The question is which religious part causes conflict, not whether religion does

Evidence

I have argued that “religion” is best seen as a complex amalgam of traits and inclinations, grounded in recurrent, ordinary intuitions and packaged together by cultural evolution over historical time. It makes little sense to ask, then, “does religion cause intolerance and violent conflict?” A much more precise scientific question would be, what part of “religion” is implicated in conflict and intolerance, and why? — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 516

This is why, as Jonathan Haidt puts it, “religion is therefore often an accessory to atrocity, rather than the driving force of the atrocity.” — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 536

Categorization

• DEFINE: Frames religion as an amalgam of traits rather than a monolith, requiring component-level causal analysis.
• XREF: Tight echo of Endō’s Silence where the institutional church and its visible rituals become accessories to the persecution rather than its driving force. — connects to: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict’s religious framing is recent rather than primordial — Nadim N. Rouhana and Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, When Politics Are Sacralized:…, 51; Violent religious school conflicts drove secular public schools. — Katherine Stewart, The Power Worshippers: Inside the…, 522; Vernacular religion, not institutional belief, drives post-conflict sectarian division. — Nadim N. Rouhana and Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, When Politics Are Sacralized:…, 2302
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 516; Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 536