Talk:Star Trek franchise

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WilcoxD (Talk | contribs) at 23:26, 11 March 2013. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

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.


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)
Having not watched TNG in quite some time and never having the fondness for it that I did for the original, I've been reluctant to access that area of my brain, but a couple of thoughts do come to mind. When was it ever stated that Q ran the universe? He was an observer of the universe, and he would play with various parts of it, but I never picked up the idea that he was in any way responsible for running it or in charge of it. Also, there is an episode where the Enterprise is trapped in a section of space with an entity that is going to experiment on them to see what different forms of death are like; it would take about half the crew. There is a discussion between the captain and 'Ryker' and 'Troi' (actually the alien) about whether or not Piccard believes in God, and he states something to the effect that he does because the universe is just a bit too orderly otherwise. TNG accepts the existence of God, but it's the concept of a personal God where He has revealed Himself that is harshly denigrated in other episodes. Learn together 12:42, 8 January 2008 (EST)
I don't recall the Q episode very well, but the article says that Q implied that he ran the universe. It would be typical of Q to claim or imply something like that, simply because Q was loose with the truth like that. The "statement" was probably nothing more than Q grandstanding. Philip J. Rayment 17:55, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Learn together changed:

Roddenberry rarely had the shows overtly reject religion, seeming instead to simply ignore it.


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'm 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.

Philip J. Rayment

I have no personal knowledge. To be safe we could remove the mention to Roddenberry specifically and replace it with more generic wording. Learn together 12:42, 8 January 2008 (EST)
I've made the wording more generic. Philip J. Rayment 17:55, 8 January 2008 (EST)

ChrisSmith's edit

I consider this edit to be parody, but will hold off reverting it in case someone thinks that there is something that can be salvaged from it. Philip J. Rayment 23:00, 17 August 2008 (EDT) (Administrator)

Hrm, I didn't intend for it to come across as "parody", but maybe it was a little enthusiastic. I think removing all of the content was a little far - I was wondering why there's no mention of the clear socialist ideals of the show: working towards the betterment of humanity, with no money etc. If this isn't left-wing I don't know what is. ChrisSmith 18:40, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
You think working towards the benefit of humanity is left-wing? Interesting. Most of us on this site would consider that to be a conservative idea. The difficulty with liberals is that if there is a hole in a boat that is causing water to come in, they believe the appropriate action is to keep shoveling out the water - and leave the hole.
As far as Star Trek goes, the show is humanistic, showing a society that has gone beyond consumption difficulties, racial differences, entitlements, or national infighting. Democracy has prevailed and merit rules. Kirk isn't the captain based on a lottery system. He is the captain based upon years of hard work and ability. There is nothing in those idea that is liberal. Learn together 09:39, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
(Edit conflict with Learn together) What's left-wing about working toward the betterment of humanity? Rather, that is a Christian thing to do (e.g. most charities have been started by Christians; Christians donate more than non-believers). Besides, the article did already mention that aspect:
As a humanist, Gene Roddenberry infused Star Trek with humanism's dream of a world (or galaxy in this case) where humanity (and many other intelligent beings) were constantly improving the life quality of all beings both through improving technology and improving societal conditions. People worked together for the common good, rather than for money, and without any class or other distinctions. This is a small part of what is expected in the Christian view of heaven, except that humanism believes that mankind can achieve this through its own efforts, rather than with the help of God.
The point is, they are not (exclusively) socialist values. They are also Christian values. The difference (apart from the one mentioned) is that socialists want to impose these values on others; Christians want to do them out of love.
Philip J. Rayment 09:50, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
Ok, I can accept that :) thanks for being so civil. ChrisSmith 14:59, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

Make this an overview article

Although this article starts off talking about the original series, much of it is talking about the whole "Star Trek universe". I was thinking that we ought to have a separate "Star Trek universe" (or similar) article and make this one just about the original series, but now think that perhaps this article should be about the whole Star Trek universe and that we should create a separate Star Trek (original series) or similar article. Thoughts? Philip J. Rayment 10:15, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

By the way, lacking any objection, I did this. Philip J. Rayment 03:23, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

Transpose tables?

I would like to swap the axes of the two tables under the heading The series and films. That is, have the titles down the left instead of along the top. Is there any objection to this? Philip J. Rayment 03:23, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

There being no objection, I've transposed them. Philip J. Rayment 08:08, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Remove relationship views?

Just though that we might remove the section about relationship views since it really is a minor part of the whole Star Trek universe in terms of the different series. Star Trek was always about openness and never really but a huge emphasis on relationships, in whatever form it was.


I see that an edit describing Star Trek as politically liberal was recently reverted but I don't think it's necessarily untrue. Star Trek made/makes many political commentaries and is generally considered a liberal show (promotes one world government, frowns upon capitalism, etc) so I think it might be worth adding a politics section to this article. I'm not enough of a Trekkie to be an authority on the subject however, so would anyone else like to take this up? WilcoxD 00:26, 12 March 2013 (EDT)