Is this all just a modern "War of the Gods"?

The past few weeks I've been alternating between absolute boredom and rage when reading some of the "op-eds" here. Somehow, a core of Fundamentalist Christians have managed to insert their beliefs into topics as wide-ranging as the economy, environment, politics, crime stories—both in the articles and the commentary. At one level, I'm overwhelmed that so many people have such strong convictions of faith; recent stats would have us believe that spiritual belief has been experiencing a decline over the past four or five decades. At another level, I'm absolutely disgusted that personal interpretation of the Holy Books that underlie those beliefs has given some the "right" to insert their dogma wherever they can. Not only is this counter-productive to sane and reasonable discussion, but it also leads to further rifts between followers of varying faiths. Newtons Third Law of Motion states, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." I'm hard pressed to find a clearer example of this than the arena of religious fanaticism. More often that not, if you get two or more people with opposing strong religious convictions, discussion will soon turn into a shouting match. Any hope of learning from each other gets lost in the "War of the Gods". Of course, there is an alternate method of discussion. Allowing all to believe as they desire, listening to their reasons, and if no agreement is reached, agreeing to disagree. There is not one Holy Book that as a whole instructs the believers of that faith to browbeat and vanquish non-believers until they no longer exist. One can pick and choose all the scriptural verses one wants to support such violence, but the overall message of all spiritual paths is to gain enlightenment throughout life with the hope that one will have a better after-life. It's really that simple. Every single one of the major religions, e.g., Christianity, Judaism, Islam, claims to be founded on "revelation" from a Higher Power. If that is accepted as true, then all that follows regarding how their adherents are to conduct themselves results in two things: 1) each group of followers is granted a better after-life conditional on following the guidelines for personal conduct within their own religion, and 2) any edicts that speak to the followers of an other religion have equal strength, therefore they cancel each other out. I'm hard-pressed to find a century in the past two millennia where one of these three faiths hasn't been battling at least one of their opponents. Each aggressor has acted under the direction of their leadership at the time, each has proclaimed "divine right" to do so, and each has been responsible for the slaughter of innocents in waging these wars. Not one of the three is exempt!! Here's a few factoids for all the true believers to put things into perspective. If you are of the opinion that I'm pulling these out of thin air, you would be wrong. A simple google search for "World Religions History" will result in over 34 million hits. Some of us actually read and have studied this–I'm one of "us". Protestant Christianity is the new kid on the block:

[...] Protestantism encompasses the forms of Christian faith and practice that originated with the doctrines of the Reformation. The word Protestant is derived from the Latin protestatio meaning declaration which refers to the letter of protestation by Lutheran princes against the decision of the Diet of Speyer in 1529, which reaffirmed the edict of the Diet of Worms against the Reformation.[1] Since that time, the term Protestantism has been used in many different senses, often as a general term to refer to "Western Christianity that is not subject to papal authority. [...]"

According to my calculations, that puts this group, e.g. Baptist, Evangelical, Anglican, Mormon, "Prophetic" variants, at less than 500 y.o. The very name comes from protesting the power of the Roman Catholic Church. Islam has a longer history by more than 800 years:

[...] Islam (Arabic: الإسلام; al-'islām) is a monotheistic religion originating with the teachings of Muhammad, a 7th-century Arab religious and political figure. The word Islam means "submission", or the total surrender of oneself to God (Arabic: الله, Allāh). An adherent of Islam is known as a Muslim, meaning "one who submits (to God)".[1][2] There are between 900 million to 1.5 billion Muslims on the basis of self-identification, making Islam the second-largest religion in the world, after Christianity.[3] [...]

Where Protestantism was founded in opposition to the prevailing RC, Islam is believed, by its adherents, to be the product of revelation. Roman Catholicism dates back to almost to the birth of Christ:

[...] The [RC] Church traces its history to Jesus and the Twelve Apostles, and sees the bishops of the Church as the successors of the Apostles in general, and the Pope as the successor of Saint Peter, leader of the Apostles, in particular.[19] The first known use of the term "Catholic Church" was in a letter by Ignatius of Antioch in 107, who wrote: "Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." [...]

