One Government, One Official Language, One Official Religion. Is It Possible?

S

Silverbackman

Prince Of Truth
Messages
267
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
California
One Government

I used to be against the idea, mainly because I didn't think it was possible. But recently I have become a strong supporter of the idea.

We often overlook one world governments as something evil that will destroy diversity but is this really true? Not if it's a global federal republic. With individual states and provinces keeping their own diversity and identity

United States is a perfect example. It was one of the first federations ever tested. Each state within the Union kept a lot of their rights and the central government served primarily to protect safety and the rights of each person.

Now if we extended this to the global level it should work. Many people would argue that the world is just too big. It is diverse in both religion and language. But there is a perfect country that dispels this myth that. The country is India.

15 religions are within India which does not including the sub religions in Hinduism and Islam and Christianity, ect. Those are broad 15 religions.

1752 languages including all dialects.

22000 languages including all subdialects.

4600 ethnic groups in total and many more are to be found.

1000 different type of tribes.

10 broad type of ethnic groups (Caucasoid, mongoloid, indo Aryan, Dravidian, Negroid etc.)

The country may have some internal conflict but at large it is relatively peaceful.

Nationalism in my opinion is not the best way the modern world should operate. We should be looking at things as "my fellow Americans, my fellow Indians, my fellow Chinese, and my fellow Europeans, ect." We should be looking at humanity as a whole. The world in reality is one country, with mankind as its citizens. But remember each state can maintain their language, culture, ect. The central government shouldn't force one culture. Diversity should be celebrated, not a reason for war.



This new world government would be primarily libertarian but with a good amount of government control to protect the people and their rights.



This would also lead to one military used to put down rebellions and insurrections. This is a good thing because each country spends a lot of money on military instead of a good police, fire squad, Medicaid, and public education for children.



I also think once the one world government is installed; human trafficking, drug trafficking, and weapons trafficking will be more rare because the various states will work together to eliminate international illegal activities.



One of the biggest threats to life on Earth is a meteor or comet from space hitting out planet. Global Warming is one issue, but being hit but an object from space can wipe out the world. Yet only the American government has any sort of research being done in order to find asteroids and prevent such a disaster. Shouldn’t it be a global effort?

One Language

This isn't that necessary but I do believe a common language would help the world communicate better. In addition to knowing their native tongue they can learn a sort of "international" language that is created by combining the major world languages today.

One Religion

This maybe the most unnecessary as we can easily have a secular world government. However having an official religion based on science and rational thought, meditation, ect. while having laws of tolerance for other religions would work IMHO.

What do you think?
 
I still have utmost faith in the UN - not as the perfect demonstration of what is possible, but as the best thing we've got going so far! And while many people have become disillusioned, I would suggest that the problem lies with "rogue nations" such as the US, which continually refuses to pay its dues, and subverts the system - either cunningly & slyly, foxlike ... or overtly and stubbornly, oxlike.

Perhaps if we sought to be a bit more dove-like, with the wisdom of the serpent to boot ... maybe just maybe the UN could actually get something done, and live up to the ideals upon which it was created. Sadly, however, there are entire groups of people whose mindset is such that - any political or religious movement towards unification feels threatening. To me, this is evidence not that such people have a good understanding of prophecies, predictions, and ideals for human cooperation ... but rather, that they are still living in the stone age. So long as might makes right in the thinking of otherwise-intelligent individuals ... organizations like the UN will continue to struggle.

I don't mean to scapegoat the USA (my beloved, once-strong homeland) as the only culprit behind the shortcomings of today's UN. We just probably have the most responsibility ... and have failed miserably to meet it. But what disgusts me above all - is when people try to cite supposedly spiritual grounds (religious, what-have-you), for not supporting the UN. That makes just as much sense as the KKK using the cross as a symbol of their holiness and purity. Dear God, deliver us from such madness!!!

Don't mean to rant, but Silverback - your post strikes a very dear chord with me, and this is an issue I believe very strongly in. Indeed, one doesn't need a religious or spiritual ground at all to recognize the importance of a World Government. It just appeals to Human Reason, common sense ideas for practical, everyday living ... and the innate Human Goodness that draws us ALL towards harmony & cooperation. But if a wo/man can't recognize and identify with that, I submit that s/he is amidst the walking dead!

