Most violent Relgion

[ATG]

What do you think is the most violent religion in all of history ?

[RedAnarchist]

Personally, I couldn't say. If Hindus have always stood by the concept of ahimsa, then they certainly won't be the most violent. Buddhists are not known for their violence, either.

I would say it would be the more imperialistic ones like Christianity and Islam - Christianity has been exported across the world by colonial powers, Islam has a tight grip on areas which were traditionally nomadic/animist, such as North Africa.

[ATG]

certain Buddhist like Hulagu Khan (who was a mongol khan ) were responsible for the on of the biggest slaughter ever like the sacking of Baghdad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_%281258%29
Judaism isn't a violent religion but its responsible for ''giving birth'' to Islam and Christianity

[Black Dagger]

Judaism isn't a violent religion

Of course it is, there are adherents of all of the worlds five major religions that have committed acts of violence in the name of their beliefs, comparing or singling out one religion in particular is pointless, they've all produced violence and hate in the past and this continues into the present.

[ATG]

i guess i was wrong the fact that the Orthodox Jews refuse to allow the gay parade in Jerusalem and are protesting violently is a proof for that

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I don't keep up to date on my religions. Historically, I would say Christianity. Currently, I would say Christianity. Relative to population, Christianity. Relative to population and in current society, Islam.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 08:26 am
What do you think is the most violent religion in all of history ?

Aztec Paganism; hands down. They had wars known as "flower wars," for the sole purpose of claiming sacrificial POWs, and to which they believed that only by sacrificing people, and offering blood to the gods could they sustain life, and keep the sun burning.

They murdered around 50,000 people a year, I've heard.

http://www.geocities.com/liudegast/special_graphics/aztec_ritual.jpg

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 11, 2006 07:45 pm
I don't keep up to date on my religions. Historically, I would say Christianity. Currently, I would say Christianity. Relative to population, Christianity. Relative to population and in current society, Islam.
Historially how? Ever heard of the Muslim conquest of India?

I'm not going to say it was more than the Christian conquest of the New World, but it certainly gives it a strong run for its money.

[Pirate Utopian]

Christians with their wars, witchburnings, holocausts and what not!

[manic expression]

I'd have to say Christianity. Christian conquests of the "New World" were beyond violent (genocidal, in fact). More importantly, religion was a large factor and motivation in those conquests (unlike what the Mongols did, for instance). Add in imperialism in Africa, the Crusades (in the Middle East AND in pagan Eastern Europe), actions of the Byzantines, unending persecution of Jews in Europe, the reformation and the conflict between Protestants and Catholics (and all the violence which came with it), witch hunts, malicious conversions worldwide and more and you get a pretty dark picture.


Aztec paganism; hands down

Although I see your point, I'm not so sure. Can we really trust Spanish accounts? Also, 50,000 people a year seems improbable due to population considerations. In the end, I'm really just not sure about that.


Historially how? Ever heard of the Muslim conquest of India?

Yeah, the Islamic invasions into India were pretty bloody. A history professor of mine holds that they had little to do with religious aims and more to do with "booty", but I don't think so. Muhammed of Ghazni (sp), for instance, burned down a TON of Hindu temples in Northern India (there are only a handful of still-standing Hindu temples that were built before around 1000 CE in Northern India, since they were almost all burned down -- mostly by Muslims); some think this was for looting (gold and the like), but I do recall reading Islamic accounts which glorify him as killing "idolaters", and moreover the fact that he had no respect for Hindu temples whatsoever indicates religious intolerance.

Akbar, the great Mughal (Muslim Empire in India) Emperor, was extremely tolerant of all religions, and promoted debate between all viewpoints in his court (he even invited atheists to the debates; as a side-point, there is a long tradition of atheist schools of thought in the east, some being of the Buddhist fold). His most trusted generals were Hindu. However, Aurungzeb, a later Emperor, was a lunatic and tried his best to convert people to Islam (which led to the Mughal Empire's decline and fall).

Just some of my random opinions.

[Clarksist]

Originally posted by Scarlet Hammer+November 11, 2006 12:53 pm--> (Scarlet Hammer @ November 11, 2006 12:53 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2006 08:26 am
What do you think is the most violent religion in all of history ?

Aztec Paganism; hands down. They had wars known as "flower wars," for the sole purpose of claiming sacrificial POWs, and to which they believed that only by sacrificing people, and offering blood to the gods could they sustain life, and keep the sun burning.

