Adama in Trek?

Senmut · March 28th, 2005, 07:36 PM

Given that we have the Kirk thread, why not flip it? Which version of Adama do you see as best meshing with the Trek universe? Original Trek, I mean. Not the spinoffs.

Eric Paddon · March 28th, 2005, 08:02 PM

All I can say is that TOS Adama would never fit into the universe of anything created by Gene Roddenberry.

Darth Marley · March 28th, 2005, 08:04 PM

Why no love for Roddenberry?

Senmut · March 28th, 2005, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Marley

Why no love for Roddenberry?

Probably because TOS Adama was a very religious person, and Roddenberry, for all his good stuff in Trek, fantasized about a universe and culture eventually void of religion of any sort.

bsg1fan1975 · March 29th, 2005, 07:29 AM

As for this one I have to echo my respone in the Kirk thread.

Adama does not belong here either. They are two totally separate entities!

winterrose · March 29th, 2005, 08:22 AM

So true thats like putting the easter bunny at christmas time..it does not belong there!!!!

mocha2112 · March 29th, 2005, 08:55 AM

Hi -

I think it would be more fun to see TOS Adama in the "Trek" universe. If, for nothing more, to teach these folks a little "tolerance" when it does come to religion. I would think, or hope, in the end, our Adama would be respected and not shunned or belittled. There are many, many things I like about the "Treks", but their treatment of religion was not one of them.

TNS Adama would have fit better with the Kirk era than the Next Gen era in that he was a guy who fought a war, where the Next Gen crew didn't really "know" war until the Borg showed up. TNS Adama might have the "fish out of water" feeling in the "Root Beer" would of Next Gen.

thanks...

Darth Marley · March 29th, 2005, 09:01 AM

Trek had plenty of positive religious themes.

The elimination of war, disease and poverty were noble goals from the point of view of any religion.

jewels · March 29th, 2005, 09:20 AM

TOS Adama's faith would definitely throw Roddenberry et al into a tizzy about what to do with that. He'd probably be marginalized and relegated to some monastic like society, much like the Vulcans seemed to have pockets of. Roddenberry was no lover of faith, for sure. But TOS characters share some of the similar "epic hero" traits to Apollo, Starbuck and Adama.

Hmmm. It is easier to imagine Cain in ST:TOS than any of the other TOS characters in it.... Starbuck would clash with Spock on logic for sure but have to compete with Kirk for the ladies, and forget transporters! (electronic felgercarb) Plus: what's life without a fighter to fly? William maybe since faith doesn't seem to matter much to him (it's not a personal thing) and he could , Cmdr. Decker comes to mind, but that's one of few Trek's I remember the name of another Starfleet commander, somehow a Cain/Kirk or a Kirk/William confrontation reminds me of his name.

Kara would never work in ST, women were subservient window dressing in comparison to Kirk's generation (save a few matriarcal alien civilizations). Besides, Kirk had enough brashness for everyone.

You know an almost better comparison in a weird sort of way is which would work together better? SW IV-VI and TOS BG or SW and TNS BG?

SW heroes do have their foibles, as I believe TOS BG had. But I think the type of hero in TOS is better suited to the SW universe. Idealistic man and female heroes in both (Leia, Luke, Sheba, Apollo) Reluctant heroes (Han Solo, Starbuck) and loyal to the end friends that see them all through (R2D2, C3PO, Boomer, Jolly), Wise sages: Obi Wan, Yoda, Adama.

cranky1c · March 29th, 2005, 09:28 AM

Rodenberry had a pretty optimistic view of human potential, the kind that highlights Kirk-like daring but doesn't fit well with the seriousness of the character of Adama (in either interation of BG.)

mocha2112 · March 29th, 2005, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Marley

Trek had plenty of positive religious themes.

The elimination of war, disease and poverty were noble goals from the point of view of any religion.

Hi -

Not sure I agree with the "plenty of positive religious themes". DS9 tried it's hand at it, but half the time I wasn't sure if "they" were making mean digs or just being objective. Most of the time Trek celebrated "cultures" but not religion. More often than not, perhaps more so in Next Gen, Trek characters turned their noses down to religious folks as being "quaint" or "primitive" or even superstitious. I'm not saying it happened all of the time, or every week in fact, but it was there from time to time.

Yes, elimination of war, disease and poverty are noble goals any bleeding heart liberal like me would welcome. However, the "Trek" worlds would have you believe that man did it all by himself without any help from anybody, and most certainly not a "God". The fantasy idea of this world is a cool thought, but somehow always seemed a bit empty to me since it did lack a "God". But that's just me. I happen to like my God.

later...

Eric Paddon · March 29th, 2005, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Marley

Trek had plenty of positive religious themes.

The elimination of war, disease and poverty were noble goals from the point of view of any religion.

The traditional Judeo-Christian religion (and Islam) is based on its belief and faith in a Higher Being as greater than the measure of man who has created mankind and rests in a position of Judgment. All of which are themes that Roddenberry in his own subtle way took shots at by promoting the idea of man's need to be free of any form of religion that requires devotion and worship of a higher Deity throughout TOS. In the Christian tradition, the "elimination of war, disease and poverty" is seen as goals that can not be achieved by man's own ingenuity but only in the coming of God's Kingdom.

