Does Star Trek teach unchristian principles?

[Daniel Peres]

I have been watching Star Trek since I was a kid. I have always admired the Prime Directive that the characters of the show strictly follow under the belief that it is a noble rule. The Primary Directive is a rule that prohibits Starfleet personnel and spacecraft from interfering in the normal development of any society, and mandates that any Starfleet vessel or crew member is expendable to prevent violation of this rule.

I always thought the Prime Directive was such a good and moral rule. However, I have read about some events in history, where one could rightfully say that Christians had been guilty of violating the Prime Directive. The thing is, I believe those Christians were heroes for choosing to interfere with the normal development of the societies they had colonized.

I would like to get other Christians' opinions about the Prime Directive. Additionally, below you can read about two historical examples of Christians violating the Prime Directive below. I would also like to get your opinions as to whether you think it was good that Christian morality was imposed on the cultures mentioned in the examples below. This should be interesting considering the fact that lately, it seems we are constantly be told the European colonizers were evil.

The first example involves Anglicans, and the second involves Catholics.

Let’s start with the Anglican example. Shortly after arriving in India the British encountered the ancient Hindu custom called Sati. This is an obsolete Hindu practice where widows burn themselves alive, willing or unwilling, on the funeral pyres of their husbands.

Of course, there was moral outrage on the part of the British, they were Christians after all. In fact, the then Commander-in-Chief of British forces in India, Sir Charles James Napier placed a prohibition on the practice of the horrifying Hindu custom. As a result, a Hindu priest expressed his objection to the prohibition because it violated the Hindu right to practice their custom.

The very wise General Napier decided that he agreed with the Hindu priest and said, “Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive, we hang them and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.”

Now for the Catholic example. When people in the United States learn about the Spanish Conquistadors conquering the Aztecs, they are always told that the Spanish were evil. Americans are never told the truth about the Aztecs, and they are never told how such a small number of men were able to conquer the Aztecs.

So what’s the truth about the Aztecs? Well, they were very cruel to the smaller weaker surrounding indigenous tribes. For starters, the Aztecs enslaved many members of those smaller indigenous tribes. While in my opinion, that is bad enough to justify conquering the Aztecs, their other activities were far more horrifying. You see, these Aztecs practiced a kind of Paganism, that was far worse than any Paganism that existed in the Roman Empire.

The Aztecs liked to sacrifice human beings to their pagan gods. Of course, they didn’t sacrifice their fellow Aztecs. They would kidnap members of the smaller indigenous tribes and sacrifice them. The victims varied in age, and they included babies. Sometimes, prior to being thrown into the sacrificial pit, the Aztecs would remove the victim’s heart while he or she was still alive. And what did they do with the bodies of their dead victims? Why they would use them as decorations.

Being Christians, the Spanish Conquistadors were absolutely horrified. They made the moral decision that the Aztecs must be stopped, but there were so few Conquistadors compared to the number of Aztecs. What could they do? They did the only thing they could They suggested to the other Indian tribes that were being victimized by the Aztecs, that there could be victory against the Aztecs if all the smaller tribes joined forces with the Spanish Conquistadors. All the tribes, except for one, immediately agreed to join forces with the Spanish to fight the Aztecs. The problem with the one remaining tribe was that they didn’t like the Spanish either. However, it didn’t take long for that tribe to admit to themselves that the Aztec were truly evil, and their dislike of the Spanish didn’t come close to how they felt about the Aztecs. Well, as I am sure you, those unified forces successfully destroyed the Aztecs, and the abuses came to an end forever.

 

[Blade]

Well the newer once said "it was a miracle" To that Spoke said "there is no such thing". Yeah the show has never been about Christ.

 

[RDKirk]

I have been watching Star Trek since I was a kid. I have always admired the Prime Directive that the characters of the show strictly follow under the belief that it is a noble rule. The Primary Directive is a rule that prohibits Starfleet personnel and spacecraft from interfering in the normal development of any society, and mandates that any Starfleet vessel or crew member is expendable to prevent violation of this rule.

First, you misunderstand the Star Trek Prime Directive.

