[Closed] Religious wars

Land and resources is definitely a massive part of the conflict there.

Which would not have happened if the jewish diaspora had not stolen most of the land under force of arms!

But that in itself could be seen as a reaction to the holocaust

Which was in turn a descendant of the pogroms in russia

Suicide bombers really, truly believe they are going to nirvana.

Totally inappropriate mixture of religions.

But you asked what other elements (other than religion) are in involved in that conflict. The implication being there aren't any. Surely you can acknowledge that whilst religion plays a role there are other significant factors at play?

If hypothetically Judaism and Islam had never existed, I'm fairly certain there would still be violent tribal/territorial disputes in that troubled part of the world.

I do not believe there are any other factors than religion at play

without religion there would have been no pogroms. without religion there would have been no holocaust of the jews
without religion there would be no isreal

without isreal there would not have been a 60 year war and a ghetto of a million people

the only driver for the Palestinian conflict is religion

But you asked what other elements (other than religion) are in involved in that conflict

Whilst you would have other conflicts going on its a tad hard to ignore the promised land part of why Palestine/Israel became a problem unless you are really, really determined to ignore the elephant in the room.

Whilst you would have other conflicts going on its a tad hard to ignore the promised land part of why Palestine/Israel became a problem unless you are really, really determined to ignore the elephant in the room.

Not ignoring it. I didn't say religion wasn't a factor, just suggesting (surprisingly controversially it seems) that there are other factors at play.

I think it's much more complex than the black and white 100% single issue certainty that is being claimed.

Answer me this. If the jewish diaspora had not stolen that land would there be a conflict in palestine?

By any other measure you'd be calling it colonialism but since the banner is zionism it's religion at fault. Look beyond the banner and it's less clear. Bear in mind not all Israelis are Jewish either.

I already gave my view on that a bit further back in the thread when I said

'If hypothetically Judaism and Islam had never existed, I’m fairly certain there would still be violent tribal/territorial disputes in that troubled part of the world'.

We will never know for sure of course. Much like the current mess in Afghanistan, superficially religion is the cause but tribal and familial rivalries, 'honour', 'warlords', power struggles and territorial disputes have a massive role. These almost certainly predate the relatively young religion they are currently associated with. There would have been a shit storm there without religion and probably in the Levant too.

Answer me this. If the jewish diaspora had not stolen that land would there be a conflict in palestine?

There's been conflict in that region since before the Romans. Never mattered who had stolen it from whom.

By any other measure you’d be calling it colonialism but since the banner is zionism it’s religion at fault

Well yes.
I mean lets be realistic here. Would it have been turned into Israel if it wasnt the promised land?

Where does Temple Mount fit into all of this?

After all, it's a key site in Judaism, Islam, Christianity and Freemasonry...

Ah yes - you are right. there is that 60 year war between lebonon and syria. Then syria invaded Egypt. and of course Afghanisrtan stole half of ****stan ( not that they are in the middle east)

its an absurd treatise to try to pretend that the middle east conflicts is not purely because of religion. Its its only cause

without religion there would have been no chosen people and promised land and no invasion and theft of half of the palestinain mandate by the jewish diaspora

there is a very nasty tinge of racism / zenophobia - here " those arabs would have been fighting anyway"

there is a very nasty tinge of racism / zenophobia – here ” those arabs would have been fighting anyway”

Nobody has said anything of the sort as far I can see and if that's aimed at me it's snidey and deeply offensive. You really do go out of your way to look for the very worst motives in anyone who doesn't 100% agree with you don't you?

Crack on, I'm out.

TJ you're on a hiding to nothing here and getting offensive to boot. Time to back off.

There’s been conflict in that region since before the Romans. Never mattered who had stolen it from whom.

I’m fairly certain there would still be violent tribal/territorial disputes in that troubled part of the world’.

Two direct quotes that make my point and those of you who are pretending that religion is not the cause of the conflict in palestine are the ones being very offensive

without religion would there have been the huge influx of europeans into the region that stole a country that has caused a 60+ year confglict? Answer me that.

I stand by that quote. What I didn't say was "those arabs etc." or whatever flippant, twisted paraphrasing you care to use. I am genuinely angry that you have accused of me of racism and xenophobia with zero justification. Those are serious and slanderous accusations and you have no idea how massively wide of the mark you are. You've dragged me back in once but this is the last time I'm engaging with you. You are an angry shit stirrer with an overblown sense of your own infallibility who others anyone who doesn't agree with you with snide unfounded accusations.

