Most Peaceful Religion in the World

Kirialax · Jul 30, 2014

tornada said:
The Zoroastrians were capable of proper religious atrocities when they were a large religion under the Sassanians. But now, not so much

That's largely what I was thinking - a religion that is allowed to be comfortable but is small and powerless is likely to be peaceful (unless, of course, it has violence as one of its core tenets). Once religion becomes an instrument of state it can be used to justify all sorts of ridiculous things, no matter how distant from the core teachings.

Salah · Jul 30, 2014

I can't argue with the nomination of Jainism. I wonder why Judaism isn't on the poll, however.

tornada · Jul 30, 2014

Salah said:
I can't argue with the nomination of Jainism. I wonder why Judaism isn't on the poll, however.

good point, missed that

civfanatic · Jul 30, 2014

BenSt said:
Not that I disagree with you completly. There is a fine line between religious warfare and warfare involving religion.

But, in the case of the Sinhalese and the Tamils, Buddhism is and was used as justification. Sri Lanka was declared a Buddhist country after Independance, the Mahavamsa (A Buddhist epic) was taken up as nationalist example of the inherint Buddhist nature of the country, and it was through Buddhist colleges set up by the Theosophical Society and strongly influenced through Anagarika Dharmapala's Buddhist nationalism, that the successive wave of Sinhalese nationalist leaders grew up. The Buddhist conservative establishment would happily see all non-Buddhists expelled from the island, and individual monks have played a part in assassinations (I believe one of the Prime Ministers, Bandaranaike was assassinated by a Buddhist monk who used religion as his motivator: S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Yes, as I have said in my post in reply to Fox, Buddhism in countries like Sri Lanka and Burma was/is used to define the national identity of these countries, which leads to xenophobic views of non-Buddhists living in those countries. However, these exclusivist views, and the atrocities that they can engender, don't have any support from Buddhist religious doctrine (as far as I am aware). Christians, for example, can (and have) justify atrocities and slavery using their Bible, especially the Old Testament, but a Buddhist would be hard-pressed to find any such justification for violent acts in the sayings of Siddhartha Gautama.

civfanatic · Jul 30, 2014

Salah said:
I can't argue with the nomination of Jainism. I wonder why Judaism isn't on the poll, however.

Yeah, I realized after I made the poll that I left out Judaism. I don't think the creators of the Old Testament can really be called the most peaceful religion, anyway,

Salah · Jul 30, 2014

civfanatic said:
I don't think the creators of the Old Testament can really be called the most peaceful religion, anyway,

Christianity and Islam would automatically be disqualified as well, then.

Virtually every religion has had its violent fanatics, certainly. But Judaism hardly possesses a history of genocide or large-scale forced conversions, unless there actually is an element of reality in the Tanakh.

Jainism and Buddhism are both certainly closer to the title of 'most peaceful' religion, but I would contend that Judaism is worthy of consideration in this thread as well.

Menshevik · Jul 30, 2014

Salah said:
Christianity and Islam would automatically be disqualified as well, then.

Virtually every religion has had its violent fanatics, certainly. But Judaism hardly possesses a history of genocide or large-scale forced conversions, unless there actually is an element of reality in the Tanakh.

Jainism and Buddhism are both certainly closer to the title of 'most peaceful' religion, but I would contend that Judaism is worthy of consideration in this thread as well.

Well, Salah, you know my feelings on Jews and Judaism. I'm an admirer. Having said that, I always thought the religion was kind of war like and violent at times. You know, eye-for-an-eye, Joshua's conquests, later on with the Maccabees, Masada, the revolts against the Romans. Not to mention animal sacrifice, and animal slaughter just for the sake of dietary reasons.

Are we counting the killing and eating of animals as violence?

civfanatic · Jul 30, 2014

Salah said:
Christianity and Islam would automatically be disqualified as well, then.

Virtually every religion has had its violent fanatics, certainly. But Judaism hardly possesses a history of genocide or large-scale forced conversions, unless there actually is an element of reality in the Tanakh.

Jainism and Buddhism are both certainly closer to the title of 'most peaceful' religion, but I would contend that Judaism is worthy of consideration in this thread as well.

I think most people would agree that Christianity and Islam would be automatically disqualified from any discussion on the world's most peaceful religion, considering their histories. I included these options mainly to see if anyone would actually vote for them (surprisingly, they did).

