Ariel Cook

Human history is marked by both extraordinary violence and enduring peace. Across centuries and continents, societies have expressed divergent tendencies toward conflict or harmony. Religion and worldview have often been seen as central influences in these patterns, sometimes inspiring profound compassion and, at other times, legitimizing conquest or oppression. Yet, contrary to common assumptions, no faith or philosophical system is inherently violent or peaceful. Instead, the social, political, and cultural environments in which these systems operate largely determine their outcomes. By examining peaceful societies such as the Ashokan Buddhist Empire, the Quakers, and the Mbuti of Central Africa, alongside more violent ones like medieval Christendom, the Aztec Empire, and twentieth-century atheist totalitarian states, it becomes clear that violence and peace are less about belief itself and more about how power and ideology interact.

One of the most frequently cited examples of a historically peaceful society is the Religious Society of Friends, commonly known as the Quakers. Emerging in seventeenth-century England during a time of civil unrest, Quakerism emphasized the presence of an “inner light” within every individual, reflecting the divine equality of all people. This conviction led Quakers to reject warfare, social hierarchy, and slavery, and to become leaders in early movements for abolition and human rights (Barbour, 2014). Their pacifism was not passive but deeply active, rooted in service, mediation, and advocacy for justice. Barbour (2014) observes that Quaker peacebuilding “integrated contemplation and action,” demonstrating how Christian spirituality, when expressed through compassion rather than dogma, can generate sustained nonviolence and social reform.

Another historically peaceful example is found in ancient India under Emperor Ashoka, who ruled the Mauryan Empire during the third century BCE. After the brutal Kalinga War, Ashoka underwent a profound moral transformation influenced by Buddhist teachings. He publicly renounced violence and adopted principles of compassion, tolerance, and non-injury (ahimsa) as state policy. His famous Rock and Pillar Edicts proclaimed respect for all religions, environmental protection, and moral education (Thapar, 2002). Ashoka’s reign stands as one of the earliest recorded efforts to build a moral state guided by empathy and restraint rather than coercion. His interpretation of Buddhism emphasized ethical conduct and compassion as the foundation of governance, contrasting sharply with the militarism of most ancient empires.

Peaceful social organization has also flourished outside of formal religious systems. The Mbuti people of Central Africa and the Semai of Malaysia are two examples of small-scale societies characterized by minimal violence and egalitarianism. Anthropologist Douglas Fry (2007) found that such groups often maintain social order through consensus, shared child-rearing, and reconciliation practices rather than formal laws or punitive systems. Their spirituality tends to be animistic and relational, emphasizing harmony with nature and community over hierarchy or dogma. This suggests that spirituality, broadly defined as a sense of interconnection and reverence for life, may be more essential to peace than institutionalized religion itself.

While religion has inspired peace in some contexts, it has also been invoked to justify immense violence. Medieval Europe provides a stark example through the Crusades, Inquisitions, and religious wars that swept the continent from the eleventh to the seventeenth centuries. Although these movements were carried out under the banner of Christianity, their underlying motivations were often political, territorial, and economic. Historian Karen Armstrong (2014) argues that religion in these cases functioned as a tool for legitimizing state power and social control, rather than a genuine expression of faith. The same Christian scriptures that inspired pacifism in Quakers were interpreted by crusaders as mandates for holy war. The difference lay not in doctrine but in interpretation and context—Christianity allied with imperial structures produced violence, while Christianity practiced from the margins of power fostered peace.

The Aztec Empire offers another example of violence intertwined with religion. Deeply spiritual and highly developed in astronomy and art, the Aztecs also practiced large-scale ritual warfare and human sacrifice. Their cosmology held that the gods required nourishment through human blood to sustain cosmic balance. This belief system normalized violence by embedding it within sacred duty (Clendinnen, 1991). What distinguishes such societies is not a lack of spirituality but a worldview that equates destruction with divine necessity. The religious violence of the Aztecs, though vastly different from that of Christian crusaders, shares a common thread: moral certainty that killing served a higher purpose.

