There are no "Religions of peace".....

[tackattack]

I don't have time to catch up on the three pages, but I'll give the OP a go

... But that is not the religion itself doing it. That is our species inherent evolutionary ability to show compassion and empathy. If any one religion, or sub sect of, were a cure to stop violence, war and crime, one should expect to see a universal model the entire species could follow. But the truth is there is no nation in the world, friend or foe, that does not have hospitals or prisons....

So A) religions are full of people that do stuff and should be responsible for the individual stuff they are doing and B) there are no religions of peace C) You conclude that while a vastly inferior minority of people in religion can show compassion and empathy, that people in general are empathetic and compassionate by evolution

That's about as far as I got before I decided to post. Why didn't you come to the realization that the common denominator in the "evil" you're setting up is people and that people (although we want them to be) do not show compassion and empathy naturally by evolution?

I will always constantly remind everyone reading posts like this, I do think most humans are good, or at least want to do good and be non violent. I merely object to where my fellow humans think that ability is coming from. I say it is not in the writings of antiquity, but in the individual themselves, in our species evolution.

There are good people like Malala, but unfortunately there are evil people like Bin Laden. There are good people like Martin Luther King Jr and others unfortunately who murder people like him in the name of defending white Christianity. Some would argue the Dali Lama as being a non violent person, but you also have Buddhists in Myanmar murdering Muslims. 

And even with atheists. It is absolutely true that Stalin was an atheist. But he also convinced a nation of Russian Orthodox Christians to put him in power. I have absolutely nothing in common with that monster.

If that place you think it's coming from is genetic evolution, you might be surprised how little genetic (read natural) difference there is between you and Stalin. I won't get into any other noted differences.

I do want most humans to be good, and they've shown vastly spectacular abilities to overcome their baser instincts and truly to do world wide good. The pragmatist in me will identify the same history of behaviors you're referring to above as reasons why that is unlikely.

Here's a novel idea I'll lay out for you, because you seem to advocate here for individual responsibilities and I believe we both feel morality is subjective with regard to responsibility.
1. World is full of people that create religions, structures, cultures, governments and definitions. They do this to feel in control their surroundings among other reasons.
2. Those governments, cultures and religions reflect the nature of the general set of "people" of that time when they've achieved what they wanted and let their guard down.
3. When people stop thinking or striving and just rest in those institutions it seems they turn violent, self-serving, corrupt and greedy.
4. Therefore we try and change/abolish the institutions which causes more violence and division because people are willing to kill to keep their piece of mind.

It applies to lots of things. People have a need for control and understanding. People also have a desire to be at peace with themselves and their world view. Once you achieve that equilibrium it's a fight to wrestles that away from them. Is there a better way?

Point is, and will always be, our actions as individuals, not old writings, not old mythology, not even the labels we assign ourselves have any real magic power to make the individual only do good, or always do bad. I know empathy when I see it. I know cruelty when I see it, and those things are not the result of anything divine being handed down to humanity.

This part I actually agree with every word of. I must be getting tired. night.