Adama in Trek?

[Senmut]

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]

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

[Darth Marley]

Why no love for Roddenberry?

[Senmut]

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]

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]

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

[mocha2112]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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. :salute: 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. :colonial: :bg04:

[bsg1fan1975]

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

[chez1701]

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

[Senmut]

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]

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

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]

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. :rolleyes:

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]

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]

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:

"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.

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."

[cranky1c]

And a few thoughts from James Madison, 4th President and widely acknowledged as the intellectual heavyweight behind the drafting of the U.S. Constitution.

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform" (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State" (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

There does not appear to be much ambiguity about the original intent of the framers.

[Darth Marley]

When did the mail stop running on Sunday and why?

[jewels]

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.
Just to contra any of those: If you are referring to the philosophy (and I can't recall which founding father said it) that "This government is only fit for the ruling of a moral people" (paraphrased) then I am with you all the way on that Senmut. I do think that the founding fathers knew that the radical government they proposed would take people with moral courage, integrity and self control which they would have said would be most readily found in the "religious" citizens. Their view was that religion and its benefits were individual choices, matters of conscious and not something that could be mandated by the State. But for their "new" form of government to work, the "fruit" or product of individual citizens' faiths had to impact their dealings with each other and their service to the country. That was more revolutionary than their break from England.

Sometimes it blows my mind just how mind-boggling brave that they were to propose such a style of government. They had a lot of faith in the people to self govern not only the country but their individual lives as well.

[Tanky]

Leaving the faith issue aside, I think Adama would work in Trek, though he would have to relearn a lot of his tactics. BSG is the equivalent of a aircraft carrier, whilst the Enterprise is a battleship or cruiser. Intership fighting is a lot different in the two universes. Warp drive may also take awhile to get used to for him. TNS Adama may also find all the aliens in Trek wierd, seeing as he hasn't, nor humans it would seem, met aliens.

[Senmut]

Never did I use the word 'compel". As ususal, certain people here took my words out of context. I am not surprised.

[Senmut]

"It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplication to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the council of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every Human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States." --George Washington. First Address to Congress, April 30, 1789

Guess George missed all that other stuff. I wonder what his intent was?

[Senmut]

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure, when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that they are the gift of God? Indeed, I tremble for my countrymen, when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever." --Thomas Jefferson. Writings, II, 227

[Eric Paddon]

Senmut was not asking for a history lesson regarding church and state in America, which really isn't the point regarding the ability of Adama to practice his religious beliefs in a Trek universe. The Trek universe is one where the religious POV of things would feel decidedly less at home given not so much the dynamics of the individual characters of Trek, but the nature of the universe as we have heard Gene Roddenberry (and we have to regard the Trek universe as his creation and thus embodying his ideal vision of the universe) describe it, which is decidedly hostile to religion in which it is at best tolerated as an eccentric thing of a distant past that we will hopefully "peacefully outgrow."

[Senmut]

"To the distinguished character of a Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of a Christian." --George Washington, General Order calling for divine services in the Continental Army every Sunday.

"Our Constitution was designed only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." --John Adams, 2nd President of the United States.

[Senmut]

There is a difference between "Speration" and "imposition". we have no State Church, nor should we. But the term has been warped tro mean NO interaction between the two. Thqat is not what the Founders meant.
Now, back to Adama in Trek, or, will Capricans even LIKE McCoy's Tennessee whiskey?

[Tanky]

Whoa, a discussion about Adam in Trek becomes a Church and State Seperation in America issue. Damn.

[bsg1fan1975]

Senmut was not asking for a history lesson regarding church and state in America, which really isn't the point regarding the ability of Adama to practice his religious beliefs in a Trek universe. The Trek universe is one where the religious POV of things would feel decidedly less at home given not so much the dynamics of the individual characters of Trek, but the nature of the universe as we have heard Gene Roddenberry (and we have to regard the Trek universe as his creation and thus embodying his ideal vision of the universe) describe it, which is decidedly hostile to religion in which it is at best tolerated as an eccentric thing of a distant past that we will hopefully "peacefully outgrow."



