So which passage says that we should commit violence?
This is not what I'm speaking of. What I've been protesting is the content of the so-called sacred texts of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions. All of them call for atrocities to be commited against the heathens explicitly - and this, I point out, distinguishes them from, say, Taoism and Buddhism.Can't speak much about Islam, not being aware of their texts or history. From the Jewish standpoint, I think you'll find the Talmud is pretty important in the interpretation of the Bible. From a Catholic standpoint, the interpretation falls in a combination of the Bible, tradition, and authority. I could dig up the Catholic position on humility, grace and violence if you'd like, but I rather doubt they would support your position. Which leaves us with the Evangelical Christians (or Protestants if you'd rather). Most of their interpretation falls under the domain of Sola Scriptura. Even that won't help your position because your position assumes that their interpretation matches what you take to be obvious.
So are you saying that you know more about these various religious traditions than do the practitioners themselves? I generally hold the individual accountable for their actions and I find no evidence that being proud is considered a virtue (it's one of the 7 deadly sins). Most traditions, be it Eastern or Western, hold humility to be a virtue. In particular, many Christian groups believe that we are all sinners, saved and unsaved alike. It is only by grace that we come to that state.
From a Christian perspective, there's a large number of things which are ignored in the "Old Testament". Eating habits are the obvious example (not many Kosher Christians). Early Christianity even wrestled with whether to accept the early texts, preferring the new fangled testament. In the end, it was decided that they were a necessary ingredient to interpreting the New Testament, but neither were all of the pre & proscriptions regarded as relevant.
Anyhow, is there anything in the New Testament that makes your point? From a Christian perspective, the Old Testament is only relevant from the standpoint of the interpretation of Jesus.
Now, all of this is, of course, theoretical. In practice, any individual or tribe can be downright cruel. And I would agree that religion tends to cause divisiveness and that people tend to be smug about their beliefs. But when it comes to the "sacred scriptures", what you are assuming is (a) there's only one interpretation (b) the various texts that make up the whole are consistent and uniform; and (c) individuals are not afforded the luxory of making their own choices about what things mean.
I'll grant that religion has been fraught with violence. What I don't particularly accept though is that it was the necessary ingredient. For my money, economic and political motivation has a higher correlation to the events that have unfolded in human history. Religion is but a tool used to motivate others to that end.