To quote Chesterton, “There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don't know it.” Pluralism is a dogma like any other. The stereotype of bloody religious wars is a tired and melodramatic one. The bloodiest wars were not religious, or I should say, not traditionally religious. Look at the bloody revolutions and wars fought for the sake of liberalism, liberty, republicanism, communism, socialism, and so on. These, too, can be said to be religious wars because man is religious in the broad sense. What he takes to be the highest good becomes the object of his worship and that which orders and organizes the rest of his life. That is why there is no such thing as "neutrality". "Neutrality" is a liberal concept that attempts to establish liberal norms and sensibilities as the One True Way by trying to pass them off as something prior to debate or beyond debate. It's a need trick to attain hegemony.
And consider that if a "theocratic" power tried to extinguish your preferred variety of pluralism through peaceful means, and the "pluralistic" camp was unable to resist through peaceful means, is it really that improbable that the latter might resort to violence?