I am sorry you cannot see how offensive that is.

Its perhaps not what yo meant but its what it says.

I'll apologise for racism because that is obviously overblown but I stand by xenophobia

As much as I completely disagree with the israeli occupation and ongoing land grab, given the history of jews in europe surely you have to think the desire for a homeland has something to do with escaping persecution and wassn't just purely religious idealism. Not to mention what was obviously a failure of british rule in the Palestinian mandate post ww1.

You have to admit it's all a wee bit more complex than your simplistic desire to scream, religion baaaad and is the cause of all evil at the world! 😆

This should be a thread with some interesting discussion and historical enlightenment  I’d like to engage with.

But a it’s STW, **** that.

Again I will apologise for offense caused. I genuinely am sorry about that. I stand by the position tho that the driver for the conflict in what was the british mandate of Palestine is all about religion. the "chosen people" and the "promised land" The entire justification is based on the bible and thus religion

I will step away from the whole forum for a while - too much time on here recently. I have been too argumentative again

apologies

There's no doubt religions plays a massive part, but it's your insistence in that it's the only driver I'd take issue with. It's just far too complex for such a simplistic look at it.

These people are literally telling you the answers to questions you ask and those answers are religious. But in the face of them telling you why they’re doing what they’re doing you seem to think that actually it’s all a bluff and really they mean something else.

People are giving me answers that I don't agree with. Do I have to accept everything a random on the internet says? After all, you aren't - and rightly so.

without religion there would have been no pogroms. without religion there would have been no holocaust of the jews

But TJ, Judaism is a religion, Jews are an ethnic group. You can't separate the two. You weren't able to renounce Judaism and be let off, were you? As said earlier, the Nazis persecuted other ethnic groups too, so WW2 was clearly an ethnic issue not a religious one. Nazis did LOTS of other things besides persecute Jews.

Religion is great tool to separate people into groups. If it didn't exist, then something else would and everything would carry on the same. In fact, how do we know this didn't already happen? You could argue that Christianity was invented as a way to bring people together in mutual love regardless of race (that's why they call it Catholic, it doesn't go with a particular ethnic group), and yet it was still subverted by bad humans. This proves that it's not the religion that's the problem, it's human greed and anger.

I really can't agree that people would behave the same regardless of religion. You're making some sort of straw man argument that people would behave badly towards each other if religion didn't exist therefore religion isn't the problem. No one is seriously suggesting that everything would be be perfect if religion didn't exist or indeed we could even "uninvent" religion. Some religions have horrible ideas that allow and even encourage horrendous things. These ideas need to be recognised and tackled as religious problems.

Take any shitty thing allowed by particular religions - say polygamy - are you suggesting that the practice of polygamy is not connected to religious belief?
Why did the Vikings sacrifice slaves but not the Christians or Muslims?
When a child dies of a curable disease because their parents won't let them get a blood transfusion, is that just human nature rather than a religious idea?

And no one is asking you to believe what randoms on the internet tell you - listen to what the religious people tell you about why they do things. Listen to a parent tell you why they let the child die for want of blood transfusion. Read what IS / AQ / hamas publish and shout from the rooftops. Listen to a religious fundamentalist tell you why they want a terminally ill person in agony live on. Listen to what the nutters picketing an abortion clinic are saying.

Some religions have horrible ideas that allow and even encourage horrendous things.

Yes, but most (if not all) also have lots to say about being nice to each other.

Take any shitty thing allowed by particular religions – say polygamy – are you suggesting that the practice of polygamy is not connected to religious belief?

Given how widespread it is and has been in cultures all over history and the world then yes I would suggest that absolutely.

listen to what the religious people tell you about why they do things.

I do, and this is why I changed my mind on the topic. I used to think like you. By choosing bad things people have done in the name of religion and ignoring good things, you are showing a heavy bias.

And it's impossible to unpick these things. Did the Christian message about loving they neighbour not contribute to the allied effort in WW2? I mean, there's an argument that says that the level of individual freedom we enjoy in the West can be directly traced back to Jesus' teachings. This all goes a lot deeper than many people seem to think.

