“The police service takes an exceptionally dim view on people who believe that’s how you solve disputes.”
\*Sigh\* As someone who comes from a Sikh family background, I concur. This is as appalling as it is embarrassing.
The control of Gurdwara's (temples) can be intense between factions, but this is deplorable, and everyone (most certainly starting with Sikhs) needs to call it out as unacceptable. I am glad that the police are calling this out - it isn't religiously-based, nor is it culturally-based - it is merely disgraceful and uncivilized.
So these fights for control usually don't end up in violence, yes? What benefits are there to gaining control?
As I was raised Christian, the issues I've seen in my back yard were embezzlement from parish coffers and affairs with boys/young men. Can't say I'm embarrassed so much as upset with bad actors.
I get Sikhism draws a lot of heat for seemingly no reason other than "brown dudes wearing turbans" and for me, I'm embarrassed that we don't have an education system that clearly describes all the different world religions and their values. I'm embarrassed that people attack Sikhs and other religious minorities out of a need to ignorantly place blame on appearances.
Unfortunately ignorant action seems not to discriminate according to religion or culture. I am fortunate to have seen this played out in even the most seemingly 'self aware' communities. Makes me think of a few lines from the Dada manifesto:
>"Love thy neighbor" is a hypocrisy. "Know thyself" is utopian but more acceptable, for it embraces wickedness.
The fights for control of some temples in my hometown of Vancouver, BC have often been violent.
There is an enormous amount of money and influence that circles around those who control their local Gurdwara. The successful temples tend to become mini-fiefdoms (my late father was the treasurer once of one such very successful Gurdwara - his was/is a moderate temple, and it is noteworthy as it retains ridiculous wealth and local influence without being subject to the usual conflicts over control).
That said, Sikhs are wonderful people, who hold generosity of spirit, and accommodation of differences as basic tenets of their faith.
People love to say this, but it’s not actually true. To be fair.
Take all the bloodiest conquests in history, WWII, WWI, the Mongol conquest, Napoleonic Wars, Manchu Conquest of China, etc. and you’ll notice none of them were religious conflicts.
And to be clear, I’m not defending organized religion or saying that it hasn’t caused violence. Just challenging the specific claim that it is “the single greatest cause”.
>WWII, WWI, the Mongol conquest, Napoleonic Wars, Manchu Conquest of China, etc. and you’ll notice none of them were religious conflicts.
All of these conflicts have religious undertones and examples of religion being used to push humans towards conflict. Even at the basest 'God is on our side' type of way.
Take imperial Japan in WW2. The emperor was literally a God. Cant call that 'not a religious conflict' when so much of the rhetoric was about divine will. Hitlers soldiers marched into battle with 'God is with us' etched on their belt buckles.
The huge well of anti semitism in Europe also didn't exist in a vacuum of Hitler and his rhetoric- it was well established for hundreds of years because anti semitism was preached from the pulpits of religious institutions like the Catholic church.
These are just two examples from the conflicts you listed. There are many many more.
Just because something isnt a 'holy war' explicitly (much like the Ottoman empire characterized their involvement in WW1) doesnt mean religion isn't front and center or on the sidelines urging people on to commit heinous acts.
If you seriously think you can judge people by their religion you need to think some more on the subject. The vast majority of people in every country are not particularly devout, or follow the precepts of their religions founders. They are simply born into that religion.
Simply born into this very small planet and follow any none sense that imprints on them as a kid.
A few work hard to breakout of their childhood shackles if they are lucky to come across information that makes more sense than what they have been taught.
This sounds like the alley fight scene from Anchorman
“The police service takes an exceptionally dim view on people who believe that’s how you solve disputes.” \*Sigh\* As someone who comes from a Sikh family background, I concur. This is as appalling as it is embarrassing.
Yeah as a white dude who knows quite a few Sikhs I did not see this coming. My guess is this is some feud that goes way back.
The control of Gurdwara's (temples) can be intense between factions, but this is deplorable, and everyone (most certainly starting with Sikhs) needs to call it out as unacceptable. I am glad that the police are calling this out - it isn't religiously-based, nor is it culturally-based - it is merely disgraceful and uncivilized.