Notwithstanding proclamations by the Pope, it's not the "only true Church". It has a younger brother, the Eastern (Orthodox) Catholic Church:

[...] The schism is conventionally dated to 1054, when the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Papal Legate Humbert of Mourmoutiers issued mutual excommunications that have since been revoked. In spite of that event, both Churches continued for many years to maintain friendly relations and seemed to be unaware of any formal or final rupture.[20] However, estrangement continued to grow. In 1190 Theodore Balsamon, Patriarch of Antioch, declared that "no Latin should be given communion unless he first declares that he will abstain from the doctrines and customs that separate him from us";[21] and the sack of Constantinople in 1204 by the participants in the so-called Fourth Crusade was seen as the West's ultimate outrage. [...]

Not to be left out, Judaism has a history predating all of the above:

Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people, based on principles and ethics embodied in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and the Talmud. According to Jewish tradition, the history of Judaism begins with the Covenant between God and Abraham (ca. 2000 BCE), the patriarch and progenitor of the Jewish people. Judaism is among the oldest religious traditions still in practice today. Jewish history and doctrines have influenced other religions such as Christianity, Islam and the Bahá'í Faith. [...]

The majority of objective biblical scholars and historians also agree that several gods were referred to in the Old Testament. Although Judaism has always been monotheistic, scholars accept that the object of their faith changed over time. Judaism recognizes this as it has over 20 distinct names for "God"—reflecting not only different attributes, but also different gods. Where am I going with this? It's really quite simple. Each person has their own distinct and very personal beliefs in the existence of a higher power and how they choose to interact with it. Faith, one of the core principles of spiritual belief, is by definition, "To have faith in one's full dependence on the will of supernatural forces or deities." It is very personal and ultimately unaffected by an other's faith. Attempting, by coercion, subtle suggestion, or violence to "convert" someone to your "faith" is dishonest to the whole concept of faith itself. Denigrating an other's faith in order to give your own superiority is disrespectful and unworthy of someone seeking a better after-life. Twisting yours or an other's beliefs to serve the purposes of "conversion" is deceitful and against the very commandments that adherents claim to follow. I have never, to my knowledge, directly stated my spiritual path. Why? For two reasons: 1) my faith is founded on respect, personal responsibility, open communication, and a highly personal relationship with my Deity, and 2) sharing my belief, knowledge or experience is only done so when I'm respectfully asked to do so. My faith doesn't require me to "convert the unwilling, ignorant, or non-believer." It simply asks that should I choose to follow the Path I've accepted, that I do so to the best of my ability. My actions, words, and beliefs will decide my fate. Once I was willing to separate "religious freedom", "conversion", and "non-believers" from the rest of conflicts that I see, I began to see other causes for these conflicts. The current wars in the Middle East are not just the result of "Islamic Extremists"—Islamic belief condemns their actions. It is also about land, resources, and spreading "democracy" to those that don't have it. It's also more than a little about strengthening U.S. influence in the world. A woman's right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy is not, categorically, about the possible termination of another life. It's about a viable, independent and separate person making a choice based on health, finances, ability to parent, and a host of other issues. "True believers" will never be convinced as to the scientific "start of life" as they can't seem to agree amongst themselves. Therefore, it is up to current objective understanding to determine whether the mother's rights supersede those of the foetus. Gay marriage is not about any "gay agenda". It's about extending the same privileges and responsibilities to all willing adults that choose to enter into a loving partnership. Marriage, like any other social construct has changed dramatically over time. "Traditional marriage" never has been, or currently is, the only accepted norm. If one actually researched other cultures, one would find a host of variations in both marriage and family structures. As difficult as it may be to separate personal religious beliefs from these (and other) current concerns, deciding not to do so serves no meaningful purpose. It side-steps the complex nature of the issue at hand and becomes no more than a p1ss1ng match between opposing "true believers".