Gene Roddenberry, creator of Star Trek, was quoted in THE HUMANIST 1991, where an interviewer pointed out that the Enterprise crew seemed to be humanistic.

Roddenberry replied: "Oh, yes. They have their own beliefs, which are private to them, and they don't go around discussing them with other people. I've alway assumed that by this time (the 24th century) there is a belief that is common to people in Star Trek that yes, there is something out there. There is, perhaps, something that guides our lives but we don't know what it is and we don't know if it is."

Professors of human and religious studies in their book, "Religions of Star Trek" made an interesting comment about Roddenberry's statement. I quote from their introduction: "This view of the future - in which religious beliefs persist as a private matter yet whose competing claims provoke no conflict -- is perplexing."

Is it perplexing because that attitude provokes no conflict? Competing claims provoke conflict? That implies that individual religious beliefs cause conflicts. Not if they were kept private, they wouldn't.
But the professors continue....

"At the very least, it suggests a view of religion as personal and private. In modern America, where the rights and needs of individuals have acquired a privilege virtually unkown in other cultures, such an imagining of the future is perhaps understandable."

Hurray for our democratic system of government! We are allowed to imagine a world without religion. We are allowed to expect to keep religion personal and private. Good for the USA!
But the professors continue....

"Still it flies in the face of much religious scholarship that recognizes the strong degree to which religion is almost always deeply implicated in social, communal, and public life."

Notice -- much religious scholarship. Religion is almost always deeply implicated. In my opinion the implication is on the part of the religious. Citizens should be allowed to live without religion and the criticism that is put upon a nonbeliever.
But the professors continue....

"Shared rites and beliefs create and reflect an understanding of how the universe is, which makes social life possible."

Too true, better understanding of science and the good life produced from scientific pursuits. All make for a better social life.
But the professors continue....

"A society full of people with vastly different, conflicting beliefs is one whose potential for dysfunction is enormous, something that Roddenberry seems not to understand."

Indeed? Perhaps, Mr. Roddenberry understood it all too well. Dysfunction was long stewing within the American culture. And he believed, as I do, that dysfunction occurred because of religion. Anyone could, and many did, form religions under liberal American laws allowing tax exemption without accounting for actions or funds. Very few new churches were content to keep worship or doctrine private. New religions put their rightousness on their sleeves and in everyone's face. They embraced issues that inflamed emotions. They entered politics and elected officials to further an agenda that would force the public to follow their rules - therefore their gods.

Mr. Roddenberry understood the dysfunction, the frustration in the people and filled a need with science and reason - for which the public clamored. Star Trek. What a fresh view -- society freed from the bonds of slavery of gods.