and we will hate it. That is essential to following Christ on the narrow path. Interesting that you consider the believes of the resistance and the aposles absolete.

So I made you hate the church by pointing out that it kept the apostolistic teachings and rejected secularism, Humanism, Neo Marxism, and Liberalism? What did you expect? Are you expecting Jews to reject the Sabbath or the importance of Israel? It seems you think the Democraic Party is the highes authority on Earth. I wonder what makes them so great? They don`t provide 26 % of the worlds health care.

You simply reminded me that I hate anything that's rigid.

It's funny you mention Jews. The Jews I'm friends with eat bacon and can flip a light switch on the sabbath. I wish there was a "reform Catholicism" the way that there are reform Jews. I'd be the first to sign up.

When you're younger you're told to not cross the street without holding someone's hand. When the world was younger God gave a billion instructions. To assume that those instructions wouldn't change at all in the last several thousand years is just... it's not possible. It doesn't make sense.

Oh, and for the record, I don't revere the Democrats at all. Actually I am socially conservative in many, many ways. I am (mostly) against premarital sex, I don't curse, I have never been drunk, taken drugs, etc. I'm socially liberal on the abortion/gay marriage front... but the rest of it is quite conservative. And I do consider abortion killing... I just think that a woman has a right to decide not to be enslaved to her unborn child for 9 months. But my opinions don't matter... I actually revere freedom higher than any of those things. Nobody should have to not have premarital sex because I don't believe in it. Nobody should be prevented from having an abortion because you don't believe in it. I revere freedom of religion and from religion.

Robert@ So the Jews you are friends with are not Jews at all. They worship God with their lips but not with their hearts. Jesus Christ was rigid. He said we had to follow the narrow path, reject our sinful selves, this sinful world, and be hated by it. We had to take up our cross and follow him. That is what real faith is. Those Jews sound like cafetaria Jews. Partaking in the faith merely out cultural tradition, or only keeping the easy parts of the faith. Those Christians also existed in the early church. They worshipped the emperor along side with Christ as to not have to be a martyr. They were excommunicated and denied the salvation the martyrs had.


There is a reform Catholicism, it is Anglicans and Old Catholicism. You can believe anything you want in their churhes, many of their priests no longer believe in the ressurection, the virgin birth, or the bible as the word of God. The same applies to Reformed Judaism. These people are only religious in the broadest, most un devout sense. That isn`t the way of the prophets, Christ, the bible, the Talmud, the church fathers, or anyone. It is simply the faith as influenced by Deists, Agnostics, Secularists, Liberals, Relativists, Neo Marxists, and so on.

It is a faih for unbelievers. Why would you want to go to a reformed Catholic Church when clearly you don`t want to follow the narrow path Christ said was essential for salvation? You would worship him while following the narrow path that he says would result in your damnation?

Jesus spoke with liberal Jews. They traded in the temple and he kicked them out. Isaiah spoke with liberal Jews and he prophecised they would be conquered by the Assyrians. Which they were. Moses confronted them after they had created a golden calf they were to wonder in the desert for 40 years. Jeremiah spoke with liberal Jews he told them he Babylonians would conquer them. Which they were.

I prefer to stay clear of the great apostasy.

Funny you admit abortion is killing, but so if it is jusified because the fetus enslaves her, then tell me, why did she cause the fetus to enslave her? She conceived the child with its needs. So she shouldn`t have to take responsibility for her sexual choices by being pregnant for 9 months and instead the child must die for it? So sex for pleasure wihout consequences is such a crucial right, that the children have to pay for it with their lives, just so the parents don`t have to take responsibility for their own choices?

I don`t oppose abortion because i is contrary to God`s will. I already opposed it as an Atheist. Murder is murder, and I don`t think a child can be blamed for being conceived. I do think having sex requires one to provide the natural care for their children. Fathers have to pay child support for 18 years.

What episode are we discussing here?

:-)

"Fathers have to pay child support for 18 years."

There are many ways in our society that a person could become indebted to another through money, but only one in which you become indebted via your organs.

But I'm not trying to convince you. My point is merely that in a non-Catholic country I have chosen the high road of not attempting to enshrine my "religious"(?) morals as law.

Although I will say, since you dislike Democrat policies so much, that conservatives will more and more have to answer for "just so the parents don`t have to take responsibility for their own choices?" not being true. Half the Republican presidential candidates no longer even favor life of the mother or rape exceptions.

Savita Halappanavar died in Ireland because even though doctors had already told her the baby would die they cannot perform a termination in that Catholic country without the baby already being dead.

That's where our country would be under your precious church and the Republicans. No thanks. I respect your right to help your wife and daughter raise a baby conceived in, god forbid, a rape (or deliver the child and give up for adoption). But I don't support anyone imposing that philosophy on our country.

@Yanks - You and I were discussing cake, right? So we must be discussing Phantasms :)

In either case, I think I'm probably going to bow out... having a little too much of h t t p s://xkcd.com/386/

@Yanks - I think it's "Looking for par'Mach in All the Wrong Places." Isn't it? LOL!

@Robert - Have no fear, I've been lurking around here for the last few months, watching this discussion off and on. I think the best thing for me to do is to back away slowly and just let it run its course at this point. I doubt anybody is going to be changing anybody's mind any time soon in either direction so.... yeah. Sometimes the better part of valor is knowing when to walk away.

BUT SOMEBODY IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET!!!

I definitely agree about par'Mach though, that's got to be the one.

Robert@ Yes pregnancy is a very unique biological occurrence. However this isn`t initiated or caused by the child but by the mother. By willingly conceiving and needy child she created the situation,. and although pregnancy isn`t exactly always nice it is for only 9 months. In countries where waters and formula is scarce breastfeeding is also a duty. The womb is naturally intended for foetuses after all, it is its natural home. The symbiotic relationship comes from nature. In fact a fetus came to exist from the mothers egg. The egg was already inside her and she caused it to be fertilised. If you don`t want to surrender bodily autonomy, don`t create a living human being inside of you. To then blame it for a situation you put it in is unfair and unchristian.

Again this is not a religious moral. This is defending basic human rights. By forbidding murder we enforce our believe that all human beings have the right to live on others. The Catholic Church merely wants to protect all human beings. Just as the believe in the equal rights of black people and that all men were created equal were forced on others. The Democrats support murdering a certain group of humans, does this sound familiar?

Could you tell me which Republicans reject those exceptions?

Technically that wasn`t true. This was an error on the part of the doctors. Ireland does have a life of the mother exception. As do Poland, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Panama and the Dominican Republic and about half of these also have rape exceptions.

There is a difference between rape exceptions and forcing hospitals to perform un demand abortions for any reason, even at 5 months in order to get funding that comes from taxes also paid by prolifers.

I've already said I'm not trying to convince you. But I will answer 2 questions you ask.

"although pregnancy isn`t exactly always nice it is for only 9 months"

As mentioned in the Irish case, pregnancy can lead to death. I also know people who have chronic pain after pregnancy. It's not always just for 9 months.

But again, I am not trying to continue the debate. I know I will not convince you. You inquired into my own personal reasoning, and I gave it. For the crime of (take your pick : birth control failure, forgetfulness, stupidity, creating a child with a birth defect, being raped, etc.) she is enslaved for 9 months. I consider that unacceptable. I only mentioned my own views on fetal life to illustrate the point that how I feel is not always equal to what I feel should be law.

"Yes pregnancy is a very unique biological occurrence. "

If we agree on this than we agree that any analogy is going to be poor. If the condition is not analogous to anything then it will be a stretch at best. A unique case has occurred. I don't think the "punishment" you dole out for the unique case fits the crime. You barely even consider it a punishment. We'll have to agree to disagree.

As to a question we can discuss with more facts....

"Could you tell me which Republicans reject those exceptions?"

Happily! I cannot give you a full blow by blow with regards to each candidate and their full positions on abortion but from the debates...

Rubio, Walker and Huckabee support no exceptions for rape/incest. Walker even goes further and tries to remove life of mother exceptions.

Outside the debates I'm aware that Cruz and Paul supports no exceptions except life of the mother. Cruz doesn't even support the morning after pill for rape victims. Carson is also in this camp, although he would allow the morning after pill for rape victims.

On the other end of the spectrum Kasich (who's record at chipping away Roe is quite astonishingly successful) actually DOES support rape/incest/life of mother exceptions. Christie also supports such exceptions (unless his position has changed recently and he hasn't said anything... although I doubt it).

And Trump/Bush haven't really made their positions known on the exceptions. Both have supported such exceptions in the past, but many candidates have jerked right on this issue recently. I'll leave them as "maybe" or "probably" with regards to exceptions.

Obviously all 10 candidates are pro-life. For those keeping score though, we're at 2 supporters for exceptions, 2 maybes, 5 only life of mother exceptions and 1 no exception at all. These views are mainstream in the Republican Party now.

John Logan :

"The Catholic Church merely wants to protect all human beings."

....doodly doodly doodly....

"The death penalty is the killing of guilty evil, mortal sinners. This is compatible with the teachings of Augustine, or a great hero like Pope Pius XII. They defended the death penalty as it is aimed at the evil who harm the innocent. Like just war."

So guilty, evil, mortal sinners are not human beings in the eyes of the Church? I don't remember that particular bit from the Sermon on the Mount....

"Could you tell me which Republicans reject those exceptions?"

Off the top of my head, Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee and Paul Ryan. But if you read the officially GOP platform, it's there too.

----

Any definition of life has to include all the scientific data we possess as well as any relevant philosophy. Your whole stance is based on the idea that sexual intercourse automatically invalidates personal autonomy for women who become pregnant. Except, we in the modern world, having an understanding of biology, evolution and reproduction, are able to moderate our own interaction with nature--we can cure diseases (artificially), we can engineer our food, we can create life asexually (in-vitro), and we can prevent pregnancy from leading to the creation of life, yes artificially. That is modern medicine. You don't get to retroactively label a zygote "human life" in order to mitigate our wondrous ability to have a little more control over our lives than our ancestors did.

Ah, Robert you beat me to it!

I think Jammer would hate for the forum to start to include presidential race material, but I have to ask, because I believe at one point you said you were from one of the southern states (?): what's Sen. Sanders' momentum like in that part of the country?

Ya, I already think this has gone way, way out. But I'm from New York. Sanders has a lot of support here, but Hillary was a popular New York senator. There's not really a snowballs chance in hell of Hillary not taking New York IMHO.

Maybe we should petition Jammers for a politics forum. Or just do it in Spock's Brain or something.

This episode is really too good for this tangent.

Haha--the Rabbit Hole Petition. I can see the site turning into a kind of MC Escher maze of topics.

Glad to hear about Sanders' momentum. Keeping my fingers crossed.

New topic! If we were going to totally wreck the board of one Star Trek episode in the name of politics, which episode is most deserving of being trashed in such a way?

1) Spock's Brain
2) Turnabout Intruder
3) Code of Honor
4) Other Random TNG S1 Episode
5) Sub Rosa
6) Profit and Lace
7) The Emperor's New Cloak
8) Other Random Ferengi Episode
9) Threshold
10) Endgame (:P I

That's weird... does this site not like the triangle bracket character? My post got chopped....

It should have said

"New topic! If we were going to totally wreck the board of one Star Trek episode in the name of politics, which episode is most deserving of being trashed in such a way?

1) Spock's Brain
2) Turnabout Intruder
3) Code of Honor
4) Other Random TNG S1 Episode
5) Sub Rosa
6) Profit and Lace
7) The Emperor's New Cloak
8) Other Random Ferengi Episode
9) Threshold
10) Endgame (:P I ❤ You Elliott)
11) These Are The Voyages...
12) Star Trek Nemesis
13) Star Trek Into Darkness
14) Something Else Entirely?

Bonus Tangent - How did 3/5 series finales end up on my list? Somebody really dropped the ball here."

Robert,

It was ENT: Silent Enemy :-)

h ttp://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p179/WKYanks/Star%20Trek/Enterprise/silentenemy_463.jpg

Elliott@ A zygote has always been life. That is not retroactive. Zygotes are the first stage of human beings. Control over nature should not mean the ability to kill human beings.

Robert@ So loosing control over your body due to the natural results of your action is unjustified. But being murdered merely for having been conceived is ok?

@John Logan :

Human beings are sentient and intelligent. A zygote does not have a brain. Sure it's "alive," but so is a virus and a plankton. Until the cluster of cells reaches a point of complexity to display intelligence, killing it is no more a crime than killing an insect. Until it displays sentience, killing it can not be reasonably called "murder."

"Robert@ So loosing control over your body due to the natural results of your action is unjustified. But being murdered merely for having been conceived is ok? "

I'll say again, I'm not trying to convince you. If you truly wish to understand my logic though. Both acts are undesirable. Government control over bodily autonomy is simply more undesirable. You can feel free to disagree, but give me liberty or give me death. Liberty is not possible when your government can forcibly enslave your organs to another life, regardless of how responsible you are for the condition or the neediness of that life.

If your child is in kidney failure because I got drunk and slammed your car and I'm in the next bed being treated for a few scratches I cannot even be made to give her blood, let alone a kidney.

Obviously I would never be in that situation and if I were I would be distraught enough to do whatever was needed to help... but the point is that bodily autonomy from your government is part of freedom.

Disclaimer... as I said above, abortion/pregnancy is unique, so my analogy will be flawed in some way as will any analogy you use to counter it. It is merely my logic, not my attempt to convince you.

In short "But being murdered merely for having been conceived is ok?". No. But it is necessary.

@Yanks - That got 2.5 stars! I actually haven't watched that in so long I think I mostly forgot it.

I don't remember it being "Profit and Lace" bad though....

Robert@ I think that the government denying a group of people the right to life is undesirable as it violates equal protection, and is discriminatory. Also your quote as interpreted by you, could justify killing infants, spousal abuse, or plain anarchism on the grounds of liberty. By creating life we accept responsibilities that inhibit our liberties as we add members to our families who are also entitled to rights. You can prevent loosing control over your organs by not conceiving a child inside of you which needs those organs for whom they were intended. You can be imprisoned because of your own actions, or have to share your pay check, it depends on the situation you create.

Yeah I don`t think you would get off scot free. If my child dies you are going to be arrested and tried and convicted. You will not get the chance to do it again. Also the government will not providing funding for your to create these situations, or require hospitals to treat you.

In the case of a pregnancy however you are already sharing your body. So the weirdest but best metaphor is that of the SpongeBob episode, yes really, where due to a teleporting accident SpongeBob and Squidward become connected. If you used teleporting knowing it could get you connected to someone else, especially your child, and then separating after you created this connection would kill your child, I am pretty sure you could be required to wait 9 months. You have already donated your organs. Also no hospitals would be required to kill your child. You would not get the chance to do it multiple more times. Also if the result of teleporting like that was people having to die due to a situation someone else put them in, then the practice would be outlawed. So yes if sex for pleasure results in the death of millions of babies, that does not speak well for reproductive health.

However not even this is fitting, as this isn`t an artificially enforced donation. This is a natural connection where the natural purpose of your organs is to sustain the fetus like a tree sustains its leaves.

So a more accurate example would be if I intentionally create a Siamese twin that would be dependent on me. Again I will not get the chance to kill multiple Siamese twins nor would any hospital, let alone religious ones, have to do help in order to keep the funding in a large part coming from pro-lifers.

So with the points you make, only giving funding that also comes from pro-lifers, to hospitals that will provide un demand abortions starts to sound pretty unreasonable.

Also if you believe in Christ you would know God intends pregnancy and created the uterus to be the home of the fetus.

"Also your quote as interpreted by you, could justify killing infants, spousal abuse, or plain anarchism on the grounds of liberty."

Extremely out of context perhaps. Good thing I already contextualized it so that nobody could do that by espousing the uniqueness of pregnancy. When you can turn your child over to an adoption agency TODAY or begin divorce proceedings TODAY and neither of those are a form of body slavery anyway... Come on. You're taking my logic out of context.

Which is odd, because I'm not debating you any longer. I'm not trying to convince you. You asked MY reasoning. I'm not trying to convince you.

It boils down to

"I think that the government denying a group of people the right to life is undesirable as it violates equal protection, and is discriminatory."

I agree with you halfway. It is undesirable. But in order to stop it you have to violate a whole other group of people's right to their body. I think that's worse. That is all. I'm not telling you what you should think.

"Yeah I don`t think you would get off scot free. If my child dies you are going to be arrested and tried and convicted. You will not get the chance to do it again. "

I didn't say I would. I said I could not be forced to give blood. I cannot be forced by the government to give of my body to another life. In ANY circumstance. EVER. Because I'm male.

"So with the points you make, only giving funding that also comes from pro-lifers, to hospitals that will provide un demand abortions starts to sound pretty unreasonable."

If this is actually the whole thing we're arguing, it's kind of funny... because I never said that. The original exchange was...

["Obama tried to force religious Catholic institutions to provide birth control coverage. The Democrats try to force Catholic hospitals to provide the morning after pill."

I have a hard time here. I half agree with you, half do not. I think that a hospital should have to provide a basic set of services in order to qualify for government dollars. I would personally like to have some kind of protection for any doctor, nurse or orderly that does not feel comfortable participating in this process. But while a hospital can be created by a religious institution a building cannot worship and a building that receives government dollars should meet all standards required for those dollars. I feel there has to be a way to not infringe on the employees freedom of religion, while at the same time recognizing that the building does not really have a religion. And if the building really, really wants to be a religious building it can do so without government funds.]