Absolutely Eric. This is a shining example of why Adama would not fit into Trek.

[Gemini1999]

Whoa, a discussion about Adam in Trek becomes a Church and State Seperation in America issue. Damn.

Tanky -

No kidding....this thread is hanging on to the original theme....by a thread! :D

[SWCrusader]

I have to admit the current (TNS) show is the best sci-fi show that handles religion, although religion wouldn't be there at all without it being a major factor in TOS. I personally believe very strongly in seperation of church and state (I immigrated from New Zealand to USA) and dislike the direction the USA is going in currently. However I do believe sci-fi misses the point in that spirituality can be a very positive thing, and is unlikely to 'dissapear' in the future. Star Trek misses this a lot, especially in a fairly smarmy manner in DS 9 (worm-hole aliens!). B5 had a better grasp, but mostly with alien religion rather than human, although there were several positive human examples as well. Since there was only 1 human in Farscape thats difficult to call - Za'an was a religious character that was well drawn. Ultimately like many below I agree that the TOS Adama would fit fine in Star Trek, ironically in the TNG universe, while I think that TNS Adama would fit better in TOS of Star Trek!

[Damocles]

Damocles here, :/:

I've had my bellyful of the religion argument. I know where I stand.

If it helps Adama to pray upon his bridge-let him!

Kirk in his encounter with the alien in "The Corbomite Maneuver", when told to make "peace with whatever gods you believe in"answers:

"We find the ONE GOD to be sufficient."

That is enough for me to conclude from canon film evidence, two items.

Kirk had religion.

His Federation recognized it as an important personal civil right.

Now as to tactical proficiency.


Kirk versus Adama(OBG)

Single ship gunfight-Kirk

Multi capital ship furball with fighter support-Adama

Diplomacy- Adama

Crews serving under them-slight edge to Adama. His Colonial Warriors seem to be better trained than the "redshirts" Kirk lost with distressing frequency.


OBG Adama would not only fit into any Federation era; he would, to quote Abraham Lincoln,"kick everybodies' ass".

In this competency sweepstakes the following individuals need not apply;


In descending order of incompetence;
NBG Adama(The Husker is a dreadful military commander)
Captain "We surender" and "I'm a Frenchman with an English accent".... "Pick a card, any card', Picard.
Captain Archer
Captain Lameway(er Janeway)


Captain Sisko, strangely enough(emissary of the prophets); does well in Star Trek DS9 as both a military, religious and diplomatic leader, and might do well among the Colonials in either the OBG or the NBG.

The TOS Adama would certainly give the Dominion a bellyache that would be positively "fatal" on DS9.

[Eric Paddon]

Actually, Damocles that quote of Kirk's comes from "Who Mourns For Adonias" and given the entire tone of that episode which is all about man outgrowing the need for gods to worship, that entire line has always struck me as being a concession to the pressures of network censors of that era who were often more quick to come down on anything that could be perceived as an attack on religious faith. Had that episode been made in the 1980s, the line would not have been there.

Gene Roddenberry's sentiments on religion I think are well-known, and in the end best epitomize what the essence of the Trek universe is. He might not want people who are still devout in that time to be persecuted, but he would suggest that they belong to a distant past that humanity is outgrowing and that he would like to eventually see all of them wither on the vine and die so to speak.

[BST]

Gene Roddenberry's sentiments on religion I think are well-known, and in the end best epitomize what the essence of the Trek universe is. He might not want people who are still devout in that time to be persecuted, but he would suggest that they belong to a distant past that humanity is outgrowing and that he would like to eventually see all of them wither on the vine and die so to speak.

I disagree with your assessment, Eric.

I don't view Trek as espousing that religion "wither on the vine and die". I tend to see Trek as indicating that certain religious elements helped form the basis for the civilization portrayed in the Trek universe.

Recall the episode entitled, "Court Martial", and the impassioned speech given by Kirk's attorney, Samuel T. Cogley. Also, in the episode that you mentioned, "Who Mourns for Adonais?", Kirk reflected on the destruction of the temple and Apollo's demise with the recognition that the mythology surrounding the "gods" of Ancient Greece also played a major role in the "civilizing" of Earth.

