Places of Worship

[Madhuri]

I wonder if we need more religious places to worship. In India we have a lot of places to worship and yet I find some communities spending crores and crores of Rupees to build huge structures. There is one such temple in Delhi (Akshardham), this is very huge and has a very beautiful architecture, but when I visited it I did not get the feeling that surrounds religious places. What I could see was only the money that was spent on it, and to make it as modern as possible (with threater and such equipments), although I have nothing against these settings, what I am trying to say is, the feeling did not come. It is built in some acres of land and before building it, it also displaced a lot of people living on that piece of land. This set me to thinking, that the followers who donated the money (mostly Non-Resident-Indians and others living here), could they not have used it for better purpose or perhaps used it to improve the condition of the people living there (it was a slum area)

Sometimes I feel that building such structures has much more beyond providing people a place to worship. I think it also signifies power and to make people aware that we have arrived. Like in olden days (down south especially) Raja or Kings will build mammoth structures (these are still places of reverence), and the bigger the temple is the more powerful the king will be. Similarly, when the North and then South was invaded by Mughals and other dynasties, these kings built Mosques and spread Islam.

It seems all these places of worship have this inherent primary character of power followed by worship (and not vice-versa).

What do you think -- Do we still need more places like these??

[Whifflingpin]

"What do you think -- Do we still need more places like these??"

I think that there is a lot of truth in what you have said, although those rulers would probably have argued (and maybe believed) that they were giving back to God a proportion of what He had given to them, so, the more wealth and power they had received, the greater their offering would have to be.

Whether we need to build such structures, in the present moment, is something that I seriously doubt.

Providing better housing for the poor, or establishing hospitals or schools in God's name, would be better than establishing elaberate places for his worship.

He, after all, has aleady created the great Temple of the world, and made each of us a temple, so caring for His temples would be giving Him greater honour than making new ones.

.

[Pendragon]

The place of worship be it ever so humble does not matter. The true place of worship is in the heart. If one goes to the finest temple money can build, but does not worship in one's heart, what profit is there? I see churches grow larger and more elaborate, seating thousands and oh, so pretty, but have they ever thought that when you worship, it is not about you, but about your God? If your God goes unrecognized because you want the spotlight upon yourself, on what you have done, what you have accomplished--do you really worship in your heart? :angel:

[muhsin]

When I came back, I'll have my thought over this very meaningful issue. I'm now in a hurry. Hold on...

[Turk]

They weren't Mughals (Mongols). They are Turkish. Shah Babur's himself is a poet and he wrote one of the most important books of Cagatay accent of Turkish, Baburname. And yes, if people wants to go to temples for worship, and if there not enough temples, we still need temples.

[miss tenderness]

What do you think -- Do we still need more places like these??
yes,we need more and more, why?

okay, if you look at masjids(mosques) in the islamic socities or in other places they live in, they are not only places to pray and worship,their role go beyond that. They are places where a Muslim get a daily full education, practical education>>>a Muslim should pray in there five times daily,thus, masjids in neighborhoods create communities where people come to know eachother,if someone does not attend one time of salat(prayer)this small community miss him/ask about him/help if he is in need...so Masjids in Islam have huge role, people get to know eacother through it. Also in Masjids ,there always extra courses given,whether religious or any other field. Masjids are educational institutions in the Islamic socities,they are not merely a place to worship.A Muslim has to keep certain manner in masjids, guess this applies to many diferent religious places .So ,a person or a child starts to learn how to be nice with people. We rely on our masjids for many things. a masjid is just something which is so vital in Islam, hence, you must've noticed that when a group of Muslims gather anywhere,first thing to think about is to build a masjid, because it's the only place that that will absoloutlybe gather them together,to fulfill their obligaions and to come to know eachother even more.
Muslims love masjids,it's really different when you are there,you always feel like if you are open to all kind of people of different races,colors. Maybe you can look at the Holy masjid in Makkah and see the huge diversity ,still,they are like one person,no one can be given especial place because of his social rank or such,once you get there,take the last plce the row stopped in,do not bother your brothers or sisters by anyway,it's a place where you have to be just a Muslim regardless to ur rank or education or whatever. People are equal. there is great spirituality in masjids,places to motivate people to be good,act good,be humble,help others,give the rights to people. So ,Masjids shoud increase. However, Muslims,due to their love for these masjids and their respect for the role they do in their socities,started to give a great deal to the shape of buildings,arcitcture(sp). especially in the old times, so they produced very beautiful buildings for masjids.However, basically Masjids should be kept simple but people can't help but exceed .
I love the Islamic arcitucture,very creative, Taj Mahal is one example,built by Shah Jahan>>>it is the most worldy known building that represents the Islamic civilization that prevailed in India, also Spain has great deal of thses beautiful buildings which Spain depend on now for its tourism. These buildings keep amazes me.