Right so you have 2 people living in a country in the middle east. One has a religious book that says fill your boots with wives, so long as you can support them. The other has a book that says have no more than 1 wife. One has many wives, the other one. Yet this is not a religious phenomena?

I actually have no idea what you're on about anymore. You're arguing that religion isn't the cause of bad things but is somehow the cause of good things which shouldn't be ignored.

Given how widespread it is and has been in cultures all over history and the world then yes I would suggest that absolutely.

Polygamy is actually pretty rare, and most civilizations there's a taboo on it. Same as marrying a close relative, most civilizations around the world and through-out history share these two as no-go. Interestingly (or not; depends I guess) Most civilizations had exemptions to both those rules for priestly and royal classes. Make of that what you want.

EDIT: "most" not all, you can and will find outliers, but it's pretty remarkably consistent, that marrying your sister or having more than 1 wife isn't the norm. Unless you're a High Priest or King.

Right so you have 2 people living in a country in the middle east. One has a religious book that says fill your boots with wives, so long as you can support them. The other has a book that says have no more than 1 wife. One has many wives, the other one. Yet this is not a religious phenomena?

No. Why does one book say you can have many wives?

What about all the places you can have many wives that don't have that religious book?

Correlation is not causation.

You’re arguing that religion isn’t the cause of bad things but is somehow the cause of good things which shouldn’t be ignored.

I'm saying that good and bad are on a different axis to religious and not religious. In other words, there is no correlation between any particular religion and good or bad things.

I really can’t agree that people would behave the same regardless of religion.

Really? That part of the world is totally resource driven, it just so happens that those who accumulate the power (and resources) happen to have hung their coat on religion. Bear in mind that the only alternative politically driven doctrine was totally stomped on by ourselves during the cold war (Aden/Oman).

Take any shitty thing allowed by particular religions – say polygamy

Okay this is the second time it's come up, what's the issue with polygamy? So long as it's carried out with consent and equal say in the relationship what's the issue? (besides the marriage part being illegal whereas polyamory isn't)

It's also not something confined to those of faith.

Okay this is the second time it’s come up, what’s the issue with polygamy?

In its most common form, polygyny, it can lead to badly imbalanced societies with lots of rather frustrated young men whilst the older/richer grab all the wives.
As such you are liable to end up with a pretty violent and unstable society plus one which often discriminates against women.

This all goes a lot deeper than many people seem to think.

But we can unpick it sufficiently to declare religion innocent when it comes to those wars?
Convenient.

No. Why does one book say you can have many wives?

It was determined to be the will of god and is interpreted as such.

Okay this is the second time it’s come up, what’s the issue with polygamy? So long as it’s carried out with consent and equal say in the relationship what’s the issue? (besides the marriage part being illegal whereas polyamory isn’t)

For starters it's not carried out with full consent and equal say in the situation. Even if it was, a rudimentary understanding of biology and maths would point to it being a very unstable way to build a society (unless you can find a way to kill lots of married men, relative to the number of women killed). It's a zero sum game where 2 wives for 1 man means no partner for another. That's also ignoring all the patriarchy stuff.

What about all the places you can have many wives that don’t have that religious book?

Can you find examples of any large countries where polygamy is legal, where it is not sanctioned by religion? Nigeria is an interesting example - civil polygamous marriages are illegal but religious marriages are OK. So you can only have multiple wives by claiming it under you religion.

It was determined to be the will of god and is interpreted as such.

Yeah but why?

Can you find examples of any large countries where polygamy is legal, where it is not sanctioned by religion?

AGAIN correlation vs causation. Religion sanctions it because it's popular, those in charge want it sanctioned. Religions aren't invented in a vacuum, you know.

Also I'd like to point out the irony here that the reason you're against it is likely to be strongly influenced (along with many other things) by the historic religion of the place you were born and brought up.

For starters it’s not carried out with full consent and equal say in the situation.

Says you. Every asked anyone who's polyamorous?

Even if it was, a rudimentary understanding of biology and maths would point to it being a very unstable way to build a society

Who said anything about building a society on it? I'm just talking about the general concept.

you are liable to end up with a pretty violent and unstable society plus one which often discriminates against women.

That's rather specific to polygyny which wasn't what I was asking about. Besides, we do rather well as a society at achieving that without polygamy as it is.

Yeah but why

Because it's written in a holy text. And is therefore the word of God and shall be obeyed.