So we weren't discussing abortions... we were discussing the morning after pill. And I didn't come down hard on it, I said I had trouble with it. At worst I said "I think that a hospital should have to provide a basic set of services in order to qualify for government dollars." But I never defined what those services were. The only absolute I'd give is that if our government decides the morning after pill should be available in rape kits I think the hospital is failing to provide said basic services if they can't do that. Although I'd not want it to cost anyone their job if they don't feel comfortable giving it.

So that's my harsh, anti-religious liberty liberal position there. Mind blowing, eh?

Robert@ Well if there is a rights conflict I side with the group that didn`t create the conflict, but so if it is this grey, then you can understand why I think hospitals should be allowed to hold the pro life view.

Well Catholic hospitals will provide the morning after pill to rape victims only, if they believe it will only prevent conception. Catholic hospitals do provide non abortaficent contraception to rape victims.

So you can understand why we dislike the Democrats when they suddenly start to treat pills that kill conceived life as essential services, when they never were so before. Just as suddenly gay adoption is a right. The Catholic Church founded many of the first hospitals and adoption agencies and provide 26 % of the worlds health care. How about a live and let live approach. Millions of pro-life Catholics pay taxes. So if Democrats don`t want to give any of that money to Catholic charity because it values the unborn, then I think you can see why we withhold the flesh and blood of our God and saviour from them.

"So if Democrats don`t want to give any of that money to Catholic charity because it values the unborn, then I think you can see why we withhold the flesh and blood of our God and saviour from them. "

Sounds fine to me. My premise was that it should be equally witheld to Republicans that start wars and bomb kid's playgrounds with crappy drones. I never said you should have to give Dems communion. I'm generally of the "if you don't want me I'll see myself out" school of thought. I have no issue not being wanted by the church. I still go on holidays with my Dad, but it's for him, not me or God. God (if he exists) knows how I feel about him.

Wow! The comments on this episode are nuts!

Quick question about this episode...
The voice of Liko's daughter Oji seems to be dubbed in and sounds very much like Alexander Rozhenko's dubbed voice from several episodes. Especially the annoying way they both say "fahhther" in falsetto. Does anyone know if they are the same voice actor or am I just hearing things? Either way, they both make me want to rip my ears off!

[Guys, I hope you're done with the back-and-forth. This site has a good thing going in the comment section, and you're messing it up for everyone.]

What I find interesting about the episode is that, despite the Enterprise's best efforts, the Event ends up being a completely religious experience (with echoes of Christianity, in particular). Think about the elements, from the Mintakans' perspective:
- Travelers from "beyond" arrive at a certain holy place in the mountains
- They have great power, able to heal the sick, control matter, appear and disappear at will
- They bring a message about the nature of mankind (Mintakan-kind?), and have a personal concern for the people's progress towards an ideal; they teach that the old traditions are wrong
- One chosen Mintakan has a transcendent experience, witnessing the higher ways of these travelers and being given special insight into their message
- A doubter nearly succumbs to evil (murder to appease a false god), but is saved when the lead traveler allows himself to be killed, to the dismay of the believers; yet his power overcomes death and he returns, then departs permanently
- There is no evidence of these events, other than a few witnesses who are convinced of what happened

(Most notably, I saw echoes of Luke 24 in Nuria's early scenes on the ship: "But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.")

Flash forward 100 years: how has the account of the Event been preserved, probably distorted in the retelling? In what way has it influenced philosophy, prompted the creation of organizations, been manipulated by power structures? (Alternative: as Jammer suggests, nobody pays much attention to "one man speaking secondhand nonsense", the stories fade into obscurity, none of this mattered.)

Picard goes to great lengths to convince them that he is not an omnipotent god. Nonetheless, he is a god. There is no better word for it. Ultimately, I think his decision is not "will I or will I not create a religion among these people?", but rather "what kind of religion do I want these people to have?" His answer to that question is what makes the episode compelling: no, I don't want your worship, nor will I give you commandments; I just want to inspire hope in what you can achieve through reason and ingenuity.

"[Guys, I hope you're done with the back-and-forth. This site has a good thing going in the comment section, and you're messing it up for everyone.]"

Hey! Who told you that you could talk about Star Trek on my political forum!! :P

It's not my fault that Star Trek spawns ridiculous debates about politics. Jury is still out about which board would be the best to trash with our politic nonsense, did you have an opinion? I think I vote for "Into Darkness", Jammers is never going to review it anyway :P

As to your question, I think you are looking at this from too human a perspective. I think proto-Vulcans might see the logic in deliberately forgetting about this for the good of the development of their society. Just my 2 cents.

Gentleman...

If this thread has taught us anything; it is that religion is a major problem in our society.

Human morality built and developed from tens of thousands of years of learning, struggle, conflict, and mistakes; is far superior to any morality dictated by a few unknown authors in ancient times who happened to have their documents spread around by leaders until it became a religion.

If the Roman church in early times decided to go with the version of Christ that had him partnered or married or gay, religion today would talk that as irrefutable fact. All the things religion hangs onto today, were dictated by choices made by a small group of people a long time ago when they decided what version to endorse and spread.

And make no mistake, only decades after Christ's alleged death, there were many many versions of his teachings often in great conflict. The Roman church spent centuries destroying any document that conflicted with the version they chose to go with.

Nobody actually knows which of those versions of Christ is the correct one; sad to see so much of our planet blindly following something that was simply a political choice.

Finalky, a tng season that doesn't suck. The only thing I didn't like about this episode was Picad's reaction to Crusher bringing the Mintaken on board. Seems a bit harsh...also, maybe don't say "let him die" in front of other patients in sickbay...

If Pulaski was still here, the memory wipe would have worked, and we wouldn't be in this mess.

@Vladimir

"As Doctor Pulaski would, at this juncture, no doubt remind us: 'Life is rarely fair'."

Show me a difference between a transgender having sexual reassignment surgery and homosexual undergoing conversion therapy.

SOCIAL LIBERAL LOGIC 101: CHANGING YOUR SEX is wonderful! (Yay Bruce!) HOWEVER, changing gays is WRONG because gays are *born* that way. Get it?


The cognitive dissonance of the modern liberal-progressive is astounding.

@Yay Bruce I think your looking for "The outcast" or maybe Profit and Lace or Stigma

Otherwise what you just said has nothing to do with the episode.

I enjoy this episode, but I find it comical that the Prime Directive allows for an observation post to be placed on the ground of an alien world. C'mon man, with the rate of technology failure in the Star Trek universe, that thing is never going to remain hidden.

And were they still planning to use it even after showing it to the Mintakans? Isn't that kind of creepy? "Hey, we're going to be inside that boulder monitoring you. So uh, just act natural, 'kay?"

@Beej

No. Just watched this episode on BBC channel. They say specifically at the end that Jordie was supervising the dismantling of the observation post.

Jammer got this one wrong. This was a 3 star episode for me. Picard is particularly compelling. I thoroughly enjoyed his performance.

I do agree there should've been a better place for their outpost. With all their technology there's no excuse. Fail-safes should be in place so that if they have a catastrophic failure they're still secluded from possible exposure to the primitive inhabitants. They should all be thrown in the brig once they get back home.

@Yay Bruce...... You're an idiot - here is your quote:

"Show me a difference between a transgender having sexual reassignment surgery and homosexual undergoing conversion therapy.

SOCIAL LIBERAL LOGIC 101: CHANGING YOUR SEX is wonderful! (Yay Bruce!) HOWEVER, changing gays is WRONG because gays are *born* that way. Get it?"

That would be because transgenders CHOOSE reassignment surgery to match their physical gender to the gender they perceive themselves as. Wheras in the vast majority of cases homosexuals are MADE to undergo conversion therapy against their will because their parents don't want a queer kid. Got it? It's about personal freedom and choice you stone age buffoon. And I'm a conservative by the way, it's not about being liberal, it's about not being an ass.

On to the episode - fantastic stuff, engrossing and involving. Gives religion a good kick in the chops too so all good. WAY undermarked by Jammer - 3.5 stars

@Steve - Also, forcible psych therapy that doesn't really work is way scarier than body modification. Most of us would not willingly take a knife to our genitals, but if somebody wants to WTF should I care. I don't complain when people get tattoos or piece their ears.

A very good episode, elevated by the stunning acting talent of Patrick Stewart. His exchange with Nuria on the Enterprise was pitch-perfect. When he tells her not to kneel to him and she says "You -- you do not wish it?", his delivery of "I do not deserve it" gives me chills. Also his character shines through: he has a passionate belief in the prime directive and also, I think, a great enjoyment of seeing new civilizations, and he admires Nuria because he recognizes in her the leadership qualities that he prizes in himself.

I also simply like the Mintaken civilization. One of the joys of The Star Trek universe is that it flies is around to different worlds that are developing in interesting directions. "The Ensigns of Command" failed largely because the settlement Data was trying to save was deeply annoying: it was thinly drawn, and the male characters were generally unconvincing one dimensional bombasts while the female sidekick was one-dimensionally passive, lovelorn and useless; the whole settlement seemed like a prop and never a real place. In "Who Watches the Watchers?" the locals were more interestingly and sympathetically presented.

It falls short of four stars due to some of the goofiness on the planet - "We must please the Picard so he will grant us favors!" was kinda ham-handed as was the ending wrap-up when the locals all explain the prime directive to each other.

BTW I don't enjoy reading people's religious debates and abortion debates on this site.

"We must please the Picard so he will grant us favors!"

Oh no way, those lines are gold! haha!

"BTW I don't enjoy reading people's religious debates and abortion debates on this site. "

Same here, but they're entitled to a spirited debate I suppose. Luckily it's been mostly confined to this episode thread.

I just thought it was funny as hell that of all the places that these anthropologists could have chosen for their duck-blind, they pick some desolate spot out in the sticks, where the most they're likely to witness is someone out kicking cans....

One of my personal favourites, and one of the very few reviews I strongly disagree with. This is the ine episode I'd show to a newbie to make them understand what Star Trek is all about. Also, it is possible to be not religious and still have spiritually in your life. I didn't feel for a moment that Picard's stance in this episode somehow undermines his discussion with Data about death in Where Silence Has Lease, as prevuoisly suggested.
I do not wish to dive into the years-long religion debate here, but I just wanted to drop a quick note to those who bring Nazi Germany as an example of atheism: as a matter of fact, Nazi had little love for atheists. They disbanded all the atheist associations and Hitler himself made clear that a lack of belief in higher powers and no religious instruction could never be tolerated and represented a potential source of indiscipline.

As a side note, I love how people still discuss about TNG after all this years. Really speaks volumes about how good this series was.

@Raphael Bloch

That is a matter of debate, rather then get into it too much, I'm just going to quote the wikiepedia.

"Aspects of Hitler's views on religion have been a matter of debate. He is generally believed to have been skeptical of religion, but opportunistic and shrewdly aware of its influence on politics... ... During his political career, Hitler said he supported Christianity in public speeches. He sometimes made the claim in private statements, though confidants like Goebbels and Bormann noted the reverse, and there is a consensus among historians that he became hostile to religion, especially Christianity, at some point during adulthood."

You are indeed correct that Hitler attempted to suppress atheist groups, but he did likewise to many religious institutions. Sometimes, he did stay his hand with Christian organizations, but that was mainly due to him not wanting to risk desertion by religious Germans.

But its an indisputable fact that Hitler saw Religion also as "a potential source of indiscipline." Thousands of clergy from priests to nuns were arrested on charges of "immorality" against the state. A fifth of the Jehovah's witnesses within Germany were sent to concentration camps. And Alan Bullock, a prominent authority on Hitler wrote "once the war was over, [Hitler] promised himself, he would root out and destroy the influence of the Christian churches, but until then he would be circumspect."

It is very telling that both religious and atheist people are oh so willing to make assumptions as to Hitler's beliefs without spending a significant time studying them. Also, might I add that I find this tactic morally reprehensible? The thought that someone would cheapen the deaths of so many people only to bolster their ill-thought out argument is disgusting to me.

As to the argument of religion being brought up in the comments, I cannot say. Most of my experiences with religions come from the Eastern Orthodox Church. But I can say for certain that their influence positively effected the Byzantine Empire. They preserved the knowledge of the old Roman Empire, they ran a free healthcare system, and their teachings on the spiritual gravity of killing led the Empire to pursue more peaceful solutions to its problems. Most of the negatives came from the meddling of government entities.

I had to immediately comment on this after I read it. Hitler only banned Atheist Communist organizations as they were a political threat. Himmler saw Atheism as a source of indiscipline and favoured Deism and Neo-Paganism. Albert Speer`s memoirs show Hitler was cynical regarding Himmler`s Neo-Paganism. Goebbels, Bormann and Streicher were all Atheists, as was Mussolini.

I disagree. Concerning Mussolini, there is nothing to indicate he was anything but a Catholic. The very essence of Italian Fascism is based around "Dio, Casa, Famiglia", or God, Home(land), Family. Sure, he might have been wary of organized religion, as it might be an obstacle to any dictator, but his faith in the Christian God is always clear. And he did sign a pact with the Pope anyway. Living in Italy, having studied Italian history and sadly dealt with modern fascists does not bestow absolute truth upon my words but certainly helps.

Hitler, on the other hand, is more complicated. He did make plenty of reference to God and the Providence in his Mein Kampf. He stated that it was this Providence who kept him alive through the many plots to kill him. It is true, as it has been said, that Nazi Germany opposed organised religion and pretty much any cultural association, not just atheist ones. But still, the regime was following a distorted religion sometimes referred as Positive Christianity. It was an attempt to mix racial purity nonsense and Christianity, and saw Hitler as some kind of holy messiah. It shares nothing but the name with Christianity obviously, and was largely nonsense.
My point isn't that Hitler was a Christian or an Atheist. My point is that bringing Nazi Germany as an example of either one is not a really good idea. The cult of personality and the close mindedness of the ideology behind Nazi Germany leaves little room for religion, atheism, or any other Weltanschauung.

Mussolini's views on religion seem to have been somewhat ambiguous and perhaps shifting over time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini#Religious_views

It seems clear that he wasn't a practicing Catholic for his entire life, though.

I call on someone to clean up the comments. These kinds of debates belong somewhere else. Besides, I doubt anyone in the course of humanity has ever been convinced by someone else on a message board. "Gee, you make a good point, I'm a Republican now."

And I call on you to stop trying to close down an interesting debate and an interesting thread. The whole point of Star Trek and shows like it is - on some level - to provoke discussion on important issues.

I should also note that since I posted last, various arguments I have read have shown me that my opposition to the 2nd Amendment was in error. I still don't like the idea of a population being able to buy weaponry, but I like the idea of liberty being eroded and violently replaced even less. And that's what the 2nd Amendment is there for. It's primary focus is to stop a hostile take over. One of the first things the Nazis and other totalitarian governments did was to remove any means that the population had for fighting back. I have also seen that Switzerland has its own form of the 2nd Amendment and does not seem to have the same gun problems. This is a much more complicated issue than I gave it credit for.

Also, my view on abortion has changed. I am now against it in all cases, apart from where the mother will likely die, where the mother was raped, or where the child is likely to be born with a defect. Again, it's a complicated issue. I am certainly against our current use of it - basically a form of contraception. It cheapens life.

Just thought I'd clear that up. It's always possible to reevaluate ones ideas - if one has an open mind.

does anyone know what the song/music is that was playing in the background as Picard said farewell to Nuria and her people?

Melba, Ron Jones is credited, I think. According to wiki, Ronald Jones provided critically acclaimed work for the first four seasons of TNG but was supposedly fired because his music was thought to be "too noticeable" by Rick Berman.

I plead guilty right away to not reading all 257 comments so far . Usually when an ep has anywhere near that many responses there'll be some squabble going on over some political point. I'm going to guess that's the case here, and just make the points I wanted to make originally.

Like I've said, I've just returned to TNG after cycling through the whole franchise finishing with Enterprise, and am back at season 3 of TNG. Not the first time I've done this, but I don't remember suffering this culture shock going from 2005 to 1989 before. This is the season of TNG which I am used to thinking of as where it found its feet, and yet here is the second out of three episodes which just often seems really immature, poorly written and executed.

It's been a bugbear with me for ages that whenever away teams arrive on some pre-warp planet, everyone seems to live in a sort of perfect model village, where all the good citizens are terribly civic minded, usually wear clothes that seem like the uniform for that planet, and speak without using contractions, like some cross between 'noble savages' and The Brady bunch. Ok, these guys are 'proto-Vulcan humanoids', whatever that really means, so perhaps they get a pass.

Moving on, we get an early instance of the godalmighty Prime directive trumping basic decency. This exchange:

Crusher: It was bring him aboard or let him die.
Picard: Then why didn't you let him die?

And you wonder where Phlox gets his ability to rationalise genocide as evolution in 'Dear doctor'.

And you get awful expository dialog like this:

Liko: I believe I've seen the Overseer... He is called the Picard.
Troi: His memory is intact
Riker: The procedure didn't work

Who are they - a Greek chorus? We get it!

Sorry, I'm cherry-nitpicking, but all of this just seems so wooden and obvious and like it was written for nine year-olds.

