Most Violent & Peaceful Religions

[Thoreau]

So, after a discussion with Adstar, I figured I'd ask the general SF populus what they think/know.

Throughout the past 100 years, which religions have proved to be the most violent and the most peaceful?

I guess this could be judged by the number of deaths at the hands of each religion, but I'll let you guys debate about that.

My opinion is that either Islam or Christianity takes the cake as the most violent. But that's just an educated hunch.

Have fun!

 

[wynn]

The least violent, the most peaceful religion would be one which would have the lowest minimal requirements for membership in it.

Of course, low enough minimal requirements for membership would effectively annull the religion.

For a religion to be distinctive, it has to have relatively high minimal requirements for membership.
The higher those requirements, the more exclusive the religion.
The more exclusive the religion, the more people it will exclude - the fewer can join. This sometimes manifests as physical violence, other times as psychological violence.

 

[Aqueous Id]

The least violent, the most peaceful religion would be one which would have the lowest minimal requirements for membership in it.

Of course, low enough minimal requirements for membership would effectively annull the religion.

For a religion to be distinctive, it has to have relatively high minimal requirements for membership.
The higher those requirements, the more exclusive the religion.
The more exclusive the religion, the more people it will exclude - the fewer can join. This sometimes manifests as physical violence, other times as psychological violence.

Since huge segments of the world population can be readily bundled into a handful of mega-churches, exclusivity will only apply in a minority of cases.

Rather than taking this hopelessly skeptical view, or attributing violence to other causes, I will simply draw from the words of a 60s protest song, to suggest that there is a simpler, broader scope that the OP invites:

He's five foot-two, and he's six feet-four,
He fights with missiles and with spears.
He's all of thirty-one, and he's only seventeen,
Been a soldier for a thousand years.

He'a a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,
A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.
And he knows he shouldn't kill,
And he knows he always will,
Kill you for me my friend and me for you.

And he's fighting for Canada,
He's fighting for France,
He's fighting for the USA,
And he's fighting for the Russians,
And he's fighting for Japan,
And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way.

And he's fighting for Democracy,
He's fighting for the Reds,
He says it's for the peace of all.
He's the one who must decide,
Who's to live and who's to die,
And he never sees the writing on the wall.

But without him,
How would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone,
He's the one who gives his body
As a weapon of the war,
And without him all this killing can't go on.

He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame,
His orders come from far away no more,
They come from here and there and you and me,
And brothers can't you see,
This is not the way we put the end to war.

Here's Buffy Sainte Marie, the composer, and Donovan,

 

[cosmictraveler]

I wouldn't know because I'm not that well versed in every religion that is available and being practiced today. I cannot therefore make comments about something I know so little about other than it is humans who are in charge of all religions and they are responsible to whatever their actions are.

 

[Yazata]

Throughout the past 100 years, which religions have proved to be the most violent and the most peaceful?

I don't think that we can include violence committed by nominally religious people for secular reasons. So Europe's two World Wars wouldn't really count.

If we are looking at violence committed by religious people for specifically religious reasons, I think that Islam has been much more violent than Christianity, certainly in the last 100 year time period.

But that's mainly because many Muslims still believe in their religion a lot more passionately than most modern-day nominal Christians believe in theirs. Christians probably haven't been more peaceful over the last century, it's just that their violence has less often had an overtly religious motivation.

If we accept that Marxism is a religion (it's a quasi-religion in my opinion, ostensibly atheistic, but with a strong salvational eschatology), then it might win the prize for most religiously inspired violence during the last 100 years.

Least violent during that period? Confucians, Buddhists and the Jains perhaps.

 

[Oniw17]

I guess this could be judged by the number of deaths at the hands of each religion, but I'll let you guys debate about that.
!

No it can't. You have to take into account the membership. Deaths per capita would be better. Except beliefs don't kill people, people do.

 

[wynn]

Since huge segments of the world population can be readily bundled into a handful of mega-churches, exclusivity will only apply in a minority of cases.

Not at all. They do not agree. They very much appreciate their exclusivity.

Rather than taking this hopelessly skeptical view,

Why do you think it's a "hopelessly skeptical view"?

 

[wynn]

Here's Buffy Sainte Marie, the composer, and Donovan,

This is just irresponsible sentimentalism.