They murdered around 50,000 people a year, I've heard.

http://www.geocities.com/liudegast/special_graphics/aztec_ritual.jpg [/b]
Meh, its hard to trust those reports.

And besides, Christianity (with its widespread fanatics) has the ability to cause so much more damage, and it often does.

However, specifically speaking to the religion, you may have a point. But I usually take reports about Aztecs with a grain of salt, most of what we know of them came from the people who conquered them after all.

[BreadBros]

If Hindus have always stood by the concept of ahimsa, then they certainly won't be the most violent.

Well, except, you know, for that whole caste system thing that was often traditionally defended with violence.


Buddhists are not known for their violence, either.

What about the horrendous violence perpetuated by the Tibetan Buddhist feudal system?


Aztec Paganism; hands down. They had wars known as "flower wars," for the sole purpose of claiming sacrificial POWs, and to which they believed that only by sacrificing people, and offering blood to the gods could they sustain life, and keep the sun burning.

First of all, you need to differentiate between material economic reality and people's accounts. Did the Christian crusaders really attack Jerusalem because they were so religiously devout, or was it because their leaders wanted the monumentous wealth associated with the city and religion was a conveniant excuse to get people to follow them and structure the raid? I think most Marxists would argue the latter. Similarly, did the Aztecs wage war because they really thought the sun wouldn't come up if they didn't sacrifice POWs, or was that just a conveniant way of the elites getting their soldiers to raid competing economic rivals? My guess would be the latter. There really is nothing special about "human sacrifice" other than that the POW is killed AFTER the battle instead of on the battlefield, in a religious ceremony that helped solidy authority of the elite. All religions are violent in that they are tools for the elite, who historically have always used violence.



They murdered around 50,000 people a year, I've heard.

Logistically difficult. Tenochitlan only supported several hundred thousand people. Most of the sacrificial victims came from smaller city-state enemies. The idea that they could garner 50K victims seems far out of proportion. Regardless, if most of those sacrificed were POWs, that would be a fairly small number of dead in wars, at least compared to the European casualties in wars like the Hundred Years War that happened simulatanous to the Aztec empire's existence (14th-16th centuries).

[Cryotank Screams]

First of all, you need to differentiate between material economic reality and people's accounts. Did the Christian crusaders really attack Jerusalem because they were so religiously devout, or was it because their leaders wanted the monumentous wealth associated with the city and religion was a conveniant excuse to get people to follow them and structure the raid? I think most Marxists would argue the latter. Similarly, did the Aztecs wage war because they really thought the sun wouldn't come up if they didn't sacrifice POWs, or was that just a conveniant way of the elites getting their soldiers to raid competing economic rivals? My guess would be the latter. There really is nothing special about "human sacrifice" other than that the POW is killed AFTER the battle instead of on the battlefield, in a religious ceremony that helped solidy authority of the elite. All religions are violent in that they are tools for the elite, who historically have always used violence.


I seriously doubt the sacrifices where carried out solely because of and for material-economic gain, considering the Inca or Maya (the close neighbor to the Aztecs) didn’t even have money, or any such commodity, I would conclude that money and such did not play a very high role in Meso-American culture.

Furthermore the sacrifices were consider a very high and very sacred honor, so I doubt there would be an abundance of back stabbing, because that would be like trying to get revenge by giving someone a very high and prestigious honor.

Also they didn’t believe the sun wouldn’t come up they believed that a god threw himself into the sun to set it a blaze, and due to the sacrifice of the gods to support human life, they should give sacrifices as well, and the blood spilt upon the altar acted as fuel for the sun.

Also “flower wars,” were considered sacred wars, and were conducted for the sole purpose of sacrificial POWs, other wars were carried out yes, but “flower wars,” and imperialistic wars were very much separate.

Violence played a very special role in the Aztec way of life, be it human, animal, and the quite popular auto-sacrifice, which is why I called it the most violent religion because violence played such a role in it.


Logistically difficult. Tenochitlan only supported several hundred thousand people. Most of the sacrificial victims came from smaller city-state enemies. The idea that they could garner 50K victims seems far out of proportion. Regardless, if most of those sacrificed were POWs, that would be a fairly small number of dead in wars, at least compared to the European casualties in wars like the Hundred Years War that happened simulatanous to the Aztec empire's existence (14th-16th centuries).

I said I heard that it was 50,000, it could have been a different total, but I said 50,000 because I vaguely remember reading that total when I studied Aztec paganism, I could very well be wrong, it's been awhile.

