Difference between revisions of "Talk:Star Trek franchise"
(→Religion: Disagree about Picard's view) |
(→Religion: Roddenberry or the writer(s)) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
Double Edge | Double Edge | ||
: I'm inclined to disagree. How well it's "run" is probably just a euphemism, not a direct indication that he believes that it is ''run'' as such. It could also be making point ''on the assumption'' that it's "run", which would be the case if Q was in charge, i.e. merely refuting Q's claim within Q's assumptions, but without necessarily accepting those assumptions. In other words, I don't think you can draw that much out of that comment. Incidentally, I changed to wording of that part to reflect this just ''before'' reading this talk page! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:19, 24 December 2007 (EST) | : I'm inclined to disagree. How well it's "run" is probably just a euphemism, not a direct indication that he believes that it is ''run'' as such. It could also be making point ''on the assumption'' that it's "run", which would be the case if Q was in charge, i.e. merely refuting Q's claim within Q's assumptions, but without necessarily accepting those assumptions. In other words, I don't think you can draw that much out of that comment. Incidentally, I changed to wording of that part to reflect this just ''before'' reading this talk page! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:19, 24 December 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | Learn together changed: | ||
| + | :Roddenberry rarely had the shows overtly reject religion, seeming instead to simply ignore it. | ||
| + | to: | ||
| + | :Roddenberry rarely had the shows overtly reject religion, but would make reference to it as a part of culture. | ||
| + | followed by some examples of references to religion. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Now, I not criticising the edit, but I do wonder... Do we know whether this was Roddenberry's doing, or perhaps the initiative of the writer(s)? What I'm ''suggesting'' (and a suggestion is all that it is) is that one or more writers introduced these religious references, and because they were not overtly promoting Christianity, Roddenberry didn't object to them. If my suggestion is correct, then perhaps the article should reflect that somehow. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Yeah, I suppose I could do some research and see if Roddenberry wrote any of those episodes, or see if they all had the same writer, but I thought that someone else might have some idea on this. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] | ||
Revision as of 08:57, January 8, 2008
Do you have episode sources for the Klingons and Ferangi religions? It seems it may have been mentioned, but wasn't a major part of the focus such as with the first two examples.
One of the difficulties with the series is that there is nothing approaching the God of monotheism. The religions are seen as false and stupid, ignorant people worshipping living entities who they don't understand. Learn together 13:48, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
The people aren't normally seen as ignorant or stupid. They respect freedom of religion. There are many points where the prophets in the Bajoran religion actually intervene. Although the ethiest charecters likely dismiss them as powerful wormhole aliens. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Double Edge (talk) circa. 31st October 2007.
Religion
At one point when Captain Picard dies and goes to the "afterlife" he makes a comment "The Universe is not so badly run."
I believe this is a reference to the episode "Tapestry", where Picard dies and goes to the afterlife only to find Q. His comment is not against religion, but rather an attack on Q.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mgroop (talk)
It is an attack on Q. But suggesting that the universe is run means that he is not an ethiest.
Double Edge
- I'm inclined to disagree. How well it's "run" is probably just a euphemism, not a direct indication that he believes that it is run as such. It could also be making point on the assumption that it's "run", which would be the case if Q was in charge, i.e. merely refuting Q's claim within Q's assumptions, but without necessarily accepting those assumptions. In other words, I don't think you can draw that much out of that comment. Incidentally, I changed to wording of that part to reflect this just before reading this talk page! Philip J. Rayment 01:19, 24 December 2007 (EST)
Learn together changed:
- Roddenberry rarely had the shows overtly reject religion, seeming instead to simply ignore it.
to:
- Roddenberry rarely had the shows overtly reject religion, but would make reference to it as a part of culture.
followed by some examples of references to religion.
Now, I not criticising the edit, but I do wonder... Do we know whether this was Roddenberry's doing, or perhaps the initiative of the writer(s)? What I'm suggesting (and a suggestion is all that it is) is that one or more writers introduced these religious references, and because they were not overtly promoting Christianity, Roddenberry didn't object to them. If my suggestion is correct, then perhaps the article should reflect that somehow.
Yeah, I suppose I could do some research and see if Roddenberry wrote any of those episodes, or see if they all had the same writer, but I thought that someone else might have some idea on this.