Religious violence shifts historically within traditions, so no religion is inherently violent

Evidence

But jokes aside, the fact that some religious groups are more tolerant or less prone to violence than others does not really answer the question—it pushes the question further back: what is it about the particular religious beliefs and practices of a group that contribute to conflict? Today, many people, with more seriousness than Franken, think that radical Islam is the “problem religion” of the twenty-first century, but ten centuries earlier, it was Christianity (mainly Catholicism), and Islamic Spain was a cosmopolitan center of many faiths, a far more tolerant society than medieval Christendom. If some religions are inherently more violent than others, how do we explain these changes within a religious tradition? — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 515

Categorization

• XREF: Directly complicates the reader’s premise that any faith is intrinsically conflict-prone; supports the analytical bridge that situational mechanisms, not doctrine, drive conflict. — connects to: Religion and secular nationalism sustain violence only when mutually reinforcing, not inherently. — Nadim N. Rouhana and Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, When Politics Are Sacralized:…, 2303; Sacralized nationalism licenses violence even within a pacifist religion — Nadim N. Rouhana and Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, When Politics Are Sacralized:…, 179
• QUESTION: What mechanisms paired with belief explain why a tradition flips between tolerant and violent phases — worth chasing for the parser.