A careful, unbiased study of the so-called religious wars yields the rather surprising result that they were not religious wars.

I will believe that a study involving religion is unbiased when both religious and unreligious readers express a consensus that it is unbiased.

"I tend to agree for the most part, though in teaching pacifism one might decline to say "do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Matt10:34
- I think Jesus (understanding human nature very well) is speaking as a realist, indicating what is likely to occur as a result of his message, not necessarily what should occur as a result.

"But the question raised by this piece was whether the religions created in his name have played a causal role in at least some wars and violence"

I don't think that is the authors point. I think the author is simply trying to dispel the notion that religion inherently causes violence. He is trying to do away with the misnomer that religion was the sole cause of medieval war and suffering. From some of your other posts, it seems that you agree.

I tend to agree for the most part, though in teaching pacifism one might decline to say "do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Matt10:34

But the question raised by this piece was whether the religions created in his name have played a causal role in at least some wars and violence. I would attest that they did. At a very minimum you must agree that for centuries the crusades, the inquisition and wars pitting Catholics against Catholics or Protestants or pagans, that Christians of all sects thought they were fulfilling god's work and that he would agree their war was just. Such a view is incompatible with pacifism.

I would attest that Christ taught pacifism.

" But, what they will not say is that the state should be religious in order to secure these goods."

Why is this?

Current just war theory has four strict rules:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated (the power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition).

But the more primitive Augustinian Just War theory, had three strict rules:
- War must be conducted in your own territory against an aggressor
- You must not invade your enemy's territory in revenge
- You must show love to your enemy by using tactics that are as dangerous to your own people as to the enemy.

While the current version shows a good deal more nuance- I find it interesting to say the least that the Augustinian version would lead to significantly less war if universally practiced; and more horrific war when it fails (a good point is on weapons of mass destruction- under the Augustinian version, an argument can be made for repelling an invading army by sacrificing the lives of your own civilians in border cities along their route- which modern just war theory would not allow).

Not sure what you think the modern definition of just war is. International law says the use of state force is only legal in self defence and the Rome treaty outlaws aggression. Of course the US doesn't need to bother with such things.

And why the US is so peaceful. And Nigeria. And so on.