And here's another nitpick, while I'm at it - and really, it's a bit more than a nitpick:

Troi: According to Doctor Barron's preliminary reports, the Mintakans are proto-Vulcan humanoids at the Bronze Age level. Quite peaceful and highly rational.

Picard: Not surprising, considering how closely their evolution has paralleled Vulcan.

Sorry - I thought early Vulcans nearly destroyed themselves because they were crazy violent maniacs.

Anyway....

There's nothing wrong with the overall concept here, of a pre-warp race being accidentally exposed to observers (though, oh, Lord how many times did it happen over the years in Trek?) . The act of letting Nuria see Warren's death might have been a suitable resolution to the Picard is God thing, too - except it isn't allowed to be. Picard still has to be shot with a crossbow by a disbelieving Liko.

I don't know why these episodes just seem so deeply flawed and carelessly knocked-off to me. If nothing else, I take it as evidence that we were too hard on late Enterprise. In the meantime I'll persist, because I have watched this stuff several times over the decades and I'm hoping it'll grow on me again.

@Lupe

"though, oh, Lord how many times did it happen over the years in Trek?"

LOL. I know! You'd think there would be some kind of regulation to prevent them from interfering, deliberately or accidentally, with a less developed civilisation, wouldn't you? They could call it a Directive of some kind...

@Trajan

"They could call it a Directive of some kind... "

Like the 'Stop it - or they'll end up using it in a feature film" directive?

@Lupe

Pretty sure that's a sub-paragraph of the same regulation!

An OK episode with some interesting twists - good thing is it's not totally predictable in how some satisfactory resolution is reached.
I think Jammer's review sums up what I think about this episode for the most part, especially the 3rd paragraph of his review.
As compared to "The Ensigns of Command" the people on the planet do a much better job of acting. They do convey the sense of a more primitive people, adopting "the Picard" as a God.
It's one of those episodes that I think every Trek series has where they try and repair some initial damage due to not wanting to violate the PD -- and invariably this digs a deeper hole.
When I saw there were 261 comments here I had to wonder what about this show causes such a stir...it's not a particularly noteworthy episode.
I'd give it 2.5 stars out of 4 - some plot holes, so-so writing, but good that it is a bit unpredictable, although it is another PD episode.

This episode is much more impactful and riveting than "the Survivors."
The impact that religions can have on society can be both positive and negative. Picard realises that these people would only be set back by the accidental encounter of a more advanced being. Very though provoking and entertaining for those who can see this episode in an objective manner when comparing with our own history.

The episode with the duck blind idea later bolted wholesale onto the tedious movie Insurrection.
I agree that this was an ok episode although Picard's solution to the dilemma reinforces the breach of the Prime Directive.
So what if the Mintakans now appear happy knowing that one day they will reach the stars-I'll bet that two months after the Enterprise leaves the planet cultural damage from being exposed to a superior culture will destroy the planet's population of half a dozen people .
Surely Star Fleet should have Picard and Crusher court martialled?
I would vote for life on a penal colony for Crusher for causing this mess.

3 stars. I like this one!

I liked episode started right out of the gate to a crisis

I liked all the mintakan characters. Very engaging.

Liked the on location shooting in the desert and the Native American inspired dwelling

I liked Riker and Troi going undercover as Mintakans.

The episode had a nicely done jeopardy with tough decisions all around. I also thought Picard's approach to minimizing the damage to the Mintakans was PERFECT and methodical in making it understandable to Nuria about what was happening

I enjoyed the idea of Federation researchers using holographic technology to hide them so they could observe cultures without detection.

I liked Troi leading the Mintakans away from the village to give a Riker a chance to get away with the researcher and the chase was suspenseful as we wondered would riker get beamed out in time before the mintakan came upon them.

And the final scene is one of my favorites and captures perfectly Star Trek to me

Unfair review for a 4/4 episode, based on 3 premises:

a) "Picard has a speech here that seems to be against religion at all"
No, Picard is not against any religion when he speaks of "Dark ages".
He is against returning to the specific Mindaka religion correlated to irrational thinking, murders, etc.
If the above mindaka religion had evolved to a more abstract version that allowed logic and science to coexist, he would still say the same think exactly. It would be bad to influence people in a way that triggers returning to more savage and rigid religious beliefs. To a Dark Age.
So relax 2010+ abstract God believers, Picard did not offend you. You are a lot closer to atheists, as far as God is concerned, than your co-believers of the Dark Ages.

b) "One man speaking secondhand nonsense cannot change the world."

Again wrong. Actually they didnt believe the father -daughter at first (with the help of the disguised Troi). They did when they found the human. It was actual proof that an alien presence existed. And thus the pre-told story about "God Picard" was corroborated. After that point, it would be illogical to deny the father - daughter experience.
And after that point, the whole village would give momentum for further spread.

c) "extreme microcosm" ,
For other episodes, that may be true. But for this, no. Human history has proven that the seed of religion spreads easily. In any case, the risk existed.
The proof existed. After taking momentum, the religion would borrow aspects of the overall micro-societies, to fit in.

Someone would only hope that the invisible hand of history would quickly make thinks as they were. After all, for a whole civilization to become atheists, deeper reasons existed.
But what if the new religion captured better the society needs? they would accept the belief of a God Picard, and discard the backward interpretation of his desires. Or they would believe that this is a new God, or the real God, and the old beliefs are irrelevant. Holy Conflicts were inevitable.

No, the simplistic thinking is to disregard the risk of cultural contamination, especially in a society unaccustomed to diversity. The Prime Directive, although a TV show premise ,is correct in that aspect.

I have only read some of the comments above, but this episode clearly brought out lots of emotions and analysis. I liked a number of things about the episode, but it is impossible for me to ignore the absolutely catastrophic failure to implement the Prime Directive on so many levels. Whatever direction the cultural infestation takes, there can be no doubt that this society has been altered irreparably. To have no back up generator in the first place, Crusher recklessly exposing herself to the daughter, Picard bringing the leader on board--one abomination after another. To think the leader and then her whole community would not still be in awe and worshipping the Picard when the Enterprise left is hard to fathom. 1 star

After reading the comments, I can understand why people stopped bothering to comment since 11/17! Let's keep it to the episode, not Hitler, Mussolini, liberals, conservatives, religious ideologies...the list was endless. And always the same bunch dominating the board....at the expense of the others who wanted to simply comment on the episode. I did manage to find a few comments that actually dealt with the script and acting.....but to have to filter through the diatribes of some of you.....one has to wonder about some of you, socially....LOL

I have to confess, this one bothered me to the point where I couldn't make it through the whole episode.
If you're so concerned about cultural contamination and the Prime Directive, why go through the trouble of building a sizeable modern "watchpost" inside a hollowed-out cliff face within walking distance of the planet's inhabitants? Why add insult to injury and make it so fallible and dependent on advanced power sources that the cloak effect drops when they malfunction? If this is what's considered a safe way to study a pre-warp culture, then perhaps the takeaway is to *not* study pre-warp cultures, at the very least not in person. It makes the crew come off reckless and inconsistent to the point of derision.
This isn't the only time the crew's solipsism has bugged me (the episode where you're supposed to think Jellico is the antagonist because he doesn't babysit the crew comes to mind) but it's certainly the most frustrating one.

This is one of my favorite Trek episodes. I've always liked watching the Federation interact with low-tech cultures.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned above: Picard lets himself get shot in order to stay true to his principles. The guy pushes a woman aside, takes an arrow to the chest and risks his life, arguably needlessly, because he is a giant, bald, cauldron of righteousness. Sure, Kirk would risk his life for his friends and his ship, but Picard risks his life for line 3 of paragraph 2 of subsection 8 of his own personal moral code. I've never quite seen a hero written like this.

One of my favorites for a couple reasons:

1. I like this early Vulcan race of people. They are one of my favorites in all of Trekdome. They have all the positive attributes but none of the superior smugness. Plus, they seem to also have emotions but let logic rule.

2. The leader is played by Kathryn Leigh Scott, who was once Maggie Evans, Josette du Pres and other characters on "Dark Shadows."

3. I like shows about the Prime Directive. I like the sense of panic Picard and crew feels over the contamination of culture. It would be so easy to mess with these less developed societies and move on. But for them, this is a life-or-death matter.

All these intelligent comments and not one remark about Riker's glorious boots! I wasn't sure if I was horrified or a bit turned on by that prto-Vulcan meets Dick Whittington ensemble :D

I also found all the scenes of Troi, Riker and the Mintakans running around chasing after each other simply *hilarious*.

These points aside I thought this was a pretty solid Trek outing. I was a bit confused as to how such a supposedly sensible people free from superstition could so quickly cast all that aside, but I'm willing to forgive that for the sake of the plot. All the scenes of the Mintakan leader on the Enterprise were Trek gold for me; Picard's admiration for her was also very warming.

I've had my doubts about the Prime Directive over the series run so far. We've seen how putting it aside can do good (Penpals) so it's nice to be reminded of why it's so necessary.

In other episodes, Dr Crusher can easily save anyone's life no matter how serious they were injured. She even explained she could have save Worf's mate K'Ehleyr, who she said she could had saved had she gotten her in stasis in time, after she was gutted by another Klingon's blade. The watcher on the planet didn't seem that hurt. I think she was shocked by a malfunctioning duck blind cloaking device. She seemed to linger for many hours after the accident. Just put her on ice in stasis, then fix her at the next Star Base.

There seemed to be other tribes on the planet with similar beliefs, which is what Troi and Riker used as their cover when they infiltrated the tribe. This method of surgically modifying Star Fleet personnel seems a lot simpler than building duck blinds. Although that didn't work out so well for Riker when he tried that on the planet where he got hurt and captured by the Malcorian 's with the funny fingers, and where he had to have sex with the alien Bebe Neuwirth, in order to escape. "My little Alien". I loved that episode!!

It seems easier to just walk away and let the planets inhabitants believe what ever, rather than go through all these gyrations in trying to cover it up. That's exactly what the Malcorian leader said. People will talk about it for a while, then it will pass. The people will eventually go back to their normal lives.

That happened in the next season, and even then, Picard never learned his lesson in these matters. Spying on a planets people, never turns out well. You either have to get shot in the chest with an arrow to fix things, or Riker has to make the ultimate sacrifice and get laid by Lanel. In fact, after explaining themselves to the Mintakans in the end, they seemed to be ok with the entire thing. All that subterfuge was all for nought.

Oh well, on to the next mission.

OMG... trying to read through so many bloviating blowhards almost makes me wish there was a vengeful God just so y’all would be punished.

Seriously... as if any of you thought you were going to *actually* change anyone else’s mind. Of course you didn’t, you just wanted to type out large swaths of “Look how smart I am” diatribes in typical Internet fashion.

Ok Ok... perhaps I’m being too harsh. As I re-read the 42 billion words typed on this simple TNG episode review, I now see that a full and comprehensive analysis of human religion and its effects actually was achieved. *rolls eyes*

^

That didn't seem to stop you from pontificating ... your three paragraph complaint about the thoroughness of the conversatio (while simultaneously failing to say anything about the episode itself) is rich with irony.

I was utterly bored.

1 star.

4 stars for idea and entertainment value.
Clearly once the cat was out of the bag, the prudent thing to do was to beam your people out when their lives were in danger. You could also make the case that the first guy went overboard with his reaction to the Picard. But I could look past all that for the sake of the story.
What was absolutely silly was Picard's speech about belief in a god being silly superstition. He has met Q and just recently, Henry. Both these beings could be God to any number of races if they were so inclined. Q could likely create a planet of people to rule over. In light of that Picard's rant makes no sense. He makes it sound like gods can't exist even though he knows better

OOPS, Kevin not Henry.
btw. Saying religion breeds intolerance is like saying money breeds corruption or guns kill people. Lol, people love blaming concepts, ideas and inanimate objects for their own ills.
If their wereno guns people would still kill people. If there was no money there would still be corruption. If there was no religion there would still be intolerance , charlatans and hypocrites.
Truer words were never spoken than 'It's not the tool, it's the fool.

Solid episode with minor flaws.

I did not think it was anti-religion. It was more a defense of critical thinking against superstition. Despite all the wonderful philosophy that the Indians, Chinese or the Greek came up with, science as an enterprise and scientific thinking as a community activity (as opposed to activities of individuals who could not be understood by others) could not form until the Enlightenment. Despite the last couple centuries of science's wonders, we still encounter rampant pseudo-science, belief in superstitious phenomena, etc. in the 21st century. Our normal tendency as human beings is to see patterns, even when there are none; so we tend to a state of ignorance very easily. Hence critical thinking is something that needs vigilant defense all the time.

The Mintakans seem to have arrived on critical thinking much earlier in their development and that is something precious and if the encounter with the Federation would damage that, it would be terrible. No wonder Picard is so protective.

PS: I was not surprised that this episode created so much passionate debate here. What I found surprising is the limited knowledge about world religions. As a non-practising Muslim, I am saddened by the vilification of the entire religion. It is not that much worse than Catholicism, which has been defended vigorously in the comments. By the way, the defense of Catholicism sounded too familiar to me; in Muslim-dominant countries, similar defenses are taught to kids. For example that Arabs used to bury their little girls until Islam arrived, that people fought over stone idols, etc. etc. During the golden age of Islam, people with mental disorders were being treated in hospitals with music, while in Christian Europe such people were subject to exorcism. Noone tells or owns the atrocities committed by the members of their religion; their religion is the best and every wrong that is committed under its banner is considered a mistake by a handful of misguided practitioners. I recommend any person from any religion to read a lot of history of the world religions; you will find it difficult at first, but then it will give you freedom to seek the actual core of your beliefs.

@timur

Good point about critical thinking and people easily being swayed by pseudo-science. It’s unfortunate, but I think many less educated people in the U.S. fall back on pseudo-science and even pseudo-religious beliefs if they’re it’s easy to understand and help justify their positions.

I too never saw this episode as anti-religion, but rather against the Dark Ages level of thinking where people wouldn’t question the rightness of their faith. Obviously what the Catholic church did during the Dark Ages and crusades was wrong, for example, and it took some enlightened thinkers willing to protect and fight for scientific thinking that helped reform the old church.

It’s definitely good to have Star Trek help remind us about our history and the possible pitfalls we as humans are capable of falling into.

This really should be a five star episode. They did the best they could given the limited time allotment.

Sure it would have been nice to have a discussion about the hypocrisy of having a Prime Directive but also constantly risking cultural contamination by studying the species that Starfleet views as inferior savages devoid of rights. However that simply wasn't possible while also having to resolve the plot about the actual contamination which did occur. Sure that resolution wasn't that great either because Picard basically went down and told these people that their gods don't exist at all instead of saying that Starfleet has no way of knowing whether their gods existed as Harry would do on a similar episode of Voyager. Sure this episode was an attack on religion. Sure that one scientist who wanted to pretend to be a god and give actual commandments in complete violation of the Prime Directive was a big WTF moment that shouldn't have been in the episode at all.

But overall the episode was a profound success in terms of laying out a problem, escalating the conflict and then resolving the conflict. The episode was emotionally satisfying even if it wasn't necessarily logically satisfying as there was no discussion of how it is wrong to view non space faring species as primitives devoid of rights to not be studied like animals.

I was torn between 8/10 and 9/10 for tackling a topic such as the evil that religion can be.

At first glance I enjoyed this but there were some awful weaknesses (and then I came to enjoy it again.)

To start with the weaknesses: the anthropologist suggesting reintroducing a god is better than letting them know there are other species in space? ridiculous! The arrogance in that worldview is astonishing - may I say especially for an anthropologist?

I would suggest that being spied on is worse than knowing there are other species with superior technology. What gives the federation the right to spy on others like that. Yes I agree with what Picard says: that it gives insight into earth's past...or does it? to what extent and does that justify spying on others?

We study animals on earth but often it is because we need knowledge both to enjoy them but also to do the least harm to them.

The better part of the episode to me was the observation (whether intended or not) on religion and what it means to be advanced. The premise Picard and the Anthropologist debated here -the Prime Directive - was that the planet people needed to socially advance as well as technologically advance. And that is the Roddenberry arrogance - that humans have some how fundamentally changed socially through experiences to become more advanced...it isn't only the technology per se.

Ironically , the Star Trek universe is full of beings that are technologically advanced yet our Star Trek characters comment on their social backwardness: turning their noses up at the Klingons for example. In contrast, the Bajorans are considered advanced enough despite their deep religion.

Even if we don't live in the Star Trek era, we have advanced a lot in the last few hundred years. But have we changed fundamentally? Would we not go back to chaos if society breaks down (like in a war)? We have experienced cooperation, peace, democracy and know it is possible and can build towards that in fact insist on it. But I believe our nature would have us go back to chaos and the state of "lack of advancement" first (even with our technology) before we moved back to stability and our current advancement. Look how easy it is to introduce harm back into society with the ignorance of antivaxxers. A little bit of stress (fear) and people have thrown out science.

So what could a Prime Directive realistically ask for? Isn't it mostly technological advancement? What level of social change would be a true change in a set of beings?

The critique of religion was awesome and well shown not just told (although there was some of that in the heavy handed TNG fashion.) Although the religion being described here was couched as "superstition without guidance". Is that to placate present day religious people with a dig at cultures that worshipped the sun, for example, but don't have ever so superior "book of guidances"?