Alas, the leaders of nations - many tyrants, demagogues, drug lords and idiots - are acting like ill-disciplined children. It remains with the populace to lead themselves, and chart their own course, since many governments have failed. And no small wonder that people are confused and know not where to turn, or have grown apathetic and entirely dissatisfied with "the system" (whichever one has take over in their area of the world).

Is it really into this kind of world climate that religious people expect a figure like the Christ to return? Goodness, of all the threads, I know this isn't the best one to bring this up in ... but seriously, how can people really think that way. Here are some lines from a band called The The, in a song written more than 18 years ago called Islam is Rising:
But if you think that Jesus Christ is coming
Honey you've got another thing coming
If he ever finds out who's hi-jacked his name
He'll cut out his heart and turn in his grave
...
If the real Jesus Christ were to stand up today
He'd be gunned down cold by the C.I.A.
Oh, the lights that now burn brightest behind stained glass
Will cast the darkest shadows upon the human heart
But God didn't build himself that throne
God doesn't live in Israel or Rome
God doesn't belong to the yankee dollar
God doesn't plant the bombs for Hezbollah
God doesn't even go to church
And God won't send us down to Allah to burn
No, God will remind us what we already know
That the human race is about to reap what it's sown!
​
I don't mean to be so damn cynical, and I don't believe in a wrathful God. But I believe in karma, and as another band - Deep Purple - echoed in one of their songs, I'm ready to " - wait for the richochet!" I bet some folks know the song.

Nevertheless ....

Let Love, and Life, and Light pour in!

... and May Peace Rule the Day!

andrew
 
The UN is a good start but it really hasn't done much. In any case if we are to transition into a one world government it doesn't make sense why UN did not support the war against the Bath Party (Iraq War). Saddam was a cruel merciless dictator that was a scourge to our planet and it is would be the job of the global military to stop such people.

If Iraq was to be a province in the world in a future world government then the UN would have failed to defend freedom throughout the war without the war. A One World Government is truly the best hope for mankind in the future but it must be strong and defend liberty.

So I don't expect the UN to bring any one world government any time soon. There needs to be a movement taught to various children of developing countries that halt the spread of Islam and spread world government.
 
The question is less, perhaps "Will it happen?" as much as "Is it desirable?"

Humanity is an extraordinary diverse species in terms of our cultures. The concept of "One government, one language, one religion" could be construed as effectively requiring the eradication of all differences.

Sometimes perhaps it is our diversity that is our strength...

Perhaps better to ask for something smaller yet similarly big - "One understanding" - a place where we can all meet as equals, regardless of our differences?

2c.
 
We had that once, didn't we? I think it was called Hitler's Europe.

Sorry, but if the world suddenly forms one government under one religion under one language, I don't want to be here to see it. Diversity of opinion, thought and culture is one of the things that prevents stagnation. A lot of religions criticise heresy, but it's only the existence of heresy that forces critical thought, deep consideration of religious dogma and concepts and creates new avenues for discussion. If everyone believed the same thing, it would be like 1984 or Brave New World or something. Thanks, but no.

Of course, the only people who would want a one-country/one-religion system are people who (somewhat arrogantly, I think) assume that it's their system of government/religion/language that would be chosen. I suspect the reaction would be different if people were told, "Well, you're going to have to start worshipping the Holy Spaghetti Monster, and by the way, you'll need this Berlitz book of Swahili."
 
Faustus said:
We had that once, didn't we? I think it was called Hitler's Europe.

Sorry, but if the world suddenly forms one government under one religion under one language, I don't want to be here to see it. Diversity of opinion, thought and culture is one of the things that prevents stagnation. A lot of religions criticise heresy, but it's only the existence of heresy that forces critical thought, deep consideration of religious dogma and concepts and creates new avenues for discussion. If everyone believed the same thing, it would be like 1984 or Brave New World or something. Thanks, but no.

Of course, the only people who would want a one-country/one-religion system are people who (somewhat arrogantly, I think) assume that it's their system of government/religion/language that would be chosen. I suspect the reaction would be different if people were told, "Well, you're going to have to start worshipping the Holy Spaghetti Monster, and by the way, you'll need this Berlitz book of Swahili."
Click to expand...

Again, have one government, one national language, and one official religion doesn't destroy diversity. If we were to use that same logic for the world why don't we divide the large countries like America, China, Russia, India, ect. into small countries? We all know that the lifestyle of a person on the west coast of one of these countries has a far different culture than the other.

