Isn't it a bit ethnocentric to impose human rules and regulations on the time-hounoured ritual of Klingon ritual suicide?

It may well be ethnocentric to impose human rules regarding Klingon ritual suicide if the ritual occurs on the Klingon homeworld. However, in this case, Worf was attempting to perform the ritual on a Bajoran space station, administered by Starfleet, where Klingon laws and customs do not apply.

So? isn't that like prohibiting them to practice their Religion?

Following the Federation-run Bajoran station line, that would mean the Ferengi can't use their laws and customs there, which quite obviously they can, given Brunt's actions in the past.

But who decided that they couldn't practice their rituals there?Who decided that these culture's honoured traditions "do not apply"?I just think it's being really ethnocentric.

Cableface--yes it is ethnocentric. I think that was part of the point. It's like a similar situation in the 20th century. Some religious groups have gotten in trouble with local authorities because they still practice animal sacrifice (chickens and such). It seems barbaric to us, but it's part of their heritage.

wait, but there is a diffrence. If we say that we are set to protect others, then it's ok to, say, prevent a cult from abusing children. But Korn is obviously a sane adult ( well, sane for a Klingon, anyway). If youprevent him from his custums, that's against the freedom to practice one's religion.

I'd say, when in Rome...

For instance, certain religious rituals involve marijuana, and some people have defended smuggling marijuana around on those grounds. But it remains a crime, no matter what the reason. This is something that could be used as a defense in the court system, but isn't going to stop anyone from being arrested.

I had a curious thought the other day:
what if this episode had been about Quark having to kill Rom?

"THE SONS OF MO(O)GHIE!"

As Rodek, Kurn is told he was injured in a shuttle accident. Do Klingons have shuttlecraft? (Shuttle accidents seem to be a considerable problem, just ask Torias Dax.)

Doesn't Alexander ever ask what happened to his uncle Kurn? How did Worf explain this to him? Now that Worf and Alexander are in the house of Martok, it makes one wonder if Worf ever thinks about Kurn still thinking he is Rodek.

Maybe Worf told Alexander that Kurn died in a glorious battle for the Klingon empire?

Exercise of civil rights is never unlimited, Omer. As the classic First Amendment case says, you have the right to free speech, but that doesn't entitle you to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

During Worf and Jadzia's battle, her bat'leth looked almost too big for the tunnel they were in. I wonder how many times Terry Ferrel jammed the point of that thing into the ceiling?

When Kurn comes on the station, I believe, he tells Worf that he wants him to perform the Mauk-To'Vor, and he says it in front of Odo. Odo has dealt with Klingons before, he understands some Klingon insults, and he has some friends in Klingon Intelligence. If Odo didn't know what the Mauk-To'Vor was, why didn't he look it up?

Worf's actions have brought dishonor to the House of Mogh and Kurn cannot live with the dishonor and wants Worf to kill him. What about Kurn's family? Will they continue to live under the dishonor or has Kurn already performed the Mauk-To'Vor ritual on them?

Did Worf really think he could perform this ritual on a Federation station and get away with it, or was he hoping he would be stopped?

Kurn complains about the softness of Worf's furnishings and the comfort of the room. I believe that this is the first time in the DS9 series that anyone has complained that the rooms were too comfortable. Usually everyone is complaining about the hard beds, awful mattresses, and grotesque decorations.

Dialogue indicates that O'Brien and Kira are coming back from the Bajoran colonies, then O'Brien requests permission to reenter Bajoran space. Excuse me, but why wouldn't Bajoran space extend from Bajor to the Bajoran colonies?

The Boslics must be buying their ships from the Talarians. At least, it looked like a Talarian ship that was docked at the station before the camera cut to the Boslics unloading cargo. (Of course, nothing actually states that the ship pictured is the ship being unloaded...)

So why didn't the Klingons detect Worf and Kurn's transporter signal? Supposedly the disrupter blast was detected.

Worf says that Kurn could sense that the Klingon was going to kill Worf even though Kurn was "3 meters away." I'm no judge of distance, but Kurn looked closer than 9 feet, 9 inches away. (Maybe it's the Klingon Metric system?)

Kurn considers suicide, but says that it is considered dishonorable. Excuse me, but what about that Hegh'bat ritual that Worf wanted performed in Ethics? Wouldn't that be considered suicide? Frankly, that whole Mauk-To'Vor ritual sounds like assisted suicide to me.

"Dialogue indicates that O'Brien and Kira are coming back from the Bajoran colonies, then O'Brien requests permission to reenter Bajoran space. Excuse me, but why wouldn't Bajoran space extend from Bajor to the Bajoran colonies? "

By your logic, until the episode "Jem'Hadar", Bajoran space extented to over 80 thousands lightyears (from Bajor to New Bajor in the Gamma Quadrant)

"Kurn considers suicide, but says that it is considered dishonorable. Excuse me, but what about that Hegh'bat ritual that Worf wanted performed in Ethics? Wouldn't that be considered suicide? Frankly, that whole Mauk-To'Vor ritual sounds like assisted suicide to me."

I think Kurn talks about taking his own life by his own hands as being dishonorable. (But of course, if this is true, how are Klingons supposed to kill themselves when they are captured).

If Worf had been able to carry out the ritual, what would he have done with Kurn's body? Vaporize it?

According to "Heart of Glory" (I think. Thats early TNG episode where several Klingons board the Enterprise, right?) Klingons don't really care much about the body after the spirit has left it.

Yeah but still, he has to do something with it. I don't think he would just leave it there to rot!

Also, after Kurn allows himself to get shot, he tells Worf his life is in Worf's hands. Well, if that's true why didn't he respect Worf's request that he become a security officer and NOT get shot?

Josh, there is no "The" in the episode’s title. Phil made this same mistake in the DS9 Nitpicker’s Guide.