The Prime Directive prohibits Starfleet from interfering with any pre-warp civilization. If that civilization has warp technology, Starfleet can freely interfere as much as their political and economic aims require.

It was a primary theme of most TOS and TNG episodes to carry the Federation principles to warp-capable civilizations that did not recognize those principles. The Federation was clearly on an evangelical mission, and Starfleet was its Jesuit order.

Now, were the Federation principles also Christian principles? No, they were humanist principles (and rather fuzzy humanist principles at that). Humanist principles and Christian principles overlap, but are not the same.

TOS tiptoed around the question of Christianity in Starfleet, but TNG was sometimes so pointedly anti-religious that even pagans complained about it.

 

[Ceallaigh]

The creator of Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry, was an atheist humanist, and those vibes echo throughout the series.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I would say it has a mix of everything in it throughout the original series to NG and Voyager etc. I wouldn't say is actually "teaches" but rather it raises principles that are and are not Christian in origin.
I recall one episode of TOS where they were on an updated roman empire colony and at the end Ohura was monitoring the radio broadcasts and said they were talking about sun worship..... or what Kirk thought at first and she said..... no SON (Of God). and sort of left it there.
As said before the prime directive was agreed about warp drive but more than that in that it was about trying to keep advanced knowledge from primitive societies and in STNG they often wouldn't even give phasers to people that didn't have the tech.

 

[RDKirk]

The creator of Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry, was an atheist humanist, and those vibes echo throughout the series.

Interestingly, the writer of Babylon 5 is also an atheist, but he presented religion in his series with a more balanced and nuanced view.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Interestingly, the writer of Babylon 5 is also an atheist, but he presented religion in his series with a more balanced and nuanced view.

Indeed, that's one of the things I liked about B5.

 

[RDKirk]

I would say it has a mix of everything in it throughout the original series to NG and Voyager etc. I wouldn't say is actually "teaches" but rather it raises principles that are and are not Christian in origin.
I recall one episode of TOS where they were on an updated roman empire colony and at the end Ohura was monitoring the radio broadcasts and said they were talking about sun worship..... or what Kirk thought at first and she said..... no SON (Of God). and sort of left it there.
As said before the prime directive was agreed about warp drive but more than that in that it was about trying to keep advanced knowledge from primitive societies and in STNG they often wouldn't even give phasers to people that didn't have the tech.

In one episode, at one point an alien mentioned the concept of multiple gods and Kirk quickly quipped, "No, thanks, the one is sufficient."

And TOS "Balance of Terror" showed the Enterprise as having a chapel. I can only speculate what kind of tug-of-war writers may have had over those issues with Roddenberry.

Frequently, though, the plot of episodes was to skewer the concept of any kind of supernatural entity that commanded the obedience of human societies.

 

[Sketcher]

Now for the Catholic example. When people in the United States learn about the Spanish Conquistadors conquering the Aztecs, they are always told that the Spanish were evil. Americans are never told the truth about the Aztecs, and they are never told how such a small number of men were able to conquer the Aztecs.

So what’s the truth about the Aztecs? Well, they were very cruel to the smaller weaker surrounding indigenous tribes. For starters, the Aztecs enslaved many members of those smaller indigenous tribes. While in my opinion, that is bad enough to justify conquering the Aztecs, their other activities were far more horrifying. You see, these Aztecs practiced a kind of Paganism, that was far worse than any Paganism that existed in the Roman Empire.

The Aztecs liked to sacrifice human beings to their pagan gods. Of course, they didn’t sacrifice their fellow Aztecs. They would kidnap members of the smaller indigenous tribes and sacrifice them. The victims varied in age, and they included babies. Sometimes, prior to being thrown into the sacrificial pit, the Aztecs would remove the victim’s heart while he or she was still alive. And what did they do with the bodies of their dead victims? Why they would use them as decorations.

Being Christians, the Spanish Conquistadors were absolutely horrified. They made the moral decision that the Aztecs must be stopped, but there were so few Conquistadors compared to the number of Aztecs. What could they do? They did the only thing they could They suggested to the other Indian tribes that were being victimized by the Aztecs, that there could be victory against the Aztecs if all the smaller tribes joined forces with the Spanish Conquistadors. All the tribes, except for one, immediately agreed to join forces with the Spanish to fight the Aztecs. The problem with the one remaining tribe was that they didn’t like the Spanish either. However, it didn’t take long for that tribe to admit to themselves that the Aztec were truly evil, and their dislike of the Spanish didn’t come close to how they felt about the Aztecs. Well, as I am sure you, those unified forces successfully destroyed the Aztecs, and the abuses came to an end forever.