Darth Marley · March 29th, 2005, 11:15 AM

What? The central theme of religion is that man cannot do it without god, so anything that depicts man succeeding without go must be blasphemy?
That is absurd!

When you get to the notion that only god can save us, but he is not ready to do that yet, wel, that notion certainly would explain anyone's hostility to religion.

History is filled with men doing great evil in the name of religion.
Hardly a day goes by that someone breaks the professed tenents of their religion in oreder to defend it.
Yet if fictional depictions show man doing good without shouting the name of a god, then this is somehow hostile to faith, while the religious errors of the very real human history are not?

bsg1fan1975 · March 29th, 2005, 11:33 AM

Darth the point is they are two separate entities and do not resemble anything close so it is a natural thing that they should not mix. Kind of like oil and water!

Eric Paddon · March 29th, 2005, 11:34 AM

"What? The central theme of religion is that man cannot do it without god, so anything that depicts man succeeding without go must be blasphemy?
That is absurd!"

You can consider it absurd if you like, but it happens to be a fact that the Judeo-Christian theological tradition is one in which man is a being tainted forever by Original Sin (the result of turning away from God) and that his redemption can only come through his relationship with God and his recognition that he is not capable of achieving all absent from God.

"When you get to the notion that only god can save us, but he is not ready to do that yet, wel, that notion certainly would explain anyone's hostility to religion."

You once again distort. It doesn't mean that we don't attempt through our best efforts to make the world we live in better, it simply means that Utopian visions of achieving a perfect world brought about by human ingenuity is an impossibility because of man's original sin and his inability to perfect himself. Only with the coming of the Kingdom of God, through means that can not be discerned by the human mind can you ever hope to envision the order of perfection that Roddenberry and the secular mind posits as happening as a result of "progressive human evolution."

"History is filled with men doing great evil in the name of religion."

It's also filled with more examples of men doing greater evil in the name of state-sponsored atheism (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) so let's not get into that area, since this is about why Trek's philosophy is at its core hostile to that of the traditional religious perspective, and why those of the traditional religious perspective (like an Adama) would not be at home in the universe of TOS Trek. You can not boil down the essence of religion to doing good works in the temporal world because that is not what religion in the traditional sense is about.

Darth Marley · March 29th, 2005, 11:43 AM

Any pious soul would fit right in to a peaceful world without poverty and war.

And I am not distorting anything. Nice shot though.
Any attack on humanism that simply decries the absence of a god without looking at the end result, end of war, end of poverty, etc., is indeed making a grand and effective testimony against religion. Much more effective than Roddenberry.

"State sponsored atheism" has a short history. Religious empires have a long head start at committing atrocities.

Gemini1999 · March 29th, 2005, 11:46 AM

I'd kind of like to say something - it's not directed at anyone in particular and I'm not moderating when I post this - it's just one poster (me).

I'm a bit surprised with this thread and the Kirk thread. In both cases, it was of a "what if" theme, not a direct proposal that Kirk be put in BSG or Adama in Trek. I guess if I was going about it, I would take a situation out of a either show, add the character into the mix and then ask the question: "What would Kirk/Adama do?"

It would be interesting to hear how such a scene would be rewritten to reflect the command style of Adama (or Kirk) in those situations.

It's not a proposal and nobody's views are just being questioned, it's just my take on the whole thing.

Best,
Bryan

bsg1fan1975 · March 29th, 2005, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Marley

Any pious soul would fit right in to a peaceful world without poverty and war.

And I am not distorting anything. Nice shot though.
Any attack on humanism that simply decries the absence of a god without looking at the end result, end of war, end of poverty, etc., is indeed making a grand and effective testimony against religion. Much more effective than Roddenberry.

"State sponsored atheism" has a short history. Religious empires have a long head start at committing atrocities.

Ahem, so your saying Hitler was evil for slaughtering millions of innocent people because of their religions? And that Stalin was evil for doing just that because he was an aetheist?

Fragmentary · March 29th, 2005, 11:55 AM

All right everyone,

Religion is a very volatile topic in person. On a message board it can be absolutely incendiary, so let’s re-task and get back to the original topic conversation. Any discussion of religion or spirituality should only be in the context of what we see on the show, not what we have in the real world.

There are of course religious message boards or PMs if you want to continue in that direction.

Eric Paddon · March 29th, 2005, 11:55 AM

"Any pious soul would fit right in to a peaceful world without poverty and war."

Which isn't the point. The point is that the religious mindset views it as impossible to achieve in the manner proscribed by Trek philosophy of progressive human nature.

"Any attack on humanism that simply decries the absence of a god without looking at the end result, end of war, end of poverty, etc.,"

You are still distorting, because the attack on humanism has nothing to do with the unattainable goals it hopes to achieve, but on the methods and the underlying philosophy of a progressive human nature and that faith in any God is perceived as a hindrance on the freedom of the human mind. That is where the objection comes in and why there is such a clash.

"State sponsored atheism" has a short history. Religious empires have a long head start at committing atrocities."