I think the main reason why Judaism doesn't have a history of genocide and forced conversions comparable to its two daughter religions, is simply because it was never in a position of power to really push such actions (except on a limited, local scale). The actual holy scripture of Judaism is fell of violence and war-like behavior, and possesses an adamant belief in the superiority of God's "Chosen People" which I find quite disconcerting, especially when we consider the nature of the Hebrew God.

Henrique Aguiar · Jul 30, 2014

Well, I think I have not been understanding the purpose of this thread.
Are we talking about the most peaceful religion or about the religion which has the most peaceful followers?

Henrique Aguiar · Jul 30, 2014

I think we cannot confuse religion with the acts perpetrated by pseudo-followers.

Fred Crawford · Jul 30, 2014

tornada said:
Just Jains, not Jainists. And yes, Jains are expected to be Vegetarian. Though that's a personal choice. If a Jain chooses to be non-vegetarian, then he's not technically a jain, though legally he'd be one.

Thanks

BenSt · Jul 30, 2014

civfanatic said:
Yes, as I have said in my post in reply to Fox, Buddhism in countries like Sri Lanka and Burma was/is used to define the national identity of these countries, which leads to xenophobic views of non-Buddhists living in those countries. However, these exclusivist views, and the atrocities that they can engender, don't have any support from Buddhist religious doctrine (as far as I am aware). Christians, for example, can (and have) justify atrocities and slavery using their Bible, especially the Old Testament, but a Buddhist would be hard-pressed to find any such justification for violent acts in the sayings of Siddhartha Gautama.

You have a point in one way, but the other way is equally true. These individual nationalists are using Buddhist doctrine as much as the pacifists are. I think I'd also be cautious to say that these are exceptions to the rule. Buddhism still propagates the idea of the 'true way' in it's rejection of Brahmanism... and that is exactly the same mentality as Christianity or Islam. In the Jatakas, the various stories of Buddha's past lives, Brahmins are routinely patronized and viewed as silly. Likewise, the justifications

The biggest issue I have with your argument, although you have a good argument, is that I disagree that Gautama is central to the religion. He is the historic Buddha yes, and the varied monk-lineages trace their origins back to him... but for the majority of Buddhists before and even during the colonial period, his words were not central to the religion. You're approaching it from Buddha's words which is fair to do, but if approached from interpretations of the Three jewels, then war in the name of Buddhism (whether supposedly defending the Sangha or the Dhamma) is perfectly justifiable from a religious perspective. Likewise, non-violence is not the core of Buddhism... nirvana is, and how one reaches Nirvana can be from non-violence or it can be through mass merit making. If it were just a few handful of nationalists causing mayhem then I could agree with you, but this justification has been used in warfare foir over 2000 years.

In my view also, religion in general cannot be condensed down to texts because those texts are products of the certain time and place they were constructed. The religion is multifacted and although it's nice to look in the Bible to look at teachings and beliefs... remember, beliefs are often constructed from interpretation of stories. The Bible does not explicitly say 'velieve in this' the majority of the time. And, text based religion is really a model of western religions that was imposed onto the academic study of other religions during the colonial period.

BenSt · Jul 30, 2014

sorry, I've been practicing my typing and my fingers just kind of let loose and ran amok. Buddhism is a pretty specific example so if you would like Civfanatic we can move the conversation to PM, I'd enjoy that!

civfanatic · Jul 30, 2014

BenSt said:
You have a point in one way, but the other way is equally true. These individual nationalists are using Buddhist doctrine as much as the pacifists are. I think I'd also be cautious to say that these are exceptions to the rule. Buddhism still propagates the idea of the 'true way' in it's rejection of Brahmanism... and that is exactly the same mentality as Christianity or Islam. In the Jatakas, the various stories of Buddha's past lives, Brahmins are routinely patronized and viewed as silly. Likewise, the justifications

The biggest issue I have with your argument, although you have a good argument, is that I disagree that Gautama is central to the religion. He is the historic Buddha yes, and the varied monk-lineages trace their origins back to him... but for the majority of Buddhists before and even during the colonial period, his words were not central to the religion. You're approaching it from Buddha's words which is fair to do, but if approached from interpretations of the Three jewels, then war in the name of Buddhism (whether supposedly defending the Sangha or the Dhamma) is perfectly justifiable from a religious perspective. Likewise, non-violence is not the core of Buddhism... nirvana is, and how one reaches Nirvana can be from non-violence or it can be through mass merit making. If it were just a few handful of nationalists causing mayhem then I could agree with you, but this justification has been used in warfare foir over 2000 years.