And so went Charles Bronson’s brief tenure as a Trek writer
I find it extremely odd that this episode, featuring a guest character with a death wish, as Odo puts it after Kurn is shot, aired the same week as the second season Voyager episode Death Wish, in which a guest character, Quinn, shows up on the ship wanting the exact same thing.
Or maybe turn it into a shrine to John Belushi and call it Animal House?
A Klingon’s house is named after the male head of the house. Duras’ father was named Ja’rod, as established in Sins of the Father(TNG), and since Ja’rod was deceased, that house was called the House of Duras. It continued to be called this, even after Duras’ death in the episode Reunion(TNG). Lursa and B’Etor even continued to be referred to as the "Duras sisters" thereafter until their deaths. But in this episode, Kurn tells Worf that it was said that if Gowron died, leadership of the Klingon High Council may have fallen to someone from the House of Mogh. Shouldn’t it be called the House of Worf? Or at least the House of Kurn?
There’s only enough brains to go around for the regulars
When Quark tells Dax that Worf wanted adanji incense, and that Worf’s brother is on the station, the brilliant Trill puts two and two together, figures out what they’re doing, and she and Odo stop the two Klingons from successfully performing the ceremony. Pardon me, but didn’t Kurn blurt out to Worf at the airlock that there would soon be only one son of Mogh, and that he wanted Worf to kill him all in front of Odo and his deputies?
Worf should go to one of those auctions they have at Star Trek conventions. You can find all sorts of worthless stuff there.
Also, Quark says that Worf almost threw him across the room when Quark tried to given him replicated adanji. Why would a bartender be selling authentic incense? And even if he did, does Worf really expect him to carry every obscure piece of ceremonial equipment from every culture in the Alpha Quadrant tucked away in his store room?
That’s because the viewers were too busy staring at Troi and trying to cover up bulges of their own
This episode establishes that Klingons have a ridge-like membrane on their chests, yet during the first two seasons of NextGen, during which the crew had tighter-fitting costumes, we never saw any such bulge on Worf’s chest.
Must be that "Beige Wall of Silence"
Odo’s behavior toward Worf when he and Dax find Worf performing the Mauk-to’Vor bears some scrutiny. When Odo and Dax burst into Worf’s quarters, and Dax beams out with Kurn, Odo barely holds Worf back, and Worf barely struggles. Then, Worf angrily asserts that it is none of their business, and Odo replies that Sisko probably won’t agree, and that if Kurn dies, Worf will be charged with murder. What does Odo do then? He walks out. That’s right. He walks out of the room, and leaves Worf there! If Odo believes that what occurred is not a custom protected by station regulations, but rather attempted murder, then shouldn’t he have arrested Worf, thrown him into a cell, or at least brought him before Sisko? True, Worf is before Sisko after the commercial break, but it obviously isn’t right after the scene preceding the commercial. He apparently had time to change into his Starfleet uniform. Why is he so lenient with Worf? Would he be this way if it were any other Klingon, or any other station inhabitant, period?
What gay production designer came up with the blood in that movie in the first place?
Here we go again: After Kurn’s "rescue" the show cuts to a commercial. The first image following it when the show resumes is of the dagger on Sisko’s desk. The blood is red, instead of pink, as established in ST VI.
Well, there’s nothing wrong with the cushion, but the chocolate gagh on the pillow is a bit much
In the episode Genesis(TNG), I noted how the proud and traditional Worf slept on a cushioned mattress, even though Unification part I(TNG) established that Klingons sleep on flat, hard, uncushioned surfaces. Either Worf needed to sleep on a cushion for a time as part of his recuperation from the injuries that he suffered in Ethics(TNG), or the creators simply forgot about this by Genesis. By this episode, they get it right, having Kurn complain that Worf put him on a cushioned bed. So why did Worf put him on a cushioned bed?
The ideal vacation for a Klingon
Once Sisko puts his foot down, Worf feels he cannot perform the Mauk-to’Vor ceremony. Why doesn’t he simply request a brief vacation or leave of absence, go to some neutral moon or other territory, and kill his brother there?
Or is the Hegh’bat only valid for invalids?
Why does Kurn need Worf to kill him? Don’t the Klingons already have an established ritual for suicide, when a Klingon is dishonored, or otherwise unable to go on living, as depicted in Ethics(TNG) and Night Terrors(TNG)? (Of course, this would prevent this episode from occurring, since Kurn could simply commit suicide on his own.)
They show them tapes of MTV’s Jackass
The stereotyping of Trek races, seen in The Drumhead, Suspicions(TNG), and other episodes, continues in this one. When Kurn attempts to become a member of the Bajoran Militia, Odo asks Worf if Kurn knows how to use a stun setting, and Worf replies that non-lethal skills are not valued in the Klingon Empire. Are Klingons nothing more than blood-crazed, vengeance-seeking, adrenaline-drunk murdering psychopaths? So what if someone needs to capture a suspect alive for questioning? How do Klingons parents teach their children to fight without non-lethal simulated combat?
Please tell me it’s the latter
The last shot of Kurn before the memory-deleting operation at the end of the episode shows him on the operating table, and a nurse is taking tricorder readings from him. Are they going to remove his clothing? Or is the surgery so quick and easy that there’s no need to?
Gowron: "Hey, I know you!"
Rodek: "Er, uh, no you don’t!"
Gowron: "Yes! I do know you! Did you really think you could hide from me just with those ridges? DID YOU??"
Rodek: "Well, I, uh…."
Gowron: "You’re the Candyman! Run for your lives! Ahhhhhhh!!!!"
In addition to altering Kurn’s memories, Bashir apparently changed his cranial ridges as well, but will this fool a suspicious fellow Klingon who might recognize him? What if Kurn, now called Rodek, encounters Gowron? Won’t Gowron recognize him? Since Kurn only appears in the rest of the episode for another minute or so, why not have another actor portray him, to indicate that Bashir altered his facial features as well?
Must be the Klingon equivalent of an SUV
Right before we see the elder Klingon who tells Kurn that he’s his father, we see a shot of the station, with what looks like a Klingon vessel docked at one of the upper pylons. But the old Klingon tells Kurn/Rodek that their shuttle was damaged. Shuttle? The ship docked there looks roughly comparable in size to the Nebula-class starship docked there in the show’s opening title sequence! Does it really qualify as a "shuttle"?

Cableface: Isn't it a bit ethnocentric to impose human rules and regulations on the time-hounoured ritual of Klingon ritual suicide?
Luigi Novi: No, it’s Starfleet/the Bajorans enforcing their own rules of conduct. Why should the rituals and customs of guests be respected no matter what, but the laws of the hosts {not}? Why should tolerance only go in one direction? Cultural tolerance by the one must be balanced with respect for the laws of the other. Tolerance doesn’t mean the hosts should allow guests to do whatever they want, no matter what. If the guests don’t like the prohibitive aspects of the guests’ laws, they don’t have to visit there.

Challenging someone to a fight and killing them is part of Klingon culture. Should the station allow that too? Obviously, other races are not as blasé about the taking of lives as Klingons, and the authorities can’t simply find Kurn’s body and accept the word from Worf or some other Klingon that well, he wanted to die and asked me to do it, so I did so.

Omer: If you prevent him from his custums, that's against the freedom to practice one's religion.
Luigi Novi: Hardly. In the first place, it has never been established that every Klingon custom is a religious one. Second, why should religious customs be so protected, but non-religious ones not? What’s so special about religion? A cultural practice is a cultural practice.

Lastly, the idea that Worf and Kurn’s ability to practice their customs simply because they can’t do so on the station, is a fallacy. Worf can request a brief leave of absence, travel with Kurn to a neutral part of space, and perform the ritual there.

Merat: According to "Heart of Glory" (I think. Thats early TNG episode where several Klingons board the Enterprise, right?) Klingons don't really care much about the body after the spirit has left it.
Luigi Novi: Both Heart of Glory(TNG) and Emanations(VOY) did establish that Klingons dispose of their corpses as efficiently as possible (although at one time in their history they--or some of them--used mummification, according to ST IV).

Mike Ram: Also, after Kurn allows himself to get shot, he tells Worf his life is in Worf's hands. Well, if that's true why didn't he respect Worf's request that he become a security officer and NOT get shot?
Luigi Novi: He found himself unable to commit to that original resolution.

Josh, there is no "The" in the episode’s title. Phil made this same mistake in the DS9 Nitpicker’s Guide.

Fixed.

Luigi : "Here we go again: After Kurn’s "rescue" the show cuts to a commercial. The first image following it when the show resumes is of the dagger on Sisko’s desk. The blood is red, instead of pink, as established in ST VI."

Would people stop mentioning Trek VI? Next Generation season 4 established Klingon blood as read BEFORE Trek VI. And every other instance of Klingon blood we have seen shows it to be red. The nit is with TREK VI, not with the tv shows.

I don't think they had to worry about Kurn running into Gowron...in "Apocalypse Rising," Bashir changed Worf's ridges slightly and no one recognized him.

By that account, multiple actors would also be noticed (like Zephram Cochran's actor in TNG's "The Hunted").

Which episode in season 4 showed Klingon blood? Was it Redemption partI? I seem to recall Worf yanking on a knife in that episode and showing his blood.

Yep, that's when Worf gets his honour back from Gowron. Now, Redemption, Part One aired in the spring of 1991, several months before Star Trek VI was released, and certainly before post-production (i.e., effects) on the movie had finished.

So, it is fair to say that the initial "changed premise" was in Star Trek VI.

Actually, if memory serves, we saw Worf's blood as early as the second season (The Emissary), though that may have been K'Ehleyr's blood (who is part human) and I'm misremembering.

Funny thought: Maybe Klingon Blood only becomes and stays pink in zero gravity? No, that's not possible or Worf would have looked quite colorful during the hull-walk in ST8. J

Worf didn't bleed during that scene.