And the interesting thing is that state sponsored atheism managed in their short timespan to kill more people than all the so-called "religious wars" in the history of civilization put together.

bsg1fan1975 · March 29th, 2005, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fragmentary

All right everyone,

Religion is a very volatile topic in person. On a message board it can be absolutely incendiary, so let’s re-task and get back to the original topic conversation. Any discussion of religion or spirituality should only be in the context of what we see on the show, not what we have in the real world.

There are of course religious message boards or PMs if you want to continue in that direction.

fragmentary,

I was only trying to make a valid view point against Darth's statement. I was not trying to start problems just point out that he had holes in his theory as to why this was relevant to the thread topic

Fragmentary · March 29th, 2005, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bsg1fan1975

fragmentary,

I was only trying to make a valid view point against Darth's statement. I was not trying to start problems just point out that he had holes in his theory as to why this was relevant to the thread topic

I wasn't referring to anything specific that has been posted so far.

Just worried that if we can have a blow out over discussions about TV shows, then I fear for where an all out discussion on a hot topic like religion might go.

Better to avoid that and try to keep things on topic with what we're all here to talk about; Galactica.

bsg1fan1975 · March 29th, 2005, 12:13 PM

I have no problem with that, I try to avoid bring religion into something like this

chez1701 · March 29th, 2005, 04:54 PM

Adama would be welcomed with Captain Picard, cause we all know how picard is. As for Kirk ,Spock would advise .

Senmut · March 30th, 2005, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chez1701

Adama would be welcomed with Captain Picard, cause we all know how picard is. As for Kirk ,Spock would advise .

Spock would ask lots of questions about the Lords of Kobol. He'd never mock, though. NOT the Way of Surak to do that!

BRG · March 30th, 2005, 05:06 AM

I don't think Adama's religious beliefs would affect him in Star Trek. I just think Adama would have to leave his beliefs in his quarters and not bring it too the bridge.
I think Starfleet may work the same was the French do, they keep religion well away from the running of State. They are free to worship whatever way they want, but they keep it out of schools, military and other work places. Starfleet is made up of peole from all nations on Earth and a number of alien cultures, would it be appropriate for a catholic Captain to say a prayer for the crew when the have people of all faiths on board? Better just to leave religion out of the running of a Starship!

As for Adama himself. I have no doubt he would make a capible captain in Kirk's era of Star Trek. But I agree with Chez that he would be better suited to Picard's era. I think Adama is more like Picard, with his diplomatic skill married with the military skills. Kirk, as he once said, is a soldier not a diplomat. Cain would be more at home in the TOS era!

When you look at Adama, he actually is quite unique in sci-fi. He is a military leader, a religious leader, and a political leader all at the same time!

If he lived in Britain, he would be Home Secretary, Archbishop of Canterbury, and First Sea Lord of the Royal Navy!

Pretty imperssive. The only sci-fi character who comes close is Delenn from Babylon 5. she was a member of The Grey Council, a high ranking member of her religious clan, and she occasionally took command of a White Star.
BRG

Senmut · March 30th, 2005, 07:34 PM

Who said ANYthing about "Church and State"? That seems to me a deflection from my original post.
BTW, I will confess, despite the scorn and ridicule it will bring upon me, that I do not believe in "Seperation of Church and State". Never have.
Having said that, I'm sure there will be even more acrid posts contra Senmutum.

BRG · March 31st, 2005, 04:56 AM

I just don't understand why Adama could not possibly be in Star Trek just because he is religious?

Star Trek is not anti religion, it's just that there is no place for religion on the bridge of the Enterprise! Do you want Kirk to whip out a Bible every time he is faced with a dangerous situation and shout "What would Jesus do?" Keep religion in a church where it belongs.

For me Adama would work as a Starfleet Captain no problem. He would do his thing on the bridge just as well as Kirk, if a little differantly! And when his day is over, he can go to his quarters and prey to God, The Lords of Kobol, The Great Architect, Zues, Ra, the Vorlon God Buji, or any other supreme being he wants. It does not affect his command abilities.
BRG

BRG · March 31st, 2005, 06:29 AM

Taking religion out of the picture.

If you did a strait swap 'Mirror Mirror' style, I reckon Adama would cope far better in command of the Enterprise than Kirk would in command of the Galactica.
BRG

Darth Marley · March 31st, 2005, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senmut

Who said ANYthing about "Church and State"? That seems to me a deflection from my original post.
BTW, I will confess, despite the scorn and ridicule it will bring upon me, that I do not believe in "Seperation of Church and State". Never have.
having said that, I'm sure there will be even more acrid posts contra Senmutum.

Not scorn, but correction regarding historical accuracy.

Jefferson on State and Church:

Quote:

"All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution": freedom for religion, but also freedom from religion. (Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 38. Jefferson proposed his language in 1776.)

That was a proposal for the Virigina Constitution.

Quote:

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. (Thomas Jefferson, as President, in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 369)

Here is the first recorded mention of the phrase I am aware of.
Jefferson in his own words explaining the meaning of the establishment clause.
Rationalize it any way you like, but it means "wall of separation."