ENT: Chosen Realm

[TGLS]

Granted, sometimes it's more complex than just the question whether God rested on sunday or saturday, but historically, it's much more often like in The Life of Brian.

That seems a little reductionist to me. Anti-Semites don't hate Jewish People because they don't eat pork, or hell, because they don't worship Christ. That's just the sticky and obvious glue that holds an identity together.

Like taking your ideas to a natural conclusion, you could breakdown the early part of the Protestant Reformation down to: "Martin Luther one day determined that Faith alone was all that was necessary to get into heaven, and many others in Germany embraced his ideas. Charles V and the Pope disagreed, leading to a war between the Holy Roman Empire and the Schmalkaldic League (A defensive pact formed by the followers of Luther)."

It's factually true, but it also completely ignores the context that explains why Protestantism found such a willing base of believers, or why Charles V and the Pope cared so much. Without discussing the context, it becomes baffling as to why Luther's ideas would spark a war, while the Arians (who believed Christ was subordinate to God) got on relatively peaceably with the Nicene Christians.

[clearspira]

Granted, sometimes it's more complex than just the question whether God rested on sunday or saturday, but historically, it's much more often like in The Life of Brian.

That seems a little reductionist to me. Anti-Semites don't hate Jewish People because they don't eat pork, or hell, because they don't worship Christ. That's just the sticky and obvious glue that holds an identity together.

Like taking your ideas to a natural conclusion, you could breakdown the early part of the Protestant Reformation down to: "Martin Luther one day determined that Faith alone was all that was necessary to get into heaven, and many others in Germany embraced his ideas. Charles V and the Pope disagreed, leading to a war between the Holy Roman Empire and the Schmalkaldic League (A defensive pact formed by the followers of Luther)."

It's factually true, but it also completely ignores the context that explains why Protestantism found such a willing base of believers, or why Charles V and the Pope cared so much. Without discussing the context, it becomes baffling as to why Luther's ideas would spark a war, while the Arians (who believed Christ was subordinate to God) got on relatively peaceably with the Nicene Christians.

Here in England, King Henry VIII nearly brought us to war with Spain (one of the many times I grant you) because he decided to break with the Catholic Church and found the Church Of England. Why did he do that? Did he have some great revelation as to the nature of man, God and religion? No. He wanted to divorce his first wife Catherine of Aragon so that he could bone Anne Boleyn - whom he later beheaded.

Or in other words, a religious war was nearly started because of King Henry the VIII's penis. Even without the war it got pretty brutal. The purges were bloody on both sides and led to events such as Guy Fawkes trying to blow up Parliament and the charmingly nicknamed ''Bloody'' Queen Mary.

One of the reasons you encouraged me to bring this up (besides being a great example of a petty religious war) is because the Protestant Reformation happened only a few years before the English Reformation, and because Protestant ideas were very popular in England, that made the Church of England one of the first true major Protestant churches in the world and gave the movement an incredible amount of power and legitimacy that it didn't have before.

Kind of interesting to wonder just how much Martin Luther owes to Henry's junk, huh?

[McAvoy]

Granted, sometimes it's more complex than just the question whether God rested on sunday or saturday, but historically, it's much more often like in The Life of Brian.

That seems a little reductionist to me. Anti-Semites don't hate Jewish People because they don't eat pork, or hell, because they don't worship Christ. That's just the sticky and obvious glue that holds an identity together.

Like taking your ideas to a natural conclusion, you could breakdown the early part of the Protestant Reformation down to: "Martin Luther one day determined that Faith alone was all that was necessary to get into heaven, and many others in Germany embraced his ideas. Charles V and the Pope disagreed, leading to a war between the Holy Roman Empire and the Schmalkaldic League (A defensive pact formed by the followers of Luther)."

It's factually true, but it also completely ignores the context that explains why Protestantism found such a willing base of believers, or why Charles V and the Pope cared so much. Without discussing the context, it becomes baffling as to why Luther's ideas would spark a war, while the Arians (who believed Christ was subordinate to God) got on relatively peaceably with the Nicene Christians.

Here in England, King Henry VIII nearly brought us to war with Spain (one of the many times I grant you) because he decided to break with the Catholic Church and found the Church Of England. Why did he do that? Did he have some great revelation as to the nature of man, God and religion? No. He wanted to divorce his first wife Catherine of Aragon so that he could bone Anne Boleyn - whom he later beheaded.

Or in other words, a religious war was nearly started because of King Henry the VIII's penis. Even without the war it got pretty brutal. The purges were bloody on both sides and led to events such as Guy Fawkes trying to blow up Parliament and the charmingly nicknamed ''Bloody'' Queen Mary.

