We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I suppose if Christians want parity in respect, we should be recruiting our own brigades of ax-swingers and splodeydopes, but I did a little reading and apparently our founder's view on disrespecting our creed was some p***y-a** nonsense about "turning the other cheek" (like that's going to strike fear into the hearts of infidels). And as far as I can tell, none of our sects have any proviso for a bevy of pliant virgins on higher planes in the event of pious detonation. So Jihad For Jesus is going to be an uphill climb, to say the least. Meanwhile, I guess we'll have to settle for the smug moral superiority of suffering figurative slings and arrows in both cheeks.
Most people misinterpret "turn the other cheek". Jesus was no non-violent pacifist. I don't recall that the money-changers gave Him a beat-down for destroying their kiosks, but rather that they fled before His assault. My reading of the text is that Jesus struck the first blow, followed by many more. It is one thing not to respond to anger with anger, and quite another to be righteously angered to wrath. So, while we God-bothering Christianists may not randomly blow up people as a part of our orthodoxy, we are by no means opposed to killing commies for Christ, massacering muhammeds for Mary, or scorching gaia for God. No Splodeydopes around here, but a pantry full of whoopa$$ waiting for any that show up.
One might recall that the church did offer open absolution to any crusaders killed on the battlefield and soldiers who sacrificed their lives were considered martyrs. Who knows? Perhaps we could see a resurrection of the Knights Templar.
Earthly leaders have used religion to increase their own power and to drive followers to violence. They've done it far too many times. The only religion I can think of that hasn't been used this way (and maybe it has) is Buddhism.
The sins committed in the name of Christianity leave the Christian teachings bruised but intact. Same for Judaism, which has a history of conquest in pre-Roman times. Islam could become a genuine religion of peace but its teachings of violence against the Infidel are still going strong.
1) There is a lot of explicitly religious violence in Christian history - flames fanned by specifically religious leaders that often countered temporal leaders and left them playing catchup. (you could google "Torquemanda" for a quick example). This pattern followed the various Protestant sects to the American colonies, where rivals did awful things to their Christian brethren for explicitly religious motivations.
2) Does Christianity really preach "turn the other cheek" on the geopolitical level? Or are there times when violence - and even "conquest" - are justified?