I'm surprised there have not been more comments about the massive overlap in setting with star trek insurrection. Although the religious overtones are different, the concept of spying on more 'agrarian' cultures using holographic technology for anthropological research feels identical.
That, and the fact that this is yet another episode shot at the iconic Vasquez rocks....

@Mozzer

Red Letter Media made the same observation in their review of Insurrection. It is, in fact, a good example of why this episode is good and Insurrection is stupid.

Good episode.

Baffled by a couple commenters saying the locals practiced polygamy. What Troi said was that women and men formed couples, and that if another woman were interested in a mated man (presumably interested in him for sex, though this wasn’t spelled out), she could discuss it with the man’s mate.

A lot of things were left unclear here: Did the male get a say in things? Did the couple stay coupled after the new woman made advances, or did the original
mate hand over her man and then find a new man of her own?

Riker leered happily at the thought of sexually aggressive women in a promiscuous society - but the idea of two women negotiating over a man’s sexual services without ever speaking to him is distasteful. It’s only acceptable because in our own twentieth-century world, women lack the physical strength or cultural power to make sex slaves of men. On Mintaka, gender roles could well be different.

The Troi-Riker exchange struck me as a clumsy stab at human-centered bro-humor circa 1990, ridiculously out of place among galaxy-travelers of the twenty-fourth century.

Pretty average offering.

The best part was when Nuria was on the ship, though there was some contrivance in that, when she suddenly "didn't get it," forcing some more drama - as there was throughout. Still - nothing unusual or unacceptable.

Lots of eps in a row about power, who has the power, the use of power. Last ep, our alien was The God, this ep Picard is (sorta) The God.

Decent ep, mostly decent performances. I liked the sci-fi notion of the observers.

I always really liked this episode. Some nice location shooting for a change, and great music. The only thing is this one exchange, which has been mentioned upthread a couple times:

CRUSHER: Before you start quoting me the Prime Directive, he'd already seen us. The damage was done. It was either bring him aboard or let him die.
PICARD: Then why didn't you let him die?
CRUSHER: Because we were responsible for his injuries.
PICARD: I'm not sure that I concur with that reasoning, Doctor.

Damn Picard, WTF? That's just so callous and, frankly, illogical. Does he really think they're not responsible for Liko getting hurt? That's how it comes across. Maybe if it was worded slightly differently, like "Maybe so, but we can't risk the cultural contamination." Also, what if Liko was only hurt? He still saw them, so what would they do then?

I agree with Jammer's star rating. This was a very frustrating episode for me, in that I think the premise and story beats were all very worthy, but the execution leaves a lot to be desired.

I love the idea of the crew trying to shut down a "cultural contamination" and making it worse in the process. I also think a story like this is an excellent vehicle for examining the role religion plays in a society. In both cases, I found the way events unfolded unrealistic.

The contamination issue could all too easily have been nipped in the bud, in that the explanation Picard gave at the end was by far the best course of action from the point where it was confirmed Liko and his daughter had both seen the base and the transporter in action. Trying to kidnap back the injured observer, then beaming the group's leader onto the Enterprise was farcical stuff.

The issue of religion could have been played any number of ways, but one of the worst is to suggest that supposedly rational people can be turned into murderers by one supernatural experience and a thunderstorm.

This handling of the premise reveals, to my mind, a very shallow understanding of religion on the part of the writers. It's true that it can make people do wild, evil things, but I would contend that they are usually acting under other pressures and using religion as a way to rationalise desperate acts or a deeply instinctive conformity.

Religion is a powerful and attractive notion because it offers an *order* to things, a series of simple answers to terrible dilemmas. Terrified of outsiders and the threat they pose? No problem - just believe that you're God's favoured people and that heretics must be killed. Crops failed and family dead? Sort it out by believing that you broke a rule and needed to be punished, or that these events have some greater purpose.

But Liko and the others appear to be under no such mental pressure here. There's the germ of the idea that he's suffering from the pain of his wife's death, but it's nonsense that you would jump from that to wanting to murder someone for a decision you disagreed with.

It would have been more realistic if Liko and others had wanted to form a kind of monk-ish order and devote themselves to the careful study of 'Picard' and the signs of him in the world. The Enterprise crew could still have been tearing their hair out at the prospect of this previously atheist race wasting their time on a stupid misunderstanding.

What's more, the idea that the group leader would have such a hard time accepting that Picard isn't all-powerful is far-fetched. Unless someone is habituated to explaining away unusual events by reference to the supernatural or divine, I can't see them having a problem with conceiving of a more advanced race. If it's true that this race of people have moved beyond religion at this stage in their development, that necessarily implies that they regard things they don't understand (like thunderstorms) as explicable phenomena awaiting further investigation.

Surely, religion operates on the basis of a *practised willingness* to rationalise things in a certain way, coupled with a *lack of contradiction* from whoever or whatever is being idolised. If God or Allah appeared in the sky today and told everyone that he was simply a technologically superior being observing us, there would be plenty of people calling this entity a false god, but I doubt there'd by anyone saying, "Mate, I believe you are who you say you are; I just think you're having us on with the whole 'not actually divine' thing."

Anyway, that is all to say that I think this premise could have been handled much more smartly.

Religion is a dummy tit for fumblers living in the dark ages

Religion is a dummy tit for fumblers living in the dark ages

@Hotel bastardos

and blanket statements and generalizations are for ignorant people who haven’t lived life enough or are bigoted

A number of the comments are more interesting than the episode. It’s somewhat refreshing to see a comment board where commentators are given such free rein, particularly on the topic of religion. My take: It’s obvious that the makers of Star Trek (especially TNG) have always wanted to portray their human characters as having a rationalist/humanist view. TOS had a few nods to religion, but none of the TNG humans ever mentions it. Only the Klingons do. There is respect given to the Klingon viewpoint only because the humans wish to be tolerant of other beliefs. The cultural observer declares that seeing “The Picard” would inevitably lead to witch hunts and religious wars. This stretches credulity. We were told that the natives are proto Vulcans who gave up their belief in the supernatural long ago, and have a more rational outlook, yet we’re supposed to believe that the rantings of ONE guy with no supporting evidence are going to be embraced by MANY others, and lead to all sorts of bad things? It doesn’t make sense to me. What the cultural observer says seems to have been put in his mouth only because the writers wanted to reinforce the “no religion” attitude, not because bad consequences were “inevitable”. On the other hand, Picard isn’t saying to the natives “You’re idiots if you have religious beliefs and/or beliefs in gods”. He’s simply saying that HE is not a god, and there is no rational basis for believing he is. In that sense, he’s not “promoting atheism”. Nice closing comment on Picard’s part.

@Elliott: “Picard's speech is against religion, make no mistake. I find your tendency to be distrustful of anti-faith shows and praising of pro-faith shows displeasing.”

Cosigned. You can go to virtually every other TV show ever made to see either pro-religion viewpoints—or, at minimum, tiptoeing around to avoid offending religious people. As an atheist who believes all religions to be superstitious nonsense, I find it extremely refreshing to encounter a mainstream TV show from the 20th century* that was willing to be so forthright. And it makes sense. Most scientists are atheists, so why shouldn’t science fiction reflect that?

For this reason, and the general niftiness of the narrative, I was expecting 90% of the way through this episode to give it four stars. But I thought it had a little trouble sticking the landing, as it didn’t seem likely Ray Wise would actually shoot Picard, nor did it make sense that having Beverly Crusher heal him would make the point he wanted to make. (I thought maybe he would fake his own death somehow, although then that would end up leaving Wise feeling extremely guilty.)

Still, a very good episode. 3.5 stars.

*THE ORVILLE did something similar, which also ruffled some feathers around here. (Funny how sensitive and insecure religious people are about their faith.) But that was in our current time, when atheism/agnosticism is far more prevalent in American society than it was in the early 1990s. So it was not quite as bold a move.

@SlackerInc

You said, "Most scientists are atheists". I would like to draw your attention to a few accounts:

https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/OriginsLife/pub-jwbiv_201606_3_VIDEO

https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/OriginsLife/pub-jwbiv_201604_3_VIDEO

https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/OriginsLife/pub-jwbiv_201606_2_VIDEO

I didn’t say all. In fact, one of my very best friends is a professor of chemistry and a devout Christian. But he would be the first to say that he feels rather outnumbered among his colleagues. (He is a big fan of Francis Collins, probably the most prominent devoutly Christian scientist in the United States.)

My original point stands. Atheism has rarely been portrayed positively on mainstream television. (One of the only other examples I can think of is the main character, a scientist, on BONES, although this is kind of portrayed as one of her strange or comical personality quirks.) So if scientists are the least religious group in society, and the vast majority of TV shows honor or at least do not contradict religious belief, why should anyone be surprised or get their nose bent out of joint if a science fiction show takes a different approach?

I call BS on this dogmatic idea that everything aired on TV has to be respectful of religious belief. We are not in Saudi Arabia, you religious folk don’t get to have control over everything. Those of us who are nonbelievers get to have a few things of our own, dammit.

@SlackerInc I will never say what television can show. I am a Jehovah's Witness and am completely neutral about politics and such. It is God who will judge of all us on our actions, not us. That is why we preach to people, but we do not try to force anyone to do anything. We all will account for our actions ourselves

Hagins, so you’re threat is not “yours” you simply deliver an existential threat on behalf of your cult. You take no responsibility for the garbage leaking from your lips, the havoc you wrought upon your fellow woman in the name of the cult, nor the misery, suffering, or beguilement of others when the rest of the country looks at your fascism, racism, and illegitism and decides to shine sunlight in.

Hey thanks. But no thanks. You take your kingdom of crap and go castrate bunny rabbits. When your “ilk” decide to join the rest of secular society with laws and rights for all people, especially women and children, we can rationally discuss things. Until then, take your threat, and go have a nice hug filled colonizer Christmas.

@Banned for less
Stop it. While Hagins quoting of the bible is certainly not my thing and my believes are more in line of SlackerInc (I'm a scientist so probably never had a chance) when it comes to religion so far what he wrote is fairly harmless.
No reason to go so overboard with your critique.
I almost thought that you are an agent provocateur because your words are so extreme.

@Booming
Harmless? You really believe that? Try telling that to someone who has decades of nightmares and trauma from being told as a child they're going to burn in hell, live with severe anxiety and panic from being made to believe they're a 'sinner' or will be judged in the afterlife.
Preaching is no less harmful than any other kind of coercion, probably far worse because it stays with you for longer.

@Peter
"Preaching is no less harmful than any other kind of coercion, probably far worse because it stays with you for longer."
That is not true. In Germany the Lutherans are always my go to to explain when a religion is fine. Women can and have reached their highest offices. LGBT+ is completely accepted. No racism of any sort.
Preaching is just a moral argument based on religious texts or believes. It is not coercion.

I'm not defending intolerance or hatred fueled by religion or racism or anything else. That should be opposed.

I see very little has changed in this comments section since I last took part in it over five years ago.

I am not getting into a debate. But I would say that facts should be carefully examined before making accusations. We do not believe in a burning hellfire. The bible talks of the wicked being destroyed, not burning for eternity. But it also talks about how we are objects of hatred, so none of this is surprising.

"That is not true. In Germany the Lutherans are always my go to to explain when a religion is fine. Women can and have reached their highest offices. LGBT+ is completely accepted. No racism of any sort.
Preaching is just a moral argument based on religious texts or believes. It is not coercion.

I'm not defending intolerance or hatred fueled by religion or racism or anything else. That should be opposed. "

The problem is, you're not opposing it. The commentator we're talking about isn't Lutheran. And while it's not coercion, the idea that any kind of preaching is harmless is extremely flawed. That's a view that's based on my own experience, bringing about inner traumas to the point where I would have much rather been coerced than preached to in my childhood.

But you're a sociologist, so I'm surprised you see a distinction in the first place. We are reliant upon what we are made to believe, as children and later adults, as much as our mother's milk.

FWIW I tend to agree with @Booming in this case.

@Sean J
I guess when it comes to defining the wicked that many religions and sects start to become problematic.

@Peter
I'm not questioning your experiences and I'm certainly not defending religious bigotry. I never said that preaching is always harmless. It can be very harmful. Crusades, witch burning, terror attacks, all these things had a starting point and that starting point was a speech. Almost four years ago we had a terrorist attack here that killed a dozen people, a guy I know was there, saw the whole thing. I'll spare you the horrific details but let me assure you I'm very aware of the dangers of religious extremism, any kind of extremism.

"But you're a sociologist, so I'm surprised you see a distinction in the first place."
Political scientist, technically. Why would I not see a distinction between two distinct things? Sure, there may be overlap in some situations between the two concepts but you know... this is a Star Trek forum. If you want to work against religious extremism than the democratic (If you live in a democratic country) liberties should give you ample opportunity to organize, inform and engage people.

What's harmful isn't "preaching" par-se.

What's harmful is psychologically manipulating another person's fears to do what you want. So preaching done IN THAT WAY is - indeed - harmful. And threatening innocent children with eternal hell-fire is about the most extreme form of this imaginable.

Of-course the impact is greatly reduced when the statement is uttered by a random guy on the internet, on a forum where free discussion is encouraged. :-)

@Booming
"I guess when it comes to defining the wicked that many religions and sects start to become problematic."

Indeed.

I personally see the phrase "God will Judge us" as a simple reminder that we are accountable for our actions and that every person is obliged to make a serious effort to do good and be wise. And blindly accepting any (man-made) church as an absolute authority doesn't strike me as either good or wise.

Thankfully not all religious people do that.

@SlackerInc
"THE ORVILLE did something similar, which also ruffled some feathers around here. (Funny how sensitive and insecure religious people are about their faith)"

That last remark is a pretty gross over-generalization, wouldn't you agree?

Many religious folks actually liked "Mad Idolatry". And it is also entirely possible to argue that a show was unfair towards religion, without being "insecure". Some of these commenters made pretty compelling arguments, even if I don't agree with them. Their view is just as legitimate as yours or mine.

@Omicron
"I personally see the phrase "God will Judge us" as a simple reminder that we are accountable for our actions"
I'm listening to an audiobook about Spain and Franco could spent his entire life being a happy dictator and die peacefully, while turning his family into one of the richest in Spain to this very day. Would I enjoy knowing that he got some appropriate punishment after his death. Sure. But I doubt that happened. What lessons can we learn from that? I do not know.

"Thankfully not all religious people do that."
Hopefully at some point none will.

Hopefully there will come a day when no person, religious or not, will do that.

@ OmicronThetaDeltaPhi I agree. Accepted a man-made anything as authority is more than unwise-it is self-destructive. “It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.”​—JEREMIAH 10:23

Many religions claim to follow God, but instead follow the edicts that come from men. I am not here to point the finger at any religion, but any that does this is, of course incorrect-they are placing man's viewpoint over God's

@ Sean J
Can you stop quoting the bible. Or at least quote the cool stuff like Kings 2:23-24 "From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."
42! 5 or 6 mauled kids ok but 42. That seems excessive.

@Sean Hagins
"Many religions claim to follow God, but instead follow the edicts that come from men. I am not here to point the finger at any religion, but any that does this is, of course incorrect-they are placing man's viewpoint over God's "

You like to quote the Bible a lot. I hate to tell you, but the Bible is very much man's authority. The prophets are not reliable testament on what Jesus said or did and material was misunderstood, removed and inserted to appease various figures, groups and authorities. We don't even know which material, although from what I've read the New Testament would be better described as 'cult of Paul' than the story and teachings of Jesus. This is pretty clear if you read the deliberately removed and destroyed gospels of Thomas and Mary Magdalene.

But this happens to all religious teachings.

@Peter:

Do you mean that you feel that the Greek Scriptures (or what some call the "New Testament") is not accurately inspired of God? That's an interesting view-and I would be happy to discuss it with you. You can email me anytime at [email protected]

What I referenced above however, was actually from the Hebrew Scriptures (or what some call the "Old Testament")

@OTDP: “ Their view is just as legitimate as yours or mine.”

Why?

@Sean: If we are going to talk about the Old Testament, there is some stuff in there, particularly in Deuteronomy, that is worse than anything you’ll find in MEIN KAMPF. Commandments to commit genocide even against infants, to take captive women as sexual slaves, to stone young brides to death if their parents cannot produce a bloody cloth to prove they were virgins on their wedding night, on and on. And these are not mere descriptions of horrific acts. These are absolute Commandments by God (Yahweh), no ambiguity. In many cases these Commandments conclude with “you must purge the evil from among you, so that all Israel will see it and be afraid.”

@ SlackerInc:

If you wish to have a serious discussion on this, I will be happy to. Which subject do you want to address first? (I am serious-we can explore those scriptures together)

@Peter
"You like to quote the Bible a lot. I hate to tell you, but the Bible is very much man's authority."

This can be argued back and forth for all eternity, but it doesn't really matter for the current discussion.

Because nobody really follows the literal Bible. Without some kind of over-arching rules of interpretation, the phrase "following the Bible" is meaningless.

Now guess who made these rules of interpretation? That's right. Humans. And since different humans have different perspectives on the same text, we end up with a gazillion different sects and denominations that all claim to follow the same text.

In short: Regardless of where the Bible came from, the authority of the various churches is definitely human. God may have written the guide, but it's up to us to decide what to do with it.

@SlackerInc
"Why?"

I don't understand your question.

Why you need a specific reason to accept the views of a person you disagree with as legitimate?

