Want Peace? Abolish The Priesthood!

I say abloish religion too.

second anil

Hm. Hmmmm.

It's a great idea, with little or no practical value.

Most humans live life the way they are told to. They enjoy the security of being told what to do, and priests are the ones who do the telling.

If they weren't around, the major populace would find someone else to listen to with equal conviction, be it politians or policemen.

Sad, but true.

And as a useful alternative, which might go against your original idea itself, is Vedantism, which gives seekers complete flexibility to explore the ideology rather than being a religion per se, either by learning from so called "realized souls" or on their own.

Priests should be humble and preach tolerance and peaceful coexistence. Then there is no need to abolish priesthood!

Denis Diderot: Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.

An absolute violent fantasy that shall never come to pass. How can you keep religion and abolish priesthood? And if you abolish religion - what shall be your moral compass? Wasn't this tried already in the Soviet Russia and Mao's China? Weren't the consequences horrible.

Moreover, how can we forget the contributions of true holy men, people who really derived their inspiration from religion? Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Vivekananda, the holy men from Bhakti and Sufi traditions?

Priests can only abuse the power that people give them - if people are vigilant about the control over their lives that they give over then there would never be any need for anything as drastic as suggested in this article.

And if you abolish religion - what shall be your moral compass?

the big difference between saying that Mao and Stalin were atheists and saying that they did these appalling things because they were atheists. I mean Stalin and Hitler and Saddam Huessin all have mustaches but one wouldn't say therefore that it was because of their mustaches that they did the terrible things that they did. You've got to provide evidence not that they just were atheists but that it was their atheism that motivated them to do these terrible things.

Anil, most people are dichotomous. They think that athiests like me dont live by principles... or in other words that we are infidels.

they equate morality to religion and immorality to atheism.

basically most of these people themselves are morally corrupt... i.e. they dont stick to their principles in their own religion. THey deviate from them whenever its convinient

"Excuse me, but you seem to suggest that all atheists lack morality."

That's not what I am suggesting, though I agree that my use of imprecise language gave that impression. Moreover, I am not a philosopher so pardon my crude reasoning. But I do believe that fear of a higher power than your own conscious self induces a certain moral code in ordinary human beings like me. For atheists, that higher power might be their conscience or their sub-conscious self (though some would argue that the sub-conscious itself is a form of god but that is a full-fledged discussion in itself).

I don't find anything wrong with having a moral compass based on a healthy fear of a higher power. After all social law is based on fear of punishment, isn't it? Why could we not leave everyone in society to their own social standard, to have their own social conscience? Because if we did that then there would certainly be many people who'd follow the highest standards of conduct but there would be many-many more who'd sink right to the bottom. I think the same analogy holds true for atheism as well - sure there are many who are able to maintain a full functioning inner compass but not everyone can and for those of us who cannot, a shloka from Gita, a parable from Bible, or a verse from Quran serves as a guiding light.

After all social law is based on fear of punishment, isn't it?

u are assuming that we all are evil and the only thing that prevents us from killing each other is religion, or the concept of God.

Do i need to give you a counter example for that belief? read the news papers.

and btw, I am an athiest. I have read many philosophical books. i dont wanna care about the question whether there is something supreme or not. it Does not feed me, nor makes the economic situation of my country or this world any better. Infact it worsens its productivity by people thinking useless questions.

there are ofcourse morally corrupt individuals or individuals having dangerous moral values on both sides of the table, both in the God side and in the atheist side. It is them who is the real enemy. Kill them first and then lets debate

"You are assuming that we all are evil and the only thing that prevents us from killing each other is religion, or the concept of God."
[And rule of law which of course is based on fear of punishment]
But no, I am not assuming anything and I won't use as strong a term as evil. But there is a reason why the concept of law based on punishment is as old as human civilization. Human beings are neither evil nor saints - they are just human. To expect that all human beings can live in a civilized society based on their individual moral and social values is naive, against experience and an utopian concept.

that concept is flawed.... and many coutries are turning to alternative means.

Read this article by Bhagat Singh where he says why he chose to be an atheist. Eventhough i only partly agree to his arguments against God, i would want to quote one particular paragraph which sums up the need for punishment

From the point of view of the most famous jurists punishment can be justified only from three or four ends to meet which it is inflicted upon the wrongdoer. They are retributive, reformative and deterrent. The retributive theory is now being condemned by all the advanced thinkers. Deterrent theory is also following the same fate. Reformative theory is the only one which is essential, and indispensable for human progress. It aims at returning the offender as a most competent and a peace-loving citizen to the society. But what is the nature of punishment inflicted by God upon men even if we suppose them to be offenders. You say he sends them to be born as a cow, a cat, a tree, a herb or a best. You enumerate these punishments to be 84 lakhs. I ask you what is its reformative effect upon man? How many men have met you who say that they were born as a donkey in previous birth for having committed any sin? None. Don't quote your Puranas. I have no scope to touch your mythologies. Moreover do you know that the greatest sin in this world is to be poor. Poverty is a sin, it is a punishment.

