3 ms·

I'm generally pretty biased against all religion by default but Sikhism is one of the few religions I can't find much to complain about. It's pretty egalitarian

by pluma 11y ago

ashark 11y ago
I respect that they have a tradition that considers religious practice most valid when it occurs in the world[1]. Many other religions have strong ascetic and/or monastic traditions, and they tend to consider those practitioners to be, in some sense or other, the holiest. Retreat from the world tends to be the advised path for the purest, or at least most successful, pursuit of religious study and practice. Not the Sikhs. They're like, "Pft, that sounds like religion on easy mode. No thanks, I'm going to have a job, a spouse, and kids, and still manage to practice my religion well, because I'm not a wimp." This despite their religion featuring all the usual the-world-distracts-you-from-salvation warnings. [1] See #6: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism#Prohibitions_in_Sikhism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism#Prohibitions_in_Sikhis...
- pluma 11y ago
  > Blind spirituality: Superstitions and rituals should not be observed or followed, including pilgrimages, fasting and ritual purification; circumcision; idols & grave worship; compulsory wearing of the veil for women; etc. This is probably one of the things that surprised me the most. Other religions put these things first, Sikhism just bans them outright. You'd think a religion that doesn't reinforce its importance with obtrusive rituals wouldn't survive but here it is alive and kicking ass.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- vithlani 11y ago
  Well put, well put my friend....
sumedh 11y ago
> Sikhism is one of the few religions I can't find much to complain about. You are not allowed to drink alcohol yet all the Sikhs I have met in India drink it.
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  If that's your biggest problem with Sikhs, then Sikhism sounds pretty darn good.
- pluma 11y ago
  The laws are only considered binding if you decide to submit yourself to them. You can mostly pick and chose as long as you haven't yet committed yourself to it and unlike most other religions you're explicitly told only to commit yourself if you feel that you are ready and able to. At least that's my understanding of it. And it's not like there aren't ("faithful") Muslims who drink.
tr453 11y ago
I'm generally pretty biased against all religion by default but Sikhism is one of the few religions I can't find much to complain about. It's pretty egalitarian, its followers are encouraged to defend the weak (and not just weak Sikhs either) and committing to its values and laws is an option that should only be taken after careful consideration rather than the default. The only negative thing I can think of is the insurgency in India of the 1970s and the assassination of Indira Gandhi, although I don't think it's fair to classify those events purely as religiously motivated violence (or even terrorism). It's not great to pick and choose whether to stereotype people based on religion, positively or ngatively. You may have forgotten the blowing up of a 747 carrying 329 people, suspected to have been by Canadian Sikh militants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182 In the aftermath of 9/11, there were many snarky remarks in the Blogosphere about "those war-like Buddhists", implying that Buddhism was entirely peaceful, when Buddhism is in fact co-opted in various ugly political ways in South East Asia. Religions are not abstract ideologies, but always exist in the context of their practitioners.
- pluma 11y ago
  Sure, as I said, the insurgency (and the related events) is the one negative thing I can think of. And as I said: I wouldn't classify the events purely as religiously motivated violence (unlike, say, 9/11). It's more comparable to the Troubles in Northern Ireland. That said, of course religions always exist in the context of their practitioners. Heck, I would even go so far as to say that no two practitioners share exactly the same religion (which is why it is so absurd to claim that extremists aren't True Scotsmen). But as religions go, Sikhism at least doesn't embrace ideas that could be used to defend inter-faith violence. Unlike, say, the Abrahamic traditions. While Christianity had to go through the Enlightenment in order to figure out that all humans (regardless of faith) should be equal, Sikhism already had that idea baked into it. All religions are bad IMO, but Sikhism seems to be one of the least bad ones.

by pluma 11y ago

ashark 11y ago

I respect that they have a tradition that considers religious practice most valid when it occurs in the world[1]. Many other religions have strong ascetic and/or monastic traditions, and they tend to consider those practitioners to be, in some sense or other, the holiest. Retreat from the world tends to be the advised path for the purest, or at least most successful, pursuit of religious study and practice. Not the Sikhs. They're like, "Pft, that sounds like religion on easy mode. No thanks, I'm going to have a job, a spouse, and kids, and still manage to practice my religion well, because I'm not a wimp." This despite their religion featuring all the usual the-world-distracts-you-from-salvation warnings. [1] See #6: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism#Prohibitions_in_Sikhism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism#Prohibitions_in_Sikhis...

pluma 11y ago
> Blind spirituality: Superstitions and rituals should not be observed or followed, including pilgrimages, fasting and ritual purification; circumcision; idols & grave worship; compulsory wearing of the veil for women; etc. This is probably one of the things that surprised me the most. Other religions put these things first, Sikhism just bans them outright. You'd think a religion that doesn't reinforce its importance with obtrusive rituals wouldn't survive but here it is alive and kicking ass.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
vithlani 11y ago
Well put, well put my friend....

sumedh 11y ago

> Sikhism is one of the few religions I can't find much to complain about. You are not allowed to drink alcohol yet all the Sikhs I have met in India drink it.

sliverstorm 11y ago
If that's your biggest problem with Sikhs, then Sikhism sounds pretty darn good.
pluma 11y ago
The laws are only considered binding if you decide to submit yourself to them. You can mostly pick and chose as long as you haven't yet committed yourself to it and unlike most other religions you're explicitly told only to commit yourself if you feel that you are ready and able to. At least that's my understanding of it. And it's not like there aren't ("faithful") Muslims who drink.

tr453 11y ago

I'm generally pretty biased against all religion by default but Sikhism is one of the few religions I can't find much to complain about. It's pretty egalitarian, its followers are encouraged to defend the weak (and not just weak Sikhs either) and committing to its values and laws is an option that should only be taken after careful consideration rather than the default. The only negative thing I can think of is the insurgency in India of the 1970s and the assassination of Indira Gandhi, although I don't think it's fair to classify those events purely as religiously motivated violence (or even terrorism). It's not great to pick and choose whether to stereotype people based on religion, positively or ngatively. You may have forgotten the blowing up of a 747 carrying 329 people, suspected to have been by Canadian Sikh militants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182 In the aftermath of 9/11, there were many snarky remarks in the Blogosphere about "those war-like Buddhists", implying that Buddhism was entirely peaceful, when Buddhism is in fact co-opted in various ugly political ways in South East Asia. Religions are not abstract ideologies, but always exist in the context of their practitioners.

pluma 11y ago
Sure, as I said, the insurgency (and the related events) is the one negative thing I can think of. And as I said: I wouldn't classify the events purely as religiously motivated violence (unlike, say, 9/11). It's more comparable to the Troubles in Northern Ireland. That said, of course religions always exist in the context of their practitioners. Heck, I would even go so far as to say that no two practitioners share exactly the same religion (which is why it is so absurd to claim that extremists aren't True Scotsmen). But as religions go, Sikhism at least doesn't embrace ideas that could be used to defend inter-faith violence. Unlike, say, the Abrahamic traditions. While Christianity had to go through the Enlightenment in order to figure out that all humans (regardless of faith) should be equal, Sikhism already had that idea baked into it. All religions are bad IMO, but Sikhism seems to be one of the least bad ones.