India is a perfect example of why diversity will still exist. It is a country of many languages and religion as well as a wide array of cultural differences.

Having national language won't destroy diversity. All the schools have to do is teach a global language all people can understand IN ADITION to their native tongue. It's that simple. It doesn't destroy other languages.

Finally, this global religion will be an extremely relative religion but fundamentally based on science and rational thought. And as being an official religion we don't have to eliminate tolerance. Anyone can believe whatever they like but the official belief will be something broad. Either that or we can have a secular world federal republic.
 
Thinking in Star Trek terms, which has come up on other threads recently, just consider the approach that the Federation took regarding religion and spirituality. I'm not familiar enough with storylines to quote as Quahom does, but I think it's safe to say that they remained quite open-minded about everything from ultimate answers (or metaphysics), to choice of religious practices (such as Worf's Klingon customs while aboard the Enterprise, in Next Gen).

Certainly, Diversity must be embraced by all cultures, all religions, and all schools of thought ... if we are ever to have a peaceful and sustainable society. And what a beautiful example of how this has worked in India, though British Colonialism was not exactly helpful ... and nowadays there are definite struggles between the Hindus and Muslims. Let us not forget that both of these episodes are quite recent in India's long history!

As for languages ... ummm, anyone remember Esperanto? :p This was a bit before my time, but I really don't think Esperanto will ever make it. Nor likely any similar project, which seeks to focus so artificially on something which nature herself (or rather, as I see it, Spiritual Forces, acting through the natural processes of evolution over decades & centuries) ... manages so well. In other words, the best language may well be one which already exists, or is itself already developing across the world. Certainly there are many millions who do not yet speak English, so one language would probably not be English in its present form, but then again - just consider how dramatically English has changed over 1000 years. Or better yet, just turn on the television, and consider that half of the stuff on there is already unintelligible (yet purports to be "englitsch"). Anyway, in terms of major world governments already existing, and a language already quite popular on pretty much every continent ... I'd have to go with English over any of the world's other primary languages.

Then again, considering that I just take it for granted that we'll all be telepathic in the not-so-distant future (although admittedly one that none of us will live to see) ... this is probably all just a moot point! :p

Government-wise, I subscribe to the idea that perfect political order, in the form of an Inner Spiritual Government, already exists .... just as it has for millions of years. Humanity may finally be capable of understanding this well enough to emulate such an order, but alas - many political leaders would rather fight to the death (literally), or invade other countries, than actually sit down and talk about cooperation. And thus, the people must lead. And what better place than in our schools (as we have already long done) to teach the idea(l)s of world harmony! Let those who stand for separativeness and exclusivity - whether national(ism), religious (fanaticism), or any other backward ideology - be exposed for what they are. And let the Unity in which the rest of the world believes, and works hard for ... come to fruition! For only into such a world, imo, could the next steps for our planet, collectively, become Revealed. And for this, many look Heavenward ...

Peace,

andrew
 
I think some of you have far more faith in the equity of man than I do.

Though I still fail to see why on Earth we would need one world religion. Particularly if we're going with the Star Trek metaphor, the people on the show appear almost entirely secular. The only time I can recall Earth-based religions appearing is the episode of Deep Space 9 in which Sisko hallucinated his father dressed as a priest. Beyond that... nada. The Bajorans have religion, the Vulcans have religion, the Klingons have religion, but the humans, by all appearances, are most definitely areligious.
 
One Government. I think greater cooperation and agreements between nations, increased international justice systems, and some form of world parliment are inevitable. Whether it will be desirable will depend upon the way it happens and the form it takes, and where you stand now economically in comparison. If the one-world government is based upon justice, those of us who happen to live in developed, rich countries stand to give up quite a bit, unless we are content (as we seem to be now) with the shameful gap between the wealthiest and most poor. I think it would be a good thing (to decrease that gap). I am all for the redistribution of wealth to greater extent than occurs now, but without resorting to dehumanizing communism. However, like Faustus, I have my doubts about it working better than things have in the past.

One language. I'd be very surprised if a language other than English rises to the standard of a universal language. I'd vote for Chinese except that there is not even one Chinese language uniform across all of China. In the US I'd vote for Spanish as a contender except that I think, around the world, English is more commonly used in commerce and politics.

