I would differentiate between religions that advocate a personal relationship with god and those that require the creation and maintenance of a political state to enforce the relationship.As I have pointed out on many occastions, nominally Christian countries have, on numerous occasions, committed all the crimes we accuse the Muslims of. The difference is that Christians who committed these crimes did so in direct contradiction to the words of the founder of Christianity. Try as you might, you cannot find any justification for violence in the words of Jesus -- not even, I might add, any justification for self defense.
Obviously, evil and violent people can interpret any scripture to their ends, but the original words remain...
Post #18 was written without a lot of proofreading. I should point out that I graduated from a Quaker college. The subject of nonviolence was seldom preached -- it was simply part of the atmosphere of the place. Quakers have many, highly personal and complex interpretations on the subject of self defence.
Some practice, like Ghandi, practice passive resistance. Others accept whatever degree of force is necessary for self defence. The common ground is that self defence should be creative and proactive -- that is one should never wait until attacked to defuse conflict.
Personally, I do not believe that violence is caused by ideas and ideologies. I believe that people with violent and aggressive temperaments gravitate to ideologies that support violence. They can, of course, grab control of nations and lead the nation into war.
In my opinion, the greatest weapon the West has against radical Islam is ridicule. Certainly we need guns and bombs to defeat people who are using guns and bombs against us. But in the long run we must make these people into objects of ridicule.