There's more nuance to this.

The tribes from which the Aztecs took their captives for sacrifice followed the same religion. The religious belief was that it was an honor to die in such a sacrifice; there were even holy wars (the Flower Wars) dedicated to this purpose. My conclusion is that if you're going to have human sacrifices, it will go easier when the captives are actually willing, and the logical thing to do is to make them willing through religion.

There was a missionary need to spread Christianity anyway, but the practices and beliefs concerning human sacrifice added some extra oomph to this priority for the Spanish.

 

[Ceallaigh]

In one episode, at one point an alien mentioned the concept of multiple gods and Kirk quickly quipped, "No, thanks, the one is sufficient."

And TOS "Balance of Terror" showed the Enterprise as having a chapel. I can only speculate what kind of tug-of-war writers may have had over those issues with Roddenberry.

Frequently, though, the plot of episodes was to skewer the concept of any kind of supernatural entity that commanded the obedience of human societies.

I found this to be the most interesting along those lines:

 

[JSRG]

First, you misunderstand the Star Trek Prime Directive.

The Prime Directive prohibits Starfleet from interfering with any pre-warp civilization. If that civilization has warp technology, Starfleet can freely interfere as much as their political and economic aims require.

The franchise is a bit inconsistent on that point. Sometimes it applies to only pre-warp civilizations, but other times it gets invoked to refer to post-warp civilizations.

 

[Daniel Peres]

First, you misunderstand the Star Trek Prime Directive.

The Prime Directive prohibits Starfleet from interfering with any pre-warp civilization. If that civilization has warp technology, Starfleet can freely interfere as much as their political and economic aims require.

I agree with your clarification that the Prime Directive is limited to the pre-warp civilizations. However, my point still stands, since compared to the European colonizers, those cultures were like pre-warp civilizations.

So, I would appreciate any opinion you have about the two historical examples I gave. Do you believe the imposition of Christian morality on the Hindus and Aztecs by the European colonizers was good or evil?

 

[Daniel Peres]

I found this to be the most interesting along those lines:

Yes, that was a good episode, and it did put Christianity in a good light. However, my question can still be asked in regards to this episode and whether Star Fleet should have done anything to defend the alleged Christians on that planet?

 

[Daniel Peres]

There's more nuance to this.

The tribes from which the Aztecs took their captives for sacrifice followed the same religion. The religious belief was that it was an honor to die in such a sacrifice; there were even holy wars (the Flower Wars) dedicated to this purpose. My conclusion is that if you're going to have human sacrifices, it will go easier when the captives are actually willing, and the logical thing to do is to make them willing through religion.

There was a missionary need to spread Christianity anyway, but the practices and beliefs concerning human sacrifice added some extra oomph to this priority for the Spanish.

I must admit I don’t know anything about the religious beliefs of the other Indian tribes. However, if what you’re saying is true, then why did those Indian tribes accept the assistance of the Spanish Conquistadors to stop the sacrifices? In other words, if they believed it was an honor to be offered as sacrifices by the Aztecs, then why did they fight along side the Spanish to stop the sacrifices?

Also, I would appreciate your opinion as to whether the Christian interference in the evil Aztec and Hindu practices was good or evil? The purpose of my post was not to impose my opinions on other Christians on this forum. I am just curious to know what the opinions do my fellow Christians have on the matter, especially in today’s climate where the mainstream opinion is that everything the European colonizers did was evil.

 

[Hmm]

Do you believe the imposition of Christian morality on the Hindus and Aztecs by the European colonizers was good or evil?

I think it's pertinent to ask the question, What sort of representation of Christianity did we give to these "pre-warp" civilisations?