@Squirrelking you're shifting the goal posts to now talk about a niche within a niche. Even to grant you that there are happy polyamorous relationships have you seen any evidence that this is likely to lead to good outcomes at a societal level? The research I've seen is not favourable, but that doesn't tell you anything about a specific couple. And it's a complete detour from any religious discussion.

I think it's fairly obvious that religions adopted practices of the time into their religious texts. The continued existence of those practices becomes part of the religion. I.e. it is now not merely something you do but you are obligated to do , else burn in hell.

@Squirrelking you’re shifting the goal posts to now talk about a niche within a niche

No, I asked about polygamy, I simply added the polyamory for context.

Even to grant you that there are happy polyamorous relationships have you seen any evidence that this is likely to lead to good outcomes at a societal level?

Given peoples attitudes to it, no, but that has a lot more to do with other stuff that is well off topic as you say.

My point was that the act itself is not harmful but in fact the way it can be carried out. That's all.

There definitely were many wars that were started because one group's imaginary friend in the sky was different to anothers. More recently there have been wars that aren't necessarily about differing religious beliefs but religious institutions haven't shown their caring sharing side that so many people think religion is all about (see Catholic Church's indifference and almost denial of the holocaust when it was going on in WW2 or their complicity in the Rwandan genocide.)

Would there still be wars and atrocities without religion, would people find something else to argue about? Probably, but something that professes that all will be alright if you believe in a high power so you can live for eternity in an afterlife as long as you do the bidding of someone's interpretation of these old fiction books makes it a lot easier to get ordinary people do horrendous acts.

No, I asked about polygamy, I simply added the polyamory for context.

If you are talking about polygamy it makes sense to reference the most prevalent form.

I.e. it is now not merely something you do but you are obligated to do , else burn in hell.

The shura about being able to marry multiple wives was probably set out after lots of men died in a battle (don't ask me to name it, I've forgotten and can't be asked to look it up) Islam is pretty consistent on the idea that it's probs better to have a wife rather than lots unless 1. you can make sure it's going to be OK with everyone, and 2 Have you really properly checked it's OK with everyone?

There's certainly not an obligation, and certainty you ain't going to hell (Jahannam) Islam holds that on judgement day everyone crosses a bridge over Hell, if you're destined for there, you'll find it too narrow and fall. Not marrying multiple wives doesn't make Hell your destiny by a looong chalk. In fact there's pretty much a limited scope for what gets you there,  Allah (PBUH) is merciful

Yeah I know nick, that was a general point rather about the specifics of multiple marriages in Islam. For what it's worth I had the chance to live in Saudi for a while and got to know some of the local engineers pretty well, including having the honour of being invited to their homes. All the senior people had multiple wives, but essentially they explained it as you need to be able to support the next wife as the first. So broadly you need to double the size of your home, earn substantially more etc for each extra wife. It was a huge status symbol though. The flip side being that it was a sore point with the engineers from poorer backgrounds who struggled to "afford" one wife. The whole thing was totally ****ed up and not something that is morally defensible unless you subscribe to the faith.

Because it’s written in a holy text.

But who put it in the holy text and why? These things didn't just appear. You can't just walk into town and tell everyone what the new rules are if they are completely alien to people. You'll get laughed at, unless you have a big army. Which hasn't always been the case.

A lot of the Old Testament is just information on how to live. The Jews lost the focal point of their religion when the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, so they made their customs and rituals the focal point, so they wrote it all down. But the point is that was what they were already doing before the books existed. The religion and their society evolved together.

Religions don't just pop out of thin air.

Islam holds that on judgement day everyone crosses a bridge over Hell, if you’re destined for there, you’ll find it too narrow and fall.

All that praying, following rules and regulations and it basically boils down to if you’ve got shit balance, unlucky! I knew all that skateboarding would come in handy at some point.

But who put it in the holy text and why?

The divine, God, Allah etc and because they could, so there mortal. If you don’t believe that then it follows you believe that religion is an entirely man made construct and therefore just a massive con/pyramid scheme. Don’t like it? Better hope you’ve got good balance come the end times.

I think a lot of the posts are coming at this from the wrong angle to be honest. Yes religions and religious beliefs can lead to people doing good things and bad. Would the balance of those things alter for the better if religion wasn’t a thing? I honestly don’t think it would. People would just be nice because they’re nice or do shitty things to one another because people. If you need a deity to frighten or cajole you in to being nice then, frankly, you’re a bit of a ****

Religions don’t just pop out of thin air.