If these places are going to produce better souls and better people,then yes,they should increase. If they do not have real active roles ,then,No need for them.


:thumbs_up good topic,Maddie.

[Madhuri]

Whiff, Pen -- I can see your point.

And I wonder what do these people think before building such structures??

Miss T -- If the idea behind more places of worship is what you have mentioned, I think it is still valid. What I was trying to emphasise is that, if such structures are built they should also propogate the feeling that surrounds a Temple/Church/Masjid, they should not appear empty sites, that do not bring about the feeling of peace and calm.

I think I really liked it when you said -- "If they do not have real active roles ,then,No need for them."

I agree, whats the need if they do not serve the purpose.

[Lote-Tree]

What do you think -- Do we still need more places like these??

No. They could use that money to build orphanages instead.

Why they build such edificies?

To say my God is better than your God. My God is more gandeur than your God etc.

Those of kinds of places - robs the spirituality from the human heart and soul.

[Nossa]

I don't believe that the problem lies in the builiding, but rather in the people. We need to have a better sense of religion, we need to get that feeling back, it's not lost cuz the buildings aren't built right, or cuz they got old or whatever reasons, that feeling comes from one's heart, and the way I see it, manye people lost this feeling long time ago, they've put religion on the shelf, if I may say it like that.
And no, building worshipping places, whatever the religion is, doesn't convey the meaning of that my God is bertter than yous, cuz simply there's only one God whom everyone in any religion believes in. And even if this is not true, worshipping places are built to make whoever goes into them, feel the glory of religion and God, and therefore it should be suitable and even different, the mosque should be different from the church, simply cuz they both belong to different religions.

[Virgil]

While i understand what Whiff and Pen and others too are saying, but I'm in agreement with Miss T and others who think that it is worth to have a beautiful and impressive religious building. First it is a communal place and a community ought to show its committment to it. Second, it is a work of art, and an architectural statement. In my neighborhood, churches are the most beautiful structures around. In contrast to the square boxes that we live in, a church structure stands out from the common. It is a work of art both on the inside and out. Money spent on religious buildings is well spent.

I know there are more impresive churches in Europe, but here's St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York. Compare its structure with the buildings around.

http://www.nancybcards.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/1894-st-pats.jpg

[Lote-Tree]

And no, building worshipping places, whatever the religion is, doesn't convey the meaning of that my God is bertter than yous, cuz simply there's only one God whom everyone in any religion believes in

What does it convey then?

[Virgil]

What does it convey then?

It conveys a community's (or simply a human) endeavor to honor it's religion and culture by creating a beautiful space.

[Lote-Tree]

It conveys a community's (or simply a human) endeavor to honor it's religion and culture by creating a beautiful space.

And building an orphanages does not do that?

If not why not?

[Virgil]

And building an orphanages does not do that?

If not why not?

You seem to think it's either or. I don't know about where you live, but we do have both.

[Lote-Tree]

You seem to think it's either or. I don't know about where you live, but we do have both.

