06-17-2005, 08:49 AM
<i>It can revolutionise the way we see our temples and democratise the running of temples.</i>
Many major and minor temples are already run by trustees, which means they are composed of people who have either originally paid for these temples, or who are currently interested in working with them. This means, there is practically a free market (at least in the sense of free, unhampered entry and exit into the market) in temple ownership. So, what is the big revolution in co-operative ownership?
<i>And most importantly, the stranglehold of any particular community on the affairs of places of worship will fade off for ever.</i>
What stranglehold? Which community has a stranglehold? Brahmins typically are priests only at some temples. In many temples, like the Mundakanyamman temple in madras, the priests are women and non-Brahmin.
I guess the problem is, you have never shown any interest in either managing or "owning" a temple, or building a new one. In fact, that is true of most of us. Which is why you don't have much knowledge of who manages these temples.
<i>Once again, temples can become an integral part of our daily lives and not mere monuments housing the omnipresent & omnipotent Gods shrouded in superstitious beliefs and rituals under the custody of a select few.</i>
If that is truly your opinion, that temples have "omnipresent & omnipotent Gods shrouded in superstitious beliefs and rituals", then perhaps you should consider managing or owning other things (like communal lavatories). "Co-operative revolutions" are the wrong solution to the problem - which is not surprising, considering you haven't diagnosed the problem correctly.
Many major and minor temples are already run by trustees, which means they are composed of people who have either originally paid for these temples, or who are currently interested in working with them. This means, there is practically a free market (at least in the sense of free, unhampered entry and exit into the market) in temple ownership. So, what is the big revolution in co-operative ownership?
<i>And most importantly, the stranglehold of any particular community on the affairs of places of worship will fade off for ever.</i>
What stranglehold? Which community has a stranglehold? Brahmins typically are priests only at some temples. In many temples, like the Mundakanyamman temple in madras, the priests are women and non-Brahmin.
I guess the problem is, you have never shown any interest in either managing or "owning" a temple, or building a new one. In fact, that is true of most of us. Which is why you don't have much knowledge of who manages these temples.
<i>Once again, temples can become an integral part of our daily lives and not mere monuments housing the omnipresent & omnipotent Gods shrouded in superstitious beliefs and rituals under the custody of a select few.</i>
If that is truly your opinion, that temples have "omnipresent & omnipotent Gods shrouded in superstitious beliefs and rituals", then perhaps you should consider managing or owning other things (like communal lavatories). "Co-operative revolutions" are the wrong solution to the problem - which is not surprising, considering you haven't diagnosed the problem correctly.