Christianity didn't take hold in India despite the missionary work of the British Empire. The reason it didn't can only be seen through the eyes of the typical Indian. They were being taught about Jesus the servant God but by very wealthy missionaries who had Indian servants to attend to them. They couldn't get their heads around the contradiction and so threw the baby out with the bathwater. It was also very much Gandhi's experience of Christians when he was studying in England and started going to church in, I think, Plymouth, and which led to his famous statement
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

I'm only saying this because your question about whether it's right to spread Christianity to other cultures depends in part on whether Christianity is being properly represented or not.

 

[RDKirk]

So, I would appreciate any opinion you have about the two historical examples I gave. Do you believe the imposition of Christian morality on the Hindus and Aztecs by the European colonizers was good or evil?

That's like asking if it is good or evil for God to allow Satan to continue to exist. Evil in the temporal sense, good in the eternal sense.

The Romans built roads across their empire to the frontier edges to transport their armies rapidly in brutal conquest. Paul travelled those roads to spread the gospel. Paul had planned to go to Spain, the furthest westward extent of Rome's successful conquest in his lifetime (Claudius had sent a salient into Britain, but that island hadn't been quelled yet). Paul's intention was possible only by Rome's bloody hand.

It was not different as the remnants of the Roman empire pushed across the Atlantic and over Africa and into Asia. The Church has always spread on paths laid by bloody empires.

What did Paul think about that?

 

[RDKirk]

The franchise is a bit inconsistent on that point. Sometimes it applies to only pre-warp civilizations, but other times it gets invoked to refer to post-warp civilizations.

Trek is inconsistent on a lot of things, despite cries of "Canon!"

 

[Sophrosyne]

In one episode, at one point an alien mentioned the concept of multiple gods and Kirk quickly quipped, "No, thanks, the one is sufficient."

And TOS "Balance of Terror" showed the Enterprise as having a chapel. I can only speculate what kind of tug-of-war writers may have had over those issues with Roddenberry.

Frequently, though, the plot of episodes was to skewer the concept of any kind of supernatural entity that commanded the obedience of human societies.

I think from the religious point of view Star Trek by all the fictitious religions in it that get people thinking are in no way similar to Christianity. It is sad that very few believers were involved in the series and that Jesus was non existent. I just stumbled across this article you may like but in it I found out Nichelle Nichols passed away last month at 89, she was perhaps one of the few "known" Christians in Star Trek.

 

[Daniel Peres]

That's like asking if it is good or evil for God to allow Satan to continue to exist. Evil in the temporal sense, good in the eternal sense.

The Romans built roads across their empire to the frontier edges to transport their armies rapidly in brutal conquest. Paul travelled those roads to spread the gospel. Paul had planned to go to Spain, the furthest westward extent of Rome's successful conquest in his lifetime (Claudius had sent a salient into Britain, but that island hadn't been quelled yet). Paul's intention was possible only by Rome's bloody hand.

It was not different as the remnants of the Roman empire pushed across the Atlantic and over Africa and into Asia. The Church has always spread on paths laid by bloody empires.

What did Paul think about that?

The Roman Empire certainly engaged in evil activity, but they did do many good things that we still benefit from today, like the roads they built. I don’t see anything wrong about using the infrastructure of a culture that used that infrastructure to engage in evil. Also, I am fully aware that European colonizers were also responsible for unchristian behavior.

Anyway, when it comes the morality of the Roman Empire, the Christians eventually imposed their morality on the pagans as well. It was the Christians that forced the Roman pagans to stop killing unwanted babies either directly or by leaving them in the woods alone to die. It was the Christians that imposed their morality on pagans to end the practice of leaving unwanted babies on a city street so that someone could come along and take the baby and often raise the baby as a slave.

Christians also imposed their morals of sexuality on the pagans, and I am not just referring to homosexual activity. The pagan men were refusing to get married and create families, they just wanted to use women as objects for physical pleasure. Even when they did marry, they would usually use contraception to avoid having children. This immoral behavior was so rampant that the the empire was economically impacted in a negative way. You see this refusal to create families caused the percentage of the people in the Roman Empire who were citizens to drop dramatically, and this resulted with the empire having a citizenry that was too small to pay the necessary taxes.

