Dear Mr Vedantham

Happy Fourth of July!

Since I have mentioned Mahatma Gandhi so many times in my comments on this forum I am wondering what to write that is not yet another boring repetition of my earlier comments.

Thank you for bringing the new biography of MKG to the attention of the readers of this forum and sharing your own thoughts on Gandhi.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Lots of good responses. I'll just add that, yes, in an IDEAL world I would prefer the absence of religion in the world, because I value truth. In general though, humans value wealth, safety, and feelings above truth. If we can use religion as a tool (as you claim your grandfather would have done) to reign in our worst impulses, then it may have a purpose. However, it's pretty clear that religion enables bad behavior as often as it constrains it.

There is always potential for abuse. No religion or lots of religion. What every society needs is a good system of checks and balances.

i took the time to read your article, not because of your name .. i did not recognize it, nor would i be be likely to recognize it in the funture , but because you used the name Gandhi to have a reallife refeference of historical importance but onece you got my attention you made me think so .. thank you.... in my opinion blaming religion for lifes problems would be like blaming atheist for lifes problems or people who are accountants for life s problems....now government representatives might have a real life resposibility here lol. i think maybe it is the individual people who bring honor or dishoner to what ever endeavor where ever it is done maybe...i myself draw a distinction between religion and spirituality...spirituality in most cases brings actual benifits to the individual and by that to society, it is possible to have spirituality without religion, religion is at time quite virtuaopus and good at other times not... religion may be fairly described i think as a way for the individual to acquire and deepen spirituality and become a better human being terby making society better using a formula or a path laid down by another or group of people. it may work it may have worked in the past it may work in the future but like people of all kinds i think one size probally does not fit all. i have known people who claimed to be atherist and believed it but believed in a code underlying all things that brings order to society and persoanal relationships which is based upon goodness and trying to do the right thing and knowing at times all human are powerless in certain situations to which they do not give up on in real life but continue as ateist to look 4 a solution in real life. and strive for individually or in groups of athetist to improve society as they see it..... silly me this sounds a lot like spirituality but i wont tell anybody..please check 4 truth i'm just the dyslexic artistic son of a blueridgemountain hillbilly

People like OBL are motivated primarily by religious teachings, and other grievances. People like Mahathma Gandhi and MLK are motivated by love and compassion. They just used religion to get their message across. Eliminating religion will take away the very oxygen upon which the hatred of OBL, Haggard, Thackrey et al. survives and grows. Take away religion and we take the main source of hatred.

However, the absence of religion will not diminish the love and compassion of people like Gandhi and MLK in anyway. Religion was not the source of their love. It was just a tool they used. Take away religion and they would have just found some other vehicle to express their love. So, this is a no-brainer, get rid of it -- all of them, all religions.

People like OBL are motivated primarily by religious teachings, and other grievances. People like Mahathma Gandhi and MLK are motivated by love and compassion. They just used religion to get their message across. Eliminating religion will take away the very oxygen upon which the hatred of OBL, Haggard, Thackrey et al. survives and grows. Take away religion and we take the main source of hatred.

However, the absence of religion will not diminish the love and compassion of people like Gandhi and MLK in anyway. Religion was not the source of their love. It was just a tool they used. Take away religion and they would have just found some other vehicle to express their love. So, this is a no-brainer, get rid of it -- all of them, all religions.

Mixing religion and politics never ever goes well - that's my personal opinion. But I wonder why people in their right mind would even bring it up - much more than half of world's problems can be directly traced to religion. Do not tell me that it's the practitioners' fault - the Marxists used same logic for a long time.

Gandhi was a great leader and a good one at that. I am not sure if he was a spiritual leader though. He understood that religion is important to people and sort of "used" it to achieve his political goals. As expected these proved to be controversial at times. E.g., he supported the regressive Khilafat movement that occured in Turkey and elsewhere. His logic was that this will get Indian Muslims to align themselves with Hindus in the political struggle at home. Some people found his terming of lower caste Hindus as "Harijan" (Meaning loosely "Hari" or Lord Krishna's own people) patronizing. After a devastating earthquake in the state of Bihar, Gandhi was criticized by many (including some of his admirers) for finding God's punishing hand behind the natural calamity. Apparently God was punishing upper caste Hindus for their treatment of the lower castes - it did not matter that both suffered and that the Indians did not need a reinforcement of irrational beliefs and harmful prejudices. If this reminds you of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell after Katrina, you will be right to derive that link.