The proper question here is "Why not"?

Especially since your post referred to some nebulous "they" who "got their feathered ruffled". Who are "they"? They are all kooks? The specifics of their arguments don't matter?

@Sean J Hagins

I'm curious: What are your views of the BIg Bang Theory, evolution and their relation (or lack of) to Genesis 1?

@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi

Actually, I use the bible to explain the bible-not man's intrepretion of it. As it says in 2 Timothy 3:16, 17: "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching,for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."

As Paul said “all Scripture,” he meant the whole Bible, not just the so-called New Testament, which some religionists of Christendom say is all that is necessary for Christians, and not just the inspired Hebrew Scriptures, which the Jews say is all that is necessary for gaining a blessed life in the future world. We need the whole Bible, the pre-Christian part and the Christian part, for both parts are “inspired of God,” and we dare not ignore anything that God inspires. All of it is beneficial to seekers of everlasting life in happiness.

As far as your 2nd comment, Jehovah God created the universe with dynamic energy. I am sure something went "bang", but I do not speculate as to what or how it was done (as the bible does not say)

As far as evolution, may I share several good links:

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/teenagers/ask/creation-evolution-part-1/

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/teenagers/ask/creation-evolution-part-2/

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/teenagers/ask/creation-evolution-part-3/

https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/teen-questions/should-i-believe-in-evolution/

https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/g201510/adaptation-evolution/

These are a few very brief articles on the subject, but I can show you a more in depth, detailed answer if you wish

Oh, and have a look at this cool film:

https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/wonders-of-creation-reveal-gods-glory/movie/

Note that all of the information therein is bible based. Nothing we believe originates from man's thinking

@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi

Just one more thing:

You mentioned Genesis chapter 1. The bible shows that the days of creation are NOT literal days. Again using the bible to explain the bible, Psalms 90:4 says, "For a thousand years are in your eyes just as yesterday when it is past, Just as a watch during the night."

@Sean J
"Actually, I use the bible to explain the bible-not man's intrepretion of it."

Couple of problems here:

1. You can't use a verse from the NT to validate the NT. That's circular logic.

2. The question of whether the entire Bible is "trustworthy" is not my point at all. I'm willing to take that as given. My question is: what does it all mean? How do we make sense of all the seemingly contradictory bits of information? We have "love thy neighbor as yourself" and "whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also", but we also have seemingly clear commandments to burn witches, stone disobedient sons and commit genocide.

That's a pretty jarring change of tone, won't you agree?

So that's the problem.

And yes, I'm fully aware that there are answers. Good answers. But I'm also aware that these answers are man-made, and there's more than one solution the problem.

I will add that these interpretations do not happen in a vacuum. Our external knowledge and assumptions play a major part in it. That's why religions evolve over time.

Wow this thread really went down the rabbit hole.

Ok Sean j Hagins we get it. If you want to base your world view on a book that has several long parts on how to treat your slaves, or when it is ok to sell your children into slavery. Fine. But don't bother the people here with your fundamentalism.

Exodus: 21:7 "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. "
These things are in there because the bible was written in slave states by slave owners. This is not about interpretation. These are clear rules for how you should live and if you do not live like that then people who do can burn down your city murder all the men and take everybody else as slave.

Deuteronomy 20:13-14 "And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee."

Discuss why this is not what it clearly is in your bible study group but not here A STAR TREK FORUM!

@ OmicronThetaDeltaPhi:

You bring up a good question! And it can be answered in this way: when the nation of Israel was God's chosen people, He authorised them to execute wicked ones among them, as well as the wicked nations surrounding them. After Jesus was killed, remember the curtain of the holy/most holy was rent. That is when Jehovah God used the Christian congregation (and still does today) We do not have the authority or responsiblity to execute judgements. In fact, the bible shows that God will soon execute the wicked

Those who “pay attention” and “keep awake” will search out the will of God and do it. (Proverbs 2:1-5; Romans 12:2) These are the ones who will “succeed in escaping” the destruction soon to be brought on Satan’s system. And they can have complete confidence that they will be delivered.—Psalm 34:15; Proverbs 10:28-30.

You see, the bible answers these questions-not an interpretation by man. We have been preaching the soon end of Satan's evil system and that soon "God's Kingdom will come, and His Will will be done on earth just like it is in heaven" (Matthew 6:9-13)

@Omicron
Would you do this forum a favor and not engage this guy. He will not stop if you do.

@ Booming:

First, I apologise if I seem to have commandeered the forum-it is not my intention. However, speaking about bible subjects is an honour, privilege and joy for me, and so, I will do so if someone has a question, or brings up a topic.

You mentioned slavery. The Bible states that “man has dominated man to his injury.” (Ecclesiastes 8:9) This is perhaps nowhere more evident than in the oppressive forms of slavery that have been devised by man. Jehovah God is not indifferent to the suffering that slavery has wrought.

For example, consider a situation that developed with the Israelites. The Bible tells us that the Egyptians “kept making their life bitter with hard slavery at clay mortar and bricks and with every form of slavery in the field, yes, every form of slavery of theirs in which they used them as slaves under tyranny.” The Israelites “continued to sigh because of the slavery and to cry out in complaint, and their cry for help kept going up to the true God.” Was Jehovah indifferent to their plight? On the contrary, “God heard their groaning and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” Furthermore, Jehovah told his people: “I shall certainly bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians and deliver you from their slavery.”—Exodus 1:14; 2:23, 24; 6:6-8.

Clearly, Jehovah did not approve of ‘man dominating man’ through abusive slavery. But did not God later allow slavery among his people? Yes, he did. However, the slavery that existed in Israel was vastly different from the tyrannical forms of slavery that have existed throughout history.

God’s Law stated that kidnapping and selling a human was punishable by death. Furthermore, Jehovah provided guidelines to protect slaves. For example, a slave who was maimed by his master would be set free. If a slave died because his master beat him, the master could be punished with death. Women captives could become slaves, or they could be taken as wives. But they were not to be used for mere sexual gratification. The gist of the Law must have led righthearted Israelites to treat slaves with respect and kindness, as if these were hired laborers.—Exodus 20:10; 21:12, 16, 26, 27; Leviticus 22:10, 11; Deuteronomy 21:10-14.

Some Jews voluntarily became slaves to their fellow Jews in order to repay debts. This practice protected people from starvation and actually allowed many to recover from poverty. Furthermore, at key junctures in the Jewish calendar, slaves were to be released if they so desired.* (Exodus 21:2; Leviticus 25:10; Deuteronomy 15:12) Commenting on these laws regarding slaves, Jewish scholar Moses Mielziner stated that a “slave could never cease to be a man, he was looked upon as a person possessing certain natural human rights, with which the master even could not with impunity interfere.” What a stark contrast to the abusive systems of slavery that mar the annals of history!

You also brought up Deuteronomy 20:13-14. I did some research on this

Laws concerning assault and siege of cities. Jehovah instructed Israel as to military procedure in the conquest of Canaan. The seven nations of Canaan, named at Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, were to be exterminated, including women and children. Their cities were to be devoted to destruction. (De 20:15-17) According to Deuteronomy 20:10-15, other cities were first warned and terms of peace extended. If the city surrendered, the inhabitants were spared and put to forced labor. This opportunity to surrender, together with the assurance that their lives would be spared and their women would not be raped or molested, was an inducement to such cities to capitulate to Israel’s army, thus avoiding much bloodshed. If the city did not surrender, all males were killed. Killing the men removed danger of later revolt by the city. “The women and the little children” were spared. That “women” here no doubt means virgins is indicated by Deuteronomy 21:10-14, where prospective war brides are described as mourning for parents, not for husbands. Also, earlier, when Israel defeated Midian, it is specifically stated that only virgins were spared. Such sparing of only virgins would serve to protect Israel from false worship and no doubt from sexually transmitted diseases. (Nu 31:7, 17, 18)

Why did Jehovah decree the extermination of the Canaanites?

The historical account shows that the populations of the Canaanite cities conquered by the Israelites were subjected to complete destruction. (Numbers 21:1-3, 34, 35; Joshua 6:20, 21; 8:21-27; 10:26-40; 11:10-14) This fact has been used by some critics as a means for depicting the Hebrew Scriptures, or “Old Testament,” as imbued with a spirit of cruelty and wanton slaughter. The issue involved, however, is clearly that of whether God’s sovereignty over the earth and its inhabitants is acknowledged or not. He had deeded over the right of tenure of the land of Canaan to the ‘seed of Abraham,’ doing so by an oath-bound covenant. (Genesis 12:5-7; 15:17-21; compare Deuteronomy 32:8; Ac 17:26.) But more than a mere eviction or dispossessing of the existing tenants of that land was purposed by God. His right to act as “Judge of all the earth” (Genesis 18:25) and to decree the sentence of capital punishment upon those found meriting it, as well as his right to implement and enforce the execution of such decree, was also involved.

The justness of God’s prophetic curse on Canaan found full confirmation in the conditions that had developed in Canaan by the time of the Israelite conquest. Jehovah had allowed 400 years from Abraham’s time for the ‘error of the Amorites to come to completion.’ (Genesis 15:16) The fact that Esau’s Hittite wives were “a source of bitterness of spirit to Isaac and Rebekah” to the extent that Rebekah had ‘come to abhor her life because of them’ is certainly an indication of the badness already manifest among the Canaanites. (Genesis 26:34, 35; 27:46) During the centuries that followed, the land of Canaan became saturated with detestable practices of idolatry, immorality, and bloodshed. The Canaanite religion was extraordinarily base and degraded, their “sacred poles” evidently being phallic symbols, and many of the rites at their “high places” involving gross sexual excesses and depravity. (Exodus 23:24; 34:12, 13; Numbers 33:52; De 7:5) Incest, sodomy, and bestiality were part of ‘the way of the land of Canaan’ that made the land unclean and for which error it was due to “vomit its inhabitants out.” (Le 18:2-25) Magic, spellbinding, spiritism, and sacrifice of their children by fire were also among the Canaanites’ detestable practices.​—Deuteronomy 18:9-12.

Baal was the most prominent of the deities worshiped by the Canaanites. (Judges 2:12, 13; compare Judges 6:25-32; 1Kings 16:30-32.) The Canaanite goddesses Ashtoreth (Judges 2:13; 10:6; 1Samuel 7:3, 4), Asherah, and Anath are presented in an Egyptian text as both mother-goddesses and as sacred prostitutes who, paradoxically, remain ever-virgin (literally, “the great goddesses who conceive but do not bear”). Their worship apparently was invariably involved with the services of temple prostitutes. These goddesses symbolized the quality not only of sexual lust but also of sadistic violence and warfare. Thus, the goddess Anath is depicted in the Baal Epic from Ugarit as effecting a general slaughter of men and then decorating herself with suspended heads and attaching men’s hands to her girdle while she joyfully wades in their blood. The figurines of the goddess Ashtoreth that have been discovered in Palestine are of a nude woman with rudely exaggerated sex organs. Of their phallic worship, archaeologist W. F. Albright observes that: “At its worst, . . . the erotic aspect of their cult must have sunk to extremely sordid depths of social degradation.”

Added to their other degrading practices was that of child sacrifice. According to Merrill F. Unger: “Excavations in Palestine have uncovered piles of ashes and remains of infant skeletons in cemeteries around heathen altars, pointing to the widespread practice of this cruel abomination.” (Archaeology and the Old Testament, 1964, p. 279) Halley’s Bible Handbook (1964, p. 161) says: “Canaanites worshipped, by immoral indulgence, as a religious rite, in the presence of their gods; and then, by murdering their first-born children, as a sacrifice to these same gods. It seems that, in large measure, the land of Canaan had become a sort of Sodom and Gomorrah on a national scale. . . . Did a civilization of such abominable filth and brutality have any right longer to exist? . . . Archaeologists who dig in the ruins of Canaanite cities wonder that God did not destroy them sooner than he did.”​

In view of all of this, it is clear that the opinion held by some Bible critics that the destruction of the Canaanites by Israel is not in harmony with the spirit of the Christian Greek Scriptures does not accord with the facts, as a comparison of such texts as Matthew 3:7-12; 22:1-7; 23:33; 25:41-46; Mark 12:1-9; Luke 19:14, 27; Romans 1:18-32; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9; 2:3; and Revelation 19:11-21 will demonstrate.

I honestly want to thank you for bringing this up-some of the things I saw in my research I either did not know, or more likely, studied at one point, but forgot

@ Booming:

"Would you do this forum a favor and not engage this guy. He will not stop if you do."

I'm sorry-I thought you wanted answers to the topics you bought up.

@Sean J Hagins
"I'm sorry-I thought you wanted answers to the topics you bought up. "
These aren' answers, these are interpretations. What I and nobody else here needs are your interpretations. Again this is a Star Trek forum, not a bible forum.

@Booming: How are they interpretations? The facts of the Canaanite nation is indisputible (hence why I included references). The facts of what was and was not allowed are from the scriptures. Again, it is the bible explaining the bible.

I am not trying to make you follow them if you do not wish to.

You are correct-it IS a Star Trek forum. I know however that many people bring up extraneous topics. I can point out political discussions in several dozen threads off the bat.

I live my life by bible priniciples-I don't turn that off and on. If I see sexual immorality, I won't watch it. If it is implied (as Star Trek does at times), I will mention it.

This topic for instance, seems to be something that some want to engage in. Again, Booming, I am not doing it to annoy you, and I apologise if you are indeed, annoyed

"If I see sexual immorality, I won't watch it. If it is implied (as Star Trek does at times), I will mention it."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCFVr3_2GXQ&ab_channel=YoeMJ

@ Booming:

What is that link? I hesitate to go to it as I don't know what you are sending. Was it a question about sexual immorality? If so, just ask me

@Sean J

You can safely ignore the link. It is of absolutely no consequence to the discussion.

@Booming

I actually think that discussing this here would be far more fruitful then discussing it in an echo chamber of people whose beliefs are virtually identical to one another.

Though it does become repetitive at this point, so this may be good place to stop.

As for those passages which you say are "not open to interpretation":

Taken absolutely literally and without any other assumptions, it is a story/account of what happened one day in the desert in Egypt, over 3000 years ago. God said some stuff to Moses. Moses relayed it to the Hebrews.

That's it.

The minute we go beyond the realm of the literal story and into the possible meaning/lesson of that story, that's an interpretation. It isn't any different really, then the way you would learn from any other piece of literature/art. Or Star Trek, come to think of it.

@OmicronThetaDeltaPhi:

I don't understand what you mean. Are we talking about the deliverance from Egypt, or the Mosaic Law?

And the only interpretation I see there, is using the bible to interpret the bible. How do you view it?

I am curious-are you a Christian? Do you feel that God wants us to follow the bible?

This discussion got me to thinking about some of the barbarism I have read about concerning various civilizations like the Assyrians and the Aztecs and what a different world it must have been back then versus what we take for granted. I mean "rough neighborhood" cannot even begin to describe what the reality was for people and nations living back then.

As an intellectual exercise I try to imagine what a god, even a benevolent one, would need to instruct his followers to do in order to prosper in that environment absent some kind of garish Q magic intervention.

And it seems like the Bible's barbarism, however outlandish it seems by modern sensibilities, must have been positively progressive, radically so, in that context.

So again, assuming our hypothetical benevolent god had to work within the general confines of reality, the morality he would be imparting would never come close to anything we today would find acceptable.

@Jason
I some aspects it was progressive compared to some cultures at the time, in other aspects it was regressive.
There weren't just flesh eating Aztecs and cruel Assyrians around. The Zoroastrian Persians for example were more progressive in many aspects than the Jews or later the Christian influenced cultures. They were for example very tolerant towards other religions, opposed any kind of human or living animal sacrifice and encouraged a healthy diet. And they came before Judaism turned into a written down religion. The Babylonians were very accepting towards homosexuality. That is one of the reasons that homophobia was so important for ancient Jews, to differentiate themselves from other middle eastern civilizations during the Babylonian captivity.

@Jason: Really? The extermination of an entire race of people was “positively progressive” for the time? Boy, I’d love to hear what was regressive! I have a feeling the people getting exterminated might have had a different take on that.

Oh, but the Canaanites allegedly engaged in child sacrifice. OK, let’s take that as true for the sake of argument. How does that justify killing all of them, including their children and infants? It’s absurd.

OTDP: Is it then your belief that anyone’s view on any topic is just as legitimate as anyone else’s? Flat Earthers have just as legitimate viewpoints as those who believe the Earth is roughly spherical? People who believe the vaccines developed for coronavirus are a mind control plot by Bill Gates have just as legitimate a view as people who believe they were created by hard-working scientists to save lives?

@SlackerInc
Thanks for pointing out that genocide is always wrong. When Sean J Hagins defended that I thought "allrighty then" and moved on because it is just too crazy to even debate?? He cites the bible as a source about a genocide committed by the people who wrote that very source. I also loved it that his scientific sources use sentences like "Did a civilization of such abominable filth and brutality have any right longer to exist? Archaeologists who dig in the ruins of Canaanite cities wonder that God did not destroy them sooner than he did." That screams scientific integrity.

"People who believe the vaccines developed for coronavirus are a mind control plot by Bill Gates have just as legitimate a view as people who believe they were created by hard-working scientists to save lives?"
Can it not be both?! :D

@Booming I understand what you are saying. Hitler was also progressive in being a non smoker and a vegetarian.