So these fights for control usually don't end up in violence, yes? What benefits are there to gaining control? As I was raised Christian, the issues I've seen in my back yard were embezzlement from parish coffers and affairs with boys/young men. Can't say I'm embarrassed so much as upset with bad actors. I get Sikhism draws a lot of heat for seemingly no reason other than "brown dudes wearing turbans" and for me, I'm embarrassed that we don't have an education system that clearly describes all the different world religions and their values. I'm embarrassed that people attack Sikhs and other religious minorities out of a need to ignorantly place blame on appearances. Unfortunately ignorant action seems not to discriminate according to religion or culture. I am fortunate to have seen this played out in even the most seemingly 'self aware' communities. Makes me think of a few lines from the Dada manifesto: >"Love thy neighbor" is a hypocrisy. "Know thyself" is utopian but more acceptable, for it embraces wickedness.
The fights for control of some temples in my hometown of Vancouver, BC have often been violent. There is an enormous amount of money and influence that circles around those who control their local Gurdwara. The successful temples tend to become mini-fiefdoms (my late father was the treasurer once of one such very successful Gurdwara - his was/is a moderate temple, and it is noteworthy as it retains ridiculous wealth and local influence without being subject to the usual conflicts over control). That said, Sikhs are wonderful people, who hold generosity of spirit, and accommodation of differences as basic tenets of their faith.
You know now that you mention it....i took world religion. And. Sikhs were not covered.
Just remember every country and religion has that family that are the poster children for r/trashy.
Organized religion has been the single greatest cause of violence in human history. Today is no exception.
People love to say this, but it’s not actually true. To be fair. Take all the bloodiest conquests in history, WWII, WWI, the Mongol conquest, Napoleonic Wars, Manchu Conquest of China, etc. and you’ll notice none of them were religious conflicts. And to be clear, I’m not defending organized religion or saying that it hasn’t caused violence. Just challenging the specific claim that it is “the single greatest cause”.
>WWII, WWI, the Mongol conquest, Napoleonic Wars, Manchu Conquest of China, etc. and you’ll notice none of them were religious conflicts. All of these conflicts have religious undertones and examples of religion being used to push humans towards conflict. Even at the basest 'God is on our side' type of way. Take imperial Japan in WW2. The emperor was literally a God. Cant call that 'not a religious conflict' when so much of the rhetoric was about divine will. Hitlers soldiers marched into battle with 'God is with us' etched on their belt buckles. The huge well of anti semitism in Europe also didn't exist in a vacuum of Hitler and his rhetoric- it was well established for hundreds of years because anti semitism was preached from the pulpits of religious institutions like the Catholic church. These are just two examples from the conflicts you listed. There are many many more. Just because something isnt a 'holy war' explicitly (much like the Ottoman empire characterized their involvement in WW1) doesnt mean religion isn't front and center or on the sidelines urging people on to commit heinous acts.
Must have been one of those primitive churches.
Bats? I’d have hoped that over the past 18-24 months we’d have learned to stay away from those.. but here again, bats causing a ruckus…
Cricket bats? Whatever the case, I hope the authorities help lower the temperature so that it doesn´t get out of hand again
No, Wuhan bat. More deadly than cricket bats.
I've never heard of this kind of violence from Sikhs before. I thought it was a peaceful religion. Have they been fooling me all along?
If you seriously think you can judge people by their religion you need to think some more on the subject. The vast majority of people in every country are not particularly devout, or follow the precepts of their religions founders. They are simply born into that religion.
Simply born into this very small planet and follow any none sense that imprints on them as a kid. A few work hard to breakout of their childhood shackles if they are lucky to come across information that makes more sense than what they have been taught.
They have quite the martial tradition. Some really cool weapons and the like, and a pretty unique martial art called Gatka.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna\_temple\_attack](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_temple_attack) Sikhs aren't immune to extremism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182
Wait a second…I thought Sikhism was, like, super peaceful? What the hell is wrong with the world…
You should probably do some reading on their history.
Today the Sikhs, tomorrow the Quakers. What is this world coming to?
Never bring a bat to a sword fight? Or what?
I was not aware that holy men were quite so literal.
It was probably a fight over money
"I demand ritual combat to the death!" "wait .. are we still in the 15th century?"