Chaplains in Starfleet?

**Rottwang** · 08-09-2001, 11:45 PM

As a faithful Christian, this may come out a little strange.

First, I tend to view the Star Trek universe as a mostly non-spiritual universe where there are many godlike beings but no gods. Most everything has an an explanation even if no one understands it, and religion is mostly a cultural event that ties people to their pasts.

I'm not saying that a religion or multiple religions couldn't be partially or completely true. For instance if you want the Bible to be true when you run your game, you could say that Revelations was revealed in a way that the people of the time could understand. Perhaps, the locusts could be spaceships duking it out, and Gog and Magog could refer to the Klingons and Ferengi or something. I am using Christianity because I am a Christian and understand it better than other religions. You would have to use your own imaginations to work in other belief systems.

Personally, being the rare combination of a Christian roleplayer. Working religion into my campaigns is one of the things I wrestle with most. I want my worlds to be as realistic as possible which would include non-Christian or other-Christian religious beliefs, but not wanting to support something I feel to be blasphemy. I also don't want to get to preachy about my religious beliefs when we are not together to discuss religion; so, I usually take my own religious beliefs totally out of the world and call it an alternate fictional with nothing that I would consider real in it.

It may sound weird to take out my own religious beliefs so as not to offend them, but it is a way I can justify a world that might have Zeus or the God as a real power or having the beliefs of a differing denomination being presented as the truth when I feel it is not, and it works for me.

------------------
"The best mind-altering drug is truth."
--Lily Tomlin

**LCM** · 08-10-2001, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by calguard66:
I have to disagree on this point. C.S. Lewis once said that it takes less faith to believe in a Creator than to believe in Evolution.

Lewis' agenda (he was, after all, a Christian apologist) would be enough to call that statement into question. The facts essentially disintegrate it.

To believe in a Creator takes only a single act of faith... to believe in the Creator's existance.

The logical fallacy here is that a single act of faith is inherently less substantive, cumulatively speaking, than are the series of smaller acts of faith required to have belief, say, that the Mets will resurrect their season by winning ten in a row starting tonight.

Talk about needing serious prayer.

To believe in evolution one has to believe that thousands of events transpired in a particular order producing the current result.

But each of those events has a grounding in empiricism, and is thus far more believable than the non-existent evidence(other than hearsay, of course) for the actuality of a Creator.

Any one of those thousands of events going awry would have resulted in something else, or nothing at all.

Resulting in "something else" hardly invalidates the process. If anything, it solidifies the idea that evolution is taking place on a macrocosmic scale.

This assumes, of course, that what we consider humanity and sentience is something special... which I assume as a default, since if we're not then there's no point to anything. It's sort of like Pascal's Wager.

Perhaps humans have to find their own meaning, rather than simply despairing, and/or hoping they've been a priori supplied with one from Without.

Pascal's Wager is one of my pet peeves. It has so many logical holes that you could drive a Sovereign-class starship through it.

The man should have stuck to pure mathematics.

In any case, the evidence for at least limited evolution is irrefutable... however, it also seems clear that evolution doesn't hold the entire answer.

Well, religion's been given thousands of years to provide the entire answer, yet people continue to abandon it as insufficient. Perhaps all tools of understanding are discarded as superior ones appear. Religion seems to be fighting a losing rearguard action against a better-armed opponent--science. Comfortable, remember, is not correct.

Therefore I personally subscribe to Creator-directed evolution. I also believe that no human religion has pinned down the nature of the Creator... and we probably aren't meant to. The universe was created for exploring, and we were created to explore it.

And this answers "Why?" how?

There: A harmonious combination of science and religion... of reason and faith.

Its harmony seems to depend on a little selective reasoning, in my opinion.

People want to make faith "reasonable," and it never will be, ultimately. Either your believe, or you don't. If you can give a "reason" why you believe, then your belief can be taken from you by a refutation of that reason. Thus, the best defense of faith may be, "I believe. I dont know why, and don't feel I have to explain it to you. I only know that I'm right."

Totally irrational... and completely irrefutable. Paradox is, after all, at the very heart of faith... and my words are as much straw, ultimately, as are those of Lewis, Pascal... and calguard 66.

**LCM** · 08-10-2001, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by Jonathan Talbot:
Shows like Seventh Heaven, Touched by an Angel, Father Dowling Mysteries... are all prime examples of shows that have catered to the Catholic faith. WHile other shows like Charmed, Buffy and Angel have suported the Pagan faith.

