US Revolutionary War
War of 1812
US Civil War
Spanish American War
WWI
WWII
Korean War
Vietnam War
GWI
GWII
WoT
Nearly all of them really. Wars are fought over resources and pride of leaders. Sometimes religion can be used as a recruiting tool, but the war isn't really about religion.
You can argue that since people who fight in wars have religious beliefs that religion is involved, but you can say the same things about sticks and shoes. I don't think that is a compelling argument.
If you mean the war between the US on one side and al-Qaeda and various other Islamist groups on the other, that’s…a pretty bad exampe of a war that doesn’t involve religion.
> Korean War
> Vietnam War
The US’s global war on Communism, during and as a symbol of which it added religious languge to the pledge of allegiance and replaced its diversity-endorsing de facto model with a religious official motto is, while less of a clearly bad example than the “Global War on Terror”, not a great example of a war not involving religion.
>If you mean the war between the US on one side and al-Qaeda and various other Islamist groups on the other, that’s…a pretty bad example of a war that doesn’t involve religion.
Ya I included that intentionally because it was the only one I could think of that was related to religion in anything I would consider close to meaningful.
It really depends on how loosely you want to define "involve," like I said, wars involve sticks and shoes because everyone uses them. Nearly everything involves language does that means all wars involve language? I guess so in a pedantic sense, but still, so what? Wars don't involve language in any meaningful way other than a means of communication. I would argue because of that, language is far more important than any semblance of religion in all of the wars I listed.
What's the point of your or the OP's argument? Following the definition of "involve," anything involves religion, even an atheist walking down the sidewalk, because the sidewalk was funded by at least one person who happens to be religious. Not overly meaningful.
Here's OBL's "Letter To America," where he states his reasons for his attacks.
In bin Laden's November 2002 "Letter to America",[3][4] he said that al-Qaeda's motives for the attacks included Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia, supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya, supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir, support for Israel in Lebanon, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia,[4][5][6] US support of Israel,[7][8] and sanctions against Iraq.[9]
I mean I guess if you really wanted to make a connection to religion you could, but in the statement he mentions Israel, not Judaism, so it would be a stretch in my mind. The only connection to religion is the term "Muslims," and those citations are always followed by "in" a country. Hell, even the crusades weren't fought over religion, they were fought over resources and power, the church just used religion to get free cannon fodder. Of course Bush, in his infinite wisdom called the WoT a "crusade," which again I guess "involves" religion in that it was mentioned in a speech, but again, not in an overly meaningful way.
What I think the OP was trying to say, perhaps I'm wrong, is that religion is bad and as an example, all wars involve religion. If that's the case, I disagree with the premise.
All wars involve dirt therefore dirt is bad. Prophetic!
