Christians are historically more violent than Satanists
Executive summary
Measured by historical scale, institutional reach, and documented episodes, Christianity has been associated with far more organized and large-scale violence than groups self-identifying as Satanists, whose documented history is numerically marginal and often entangled with moral panics and exaggeration [1] [2] [3].
1. Christianity’s documented record of large-scale, institutional violence
Christian institutions and actors have been implicated in wars, inquisitions, witch trials, and politically sanctioned violence across centuries — examples include the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the witch-hunt era that peaked between 1560 and 1630, episodes scholars link to theological, political and state power rather than isolated criminality [1] [2] [4]. Historical and contemporary scholars note Christianity’s “violent side” has been theologically justified at times and enacted through state-backed coercion after the Constantinian turn, producing coercive institutions and practices that resulted in executions, wars and punitive policies [1] [4]. Modern iterations of violence tied to Christian actors — for instance anti-abortion attacks framed as “spiritual warfare” by fringe groups — underline that a religious tradition’s central texts and institutions can be marshaled into violent ends by movements within that tradition [1].
2. Satanism’s marginality and the invention of menace
By contrast, the historical category “Satanist” has often been constructed by Christian accusers and functioned as a slur to explain deviance or political enemies, with many episodes of alleged Satanic crime later shown to lack evidence or to be moral panics [4] [3]. Academic histories emphasize that many supposed “Satanists” either did not self-identify as such or never existed as organized cults, and that the label was often used to demonize rivals during the Reformation, witch hunts, and later panics [2] [4] [3]. Where nineteenth- and twentieth-century self-identified Satanist movements appear, they remain numerically small and ideologically diverse, and the overwhelming weight of documented ritual-crime allegations from the 1980s–90s (Satanic Ritual Abuse) was later shown to rest on coerced testimonies and weak evidence [3] [5].
3. Contemporary Satanist movements emphasize nonviolence and activism
Contemporary organized Satanic groups such as many who follow LaVeyan or The Satanic Temple–style traditions are predominantly non-theistic, use Satan as a symbol of rebellion or individualism, and publicly advocate secular causes, reason, and civil liberties rather than violence; scholars and sympathetic journalists describe modern Satanists as largely nonviolent activists [6] [7] [8]. Reporting and scholarship note that modern Satanic organizations often engage in political advocacy (reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ causes) and explicitly reject ritual crime narratives that fueled past panics [6] [8].
4. Exceptions, extremisms, and why scale matters
This analysis does not deny that individuals or tiny extremist cells claiming Satanic motives have committed crimes — nor that some extreme anti-social actors mix Satanic symbolism with other violent ideologies — but the evidence suggests such episodes are sporadic, not institutional, and far outnumbered by violence executed under Christian political or institutional banners over centuries [9] [10]. The crucial distinction is scale and institutional endorsement: Christianity has been the faith of empires and state churches capable of large-scale coercion, while Satanism has largely been a marginal, often stigmatized identity lacking comparable institutional power [1] [2].
5. Conclusion and limits of available reporting
On balance, available scholarship and reporting indicate Christianity is historically associated with much greater and more systemic violence than Satanism, which is mostly a constructed enemy in many historical episodes and, in its modern organized forms, nonviolent and politically activist [1] [4] [6]. Sources also caution about moral panics and misattribution: many alleged Satanic crimes were later discredited, and accusations often served other agendas, especially within Christian discourse seeking political or cultural dominance [3] [5]. This assessment rests on the cited secondary literature and reporting; it does not quantify every episode globally and acknowledges gaps where primary archival or criminological data are not presented in the sources reviewed [2] [3].