I don’t think it’s helpful to use trivialising, coarse and potentially offensive language to describe important cultural and historical figures. I’d advise a little more caution with one’s choice of words.
Leaving that aside, the Judaeo-Christian traditions ultimately have their roots in the Fertile Crescent and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the Nile Valley – neither of which are “wastelands of sand”. The Fertile Crescent, Mesopotamia, is the land that birthed the civilisation of Sumer and the subsequent civilisations of Akkadia and Babylon as well as the great trading nation of the Phoenicians. This fertile land seems to be where the wheel was invented, cereal agriculture, the writing system that is the origin of the one you and I still use today, astronomy, some of the first and (still) oldest cities and numerous other things. Certainly, in terms of so-called “Western Civilisation”, the importance of Mesopotamia and Egypt cannot be underestimated.
In terms of the Romans, the Romans didn’t need Christianity to “pacify” anything and, in historical terms, the Christian Roman Empire marked the end of Roman imperial power – the nearly two hundred years of the so-called Pax Romana was under non-Christian emperors in the two centuries, more or less, after Augustus. So, if Christianising Rome had indeed been meant to pacify people, it obviously didn’t work too well in real historical terms. The Christianity of the Romans was also heavily influenced by non-Judaeo-Christian philosophies, especially Neoplatonism, so, just for example, the rigid monotheism in Christianity also had non-Judaeo-Christian precursors and would have been familiar to the learned people, i.e. the people with some degree of power, of the Graeco-Roman world. Finally, I don’t think 17th century Puritans had much connection with 5th-6th century Roman (Catholic) Christians to be honest – completely different worlds and periods.