Democracy and Authoritarianism as Functions of Religious Power

From ancient history there is an important contrast that supports the idea that religion does more to impede war and violence then cause it. In India, the casist of mentha brahmans parenthesis priests had full authority over the warriors. In China, there was no such priestly class that imposed moral authority or a code of law on warriors. India even liked authoritarians. This is important because Chinese society had far more warfare in the first millennium BC as many states competed for consolidation. India's more spiritual roots made it more consolidated to begin with, so states and factions were less likely to form. Rather, it was the faction of the casts that were more important than the states.

 We see something similar in the West during the middle ages, as Islam  Gained traction. In Europe there was certainly a lot of fighting, but the feudal system meant that the bishops were really in charge. Large and widespread wars were minimal as a result, as were invasions. The arabs, however, allowed the Warrior class to take charge, even if they did invade in the name of religion. There was no law by a priestly class to limit their violence, so they were able to consolidate into a large Empire as China did, while Europe followed a similar path to India. It's important to bear in mind these were 2 different time periods. Their fates are similar though. In the West and India, democracy has become the chief political system, while authoritarianism remains in China and many countries are the Middle East.