I think everyone is well aware of that. However as others have pointed out a problem is a solution which was suitable for a bronze or iron age society isnt necessarily the right one for a modern society. Once you have something in the holy book though as the word of god its generally harder to update to suit the changed circumstances.

Once you have something in the holy book though as the word of god its generally harder to update to suit the changed circumstances.

Oh I don't know. Western society along with its interpretation of Christianity has evolved dramatically over the last 500 years, hasn't it? In fact, I would go so far as to say that society has led the change and the Church has had to follow, simply because it's part of society. In the last 30 or so years it's faltered but the long term trend is clear.

Once you have something in the holy book though as the word of god its generally harder to update to suit the changed circumstances.

Bit like the American constitution and guns then.

I think science has led the change and the Church has had to update or get left behind. Now it chooses to pick out some bits of the bible and say they're definitely still true but you just ignore the others that are demonstrably bunkum.

But who put it in the holy text and why? These things didn’t just appear.

It really doesn't matter. It's absolutely obvious some bloke wrote it but in the here and now real world if you state the fact it is a horrendous blasphemy, punishable by death in many countries. The reality is holy texts are treated as the word of God and people live and act on that basis.

The divine, God, Allah etc and because they could, so there mortal. If you don’t believe that then it follows you believe that religion is an entirely man made construct and therefore just a massive con/pyramid scheme.

Many books of the bible literally have their authors' names on them. Most people know that they are written by people and only inspired by God. This really couldn't be clearer. The most important books in the NT, the gospels are named after the four people who told them and they are all different and they don't even all agree. How much clearer can it be that they aren't the divine word of God?! Most Christians understand that, but that doesn't mean they aren't valuable and they understand that too.

It's entirely plausible that people experienced God, then wrote down their experiences *as people*. You can still believe in God and yet treat the Bible as human writings.

The reality is holy texts are treated as the word of God

I think that is a minority view.

Many books of the bible literally have their authors’ names on them. Most people know that they are written by people and only inspired by God. This really couldn’t be clearer.

We’re not just discussing Christianity here or the NT though. Ten Commandments, God. Quran, word of God as just two examples. If they aren’t the word of God why not live life by LotR’s or the lates Jack Reacher novel. You’re making a good case for religion being more batshit than it already is. Basically god has nothing to do with it and it’s just a story some fella wrote as his personal interpretation of what they think God meant. That’s a shabby defence and, when you stop and think, really depressing that people have built their lives around it

Religions don’t just pop out of thin air.

No.

They require a human being who believes that they know better than everyone else, despite all the evidence to the contrary:

L Ron Hubbard, Sun Myung Moon, Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell, Li Hongzhi etc......

Man created God.
Religions initially reflect, then ultimately corrupt the moral and social constructs of the day.
How could they not?

I think that is a minority view.

It's certainly been the majority view, whether sincerely held or used as a tool of repression for most of the time that the Abrahamic religions have existed.

Of course, choosing which bits to enforce and which bits to ignore gives rise to an almost infinite variety of interpretation or methods of control.

It’s entirely plausible that people experienced God, then wrote down their experiences *as people*.

This is where fundamental disagreement comes in. Plausible isn’t a word I would use for it. You’ve just described Scientology there too. Something that it’s okay to mock and say bad things about, yet the same doesn’t apply to other belief systems. It would be highly amusing if it wasn’t so depressing.

I think that is a minority view.

It's absolutely not. In Catholicism, for example, the Word of God does not just mean the literal spoken word of one part of the holy trinity. It's the more general good news of the lord blah blah. It has a very particular meaning beyond the literal.

You're also saying the Bible was just written by the prophets. If you've suffered the misfortune like me of chanting the nicene creed every week at mass it includes the clear statements that God spoke through his prophets. You have to chant it week in week out. Followed by an affirmation that it's the word of the lord. You can't be a real practicing Christian and believe anything other than the Bible is the word of God.

This has wandered pretty far off topic now.

Anyone want to discuss the Viet Minh, Khmer Rouge, VRS, Third Reich and Bolsheviks and how religion contributed to those conflicts?