 

[birch]

If we accept that Marxism is a religion (it's a quasi-religion in my opinion, ostensibly atheistic, but with a strong salvational eschatology), then it might win the prize for most religiously inspired violence during the last 100 years.

no, it's not. it's not advocating violence based on prejudice whereas fundamental religions advocate just based on whether one is a member of a religion or not.

marxism is just noting the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeousie, as is happening now and was.

 

[michael_taylor]

The least violent, the most peaceful religion would be one which would have the lowest minimal requirements for membership in it.

You don't think one which had a high minimum requirement which was designed to select only the most passive people would be more peaceful? Your definition of the most peaceful group is "everyone" ?

I don't agree.

I think the most peaceful religion would be one in which its scriptures and priests weren't obsessed with stories about murder, revenge, rape, slavery, subjugation and oppression. One in which adherents weren't repeatedly told to kill people over the most trivial things. Or given licence to keep slaves and beat them senseless. One in which the figure of moral authority doesn't act like a child in a tantrum one moment and a calculating sociopath the next.

Lets say you're writing a religion. Imagine you don't want it to spread your values, or become popular and powerful, or let you get away with whatever sick crimes your heart desires. Imagine you just want it to be peaceful, to foster love and understanding.

Would you end up with anything like any of the main religions?

 

[wynn]

You don't think one which had a high minimum requirement which was designed to select only the most passive people would be more peaceful? Your definition of the most peaceful group is "everyone" ?

I don't agree.

I think the most peaceful religion would be one in which its scriptures and priests weren't obsessed with stories about murder, revenge, rape, slavery, subjugation and oppression. One in which adherents weren't repeatedly told to kill people over the most trivial things. Or given licence to keep slaves and beat them senseless. One in which the figure of moral authority doesn't act like a child in a tantrum one moment and a calculating sociopath the next.

Lets say you're writing a religion. Imagine you don't want it to spread your values, or become popular and powerful, or let you get away with whatever sick crimes your heart desires. Imagine you just want it to be peaceful, to foster love and understanding.

Would you end up with anything like any of the main religions?

The lower the minimum requirements for membership, the more people can join / be included; and the more people are included, the fewer are excluded; the fewer are excluded, the less conflict there is between members and non-members.

You don't think one which had a high minimum requirement which was designed to select only the most passive people would be more peaceful?

and

Lets say you're writing a religion. Imagine you don't want it to spread your values, or become popular and powerful, or let you get away with whatever sick crimes your heart desires. Imagine you just want it to be peaceful, to foster love and understanding.

Would you end up with anything like any of the main religions?

Such a religion does not seem to be able to withstand the test of time - conflict with non-members.

 

[elte]

Since huge segments of the world population can be readily bundled into a handful of mega-churches, exclusivity will only apply in a minority of cases.

Rather than taking this hopelessly skeptical view, or attributing violence to other causes, I will simply draw from the words of a 60s protest song, to suggest that there is a simpler, broader scope that the OP invites:

He's five foot-two, and he's six feet-four,
He fights with missiles and with spears.
He's all of thirty-one, and he's only seventeen,
Been a soldier for a thousand years.

He'a a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,
A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.
And he knows he shouldn't kill,
And he knows he always will,
Kill you for me my friend and me for you.

And he's fighting for Canada,
He's fighting for France,
He's fighting for the USA,
And he's fighting for the Russians,
And he's fighting for Japan,
And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way.

And he's fighting for Democracy,
He's fighting for the Reds,
He says it's for the peace of all.
He's the one who must decide,
Who's to live and who's to die,
And he never sees the writing on the wall.

But without him,
How would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone,
He's the one who gives his body
As a weapon of the war,
And without him all this killing can't go on.

He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame,
His orders come from far away no more,
They come from here and there and you and me,
And brothers can't you see,
This is not the way we put the end to war.

Here's Buffy Sainte Marie, the composer, and Donovan,

Those lyrics explain well how the warrior, with the support of the public, is the enabler of warfare.

 

[sifreak21]

most violent. christianity/catholics

 

[michael_taylor]

the fewer are excluded, the less conflict there is between members and non-members.

So the way to stop aggression is to make sure there are no victims for it? What kind of sense is that? I think teaching people to be less aggressive regardless of whether the other people share their beliefs or not would work better.