Yes, but when your blood turns from red to pink your face color should change too slightly. J

On Babylon 5 guests of the station where permitted to perform their own cultural activities without interferences from the station security or earth force. As a matter of fact according to some sources EA forces are prohibited from interferring (The episode with the aliens with the sick kid who prohibited opening the body cavity) So why is the culturally tolerant, all so mighty federation stopping Worf from performing an action that is accepted by his culture? The only restrictions on B5 was that the guest's actions could not involve someone outside their culture without their permission (as when the drazi decided to change their government)

There's a fine line between tolerance and relativism. The station is under joint Bajoran/Federation jurisdiction and neither tolerates individuals killing one another. It's the law, and the people there must abide by it. Or they can leave.

True it may be the law, however what happened to the peaceful interaction and non-interference. If a species is warp capable does that mean that the federation has the right to impose its views upon another culture if they do not like it? On Babylon 5 each culture was able to continue their own belief system as long as they did not interfere or force non-believer's to participate in their cultural activities against their will. By stopping the Klingon Suicide ritual/murder ritual that shows that both the federation and bajoran peoples do not place as high a value upon another culture's beliefs. How would they feel if another more powerful culture came in and forced/prohibited them from worshiping the prophets and not withdraw as the cardassians did? What would the federation do if they were conquered by another culture and forced to radically change their society, or denied something that appears fundamental. I do not see a fine line between tolerance and relativism. What a consenting adult does to another from the same culture that is volunatarily done to each other is none of Sisko, Kira, the federation, or bajoran's business. I will now voluntarily get off my soapbox and return this discussion to more on topic matters.

By stopping the Klingon Suicide ritual/murder ritual that shows that both the federation and bajoran peoples do not place as high a value upon another culture's beliefs.

That's true - they disapprove of individuals killing one another for any reason. The station is in Bajoran sovereign territory, and people there are subject to their laws. Kurn and Worf could have gone elsewhere to perform the ritual, somewhere outside Federation/Bajoran jurisdiction. But murder is still murder - I'm not sure, however, that Worf's ultimate decision was much better.

I agree, in the ST universe, it appears that if you are in the space of (insert species here) then you must abide by their laws and are under their jurisidction. So if you do something that is not a crime by your standards in the space (and by in the space I mean on a planet/space station etc within the boundries of their territory) of a particular species that is a crime by their laws then you can be charged with the crime in their courts.

It's sort of a 'you want to live in our space? You have to live under our rules' kind of thing.

This is why in TwOtW, the Defiant had every right to prevent the Klingon ship was searching Kassidies ship, because under Bajoran and Federation law, what they were doing was illegal. Since they were in Bajoran space, they were under the laws of Bajor. Once they moved to unclaimed space however, there was nothing the Federation or Bajorans could do about it.

The B5 argument doesn't work because it is a different situation than DS9.

DS9 was a Bajoran-owned station that they had the Federation run. Even after the discovery of the wormhole and DS9 becoming a way station for different species seeking a claim in the Gamma Quadrant it was still a Bajoran station in Bajoran space.

Babylon 5 on the other hand was created specifically for the varied species to come together & mingle, hence the respect cultural differences rules rather than imposing one specie's rules on all.
Also B5 had ambassadors on board &, no doubt, the ambassadors' quarters may have been considered to be the property of their respective governments, rather like embassies are today.

Lolar Windrunner: On Babylon 5 guests of the station where permitted to perform their own cultural activities without interferences from the station security or earth force. As a matter of fact according to some sources EA forces are prohibited from interferring (The episode with the aliens with the sick kid who prohibited opening the body cavity)
Luigi Novi: As was with the subplot in Peter David’s DS9 novel, The Siege. As was with an episode of Law & Order featuring a Christian Scientist couple who allowed their daughter to die from a childhood illness for which treatment would have been easy because they didn’t believe in modern medicine.

The problem with this argument is that prohibition against certain medical procedures is not analogous with killing someone, Lolar.

Lolar Windrunner: So why is the culturally tolerant, all so mighty federation stopping Worf from performing an action that is accepted by his culture?
Luigi Novi: Because it’s against the law in Federation and Bajoran society. Why is it so difficult to accept this as a legitimate reason? Why is tolerance of other cultures’ practices so sacred to you, but respect for other cultures’ laws when you’re in that culture’s territory not?

Tolerance is one value, Lolar, but it is not the only one. In a society, many different values and principles have to be balanced out against one another, particularly in situations where they appear to be in conflict. You can’t simply interpret or apply "tolerance" in such an absolute manner, because then other principles may be violated. The problem with this lopsided view of tolerance is that it’s highly subjective. You can easily turn it around and ask: If the guests are made to know by the host culture ahead of time that killing someone for reasons other than self-defense is against the law because that’s just the way the host’s culture is, and the guest’s attitude is basically, "Well, I don’t care; I’m gonna do it anyway," then couldn’t it just as well be argued that the guest is not showing tolerance for the culture of his host? Isn’t this an even more egregious insult, given that the visitor is the foreigner who is entering into a different culture? Why shouldn’t he respect the culture that he’s visiting?

Worf knew that what he was doing was against the law. He even got in trouble in a similar situation in Reunion when he left the Enterprise to kill Duras on the Klingon ship. The fact that what he did was in accordance with Klingon law was irrelevant—because he violated the laws of the society in which he is a citizen.

If what Worf did was okay, then what’s the underlying precedent? That people can go around killing one another on the station if they feel like it? Or should it only be the Klingons? If so, why? Shouldn’t everyone have equal rights under the law? And does Jadzia count? She was married to a Klingon and adopted into a Klingon House, lived by Klingon customs when keeping their company. Should the station have a Bureau of Standards for Honorary Klingon Citizenship for those who should be allowed to murder other inhabitants of the station?

To balance out Federation/Bajoran law with the Klingon custom incompatible with this law that Kurn felt he so desperately needed to carry out, the solution is simple: Go to a neutral or unclaimed area of space, and carry it out there.

Lolar Windrunner: If a species is warp capable does that mean that the federation has the right to impose its views upon another culture if they do not like it?
Luigi Novi: It has the right to impose its LAW upon those people if they’re in Federation space.

Again, ask the converse: Does another culture have the right to come onto our soil and break our laws even if we don’t like it?

Lolar Windrunner: How would they feel if another more powerful culture came in and forced/prohibited them from worshiping the prophets and not withdraw as the cardassians did? What would the federation do if they were conquered by another culture and forced to radically change their society, or denied something that appears fundamental?
Luigi Novi: That’s just the problem, Lolar: That’s not what the Bajorans did. They didn’t go to Kronos and tell the Klingons not to perform the Mauk-To'Vor there. They didn’t conquer the Klingons and eradicate the Mauk-To'Vor. They simply have laws against the taking of lives on their own land.

Lolar Windrunner: I do not see a fine line between tolerance and relativism. What a consenting adult does to another from the same culture that is voluntarily done to each other is none of Sisko, Kira, the federation, or bajoran's business.
Luigi Novi: Wrong. People have the right to make just laws to protect themselves on their own land, and to enforce those laws. To allow others to come in and break them is antithetical to this, and to say "Oh, well, you can do it because you’re from another culture" is discriminatory and aribitary, and opens up a Pandora’s Box of questions about when someone is considered a member of another "culture" for purposes of breaking the law.

