Skip to main content
Star Trek: The Next Generation has been everywhere; Sy Fy Channel has been showing it, as has BBC America and WGN America. (And Local 46.) During its 7ish year run from 1987-94, it set the stage for a revival of a franchise, gaining the grudging respect--and then undying loyalty--of the Trek faithful. I am a Trekkie, through and through. I could just be a nerd, but I rather think that a good story (and uniquely a science-fiction story) can help us to see things we didn't understand or can't talk about. I've recently seen a couple of episodes of the show that really got me thinking.

"The Wounded"--A former captain of the USS Rutledge, ("Ben Maxwell", played by Bob Gunton, Jr. of "The Shawshank Redemption" fame) has been forcibly attacking and destroying Cardassian ships, in contravention of the Federation's nearly-minted peace treaty with Cardassia. The USS Enterprise has been sent to stop Maxwell and his new ship, the USS Phoenix, from destroying any more vessels. As it turns out, Lt. Commander Miles O'Brien, the Transporter Chief of the Enterprise, served on the Rutledge under Maxwell as his tactical officer. They fought against the Cardassians in the war, and were present at the colony at Setlik III, where a massacre of civilians took place (which included Maxwell's family) at the hands of the Cardassians. Upon finding Maxwell, Captain Picard hears Maxwell's claim that the Cardassians are re-arming and preparing to attack Federation settlements. Tasked however with stopping Maxwell, Picard rejects Maxwell's plea to consider his evidence, and is nearly forced to fire upon the Phoenix, until O'Brien covertly beams aboard and convinces Maxwell to stand down. Meanwhile, Picard confronts the Cardassians with the evidence that Maxwell had been correct. Picard warns the Cardassian captain that only his belief in peace and his duty prevented him from attacking Cardassian ships as Maxwell had.

"The Pegasus"--The Enterprise is called to a rendevous with the USS Crazy Horse, carrying Admiral Eric Pressman, who had been Executive Officer Will Riker's first commanding officer prior to Riker's time aboard the Enterprise. Pressman informs everyone that the USS Pegasus was not lost, as was believed, but has been found intact. Because Pressman's old ship was a prototype carrying advanced technology not in wide use, the Enterprise is ordered to salvage or destroy the Pegasus to prevent it from falling into Romulan hands. Finding the Pegasus in a system of asteroids, Picard is distressed at the evasiveness of Riker and Pressman as to the nature of the loss of the Pegasus. Before arriving to attempt retrieving the ship, Picard learns of a classified report detailing a mutiny aboard the Pegasus before her loss. Riker declines comment. Riker and Pressman beam over to the Pegasus, where a secret experiment is found intact. We learn that Pressman's desire to continue the experiment led to the mutiny. Riker had supported his captain twelve years prior, but in light of the fact that the experiment was and is illegal, Riker declines to assist in the restarting of that experiment. Meanwhile, the Romulans trap the Enterprise inside the asteroid containing the Pegasus. It oddly appears lodged partly inside the asteroid. With no option of escape otherwise, Riker reveals the nature of what the Pegasus was carrying: a prototype of a Federation cloaking device, which the Federation had promised not to develop in the Treaty of Algeron, signed with the Romulans some 60 years prior. A cloaking device, which would normally make a ship simply invisible to the eye and most sensors, has been improved upon in this case: it allows a ship to pass through matter while also invisible. The crew adapts the cloak to the Enterprise, and they use it to escape the asteroid. Upon their escape, Picard places Pressman under arrest. Riker places himself under arrest for having supported Pressman previously.

What I appreciate most about these episodes and these characters is that it isn't hard to sympathize with either of the men or their positions. The Treaty of Algeron might well have been a mistake, as naturally, the Romulans declined to apply the cloaking prohibition to themselves. The old warrior Maxwell knows not to trust the old enemy, and he was right. Each man got in the obligatory "Bureaucrats don't know what's really going on" line, and the principled "liberals" in each situation must face the real possibility that their good faith may be betrayed. Both Enterprise officers must wrestle with the loyalty they feel toward their wayward captains (though it should be noted, Maxwell is about a million times more likable than Pressman). Before we get too high and mighty about past mistakes real or imagined in American foreign policy, let's remember that while outcomes may be less than desirable, rationales far from beyond question, and morality ambiguous (if not plain wrong) the errors people make in such weighty matters, if not defensible, are understandable. [This is just a CYA operation, because you voted for Bush, and your supposed anti-war president has doubled down in Afghanistan.--ed.] Maybe. But interesting nonetheless.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un