Please, please, please let's differentiate between Catholic and Protestant Christianity. There are glaring differences. Only the last program mentioned above had any Catholic trappings. The rest are, essentially, non-denominational Protestant recruiting posters... not that there's anything wrong with that.

[This message has been edited by LCM (edited 08-09-2001).]

**LCM** · 08-10-2001, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by Lord Kjeran:

Canon law does allow priest[s] to marry. [T]he current convention of practice does not.

The stricture has greater weight than simply the "current convention of practice" for those who were raised Catholic and took their vows from within the embrace of Holy Mother Church.

"Holy orders are am impediment to marriage, but marriage is not an impediment to holy orders." In other words, if a man is a priest, under canon law he can never marry, but a married man can still become a priest (although there are only eight married priests in the US that I know of and they are all former Episcopal[ians]).

And, as I said above, even this can be set aside by a dispensation.

There are Churches in Communion with the Holy See that allow marriage for priest[s] (following the above guideline)--the Byzantine Catholics, the Rumanian Catholics, the Ukranian Catholics, etc. They are under the umbrella of the Holy See and subservient to the Holy Father. However they follow the Eastern rites (i.e., Orthodox).

As to the Schism of 1056, it occurred because of a difference in belief over the Primacy of the Pope as the greatest of the Patriarchs. No more, no less. As my medieval history prof stated, there were other issues, but they were ancillary.

As a both a Catholic and a Catholic theologian, Lord Kieran, I was aware of all you mentioned above (the Byzantine "reconciliation" occurred in A.D. 1438, if I'm not mistaken). Of course, most Greek Orthodox adherents found the accommodation an abomination: According to some sources, the phrase, "Better the turban than the mitre" (as in, "We'd prefer to live under Ottoman suzerainty rather than kowtowing to a bishop in Rome exceeding his authority") became common in Constantinople during the years before the city's fall in A.D. 1453.

As to the causes of the Schism: There's a difference between something being the only issue--"no more, no less," as you say--and it being the primary issue, which it clearly was. Your medieval history professor's position is one that some historians and theologians might dispute.

While I agree that it was a pissing contest between the Pope and the Patriarch, they were only too happy to add whatever fuel to the fire they could.

And you're right, we are off topic.

[This message has been edited by LCM (edited 08-10-2001).]

**Dan Gurden** · 08-10-2001, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by LCM:
Please, please, please let's differentiate between Catholic and Protestant Christianity. There are glaring differences. Only the last program mentioned above had any Catholic trappings. The rest are, essentially, non-denominational Protestant recruiting posters... not that there's anything wrong with that.

I think I caught about 10 minutes of Touched by an Angel after a hefty night clubbing...

There struck me as being MANY things wrong with it... But I dont think that my opinion of the show as Sentimental Crap holds any weight in a religious debate.

[This message has been edited by LCM (edited 08-09-2001).]

------------------
DanG.

"Hi, I'm Commander Troy McClure, you might remember me from other academy training holo-simulations as, Abandon Ship, the quickest way out, and I sense danger, 101 things you dont need a Betazoid to know..."

http://www.theventure.freeserve.co.uk

**First of Two** · 08-10-2001, 09:57 AM

One of the rules is that we can't prove he exists.

I must have missed that one. Where is it?

Anyways, I've also always thought of Star Trek as areligious, which suited me just fine, as I'm pretty much areligious too.

Then DS9 came, and they did some treatment of it (and I'd hardly call Kai Opaka 'evil,' although it was later revealed she did something we might consider less-than-entirely-ethical), and that was okay too, because it was never preachy about it.

Personally, I think TNG's "Who Watches the Watchers?" said more true things about the nature of religious beliefs than people are willing to readily admit.

Star Trek takes place in a Rational universe, or at least, the Federation has a Rational viewpoint. Things which are unexplained are simply that, and have no real 'supernatural' source. The 'Prophets' are advanced aliens, the 'Greek Gods' and 'Iconians' were alien visitors and conquerors, and B'Elanna and Chakotay's "visions" were all in their minds.

Religion, however, is by its very nature inherently ir-Rational. It's foundation is Faith, a belief in things which are unprovable and unverifiable.

It seems to me that the majority of folks on Trek have accepted the Rational way, and discarded the ideas of the Ir-Rational as, well, kind of silly.

So, the folks in Star Trek treat the religious as they would any other Irrational. They try to humor them, and hope they don't do any more Irrational things, like startiing Crusades or Inquisitions or Witchhunts.

