Despite significant advances in our understanding of the politics of religious ideology and identity across time and space, scholars disagree on how to conceptualize “religious” conflicts and “religious” actors, and how to infer religious motivations from actors’ behavior. This Forum brings together scholars with diverse research agendas to weigh in on conceptual, methodological, and ethical questions surrounding the study of contemporary religious conflicts. We ask: How do we know when individuals and groups are acting on religious, as opposed to other, motivations? To what extent can analysts rely on actors’ own claims about their motivations? How does the “secular bias” affect scholarly research on religion and conflict? Is there a bias over which conflicts and actors come to be labeled and coded as “religious” by scholars, policymakers, and the media? The Forum fosters a debate aimed at identifying gaps within and between academic research and policy as well as media analyses on religion and political violence. The contributors examine contradictory conclusions by academics and policy analysts rooted in diverging assumptions and arguments about “religious” actors, “religious” motivations, and “religious” conflicts. The Forum proposes some ways for scholars to overcome these challenges as well as offers implications for policymakers and journalists who shape the public discourse.

中文翻译：

---

“宗教”冲突有多宗教性？

尽管我们对跨越时空的宗教意识形态和身份政治的理解取得了重大进展，但学者们在如何概念化“宗教”冲突和“宗教”行为者以及如何从行为者的行为中推断宗教动机方面存在分歧。该论坛汇集了具有不同研究议程的学者，以权衡围绕当代宗教冲突研究的概念、方法论和伦理问题。我们问：我们如何知道个人和团体何时出于宗教而非其他动机行事？分析师在多大程度上可以依赖行为者自己关于其动机的说法？“世俗偏见”如何影响宗教与冲突的学术研究？学者、政策制定者、学者、政策制定者对冲突和行为者贴上“宗教”标签和编码是否存在偏见？和媒体？该论坛促进了一场辩论，旨在确定学术研究和政策以及媒体对宗教和政治暴力的分析内部和之间的差距。撰稿人研究了学者和政策分析师的相互矛盾的结论，这些结论源于对“宗教”行为者、“宗教”动机和“宗教”冲突的不同假设和争论。该论坛为学者们提出了一些克服这些挑战的方法，并为塑造公共话语的政策制定者和记者提供了启示。撰稿人研究了学者和政策分析师的相互矛盾的结论，这些结论源于对“宗教”行为者、“宗教”动机和“宗教”冲突的不同假设和争论。该论坛为学者们提出了一些克服这些挑战的方法，并为塑造公共话语的政策制定者和记者提供了启示。撰稿人研究了学者和政策分析师的相互矛盾的结论，这些结论源于对“宗教”行为者、“宗教”动机和“宗教”冲突的不同假设和争论。该论坛为学者们提出了一些克服这些挑战的方法，并为塑造公共话语的政策制定者和记者提供了启示。