I only popped in to make the comment about the subhumans song and was delighted to see that it was the very first comment back to the OP. Well done singletrack x

It's nothing if not a Word Factory, this place....🙂

You can’t be a real practicing Christian and believe anything other than the Bible is the word of God.

That may come as a surprise to some of the Christians I know.

Are they REAL Christians though or just whatever the hipster version of a Christian is? What is a real Christian? I have a friend called Christian and he’s real or at least I think he is.

it includes the clear statements that God spoke through his prophets

That's not exactly clear, it doesn't specify if any of the message was re-interpreted or just dictated verbatim. Plus, not everyone in the bible is a prophet, are they?

You can’t be a real practicing Christian and believe anything other than the Bible is the word of God.

Incorrect. The bible is not the literal word of God, it's inspired by God but written by humans. And, apparently, they put in a lot of other stuff alongside about seafood and fabrics and the like. Which backs up my point about religion and society being completely intertwined and co-dependent, which backs up my original point about wars that appear to be religious not actually being religious and that whilst the groups involved might've been different I doubt there would have been fewer conflicts without religion.

Something that it’s okay to mock and say bad things about, yet the same doesn’t apply to other belief systems.

Just to be clear - you can mock all you want, as long as you don't break rule 1 (which you probably will). What annoys me is people banging home a point with absolute certainty when they clearly haven't understood any of it and are completely unwilling to listen, think and discuss the subject. Example: sitting through mass enough times doesn't make you a theologian or a historian. Now, I'm not claiming to be either, what I want is a good discussion. If there's one thing in the whole of human experience that is least likely to be a black and white simple issue, it's religion.

Anyone want to discuss the Viet Minh, Khmer Rouge, VRS, Third Reich and Bolsheviks and how religion contributed to those conflicts?

Yes, that's what I want to talk about 🙂 (not sarcasm)

Just to be clear – you can mock all you want, as long as you don’t break rule 1

Depends where you happen to live. I wouldn’t fancy my chances of being free to mock in certain parts of the American south or Middle East.

what I want is a good discussion.

You wanted a good discussion so chose STW chat forum and religion? Has your account been hacked or something? All joking aside you appear to be just as incapable of listening as TJ and others who have debated the topic.

The original debate was pretty much settled on page one. People are generally dickheads and tribal. Religion facilitates tribalism, makes it easier and more convenient to ‘other’ people and therefore can be used as a great reason to start trouble, make existing trouble worse or rile people up when other methods (politics, fear, resources etc) fail to get the desired results such as war. If religion doesn’t work perhaps resources will or othering a group of people based on other criteria. Perhaps a combination of some of the aforementioned points.

Basically people are ****s and if something can be used as a convenient tool it will be. Religion is low hanging fruit in that regard so has obviously been a factor in a few wars.

The original debate was pretty much settled on page one. People are generally dickheads and tribal.

This ^^^

Put it in another way I haven't heard of any religious teaching that says annihilate thy neighbours ... unless they are being interpreted by certain people.

I was researching the history Chinese dynasties, gave up when I was near to the Last Emperor, and what I noticed was at no point was religion was used an excuse to conquer or to annihilate their opponents. Although there were already many religions (local ones) but most of their excuse is rather simple. e.g. I want your land and resources bow to me or I destroy you. That's it really. No ifs or buts but just because they can. Even the Mongol, although very superstitious, they conquered because they could as they really had no need to have an excuse to conquer.

Other parts of Asia can be a mixture of using religion as an excuse to conquer from India to Indonesia. Perhaps you can say that they are a bit "civilised" at attempting to use religion as an excuse to conquer unlike China and the Mongol in those days.

I wonder if there are any specific examples of wars being avoided because of religion?

Kennedy was Catholic and that might've influenced his actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but that's about all I can come up with.

Mol, your question has been answered.

Religion is a powerful man made constuct that can be used in an infinite variety of ways.

People can be persuaded to wage war for a variety of reasons.
Religion may or may not be one factor amongst many in individual conflicts, but there are many examples where it is.

Faith would appear to be intrinsic human trait, irrespective of religious belief.

And if you actually want a discussion, taking on board the views presented to you is a prerequisite.

I wonder if there are any specific examples of wars being avoided because of religion?

Perhaps Ashoka the Great, the Indian emperor of the Maurya Dynasty, after he converted to Buddhism ...