[Johnny Anarcho]

I dont think any religion is violent. Only the whackos and crazies who carry our violence in the name of religion are guilty. Communism isnt violent yet Stalin carried out violence in Communism's name. Socialism isnt violent but Pol Pot carried out violence in Socialism's name. Blame not the idea; blame those who twist, corrupt, and poison the idea. Who take something essentially pure and good and stain it with their own evil influence. For every Osama bin-Laden there is a Mother Jones, for every al-Qaeda there is a Catholic Workers. Religion can be revolutionary if un-tampered. Only when used for greed and violence does it become an enemy of the People.

[BreadBros]

I seriously doubt the sacrifices where carried out solely because of and for material-economic gain, considering the Inca or Maya (the close neighbor to the Aztecs) didn’t even have money, or any such commodity, I would conclude that money and such did not play a very high role in Meso-American culture.

While they may or may not have had currency (I believe the point is debated between historians, but I will grant that they certainly did not have a complex banking structure like other societies did) they certainly had material wealth, commerce, and a highly stratified society and thus I still see most of their actions taken out of economic motives.


Furthermore the sacrifices were consider a very high and very sacred honor, so I doubt there would be an abundance of back stabbing, because that would be like trying to get revenge by giving someone a very high and prestigious honor.

If anything this shows that nothing has changed. Dying in wars is still purported to be a "very sacred honor" by the elites today. If you die in war you're a "war hero" and you get an elaborate funeral and familial prestige and recognition. Its the same today. I would be interested in who the authors of many historical accounts of the Aztecs were. Judging by the fact that in those times only social elites tended to be literate, I'd guess most were of or employees of the ruling class. I wouldn't be surprised if they considered dying in war to be a "sacred honor" but the view of such sacrifice was much more different among the actual soldiers. Just as if you read any government discussion of veterans, its considered a great honor to have died for your country, yet there arent exactly a lot of people itching to become soldiers, let alone die, among the lower classes.


Also they didn’t believe the sun wouldn’t come up they believed that a god threw himself into the sun to set it a blaze, and due to the sacrifice of the gods to support human life, they should give sacrifices as well, and the blood spilt upon the altar acted as fuel for the sun.

That doesn't change much, the actual dogma is somewhat irrelevant. It just seems like a religious face given to a very simple material conflict.


Also “flower wars,” were considered sacred wars, and were conducted for the sole purpose of sacrificial POWs, other wars were carried out yes, but “flower wars,” and imperialistic wars were very much separate.

The Christian crusades, Islamic terrorism against the West, etc. are all also purported to be "holy wars" or "sacred wars" and while the rhetoric may show that, the reality is that economic motives lie under the surface.


Violence played a very special role in the Aztec way of life, be it human, animal, and the quite popular auto-sacrifice, which is why I called it the most violent religion because violence played such a role in it.

That may be true, I cant purport to know everything about Aztec culture, the point is doubt it was different from every other culture, which means that religion is always a mere tool of the ruling class's economic motives.

[Keyser]

Buddhists are not known for their violence, either.

Wrong.

Despite what white middle class hippie converts to Buddhism claim, Buddhism is not a religion of free thought, love or peace.

First off, Buddhism is not as monolithic as Christianity and Islam and so there are big differences between 'Lesser Wheel' Buddhism and say Shintoism (native to Japan).

The fascist regime of Imperial Japan invaded Asia and killed millions and enslaved millions of Koreans, Chinese, South East Asians etc... in the name of their faith, which upheld the fascist and autocratic Emperor as a living god and a decendant of Ameratsu (Japan's sun godess).

A civil war has been going in Sri Lanka since 1983 between seperatist Hindu Tamils and the ruling elite Shinalese, whom are Buddhists. Buddhist monks are wholly opposed to any peace deal in Sri Lanka that weakens Buddhist supremacy there and have indulged in racial and sectarian/communualist violence there.

The bloody military regime of Myanmar (Burma) uses Buddhism as a foundation for their pan-Asianism and nationalist philosophy.

Also, Buddhism has culturally influenced Asia and it's people, many have attributed forms of Buddhism to the authoritarian and nationalistic nature of many regimes and the general culture of politics in Asia.

[Cryotank Screams]

While they may or may not have had currency (I believe the point is debated between historians, but I will grant that they certainly did not have a complex banking structure like other societies did) they certainly had material wealth, commerce, and a highly stratified society and thus I still see most of their actions taken out of economic motives.

