TED Conversations

Reem Masri

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Do you think religion should be abolished? Would a world without religion be better than one with it?

So far this topic has been clouded with uncertainty; and it is most certainly controversial. Has religion brought bigotry upon the world? Or has it helped in the ascend from savagery to civilization?
Also what would happen if people stopped following religion? Would sectarianism be abolished along with it? Or would the world be chaotic.
In the end, it all comes down to this: Is it the people who apply religion in corrupted ways who are to blamed rather than the religion itself? Or is the other way around?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jan 5 2014: I believe that most of the discussion here concern the "abolishing" of the organized religion. There have been plenty of damage and violence caused by religious beliefs when the organized religion tried to impose their will to the others. However, there have been other violence and atrocities carried out against a particular religion, or by atheist regime on all religions such as the Mao's Communist China. Thus, the real problem is the narrow-mindedness of people with certain beliefs acting against any one with different beliefs. Moreover, this conflict of beliefs also could be reflected by different people or parties with differing "views" ; such as different ethnic groups or different nations, and in ancient times, even between neighboring villages. So how can we "abolish" the offending parties under this situation? Because this essentially involves all of us. If we do want to make a try, then we should PROBABLY PREVENT THE THE RISE OF CERTAIN LEADERS (RELIGIOUS OR NON-RELIGIOUS), OF SUCH VIOLENT ACTIVITIES INFLICTED ON INNOCENT MEN AND WOMEN, TO COMMIT SUCH ATROCITIES. In order to do that, merely education in the rational behavior is not enough. We should perhaps make universal laws which have even more stringent separation of power, such that a dictator or an authoritarian government should never be allowed to violate the human rights of not only of its own citizens, but also on the citizens of other nations; either across the border or immigrants withing its border.
    The current "democratic" FORM OF GOVERNMENT SYSTEM OR THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT VERY EFFECTIVE IN PROHIBITING THE POWER OF A DICTATOR OR AN AUTHORITATIVE GOVERNMENT. When a dictator can revise the length of his/her job by revising the constitutions based on certain gimmicks, either by twisting the rules to limitless reelection of the same candidate. or some other run-around. And other useful stipulation should be established under the supervision of a worldwide administrative political body.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.