This "reflection" was echoed in the ST:TNG episode entitled, "Darmok", during Picard's conversation with Riker, in the Captain's Ready Room, at the end of the show.


I tend to view Trek as debunking such things as "magic", "witchcraft", etc, with scientific explanations. It was that element from "Who Mourns for Adonais?" which I viewed Kirk's remark - "You ask for something which we can no longer give" - as meaning that Earth has outgrown blind-faith worship of the magical / mystical aspect of the Greek gods who were revealed to be no more than highly enlightened beings from another planet.

I didn't view it as a put-down or disparaging of God.

[Damocles]

Damocles :salute:

My memory sometimes fails.... :D

Actually, Damocles that quote of Kirk's comes from "Who Mourns For Adonias" and given the entire tone of that episode which is all about man outgrowing the need for gods to worship, that entire line has always struck me as being a concession to the pressures of network censors of that era who were often more quick to come down on anything that could be perceived as an attack on religious faith. Had that episode been made in the 1980s, the line would not have been there.

This is an interesting exchange.

From Who Mourns for Adonis

Apollo: I could sweep you out of existence
with a wave of my hand.
I can give life or death.
What else does mankind demand of its gods?

Kirk: Mankind has no need for gods.
We find the one quite adequate.

Apollo: We shall not debate, mortal.
I offer you eternal rest and happiness
according to the ancient ways.
I ask little in return,
but what I ask for I insist upon.

Correct.

Nevertheless the filmed canon holds. Kirk said it and it exists.

Here is what the exchange between Balok and Kirk was in The Corbomite Maneuver.



From The Corbomite Maneuver

Balok: Your recorder marker has been destroyed.
You have been examined.
Your ship must be destroyed.
We make assumption you have a deity or deities
or some such beliefs which comfort you.
We therefore grant you
10 Earth time periods known as minutes
to make preparations.

Spock: Might be interesting to see what they look like
if I can locate where that voice is coming from.
Uhura: Balok's message-- It was heard all over the ship.

Kirk: Captain to crew.
Those of you who have served for long on this vessel
have encountered alien life-forms.
You know the greatest danger facing us is ourselves,
an irrational fear of the unknown.
But there's no such thing as the unknown--
only things temporarily hidden,
temporarily not understood.
In most cases we have found
that intelligence capable of a civilization
is capable of understanding peaceful gestures.
Surely a life-form advanced enough for space travel
is advanced enough
to eventually understand our motives.
All decks stand by.
Captain out.

That was pure Roddenberry written into the script.

This was NOT Roddenberry



Kirk; Ship to ship.

Uhura; Hailing frequencies open, sir.

Kirk; This is the captain of the Enterprise.
Our respect for other life-forms
requires that we give you this warning.
One critical item of information
that has never been incorporated
into the memory banks of any Earth ship.
Since the early years of space exploration,
Earth vessels have had incorporated into them
a substance known as...
corbomite.
It is a material and a device
which prevents attack on us.
If any destructive energy touches our vessel,
a reverse reaction of equal strength
is created, destroying--

Balok; You now have two minutes.

Kirk; Destroying the attacker!
It may interest you to know
that since the initial use of corbomite
more than two of our centuries ago,
no attacking vessel has survived the attempt.
Death has little meaning to us.
If it has none to you...
then attack us now.
We grow annoyed at your foolishness.

That was Jerry Sohl who wrote that.

It was probably what I should have remembered. That that Roddenberry was an unrepentant optimist, but Sohl was an unrepentant realist.

Odd that I should confuse the two episodes like that.

Nevertheless the filmed canon statement Kirk makes shows there is a religion in that Federation....For that you can thank NBC Standards and Practices....

It doesn't change my tactical assessment of OBG Adama versus the others which was what my post was really about.. Of all the Feds, Kirk, only, has the credibilty to be his, Adama's, equal.

Now if we were to discuss Adama on Babylon 5.......

[Senmut]

Well, if we were to see Adama in the Trekverse, would he function better with Tigh, or a Vulcan, at his side as a First Officer?

[originalsinner]

i think a Picord is more like Adama, Kirk is more Kahn. Starbuck more Kirk/Riker. Cy more Worf!

[shugotenshi]

I find this thread interesting.

If you are going to take a character directly from one sci-fi universe and place him in another. The advantage would go to the character who has a better understanding of technology.

I seriously doubt that adama could command a starship because a starship is centuries ahead of his level of scientific/technological understanding.

It'll be like me putting my grandpa in front of a desktop computer and saying here you go. The last time he saw a computer, those things filled the room and gave punch card readouts.

A federation starship takes four years in an academy, just to learn the basics, plus decades of experience to command.

As old as Adama is, I doubt he would live long enough to gain the required experience and by the time the TNS adama gains that knowledge, every redshirt freshmen in the fleet when he entered the universe would be up for command.

Kirk, on the otherhand, would fit right in to the BSG universe. The main theme of that universe is Combat. One of Kirk's favorate hobbies.

Kirk faced several computers capable of knocking starships out of orbit, an automated weapon that distroyed entire starsystems, a greek god and several godlike beings, Kligons, Romulans...

What's a cylon to him?

With his knowledge and understanding of technology, he could easily adapt to the more primitive technology of the battlestar universe.

And with his leadership ability and charm. I can easily see him working his way into commanding the battlestar.

And not knowing carrier tactics I don't see as a weakness cause the first thing any good commander is going to learn, is the strenghts and weaknesses of the ship he is going to command and adapt accordingly.

In reguards to the religion aspect...

TOS "Balamnce of Terror" we see the wedding preformed at an altar.

TOS "Dagger of the Mind" mentions christmas.

TNG "Data's Day" Data mentions the Hindu Festival of Lights

DS9 "Far Beyond the Stars." Joseph Sisko recites from the Bible

DS9 "Penumbra" Kasidy Yates asked for a priest for her wedding with sisko

ENT "Cold Front" Dr. Phlox said that he had been to a Tibetan monastery and that he had attended a mass at St. Peter's Square.

There are more references out there, but I don't have time to look them up at this moment. But the above should prove that there is religion in startrek.

Enjoy. :beer:

[Senmut]

I agree with alot of the above, shugo. However, I don't think Adama would have that much difficulty fitting into the Trekverse. We actually saw little of Colonial technology in BSG, just enough to carry the plot lines along. Unlike Trek, we never saw the engine room, the main reactor/s, or the deflector room array (ST:Generations). While such machinery must obviously exist for the Battlestars to do what they do, they just were never dwelt upon. Adama or Tigh never saved the day by having Omega or Rigel re-allign the main injectors, or reconfigure the graviton emitters, or whatever. And, given the sheer size of the BSG, I dfon't think Colonial technology is as far behind that of the Federation as it might at first appear. The sheer engineering skill and technology required to build fleets of ships of such size implies no small technological prowess. Given his training and experience, I can see Adama adapting quickly to Federation technology and it's uses. As to adapting to non-carrier tactics rapidly, well that we would have to see. I am sure he would see the weakness in TOS Romulan Warbirds at once.

[3DMaster]

However I do believe sci-fi misses the point in that spirituality can be a very positive thing, and is unlikely to 'dissapear' in the future.

That's very wrong. Trek poses that a belief in some invisible supreme being or supreme beings is a negative thing. A lot of the Trek characters are deeply spiritual, but in the Buddhist way: "Every human being is a god, he just needs to open his eyes and realize it, look inside, and thus connect with and understand the universe." That is, without saying they're gods.

Spirituality does not mean: "There is a god, and I must bow down before him."

[Senmut]

But your post assumes that Trek must be right, and the future will unfold that way. I do not, and believe that SWCrusader has hit it right on the old bean.

[3DMaster]

But your post assumes that Trek must be right, and the future will unfold that way. I do not, and believe that SWCrusader has hit it right on the old bean.

My post has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not Star Trek is right or not.