The twentieth century challenges the notion that religion is the primary cause of violence. The rise of atheist totalitarian regimes demonstrated that secular ideologies can be equally or even more destructive when they adopt the same absolutist mindset once held by religious empires. The Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin and the People’s Republic of China under Mao Zedong both engaged in mass persecution, purges, and forced labor camps, leading to tens of millions of deaths. Political scientist Rummel (1994) coined the term “democide” to describe these acts of state-sponsored mass killing. He argues that the root of such violence lies not in atheism itself but in totalitarianism—the concentration of power combined with an ideological conviction that dissent must be eradicated. These regimes replaced religion with ideology, often treating Marxist doctrine as infallible truth in the same way religious fundamentalists regard scripture. Thus, violence emerged not from disbelief in God but from belief in absolute authority.

When examining both peaceful and violent societies, certain consistent patterns appear. Peaceful societies share traits such as empathy, equality, humility, and interdependence. Their belief systems—whether religious, spiritual, or secular—encourage self-reflection and mutual care. Violent societies, by contrast, often elevate hierarchy, purity, and dogmatic certainty. They demand conformity and punish deviation, justifying harm in the name of divine or ideological truth.

The decisive factor, then, is not what a society believes but how it holds those beliefs. Armstrong (2014) emphasizes that religion becomes violent when it merges with political authority and is used to define identity in opposition to others. Conversely, religion promotes peace when it emphasizes compassion, forgiveness, and self-transcendence. Similarly, Fry (2007) notes that peaceful societies cultivate what he calls “conflict management systems,” structures that redirect aggression toward dialogue and cooperation rather than domination.

Tradition also plays an important role. Peaceful societies tend to maintain continuity through rituals of connection—communal meals, shared songs, and moral storytelling—rather than rituals of exclusion. In the Ashokan Empire, Buddhist moral codes coexisted with Hindu and Jain traditions, showing that pluralism, rather than uniformity, sustains peace. In contrast, the Crusades and Inquisitions sought purity and orthodoxy, defining peace as the elimination of difference.

If no religion or worldview is inherently peaceful or violent, what accounts for the wide variation in human behavior across cultures? One answer lies in the interaction between belief and fear. Violence often arises when groups feel threatened—by scarcity, invasion, or moral decay—and turn to ideology as a source of security. Religion and secularism alike can become defensive systems when used to protect identity rather than cultivate compassion. The peaceful expressions of faith, by contrast, arise when individuals experience interconnectedness rather than division.

Modern neuroscience and psychology provide additional insight into this dynamic. Compassion-based practices common in Buddhism and contemplative Christianity have been shown to reduce aggression and strengthen empathy through neuroplastic changes in the brain (Davidson & Begley, 2012). Spirituality, when practiced as mindfulness or loving-kindness, activates neural circuits associated with care and cooperation. These findings suggest that peaceful behavior may be rooted as much in psychological training as in theology.

Across the broad sweep of history, societies shaped by different religious and philosophical traditions have exhibited both peace and violence. The Quakers and Ashokan Buddhists represent examples where spirituality inspired compassion, pluralism, and restraint. The Crusaders, the Aztec priesthood, and twentieth-century totalitarian regimes illustrate how religion or ideology can be distorted into instruments of control and destruction. The underlying distinction between peaceful and violent societies lies not in faith versus atheism but in humility versus absolutism. Peaceful societies foster empathy and self-questioning; violent ones enforce conformity and certainty.

The historical record, therefore, does not indict religion or atheism as inherently violent but reveals a deeper truth about human nature: when belief becomes an instrument of domination, violence follows; when belief becomes a path to compassion, peace endures. The future of human coexistence depends on cultivating traditions—religious or secular—that encourage curiosity, empathy, and reverence for life. These qualities, rather than any particular creed, are what allow humanity to move beyond cycles of fear and power toward genuine peace.

---

References

Armstrong, K. (2014). Fields of blood: Religion and the history of violence. Knopf.

Barbour, D. (2014). The Quakers and the quest for peace. Oxford University Press.

Clendinnen, I. (1991). Aztecs: An interpretation. Cambridge University Press.

Davidson, R. J., & Begley, S. (2012). The emotional life of your brain. Penguin.

Fry, D. P. (2007). Beyond war: The human potential for peace. Oxford University Press.

Rummel, R. J. (1994). Death by government. Transaction Publishers.

Thapar, R. (2002). Ashoka and the decline of the Mauryas. Oxford University Press.