Babylon 5 was funded and founded by the Earth Alliance to be a neutral port of call. Most of its funding was by the Earth Alliance, with help from the Minbari, and Centauri. Deep Space 9 was built by the Cardassians as a military outpost and manufacturing center to oppress and exploit the bajoran people's. I will agree that the basic underlying existence of the stations is different. However the Earth Alliance ran, controlled and oversaw the daily activities of the station, though the Earth Force Commander and his security forces. Each of the Alien Ambassador's quarter's was considered diplomatic and immune, however residents and guests from those cultures where not diplomatic immune if they had performed their cultural activities on outsiders. The Drazi ran into this when they got into fights in public and affectted the innocent bystanders. However if they had stayed within their own cultural zones and not let their fight spill over into the outsiders territory/public zones of the station then there was nothing that needed to be done. A federation station and the federation itself appears to condone the prohibition of another culture's beliefs, practicies and social norms. This would be equivalent of the US government prohibiting Jews from circumscision, muslims from praying to mecca or catholics from taking the communion. A socity has the rights to enact laws that protect society as a whole from acts that would be detrimental to society as a whole. Random acts of murder, arson or theft or piracy would be examples of valid and viable laws. Prohibiting someone from burning certain herbal compounds in the course of a religious act, suicide or self mutilation in the course of a social activity that is performed by two members of the same society, that are of an adult age, that are consenting, and have mutually acknowledged the validity of their own beliefs should not be interferred with by the holier than thou attitude of the bajorans or federation. When a civilization begins to impose its laws and rules upon its citizens and outsiders to protect themselves from themselves you begin to develop a nanny state wherby it seems that the government feels it knows what is better for you than what you do. This is not a good course of action if a society is to continue to grow and develop and not stagnate. And the analogy between a medical practice and a religious practice is not invalidated by the fact that they are not done for the same reasons. The practice if acceptable by the society that orginated them should be respected reciprecy(sp?) by all other societies. By the way that the fedreation acts it looks like the standard for that universe is: If yoiu go to another country then you are to submerse your own cultural bias and beliefs and act as the society you are in does. Which means that if a federation citizen travelled to Feringar they would have to become greedy little slime suckers who forced their women to run around naked. I have never said that aculture should break valid laws. Laws that are in place to protect society as a whole should be obeyed and respected. Laws that have been enacted to prevent a person from performing acts that may not be harmful to another but harmful to themselves should not be allowed to exist. A person who is intelligent and reasonably rational who has had the social upbringing to believe a certain way should not be forced to stop their beliefs or find their beliefs illegal, providing that said beliefs do not harm any non-willing or non-consentual individual or group. A live and let live attiutude would be more respectable and effective in a multispecies environment. Unfortunately the Bajorans have proven themselves unable to accept the ideal of IDIC which the Vulcans have gotten correct. This statement is backed up by various episodes, books and statements made during the run of DS9. As always this is my personal interpretations and views and not the views or perceptions of another as I do not have the right to force my views upon you and make you think this way. I may explain and state my perceptions and beliefs but you the individual as always has the right to disagree or agree. Whihc I believe is the entire basis for this discussion. Thank you for the stimulating debate this has generated however I am not certain if we are diverging too far from the basic discussion of the episode and shall leave that decision for the moderator. Thank you and good day.

I agree, in the ST universe, it appears that if you are in the space of (insert species here) then you must abide by their laws and are under their jurisidction. So if you do something that is not a crime by your standards in the space (and by in the space I mean on a planet/space station etc within the boundries of their territory) of a particular species that is a crime by their laws then you can be charged with the crime in their courts.

It's sort of a 'you want to live in our space? You have to live under our rules' kind of thing.

That's the same way as it is today. in an American woman were to go topfree in a beach in France it would be fine because it's legal in france. If a French woman came to the USA and did the same thing it would not be legal even though it is in her country. Similary if you smoked dope in Holland where it's legal it's fine but if you came to US soil and did the same thing it would be legal.

I meant to say ILLEGAL at the end of my last post.

A federation station and the federation itself appears to condone the prohibition of another culture's beliefs, practicies and social norms.

True, if said beliefs, practices, and social norms include ritual murder.

This would be equivalent of the US government prohibiting Jews from circumscision, muslims from praying to mecca or catholics from taking the communion.

No it wouldn't. Worf was going to kill Kurn.

A socity has the rights to enact laws that protect society as a whole from acts that would be detrimental to society as a whole. Random acts of murder, arson or theft or piracy would be examples of valid and viable laws.

Worf was going to kill Kurn, ie., murder him.

Prohibiting someone from burning certain herbal compounds in the course of a religious act, suicide or self mutilation in the course of a social activity that is performed by two members of the same society, that are of an adult age, that are consenting, and have mutually acknowledged the validity of their own beliefs should not be interferred with by the holier than thou attitude of the bajorans or federation.

So you think suicide cults are a-okay?

When a civilization begins to impose its laws and rules upon its citizens and outsiders to protect themselves from themselves you begin to develop a nanny state wherby it seems that the government feels it knows what is better for you than what you do.

How about a society in which individuals can arbitrarily take the lives of others? Through what sort of twisted reasoning did you arrive at the conclusion that laws against murder are a function of a "nanny state"?

This is not a good course of action if a society is to continue to grow and develop and not stagnate.

So condoning murder or any other violent act on "cultural grounds" allows a society to "grow and develop"?

And the analogy between a medical practice and a religious practice is not invalidated by the fact that they are not done for the same reasons. The practice if acceptable by the society that orginated them should be respected reciprecy(sp?) by all other societies.

That's nothing but nonsensical cultural relativism. All cultural practices are of equal value and can't be criticized. Therefore, we can neither criticize our own cultural practices nor those of others. How will that help progress?

For example, if all cultural practices should be accepted, as you seem to be advocating, then slavery and racial and gender discrimination can be justified on cultural grounds. After all, since they were cultural practices of civilizations throughout history, they were thus justified and deservedly immune to criticism.

By the way that the federation acts it looks like the standard for that universe is: If you go to another country then you are to submerse your own cultural bias and beliefs and act as the society you are in does. Which means that if a federation citizen travelled to Feringar they would have to become greedy little slime suckers who forced their women to run around naked.

Since when has that EVER been something advocated in Star Trek, implicitly or otherwise?

And what good are personal beliefs and principles if you don't think they're worth anything? Recognizing their flaws is one thing; allowing them to trumped by other value systems that you find objectionable is something else entirely.

I have never said that a culture should break valid laws. Laws that are in place to protect society as a whole should be obeyed and respected. Laws that have been enacted to prevent a person from performing acts that may not be harmful to another but harmful to themselves should not be allowed to exist.

Again, how is Worf's attempted murder of his brother not harmful to Kurn?

And let us not forget that the definition of "harm" is by no means limited to explicit crimes like murder, assault, or theft.

A person who is intelligent and reasonably rational who has had the social upbringing to believe a certain way should not be forced to stop their beliefs or find their beliefs illegal, providing that said beliefs do not harm any non-willing or non-consensual individual or group.

What is it to be "intelligent and reasonably rational"?

A live and let live attiutude would be more respectable and effective in a multispecies environment. Unfortunately the Bajorans have proven themselves unable to accept the ideal of IDIC which the Vulcans have gotten correct.

"Infinite diversity in infinite combinations" is not the same as "infinite respect for any cultural practices."

This statement is backed up by various episodes, books and statements made during the run of DS9.

Oh? Provide some textual evidence please.

As always this is my personal interpretations and views and not the views or perceptions of another as I do not have the right to force my views upon you and make you think this way. I may explain and state my perceptions and beliefs but you the individual as always has the right to disagree or agree.

Well, obviously.

It's the equivalent of the US banning the acto of gang-raping a girl because her brother dated "above his station".

ok I will attempt to address your points one by one:
What gives the Federation the right to dictate that this or that social activity or cultural belief is wrong and cannot be practiced? The Klingon culture finds nothign wrong with this ritual.

yes it would be no different in the Klingon POV.
And I said random acts of murder. Since Kurn was asking Worf to kill him it is not murder. Murder is the taking of another person's life without their permission.If they give you their permission and are mentally able to do so then it is not murder.

As for suicide cults, they are a special sort of thorn. If the members are not brainwashed and it can be shown that they are acting reasonably and rationally then one should not interferre in their actions any more than interferring in any other faith/group. Only when their actions can be shown to be uninvited or forced upon outsiders and non-members should intervention be used.

I never said that a society can arbitraily take each others lives. Murder should always be an illegal action. As I stated before however if a person gives you permission to kill themselves or otherwise performs the appropriate rituals then they should be permitted to commit suicide. and it is not the murder issue that I was referring to cause the stagnation of a society it is the close minded narrow vision intolerance of anything that challenges the commonly accepted views that would be the biggest cause of stagnation. I apolgize if I did not state that clear enough.

