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.
Comments
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.