In my view also, religion in general cannot be condensed down to texts because those texts are products of the certain time and place they were constructed. The religion is multifacted and although it's nice to look in the Bible to look at teachings and beliefs... remember, beliefs are often constructed from interpretation of stories. The Bible does not explicitly say 'velieve in this' the majority of the time. And, text based religion is really a model of western religions that was imposed onto the academic study of other religions during the colonial period.

I understand your point of view. However, I don't see how we can approach "Buddhism" as being a single "religion" if we don't treat the historic Buddha as central to it. I mean, what else does a Hellenized Buddhist from Gandhara, a Lamaist Buddhist from Tibet, a Zen Buddhist from Japan, and a modern Evangelical Buddhist from Sri Lanka or Ambedkarite Buddhist from India, have in common besides reverence and/or profound respect for the Shakyamuni Buddha and his words and deeds? How do we define "Buddhism" if we do not consider the historic Buddha and his life history as being central to Buddhism? At least among the ordained/devout Buddhists throughout these countries, I think we can say that Shakyamuni Buddha is central, while for laypeople this is less so. Otherwise, we will have to treat all of these religious phenomena as separate religions, since they are greatly different from each other and are heavily influenced by the local culture.

Also, can you list some examples of Buddhism being used to justify wars for over 2000 years? I think there are some instances when Southeast Asian kings have done this, but I am unfamiliar with other cases.

civfanatic · Jul 30, 2014

Henrique Aguiar said:
Well, I think I have not been understanding the purpose of this thread.
Are we talking about the most peaceful religion or about the religion which has the most peaceful followers?

Both, because they are related. A religion whose scripture or doctrine is inherently peaceful, will tend to have more peaceful followers. A religion based on a scripture or doctrine that is more violent and exclusivist will tend to produce more violent followers. We are basically talking about averages here, since there are very likely individual Muslims who are more peaceful in their personal demeanor and actions than many Buddhists, but this doesn't mean that Islam is more peaceful overall than Buddhism. We need to look at the big picture.

Ajanbahu · Jul 30, 2014

Jainas are very peaceloving community and have great ideals, having said this, of all three religions in India( Hinduism, buddhism and jainism) they were most fanatic and often used violence against Buddhists and Hindus. Given capacity for violence, I will call Vaishnavas as most peaceful and tolerant.

Fox · Jul 30, 2014

Henrique Aguiar said:
I think we cannot confuse religion with the acts perpetrated by pseudo-followers.

Religions don't exist independently of the conduct of their followers in any meaningful sense. One can perhaps judge a holy book independent of the conduct of its followers, but a religion itself is ultimately whatever the participants of that religion do. If one religion successfully motivates its followers to peace, while the other instigates them to war, then rather than saying, "Oh, the people of the latter religion are just pseudo-followers," we should instead acknowledge and come to terms with that fact.

Fox · Jul 30, 2014

Ajanbahu said:
Jainas are very peaceloving community and have great ideals, having said this, of all three religions in India( Hinduism, buddhism and jainism) they were most fanatic and often used violence against Buddhists and Hindus.

Can you please provide some sources for this? I'd like to learn more about what you're saying here.

Theodoric · Jul 31, 2014

Certain religions are supposed to be completely non-violent - such as Christianity and Buddhism - but politicians have twisted the religions in order to allow certain followers to be warlike - such as Crusaders and Samurai.

tornada · Jul 31, 2014

Theodoric said:
Certain religions are supposed to be completely non-violent - such as Christianity and Buddhism - but politicians have twisted the religions in order to allow certain followers to be warlike - such as Crusaders and Samurai.

Samurai were buddhist?

Besides, Buddhist rulers weren't prevented from having armies. Asoka the great, though he was a great devotee of peace, didn't disband his armies, and wasn't hesitant to use them either. The rigid emphasis on ahimsa is more in Jainism

Search

Search

Most Peaceful Religion in the World

Which religion is the most peaceful?

Islam

Christianity

Hinduism

Sikhism

Jainism

Buddhism

Zoroastrianism

Baha'i

Kirialax

Salah

tornada

civfanatic

civfanatic

Salah

Menshevik

civfanatic

Henrique Aguiar

Henrique Aguiar

Fred Crawford

BenSt

BenSt

civfanatic

civfanatic

Ajanbahu

Fox

Fox

Theodoric

tornada

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions