Well, this will cause a kerfuffle at Comi-Con. Or maybe not. Who the hell knows?
There’s a new Star Trek series in which it is forbidden for actors or writers to reference God (ironic, considering the only explanation for yet another Star Trek spinoff is punishment for man’s innate sinfulness.)
Entertainment Weekly relayed this anecdote from the set of CBS All Access’s Star Trek: Discovery:
The imposing Captain Gabriel Lorca strides across the Starship Discovery bridge, squinting at the raging battle on the viewscreen, rattling off orders to his crew with rapid precision. There’s a Federation ship under attack by Klingons, and the Discovery is rushing to join their fight. “Lock on the Bird of Prey!” Lorca barks. “Basic pattern Beta 9. Hard to port! Fire at something, for God’s sakes!” …
The director halts the action and Lorca, played by British actor Jason Isaacs of Harry Potter fame, steps off the stage. The episode’s writer, Kirsten Beyer, approaches to give a correction on his “for God’s sakes” ad lib.
“Wait, I can’t say ‘God’?” Isaacs asks, amused. “I thought I could say ‘God’ or ‘damn’ but not ‘goddamn.’ ”
Beyer explains that Star Trek is creator Gene Roddenberry’s vision of a science-driven 23rd-century future where religion basically no longer exists.
“How about ‘for f—’s sake’?” he shoots back. “Can I say that?”
“You can say that before you can say ‘God,’ ” she dryly replies.
So yes, apparently Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry was hostile to religion, and in his make-believe universe humans evolved past needing God. But, strangely, Roddenberry didn’t. As this seemingly exhaustive study of the Star Trek oeuvre makes clear, he other writers used religion as a plot device many times, even sometimes treating it with respect.
And, in the words of Comicbook.com, “It is interesting that Star Trek: Discovery is choosing to adhere so strictly to this particular part of Roddenberry’s original Star Trek vision when it has made a point of abandoning another, the rule that there would be no conflict between core cast members.”
So we’re left to conclude that the only sacred part of Rodenberry’s vision is the one that happens to conform to the secular liberal worldview of his latest interpreters.
