So, good job sister Yasmin. That’s the way to challenge misconceptions and demolish stereotypes. Even if only a few people get your message, that’s progress. Jazaki Allah khayr.

A related example: Weapons used by the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan manufactured by federal contractor Trijicon had Bible verse abbreviations inscribed in the rifle scopes.

Recently, the contractor voluntarily stopped manufacturing the rifle scopes with Bible verses, but there was no popular outcry about the situation.

The quiet arguments made to stop using the Bible verses were basically two: 1) Possibility of violating the Church/State separation, and 2) Perception by the foreign populations of a Crusading mission. No punitive measures (i.e. dropping their contract) were taken against the contractor.

This episode didn’t cause even a slight ripple in the daily lives or self-concept of Christians.

I would argue to the contrary; that the militaristic strain of Christianity is well known and implicitly accepted by Christians, as anyone who has sung “Onward Christians Soldiers” in church well knows.

Most Christians in this country firmly believe in the Hutarees right to bear arms. Just as they support their government’s right to bear arms.

There are only a handful of “peace churches”, which advocate absolute pacificm, i.e. no aggression even in righteous self-defense.

What constitutes a “just cause” (I mean that broadly, and not only the Catholic doctrine) and the limits of force are the actual matters of debate throughout the majority of christian-based society, not whether christianity permits the use of force or not. By and large, it does.