The point being that while some civilizations might have had beliefs that accord with our modern sensibilities, this would be more fluke than any real pattern. Back then I think barbarism (by our standards) was practically universal. I don't think any significant civilization would be exempt from this reality.

"@Jason: Really? The extermination of an entire race of people was “positively progressive” for the time?"

Let me ask you: have you read about what some of the civilizations in history were up to? I am talking about child sacrifice, cannibalism, mass murder, genocide etc.

I wouldn't call genocide "progressive" lol but in the context of the time it 1) Wasn't rare and 2) Might have been a net benefit for humanity in some cases.

If we imagine our hypothetical deity is pragmatic about these things, it would be logical to envision him effectively choosing to eradicate certain groups for the good of all.

And to use a more recent example, when you read about what the Aztecs were up to, you don't exactly regret their annihilation at the hands of the Spaniards, nor question why so many of their subjects were happy to see them wiped out.

I don't know if I was unclear or if you are intentionally misunderstanding what I said, but I gave evidence that the people mentioned earlier were involved in wickedness. Like today, there is much wrongdoing being done. This will only be corrected when God's Kingdom takes control of the earth.

The bible talks about this happening at the battle of Armaggedon

The battle of Armageddon refers to the final war between human governments and God. These governments and their supporters oppose God even now by refusing to submit to his rulership. (Psalm 2:2) The battle of Armageddon will bring human rulership to an end.​—Daniel 2:​44.

Jesus Christ will lead a heavenly army to victory over God’s enemies. (Revelation 19:11-​16, 19-​21) These enemies include those who oppose God’s authority and who treat God with contempt.​—Ezekiel 39:7.

Rather than destroying humanity, Armageddon actually saves it, because “a great crowd” of God’s servants will survive.​—Revelation 7:​9, 14; Psalm 37:34.

To be honest, what would really be unkind is for God to allow the wicked to flourish indefinitely.

@Jason
Calling Achaeminid Persia, by far the biggest and long lasting empire of it's time a fluke is a view one can have, I guess. For most of Achaemid Persia slavery was banned. The major cities were build by paid laborers. Slavery was basically non existent in many parts of the empire. Cultures and religions were respected. Maybe read up a little before you call all these people barbarians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire
Slavery on a great scale was reintroduced by the Greeks.

But this is my last comment about the issue. Because... Well, I really don't need a reason.

@Booming: No, you don’t. :-)

This attitude, that the horrific Commandments in the Old Testament were actually progressive for the time, is both a defensive set of excuses to justify one’s religious texts and also a chauvinistic view of one’s own cultural roots as being inherently superior to every other culture in the ancient world. I don’t buy it. The way they talk about Hebrew conquest in those texts makes it appear likely the Hebrews were, ironically, the Nazis of the ancient world, and if we had texts surviving from the people they conquered and annihilated, I would bet everything I own that a very interesting and unflattering picture would emerge.

@ SlackerInc,,

"The way they talk about Hebrew conquest in those texts makes it appear likely the Hebrews were, ironically, the Nazis of the ancient world"

I hope this statement is backed up by years of study and education, because otherwise you're ironically falling into the trap of being a fundamentalist - just on the side against. Just reading a few passages in a book doesn't give you direct insight into the state of the world at the time, the meaning of the passages, or the net effects of the tenets of that book on the world. But I will advise that to suggest that the OT Jews were the "Nazis" of the ancient world is...uh...let's say an a-historical idea. Or to put it more bluntly, wtf?

"This attitude, that the horrific Commandments in the Old Testament were actually progressive for the time, is both a defensive set of excuses to justify one’s religious texts and also a chauvinistic view of one’s own cultural roots as being inherently superior to every other culture in the ancient world. "

I should note that I am an atheist and don't really have any deference to these particular holy books. Unlike others on this thread I am not interested in defending the bible except as an intellectual exercise.

I happened to be reading a couple articles recently about the Assyrians and the Aztecs and the kind of horrors those two civilizations perpetrated, which frankly, might make the Nazis seem tame in terms of sheer unmitigated barbarism even if the scale was necessarily less due to the cruder technology of the times . So that is where my interest in this topic comes from.

I am not, by the way, trying to single out these civilizations as uniquely evil - on the contrary, it just occurred to me that this kind of thing, whether human sacrifice, slavery, torture, rape etc.. must have been fairly common in the ancient world and more "normal", even if some civilizations were more prolific than others.

In that context, the bible doesn't seem all that extreme. Also, if we imagine that some of these practices (such as human sacrifice) could have spread far more than they did, one could imagine a hypothetical god with a perfect understanding of the future (like the Prophets of Bajor) choosing to sever a particularly malevolent branch of the human tree now and then in order to achieve a better outcome in the future.

The issue AT HAND is Hagins keeps calling in His Supposed God as a personal weapon to
Smite any of us who would talk against him or his ilk. With every comment he intones “well me and my god will smear ye because we’re in the know, so neener neener” and that’s quite the bulls hit.

After seeing what the jehovah are doing to that young girl, and have done to others in similar circumstances, I’m not inclined to listen to a word from this Hagins character.
https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/11/9/21557200/utah-supreme-court-case-woman-says-church-made-her-listen-to-audio-of-her-rape-jehovahs-witnesses

@SlackerInc
"Is it then your belief that anyone’s view on any topic is just as legitimate as anyone else’s? Flat Earthers have just as legitimate viewpoints as those who believe the Earth is roughly spherical? People who believe the vaccines developed for coronavirus are a mind control plot by Bill Gates have just as legitimate a view as people who believe they were created by hard-working scientists to save lives?"

Do you seriously need to ask me these questions? Come on, SlackerInc, you know me better than this. So how about you refrain from stooping to that level? It really doesn't befit you.

If you have a serious point you want discuss here, I'll be happy to oblige. If not, that's okay too. But let's not turn this into another silly theist/atheist snark battle, alright? We are both better than this.

Picard: Yo, what's up with the caveman on my ship?

Bev: Oh yeah we sorta almost killed him so I'm fixing him.

Picard: Pfft, let him die next time.

Are you kidding me, TNG?

Whatever, I hate the prime directive and how they use it but I've decided I won't complain about it every time it comes up. Still, that was an incredibly clumsy bit of writing because even if that is how Picard would feel he wouldn't have worded it the way he did in this episode.

All that notwithstanding I actually enjoyed this episode a bunch. I get the complaints about how a civilization is almost always 5 people but at the same time I understand the obvious issues of building and populating a town in a way that seems representative of a civilization since TNG wasn't working with a Game of Thrones budget or in a time where CGI could be used to show a realistic version of a Bronze Age civilization.

Two enjoyable episodes in a row, TNG you're spoiling me.

'If you're going to pick a god pick the Picard.'

Hoooo boy, this one. I once knew a hardcore fundamentalist Christian who angrily swore off all Star Trek, for all time, when he first saw this episode and got to Picard’s “dark ages of fear and superstition” speech.

This lasted until he eventually deconverted and became an atheist, years later. He’s now embarrassed by his religious days, and in fact feels traumatized by the experience. Says he used to live in fear of burning for eternity after death. That “heaven and hell” stuff ain’t for everyone.

In many ways this is an excellent episode - especially from the point where Nuria is kidnapped to the Enterprise, meets “the Picard” and eventually convinced (by means of a terribly clumsy plot device - the death of one of the scientists) that humans are mortal, with advanced but limited powers. The analogy Picard uses of how her own ancestors would react to her, is logical and unanswerable. The Prime Directive writ large…

However, there is a gaping flaw. At the start, only Lokia and Nuria are involved. Is it likely that their experiences, occurring in a single brief moment of time, would affect an entire planet? Especially as the Mentakans are proto-Vulcan and therefore rational and logical people. It’s questionable whether the two would convince just their village, let alone everyone everywhere. Even the experience of Moses on Mt Sinai (if you even believe that actually happened!) only affected a single minor religion.

So a double rating from me: 3.5 stars for the last third, 2 stars for what preceded it.

@Tidd

I'm not Jewish, but I found myself taken aback by your referring to it as "a single minor religion."

Without Jews, there would be no Christians (of any kind, including ones who don't recognize each other as "real" Christians), nor Muslims. Christianity and Islam together make up the majority of Earth's current population. Even if there were no longer any Jews at all, it could not be said that religions that revere Moses as a major figure have a negligible effect on the world.

I think the Prime Directive is predicated on the "butterfly effect," the idea that a planetwide system is so complex that seemingly tiny variables, like the beating of a butterfly's wings, could have outsized effects as one thing affects another, snowballing eventually through the entire system. Worship of "The Picard" could well transform the cultures on all of Mintaka 4, even if "Picardism" remained a smallish regional faith, if there were more populous offshoots like Enterprisists and Transporterites.

@Trish it is true that all major religious movements likely started small, with a tiny cult around a single religious figure.

Yet it is fallacious to imagine that this means that any one particular cult is likely to expand into a world-dominating religion.

The way the scientist puts it, you'd think that it was somehow inevitable that this one tiny village would spread the Picard religion to the ends of that world when in fact, the chances of that happening were undoubtedly vanishingly small.

@Jason
"Yet it is fallacious to imagine that this means that any one particular cult is likely to expand into a world-dominating religion."
I think that is not the point. Three things. 1. It is possible that this spreads far beyond this one village and it does not have to be mega influential, even some change means that a Federation captain has changed the culture of a primitive civilization forever. Meaning that this isn't necessarily about consequence. That this event must be hugely influential. The change in itself is bad. 2. Maybe over time this village grows and because of Picard's influence some things that would have happened, do not. Some children aren't born, some voyages are not undertaken. This way they at least minimized the damage 3. Showing that this has wider consequences would have demanded at least a two parter and more money.

While we can come up with many explanations, in the end we all know that this was so limited because of budget constraints. Back then the budget for one episode was 1.3 million$. For comparison, game of thrones (a show people once liked) cost around 8 million$ per episode and the first season of the new lord of the rings show cost around 450 million $. In other words for TNG, it's special effects, nailing a few sets together and Patrick Stewart's trailer and the budget is spent.

There's scarcely a planet on TNG that doesn't feel like it's populated by about eight people and consists of roughly three locations. Even the most backwater of planets somehow has world government and is ruled by a single bureaucrat with webcam in his office. So the idea that so much concern is extended to this one small community seems on brand.

You can't judge these things based on how probable it is that The Picard would spawn a world religion. The probability doesn't matter. It's like asking how probable it is that an asteroid pulverizes your planet. If it's anything other than zero you should be scrambling with everything you got to put a stop to it. The PD is this important to the Federation.

What were the chances that the Sigma Iotians would copy an entire fake culture based on a single fiction novel? Well, they did it. Even Kirk is stunned that it happened. Once a certain amount of sloppiness happens one of these worlds is bound to be contaminated by it. It's just a question of when, not if. And just consider all the non-Starfleet ships going around causing a rucus...

Wow, militant atheists are so much more irritating than religious fundamentalists. As seen in the comments here, this seems to be because they are scornful, judgmental, intolerant, self-aggrandizing, boorish, without empathy, derisive, contemptuous, and generally hateful. Amazing personality characteristics when you consider the moral high ground they constantly claim to inhabit. Perhaps this explains the great humanity of leading atheist regimes in human history such as those of Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, and the benevolent Kim family of North Korea.

Jammer's review was spot on. The episode has strong qualities, but is let down by a general moral and intellectual hypocrisy. The Enterprise crew repeatedly double down on their violation of the Prime Directive, while protesting that they are trying to protect it (with their very lives!). Picard goes far out of his way to interfere with the alien culture in an attempt to ensure that they develop in the "right" direction.

So what is the point of the Prime Directive again? "I won't have them return to the dark ages!!" Picard says (to paraphrase). Arrogance like Picard's, acting out (with power literally from on high) a naive faith in his own wisdom and ability to guide or correct the development of another civilization, is exactly what the Prime Directive is theoretically meant to protect against. It's not for Picard to choose, to mold, to shape this civilization. It's not for him to "set it right" and continue smugly on his way. Who does he think he is?

I would argue that in the Star Trek universe the Prime Directive is more of a plot device than anything else. Like transporters or replicators, it makes life easier for the writers but doesn't bear a lot of critical examination. The writers here should have realized that and navigated the subject more carefully. If the commitment to the Prime Directive was so deeply held and serious the Federation would not have a little outpost there in the first place. You simply cannot observe something without affecting it, which seems like it should have been the lesson learned from this episode, not "give up your superstitions and your people too can some day build a starship like this beauty!"

Very recent history on Earth has provided an interesting counterpoint to Picard's "dark ages" speech and actions. The end point of the atheistic worldview, the "critical theory" that has swept through our progressive universities and institutions like a cancer (yes, including STEM fields), professes philosophically to reject rational discourse and objective reality in favor of subjective experience, "other ways of knowing", and naked power struggles. Literally, a regression to the dark ages.

There's something to be said for humility, after all. We don't really understand the universe, or even ourselves. Picard was wiser in The Survivors when he observed that he had no right to judge the alien being. As the ancients observed, "Surety brings ruin."

@2PacTruth
You may want to read your first paragraph again because it is plagued by the same lack of self awareness than for example the statement:"The people I hate 24/7 are those damn haters."

"Very recent history on Earth has provided an interesting counterpoint to Picard's "dark ages" speech and actions. The end point of the atheistic worldview, the "critical theory" that has swept through our progressive universities and institutions like a cancer (yes, including STEM fields), professes philosophically to reject rational discourse and objective reality in favor of subjective experience, "other ways of knowing", and naked power struggles. Literally, a regression to the dark ages."
I guess you picked up these thoughts from some kind of youtube video because that is a very uninformed notion that betrays your lack of actual interest in the matter. So you stumbled over the positivism vs post-positivism debate and completely misunderstood it. Hello, science 101. That is a debate that is ongoing for a hundred years, honey. So an example for why post-postivism exists. In the old kingdom of egypt there were several ruling queens and the egyptologists of the 19th century assumed that these queens were always regents for underage pharaohs because from their viewpoint a woman could not be sole power because they were living in a society in which women were essentially powerless. Later egyptologists pointed out that there is no real evidence for that assumption and quite a few things point actually towards these women being pharaohs.
BUT if anything than over the last 30 years the positivist view or empiricism in general is faaaar more dominant which has a lot to do with the internet and the better availability of data which made statistical analysis aka quantitative methods far easier to do. Critical theory became popular in the 1930s and remained popular until the 1980s. Horkheimer, Habermas and obviously Foucault to name a few.

"There's something to be said for humility, after all. We don't really understand the universe, or even ourselves."
Haha, oh... this could be a sentence from a supporter of critical theory. In essence critical theory says that we cannot be sure how much our personal biases/subconscious influences our perception of reality. So darling, the critical theory call is coming from inside the house.

@2PacTruth

Excellent comments. This so much needed to be said:

"militant atheists are so much more irritating than religious fundamentalists. As seen in the comments here, this seems to be because they are scornful, judgmental, intolerant, self-aggrandizing, boorish, without empathy, derisive, contemptuous, and generally hateful. Amazing personality characteristics when you consider the moral high ground they constantly claim to inhabit. Perhaps this explains the great humanity of leading atheist regimes in human history such as those of Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, and the benevolent Kim family of North Korea."

The thing about the PD is it is such a complex doctrine that puts a ton of judgment/interpretation on the various captains/crews -- I do agree it does come across as a plot device since it could never be fully proscriptive, therefore it gets interpreted in whatever way the story wishes to go in. That's Trek. And the thing is, when we look at the various PD examinations across the series, it is rather inconsistent. At a very high level, the whole idea of non-interference, is a worthy principle.

But a frequent plot on Trek is our protagonists trying to rectify a situation, making it worse, and then trying to come up with some hokey justification. So yes, in this case Picard and the Federation lack integrity.

I hear you on critical theory and the need for humility and just admitting we don't understand certain things (and maybe won't in our lifetimes). It's more than a shame what has happened in academia where one must only think in one way or be shamed/discredited/cancelled. And of course that extends into other spheres as well... but I'll leave it at that.

Ok, Rahul every time I write more than 10 lines somewhere you have to come in and agree with whoever I disagree with? Can you just stalk people in your own neighborhood? Organize a book burning club?

You know what Rahul let's try this.

You are really funny and sooooo smart. Just a great guy, so cool but also a little dangerous. rrrrrrrr Love!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vziazIPoDk8&ab_channel=Liz90Lemon

Perhaps, Booming, if you stopped regarding other posters with such scorn
("honey", "darling"), people like Rahul wouldn't feel the need to defend them? And then there's your reply to Rahul himself... why do you always have to pick fights?

Next time you wonder why militant atheists have such a bad reputation... well, food for thought.

To be fair: fundamentalist nuts are just as bad. It's funny how much the extremists of both sides have in common with one another: They both blindly follow their dogma and regard other viewpoints with scorn.

@Omicron
2PacTruth wrote this
"The end point of the atheistic worldview, the "critical theory" that has swept through our progressive universities and institutions like a cancer (yes, including STEM fields), professes philosophically to reject rational discourse and objective reality in favor of subjective experience, "other ways of knowing", and naked power struggles. Literally, a regression to the dark ages."
This is pure and utter nonsense and using words as honey or darling is not a sign of scorn, it's a sign of me watching too much "real housewives of Beverly Hills".
I'm a scientist and if somebody tries to belittle what I do (Rahul's motivation for joining in) and academia in general on some kind of anti science crusade then I take offense. Aren't you a scientist?