Slavery and discrimination are ethically wrong even though they are cultural activities. By you example and the perceptual filters you are using then yes my comments could be made to support that POV. However since slavery and discrimination are forcing your perceptual filters and cultural bias onto another person(s) without their permission then that is wrong. Suppose a person is racist. If they do not say anything to another person about it and only sit in their basement and shout and grip[e about the race they hate then they are not offending and do not need intervention. If they stand on a public street corner and shout at the top of their lungs about their program they can be asked by the law to cease and desist in causing a public disturbance but their views are still not being forced on another without their permission as people can walk around that corner or close thier ears and ignore the individual or move on without talking to them. If that same racist goes out and starts practicing what they preach and beating up or burning crosses or such then they are forcing their views on another and should be intervened with.

Oh and I did not state that laws against murder are part of a "nanny state". I stated that laws keeping a person from performing actions that would only affect themselves and not harm or otherwise affect another individual without their permission should be invalidated as they are part of the "nanny state"

As for examples of the submission of alien beliefs and cultures every episode almost has this. When an AOTW comes on the enterprise or is otherwise contacted, if Kirk,Picard Sisko or Janeway (especially janeway) does not like the cultural bias of the AOTW they attempt to change or destroy it. These captains are supposed to be representative of the best of the fleet and Federation. Therefore since they act in this manner it can be surmised that it is not uncommon among the federation for this behavior to be condoned. And personal beliefs and value systems are important if one understands that the only way for your belief system to be valid is if it does not call for the destruction or submission of another value system. Peaceful coexistence and equal valuation of different cultural belief systems is the only way a civilization can be able to be considered reasonable and rational and growing.

Actually since Kurn ceased to exist there is no attempted murder by your standards but Worf and Kurn were successful in killing the personality Kurn. Death of personality by Mindwipe is just as effective in the end. The methods only differ in that the body continues after the death. And as for harm since by Klingon society it would appear that Kurn woule be causing more harm by continuing to live (It has been too long since I last saw this episode) than by dying the harm test was passed. Also since Kurn asked under Klingon societal norms for Worf's help by their POV there would be no harm.

To be intelligent requires for one to be able to effective solve problems, develop plans and methods for continued living and development of self and society, in that order. To be rational requires for the being to understand the cause and effect patterns of their actions and develop the understanding that for each of their actions that they impose upon another there is an effect. That all actions should result in either a zero sum of good and bad effects or a net end effect of more positive than negative effects.

IDIC in regards to various cultures is the same as infinite respect for different cultures. For diversity does not end with mere biological constraints. That is one thing that has bugged me about Star Trek for some time. The aliens do not all have alien POV and beliefs and cultures. They think and act from the American/Human POV. The few times Star Trek has attemptted to show alien POV like in this episode they have watered down the beliefs and such by taking the easy way out. BY ending Kurn's life by Mindwipe instead of Physical death the impact of the difference in the Klingon and Federation culture is weakened and there are not as many or strong repercussions.
As for textual or other references look to the other boards for these episodes.

That last bit of discalimer/statement was intended to end the comment slightly lighter, and was intended to help illustrate my point as to the rights of the individual in a society vs the rights of the government.

Oh and in response to Mr Fitzgerald:
The difference between the Worf/Kurn suicide/death ritual and the examples you cited are that your examples all included public behavior. Public nudity even though it does not harm anyone is considered indecent in america because of our narrowmindedness. This is an example of the "nanny State" laws that I was referring to. A topless woman or a topless man is not causing any harm to another individual and as long as theya re not running around removing other peoples clothes without their permission then there is no intervention required. As for Marijuana again in the USA it is regarded as a dangerous and harmful activity. Again if the indivdual does not harm to another and is able to continue performing the actions required to effectively perform in modern socity without adversely or negatively affecting another person then there should be no harm in them doing so. In the privacy of ones home nudity is still permitted without restrictions. the Klingon death ritual tht Kurn was requesting was to be a private affair with no one being harmed (except perhaps from a certain POV) Kurn. The station was not going to be affected in the slightest. Worf was not going to go running through the station corridors with the bloody dagger on a mass murder spree. He was just simply going to end Kurn's physical life.

I'm afraid I don't have time to address all your points right now (on Tuesday I will, though).

What gives the Federation the right to dictate that this or that social activity or cultural belief is wrong and cannot be practiced? The Klingon culture finds nothing wrong with this ritual.

DS9 is a Bajoran owned space station under the administration of Starfleet. Thus, it is subject to Bajoran/Federation jurisdiction, and thus Bajoran/Federation law. The ritual suicide practised by Klingons is considered murder under Federation law, and since individuals on the station are subject to that law, they must abide by it.

Now, Klingons like Worf and Kurn may object to this - they may see nothing wrong with their cultural practices. The Federation does, however, and so long as Worf and Kurn are on a Federation station, they must abide by Federation law. They can disagree with that law, but they cannot violate it. The law is the law - it is not up to individuals to choose whether to abide by it, especially when one of those said individuals, Worf, is not only a Federation citizen but an officer in Starfleet.

Ok the way i see what you're saying there Lolar is that you believe that two people should have the right to do whatever they want to each other wherever they want as long as they dont get anyone else involved in it. Sorta like assisted suicide vs a gang driveby. The way the other folks are saying is that death is death and even if ya asked them to kill ya its still wrong and murder. Sounds like an argument that aint gonna stop.

Having not watched B5, I don’t know if ambassador’ quarters were indeed given diplomatic privileges by the authorites, Lolar, but as you yourself indicated, DS9 is not an embassy, and was never stated to be.

Lolar Windrunner: Prohibiting someone from burning certain herbal compounds in the course of a religious act, suicide or self mutilation in the course of a social activity that is performed by two members of the same society, that are of an adult age, that are consenting, and have mutually acknowledged the validity of their own beliefs should not be interferred with by the holier than thou attitude of the bajorans or federation.
Luigi Novi: In that case, there was nothing wrong with Archer bringing Porthos to Kreetassa to urinate on their Alvera trees in A Night in Sickbay(ENT). Archer consented. Porthos consented. The lifeform urinated on wasn’t sentient. That practice by dogs is normal on Earth.

Lolar Windrunner: Unfortunately the Bajorans have proven themselves unable to accept the ideal of IDIC which the Vulcans have gotten correct.
Luigi Novi: The idea that not condoning murder means that you’re intolerant is false. Let’s say a Bajoran deputy or SF security officer happens by a set of quarters occupied by Klingons. He/she sees a dead Klingon. What then? Does he simply accept the word of the other Klingon who says, "Oh, um….he asked me to perform the Mauk-to’Vor. Yeah, that’s the ticket. He asked me to kill him. Run along now. Nothing to do see here"?

Lolar Windrunner: And the analogy between a medical practice and a religious practice is not invalidated by the fact that they are not done for the same reasons. The practice if acceptable by the society that orginated them should be respected reciprecy(sp?) by all other societies.
Luigi Novi: Not necessarily.

A society has the right to make a stand upon what it considers to be right and wrong, particularly on its own lands. The idea that "well, it’s okay to do this here because it’s okay to do it at home where I’m from" is an argument that embraces the "tolerance for other cultures" principle in an absolute manner, while at the same time totally IGNORING the question of whether that said principle is right or wrong. To give such deference to one principle and NONE to the other is to eschew balance between the two, and to say that not divulging one person killing another on your own soil makes you intolerant is a fallacy.

There is something to be said for trying to understand and/or respect the cultural practices of another society. There is also something to be said for taking a stand when someone in another society believes those practices are WRONG, which is why groups like Amnesty International speak out against lack of human rights in other countries.

Lolar Windrunner: If you go to another country then you are to submerse your own cultural bias and beliefs and act as the society you are in does.
Luigi Novi: So why don’t you feel that the Klingons should do so on DS9?