One Religion. I'm very much against the idea of a McReligion, especially one "extremely relative religion but fundamentally based on science and rational thought." Sorry silverbackman, but this idea just gives me the willies. First, I believe that religion is divinely revealed, however obliquely. Second, if it is extremely relative it will become a meaningless exercise--not all paths lead to the same place. A path that glorifies the ego is not the same as a path that glorifies God. A path that encourages greed and hatred or tolerates evil is not the same as a path that calls us to love unconditionally. A religion based upon science is not likely to be a religion of mercy or charity.

There can be no such thing as an authentic "official" religion. Religions are subversive--they are meant to upset the status quo, even if it is true that they are often later highjacked to maintain the status quo. You can't dictate a religion to someone. As soon as there is a state-sanctioned religion which everyone must follow it ceases to be a religion and becomes hallow and futile sham. It may keep the masses quiet at times, but it will take a lot of coercion and, if history is any teacher at all, there will always be resistance and thus unrest, if not violence.

An "official religion" is an oxymoron.

Having said that, I think mutual respect between religions is within our grasp. It is my prayer that, as I, Brian says, we strive for understanding and respect, and most importantly peace. It's going to take sacrifice, not necessarily of religious beliefs, but of wealth and power by the 'haves' of today's world.

And, in light of the recent flair-ups over the very disrespectful cartoons, I think that while religion seems to be the cause for division and fighting, the underlying factors have a lot more to do with respecting others as individuals who have economic and political rights. Religious differences can get us heated up enough to resort to violence (sadly sadly), but if there were not other injustices at work I don't think we would see the strong reactions we have.

guess that was almost 3 c,
lunamoth
 
Faustus said:
I think some of you have far more faith in the equity of man than I do.

Though I still fail to see why on Earth we would need one world religion. Particularly if we're going with the Star Trek metaphor, the people on the show appear almost entirely secular. The only time I can recall Earth-based religions appearing is the episode of Deep Space 9 in which Sisko hallucinated his father dressed as a priest. Beyond that... nada. The Bajorans have religion, the Vulcans have religion, the Klingons have religion, but the humans, by all appearances, are most definitely areligious.
Click to expand...

The Human religions in the Star Trek universe are personal. Unlike the Bajorans, Vulcans, Klingons and others, which cater to one or two religious beliefs, Humans have a multitude. Also, because human religions were more or less based on an Earth centered universe, once contact with extraterrestrials occured it was obvious that human religious beliefs had serious errors in their structure.

In short, man had to stop warring over tribal god images, and consider the big picture. By neccessity, the new "religion" of earth became Humanism, with other religions becoming personal. Humanism in its purest form is in fact very healthy. Actually, they (the miriad of religions on earth) finally were being utilized in their proper perspective (as guidance, reflection, and personal betterment).

In the original series, references to God are rather frequent, and in the Next Generation, Picard is often found reading an Old King James Bible, because it brings him comfort. He also uses religion to show Q (the superhuman race), that they are not gods, simply because they are more advanced. Vulcans refer to the "Other", who is the unamed One, who permeates the Universe. Likewise the Klingons (or Klinshai), revere Kalish, and the Black fleet (where every warrior hopes to serve in after death). In the Star Trek Universe, science and religion do not clash, but go hand in hand. The more we discover through science the more wonderous the Universe becomes to us, and the more the shadow of God becomes clearer.

As far as language is concerned there is a World wide language as of right now, that is used for international commerce, communications, navigation, traffic control, emergency response, etc. It is English.

As far as a world government, the Federation of Earth (and the United Federation of Planets), are actually counsils of representives from all parts of earth (and the latter from all parts of the known galaxy, or the Alpha and Beta Quadrants of the Milkyway). A president is elected by the counsil members, who are elected by the respective regions. The form of government is a Federal Republic, based in large part by the Magna Carta, the US Constitution, and something called the Martian charter. The reason being, is that though far from perfect, these are as close to perfect as mortal beings can get, with all our diversity and peculiarities. There are other governments in the Galaxy as well (the First Federation which pre-dates ours by a million years, the Romulan Empire, and the Klingon and Cardassian Empires).

There is no money, but credits are issued into accounts for people's work efforts, and the credits are the same Federation wide. No child is left behind in education. No one is denied medical attention, nor is it delayed because of others having "more importance or stature".

