Why would the truth need to be defended violently?

Truth is a wonderful thing. Because truth always reveals itself to be such by its consequences and effects, it doesn't require to be defended with force. This is the historic Christian view of the truth and why freedom of conscience and freedom of religion are hallmarks of American culture - or used to be, but that's another blog entry for another time (read this if you think all is well in America regarding our freedoms). Anyhow ... historically Christianity didn't defend itself violently because it believed the truth makes itself plain by consequences. Here's an easy test to see what I mean. Find someone who wouldn't want to live in a culture where the 10 commandments were followed by everyone. Contrast the historic Christian view with this poll which reveals that Muslims in large numbers - but thankfully less numbers - say "suicide bombings that target civilians are justified in the defense of Islam". Since when did the truth have to be defended by force? If Islam was the panacea that academia says it is, why would it need to break the law to defend itself? We should always doubt what someone claims as truth when it has to be enforced with violence.