Lolar Windrunner: Which means that if a federation citizen travelled to Ferenginar they would have to become greedy little slime suckers who forced their women to run around naked.
Luigi Novi: Um, no, they would have to respect the laws that allows the Ferengi to do so. Not do so themselves.

And no, I don’t think we’re diverging to far from the episode.

Lolar Windrunner: As for suicide cults, they are a special sort of thorn. If the members are not brainwashed…
Luigi Novi: Show me one cult whose members are not.

Lolar Windrunner: and it can be shown that they are acting reasonably and rationally then one should not interferre in their actions any more than interfering in any other faith/group.
Luigi Novi: Belonging to a suicide cult can be reasonable and rational?

Lolar Windrunner: As I stated before however if a person gives you permission to kill themselves or otherwise performs the appropriate rituals then they should be permitted to commit suicide.
Luigi Novi: Great. Say, buddy, I’m feeling really depressed over my wife’s death/divorce/my lousy SAT scores/the Rams losing the Super Bowl. Be a pal and whack me, would ya?

Lolar Windrunner: …and it is not the murder issue that I was referring to cause the stagnation of a society it is the close minded narrow vision intolerance of anything that challenges the commonly accepted views that would be the biggest cause of stagnation.
Luigi Novi: Maybe, just maybe, they didn’t stop Worf because the Mauk-to’Vor challenged a Bajoran or Federation view, but because it was illegal.

Lolar Windrunner: As for examples of the submission of alien beliefs and cultures every episode almost has this. When an AOTW comes on the enterprise or is otherwise contacted, if Kirk, Picard, Sisko or Janeway (especially Janeway) does not like the cultural bias of the AOTW they attempt to change or destroy it.
Luigi Novi: Untrue. The Outcast(TNG), Half a Life(TNG), Captive Pursuit(DS9), Prime Factors(VOY) and Remember(VOY) all featured the captains choosing not to interfere with the cutures they encountered whose laws they felt or may have felt were unjust.

But although I don’t agree with all of your points, Lolar, you argue some of them quite well, and I enjoyed reading your posts on the matter.

Well Luigi since I dont watch Enterprise I only watch Star Trek :-) I have no idea what you are talking about, but the captain taking his dog with him on an away mission does not seem too bad unless the people of the planet are deadly allergic to dogs. Or something like that.

In the case of what you have said there should be some sort of proof that would stand up in a court of law. The former person would have made a ritualistic request the individual who performed the act would ahve had to done so in accordance with a prescribed ritual methods and such. The way the ritual was presented in the show seemed somewhat simplistic to me, knowing the elven way of doing things rituals require a specific question and answer period to make sure that it is not done lightly. So until it has been shown that the klingons involved where doing the Mauk T'vor a small investigation should be performed, once it is proven that the MaukT'vor has occured the investigation should be dropped and move along, if the ritual has not been proven or done properly then the klingon involved should be turned over to representative's of his society for proper punishment.

Going back to the public nudity issue, In europe no-one finds it strange or unusual for a female to be walking along the beach topless.In America nudity appears to be seen as something evil and wrong that should be hidden. Since there is no physical reason for this why should Americans who wish to avaoid tan lines be punished while others across the ocean get to let it all hang out? Understanding another culture is a good thing, condeming their practice as wrong because you either fear it or do not understand it is the only wrong thing. I am agaisnt torture and enforced slavery and such as well. However as i have stated all along when two adults from a society willingly and consciously enter into a behavior pattern then no-one outside that grouping (in case there are more) should be able to intervene. It would be if the internet police came onto this board and forced everyone to format their posts a specific way without being able to use the little emoticons and such. A society that is free will understand a realize that if a person is able to make a conscious decision to perform an act, with another person or group, then while you may not agree with it or understand it, it does not invalidate that person's decision or actions. Unless that person or groups actions are infringing or interferring on another without their permission. A jehovah's Witness comes to your door. They knock and talk to you politely then leave. You willingly opened the door to talk to them. This means that the two of you agreeed to talk to each other willingly. If the Witness had broken down your door and forced you at gunpoint to listen to them talk that is wrong behavior as that is forcing themselves upon you. I may not be able to make my concepts clearly understood but I am hoping that you can see where I am going with my various examples.

I was using that as a statement to illustrate my belief that the Federation does not believe in allowing private individuals to perform within the law and within their cultural bias/perceptions. Which I was using the Ferengi as an example as by the way i understand things, if a Ferengi comes offworld with his woman she must be clothed, by the standards that I have seen it would seem like what I said would stand true. In the federation if a member of a society travels to another soceity they are to operate by the rules of that society in all regards even with their provate behavior. I am unable to recount any episodic evidence for this statement at this time. So this must reside in the realm of circumstantial evidence for both sides.

As for relgious cults both suicidal and not. I have never had any dealing with any and only know what I have seen from various media and internet researches and reports. Unfortunately the media is rather biased and not everything can be known or reported. Brainwashing is a rather dangerous thing to proove. If a person does not understand the reason why a person would want to go shave their head and run around in robes all day or otherwise change their lifestyle then the charge of "they must have been brainwashed" is levelled. Not wishing to accept the possibility that the person may just be wishing to explore different facets of their personality or different viewpoints of the world.

Like I sadi earlier a death/suicide ritual must have certain requirements. I am sure a society that has ritualized death has come to the understanding between mere depressionary rantings like what you said and the true circumstances that would require the ritual. An incurable illness, dishonor to self or family of such a severe nature that death is the only way to repair it, things of that nature would be able to invoke the ritual. Not losing the local office betting pool.

True if the law is the law then the law should be challenged. Laws that are obsessively constricting, or otherwise not clearly written should be reconsidered. Laws that protect society as a whole and are beneficial should be respected, laws that interfere in the individual life or performance of their cultural beliefs should be disrespected. Murder being the taking of another person's life without their permission is and always will be wrong and should remain illegal. Of course by that definition war should be illegal as well. Of course when a society develops sufficiently perhaps war and murder wil no longer be considered viable options. Suicide that is done according to certain rituals, and done with the permission of all involved should not be interferred with by any government. Doctor assisted suicide in the cases of incurable terminal diseases is acceptable, to my POV. I would perform such an act to spare my family and loved ones the sight of my wasting away. It is not honorable to force another to suffer slowly while you waste away. I dealt with this with my own father and grandmother both. (which I must insert a very great and gracious thank you to the entire Hospice organization and those who toil under their banner.) So I can understand and see why a society that valued the warrior ethic, who valued strength and honor above all else, would have a ritualistic form of death/suicide. Though alien to the Federation/bajoran way of thinking, which it is, it should be respected.

I have not been imersing myself in Star Trek as much as I have moved on to other things but I will admit I mispoke. I should have said that almost every episode, or a great many episodes, have that. It seems to my memory that TOS had fewer instances than the more Politically correct TNG. I will admit that many of the system bashing and society destruction performed was in defence of his crew. Return of the Archons, A Taste of Armageddon,Errand of Mercy (fortunately the Organias intervened in the interveners) The Apple, Mirror Mirror, A Private Little War, Patterns of Force, Spectre of the Gun, the Cloud MInders. Are all episodes from TOS that show a certain pattern. Unfortunately many of those societies are shown to either be stagnant or have attempted to force their views upon the enterprise crew. Some of them such as Mirror,Mirror though did not require Kirk to go out of his way to try and change things, merely escape and return to his world but he had to make his speech. I would go through the TNG and DS9 and VOY episodes but that would take too long. Look upon the other boards as I do to see what i am talking about.