So the other is comparable to orphanages?

[manolia]

Second, it is a work of art, and an architectural statement. In my neighborhood, churches are the most beautiful structures around. In contrast to the square boxes that we live in, a church structure stands out from the common. It is a work of art both on the inside and out.


Every building should be a work of art but that isn't possible. So i have to agree with you. The houses people live in, in most countries are like square boxes (damn those civil engineers :lol: :lol: ).
And of course churches and suchlike buildings are probably the most beautiful structures build by human beings. From ancient times (ancient Olympia pops in mind, that's inevitable for me) up until today. Some of the most beautiful buidings in whole over the world are churches. And i think there's good reason for that. By building something magnificent people show their reverance to their God and of course they want to create a sentiment of awe to everyone who enters the building.

Here's the most impressive building i've seen which i think is a 'modern' marvel. It's la segrada familia in Spain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sagrada_familia_by_night_2006.jpg

I know i have posted a similar image elsewhere but this is a picture taken by night (the other one was by day:D )

Here's another picture of Agia Sophia in Istanbul

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aya_sofya.jpg

So in my opinion money spend in order to adorn our physical environment (churches included) are money well spend. Besides this is part of our
cultural heritage and what we leave behind when we depart from this world:D

[kilted exile]

Where I am from there are no children lying on street corners because of a shortage of orphanages, why build more where they are unneeded? If a council or individual wishes to build a new place of worship that is their choice, if enough people disagreed with the use of money the politicians would not remain in power long. There is no real issue here.

[Lote-Tree]

Where I am from there are no children lying on street corners because of a shortage of orphanages, why build more where they are unneeded?


Build them where they needed?
There are millions of street children all around the world.

[kilted exile]

Build them where they needed?
There are millions of street children all around the world.

As nice an idea as that is it aint never gonna happen. You are not going to get people's money from taxes collected in one part of the world paying for building orphanages in another.

In the case of individual benefactors this is even less likely, part of the reason the individual puts up money for this is to build a lasting monument in their area to their God.

[Lote-Tree]

As nice an idea as that is it aint never gonna happen.


God's religions commands you to love thy neighbour, to help the poor, the orphans...oh the irony of it all...

[kilted exile]

God's religions commands you to love thy neighbour, to help the poor, the orphans...oh the irony of it all...

Ok, I am going to give you a free pass here because you are new and dont know the first thing about me.

Things like that I am an atheist or what charities I donate protions of my money to.

You are taking one sentence and applying it out of context as if to suggest that I do not care about anything or one other than myself. I resent that and am deeply annoyed by the implication

[Lote-Tree]

Ok, I am going to give you a free pass here because you are new and dont know the first thing about me.

Things like that I am an atheist or what charities I donate protions of my money to.

You are taking one sentence and applying it out of context as if to suggest that I do not care about anything or one other than myself. I resent that and am deeply annoyed by the implication

Please accept my apologies. No such thing meant in a personal sense. But in the context of religion where it commands the worshippers to spend in the way of God which is helping the poor, orphans, the needy etc - there is on the whole no requirement in religions to build lavish places of worship - and hence the irony of worshippers building expensive places for prayers.

Regards,
Lote

[Nossa]

What does it convey then?

It's not about whose God is better..since, as I said, there's only one God, unless we're talking about the classical belief in Gods and Goddesses.
I think that the reason behind building any worshipping place, is for the worshippers to feel like they've entered a place that makes them feel what they ought to about thier religion. And since, obvioysly, religions differ now, each worshipping place should have it's own design, it's own shape, it's own decorations and so forth. It's not about who's better, it's about making those believers and whoever goes there, feel as close to that religion as anyone can. For instance, you can't put a cross in a mosque or write a verse from Qura'an in a church..each of them has its own characterization or personality if I can say it this way. It's all about the sense of belonging to the place. Hope I got my message across to you.

