Wilso, sometimes I think your anger - which I can agree with on occasion - gets away from you.
I was raised a pious catholic, and worked my way out of it in my late teens and early twenties via theological argument and then sudden "I don't believe any of it, the whole thing is a construct". Some time later, I was on a trip to Mexico with friends and they wanted to visit the church of Guadalupe, and, as we were all a group, I went too. I cried there in anger, at a church with a history of many devout penitents moving on their knees..
I also, at age seventeen, the tip of my confused religious ardor, sent a snotty admonishing note to a friend from grade school who was getting married in the lutheran church. Not because my church told me to, but from my own conviction. I tried once, years later, to call her and straight out apologize, but it's hard to find women sometimes, with changing names. Anyway, I figure the tables are turned and that if she is still alive, she may be more religious that I am by far.
I see you as arrogant in your way, Wilso, as I was in mine with that snotty letter in, what, 1959. Most catholics don't proselytize. Indeed, I think the fifties were about the height of proselytization - and I know something about that, re my family, and the rosary crusade. Although there is a wing of the church now that is flinging itself backwards, given Ratzinger as pope, not all catholics around the world just get in line.
Your anger flumes, Wilso, and doesn't seem to be aware of any distinctions.
After my decades of anger, I'm back to seeing religion as complicated. We all know, or I hope we do, of instances of hate and murder in the name of religion - I might be able to list more than you could. But good, societal good, has also been borne of religion. I don't think of all that in a blanket way any more.
You of course can think as you wish, but you're off base on this last thing, generalizing from whatever instance you read about.