True, they did have a caste system of sorts, however I personally through my readings don't see commodities and economics playing such a huge and almost religious importance role as in other cultures like the west and such, however this could be because I was specifically looking for class struggle, and such, but up until the European settlers came, invaded, pillaged, and enslaved the Meso-American peoples, I don't see commodities and economics playing a massive role in the lives of the Aztecs, or Meso-Americans.


If anything this shows that nothing has changed. Dying in wars is still purported to be a "very sacred honor" by the elites today. If you die in war you're a "war hero" and you get an elaborate funeral and familial prestige and recognition.

No, no, no, I meant if you died upon the sacrificial altar it was a prestigious and a high honor, not if you died in the "flower wars," that wouldn't be as significant; infact in some temples, such as the temple of tezcatlipoca, they would choose a person for the festival toxcatl, and for 20 days the person would be seen as the living manifestation of that god, and treated as such, but upon the finishing of the the 20 days, said person would be sacrificed.

Dying in wars wasn't as important as dying on the altar.


I'd guess most were of or employees of the ruling class.

No, the were warrior groups/organizations, such as the jaguar and eagle knights or warriors, whom were essentially professional soldiers, the were several hundred eagle warriors within the Aztec army, and equally as much if not a little bit smaller jaguars in the army as well, along with that the nobility also were apart of the wars as well, so thus employees maybe constituted some of the army, or possibly a little bit more than that, but it certainly was not most.


It just seems like a religious face given to a very simple material conflict.

Not necessarily, a lot of times people volunteered themselves to be sacrificed.


The Christian crusades, Islamic terrorism against the West, etc. are all also purported to be "holy wars" or "sacred wars" and while the rhetoric may show that, the reality is that economic motives lie under the surface.

No, from what I understand it was more like a sporting event made into a war, both sides willing waged war all for the taking of sacrificial POWs; when the Aztec did wage wars against other neighboring tribes, it was never considered a "flower war," so thus not a "sacred," war.

[Publius]

Christians with their wars, witchburnings, holocausts and what not!

Yeah, no other religions have ever had those! Fuck Christianity!

Actually, all religions are violent to a degree, and all are non-violent to a degree, for mainly the same reasons: they are contradictory in teachings and can appeal to any emotion in the human spectrum, if the time and political atmosphere is right.

[Janus]

certain Buddhist like Hulagu Khan
Hulegu was a Muslim.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Anarchism [email protected] 12, 2006 11:09 am

Buddhists are not known for their violence, either.

Wrong.

Despite what white middle class hippie converts to Buddhism claim, Buddhism is not a religion of free thought, love or peace.

First off, Buddhism is not as monolithic as Christianity and Islam and so there are big differences between 'Lesser Wheel' Buddhism and say Shintoism (native to Japan).

The fascist regime of Imperial Japan invaded Asia and killed millions and enslaved millions of Koreans, Chinese, South East Asians etc... in the name of their faith, which upheld the fascist and autocratic Emperor as a living god and a decendant of Ameratsu (Japan's sun godess).

A civil war has been going in Sri Lanka since 1983 between seperatist Hindu Tamils and the ruling elite Shinalese, whom are Buddhists. Buddhist monks are wholly opposed to any peace deal in Sri Lanka that weakens Buddhist supremacy there and have indulged in racial and sectarian/communualist violence there.

The bloody military regime of Myanmar (Burma) uses Buddhism as a foundation for their pan-Asianism and nationalist philosophy.

Also, Buddhism has culturally influenced Asia and it's people, many have attributed forms of Buddhism to the authoritarian and nationalistic nature of many regimes and the general culture of politics in Asia.
Shinto is Japan's native religion, it has absolutely nothing to do with Buddhism. Shinto itself, however, is a very peaceful religion. Japan's imperialism and terrible massacres weren't really related to religion at all (racism, but not religion).

On Buddhism, you mentioned Myanmar and Sri Lanka as examples of violence, and the warrior monks of Japan and China are another (monastaries basically ran mini-feudal states in Japan). I'm not sure there are too many others. IMO, their record isn't too bad.

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 07:37 am
Judaism isn't a violent religion
Ever read the old testament?



Seriously though, it depends if you are talking about percentage violence or total amount of violence caused. Obviously the later is biased towards the big religions, simply because 6 nut jobs can't do the damage a crusade can.

But as far as what religion is most violent within its own teachings, you'd have to look at the Aztecs. Though as I recall there were a handful of nightmare cults that came out of Africa.