By the way, the missions and structure of Starfleet...was based on what Gene Roddenberry considered the most noble and efficient of the military services. He designed his starfleet after the United States Coast Guard. ;) That is why you find the original series having Naval ranks, Pearl white hulled star ships with thin red and blue stripes running the perimeter of the saucer hulls. USS Enterprise does not stand for United States Ship Enterprise, but rather United Space Ship Enterprise.

Captain Kirk, was from Iowa (born in Peoria, IL), Spock from Vulcanis, Dr. McCoy from Atlanta Georgia, Lt. Niota Uhura from Africa, (she spoke Swahili), Ensign Pavel Checkov from St. Petersburg, Russia, Lt Hikaru Sulu from Japan, LCDR Montgomery Scott from Edinburough, Scotland.

At the time that Star Trek was created, this kind of diverse crew was unheard of in our universe.

Oh, and this brave new world is taken from a "post Apocolyptic era", and earth has enjoyed 350 years of peace within its boundaries.

Humans seem to be the great mediators of the known galaxy, because we can identify with each species in ways other might not be able to.

We are capable of strong logic, yet we understand highly emotional states. We recognise and know how to diffuse arrogance, and can rise to fearlessness that rivals any other race. We hold honor in high esteem, but have compassion for weaker species, and most of all, our insatiable curiosity drives us on, despite what dangers may lie ahead.

If we ever even come close to this way of life...I'm all for it.

my thoughts

v/r

Quahom
 
The union of single countries into a unified state has already been tried and worked with great success.

Most people think of the UK as a single country, but it isn't. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland incorporates the countries of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland and the Proncipality of Wales. These seperate countries with their own national identities have continued to exist under the administration of a single government in London.

We are a single country, I am British and proud of it, but I am also English and proud of it. There are seperate sports leagues and national teams! there are levels of autonomous government for each country with representation in Local government, National Assemblies or Parliaments and in the British parliament. We have our own cultures and histories, we teach relevant history in schools.

If anyone needs evidence of the strong identities of the individual countries, I recommend a trip to an England Vs Scotland football game.

Furthermore, the creation of Great Britain was not a conquest, but an agreement. The Union of the Crowns was signed in 1603 (I think) and joined England And Scotland together forever. (The incorporation of Wales and Ireland may not have been as amicable, I am bit hazy on the details there.) I'm not saying that the history of Britain is without bloodshed of course, but today we exist fairly harmoniously.

I see no reason why this same system cannot work for all the nations of the world. It would have to be a very long, slow process, building gradually on whatever common ground can be found. Maybe an extension of the UN or the formation of a new body, I don't know. Point is, we have proved that it works.

Peace
ATF
 
Thanks for the summary, but just for future reference, when you're talking to someone who's been to various conventions, the Trek Experience in Vegas, and can quote chapter and verse from more episodes than can possibly be healthy, extended explanations of the basics of good old "Wagon Train to the Stars" aren't really necessary. I'm fully aware of the historical background of the Star Trek universe and the ethnic/cultural diversity of the various series' crews. But the fact remains that while Human religion gets the occasional nod on 'Trek, when it's compared to, say, Babylon 5, which had extended discussions of religion, it's clear that Roddenberry and the other writers didn't give it nearly as much time as they could have, perhaps because the interactions of various alien races were generally used as metaphors for 20th century humans and their issues, anyway. I'm not necessarily criticizing this decision, incidentally, only saying that if people are going to use the Star Trek universe as a template for how things should be, not only is arguing that we should have one world religion fallacious (and reminiscent of the antichrist, in some Christian circles), it's ignoring the various issues that do exist in the Star Trek universe. One only has to look at the existence of Section 31, for instance, to see that rosy as the future is in some ways, it comes with its own set of problems.

No child is left behind in education. No one is denied medical attention, nor is it delayed because of others having "more importance or stature".
Click to expand...