[polina]

I have quite the same feelings about the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, it's next to the Red Square. In fact, it was restored after it had been destroyed in the 30th. So, I don't know whether the first cathedral made a deeper impression, but this one is horrible. It's large and ugly, it lacks sth, that all the ancient buildings have. Atmosphere and even history... Really, I have no use for the idea of building new temples ( of different religions) now, that we have so many ancient ones to protect and admire.

[Lote-Tree]

I think that the reason behind building any worshipping place, is for the worshippers to feel like they've entered a place that makes them feel what they ought to about thier religion.


Does religions commands worshippers to build such lavish places so they could feel this way?

[Nossa]

Does religions commands worshippers to build such lavish places so they could feel this way?

You don't build a mosque for example, to feel this way, cuz you're supposed to feel this way about your religion in any time and any place. But once it's built, it MUST have this atmosphere, it must make those worshippers feel the sense of belonging, they have to feel its privacy and it's difference, since as I said, religiongs differ. But no, religions don't command that we 'only' build these buildings cuz we only feel close to God and religion only in these places, cuz that's not correct!

[Madhuri]

Not many people will disagree openly, because any protest against building of such structures may take a nasty turn, these issues are very sensitive. You may still find people who do not want orphanages built, they wouldnt mind a temple being built instead. The emphasis is that its easier to object against bulding orphanages, but not against a temple / any other religious place.

The point that I made initially was -- Whether we need more of such structures, that convey only how grand the monument is but not the real message. Believe me, if I consider the structure I mentioned -- Akshardham, I had gone to see it too, and there are many I know who visited this place, all they can talk about was how beautiful the temple was, it has a theatre, and other modern equipment (I am not against people employing modern means to spread the word, I am coming to my point), BUT, no body mentioned what they saw in the theatre, nobody talked about the philosophy that the saint preached. So, having mamoth stuctures will not ensure that people know about the workings of the religion, it has to generate the feeling -- Just like what Nossa mentiones below.


You don't build a mosque for example, to feel this way, cuz you're supposed to feel this way about your religion in any time and any place. But once it's built, it MUST have this atmosphere, it must make those worshippers feel the sense of belonging, they have to feel its privacy and it's difference, since as I said, religiongs differ. But no, religions don't command that we 'only' build these buildings cuz we only feel close to God and religion only in these places, cuz that's not correct!

Its easy to say, people have a choice, but that does not disassociate people from the responsibility that comes with the choice they make. We have enough of these structures to serve the purpose and it will be a good choice to spend the money on other causes.

[Virgil]

Not many people will disagree openly, because any protest against building of such structures may take a nasty turn, these issues are very sensitive. You may still find people who do not want orphanages built, they wouldnt mind a temple being built instead. The emphasis is that its easier to object against bulding orphanages, but not against a temple / any other religious place.

The point that I made initially was -- Whether we need more of such structures, .
Doesn't that depend on the need for the place? I agree, no need to build a huge temple if no one will attend. But if it fills then there was a need for it. Same thing for orphanages. Is the community meeting the needs of maintaining these poor kids. You can't let them out onto the street to die. A community has to make these decisions and balance its needs as it sees fit.


I had gone to see it too, and there are many I know who visited this place, all they can talk about was how beautiful the temple was, it has a theatre, and other modern equipment (I am not against people employing modern means to spread the word, I am coming to my point), BUT, no body mentioned what they saw in the theatre, nobody talked about the philosophy that the saint preached.
Would they have talked about the message if it was a small temple? Probably would have still talked about something else. To me you're linking two issues that are separate.


So, having mamoth stuctures will not ensure that people know about the workings of the religion, it has to generate the feeling -- Just like what Nossa mentiones below.
Nor will a small temple.