[ATG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 08:13 pm

certain Buddhist like Hulagu Khan
Hulegu was a Muslim.
are we talking about the same person here ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulagu_Khan
and if he was Muslim he wouldn't have burned down Baghdad one of the centers of the study of Islam to the ground

[Phalanx]

Christianity was by far the most violent religion. It doesn't matter which religion dominated Europe, they'd still be on imperialistic campaigns no matter what idol they followed. Just read Guns, Germs & Steel.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

yeah those crusades were pretty vicious. Same with that slavery and indian genocide.

[ATG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 06:57 am
yeah those crusades were pretty vicious. Same with that slavery and indian genocide.
Blaming the whole christianity for the crusade is wrong i mean only the catholics actually used them . Other branches of Christianity weren't responsible for them
the Turks were an example of Islamic violence during the middle ages as well

[uber-liberal]

First of all, you need to differentiate between material economic reality and people's accounts. Did the Christian crusaders really attack Jerusalem because they were so religiously devout, or was it because their leaders wanted the monumentous wealth associated with the city and religion was a conveniant excuse to get people to follow them and structure the raid? I think most Marxists would argue the latter.

King Richard the Lion Hearted declared a crusade because the Pope heard about him buggering boys. Jerusalem being sacked by Saladin was just good timing. And Phillip II only went because Richard "persuaded" him to; that way neither could sack the other. The other Crusades were a combination of greed and religious ferver, I think.
The most bloody religion? Science. Why? Hiroshima/Nagasaki, Zyklone-B, Agent Orange, Napalm, hydrogen bomb testing on troops, lab animals, TNT (poor Alfred Nobel...), C-4... the list is tremendous.
While science has a shit-ton more benefits going for it than negatives, it's ALL religions' single-minded use for science that makes it so bloody, in my opinion.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by uber-[email protected] 27, 2006 11:40 am

First of all, you need to differentiate between material economic reality and people's accounts. Did the Christian crusaders really attack Jerusalem because they were so religiously devout, or was it because their leaders wanted the monumentous wealth associated with the city and religion was a conveniant excuse to get people to follow them and structure the raid? I think most Marxists would argue the latter.

King Richard the Lion Hearted declared a crusade because the Pope heard about him buggering boys. Jerusalem being sacked by Saladin was just good timing. And Phillip II only went because Richard "persuaded" him to; that way neither could sack the other. The other Crusades were a combination of greed and religious ferver, I think.
The most bloody religion? Science. Why? Hiroshima/Nagasaki, Zyklone-B, Agent Orange, Napalm, hydrogen bomb testing on troops, lab animals, TNT (poor Alfred Nobel...), C-4... the list is tremendous.
While science has a shit-ton more benefits going for it than negatives, it's ALL religions' single-minded use for science that makes it so bloody, in my opinion.
Saladin never sacked Jerusalem (he was pretty good about being tolerant, while the Christians certainly were not).

And no, science has only allowed for more effective killing, oftentimes religiously-motivated killing. I guess science is responsible for the Mongolian conquests, since they used the saddle, bow and arrow and other forms of technology...:rolleyes:

[uber-liberal]

Originally posted by manic expression+November 27, 2006 12:11 pm--> (manic expression @ November 27, 2006 12:11 pm)
uber-[email protected] 27, 2006 11:40 am

First of all, you need to differentiate between material economic reality and people's accounts. Did the Christian crusaders really attack Jerusalem because they were so religiously devout, or was it because their leaders wanted the monumentous wealth associated with the city and religion was a conveniant excuse to get people to follow them and structure the raid? I think most Marxists would argue the latter.

King Richard the Lion Hearted declared a crusade because the Pope heard about him buggering boys. Jerusalem being sacked by Saladin was just good timing. And Phillip II only went because Richard "persuaded" him to; that way neither could sack the other. The other Crusades were a combination of greed and religious ferver, I think.
The most bloody religion? Science. Why? Hiroshima/Nagasaki, Zyklone-B, Agent Orange, Napalm, hydrogen bomb testing on troops, lab animals, TNT (poor Alfred Nobel...), C-4... the list is tremendous.
While science has a shit-ton more benefits going for it than negatives, it's ALL religions' single-minded use for science that makes it so bloody, in my opinion.
Saladin never sacked Jerusalem (he was pretty good about being tolerant, while the Christians certainly were not).

And no, science has only allowed for more effective killing, oftentimes religiously-motivated killing. I guess science is responsible for the Mongolian conquests, since they used the saddle, bow and arrow and other forms of technology...:rolleyes: [/b]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%281187%29

October 2, 1187. A date that will live in infamy.