What religion with the least violent followers?

[mattskramer]

I’m not that interested in what different religions instruct for their followers. We can debate what the translations and interpretations of Islamic Koran, Christian New Testament, Jewish Talmud and Old Testament, Krishna’s Bhagavad Gita, Taoism’s Tao-te-ching, the Veda of Hinduism, and The Analects and Five Classics of Confucianism really mean on other threads.

For example, it is clear that Islam (whether it is a religion that advocate peace or violence) has a very violent history and very violent followers. Christianity has a violent past with such examples as the Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, etc. There are violent people and sub-groups within the Christian religion today (misguided as they may be). The Jews have their history of violence. Just read through the Old Testament for a history of war and violence.

Anyway, back to my question. I think that the clearest and best way for me to pose my question is as follows:

What is the most peaceful religion in that it has the fewest per capita followers prone to violence or advocating violence against other people?

 

[Nuc]

I am a Buddhist so this is biased, but Buddhism. Sure the Buddhists of Sri Lanka are involved in a civil war, but that's more race than religion. And in WW2 Japan we know where that lead, but Japanese are more Shinto than Buddhist. Emperor worship was Shinto.

The Buddhists are the most peaceful of the major religions and converts to Buddhism would not join that religion in their personal search for a violent mentality. In fact Buddhism's non-violence is probably a large factor in it's being snuffed out by more violent religions in places like India and Indonesia where it was once the main religion.

Non-proseletyzing religions would seem by design to be less inclined to violence or any other form of coercion or superiority complex. Except Judaism, but once again race is mixed up in that equation.

 

[Trigg]

Amish. Yes it's a fairly small group, but I've probably only heard of one story where an Amish got in trouble with the police.

They're also a group of people who don't depend on the gov. to help them, they depend on each other.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

I'd vote that Buddhists are the least violent. Aren't they the ones who won't even kill insects?

 

[Nuc]

Amish. Yes it's a fairly small group, but I've probably only heard of one story where an Amish got in trouble with the police.

They're also a group of people who don't depend on the gov. to help them, they depend on each other.

Good suggestion, but they are not a religion. They are a subgroup of Christianity.

A religion is a big thing.

 

[Nuc]

I'd vote that Buddhists are the least violent. Aren't they the ones who won't even kill insects?

Ideally. But not really. My wife is a Buddhist and an entomologist and she has killed hundreds of thousands of insects.

Jains are the ones who really won't kill an insect. They also ride around nude on bicycles. Why? Ask them!

 

[Nuc]

I thought this was an interesting thread. It's also provocative how few responses there are. Most of the people on this board are Christians. They are not attempting to claim that their religion is non-violent in practice, although it certainly is in design. Why?

 

[manu1959]

I thought this was an interesting thread. It's also provocative how few responses there are. Most of the people on this board are Christians. They are not attempting to claim that their religion is non-violent in practice, although it certainly is in design. Why?

maybe because all major religions have had huge moments of violence.....unfortunately the islamic world is still fighting the crusades

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I thought this was an interesting thread. It's also provocative how few responses there are. Most of the people on this board are Christians. They are not attempting to claim that their religion is non-violent in practice, although it certainly is in design. Why?

The reasons for war are very pragmatic: competition for resources, or to eliminate percieved threats. Religion is an important and powerful identity element to rally the society around. If religion were gone, another rallying point would be chosen, like the state itself, or the "butter side up, butter side down" distinction. Or in the case of the New World Order, elitism itself would be the rallying point, justifying war and suppression of all religions by the "enlightened" new age globalists.

 

[CSM]

I thought this was an interesting thread. It's also provocative how few responses there are. Most of the people on this board are Christians. They are not attempting to claim that their religion is non-violent in practice, although it certainly is in design. Why?

Not sure I agree with your assessment here. I don't see Christianity as being "violent in practice" in this day and age. Maybe they just dont want to get into teh argument that Christianity has advocated violence in the past? Dunno, and I am certainly not one to speak for all Christians.

 

[Nuc]

Not sure I agree with your assessment here. I don't see Christianity as being "violent in practice" in this day and age. Maybe they just dont want to get into teh argument that Christianity has advocated violence in the past? Dunno, and I am certainly not one to speak for all Christians.

I'm not saying Christianity is violent, although sometimes it is. I'm just wondering why Christians are not claiming it is non-violent. Maybe they don't want it to be, I don't know.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'm not saying Christianity is violent, although sometimes it is. I'm just wondering why Christians are not claiming it is non-violent. Maybe they don't want it to be, I don't know.

Maybe no one wants to take your two bit bait.

 

[CSM]

I'm not saying Christianity is violent, although sometimes it is. I'm just wondering why Christians are not claiming it is non-violent. Maybe they don't want it to be, I don't know.

Strangely enough, religions are made up of individuals. Some Christians my be violent in nature just as some people who supposedly adhere to all the other religions. Many Buddhidts have been violent in the past (I understand it was once the predominant religion in many Asian countries to include China, Japan and Korea); that does not necessarily mean the the religion itself is violent.

Philisophically, The ONLY religion that I know of that REQUIRES violence of it's followers is Islam....if one listens to and believes the extremists of that religion.

 

[Nuc]

Maybe no one wants to take your two bit bait.

Well RWA, what do you think is the least violent of the major religions and why? I'm not baiting anyone. I didn't even start this topic.

 

[Nuc]

Philisophically, The ONLY religion that I know of that REQUIRES violence of it's followers is Islam....if one listens to and believes the extremists of that religion.

True, and I think the original topic pertained to the current state of religions. Currently they are definitely the worst and it seems ingrained.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Well RWA, what do you think is the least violent of the major religions and why? I'm not baiting anyone. I didn't even start this topic.

I think christianity is the most tolerant in teaching. I think both judaism and islam have at their core a directive to bring their faith to others through force. Christians, however, may have been involved in more casualties, due to our advanced technology. And there's still the factor of whether or not the religion dictates war, or if the religion is merely an identity element chosen for unificiation in the face of an external threat.

 

[Kagom]

I am a Buddhist so this is biased, but Buddhism. Sure the Buddhists of Sri Lanka are involved in a civil war, but that's more race than religion. And in WW2 Japan we know where that lead, but Japanese are more Shinto than Buddhist. Emperor worship was Shinto.

The Buddhists are the most peaceful of the major religions and converts to Buddhism would not join that religion in their personal search for a violent mentality. In fact Buddhism's non-violence is probably a large factor in it's being snuffed out by more violent religions in places like India and Indonesia where it was once the main religion.

Non-proseletyzing religions would seem by design to be less inclined to violence or any other form of coercion or superiority complex. Except Judaism, but once again race is mixed up in that equation.

Actually, Buddhism is probably the least violent religion.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

This question is perhaps a bit odd. It's not about what the religion teaches, it's about which adherents are most violent. It's a slightly different question. I would like to see the question refined and the thread reexecuted.

 

[CSM]

This question is perhaps a bit odd. It's not about what the religion teaches, it's about which adherents are most violent. It's a slightly different question. I would like to see the question refined and the thread reexecuted.

The question and original post are a bit confusing. The questions asks which religion has the most violent folowers while the text of the original post then goes into which Religion is most violent.

 

[Nuc]

The question and original post are a bit confusing. The questions asks which religion has the most violent folowers while the text of the original post then goes into which Religion is most violent.

The topic is about which religion has the "least" violent practitioners today per capita. I said Buddhism. Does anybody else have a nominee?