One of the reasons you encouraged me to bring this up (besides being a great example of a petty religious war) is because the Protestant Reformation happened only a few years before the English Reformation, and because Protestant ideas were very popular in England, that made the Church of England one of the first true major Protestant churches in the world and gave the movement an incredible amount of power and legitimacy that it didn't have before.

Kind of interesting to wonder just how much Martin Luther owes to Henry's junk, huh?

Which by extension transfers over to the United States.

[Fianna]

The thing about splits over religious doctrine is, once the split occurs, you wind up with two different organizations, each with their own leadership, who will each have their own ideas about how things should go moving forward, which can lead to the two organizations developing in very different directions. However insignificant the initial reason for the split may have been, it has a way of snowballing into more drastic differences over time.

[Ixthos]

All religions were made by men.

Note - I said ''religion''. Not ''God''.

I am not passing judgement on the existence of the subject of the religion. Only that the framework surrounding it was made by men. Rich men who lived two thousand years ago. This is why there is no commandment for slavery or rape, because the men writing those commandments would have found treating their slaves and women properly to be unspeakable.

Religion itself is a form of man-made social control to keep the poor in check. Religion is imperfect and has glaring mistakes in it that lead to wars because the texts were made by men. Say what you like about Marx, but his ''opium of the people'' line nailed it.

And if we apply this to Star Trek, look at the Prophets. They are very real. And yet, as far as we can tell, they had NO SAY whatsoever in the Bajoran caste system, or the Kai, or earrings, or the stupid hats the Vedeks wear. The Bajorans invented that themselves independent of their gods. The most they ever did was send the orbs - and seeing as we know for a fact that whilst having an orb experience everyone looks like the people you know, that doesn't explain earrings either.

The ''Makers'' that the Triannons speak of are very real - only we call them the Sphere Builders. Yet it was the Triannons who decided to start wars in their name, give themselves tattoos and invent scripture. The Sphere Builders never told them this. Although in this case it has to be said that the Sphere Builders may actually have had a hand in these guys given how they were guarding the spheres from outsiders.

I mostly agree with your post here, though I've highlighted a key point with two or three main subsets that religion:
a) says nothing (negative) about rape
b) says nothing (negative) about slavery, and
c) was made by rich individuals to control those less rich

I can't speak for other religions, but Christianity and Judaism actually do address all three. Here are a few brief examples, though there are several others:

a) On rape being evil and the punishment being death:
* Deuteronomy 22:23-27, where the point is made that one automatically assumes "adultery" in the countryside is rape by the man and he, and only he, must die for it - and implicitly if a man rapes a woman in the city then again he must die if she, being surrounded by people nearby, didn't call for help (i.e. the question is whether she tried to resist him, and if you can't prove it either way you assume she did) as if she does the principle states she is again spared and the man must die
* Genesis 34, where Dinah's rape is shown to be a vile act, though the retribution against it was also vile
* Judges 19v11-30, where a concubine is raped to death, which is used to show how far the people have fallen, how evil they had become - it is a deliberately disturbing story that partially mirrors the accounts of Lot in Sodom, where everyone involved is presented as a monster but especially the rapists
* 2 Samuel 13, the entire story, where Tamar's rape is shown to have been a vile act committed against her that begins the destruction of David's family

b) On slavery being evil, as well as Christians being encouraged to free their slaves if they have any:
* Genesis 49:19-20 has Joseph's story itself as a condemnation of slavery, as it explicitly says what Joseph's brothers did was intended by them for evil, yet despite that God was able to bring about good (and remember, slavery in the Bible in general is very different form what modern people typically think of, with slaves being more like indentured servants and with specific rights)
* Exodus 21:16, which says slavers should die
* 1 Timothy 1v10, where slavers are regarded as sinners and thus must repent of their evil (and the story of Zacchaeus the tax collector in Luke 19 should remind everyone that sinners being forgiven means the sinner should repay those who they have wronged as well)
* the entire book of Philemon and especially 1:15-16, etc.

c) On the condemnation of the rich:
* The rich have to struggle to overcome a barrier to knowing God: Mark 10v17-27 (and also the Disciples were poor and effectively vagabonds spreading the Gospel, and didn't accumulate wealth or leisure but were persecuted, Mark 10v28, the entire book of Acts, numerous times in the Epistles)
* Don't regard the rich as being special or treat them with diffidence: James 2v1-9
* Those who are rich due to fraud and abuse of the poor are in serious danger: James 5v1-6

All this is to say that your points actually are addressed, and not ignored - the Bible has a special heart towards the weak and those who have been sinned against by others. I do encourage you to read each chapter and book in full as well, to see the broader message in each, and how they fit together.