This isn't strictly true, either. The very existence of Julian Bashir contradicts the idea that no one is left behind in education. Here was a kid who was severely intellectually disabled (unable to tell the difference between a cat and a dog at the age of eight, going by his descriptions of his childhood in the show), and while he had access to education, he clearly wasn't benefitting from it. When you've got parents (admittedly screwed up ones, particularly in the case of his father) who were watching their child fall increasingly behind his peers, to the point where they see no other options but genetic enhancement of some kind, I'd say that's an indication that while the system in the Trek universe is certainly much improved over what we have now, it's hardly flawless, and people still fall through the cracks (the Maquis are another excellent example of this). There are various episodes dealing with the flaws of the Federation- both the arrogance and complacency that develop after years of being top dog (heck, just look at Admiral Necheyev's character- she's hardly what you'd call an ideal leader. And again, Section 31 presents a host of ethical issues that are quite troubling, IMHO). There's no such thing as a flawless universe or a flawless government, not even the Federation. And given that we'd be looking at the Eugenics Wars and a rather unpleasant apocalypse before we can get to even the basics of the Federation, I'm willing to admit that, perhaps selfishly, I don't mind putting it all off for a bit.

And of course, if the Trek universe really were perfect, it would be an extremely boring show to watch.
 
Faustus said:
Thanks for the summary, but just for future reference, when you're talking to someone who's been to various conventions, the Trek Experience in Vegas, and can quote chapter and verse from more episodes than can possibly be healthy, extended explanations of the basics of good old "Wagon Train to the Stars" aren't really necessary. I'm fully aware of the historical background of the Star Trek universe and the ethnic/cultural diversity of the various series' crews. But the fact remains that while Human religion gets the occasional nod on 'Trek, when it's compared to, say, Babylon 5, which had extended discussions of religion, it's clear that Roddenberry and the other writers didn't give it nearly as much time as they could have, perhaps because the interactions of various alien races were generally used as metaphors for 20th century humans and their issues, anyway. I'm not necessarily criticizing this decision, incidentally, only saying that if people are going to use the Star Trek universe as a template for how things should be, not only is arguing that we should have one world religion fallacious (and reminiscent of the antichrist, in some Christian circles), it's ignoring the various issues that do exist in the Star Trek universe. One only has to look at the existence of Section 31, for instance, to see that rosy as the future is in some ways, it comes with its own set of problems.



This isn't strictly true, either. The very existence of Julian Bashir contradicts the idea that no one is left behind in education. Here was a kid who was severely intellectually disabled (unable to tell the difference between a cat and a dog at the age of eight, going by his descriptions of his childhood in the show), and while he had access to education, he clearly wasn't benefitting from it. When you've got parents (admittedly screwed up ones, particularly in the case of his father) who were watching their child fall increasingly behind his peers, to the point where they see no other options but genetic enhancement of some kind, I'd say that's an indication that while the system in the Trek universe is certainly much improved over what we have now, it's hardly flawless, and people still fall through the cracks (the Maquis are another excellent example of this). There are various episodes dealing with the flaws of the Federation- both the arrogance and complacency that develop after years of being top dog (heck, just look at Admiral Necheyev's character- she's hardly what you'd call an ideal leader. And again, Section 31 presents a host of ethical issues that are quite troubling, IMHO). There's no such thing as a flawless universe or a flawless government, not even the Federation. And given that we'd be looking at the Eugenics Wars and a rather unpleasant apocalypse before we can get to even the basics of the Federation, I'm willing to admit that, perhaps selfishly, I don't mind putting it all off for a bit.

And of course, if the Trek universe really were perfect, it would be an extremely boring show to watch.
Click to expand...

I wasn't directing my post toward you in particular Faustus. I just put it out there. When I met Mr. Roddenberry in 1985, we had a pretty serious conversation about why and where he wanted to go with his Eutopian Universe. He too believed that the Earth could develop a on world government, in a peaceful and beneficial way.

As far as Deep Space Nine goes, well Mr. Roddenberry didn't have a whole lot to do with the nuts and bolts of that part of the series. But if you look at it, the system worked, since the boy became a man and a doctor none the less. And, he contributed significantly. :D

I did not state that the galaxy was flawless, only that Earth had come to terms more or less with itself. We still had the hundred years war with the Klingons, the Vulcans and Andorians early one were at eachothers' throats, everyone hated the Tellarites, and the Rhihan were as mysterious as they were dangerous. But at home, we recognised oursleves for who we really are. One race, one world, united.

That's all I was trying to say.

v/r

Q
 
As far as Deep Space Nine goes, well Mr. Roddenberry didn't have a whole lot to do with the nuts and bolts of that part of the series. But if you look at it, the system worked, since the boy became a man and a doctor none the less.
Click to expand...

