Christianity is not the cause of violence, just the excuse used. Here in Northern Ireland, it's not really Catholic Vs Protestant, it's Unionist Vs Republican. The real argument is about nationality. All religious disputes tend to be influenced by much more worldly things. King Philip II of Spain was friendly with Elizabeth I despite the fact that she was Protestant, because she was a useful pawn against the French. It was politics that motivated the future "religious" dispute. It was just a tool used to justify, but if not Christianity, King Philip could equally have used the fact that Elizabeth had been attacking his trade routes. That would not have ensured any support from Christendom, though.
So Philip would have done it anyway, to get England and surround France, and to increase his Empire. Religion was only a means to an end.
The entire thing being open to interpretation makes it a result of the times, not the religion. If there is a large surge of hatred for Fig Trees, the burning of that said tree will be bandied about and thus we'll justify burning them all down. But we would have done anyway, because we hated the Fig Trees. Religion just made it more palatable.
Yes, religion does go some way to creating an in-out group mentality, but so does culture. So does gender. So does race. So does the size of your salary. Rolan was stating that the religion is inherently wrong. It has so many messages of hate. I was stating that, when you get down to it, it's not the religion but the people. If a people decide to hate, they will. If they decide to love, they will drag out the appropriate verses, and they will love.