Basically, they treat them the same as we'd treat any other Irrational, such as somebody who believed that Pro Wrestling was real, who couldn't distinguish between soap stars and the characters they played, or who believed that the moon was made of limburger cheese.

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited 08-10-2001).]

**Grumpy** · 08-11-2001, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by spyone:
"Okay. Blanket disagreement.”

You require specificity? Here is specificity.

"And yet, on several occasions, they said very much this kind of thing. Klingons make good fighters, due to the durability of their physical structure. Ferengi make good traders, due to the emphasis on deal-making in their culture. Deltans make good lovers, due to physiological differences and cultural emphasis. Vulcans, and Romulans, are strong. Cardassians can endure heat. Medusans are good at navigating, due to the way their minds work."

No race – not the Klingons, not the Cardassians, not the Romulans, not the Ferangi, not even the Vorta, Jem Hadar or Founders – is inherently evil (The Borg are not a race, they are a conglomeration). In any event, it is inappropriate to condemn or dismiss any character because of their race. For example, Nog and Worf both became upstanding Star Fleet officers. There is nothing inherently wrong or contemptible about any race.

By comparison, any expression of faith, religion or spirituality is automatically and out-of-hand condemned by the programs (with the exception of DS9) and the fandom. Religion, faith and spirituality, through the Star Trek lens, are damned at birth – so to speak.

"Not at all sure about this. I recall them acknowledging on several occasions that the physiological differences between the genders exist, in various species, and that these differences often cause a predisposition toward ability for certain tasks."

No gender or sexual orientation is wrong or condemned. With no major character (aside from the non-canonical ST: TNG Section 31 novel) has been homosexual, all the programs have illustrated a plurality of gender and sexual orientations.

By comparison, any expression of faith, religion or spirituality is automatically and out-of-hand condemned by the programs (with the exception of DS9) and the fandom. Religion, faith and spirituality, through the Star Trek lens, are damned at birth – so to speak.

"Yet is is, again, often mentioned that advanced age limits one's physical abilities, and that the exrtemely aged require assistance for the most basic of tasks. Some people age gracefully, but Admiral Jameson so rejected the infimities of age that he took massive doses of a compound that would make him young again. Ben Tracy was so obsessed with having found a cure for aging that he egregiously violated the Prime Directive."

It is not appropriate to dismiss any character because of age or to automatically assume that something morally, ethically or mentally wrong with them simply because they are aged. With certain characters who were mature did behave in unethical and immoral fashion, these were exceptions and not the rule. More over, the principle characters (Picard, Riker, Sisko, et all) were able to treat other mature characters with respect. They did not allow previous bad experiences with an unethical and immoral mature person to twist their perceptions of other mature people.

By comparison, any expression of faith, religion or spirituality is automatically and out-of-hand condemned by the programs (with the exception of DS9) and the fandom. More over, any instance of a person with faith behaving in an unethical and immoral fashion is used as evidence to illustrate that all individual with faith are at best deeply foolish and dangerously misguided and at worst actively and dangerously criminal. Religion, faith and spirituality, through the Star Trek lens, are damned at birth – so to speak.

“I have never found the fans to be intolerant. In fact, they are by and large far more tolerant than I am.”

Then why has so much time and space been spent on posting extensive messages about why people with faith are inherently wrong? Then why has so much time and space been spent on posting extensive messages intimating that people with faith are inherently foolish to the point of stupidity? Then why has so much time and space been spent on posting extensive messages about why spirituality and faith should not be allowed in other peoples games – games in which the poster will never participate?

The majority of the fans of Star Trek, whatever virtues they may possess, are singularly intolerant when it comes to religion and faith. At the very least the majority of fans who responded to this thread are. There is the inescapable feeling that these erstwhile fans would deny others the ability practice their religion in they could. It is thoroughly clear that they would prevent any expression of faith, religion or spirituality – such as the inclusion of Chaplains - in other people’s games if they had the power to do so. Otherwise there would not be so much second-rate sophistry spent on this tread condemning faith, religion and spirituality.

Denying this is like a paper bell – it rings hollow.

**Cochrane** · 08-11-2001, 12:39 AM

Worf's religion was not condemned on TNG.

Perhaps most people on this board don't like religion, perhaps the most devout trekkies in general don't, but I think there may be plenty of casual fans who are religious. Many people in my family, who are religious, like Trek. Many of my friends at church like Trek, some more than others.

