To give a more serious answer, Bajorans seem very theocratic and I think most of them would fundamentally disagree with the concept of a secular government.
Bajor exists in a weird gray area since their religion is in some ways literally real. In some ways the Bajorans are like the Vorta and the Jem’Hadar. Their “gods” are provably real, they interact with them regularly, and they have demonstrated to them that they have what seem to be supernatural powers.
Also, critically for the Bajorans, not only are their gods real, but their demons (Pa Wraiths) are real as well. And that opens up a whole other philosophical can of worms. In a way it reminds me of Warhammer 40k. In that universe, religion isn’t irrational. In fact it’s completely rational. Because Chaos is real, and it will fuck you up if you aren’t religious.
Ro’s first appearance comes well before the Federation knew the Prophets, let alone the Pah Wraiths, to be literally real.
Riker calling out Ro for her earring isn’t great, when compared against his acceptance of Worf’s baldric. If I were trying to find a defensible reason, I might go with the idea that Bajor used to have a rigidly enforced caste system, and the earrings indicated one’s caste, so it is possible that Riker assumed that Ro was trying to adhere to the old system which would fly in the face of Federation egalitarianism, and that he was less familiar with how Bajor’s treatment of the caste system had changed during the occupation.
Bajor exists in a weird gray area since their religion is in some ways literally real.
Adding the criterion of “is it real?” into your definition of a religion is intolerant. You’ve only realised this for the first time with the Bajorans because you believe in their religion’s legitimacy. But followers of all religions feel the same way as the Bajorans. Religion is literally real to everyone. So if you define religion as inherently untrue, then calling anyone’s religion a religion is an insult.
If we believe religions can be real, then we can actually expand our analysis to include a lot of other systems that really are religions. Like the Borg fascination with Omega, or the ferengi/human fascination with money, or the modern worship of Trump.
IMO It’s different if the gods are empirically real and actively intervene in the society.
I think what I’m getting at is not that we need to expand our definition of religion to include things that are real, but rather that the Bajoran “religion” doesn’t really satisfy the definition of a religion at all.
Going back to the Vorta and Jem’Hadar, I don’t think that their “religion” is really a religion either. It was implanted into them by the founders and they don’t really have any choice in the matter. Maybe the missing piece is that none of these require “faith” as we define it.
See, that’s insulting. If your definition of religion is “fake stuff”, then you’re calling anything you do accept as a religion fake. Nobody would want you to call their beliefs a religion. I don’t see any benefit to this model, and I see a huge drawback.
I’m not defining religion as “fake stuff”, but I am saying that it’s not a religion if there isn’t an inherent element of uncertainty. You ask any Catholic priest and they will tell you that part of what is integral to their religion is the “mystery of faith”. In other words, their religion intrinsically relies on a lack of certainty about the nature of their beliefs. If a religion was provable, it wouldn’t be a religion. It would be science.
To give a more serious answer, Bajorans seem very theocratic and I think most of them would fundamentally disagree with the concept of a secular government.
Bajor exists in a weird gray area since their religion is in some ways literally real. In some ways the Bajorans are like the Vorta and the Jem’Hadar. Their “gods” are provably real, they interact with them regularly, and they have demonstrated to them that they have what seem to be supernatural powers.
Also, critically for the Bajorans, not only are their gods real, but their demons (Pa Wraiths) are real as well. And that opens up a whole other philosophical can of worms. In a way it reminds me of Warhammer 40k. In that universe, religion isn’t irrational. In fact it’s completely rational. Because Chaos is real, and it will fuck you up if you aren’t religious.
Ro’s first appearance comes well before the Federation knew the Prophets, let alone the Pah Wraiths, to be literally real.
Riker calling out Ro for her earring isn’t great, when compared against his acceptance of Worf’s baldric. If I were trying to find a defensible reason, I might go with the idea that Bajor used to have a rigidly enforced caste system, and the earrings indicated one’s caste, so it is possible that Riker assumed that Ro was trying to adhere to the old system which would fly in the face of Federation egalitarianism, and that he was less familiar with how Bajor’s treatment of the caste system had changed during the occupation.
Adding the criterion of “is it real?” into your definition of a religion is intolerant. You’ve only realised this for the first time with the Bajorans because you believe in their religion’s legitimacy. But followers of all religions feel the same way as the Bajorans. Religion is literally real to everyone. So if you define religion as inherently untrue, then calling anyone’s religion a religion is an insult.
If we believe religions can be real, then we can actually expand our analysis to include a lot of other systems that really are religions. Like the Borg fascination with Omega, or the ferengi/human fascination with money, or the modern worship of Trump.
IMO It’s different if the gods are empirically real and actively intervene in the society.
I think what I’m getting at is not that we need to expand our definition of religion to include things that are real, but rather that the Bajoran “religion” doesn’t really satisfy the definition of a religion at all.
Going back to the Vorta and Jem’Hadar, I don’t think that their “religion” is really a religion either. It was implanted into them by the founders and they don’t really have any choice in the matter. Maybe the missing piece is that none of these require “faith” as we define it.
See, that’s insulting. If your definition of religion is “fake stuff”, then you’re calling anything you do accept as a religion fake. Nobody would want you to call their beliefs a religion. I don’t see any benefit to this model, and I see a huge drawback.
I’m not defining religion as “fake stuff”, but I am saying that it’s not a religion if there isn’t an inherent element of uncertainty. You ask any Catholic priest and they will tell you that part of what is integral to their religion is the “mystery of faith”. In other words, their religion intrinsically relies on a lack of certainty about the nature of their beliefs. If a religion was provable, it wouldn’t be a religion. It would be science.
My religion doesn’t require faith and it’s provable.