Laksmi and Anil, as an atheist I think I agree to some extent with Vikas.
u are assuming that we all are evil
Lakhsmi, the underlying assumption is not of evil, it is that *most* people are stupid. The rest who are not stupid, either become atheists or religious leaders. Nothing like the fear of God to lead the sheep.

Vikas, very good points - I agree with what you're saying (in all your comments here).

I also disagree with the author of this particular article - mainly because you cannot make a judgement on a case (correct or not) and then apply it generally to everything.

Whether religious leaders are to blame or not for the comic-killings (excuse the term), we cannot just assume they're the reason for all the problems in the world & without them there'd be peace!!

What a completely flawed reasoning!

And do let us not, in our haste to pass judgement or find a figure to persecute in this mess, that there are very good priests in the world - of all religions - who are very much holier than the lot of us & doing much more for world peace than we are sitting here, judging & arguing.

Ambar,
I agree to Vikas and you that *most* of the people in this world are stupid and they need something to keep them from killing each other. (i did not get this point properly earlier; Vikas, please pardon me for that)

but then religion ain't a solution rite? Education is!!! u have to educate the people to be less and less stupid.

Proper education drives away the devil in us, it also drives away god!!!

Whether religious leaders are to blame or not for the comic-killings (excuse the term), we cannot just assume they're the reason for all the problems in the world & without them there'd be peace!!

Anil, I agree with you on the whole. However, Hitler's persecution of the Jews was racially motivated. Anyways, religion has far more divisive potential than race could ever hope to have.

"I agree to Vikas and you that *most* of the people in this world are stupid and they need something to keep them from killing each other."

Hmmmm...now that is what would be called "putting words in one's mouth." Where did I ever say that? Majority of people are able to live by their own moral compass most of the times. Problems arise when one of the two things happen:

1. The minority which does not have any moral or social conscience acts on its impulses
2. Instances in lives of the majority who do have moral and social compass but it starts pointing to the wrong direction under the influence of external circumstances. Where does one look in that case to get one's north pole back so to speak?

Of course lots of terrible things have been done in the name of religion but realize that people like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. considered religion as their guiding light as well.

Vikas, sorry for misinterpreting u again.

I dont speak in terms of majority or minority. Let us talk about an Individual. I think for a peaceful coexistence Its just enough that we follow some philosophy. and that need not be religious. It could be religious as well.

as i said earlier

there are ofcourse morally corrupt individuals or individuals having dangerous moral values on both sides of the table, both in the God side and in the atheist side. It is them who is the real enemy. Kill them first and then lets debate

Vikas,
"Instances in lives of the majority who do have moral and social compass but it starts pointing to the wrong direction under the influence of external circumstances."

Which means that the majority you refer to are stupid. Or would you prefer the term 'sheep'?
In fact, one major religion proudly refers to its followers as the 'flock', 'sheep' etc. :D

yep thats spot on... people who vaccillate on their principles are often sheepish and can be easily misguided.
but proper education prevents all that... thats my point!!!!

Lakshmi, I totally disagree with you on that. Religious sheep have minds like putty, which are ripe for implanting principles. These sheep need easy answers and cannot bear to live with uncertainty. Hence the need for organised religion, which claims to supply all the answers.

And 'proper education'? This sounds suspiciously like conditioning. Only, its atheistic conditioning you advocate instead of the usual religious conditioning.

The mind which has its principles entrenched is the truly dangerous and stupid one, unwilling and unable to consider alternative viewpoints.

hmmmm a deeply entrenched mind need not be truly dangerous or stupid,as long as it does not impose its principles on others. considering others view point is a totally different ball-game.

For example i have some very strong principles which i will hardly ever give up. unless and otherwise i am proved wrong i will follow them. I dont expect others to follow them, nor do i enforce them on my near and dear ones.

i do respect others view points. I do consider them.

Stupidity lies in not following any principles, sticking on to some very irrational principles, even after u are proved wrong, imposing ur principle on others etc etc.

'proper education' is a sound exposure to science, art and the world around them. its just an introduction to reality. From then on i assume that the rational brain can find its own way!!! and we need not have any God or devil to describe the emotions within us.