------------------
Games. The Final Product. These are the books of the Star Trek RPG. Their five year license. To explore strange new roles. To breathe new life into get togethers. To boldly play what no fan has played before!

**spyone** · 08-11-2001, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by Grumpy:
“I have never found the fans to be intolerant. In fact, they are by and large far more tolerant than I am.”

Then why has so much time and space been spent on posting extensive messages about why people with faith are inherently wrong? Then why has so much time and space been spent on posting extensive messages intimating that people with faith are inherently foolish to the point of stupidity? Then why has so much time and space been spent on posting extensive messages about why spirituality and faith should not be allowed in other peoples games – games in which the poster will never participate?[/b]

Could I get links to those? I guess I haven't seen them.

As for your comments about this thread, I'm going over them all.
On page one, I'm 11 days down and the only intolerant appearing thing is when Cochrane says he regards the Bajoran faith as the misguided worship of god-like beings.
No one has expressed that others should not have religion in their games, but several people (myself included) gave their own opinions on how worship is handled in the Star Trek setting.
More than a month after the thread started, Traska suggests that humanity is moving away from religion, and that this trend will likely continue into the future. This could be interpreted as a condemnation of religion I suppose, but I certainly didn't take it that way.
The back-and-forth with Traska continued some. Traska kept trying to clarify. Apparently Traska regards faith as a seperate thing from organized religion, feels that mankind is trending away from organized religion, and that this trend is largely due to people looking for their answers in science instead.

On to page 2.
The first post that isn't mechanics-related was from you, Grumpy. You deliberately insulted a whole lot of people. You say that "Yet the majority of Trekers still spit on religion, spirituality, and those who follow either," when the majority of the posters above appear to embrace and/or defend religious beliefs, and several even decided to debate Traska's comments about mankind moving away from religion.
Phantom asked you for evidence.
I disagreed with you, and cited points of disagreement.
I wonder; if I walked into your church during services and declared that you all were a bunch of intolerant jerks, would I recieve as civil a response?

Now, you did cite some examples.

After first season, Chakotay's spirital beleif were never really revisited. Janeway never went on a spiritual journey agian. In th entire run of the show only two episodes dealt with spirituality in an intresting way. The first was where Nelix died and had no afterlife and had a crisis of faith. That was dealt with well with out treating him like an ideot for having the beleifs in the first place. The other was the episode where B'Lanna died and did have an afterlife experience.

First point granted. Chakotay's spirituality was never really revisited, and in the episode where Seven has a holo-Chakotay he even mangles the function of a dreamcatcher, spouting the stuff that comes on the little cards attached to the ones in the stores instead of the true beliefs of their function.
Second point I cannot rebut. I have not seen the episode.
Third point is really a counterpoint, and I credit you for pointing it out.

The fact that the writers did like spirituality and religous was so pronouced it hurt there stories.

This is opinion stated as fact.
J. Michael Strazynsky (creator of Babylon 5) is an athiest. I know because he said so in an interview. How do you know that the writers of these episodes or others "did (not) like spirituality and religous"?

In the two-parter where the Dr. is kidnapped by freedomsighting hologram - it turns out their leader was a religious lunatic. Making the leader of their cause a lunatic undermined the drama of the story and umdermiend the freed-cause of the holograms. But the writers disliked religion so much that they did it anyway.

While I, too, found this story to be awkward and poorly done, I never attributed it to an anti-religion bias. I attributed it to bad writing. And one of the classic delusions of grandeur is messianic or religious delusions. Even delusions of godhood. It seems entirely appropriate for someone suffering from delusions of grandeur to begin thinking he is the spiritual savior of his people.

What I see as a typical post on religion from a Star Trek fan is well exemplified by Rotwang's post on 08/09 (near bottom of Page Two).

I deny that Star Trek consistantly portrays religious people as wrong, bad, or evil. You can say that rings hollow all you want, but given episodes that deal with the spiritual beliefs of the Vulcans, Betazoids, and even Aquiel Unari (in the TNG episode "Aquiel"), we have seen plenty of people with deep spiritual beliefs who were not misguided, not wrong, and not evil.

------------------
You're a Starfleet Officer. "Weird" is part of the job.

**Cochrane** · 08-12-2001, 12:41 AM

The religious hologram was stupid because he's a hologram. The whole Trek version of holograms is stupid. A hologram is an image, nothing more. It has no substance, cannot think, and makes no sound.