By the way, what is militant atheism? Richard Dawkins?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxGMqKCcN6A&ab_channel=TED

Here a few statistics about religious fanatics. They killed more than 20000 people in 2019 alone only in terrorist attacks. How many did the militant atheists kill?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/202871/number-of-fatalities-by-terrorist-attacks-worldwide/

Rahul follows me around because he hates me. Even though I'm no longer trying to question his superior intellect, his strong masculinity and his sheer, raw power.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDKYFAxdiXU&ab_channel=simplymaterial

"Militant atheists" have "such a bad reputation" because everyone shoots the messenger. Especially when the messenger is pointing out the moral depravity of a beloved institution. Anyone who thinks "militant atheists" are "more irritating" than people who, for instance, just effectively overturned Roe v Wade in Texas, or who use Christian supremacist legislation like the RFRA as an end-run on the legal debates they've lost over LGBTQ+ rights, women's rights, et al, needs to explain why they'd rather be socially coddled than protect human rights.

Please.

Maybe there is a good reason why the state of Texas forces daughters to have the children of their fathers. And don't call that anti women. Almost 9% of republicans in the Texas house of representatives are women.

The joke is, I wasn't even talking about religion. May critique was specifically aimed at the anti science rhetoric.

@Booming

The part of 2PacTruth's comment that Rahul quoted and supported is 100% true.

OTOH the second part, where he claims that militant atheists are like that because they submit to some kind of post-modernistic viewpoint is 100% wrong. I agree with you completely that *this* part is "pure and utter nonsense".

"using words as honey or darling is not a sign of scorn..."

Please don't insult my intelligence.

Every single word in your comments towards both 2PacTruth and Rahul reeked with scorn and disrespect. And I don't particularly care whether you own up to this fact or not.

"Aren't you a scientist?"

Yes, and I don't see any "anti-science crusade" in Rahul's post.

Pointing that there are problems in the academia is not synonymous to an attack against science. You *do* remember that science is - first and foremost - a quest for truth, right? So if certain practices in the academia are not conductive to this final goal, then pointing these flaws out is *a good thing*.

"Here a few statistics about religious fanatics. They killed more than 20000 people in 2019 alone only in terrorist attacks. How many did the militant atheists kill?"

I'll keep this question in mind, next time I'm tempted to join a radical Islamic terrorist movement.

It's also a bit strange to hear this argument from a person who is a self-professed communist. How many tens of millions of people were killed/tortured/maimed/psychologically broken in the name of communism? And is citing this "statistic" a good argument against communism as an economic system (short answer: No, and neither is it a good argument against religion).

In short:

Yes, I agree with you that joining a murderous cult is a bad idea. Not sure what this has to do with the discussion we're having, though.

@Randall

There are two irreconcilable viewpoints in the debate, and it's not the "religious" vs the "atheists". If you are in favor of protecting human rights and caring about the prosperity of your fellow human beings, then we are on the same side of the fence.

Are you?

Can you respect people who believe differently than you do? Is your world big enough for people who disagree with you on the God question? Or do you prefer to be socially coddled by people who parrot that religion - in all kinds and forms - is a moral depravity that belongs in the dark ages?

@Omicron
I'm neither a communist nor an atheist and if you believe that Rahul and 2PacTruth are just well-meaning people asking questions then you are an idiot.
And to those two I have only one thing to say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QSaJji6kQ8&ab_channel=StevenTaylor

"Maybe there is a good reason why the state of Texas forces daughters to have the children of their fathers."

There isn't.

"Can you respect people who believe differently than you do?"

Atheists aren't the ones with the problem when it comes to respecting people with different beliefs. We don't ram legislation through states that strip people not like us of rights and dignity. No, the crime we commit is assailing such legislation and the bankrupt "morality" behind it, which is - to those who *actually* can't respect different people - intolerable. There are theistic jerks and there are atheistic jerks. The difference is, atheistic jerks are rude, while theistic jerks are rude, *and* try to make people they don't like second-class citizens by force of law.

@Randall
"There isn't."
Are you sure? Maybe keeping the blood pure or strengthening the very core of the family. Other beneficiaries of more incest babies will be gift card companies. Think about all the new aunt-mommy or uncle-father cards.

About the whole "leftists have taken over universities to poison the minds of students" narrative(Nazi copyright since 1929)
I'm posting this video which is about Christmas but applies because the mechanisms are pretty much the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbZo4x0NbbI&ab_channel=hbomberguy

Good night and good luck.

"Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, and the benevolent Kim family of North Korea."

Red herring.

Being an atheist means simply not believing in a god/gods. There are no tenets, no scriptures, no clergy, no pronouncements. It is not a belief system, it is a rejection of a belief system. It's not really an 'ism at all, it's the opposite of an 'ism. Thus, the repugnant actions of despots like Stalin or Mao have to come from elsewhere, whether that's ego, power, loyalty to the party, or to any number of social and economic ideologies. The anti-religious aspects and crimes of communism have been committed in the name of communism, not atheism. Atheism is incidental.

I find it interesting that in the first-season episode "Justice," as much as the Starfleet personnel disagree with the Edo system of jurisprudence and bristle in the face of the power of the Edo "God," nonetheless they accept that the Edo do worship the transdimensional ship above their planet, and when Data reports that the beings themselves are aware of the worship and consider it both natural and harmless at the Edo's current stage of development, PIcard shows no sign of disagreeing.

In Justice, what Picard DOES disagree with and actively discourages is the worship of himself. It strikes me as very like his discomfort with "Captain Picard Day" for the children in "Disaster." In light of these two episodes, his resistance in this one to being worshipped as "The Picard" strikes me as being more about himself than about the Mintakans, or at least more about himself than he is admitting (probably even to himself). I see this as a kind of false humility. Authentic humility acknowledges truth.

The Mintakans have made a logical inference based on their limited knowledge: The old beliefs, once thought backward, in beings unimaginably more powerful than themselves obviously have some truth to them. They are not incorrect in this assessment, even in-universe; the Federation really is technologically advanced beyond their current imagining.

Many natural events, too, could potentially have led them to make such an inference at some point, even if the accidental encounter with Starfleet had never occurred. If left to their own devices after that incident, I think they would ultimately have devised a fairly logical belief system around "The Picard." That is the road they are already on. Picard sees any such belief system as going backwards on that road, but there is no going backwards. This incident just put a twist in their road that would probably keep leading the same general direction. It happens.

False humility like Picard's also happens. Picard as a character is fairly idealized, and it's clear that he is often the mouthpiece for the writers' own opinions. But like all the best-written characters, he is fallible, and sometimes selfish. He is what he is. Given the other episodes I mentioned, I think it is quite consistent with his character to reject worship and to convince himself that this rejections is for the Mintakans' own good, rather than for his own.

I suspect the writing team also convinced themselves that what Picard was saying was right. That's why they had him say it. But sometimes, fictional characters do have a "life" of their own, and Picard is living that life here. I disagree with him. I think he should have taken the advice to accept the worship and tell people with the authority of his exalted position to be kind to each other, to live in peace with their neighbors (including neighbors who did not worship the Picard), and to trust whatever their observation and logic could tell them about the universe. In a thousand years, it's unlikely that such a twist in their road would have led very far from where they were already headed.

@ Trish,

An interesting idea, to further break the Prime Directive for a beneficent aim. While TNG is much more adamant about the PD being about total and absolute non-interference, in TOS it seems to me it was more a repudiation of the Cold War practice of manipulating weaker nations/planets in the false guise of the greater good. Kirk and the Enterprise did seem able to visit and even negotiate with 'primitive' worlds all the time, without having to avoid them due to lacking warp drive. Examples of this are the Capellans in Friday's Child, Kirk's friend and his people in A Private Little War, and others. And I think Kirk would not have been above your idea, Trish, of using his soapbox to give a friendly word of advice to a younger world. Back in the world of TOS, it doesn't even seem like this would be a prohibited or questionable thing to do, provided it was just words spoken as a friend. In the TNG world, of course it's a serious breach of the Federation's most sacred law.

You reminded me of the other thread with the "what would Kirk have done" side topic, and honestly this is something that I have thought of from time to time over the years. One good thing about Picard is that he's very different from Kirk. I wouldn't go as far as to say Picard is flawed, but more that as the examplar of a particular way of seeing life, he is simply incapable of relaxing his self-imposed outward dignity (which is reminiscent of the British navy stiff upper lip). From this standpoint, his inflexibility is more of a feature than a bug, and he could no more accept a little worship than Kirk could become a celibate monk. Not to dispute your idea of what would have been good for the Mintakans, but that would have to have been some other guy in Picard's place to do that. It's his impenetrability to what he perceives as impropriety that makes him the guy we respect. This is one of the reasons I was irked by PIC, incidentally, because trying to pick apart his character and show how it's flawed is sort of like writing an essay to prove that alll role models can be deconstructed and disassembled. So what if that's true, why would I want to do that even if I could?

So I guess what I'm saying is I'm satisfied with Picard being the stick in the mud he was :)

@Peter G.

And I suppose in the end, Picard is what the writers made him, and he "did" whatever the writers say he did.

Also, I just wanted to correct myself. Captain Picard Day was not in "Disaster." It was in "The Pegasus."

I want to add that Picard had a problem with captain picard day because he doesn't like (to be around) children. There are several scenes where he accepts praise for deeds/things he finds praiseworthy like playing the flute or his archeological collection.

Furthermore, Picard is unwilling to influence possibly huge parts of a culture, not because of false modesty/humility but because of the fact that he has a very limited understanding of the culture and certainly cannot predict how they will react to him literally playing god. For example because of the Sodom and Gomorrah story homosexuals are thrown off buildings 2600 years later. Probably not what the early Jews intended when they came up with that story. Who knows what would happen with the interpretations of "The Picard"

I'm reading a fantastic book right now called "the Afghanistan Papers" (which should be mandatory reading for the next 100 years in the USA, maybe everywhere where people dream of invasions) and it shows how easy it is to screw up when your understanding of a culture is limited.

@Booming

It's true that there are some fairly reasonable compliments that he accepts with grace. In a sense, just being a captain is Picard's acceptance of the high praise Starfleet has given for his leadership ability, ability he knows he has and is willing to exercise.

But I do think there is a qualitative difference between accepting praise commensurate with one's personal abilities and being "worshipped" as a being of seemingly limitless power, or at least more power than you are convinced you actually have. The Captain Picard Day scene strikes me as an example of the latter, and he's uncomfortable with it even when the children themselves are not physically present, as he holds up a drawing that renders him like a body builder and says some of them seem to have a distorted impression of him. Even though he is uncomfortable with it, he is persuaded by Troi to go along with it, because such hero worship of an authority figure is developmentally appropriate, even when it is not strictly accurate.

I think Mintakans' worship of the powerful beings who briefly touched their lives could have been developmentally appropriate, too, and as long as the Federation didn't leverage it into continuing undue influence, they would have kept on developing just fine.

I can't help but enjoy anything with Ray Wise in it.

@Booming
"I'm neither a communist nor an atheist"

I'll rephrase:

Given your previous comments (which span years), it is clear that you're close enough to both views for my previous comment to be just as relevant.

"if you believe that Rahul and 2PacTruth are just well-meaning people asking questions then you are an idiot."

Sorry, but I think that in this particular discussion, Rahul and 2PacTruth showed more good faith than you did.

@Randall
"Atheists aren't the ones with the problem when it comes to respecting people with different beliefs. We don't ram legislation through states that strip people not like us of rights and dignity."

I don't support such legislation, and you'll find that many of the religious folks here (though not all) would agree with me on this.

The way you put all religious people in the same bandwagon and treat them as if they all share the exact same extreme viewpoint, say more about you then it does about them.

"There are theistic jerks and there are atheistic jerks."

Correct.

"The difference is, atheistic jerks are rude, while theistic jerks are rude, *and* try to make people they don't like second-class citizens by force of law."

History tells us a very different story (see my answer to Jeffrey Jakucyk below)

@Jeffrey Jakucyk

"Being an atheist means simply not believing in a god/gods. There are no tenets, no scriptures, no clergy, no pronouncements. It is not a belief system, it is a rejection of a belief system."

True.

But even atheists believe in *something*. Every human being has beliefs, and a person's primitive human nature does not magically change just because he is an atheists.

So the question is: Are atheists any less adamant/extreme/oppressive/violent in defending their views? Enter Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao and Korean Kim to tell you: Nope. Human nature just sucks, and power-hungry people will find excuses for their rotten behavior, with or without religion.

In short:

Religion is not the problem here. Dogma, prejudice and hate towards people who think differently - is.

@Omicron
Well, from your perspective my views might seem extreme but your views would certainly seem extreme for many Europeans and the stuff of others you defend even more so. Rahul is for example a right wing extremist but he knows that many are not so he has to frame his views in certain way to make them easier to stomach.

He called mentally deranged a dozen times and worse. He wrote in many posts that leftists are either evil or naive. You defending him tells me all I need to know.

I told you several times already after you called me a communist that I am a liberal socialist, meaning limiting economic freedom while having extensive personal freedooms. My views are actually not far from the center in germany. And I am agnostic, not Atheist.
I'm on vacation at wonderful place with lots of sun and the soothing sound of the waves. Bye.

that is how a text looks that was written with german autocorrect on a tablet

This is rather clunky, and harmed somewhat by wooden acting, like it's predecessor Ensigns of Command. But, the wooden actors here are at least playing an alien race, and do seem to be trying.

I'll personally bump it up to 3 stars because it's trying to do something interesting and has some good drama and action pieces.

The negatives are basically Picard and company's ridiculous plan and actions. There is simply no reason for Picard to believe he could explain things to the lady, etc etc.

@Omicron

1. "The way you put all religious people in the same--"

NOPE. I'll stop you right there. I did no such thing. I did not cite an individual, and condemn all people who share a commonality with that individual. That's what *you* did. Quote me putting "all religious people in the same bandwagon."

2. "History tells us a very different story..."

No, it doesn't. This is where you bring up the tired, wrongheaded examples of Stalin et al to condemn all atheists, after falsely accusing me of tarring all religious people with the same brush. (I only mention Stalin by name, because he was the only actual atheist of the bunch. Pol Pot and Mao were Buddhists, and Kim Jong Un is the chief deity in the Juche state religion of North Korea.)

3. I repeat (because I have to, since you sidestepped my comment to attack straw men): No atheist ever did anything in the name of atheism. Atheists are not actively trying to make people second-class citizens because they're not atheists, nor are they trying to impose their beliefs on others. Those are things theists do. The more devout they are, the more likely they are to do those things.

"Human nature just sucks, and power-hungry people will find excuses for their rotten behavior, with or without religion."

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg

""With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg"

The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club. If we define all bad behavior by good people as religious, then religion must be bad!

If it only takes religion to make a person do evil things then maybe that person was never that good. But good and evil are also fairly subjective value judgements.

@Peter G. and Booming, I think you misunderstand. It's saying that religions can make people do bad things that they wouldn't have otherwise. Such as stoning gay people to death, suicide bombing the churches/synagogues/mosques/temples of other religions, or subjugating other races/sexes because their holy book says it's ok.

These people think they have no moral agency, that it can only come from their god. But we all have moral agency, because we are a social species, we have brains, and empathy, and we understand the consequences of our actions (mostly). That innate morality is suppressed by conflicting religious doctrine.

It's what makes otherwise loving parents disown children who come out as LGBTQ, because their religion taught them it was a sin. It makes people try to justify slavery (and by extension racism) because the bible endorses it, even though they know it's wrong. It gets people so twisted up into knots thinking that if their god told them to kill their child that they'd do it and it would be ok because god said so. The hemming and hawing shows that they know it's reprehensible, but their morality has been so twisted by the doctrine that they can't reconcile it in their heads. Others just believe their holy books without question or thought, which doesn't necessarily make them bad people, but there's a lot of awful things in the Bible, Koran, etc. that will then be followed blindly to bad results.

@ Jeffrey Jakucyk,

"It's saying that religions can make people do bad things that they wouldn't have otherwise."

You can never validly argue counterfactuals.

"These people think they have no moral agency,"

No, this is not accurate.

"But we all have moral agency, because we are a social species, we have brains, and empathy, and we understand the consequences of our actions (mostly). "

We definitely do not have a good understanding of the consequences of our actions (one of the reasons a quantitative utilitarianism is impossible). In fact one of the chief arguments made by religious people (for better or worse) is specifically that since we have limited understanding of the impact of our actions, we need to be able to follow guidelines that may supersede our personal assessment. Regardless of whether you agree, the fundamental premise is based on something that appears to be almost obvious, which is that we're dumb in relation to 'full understanding'.

I think you need to broaden your study of history if you want to posit that only religion could make 'good people do bad things.' Incidentally, that formulation in and of itself seems to me unworkable, since as I mentioned above it's essentially circular.

"'These people think they have no moral agency,'"
"No, this is not accurate."

Can you back that up? I've heard plenty of people discussing morality whose only argument is "the Bible says so." Thus whatever they personally think is irrelevant as far as they're concerned. Sounds like a lack of agency to me.

"We definitely do not have a good understanding of the consequences of our actions..."