Even if there was hypothetically a situation where everyone shared the same religion and there was nobody "asking for it" by having different beliefs, are you honestly trying to claim that the scriptures of that religion will have no impact on how peaceful it is?

You think a religion that said "sometimes you have to kill people to please your god" would be equally as peaceful as one which said "never, ever destroy peace, even if you think a god is telling you to" ?

You're either intentionally lying to cover up the feelings of guilt and unease you have over the horrific and anti-peace content of your own religion, or you're just a bit nuts.

 

[michael_taylor]

Such a religion does not seem to be able to withstand the test of time - conflict with non-members.

Exactly.

The ones that stand the test of time are the ones which have scriptures saying "in cases of conflict with non-members, make sure you win using any means necessary. Be it the murder of children, genocide, terrorism, enslavement, or what have you."

Like Christianity, Islam or Judaism.

(P.S. my bible has lots of passages marked if you'd like to discuss specifics about Christianity. Maybe today will be the first day since my junior school vicar I meet a Christian who knows their bible as well as I do. I'm not so well versed in Islam, but perhaps you aren't either.)

 

[aaqucnaona]

Christianity and Islam. @Wynn, the exculsive conviction of faith may be a better indicator of potential violence rather than the cost of belonging - which would arise naturally proportional to the strength of conviction.

 

[wynn]

(P.S. my bible has lots of passages marked if you'd like to discuss specifics about Christianity. Maybe today will be the first day since my junior school vicar I meet a Christian who knows their bible as well as I do. I'm not so well versed in Islam, but perhaps you aren't either.)

What on earth makes you think that I am a Christian??

 

[wynn]

So the way to stop aggression is to make sure there are no victims for it?

That's one way, and it is the way that the modern movement for tolerance and equality goes: "declare everyone to be equal, and declare the differences between people to be irrelevant."

What kind of sense is that? I think teaching people to be less aggressive regardless of whether the other people share their beliefs or not would work better.

I doubt people are aggressive because of mere difference of religious beliefs.
Human aggression is a complex phenomenon, as much research in psychology indicates.

Even if there was hypothetically a situation where everyone shared the same religion and there was nobody "asking for it" by having different beliefs, are you honestly trying to claim that the scriptures of that religion will have no impact on how peaceful it is?

Peacefulness will depend a lot on the material circumstances in which people live.
If they live in circumstances where resources are scarce, where the natural environment is unpredictable and dangerous (such as the problem of droughts and floods), it will be challenging for them to be peaceful, especially if they work out of the premise that they own the land.

You think a religion that said "sometimes you have to kill people to please your god" would be equally as peaceful as one which said "never, ever destroy peace, even if you think a god is telling you to" ?

A theistic religion that would have atheistic tenets wouldn't be much of a theistic religion, would it?

You're either intentionally lying to cover up the feelings of guilt and unease you have over the horrific and anti-peace content of your own religion, or you're just a bit nuts.

You really need to watch your language, and check your preconceived notions about other people and religion.

 

[wynn]

Christianity and Islam. @Wynn, the exculsive conviction of faith may be a better indicator of potential violence rather than the cost of belonging - which would arise naturally proportional to the strength of conviction.

This argument is often made, but I think it is misleading.

It's not the exclusivism that is the problem, but what exactly that exclusivism is about.

There are, for example, some highly exclusivist schools within Buddhism and Hinduism, but they are not violent toward others. And it appears that one of the reasons for this is that they have 1. doctrines that explain how come people are different, and 2. that their explanations are such according to which everyone is eventually happy.

Any doctrine that has the concept of eternal damnation is a doctrine according to which not everyone is eventually happy. This is bound to give rise to friction, internal and external.

As some studies show, the concept of "eternal damnation" is a relatively new one; it didn't always exist in Christianity.

 

[michael_taylor]

[....]

Please can you just give me a straight answer.

Do you think a religion which teaches that violence is acceptable will make a group more violent than a religion which teaches violence is not acceptable? Do you think the content of a religion has any effect on the follower's behaviour?

Are you claiming that no amount of indoctrination can make a person more aggressive, even if you threaten them with eternal torment for failing to kill who the god says you should kill?

I can't see how that can be denied without seeming to be a liar or a nut.