------------------
Games. The Final Product. These are the books of the Star Trek RPG. Their five year license. To explore strange new roles. To breathe new life into get togethers. To boldly play what no fan has played before!

**First of Two** · 08-12-2001, 12:53 AM

"Why has so much time and space...?"

Methinks the pot doth call the kettle black? Who here has put the most effort into his posting? YOU, my friend, trying to convince us that your vision of the Star Trek Universe is the correct one.

Indeed, I fail to see any poster on here throughout this thread who has been in any way actively hostile toward religion moreso than myself, (but perhaps you ARE referring to me?) and if I haven't stated it before let me clearly point out that what I have said here is my OPINION, and has no bearing on anything outside my current statements.

While, thanks to past events, I freely admit to harboring a resentment and prejudice (which I try daily to overcome) towards the concept of organized religion, I have no problem with other people practicing their faiths, so long as they leave me alone. I will repay them with the same courtesy, though I will argue, if invited, till the cows come home.

Chaplains in Starfleet? Along with counselors, yes, they should have them, for any folks that need them. As they should have support for servicepeople anywhere.

"Freedom" includes the freedom to disagree, and to say so.

**Dan Gurden** · 08-12-2001, 03:02 AM

Originally posted by Cochrane:
The religious hologram was stupid because he's a hologram. The whole Trek version of holograms is stupid. A hologram is an image, nothing more. It has no substance, cannot think, and makes no sound.

I personally think theat you are corre2ct, the use of the word hologram is incorrect, but let it slide due to our current ability to apply 'brand names' to actual products no matter who makes them...

ie; Hoover for Vacuum Cleaners, and Coke for all brands of Cola...

It has been clearly stated that the Holograms on the screen are a development of 3 dimensional, interactive computer projections... (I can believe that our primitive hologram technology could one day eveolve into that), substance is provided via a complex web of forcefields allowing tactile interface...

So I see no major problems, but we digress...

3 pages of religious discussion, how ironic if this threat were to degrade over a disagreement over the fictional technology...

------------------
DanG.

"Hi, I'm Commander Troy McClure, you might remember me from other academy training holo-simulations as, Abandon Ship, the quickest way out, and I sense danger, 101 things you dont need a Betazoid to know..."

http://www.theventure.freeserve.co.uk

**Grumpy** · 08-12-2001, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by spyone:

This is opinion stated as fact.
J. Michael Strazynsky (creator of Babylon 5) is an athiest. I know because he said so in an interview. How do you know that the writers of these episodes or others "did (not) like spirituality and religous"?

J. Michael Strazynsky is a talented writer. He was able to deal with religion, faith and spirituality in a dignified and respectful manner even though he did not believe in it himself. As such, he accomplished more than most Star Trek writers. More over, one does not get the feeling, in watching his show, that he begrudges any one their faith. This is not the case for Star Trek.

Back to the subject at hand...

If any one had ask about the mechanics of putting women into a Star Trek game, it would not even be an issue. Other members of the lists would in response probably ask why it should be an issue in the first place.

If any one had ask about the mechanics of putting a homosexual into a Star Trek game, no one would have objected. Instead, the person raising the possibility would be encouraged.

If any one had ask about the mechanics of putting a non-typical race into a Star Trek game (Romulan, Cardassian, Klingon, former Borg, Ferangi, etc), it would only be a matter of logistics.

If any one had ask about the mechanics of putting a young person or mature character into a Star Trek game, it would draw curiosity and a discussion of game mechanic nuances in an attempt to accurately represent youth and age.

A plurality of views on politics, sciences, exploration, philosophy, military and like are all tolerated.

Yet, when an individual posted a simple question about the existence of spirituality, religion and faith or role of Chaplains in Star fleet, the majority of list members posted about “Why That Should Not And Would Not Be.”

So they can and tolerate and encourage all manner of sexual orientations, gender, race, age and socio-political views but they do what they to block religion, faith and spirituality from the setting and from the games.

Yes, there is an inconstancy in what is and what is not tolerated by Star Trek fans in general and those who post to these boards specifically.

This discussion has become pointless – no one is going to convince any one else of anything and it is likely the thread will deteriorate into a pedantic flame war.

------------------
"Is the warp core supposed to be that color?"
-The Chaplan, U.S.S. Jolly Roger

**Lord Kjeran** · 08-12-2001, 07:15 PM

Chello!

