Whilst a very attractive idea, the notion that ardent followers three cults of yahweh (Judaism, Xianity and Islam) can be brought to the bargaining table based upon their shared lineage and professed affinities in terms of philosophy is utopian and i fear at this stage, unworkable. It is the uneducated and myopic disenfranchised who sacrifice critical thinking for obedience that are the ones who wage these wars---from the Crusades to suicide-bombers. there are fundamental socio-economic factors at play--Jihad always becomes more attractive when youve got nothing left to lose.

Education must be the first avenue of approach. Fundamentalists of any ilk typically see that as a threat---and usually for good reason because it reveals what a bunch of morons they are.

I must preface my "visions" by saying that I am the type who has a specific plan and I am not set on any particular way of doing this. I think this would take a long time to come about. I can only imagine something like this taking between 10 and 25 years to become effective. I imagine the assembly to circumvent crisis on a political level, the earlier the better. Not by being elected or overthrowing a government, but by stepping in and negotiating a compromise or truce. By "representatives" I mean that the assembly should have at least one individual from each religion and the more the better. We would need many experts and vounteers to navigate the cultural differences and language barriers. More people bring more ideas and see more obstacles. I know I'm an ordinary person, but this has to start somewhere and honestly, I don't imagine myself to be part of the assembly, although I would try. I'm just sharing the idea to see if it could be a seed for something great, something that would protect humanity from ottrocities in the name of God or perhaps a step in the direction of peace. I would be pleased to see the idea evolve!

i like your idea, though being an ordinary bod like yourself, i am not sure how it can come about. i don't suppose you could imagine a time-scale for setting something like that up? i mean, you might envisage an assembly, which circumvents crises? at what level? how powerful do you see them? how many people? that kind of thing... and then perhaps we could get an idea of the time-scale.
oh, and i am not sure i like the idea of representatives. i like the idea of... exemplaries, people who represent noone other than themselves; they just happen to be useful to others

I also attended that talk - recorded it, in fact - and Dr. Smock shared a profound insight. "Religious war" is usually nothing more or less than verbal shorthand for something else, since the religious leaders of the world have been preaching for centuries that differences between religions tend to be based more on practice than belief. The underlying principle is the universal human need for spiritual expression - to honor the Divine. The exceptions, which Smock claims are actually quite rare, come from radical fringe groups. If you look beyond the verbal shorthand, you will find some other motivation or "root cause" for the conflict usually having to do with land or status or, in my verbal shorthand, inequitable distribution of resources. I would encourage you not to give "religious war" credibility by addressing it specifically.

"Blue in a Red State"

I recently attended a talk by Dr. David Smock of the U.S. Institute of Peace about this very subject. He is the director of Religion and Peacemaking initiatives at the institute. See http://www.usip.org/specialists/bios/current/smock.html. Read his paper on Interfaith Dialog and Peacebuilding. He has practical, hands-on experience bringing Muslims, Christians and Jews together and building consensus. The USIP needs to be much better funded to scale the results up to a larger scale. (A U.S. Department of Peace would make that happen.)

This approach does work. I encourage you to investigate futher and join the other regular people working on this. :)