Can we give a thumbs up to eastern peaceful religions like Jainism and Buddhism?

They preach total non violence.
The people who are disillusioned by their religion; should look at these two peaceful religions.

Christ is okay.
Islam evokes terror.

any religion is fine with me so long as there is no punishment for not be living or following and no orders to kill people

yes, they are better than most but still unnecessary as peace can be achieved without religion and is more likely to bring peace as their are no religions to separate and label people.

Jainism seems clean to me.

But Buddhism didn't prevent horrific massacres by the Japanese, Indians and Chinese at various points in history. It may not have played a central roll in such events but it's ability to radiate peace is obviously not as strong as it's believers think it is.

The trouble with religions like the Jains is that they are so intolerant that they can never be followed by the masses. Walking along sweeping the road in front of you so you dint tread on an insect. It is never going to happen amongst the masses so why bother?

BUDDHISM IS NOT A RELIGION. it is philosophical spiritual teachings. but i agree that we do need to give them a thumbs up. all religions are violent and dangerous.

On the other way around , I found most followers of Buddishm greedy.

The Zen Buddhist master poet Matsuo Basho was a professional assassin (a house-Samurai). Similarly the Japanese military adopted Zen Buddhism during their expansionist wars of the 1910-1945 period because Shintoh was too pacifistic. Most Kamikaze pilots were Zen Buddhists.

No, I don't think I want to give a thumbs up to Kamikaze pilots.

Google Buddhist crimes..
Or check this out..
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0011/S00003.htm

Jainism seems good though..
Although it seems too inconvenient to others.. Walking barefoot on the road in white drapes and eating only specific food stuff, even not carrots and other roots since apparently it is harmful for them..

The non-harm of Jainism is different to the non-harm of Buddhism. Jains go to extremes to ensure that they do not hurt living beings, such as wearing face-masks to prevent inhaling insects, and not washing to prevent parasites on their body from dying. They may even starve themselves to death to avoid harming living creatures!

Buddhists acknowledge that merely existing as a human being is bound to cause some harm. Whenever we do washing, dig in the ground to plant crops, and complete various essential activities, small insects invariably suffer. What Buddhism avoids is harm that occurs knowingly, whether to insects, or to any human being of any religious or cultural background, or without religious affiliation. (Certain Sri Lankan Buddhists would do well to take this to heart.)

The idea of non-harm in Buddhism is an eminently practical one which allows people to survive in a world where merely existing begets some suffering. The idea of non-harm in Jainism doesn't leave room for human existence and is impossible to live with.

Whether Islam provokes terror or not depends on the interpretation of Islam. Indeed, throughout the life of the Prophet (PBUH) we see instances where he actively choose peace over war, at personal disadvantage, such as in the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah in 628CE. The violence which occurred during the establishment of Islam can only be properly understood as a result of the extreme persecution faced by the early Muslims. The Islamic justification for terrorism as it exists today stems from a reading of the Quran based on the principle of abrogation: that later verses over-rule previous ones, and atomistic and non-contextualized interpretations of various verses, such as the infamous Sword Verse. The legitimacy of such an approach to Quranic interpretation is extremely dubious and is increasingly being rejected by Islamic scholars. The legacy of Western colonial rule in Islamic countries and increasing hatred for U.S. interference in the Middle-East has created ideal circumstances for the rise of terrorism, and Islamic terrorism cannot be thought about outside of its political and historical context. It is an unjustified statement to say that Islam, as found in the Quran and authentic Eadith, evokes terror, although perfectly justified to say that *in recent years* there has been an increase in terrorism in the Islamic world.

As for Christianity, it was a definitive characteristic of the early Christians that they were absolute pacifists. Many of the early Christian martyrs became martyred for refusing to fight in wars. Certain Christian denominations, such as the Quakers, maintain this strict non-violence. Nonetheless, the God-endorsed militarism of the Old Testament has seemed to have a greater impact on how Christians view war today.

Conclusion: religion doesn't make a person peaceful, it is a person's own commitment to peace which makes a person peaceful. And the commitment to peace tends to be absolute for Jains and Buddhists. Thumbs up for that.