As you can see in the New Testament, not everyone was a citizen like Paul. However, because of the sexual immorality of the pagans, eventually, the Roman Empire had to declare that all free people were now citizens of the Roman Empire. However, the Roman Empire’s population problem was not resolved until Christian sexual morality became the norm in the empire.

Lastly, I don't understand why you find my question so difficult. In your opinion, was it a good thing the English prohibited the burning of widows or not? Would it have been more moral to make the decision to not interfere and let the widows continue to be burned? I am not trying to trap you. I am just asking for your opinion. If I was in the position of the English, I don't think I could find it in me to allow the abuse to continue.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I have been watching Star Trek since I was a kid. I have always admired the Prime Directive that the characters of the show strictly follow under the belief that it is a noble rule. The Primary Directive is a rule that prohibits Starfleet personnel and spacecraft from interfering in the normal development of any society, and mandates that any Starfleet vessel or crew member is expendable to prevent violation of this rule.

I always thought the Prime Directive was such a good and moral rule. However, I have read about some events in history, where one could rightfully say that Christians had been guilty of violating the Prime Directive. The thing is, I believe those Christians were heroes for choosing to interfere with the normal development of the societies they had colonized.

I would like to get other Christians' opinions about the Prime Directive. Additionally, below you can read about two historical examples of Christians violating the Prime Directive below. I would also like to get your opinions as to whether you think it was good that Christian morality was imposed on the cultures mentioned in the examples below. This should be interesting considering the fact that lately, it seems we are constantly be told the European colonizers were evil.

The first example involves Anglicans, and the second involves Catholics.

Let’s start with the Anglican example. Shortly after arriving in India the British encountered the ancient Hindu custom called Sati. This is an obsolete Hindu practice where widows burn themselves alive, willing or unwilling, on the funeral pyres of their husbands.

Of course, there was moral outrage on the part of the British, they were Christians after all. In fact, the then Commander-in-Chief of British forces in India, Sir Charles James Napier placed a prohibition on the practice of the horrifying Hindu custom. As a result, a Hindu priest expressed his objection to the prohibition because it violated the Hindu right to practice their custom.

The very wise General Napier decided that he agreed with the Hindu priest and said, “Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive, we hang them and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.”

Now for the Catholic example. When people in the United States learn about the Spanish Conquistadors conquering the Aztecs, they are always told that the Spanish were evil. Americans are never told the truth about the Aztecs, and they are never told how such a small number of men were able to conquer the Aztecs.

So what’s the truth about the Aztecs? Well, they were very cruel to the smaller weaker surrounding indigenous tribes. For starters, the Aztecs enslaved many members of those smaller indigenous tribes. While in my opinion, that is bad enough to justify conquering the Aztecs, their other activities were far more horrifying. You see, these Aztecs practiced a kind of Paganism, that was far worse than any Paganism that existed in the Roman Empire.

The Aztecs liked to sacrifice human beings to their pagan gods. Of course, they didn’t sacrifice their fellow Aztecs. They would kidnap members of the smaller indigenous tribes and sacrifice them. The victims varied in age, and they included babies. Sometimes, prior to being thrown into the sacrificial pit, the Aztecs would remove the victim’s heart while he or she was still alive. And what did they do with the bodies of their dead victims? Why they would use them as decorations.

Being Christians, the Spanish Conquistadors were absolutely horrified. They made the moral decision that the Aztecs must be stopped, but there were so few Conquistadors compared to the number of Aztecs. What could they do? They did the only thing they could They suggested to the other Indian tribes that were being victimized by the Aztecs, that there could be victory against the Aztecs if all the smaller tribes joined forces with the Spanish Conquistadors. All the tribes, except for one, immediately agreed to join forces with the Spanish to fight the Aztecs. The problem with the one remaining tribe was that they didn’t like the Spanish either. However, it didn’t take long for that tribe to admit to themselves that the Aztec were truly evil, and their dislike of the Spanish didn’t come close to how they felt about the Aztecs. Well, as I am sure you, those unified forces successfully destroyed the Aztecs, and the abuses came to an end forever.

I'm a fellow Trekkie. The Prime Directive has to do with warp capabilities. I seem to recall a Captain who broke the PD to save a few civilizations.
Blessings