Its easy to say, people have a choice, but that does not
disassociate people from the responsibility that comes with the choice they make. We have enough of these structures to serve the purpose and it will be a good choice to spend the money on other causes
Hmm. It sounds like you got democracy in action there. Someone will have to make the case for both sides and the community will decide. That is why i believe democracy works best at a local level. I can't possibly know the needs of your community.

[Madhuri]

Would they have talked about the message if it was a small temple? Probably would have still talked about something else. To me you're linking two issues that are separate.

Nor will a small temple.

True. But there is a greater explanation when huge amount of money is involved. It could be that in a small temple there is some priest who doesnt know a thing, and when caught the max he can do is flee or the temple is closed, and it may resolve the issue, but, where will big temple people flee? Dont you think it becomes obligatory on their part to make sure the mesage is conveyed? In a small temple there are more chances of peace, there people wont be thinking of how big the theatre was, or how nice the boat ride was?

I am not advocating for small temple or big temple, what I am saying is that usually big temple looks commercialised (not all but some do), like, beauty without brains :p not much with content :p


Hmm. It sounds like you got democracy in action there. Someone will have to make the case for both sides and the community will decide. That is why i believe democracy works best at a local level. I can't possibly know the needs of your community.

I am not sure what you mean by democracy working at local level.

Democracy works at the national level too. We are one such nation and have always been. It has been working for us, so it does give best results when at national level as well.

This issue cannot be generalised? Do you see it as a community specific issue?

[Lote-Tree]

The emphasis is that its easier to object against bulding orphanages, but not against a temple / any other religious place.


This I don't understand. This is bizzare. It goes against the teaching of the religions.

[Virgil]

I am not sure what you mean by democracy working at local level.


Are they making this decision at your capital and making such decisions for all the local communities? How can they possibly do that and how can the capital which may be hundreds of miles away know your community? You have an even larger nation than mine. What is your population, almost one billion? How can a group of beaurocrats (sp?) understand the needs of one billion diverse people living in thousands of communities? But a local government can understand the needs of 50,000 people of a community of a mostly shared culture.


Democracy works at the national level too. We are one such nation and have always been. It has been working for us, so it does give best results when at national level as well.
For me, the more the national goverment does, the less sensitive it becomes to the local communities. It has to satisfy a whole spectrum of diverse and large number of people. That is why cynicism with government grows.


This issue cannot be generalised? Do you see it as a community specific issue?
Yes, I do.

[Madhuri]

Edit -- It was for Lott-Tree

We aren't discussing teachings :)

I said so because in a case one has to decide between the two, more weightage (sp?) will probably be given to religious place. I also said that religion is a sensitive issue. Does it still look bizzare?

[Lote-Tree]

Edit -- It was for Lott-Tree
We aren't discussing teachings :)


Granted but we are talking in the context of worshippers who build these things contrary to teachings of their religions.



Does it still look bizzare?

It is the behaviour of worshippers that is bizzare in the context that they might object to orphanages but not a building of worship.

I agree religious issues is a sensitive issue. But we must ask these questions in order to highlight this point...

Regards,

[cuppajoe_9]

Where I live, the Yellow Pages list 68 churches, or about one church for every 750 people. Our high schools, of which there are six, routinely produce standardized test scores among the worst in the province. Our college (singular) does not grant degrees; and our hospital (again, singular) is severly overworked.

Places of worship do not rank high on the list of buildings that the city in which I live is in desperate need of.

[chaplin]

In my community and surrounding communities, it is not at all unique or odd to have two churches, of the same denomination, on opposite corners of the same street. There are literally hundreds of churches, branched out below a temple, like a web.

These churches serve as a community, or neighborhood, center, as has been mentioned in previous posts, and a refuge for religion, but also as a sub-temple, a place of worship that is not sacred, as a temple (where God supposedly dwells) and where the most lofty truths are glimpsed, but a center for everyday worship, and a gathering point for the practice of non or less sacred principles.

[Turk]

A Muslim doesn't need a place to worship. He can pray in everywhere.