I don't buy that. What do you mean by 'full understanding'? Sure we don't know all the ramifications of all decisions, that's why the tragedy of the commons is a thing, but for most questions we have a very good understanding of what's right and what's wrong. Life is generally preferable to death, health is preferable to sickness, being able to keep my stuff is preferable to having it stolen, etc. Of course there's outlier situations (think euthanasia for the life is preferable to death one), but that's why we as a society get together to figure those things out, hence the following point...

"...we need to be able to follow guidelines that may supersede our personal assessment."

Those are called laws, and society at large determines them based on an amalgamation of personal assessments and time-tested precedents and reevaluations. The religious methodology is to take the scripture and apply it as the unassailable word of the deity. There is no process for reevaluation or reinterpretation, short of splitting off into yet another of thousands of different sects/denominations. It is not a moral system, it is just a set of pronouncements. The problem is that there's no way within that system to verify that any of those pronouncements are actually correct, or even real. That is why there are so many different religions/sects/denominations out there in the first place.

"I think you need to broaden your study of history if you want to posit that only religion could make 'good people do bad things.'"

It's not that ONLY religion could make good people do bad things, but that it DOES, and it's a major driver. Maybe it is a bit circular whereby anything bad done by someone for non-religious reasons makes them a bad person, but the strict logic and syntax of the quote is not what matters, it's the idea behind it. Here's a perfect example (stolen from Reddit):

"It still stings a lot but when I came out when I was about 18, my parents went to their church for guidance. They told me they were instructed by the church leader to make it my choice: either renounce my homosexuality or have all ties with my family be severed and kicked out of the house. I’m lucky in the fact my parents refused to do that and after a few years we have a much better relationship. The thing that still stings is they continue to go to the church (even going so far as trying to get me to come with them to services). It breaks my heart to know a church would instruct parents to just toss their kids out like garbage, and for those parents to think they are doing God’s will...I drive around the Hollywood area and see homeless kids, knowing that if my parents followed the orders of their church, I would be one of those kids."

It's a relief that this guy's parents didn't listen to their church in the matter, but so many do, and the results are sickening.

@ Jeffrey JaKucyk,

You would have to delve much further into various religion's doctrines to be able to assess what their position is on personal agency. I can't answer for you why this is so, because that's like asking you to believe my authority, which you shouldn't do. You would have to do this study on your own. If you want to suggest that fundamentalists are the least likely to be amenable to reason, I could see the argument, but to make a blanket statement that "religion" denies human agency is so obviously wrong that it would take a minimal of real investigation for you to see that this is not true.

About your excerpt from Reddit (note that anything on Reddit can be made up), this sounds like the Mormon Church if I'm guessing (although I guess it could be Jehovah's Witness or something like that as well), as I've also read countless stories about the social structure of groups like this. What you are talking about is not a religion per se but a community structured like a cult. It seems trivial to argue that cults will get you to do bad things; there is a laundry list of attributes of a typical cult. That certain religions *only* exist in the form of a cult is not proper to the definition of religion largely but rather to the definition of certain types of power structure (which exist inside and outside of religion).

"About your excerpt from Reddit..."

I see no reason to believe it's made up. Apparently it was Grace Community Church which is a non-denominational, evangelical megachurch in the San Fernando Valley. They made some news for holding services without masks or social distancing in August 2020.

Gathering a few thoughts.
Atheism is a belief system. It is centered on the idea that persons who believe in divine power are in error.
The problem is really in people, not in the divinity idea.

Religious thought investigates the interplay of forces in the world using descriptors like evil and good, pure and polluted, safe and hazardous, ordered and disordered. It can be helpful to have a notion of the sacred in one's life, but overly simplified categories of what constitutes 'the good '/ the sacred/ the divine can lead to great social ills (bigotry) particularly if too rigidly asserted. Poor William Tyndale....did he not understand that all that was good in the Bible should never have been translated into English. After all, Jehovah had led the children though the Wilderness and into Canaan so that scriptures once set down should be communicated only in Latin. Requiescat in pace.

@Jeffrey Jakucyk
"I think you misunderstand. It's saying that religions can make people do bad things that they wouldn't have otherwise."

Any over-dogmatic system of morality can do this. There are countless examples from history where good intentions made people do evil things. The road to hell, as is commonly said, is paved with good intentions.

"We have brains, and empathy, and we understand the consequences of our actions (mostly). That innate morality is suppressed by conflicting religious doctrine."

It's also suppressed by blindly trusting scientists, political leaders, doctors, social media celebrities, or any other kind of figures of perceived authority.

This is a universal flaw of human nature. Moreover, it's a flaw that's alarmingly easy to exploit (check out the Milgram experiments). So again, there is nothing special about religion here.

On a more personal note:

I grew up in an atheistic family. Most of the people I knew during that time were also atheists. Now I live in a religious community. So I've seen - with my own eyes - how things look on both sides of this fence.

I can tell you from personal experience: Both groups are equally susceptible to doing despicable things in the name of "good". Both groups are also capable of doing great acts of virtue. I've found zero correlation, either positive or negative, between religion and either morality or dogmatic thinking.

I will also add one more thing:

Ironically, when people do bad things in the name of religion, it's because they've blindly trusted a *human* authority figure. When they do things that "every fiber in their body tells them to be morally wrong" (as you put it), they are - in fact - denying the morality of their own deity.

Our world would have been a far better place if more people (both religious and atheist) believed in an absolute source of morality, and if they took this belief seriously. It would also have been nice if more people realized that neither "whatever arbitrary laws society makes is good" nor "lets blindly follow a specific human interpretation of a 2000-year old book" is a reasonable way to do ethics.

Who watches the watchers?
Answer: Jammer.

@Patrick (2013)

"The scene where Nuria holds up her hand in anguish with Picard's blood to Liko is one of the best single shots of TNG."

Yes, it was a good scene, but if the Mintakans are "proto-Vulcans," shouldn’t they have been, like, "WTF? Blood is green, not red!"

Maybe their blood *IS* green and this further illustrated that Picard is an alien rather than a god. In either case it should still be obvious to them what it is.

There's something wrong with the ending of this one. The Captains Log says that Geordi will supervise the dismantling of the observation post. (Good idea). But then a few seconds later, Picard tells the Mintakans that they will continue to be watched. He even shows them the observation post.

Good gracious, what a bunch of nonsensical comments on here.

Religion is a product of human fear, human arrogance, human need to rationalize, human need to understand, human need for certainty, and human need for at least the semblance of being in control.

Religion is, on the whole, an immense force for good, especially at the individual level. To the adherent, it provides everything from hope and comfort, to meaning and purpose, to a community and social life. Even at a collective level, religion is far more a force for good than not: It furnishes a sense of identity, camaraderie, cohesion, unity in purpose, etc.

Problems arise when religion is co-opted by megalomaniacs and opportunists, for worldly, usually political, purposes. That is not the fault of religion though but of human nature. Does anyone seriously think that if there had have been no religion, humans would have been perfectly rational people, valuing objective knowledge and the scientific theory, dealing in facts and data, and that we'd be living in harmony with each other and nature, without divisions and discrimination, giving each other foot rubs?!? Does anyone seriously think that, absent religion, slavery would not have happened, Moslems would not have embarked on expansionist conquests or routinely engage in "honor" violence, Christians would not have done the Conquistador and Inquisition bits, Hindus would have eschewed the repugnant practices of satee or dehumanization of dalits, the endless European wars between Catholic and Protestant would have never happened...? Don't be absurd! Whoever is tempted to think any of that knows NOTHING of the human psyche... - or, for that matter, of history, which shows nominally atheist regimes being at least as brutal and violent as those nominally religious.

At the end of the day, ladies and gentlemen and transspecies xirs, there are two, and only two, possibilities. We are either mortal/transient/ephemeral or we are immortal/infinite/permanent. Neither option make more sense or is more desirable than the other, with or without (a) religion.

The episode itself? Two and a half stars is about right.

"Good gracious, what a bunch of nonsensical comments on here."
Good start.

"religion is far more a force for good than not: It furnishes a sense of identity, camaraderie, cohesion, unity in purpose, etc."
So did the Nazis.

" which shows nominally atheist regimes being at least as brutal and violent as those nominally religious."
If it doesn't matter if we have atheism or religion then at least with atheism we wouldn't base our moral and ethical foundations on what a bunch of guys wrote 1300+ years ago in undemocratic, classist, misogynistic, homophobic slave states.

@Michael

Good and interesting comments.

I haven't followed what's going on with this particular comment stream, which has probably generated among the most comments for any TNG episode.

But I agree with much of what you say re. religion as a force for good and where it can go wrong, like when it gets co-opted by megalomaniacs. It is important to distinguish the problem being the human psyche from the religion itself, though there are differences among the various religions. There's no question that atheism just leads to terrible outcomes for humanity and the abandonment of our traditions lead to far greater problems than humanity had to deal with before. Atheist regimes are more brutal than religious ones -- just look at what socialist / communist regimes have done in the last century...

"Atheist regimes are more brutal than religious ones -- just look at what socialist / communist regimes have done in the last century... "
So true. Religious regimes like the Nazis, the Japanese or Ottoman Empire were so much more humane.

Rahul made another stinky.

Looks like the forum's cancer is at it again... trolling away. No point acknowledging his nonsense.

Talking to yourself again, honey. :)

Be good, Rahul.
https://m.pnn.de/images/heprodimagesfotos93120140920nazikirche-jpg/21567116/2-format2040.jpg

Ok, this looks like the priest makes a Nazi salute but he is actually just waving a friend, probably Rahul.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Christians_(movement)#/media/File:Deutsche_Christen_Flagge.svg

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith."
Hitler, 1933.

To avoid further misunderstandings, my general critique when it comes to religion is not about them being irrational or automatically hateful, lots of what Humans do is irrational and not all, especially more modern, religious beliefs create discrimination, it is about how many Human religions to this day are structured.

(Almost?) all religions were created by the dominant social group aka heterosexual men which lead to heterosexual men being defined as the most valuable social group. *gasp*. This lead to, among other things, the discrimination of billions of women to this very day. Another troubling aspect of widespread, organized religions is that they normally accommodated the people in power which is why religious leader often fought against democracy or worker rights and in many parts of the world still do.

So as long as a religion sees all Humans as equal and really fights for the poor and free societies than that is perfectly fine at least to me.

But if a (probably) heterosexual guy comes in her and argues that "religion good, atheism at least worse", then he will get some pushback because what he's actually saying is "I like this cultural force called religion that defines people like me as the best" which is clearly shown by him not even mentioning once women being treated as second rate/feeble minded for thousands of years or the 1700+ year long persecution and mass murder of LGBT people but arguing that the only bad aspect of religion is the occasional megalomaniac co-opting it.

@Booming:
I'll gloss over your woke-ist diatribes. It's clear you look at everything through the mucky lens of bloviatory pseudoacademic postmodernism. I know, because I used to hold similar opinions to yours back when I was a wide-eyed adolescent who knew for certain what was wrong with the world and how to fix it. I was also the stereotypical angry atheist.

I'm still an atheist (so your lazy projection is very off-target - not a surprise at all) but I have given human history, human psyche, and human nature enough thought to have realized a few home truths.

One of those truths is that there is no escaping power dynamics. Whenever there are two organic entities--even two bacteria--there is a power dynamic: One is somehow stronger than the other and eventually asserts its dominance. Scale it up to trees, chickens, humans, families, tribes, nations, societies, civilizations. Same story.

Boo-hoo, religion subjugates women. No, human nature subjugates women. More precisely, humans like to classify ourselves, and the biological sex is one of the infinitely many ways in which we can and do do that. If we were all sexless and "gender"-less (and I know you're climaxing at the very thought - sad!), we'd still classify ourselves, as we do, by ethnicity, complexion, language, religion, education, nationality, etc. Heck, even if we were all genetically identical carbon copies of each other and looked and sounded and behaved identically, we would STILL categorize ourselves. "We live on the north side of the river; they live on the south side." AND we would divide ourselves accordingly, AND we would ascribe value and power to those groups: "Those living on the south bank are stupid and they stink. We need to 'cleanse' them."

Religion is not the cause of human ills. Human nature is the cause of human ills. Religion is just a vehicle for the perpetration and justification of those problems. As I said, even if religion never existed, everything from the Islamic conquests, to the witch-burnings, to the Inquisition, to the virgin sacrifices, to the Conquistadors, to the satees and dalit-abuse, to "honor" violence would all have happened, just under different names and in different guises. It's perfectly conceivable that, without the advent of religious (mainly Judeo-Christian and Moslem) codes that were gradually incorporated into the proto-secular legal systems, the above excesses would have been even more brutal and long-lasting.

And Rahul is right: It is well documented that irreligious and anti-religious socio-political systems have been at least as bloody and vicious as escapades ostensibly motivated by religion.

Anyway, for some reason I'm not getting notifications of new posts so I won't engage in further discussion.

@Michael
"I'll gloss over your woke-ist diatribes. It's clear you look at everything through the mucky lens of bloviatory pseudoacademic postmodernism."
:D
These sentences scream intellectual curiosity and open-mindedness.

"Boo-hoo, religion subjugates women. No, human nature subjugates women."
Thanks for clarifying.

Hey, I think I know the philosopher you are following. Let me guess, this was your philosophy professor!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XUu3_pLPUE

"And Rahul is right: It is well documented that irreligious and anti-religious socio-political systems have been at least as bloody and vicious as escapades ostensibly motivated by religion."

I'd go even further to say that the obvious examples that come to mind would also indicate that less religious/spiritual or downright atheist systems/regimes (whatever you want to call them) have generally persecuted religious/spiritual groups throughout history. The obvious examples that come to mind are Nero and the Romans persecuting Christians, Hitler & the Nazis exterminating Jews, Stalin against the church/those considered enemies of the state and Mao's cultural revolution.

Michael is definitely spot on with this: "Religion is not the cause of human ills. Human nature is the cause of human ills."

Now that I mentioned Nero and the Romans / Christians, I have to come back to "Bread and Circuses" -- really glad it was Uhura who got the line about "son" being the son of God. Also wish the episode had more time to explore this aspect instead of spending considerable time on action scenes...

Another great post by the guy who had the questionable honor of being the first here to have one of his posts deleted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW68goC4_es

"Religion is not the cause of human ills. Human nature is the cause of human ills. Religion is just a vehicle for the perpetration and justification of those problems. As I said, even if religion never existed, everything from the Islamic conquests, to the witch-burnings, to the Inquisition, to the virgin sacrifices, to the Conquistadors, to the satees and dalit-abuse, to "honor" violence would all have happened, just under different names and in different guises. It's perfectly conceivable that, without the advent of religious (mainly Judeo-Christian and Moslem) codes that were gradually incorporated into the proto-secular legal systems, the above excesses would have been even more brutal and long-lasting."

Yeah, if it weren't for God 9/11 would have been so much worse.
Not buying it. Sounds like the most convoluted defence of religion I've ever seen.

I liked his defense of misogyny. Women being oppressed is just nature which carries a dark little secret message. In the West we are now living in societies in which women and men are more and more equal, meaning that Michael thinks that modern societies are unnatural.

And the very religious Mongols under Genghis Khan killed around 10% of the global population. Then there are the Aztecs who were constantly murdering people and eating quite a few of them. I guess we are lucky that they weren't atheist, though.

Romans were not atheists; in the Claudian Period Christians were persecuted because they did not worship deified emperors, e.g., Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius etc. Include here the divine Julius. Persecutions of Christians continued intermittently (even under relatively enlightened Marcus Aurelius) until Constantine instituted tolerance AD 312.
Tables turned against pagan cults under Christian emperor Theodosius I in AD 381.

watching this episode i realized that the beds in sickbay seem to be shaped like coffins.

The irony of this episode's blatant anti-religious stance is how the Prime Directive is treated as an infallible dogma that is above being questioned.

To quote SF Debris in his review of this episode: "The only difference between Picard's Prime Directive and a religion is that the PD has no rituals associated with it."

Another great quote from Chuck: "It's not hard to believe that (Picard is a god) I mean, Picard is acting very wrathful right now and seems to believe he has the power to determine who lives and who dies."

One doesn't have to be a staunch atheist to think this is a solid episode. At the end of the day Picard does play the role of a God to get his way in the end.

Watching this for the upteenth time tonight and happened to check its imdb page... Wait, Oji was Pamela Adlon!??

One of my favourite episodes of TNG, for a number of reasons. Personally, I think there's an important distinction that we need to consider. When Picard argues with the doctor on the enterprise, he argues that "years ago, the Mintakans abandoned their beliefs in the supernatural, now you are asking me to sabotage that achievement". This is NOT an argument against religion, it's an argument against believing in the supernatural. It just so happens that most religions make supernatural claims to explain away things they haven't quite figured out yet. Much as I am an atheist, I still think religion is an important part of any society, and will probably always be around to help those in need of quick and easy answers, and that's completely okay. The idea that an entire society could evolve beyond the point of ever needing spiritual guidance is just dumb on so many levels. After all, people like being told what to do, what to believe in. It's easier than coming up with your own ideas. Wisdom of crowds. Being part of a greater whole. Feeling like you belong. These things are so much more what religion is about these days. It'll stay, I've no doubt. The fact that we have science to explain things properly now is merely a stage in it's evolution, an addition rather than a replacement.