On the topic of the man-made elements of religion, what is interesting is that many parts of that are also highlighted in the Bible, including when Yeshua says the Pharisees are alloying what God said with what their traditions teach (Mark 7v1-13, though one should keep going and read the whole passage), and how some elements were specifically given or allowed by Moses because of the peoples' stubborn hearts but it doesn't actually match what God wants even though Moses was in direct communication with God (Mark 10v2-9 and its parallel account in Matthew 19v3-9). What makes Christianity interesting is it very much is focused on the interplay between God and Man, including Man's own approach towards God, with the Bible specifically being for most of its writings being humans specifically talking to humans about God and studying the things God has revealed, in addition to parts specifically attributed to God.

... Okay, done addressing those points, otherwise yes, I think your observations are good ones.

(Oh, also just to be clear, Marx's line is specifically how opium was used at the time for medical reasons. Religion wasn't being presented as a drug to keep people docile, but a balm to ease the pain of life and help them to keep functioning despite being wounded.)


I generally agree with Chuck on this episode. Its handling is rather superficial, and its message is a good one albeit hamfisted and somewhat of a caricature, though there isn't too much more they could have done without just remaking Let That Be Your Last Battlefield in all its details. There are some subtle bits - the marks on the side of the head remind me of the Bajoran earrings and the different sides it is worn on - but it isn't my favourite episode of Enterprise, though Enterprise is not a show I often go back and watch.

[Mabus]

To be fair, the guy that tells Archer the whole "9/10 days conflict" excuse doesn't appear to be a well versed academic, he probably knows about as much history of his people as his wife. Most people in general only know the abridged version of various historical events, and not all the details.

However, all this means is that they shouldn't have relied only on one character or one scene to explain the motivation. Given that the exchange between Archer and the guy ends abruptly, I was kind of waiting for them to finish their conversation after Archer takes back the ship. They could at least have done that.

[Ixthos]

To be fair, the guy that tells Archer the whole "9/10 days conflict" excuse doesn't appear to be a well versed academic, he probably knows about as much history of his people as his wife. Most people in general only know the abridged version of various historical events, and not all the details.

However, all this means is that they shouldn't have relied only on one character or one scene to explain the motivation. Given that the exchange between Archer and the guy ends abruptly, I was kind of waiting for them to finish their conversation after Archer takes back the ship. They could at least have done that.

That would explain it, and if one is feeling charitable to the episode one could certainly head canon that as an explanation (like in Voy: Nemesis where all of Chuck's complaints actually work beautifully together if you take the entire culture as being a poorly made attempt to tailor the simulation and people to Chakotay: so the reason they look exactly like humans, but with a terrible translation of the language, is that it is easier to copy his physical form, but their translator is highly suspect; their simple cultural practice for "burial" was there to give an implication of culture without thinking it all the way through, etc.)

But issue is, whether you do or don't, the episode clearly is trying to imply that the conflict is supposed to be a tragic joke. Archer's response sells that, as I recall, though perhaps I'm misremembering and he does indicate that he suspects there is more, but it's been a while since I watched the episode. Having one of the followers of that group explain it does lend some justification to that view, that he just isn't knowledgeable, or does know but isn't able to give a more than superficial breakdown, expecting Archer to understand the implied nuance, but they seem to be implying that it really is the case, and that we shouldn't expect it to be deeper than that.

[Mabus]

Yeah, like I said in my first post, Coto leaned on the anti-Islam collective sentiment of the time, which is why the excuse is so flimsy. It's kind of silly in retrospect.

[Ixthos]

Yeah, like I said in my first post, Coto leaned on the anti-Islam collective sentiment of the time, which is why the excuse is so flimsy. It's kind of silly in retrospect.

That's fair. It's certainly a pity he went that route.

[Mindworm]

I think it was obvious at the time the inspiration was directly or indirectly the Islamic Jihadists. Or in my case: insurgents when I was in the military at the time.

However offhand, I cannot seem to think of what other religions would have done differently in an extremist sect if given 'full permission' to do what they want or need in name of their religion.

Would have Christians or Jews commit the same acts like the Muslims when fighting a much superior foe in their own home with a religion and society far different than their own.

There is the whole Catholic versus Protestant thing but that is basically ancient history at this point.

If you look at what's continuing to go on in the six counties, you wouldn't say the last sentence. There is a reason why the DUP, the political wing of no less than three anti-catholic terrorist groups is the largest party within unionism by a country mile.