I appreciate that this discussion has been able to remain mature and not devolve into the crass emotionalism and flamemongering that so many others have an unfortunate tendency to do so. (I am not pointing any fingers just making a general reference) When one deals with such emotional issues as death and suicide and personal versus governmental responsibilities there is always going to be people who align themselves on one side or the other in a us vs them attitude. I am not pointing fingers at this time either. I do not wish to start a flame war I do not wish this discussion to devolve into a shouting match either. I am merely acknowledging that this discussion may not change any minds, that this episode of Star Trek may be one of the most talked about ones due to the very nature of the issues it brings up. Where there is discussion that is reasonable and mature there is hope for understanding between the parties. My personal beliefs have been stated and I have made sure to provide as many examples of what I am trying to say as I could to make it clear as to my POV. Thank you for your time and consideration in this regard and I wish all of you good tidings.

Oh and in response to Mr Fitzgerald:
The difference between the Worf/Kurn suicide/death ritual and the examples you cited are that your examples all included public behavior.

take my same example and sub "have sex/marry a 15 year old girl by a 25 year old man" in place. It has happened in America. Some Muslim refugies from Iraq setteled in the US and arranged marrages for their 13 year old daughters. The US government didn't just say "oh it's OK in their culture/religion and both sets of parents allowed". Because by US law they were too young to to marry even with parental consent, the parents were charged with child abuse.

Public nudity even though it does not harm anyone is considered indecent in america because of our narrowmindedness. This is an example of the "nanny State" laws that I was referring to. A topless woman or a topless man is not causing any harm to another individual and as long as theya re not running around removing other peoples clothes without their permission then there is no intervention required. As for Marijuana again in the USA it is regarded as a dangerous and harmful activity. Again if the indivdual does not harm to another and is able to continue performing the actions required to effectively perform in modern socity without adversely or negatively affecting another person then there should be no harm in them doing so.

Is that the current US drug policy? I don't think so. I'm not arguing the rightness or wrongness of drug and nudity laws, I'm saying that the government can and does impose laws on people of other cutures who are on our land, even for "victemless crimes". Even when both parties consent to whatever happened and it would be legal where they come from.

This would be equivalent of the US government prohibiting Jews from circumscision, muslims from praying to mecca or catholics from taking the communion.

Except we don't have laws that conflict with those practices. How about not letting the mormins have more than one wife? It was a part of their religion but is illegal in the US, which has lead to some interesting stories on 60 minutes. Would the US recognize a gay marrage from one of the countries where it (or marrage like "civil unions") is legal? No they wouldn't.

REMINDER: I'm not arguing the pros/cons of gay marrage or poligimay I'm just pointing out how the government works.

Ok sorry to post so late in the day here. I have been busy with getting things ready for the holidays, also known as the time of insanity around here. :-) But to briefly respond to Mr Fitzgerald's comments: I am opposed to arranged marriages at any age. That is forcing your choice (or rather the parent's choice) of mate upon someone who may or may not be ready and willing to accept it. Most of my comments have been concerning the freedom of an individual to choose and live without interference from another member of society. Sexual relations with minors are also wrong, as it where, when it is forced by an adult upon them, or another of their peers. When however is a child an adult is the hard question to ask. A certain degree of maturity, responsibility and intelligence are required not just a date on the calender. I have seen and worked with people over the age of thirty who behave worse than some teenagers or preteens and have met some teens who have already gotten jobs, cars and have their life under control (or as close to control as life gets) and are more mature than one might expect. As for the laws imposing their will on another even though that person is doing no harm to society or another individual. I find those laws to be wrong and disrespectful to the concept of personal liberty, pursuit of happiness, and life in general. I am not advocating that there should be no laws, just no laws where the government or society is thinking that it knows better for you how to live your life than you do. As for Mormons not being allowed more than one wife I think it is very bad for the government to impose their views upon this group. I have not known any mormons but anyone who is willing to take on more than one wife already is paying more than anything the government can do to him (Sorry about that I love my wife and my family I am just glad there is only one of her at times) If a man is able to support his wives and their children then that is is his choice if they are all happy with the arrangement. If not then they should not have gotten into it in the first place. The same can be said for a woman with multiple husbands. The gods only know why a woman would want that but if she did then so be it. Same sex marriages, the government has no right to dictate whether that is as valid a union as the one between a man and woman in the more traditional marriage style. It is sad that the US government/Federation govt feels that they can tell a person how to live their live better than that person can. A good dose of rationality tempered with personal responsibility can go a lot further in making a society function than any amount of laws. I am sorry for speaking so bluntly tonight but I am tired, edgy and so looking forward to this weekend. (/sarcasm)

But to briefly respond to Mr Fitzgerald's comments: I am opposed to arranged marriages at any age. That is forcing your choice (or rather the parent's choice) of mate upon someone who may or may not be ready and willing to accept it.....

Once agian, the topic of discussion here is not how you feel about anything. The topic is do governments make laws that impose beliefs aginst people with diferent beliefs? The answer is that they do and probably will continue to do so into the future. We're not asking if it would be right for the federation laws to apply to Klingons doing stuff within a federation controled station. The answer is governments do apply laws to consenting adults who don't want any outside interference. They have since time began and will probably continue to do so in the near future.

I am opposed to arranged marriages at any age. That is forcing your choice (or rather the parent's choice) of mate upon someone who may or may not be ready and willing to accept it.

But what if both the bride and groom *consent* to an arranged marriage? If voluntary associations are perfectly alright, what makes an arranged marriage inherently bad? If it's a part of their culture that they agree with, what's wrong with it?

Most of my comments have been concerning the freedom of an individual to choose and live
without interference from another member of society.

Indeed, but there's an inherent contradiction in what you're saying. Many cultural practices inhibit such freedom, but unless you can show them to be against the will of those involved, they cannot, by your definition, be criticized as wrong. This is cultural relativism, and it's flawed reasoning. I should add that your preference for the freedom to do what you like is not a value-neutral philosophy. And, in the end, the line between voluntary associations and entrenched cultural practices is less than clear.

Sorry for not responding sooner however I was away with family. Now to respond to the various comments.
Mr Fitzgerald: Yes it is sad that the government feels that it knows how to live a person's life better than they do. I fear and agree with you that I do not see it changing anytime soon. But since governments are of the people (or are at least supposed to be) there is hope that enough people can become concerned and make the changes needed.
Mr Gould: If both participants in a marriage consent then it is no more arranged than if the parents had introduced the two together. If the marriage is done against the will of freedom of choice for one participant or the other then it is wrong. How is it culuutural relativism to be saying that a person should have the right and ability to live their life in accordance with their own choices and behaviors. A society does need certain basic ethic and moral "rules" such as No murder, no theft, no rape, things of that nature. But inhibiting a person's freedom is wrong, even with a culture's practice and viewpoint. I am probably not making much sense as this is the first time I have been able to sit down and collect my thoughts from the entire weekend. But let me explain...,no let me sum up. I believe that no person should be forced to behave or perform actions against their will, as long as their behavior or actions are not morally or ethically irresponsible or reprehensable. If I do not like a person smoking I move to another seat. If I do not like the way a person is talking or what they are saying I move away, or ignore them. A person should be concerned enough about their fellow human to be willing to help when needed, but should be intelligent and wise enough to know when that help is truely needed. and it is not the freedom to do what I like. It is about not having another person/group/organization forcing their pov on my or another individual's life. Be that group/organization government, religion or other. As long as the basic principles of proper ethical and moral (and by moral I am not referring to sexuality but more subtle than that. As in the moral of the story type behaviors) behaviors. I show up to work in the morning dressed professionally, not just because the company dress code says polo shirts and khaki's but because, not just because the local ordinaces prohibit nudity, but because I like to dress that way and do so for the most part whether I am going to work or not. That is a personal choice. However if the government were to pass a law saying that everyone must wear this type of clothing or that symbol on their shirt, that would be wrong. That would be imposing a viewpoint on a person whether they wanted it or not. Prohibiting facial piercings, I personally do not like them nor the way they look. However I would not support a law banning them as the person who has them must live with their choice. This is what i am talking about the nanny state vs personal freedom. Sorry to get on my soapbox there for a moment. This is something that I find very important. I am sorry for taking so much time, and I feel that we have come as far as we can in this discussion. I shall not change my mind and do not see a problem with my POV. I do not see a problem with you haivng your POV as you have every right to your pov as it is yours and I would not wish to force you to change yours and hope that you are happy with your choices in life. I cannot do anything other than speak my words and hope that someone may find something useful in them. I cannot force my POV or choices on another.