I for one will not allow this to go off into a flame war, seeing as how I'm the one who started the thread in the first place.

Now let's recap.

First, we have DanG's excellent overlay (Cochrane's is nice, but Dan's just seems ~more~ correct somehow):

Administration (Starship Personnel) 2(3)
Persuasion (Counseling) 2(3) (Oratory) (3)
Social Sciences (Theology) 2(3), (Choose Specialisation) (3)
Medical Sciences (Psychology) 1(2)
or
First Aid (Choose Specialisation) 1(2)

Athletics (Choose Specialisation) 1(2)
Computer (Choose Specialisation) 1(2)
Dodge 2
Energy Weapon (Phaser) 1(2)
History (Federation) 1(2), (Chosen Religion) (2)
Language
Federation Standard 1
Choose Language 1
Law (Starfleet Regulations) 1(2)
Planetside Survival (Choose Specialisation) 1(2)
Vehicle Operation (Shuttlecraft) 1(2)

Pacifist -1

Cochrane has some good Early Life/Advanced Training Packages:

Early Life Packages

Christian Youth Seminary:
Theology (Christian) 1 (2)
History (Christan) 1 (2)
+1 willpower OR +1 empathy edge
Fanatic -2 OR Pacifism -2

Religious Family
Theology (choose) 1 (2)
Culture (choose) 1 (2)
+1 any edge, except psi edges for those who are not psionic
-2 Fanatic, Pacifism, Code of Honor, Intolerant, Obligation OR Weak Will disadvantage

Private Religious Tutelage
Theology (choose) 1 (2)
History (choose) 1 (2)
Patron +2, Arrogant -1, Argumentative -1

Advanced Training

Proffessional Seminary
Administration (religious order/ church) 1 (2)
Persuasion (Counseling) 1 (2)
Theology (choose) 1 (2)

Proffessional Career

Starship Chaplain
Theology (choose specific) 2 (4) (choose another (3)
Promotion +2 OPTIONAL: increase rank/ balance with Dependant -2, Hides Emotions -2, Obligation -2 to -3, and/ or Impulsive -1

Starbase Chaplain
Theology (comparative) 2 (4) (choose specific (3)
Promotion +2, OPTIONAL: increase rank/ balance with chronic pain -2, obsessive tendencies -3, and/ or weakness -2

Comparative Theologian
Theology (comparative) 3 (4) (choose specific) (4) (choose another) (4)
Argumentative -1, Rival -1

I think the general consencus is evenly divided between the following two ideas:

1. That the Chaplain is a Deputy or Assistant to the Ship's Counselor.

2. Chaplains are assigned to ships under the Captain/First Officer in their own Department. In this instance, the religion and/or race of the chaplain would reflect the composition of the majority of the crew. The chaplain would have assistants who would be chaplains of other faiths with a significant minority among the crew.

The third option, I list althought I feel it is slightly askew from the concept of a professsional chaplian:

3. A officer who wears "another hat" as a chaplian, ie, he is an ordained minister but his official position is that of helm Officer for instance.

Which of the two above ideas fits the feel of Trek better: a subdepartment under the Ship's Counselor or Having its own Department (although somewhat limited in scope and outside of the chain-of-command)?

Comments?

------------------
"We are Klingons!"

Cmdr. Kruge, ST III

**Dan Stack** · 08-12-2001, 07:25 PM

Giving it a little thought, I wonder if a "Starfleet" Chaplain would be appropriate. Not that I have problems with the overlays as presented, I'm more wondering if it is appropraite for a Starfleet as opposed to civilian Federation character. Starfleet seems to be much more tolerant of civilians aboard their vessels - for example, look at Keiko O'Brien aboard the Enterprise-D - a civilian botanist.

I would propose that in the 24th century, a chaplain would actually be a religious figure - a Vedek, a Priest, a Minister, or whatever - aboard a Starfleet vessel in much the same way civilians are welcome aboard most Starfleet vessels.

As an example, the bartender aboard U.S.S. Icarus is the Reverend Patrick Finnegan, a Jesuit Priest who is aboard as an expert on the study of theology and is aboard to learn more about the various religions in the galaxy. He is also the grandson of the legendary Finnegan as seen in "Shore Leave" and has inherited his grandfather's sense of humor.

Someday I plan an adventure where Finnegan's beliefs run contrary to the Prime Directive - not in a matter of conversion but rather one of mercy.

Thread: Chaplains in Starfleet?

Thread Tools

Posting Permissions