Can't We All Just Get Along

I have heard many religious apologists, when asked to account for the heinous deeds commited in the name of their god, appeal to the idea that their religion is not one of violence but rather peace. Further, secularists are implored to disregard the few "bad apples" who "misinterpret" religious scriptures, and instead recognize that the vast majority of believers are inspired by god to lead peaceful, tolerant lives.
First of all, any follower of one of the monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) who claims that their religion does not advocate violence, clearly has not taken the time to investigate their religious texts. Let's use Judaism as an example: commandment #355 (Deut 13: 16-17) of the 613 Mitzvot instructs Jews to "slay the inhabitants of a city that has become idolatrous and burn that city." Let me point out for those who may have missed it, this is a commandment from god, not a suggestion or interesting thought for interpretation, but rather a direct, and very clear instruction. Thus, to anyone who defends the peacefulness of your religion, please disist, for you are mistaken. If anything, the monotheisms can be considered contradictory to the highest degree, for there are both entreaties against murder and violence and those for them.
Yet, this argument must be taken further, for their are many believers who have rejected the nastier bits of their faith and proclaim that, if everyone else would simply follow suit, this whole difference of opinion (which, as we discussed earlier, is actually a difference of belief) wouldn't be such a big deal. The error in this thinking is twofold. Any Christian who has ever attended Sunday mass, or made a sacrifice for Lent has no right to criticize an Islamic jihadist. Both circumstances illustrate believers undertaking actions that they believe to be direct instructions from their god. Both consider themselves to be righteous, and both are supported by explicit scriptural passages. If anything, the jihadist who is willing to sacrifice his life out of love for Allah is the greater believer, and more righteous man.
Now, do I think that a suicide bomber is righteous? Of course not, for murder is morally abhorrent (we will get into the discussion of morals outside of religion later). Many self proclaimed believers agree, and yet unlike myself, they have no right to say so. More importantly, and herein lies this second fallacy of the passive believer theory, any man or woman who wishes to hold onto his or her personal faith, has no right to punish those who murder in the name of theirs. Those who defend their right to pray and celebrate as instructed by their god, must allow others to act in accordance with their god's supposed wishes. It is only after the majority of mankind throws off the yoke of superstition, that we can say as a collective voice: "evil perpetrated in the name of an imaginary being is irrational and unacceptable." To those who may be shocked by my assertion I ask you, how dare you tell the Jewish rapist who wishes to marry his victim in accordance with the 613 Mitzvah that he is acting immorally? He only wishes to obey and love his god as you would yours.
Before closing, since we are on the subject of divine decrees, I should like to take the opportunity to point out a major absurdity found in the personality of all three monotheistic gods. Yaweh, God, and Allah all have a very big problem with idoltry. In all three religions, the worshipping of other gods or man-made objects, and blashphemy against god are offenses punishable by exile or death. By placing such an emphasis upon this sin, the supreme being reveals himself to be rather vain. Now I ask you, how ludicrous is it that god would exhibit vanity; vanity, the most pathetic of human emotions, the reason that the majority of mankind simply can not imagine that the universe itself was not created just for little 'ol us? Could it be that god, with his demands of allegiance, daily worship, groveling, and sacrifice is in fact no more than a supernatural king imagined by men who lived in a time of king' and emperors. No, I'm sure that couldn't be the case.