ABSTRACT
As the daily headlines of any newspaper illustrate, it is a popular stereotype that there is something about religious conflicts that makes them more violent. Images of suicide bombers in the Middle East, of pipe bombs and punishment killings in Northern Ireland, of the near genocide in southern Sudan, of violent riots over the institution of sharia law in North Africa, and of the possibility of nuclear war regarding Kashmir are typical conceptions of religious conflicts—and these are only a few examples from within the last decade alone. Go further into history and almost inconceivable examples spring to mind—the genocide of Jews in the Holocaust and massacre of Muslims in the Crusades. From these and other events, the collective belief is that combining religion with conflict—either sincerely or manipulatively—escalates a conflict to a greater intensity than would otherwise be present. Is this reputation deserved? Are conflicts involving religion really more intense than other types of conflicts or are these just a few visible exceptions to the rule? This study evaluates this question using a statistical analysis of 278 interstate and intrastate territorial conflicts since World War II.