And spent some twenty years having to deliberately sabotage himself and hide his genetic status from people in order to avoid having his license and commission pulled and getting tossed into prison. Granted, in the end, his father wound up taking the hit for him, but still, his wasn't exactly a case of the system working perfectly for everyone. And looking at episodes like "Statistical Probabilities," where other genetically-enhanced (all less-successfully so) people turn up, it's clear that Bashir wasn't alone in those problems, either.

As I said before, I have very little faith in the equity of human beings- too little to think that one world religion, in particular, would ever be a good idea.
 
Quahom and Faustus, thanks for the ongoing Star Trek discussion. It's intriguing to me, and I didn't know all that history that's been provided. But the analysis that what we saw was pretty much a positive, healthy Humanism seems right-on. And I have to agree with you, Faustus, and with others, that One World Religion isn't an idea that's likely to work under present circumstances.

The reason I think it will work one day, and is in fact our destiny, is because it is simply a natural progression, and eventually will be necessary if we are to continue to develop spiritually. Individual religions still serve a useful purpose (and provide legitimate means of approach to Deity) at present, but at some point we will be able to unite in both our approach and in our belief. There may remain a few flat-earthers at that point, and such folks will be allowed to maintain their own belief & practice. But there will be no desire anymore to force one's own way of life upon others - and thus, the enforced state religion ... is not the kind of thing I believe in. Something sanctioned (made holy) by our World Government, could not, in the truest sense, be something forced ... just as One World Government must be globally & universally embraced (democratically), not imposed (totalitarian-style).

The reason a Global Religion is both possible and necessary ... is that as yet, the tribal god which Quahom referred to, imho, still rules. Even where two or three religions may agree on some basics, there yet remain differences significant enough to divide - where there should be unity. The Danish newspaper episode, and the entire chapter in recent years of the saga between Christianity & Islam (hearkening back to the Crusades) .... is ample illustration of this. And this is between two religions "of the Book"!!! I think there is better harmony, and peaceful exhange of ideas, even a unifying of practices & practitioners ... between Christianity & Buddhism!

My prediction is that increasingly-revolutionary ideas (various aspects of the New Paradigm, or `Paradigm Shift') in the New Physics (quantum field theory, parallel universes, dark matter, etc.) ... and significant advances in computer & artificially intelligent technologies ... plus the continued establishment of a global economy, and an emphasis on the obvious changes that must take place if we are to survive the present energy crisis (including the preservation of the Earth's ecosystem, rather than its continued wholesale destruction and exploitation) ... will all naturally lead to the worldwide acceptance and embracing of One Governing Body (almost certainly with a Council of Leaders, rather than a tyrant king - whether this be called President, Lord Chancellor, or otherwise), and the unification of all major World Religions into a reasonable, sensible, and equitable whole.

The latter, having transcended the need for falling back on differing conceptions of the tribal deity, will acknowledge that One Supreme Deity stands significantly removed from all such human conceptions - both of differing individual racial or tribal gods, but also of ANY human attempt at understanding to date. In short, it will take human intelligence, funtioning alongside a reasonable faith ... something as yet so strangely elusive amongst the major religions ... to agree and formally establish that at one and the same time - all religions are essentially right (accurate, correct), while none has been perfect and complete. And the result is that a natural synthesis of what is the best within each of them will come about ... preserving the Good which has always been present, yet which has yet (or only with their Synthesis) to come into Perfection.

Now I think that some already see things this way, but for those religions (no matter what the believers may profess) which still cling to the old ways of separativeness, exclusivity, and fear as a controlling and organizing force ... there may be a period of struggle ahead. For man must learn to see beyond the outer differences, and recognize the inherent, inner unity/union which already exists. This is NOT something which man needs to establish, or which requires that we all grit our teeth, make accession, and begrudgingly adopt as a necessary evil. For that kind of "unity" is false, and too delicate to last long. The inherent unity between all persons, and in fact between every particle of energy-substance (or "atom") ... is something that science will help us (or already has, just needs to continue to awaken us) to understand. This is not an ideal - some spiritual objective that we must sit around and wait to be accomplished, or kick back and expect the new messiah to bring to us. This is fact. And the only way I can dispute it, is to deny something which is increasingly as obvious to most thinking people ... as the fact that our world is a sphere (more or less) - rather than flat. The question is - how long will I (you, they, etc.) hold out?

