Can Buddhists be warmongers?

For a brief period this year, the three countries that are home to the highest proportion of Buddhists were simultaneously experiencing conflict, two with each other. Can we conclude from this that Buddhism is an inherently warlike religion? (Buddhism has such a positive reputation that I feel I can pose this question without being taken too seriously).

Despite Buddhism’s peaceful public image, Myanmar’s military leaders have not demonstrated much loving kindness in their efforts to maintain power – nor did Sri Lanka during its campaign against Tamil insurgents. Similarly, Cambodia and Thailand did not allow their shared religion to prevent border disputes.

Reasonably, you could argue this is not representative of Buddhism as a whole – consider Bhutan and its Gross National Happiness Index.

Would circumstances differ if Myanmar were the world’s sole Buddhist state?

I’ve reflected considerably on the relationship between religion and violence over the past two years. Growing up in a secular household, religion was viewed with suspicion as a source of intolerance and violence.

Despite this upbringing, I don’t have fundamental objections to religion itself. I regard religious beliefs as core elements of identity deserving protection as civil and political rights, and attempt to judge individuals rather than groups.

As philosopher Bertrand Russell observed, “Men tend to have the beliefs that suit their passions. Cruel men believe in a cruel God, and use their belief to excuse their cruelty“.

I cannot extrapolate one religious person in order to tarnish all others. I also cannot conclude that everyone following that religion is cruel.

I have worked alongside people whose religious beliefs inspire them to pursue kindness, embracing values like connection and compassion. Consider figures like Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, or – to mention a Buddhist – the Dalai Lama.

When Russell noted that cruel men believe in a cruel God, he added, “Only kindly men believe in a kindly God, and they would be kindly in any case.” I disagree with this assessment.

Being good is often challenging, and additional encouragement proves valuable.

This applies equally to the non-religious. Ancient Chinese philosopher Mencius suggested focusing on the concrete sensation experienced when doing something good – however small – and paying attention to that physical feeling to nurture that aspect of ourselves.

I recently spoke at the Global Peace Index 2025 launch, which monitors countries in conflict. Currently, 78 countries are engaged in conflict beyond their borders.

The data offers no evidence that religion leads to war – nor that religion is the sole ideology used to justify violence. Conflict has many causes, and religion can disguise more prosaic drivers like interests and political advantage.

Conversely, the determinants of peace are well-defined. Countries investing in acceptance of others’ rights, equitable resource distribution, and positive neighbour relations benefit from more peaceful and prosperous societies, regardless of their religious affiliations.

At the Global Peace Index launch, I reminded attendees – both secular and religious – that their work matters. We must continue being kind, even when witnessing cruelty around us.

In Armidale, New South Wales, where I live, there’s a local Peace and Justice Festival. The University of New England has taught Peace Studies for over 40 years. For some, it’s not merely theoretical. Armidale hosts a Ezidis community who narrowly escaped religious persecution by ISIS.

The festival organisers decided that fellowship and action serve as antidotes to global violence, with events including poetry nights, art exhibitions, and tree planting. Perhaps kindness doesn’t require religion – but it demands community.

If I were to choose my closest affiliation, it would be with humanists – religious and non-religious – who frequently champion others’ human rights.

Is violence worse when justified through religion? Clearly, this causes great distress for believers who view this as desecration of their faith. When cruel individuals justify actions through religion, this doesn’t make fellow believers complicit.

If people choose beliefs suiting their passions, mine favour moderation. Religion can be beneficial – helping us focus beyond ourselves, connect with others, and find meaning. However, extremes of any kind prove dangerous.

Our safety depends on upholding multicultural, liberal, egalitarian societies – and avoiding conflation of zealous individuals’ cruelty with any particular religion or practice.

So, when specific governments turn aggressive, we must look to politics and power, not to Buddhism – or any other faith.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Vision of Humanity.