The Mahatma tile probably has little to do with faith. It is Rabindranath Tagore, the poet, who first called him Mahatma. Given Tagore's deep humanism and his general wariness about bringing religion out in public, I doubt that he implied a religious connection there. "Atma" or "Soul" also refers to the inner self or sometimes the person himself. Tagore was probably making a simple reference to Gandhi's true greatness - a leader of masses who inspired Indians spanning across religion, language and economic status to stand up for the country and greater good.

...wouldn’t eliminating religion from public life also eliminate the Martin Luther King Jr.s and the Mahatma Gandhis?

Would you accept such a trade?

It's not necessary to accept the trade because I don't accept the premise. Religion is not the only source for a moral code. Governments should be based in the natural laws that all beings have an inherent right to their own lives, their own property, and their own happiness.

I long believed that any religion that makes people more compassionate is a good religion, but it's become clear to me that religion isn't a necessary component for goodness -- any more than it's necessary for evil. Further, that the same religion can inspire one person towards compassion and another towards doing harm is very good evidence that the impetus for doing good comes from within the human being and not from some supernatural source.

...wouldn’t eliminating religion from public life also eliminate the Martin Luther King Jr.s and the Mahatma Gandhis?

Would you accept such a trade?

It's not necessary to accept the trade because I don't accept the premise. Religion is not the only source for a moral code. Governments should be based in the natural laws that all beings have an inherent right to their own lives, their own property, and their own happiness.

I have always believed, as the Mahatma taught, that any religion that makes people more compassionate is a good religion, but it's become clear to me that religion isn't a necessary component for goodness -- any more than it's necessary for evil. Further, that the same religion can inspire one person towards compassion and another towards doing harm is very good evidence that the impetus for doing good comes from within the human being and not from some supernatural source.

"But even if the assumption were true, wouldn’t eliminating religion from public life also eliminate the Martin Luther King Jr.s and the Mahatma Gandhis?"

False choice. No definition of 'Public Life,' to speak of, either.

It's on we religious to make our religious views helpful and relevant, not to impose them or even try and get people to vote a declaration that they are, and thus must be obeyed.

What Gandhi and MLK did didn't require any special government privileges for their religions.

Mr. Shankar Vedantam,

Thanks for the tip on "Gandhi: The Man, His People, And The Empire" by Rajmohan Gandhi. I will be adding it to my collection of books on the Mahatma.

Thank you again.

"J"

What makes the grandson such an expert? The Mahatama probably died when this guy was an infant. Rajmohan Gandhi should be ashamed of his parasitic life -making money and gathering fame by claiming expertise off a man he never knew.

"eliminating religion from public life"

The possibility of doing this is an ideal of some persons who have not completely thought through the questions of what is religion and what is its role in public life.

Religion of any kind cannot be restricted to use in private life because these beliefs guide every aspect of life. The question is: what aspect of my religion is appropriate to my public life. Our society is not at this time allowed to explore this question fully because many believe in the "two cities" metaphor where religion is "real." If we can see our way clear to abstracting religion as we do other aspects of life, we will find there is an implementation of religion that can be applied in public that satisfies everyone, in other words, does not offend those of "other" faiths. I believe this kind of religion can be "used to bring people together, to increase understanding and love." But that is just my belief.

Shankar,

The interesting question you should ask Rajmohan Gandhi is what his other grandfather would do in these situations?

I think religion is not characterized as a human institution as often as it should be. Those who have religion aren't kept from acting on human emotion any more or less so than those without religion. Bad people with religion do bad things. Good people with religion do good things.

We are human beings and as such will always behave in a manner consistent with our biology.

You take away the religion and the only thing you take away from Osama bin Laden, MLK Jr., and Ghandi are their religious reasons for doing the very things they would do anyways. Osama would still be filled with hate for the West, but rather than cite the Koran, he'd choose another source for his argument. MLK and Ghandi would still strive for love from their fellow man even if religion didn't exist. It is in their nature. They conform their religions to their own worldviews and experiences, not the other way around.

That being said, I feel the world would be worse off without religion, but only in the sense that it has deep cultural ties. A loss of religion would sting the same as the loss of a civilization's language or architectural heritage. I will never for a second believe that a world without religion would devolve into a world lacking such ideas as love, forgiveness, compassion, and the discipline to strive for such.