Apologies for how clumsy all this sounds, but such secular discussions are difficult for me, when what we are really speaking of is a Unity ... which admittedly many have only known through some particular religious teaching or tradition. But science knows it too, even if this arena is troubled by disputes, divisive thinking, a pervasive superiority complex, and clear cases of sabotage .... just like religion! The challenge is one of focusing on the positive, and emphasizing commonalities, or how various ideas, theories, beliefs and practices - fit together, rather than clash. And while we must not deny the differences, or ignore them, it is a basic law of esoteric science that "where attention goes, energy flows."

Ultimately, it is not simply an impractical idealism which I think will lead to our world government and world religion. Because so long as we sit around saying, "oh yes, people can do this, and it would be wonderful," or, "oh no, we are too divisive and individualistic, it will never happen" ... then certainly, our energy is sapped - and no, it cannot happen!!! What will bring together all peoples, all nations, all governments and all religions ... is the embracing of such Unity as desirable, and the working towards it by a signficant enough number of people. I estimate that at best, 10% of the world is at present actively working toward such Unity, in some form or another ... although some may give it their true ALL, while others - may give at best, .001%.

But it does not take a numerical majority. And it isn't something that happens overnight, nor in 2012 at the flick of a switch, nor in a few short years once a World Savior is globally observed to walk again among us. None of these events will transform our world instantaneously into Heaven on Earth, Thomas More's Utopia, or even the sustainable society, which practially speaking - is already a considerable enough challenge! It will take hard work, and be a gradual transformation - not accomplished through fits and starts, but by putting one's nose to the proverbial grindstone. And those who continue to doubt, and resist, might be surprised to learn just how far we've already come, no matter which slice of time you look at.

It's extremely easy to write about, whether you believe or doubt ... but if you happen to believe - then you're probably faced with the same challenge as I am: Put your money where your mouth is. ;) Imo, it's the only reason I'm (you're) here. [And so, I guess this is, in a nutshell, my philosophy of Existentialism! :p]

Love & Light,

andrew
 
If you're interested in more Trek history, aside from the various series, I suggest checking out the Star Trek Timeline and the Star Trek Encyclopedia. Loaded with information, those.

Jeez. I'm such a dork.
 
taijasi said:
But it does not take a numerical majority. And it isn't something that happens overnight, nor in 2012 at the flick of a switch, nor in a few short years once a World Savior is globally observed to walk again among us. None of these events will transform our world instantaneously into Heaven on Earth, Thomas More's Utopia, or even the sustainable society, which practially speaking - is already a considerable enough challenge! It will take hard work, and be a gradual transformation - not accomplished through fits and starts, but by putting one's nose to the proverbial grindstone. And those who continue to doubt, and resist, might be surprised to learn just how far we've already come, no matter which slice of time you look at.
[/color]
Click to expand...

Hi Andrew, Your post makes me wonder what you think about the Baha'i model, which is exactly what silverbackman propsed in the OP (1 government, 1 language, 1 religion) and much as you have described in your psots. Baha'is believe exactly as you describe above. Christ has returned (160 some years ago) and the gradual change you allude to has begun. The model and nucleus of this world transformation is seated in the Baha'i 9-man Universal House of Justice, which is elected by a secret ballot every (five?) years. Is this something you've investigated?

I actually agree that the world government will come about and I pray that it will be one based upon peace and justice.

I, too, am a Star Trek fan, but not nearly as knowledgable in the lore as Q and Faustus. (It has been an interesting read.) I'm captivated by the society of peace and scientific exploration it depicts. It would be my utopia. :)

lunamoth

peace,
lunamoth
 
Sorry, but speaking as someone who doesn't recognize Jesus as the Messiah, you (collective "you") would have a snowball's chance in hell of convincing me that any "official worldwide religion" espousing him as such would be a good idea. I certainly wouldn't be about to let anyone, government or otherwise, compel me into recognizing it as my de facto religion. Nothing against Ba'hai or anything, but... yeah. I think it's a bit arrogant to say, essentially, "Oh, well, you'll all come around eventually." Makes a bit light of the religious beliefs of a heck of a lot of people, IMHO (though I'm sure that wasn't the intent, just saying how it strikes me).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top