Nice swords. Punjabi food is a bit too heavy to have on a daily basis, though.

They're great

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrtBps8Y2E0

Unlike Muslims, Christians and Atheists no Sikhs have attempted to blow up, shoot, or stab either myself or my family in the last few decades. Jews haven't done any of those things to my family for the best part of a century (which is a plus) although half the Jews I know have cheerfully talked about killing people (as I only know for Jews this is a rather unreliable sample, but even so it's a tad worrying).

So yeah, Sikhs are jolly lovely!

As Russell Peters says, other people groups hate other people groups; Indians hate each other.

"Unlike Muslims, Christians and Atheists no Sikhs have attempted to blow up, shoot, or stab either myself or my family in the last few decades."

Just other people's families.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182

And why is your family being singled out for shootings and stabbings?

The only religion I can say is truly non-violent is Jainism.

Because we're British, Putin. My dad happened to work in London at the height of the IRA's bombing campaign and was evacuated a few times. The Islamists attempted to blow up my cafe whilst I was a student in Exeter, which I found most inconvenient. My cousin was shot at, fire bombed, and generally stoned whilst trying to keep the peace in Ulster. My uncle was... Well, you get the idea.

Sikhs may well be even more crazy than your average human, but I always try and give the benefit of the doubt until proved otherwise.

The only religion that is truly non-violent is Christianity.

Oh right, British. The most persecuted group in the world.

@ILN… lolololol

"The only religion that is truly non-violent is Christianity."

Gott mit uns.

"The only religion that is truly non-violent is Christianity." I'm just going to assume that's a bad attempt at a joke. If not I suggest you research Christianity and Paganism around the 4th century.

The only religion that is truly non-violent is Buddhism. A religion in which *all* life is sacred, not just large primates.

@ Putin

We may not have the most intense bombings aimed at us, but I like to think we have the most diverse group of bombers who want to attack us :)

The only religion that is truly non-violent is none of them…

"A religion in which *all* life is sacred, not just large primates."

For example, the pre-white-invasion First Nations culture, subject to fighting among tribes that, on their scale, would have equalled the Crimean War once a month.

" religion in which *all* life is sacred, not just large primates."

You're thinking of Jainism. Buddhist countries are sort of famous for having military governments and civil wars.

The Few sikhs I have met (maybe about 20) and talked to more than 2 times, I liked them all. Their food is a tad touch to get used to, but they generally seem like a nice lot.

The only religion that is truly non-violent is pacifism.

"The only religion that is truly non-violent is Christianity."

Well, the first three hundred years went pretty well.

@Jam - Pacifism isn't a religion. If atheism isn't then there is no way pacifism is. Especially as many religions today embrace pacifism, Buddhism being one such faith.

Buddhist countries maybe. But then Christianity is about service, not dominance, but the predominately Christian countries (face it, the US is predominately Christian) are hardly about service and humility. Buddhism, as a faith, is very much pacifist and Buddhist monks revere all life. Please don't confuse the religion with the views of the leaders who coopt said faith and twist it.

Glad you've come around to the side of logic on the definition question Draug. As for the matter of leaders using faith to justify things, sure it's not the whole picture, but it can't be ignored either. If half of the Christians were to take all of Jesus's teachings to heart, it would be the most peaceful religion in history, but they don't, so it's not.

Draug, Buddhist monks are the governments in Buddhist nations. Ever heard of nationalism? They support the government in war and in return get support back. That's not a nonviolent ideology. Sure, the religion teaches not to kill and to value everything, but loosely interpret the ten commandments and you get the same thing. It doesn't say "thou shall not kill other people."

And before Putin goes on a rant about Jainism, we might just point out that Jainism doesn't even let women reach enlightenment… women are "harmful by nature" in their texts. Yeah, it's incredibly pacified, but that doesn't sound like a religion that's exactly keeping up with the times.

Agreed, but Christianity (not that we were really discussing it), as a religion is a pacifist religion juast as Buddhism is. What eveil men do with a religion is on them, not on the religion itself.

Never said it wasn't misogynist. The issue was violence.

Buddhism is not a pacifist religion. Look up what life was like under the Lamaist monks during the early part of the 20th century. It was brutal and medieval, complete with eye gouging and tongue removals. Also if you haven't noticed buddhist monks recently went on a rampage killing Chinese people in Tibet. Non-violent, they are not.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/world/asia/16iht-tibet.1.11134870.html?_r=0

You can play with Sikhism in CIV 5 G&K :)

I estimate the movie "Seven Years in Tibet" is the major source of popular knowledge on Buddhism.
Also, I stopped at CivII, feeling the series reached its apex there. What's your stance, Ursa?

The reason we discuss those religions the most is because they are the ones most prominent in western society.

Like I don't see any discussions on helenism becasue people generally accept helenism to be fake.

CivII was disappointing. As soon as you get spies with nuclear weapons you can win the game in a turn. Mind you, all games like this seem to have some sort of unit that suddenly tilts the balance so far in your favour you can't lose.

Alpha Centuri was the best, though :)

Was the UN chap a Sikh? Always imagined he was... Nasty bugger, he turned out to be!

I played it with a friend online once (who beat me most of the time), except for once time when I stumbled on one of these "candy houses" and got a horsemen, that can do two moves at once. I just sort of wandered around the globe with it and found Beijing empty. That was my friend's only settlement :)

*horseman
*one time

CivII was a disappointment?! Blasphemy. Undeniably one of the greatest games of all time.
My computer is too much of a shitbox to play Civ5 but that's probably a good thing for my work and social life.

It's interesting how some games just somehow are ahead of their time. CivII was definitely one. But even more so: Stunts. How the hell they did in 1990 I still can't wrap my head around.

I mostly played CIV3 up to CIV5. CIV4 is different from those two I think, mainly due to the role of religion. CIV5 G&K has religion, but it's more like a bonus system with little real effect (ok, another civ gets angry when you convert their capital but it's not like the whole world hates you because you've got the wrong religion).

I must say, I do like some graphics. So it's III and up for me. CIV3 already took some time to learn and understand, and CIV 1 & 2 are only worse.

Yonni, I agree and so does IGN, whatever the hell it is :-)

http://uk.top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_3.html

@Putin .. I know, I'm just saying that there's little room for ultimate praise of it.