I believe that no person should be forced to behave or perform actions against their will, as long as their behavior or actions are not morally or ethically irresponsible or reprehensable.

But how do you define what constitutes morally or ethically responsible action?

Well not to bring religion into a discussion about politics, but the ten commandments as written by the christian faith. The three laws of robotics could also be rewritten to be aplicable for humans by substituting the word human for robot. The bill of rights are a good example of what a government should be limited in doing or rather prohibited from interferring with. A small government that has limited powers to deal with only things that governments can deal with would be ideal.

Well not to bring religion into a discussion about politics, but the ten commandments as written by the christian faith.

I see. So being an atheist, or worshipping outside of the Judeo-Christian-Islam faith would be morally or ethically irresponsible or reprehensible.

1. I am the Lord your G-d, who led you out of Egypt to be your G-d.
2. You shall have no other G-d before Me.

The bill of rights are a good example of what a government should be limited in doing or rather prohibited from interferring with. A small government that has limited powers to deal with only things that governments can deal with would be ideal.

But those are particularly American liberal/libertarian ideas, and by no means universal. Now, are socio-cultural traditions of social democracy, etc. wrong? Or are they also perfectly valid, even though they conflict with your ideological understanding?

Ok ScottN before I begin let me state that I am not calling you wrong or incorrect but this is the first that I have ever heard of those two lines being a part of the ten commandments. I have always been taught that those two lines are part of the introduction shall we say to the ten commandments. The we support the ten commandments yard signs that dot southern Ohio do not have those two lines as part of the ten commandments. And besides I was merely using the ten commandments as they are merely a set of rules for positive behavior that a large amount of people should be somewhat familiar with as in the Do not kill, do not steal, behavior "rules" Those two lines I would say are very bad to include in any code of rules as each person must find their deity on their own.Especially since all gods are equal and none are any better than any other. The same can be said as for why I used the Bill of Rights as an example. I could equally have said the United Nations declaration of fundamental human rights, the Declaration of Independence or some other equally valuable and respectable document that declares the powers of a government in accordance with the rights and freedoms of the citizenry. Limiting a government is a good thing as it narrows the focus of responsibility and degree of direct accountability a government has. My local government is held very accountable as they all have to live in this area and most of the citizenry know where they live and can drop by or run into them at the store. The lawmakers in washington do not have as much accountability or responsability as they do not have to rub shoulders with the people their laws affect. The class structure in the United States is very subtle and difuse but there are certain expectations. So to sum up: The ten commandments as I am familiar with them do not mention anything about the two lines you stated. I am not a biblical scholar so I am not going to argue about their inclusion or disclusion. I was using the commandments as a reasonably common example that a majority of people should know/understand. The US Bill of Rights is another reasonably common document that should be commonly known enough. If I had more examples from outside the United States then I would have mentioned them.

The ten commandments as I am familiar with them do not mention anything about the two lines you stated. I am not a biblical scholar so I am not going to argue about their inclusion or disclusion. I was using the commandments as a reasonably common example that a majority of people should know/understand.

Well, here's a useful site I found in a google search: http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm

Greetings, I had to log in at lunch to make an apology. I have also looked at the website you provided Mr Gould, and I feel quite embaressed. I must have been absent or asleep in bible study when those lines where presented and did not recognize them one the yard signs. I had called my mother to ask her what her yard sign said and was informed (quite emphatically I must add) that I was in the wrong. I apologize and as I said before I am not a bible scholar. But I would also say I was thinking of the rest of the commandments such as Do Not mUrder and Do not Steal in my example not the first two lines. Forcing a person to worship a specific diety whether they wish to or not would not be a part of my examples. Again I am sorry I was incorrect in my knowledge and should have made certain of my comments before making them. Thank you for your time and politeness. Good day.

No sweat, Lolar, we all goof up all the time. Especially me! :P

And, of course, as moderator, I can edit my posts so as to give the appearance of perfection.

Yes of course :-) I am glad and appreciate your understanding. Perhaps if there was more understanding in the world then there would be less conflict. Perhaps. *Raising eyebrow in a very Spocklike wry gesture on the nature of humanity* But peace and goodwill to all.

Why didn't they let Kurn die in battle? y'know..send him off to fight a battle somewhere & let him die with honor...?

Because Gowron didn't want him to. He wanted to dishonor the House of Mogh. Wasn't that made clear in The Way of the Warrior and this ep?

I musta dozed off.

so is it John Z. Lang now.

I still say it was a VERY POOR way to get rid of Kurn.

When Sisko chews out Worf & Dax, his words don't match his mouth. I felt like I was watching a Godzilla movie.

The ship docked there looks roughly comparable in size to the Nebula-class starship docked there in the show’s opening title sequence! Does it really qualify as a "shuttle"?

Wasn't that the same ship that was hit by its own mines? I thought I saw damage on it. Maybe Noggra did arrive on another shuttle docked somewhere else(or on a landing pad)?

When Jadzia was in Sisko's office what was he doing shouting at her, it's not like she stabbed Kurn and she did save his life.

I find it funny that Sisko wouldn't let Worf stab Kurn but in Ethics Picard was perfectly willing for Riker to bring the dagger to Worf so he could stab himself. The same Picard who chewed Worf out for killing Duras on Klingon soverign territory. This is the same Sisko who basicly gave Worf free reign to kill the Klingon high chancellor a few episodes later.

Also what was Picard's beef with Worf killing Duras, is it my countries place to punish me if i go abroad to a country with no speeding laws and do 100 miles an hour on their roads, of course not because it's legal there, or if i go to a country with different maslaughter laws and accidently kill someone and use a defence that wouldn't work here (in the UK) would i be arrested the second i stepped off the plane when i got home, no. I know i'm ranting (about the wrong episode) but that always bugged me, the Klingon ship is Klingon territory Worf's actions were legal there hence no crime was committed.

Picard never indicated he was perfectly willing for Riker to bring Worf his dagger, at least not explicitly. He merely explained Worf's mindset vis a vis Klingon culture to Riker because Riker went to him for advice. At least, that was the emphasis of most of their dialogue from that scene. On the other hand, the episode might've benefited from some indication of what Picard's feelings on the matter were, or if the creators had Picard make some statement on the matter. If they felt that having him forbid anyone from helping Worf would preclude the tension between Riker and Worf, then perhaps they could've had him say that he was against it occurring on his ship, but that he was realistic enough to know that he couldn't fully prevent Worf from eventually acquiring means to kill himself. What I never got was why he never pointed out to Beverly, who threatened to post guards around Worf if necessary, that Worf would eventually be returned to Earth, where he would probably be able to convince one of his parents, his son or his brother to help him perform the ceremony.

As for Worf killing Duras, Worf was serving at Chief Security Officer on the Enterprise, while it was in the vicinity of the Klingon flagship, and went over to that ship, and killed Duras. Doing this while he was serving in Starfleet, and in uniform, and on Starfleet time, can give the appearance of Starfleet culpability in his act. It bears no resemblance to you merely going to another country with different laws, and accidentally killing someone. It would be far more comparable to you serving in the Navy, on a ship while it's docked in a foreign country, leaving the ship to go on shore without permission, deliberately obstructing attempts to be tracked, and killing a Presidential candidate. Even if that country has different laws, needles to say, your superiors will not be pleased.

Picard was hardly in Ethics (the Worf gets disabled episode) i guess Patrick Stewart was filming another episode or something, still this is supposed to be the enlightened 24th century and Worf didn't exactly break any laws, or regs they never said the Klingon ship was off limits but i can see where your coming from, but still it was a bit unfair to Worf.